Evolution of Understanding

When I first began writing about men’s rights, it was from an evolution of the rants I had been writing about American politics. I was aware of the existence of feminism, but at the time believed more or less in the cultivated public image that feminism is a synonym for humanism. Writing on the topic of men’s rights resulted naturally in substantial attention paid to the actual goals and produced outcomes of organized feminism.

What I found was an unpleasant surprise. The first wave of the feminist movement was one which had the overt goal of legal equality, wage equity, and political inclusion for women. These goals were good ones, and indeed, early feminists were justified in their demand for social and political equity.

What’s not widely known about feminism is that it is not now, and has never been, a grass roots movement. It was conceived, organized and funded by bankers who actually run the corporations and governments of the world. Some of this was revealed by Nicolas Rockefeller to the documentary film maker Arron Russo. Some is revealed by the employment of feminist activist Gloria Steinem by the american CIA[1], and her relationship with Henry Kissinger[2].

What’s grown out of that early and faux-humanist feminism is a dogmatic philosophy of female-centric socialism, driven by contempt for men. This is the political movement centred on the false tenet that society operates under a male conspiracy to oppress women. The pillars of thought which have emerged from this falsehood are a poisonous collection of ideals running directly contrary to a philosophy of individual civil rights; the real goal of feminism. It is a tool for dividing men and women against each other, destroying the strength of the family and making a society more pliable to totalitarian control. At this point, the tinfoil-hat comments should start flying. To anyone offering such commentary, a suggestion to re-read the previous paragraph, comparing it to modern realities, might be helpful.

Feminism’s recognized purpose as a bludgeon against men, and a dividing force in society provides scope as well as increased reason for opposition. It also informs the focus of resistance to a movement manufactured by bankers to reduce our society to a mirror of orwell’s nightmare. Men are the target of a top down astroturf social movement to fragment society, and it’s men who are going to carry this fight.

An examination of a few public lies accepted as truth makes the utility of feminist doctrine to ratchet society towards a police state clearer.

Stopping violence against women.

This is a catch-phrase intended to confuse you. It implies that violence against women is a prevalent issue. A quick visit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website shows clearly that for non-domestic violence, the principal victims by sex are men[3]. In contrast to this, in the realm of domestic violence, agencies purporting to address the problem of DV produce mountains of “awareness” literature and video, all addressing a view that men are the aggressors, and women are the victims. Unfortunately for anyone with a legitimate goal of reducing domestic violence, all of this propaganda portrays a false narrative.

The peer-reviewed research on DV shows clearly that the majority of DV is reciprocal – borne out of dysfunctional relationships. It also shows that in the minority of DV which is one sided, women are the primary aggressors. The research demonstrates that far from being some sort of helpless fragile species of rare flower subject to mythical male violence, that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men[5]. That’s right, women are human beings, subject to all the same failings of reason and bad behavior that DV service agencies are so eager to pretend belong solely to the male 49% of the human race. But this brings us to the question of why. Why do the organizations claiming to “stop violence against women” maintain a public pretence that women are overwhelmingly the victims of violent men?

For the money, obviously. The maintained narrative Women-as-victims produces public sympathy, and taps into all of our traditional chivalric values, our natural desire to protect women. And in maintaining this narrative, these so called anti domestic violence agencies and service providers tap directly into everyone’s wallets.

And what of the the cost to men of being permanently typecast as evil violent subhumans? Who gives a fuck, as long as criminalizing masculinity keeps the money flowing. And as for stopping violence against the group most effected, well there’s no money in that, if you are male, and subject to violence, well, you can shut up and quit being a fucking sissy. In fact, you can man up, and just take it.

The subtler and deeper consequence of this is that men are kept on a defensive posture by the pretence that they’re evil violent patriarchs, while weathering the majority of all violence. As long as men are perceived as “bad,” they are ignored as a sex. Men are also prevented by this social marginalization from acting in their historical role as society’s defenders. It is not a coincidence that the social pre-eminence of feminist values matches the obsolescence of what we might call a stable family as the norm for most people, and the erasure of traditional and constitutional precepts of human rights and civil liberty. An itemization of the bill of rights, noting which articles still have any currency would be redundant, except to state as an imperative to anybody unfamiliar with the content. Go now and read it[5], and answer for yourself what remain of your constitutional rights.

The dissolution of your rights is actually feminism’s goal.

The continually escalating narrative of “protecting” women by affording them ever greater protection and privilege above and beyond the legal rights of “bad” men is designed to produce a society in which nobody has legal rights except for very few hereditarily rich, including those banking families everybody like to throw around the names of. Not even women, not even feminist tenured academics will have human rights in that world, because the men who would have protected them will be, and are being reduced to the legal status of furniture and appliances.

Any protection of the rights of a subset of humanity not identifying the protected as “everybody” is implicit suppression of the rights of those outside that group so “protected”.

The insistence that women are, and have always been victims, and that men are privileged patriarchal oppressors is a potential achilles-heel of the use of female-elevation as a tool to ratchet western society towards a nightmare police state. It runs contrary to the real world experience of ordinary people, and ignores the real and obvious mutual interdependence of men and women in society. There must also be a growing cognitive dissonance in traditionalists and chivalric men between the narrative of women’s oppression, and the accelerating disenfranchisement of males. How is it that women are oppressed by the patriarchy in a world where they live longer[6], earn more degrees[7], spend more of everybody’s money[8], and the practice marital hypergamy[9][10]

Hypergamy for those who don’t know is the socially normal practice of women marrying economically or socially upwards.

The simple, truthful answer is that women are not now, and have never been oppressed as a class. They are now, and have always been protected by historical chivalric values. Feminism is an amplification of chivalry, the protection and elevation of women. Taken to the currently absurd level, the elevation of women takes the form of subtracting rights from men. However the differential between men’s disenfranchisement and women’s legal and social supremacy is a temporary measure, and we are already seeing the levelling these differences by the abrogation of all people’s human rights.

The Elimination of Habeas Corpus and the Repudiation of the 5th and 6th Amendments

The Normalization of Torture

Destruction of Privacy and Abrogation of the 4th Amendment

The Legal Manufacture of Rationale for Murder

Eradication of Private Property

But dont worry, all of this happening as feminism rises to the pre-eminent social narrative – it’s just a coincidence, go back to sleep.

Recognizing that feminism’s unstated but real goals are the advancement of the interests of the few elite banking families who actually run this planet still leaves us with the bludgeon of feminism to contend with. But also informs a useful approach for the men’s right’s movement.

Chivalry must be recognized as a social malaise, and treated with the same contempt and scorn that open racism elicits. Most men are still raised to be traditionalists, and whether they adapt their behavior to something significantly less gentlemanly as they become adults, the core programming remains. This is why women can assault men in public without the near-certainty of a retributive beating that a man exhibiting the same behavior would earn. Chivalry has at it’s foundation some deeply flawed assumptions. The first being that men are disposable. The antihuman ideal that the lives of men are worth less than the lives of women, or of children.

Women and children first – to the lifeboats, to medical funding, to receive justice, or financial assistance, to the front of the line for privilege. Chivalry is the basis for men dying on foreign battlefields to pad the income of oil companies. Chivalry is why 19 of 20 workplace deaths are men and this glaring fact isn’t in the news while feminist academics continue to rend their clothes over an imaginary patriarchy keeping women down.

As men, we must turn our backs on chivalry, and destroy it’s acceptance as a normal system of human value. There is more at stake than just our own continued marginalization. What’s at stake is the human rights and freedoms on which western society is built. Chivalry is the basic poison bankers are using to transform the society born out of the enlightenment into Orwell’s nightmare.

Addendum: The national post article linked from this piece has apparently been removed from their site. I have saved a copy from Google’s cache and uploaded it to AVFM as a reference. NB-case-fuels-debate-over-DV PDF link












  • Paul Elam

    Absolutely sterling.

  • Tom M

    Nice job speaking the unspeakable truths!

    Most women are falling all over themselves to become Useful Idiots, only to enslave themselves and all around them.

    But isn’t that what feminism is all about – “Me, Me, ME!!!” “And I’ll destroy myself and everyone around me to MAKE IT all about ME!!!!”

    Psychotic, neurotic beotches…

  • Nelrond

    Another fantastic article. It’s rather interesting to now that it isn’t only MRA’s that believ society is coming to a violent anarchy. A coworker of mine may not see society as I do but he sees things going down hill across the board in all facets of life in our modern world.

    It’s a scary thought but he and I believe that it will occur within the next generation if things continue unabated.

    And with how things look, they aren’t slowing down. I stopped listening to my favorite radio station after hearing an ad calling for donations for womens shelters asking people to help end violence against women. It pissed me off as it wasn’t asking people to help end DV.

    Why can’t people open their eyes and see what’s going on?

    I stick my neck out trying to raise awareness but I sometimes wonder if it’s worth it to save all the diseased sheep.

    • !!SPARTA!!

      Oh shit
      The next generation is Z
      The FINAL Generation!!

      • Denis

        Very good read with interesting references.

        If it was truly socialism then it wouldn’t be run by corporations. We have the worst of both worlds and ultimately the corporations benefit from consumerism, imperialism and after a crash like the great depression. They increase their power to manipulate laws and people with money.

        Are women more easily manipulated by advertising? Do women save as much money as men? It might be in the corporation’s best interests to continue supporting the transfer of wealth from men to women.

  • Eff’d Off

    From the horse’s mouth.


    • Free Human Being

      My favorite so far mate!

      • Eff’d Off

        Ta, you is top shelf.


  • Sam

    “Women and children first – to the lifeboats, to medical funding, to receive justice, or financial assistance, to the front of the line for privilege.”

    Fuck that shit.

    A man’s life is as valuable as anybody else’s life.

    I am a man and I will preserve my body with the help of “Cryonics” when I die. I value my life.

    Fuck you stupid feminists. I am tired of your bullshit.

    Great Article.

    Thanks for taking the time to write it.


    • Tom M

      I just hope feminists don’t revive you from cryonics sometime down the road in their “Brave New Fahrenheit 1984″ because they need another sperm donor and another expendable male slave/pawn to do the hard, dirty and risky work they refuse to do themselves.

      They’ll worship you for being a valiant and chivalrous slave though, but off you if you don’t compete with “good & conscious men” to the death anyway.

    • Matthew

      Worse still, they are probably merely using children to boost the amount of fund raised. As far as I know, even when they cry “protecting women and children”, they are actually not doing much, or sometimes even harming, children. Say, as far as I know, mostly it is the mothers who are abusing the kids, yet by crying “protecting women and children”, they give all of the custody to the mothers.

      Are they trying to benefit the children?

      No, feminism is about giving women privileges, at the expense of everyone eles: men, children, elderly, etc…

      • Tom M

        I guess I simply missed the system helping the children in the thousands of cases I’ve seen.

        Their favorite sacrifice/target is little girls whom the sick system loves to abuse and gang-molest, and then blame it on men. Pawns…

  • Falsely Accused Soldier

    @Manuel Dexter and Paul Elam

    The National Post link about battered wife syndrome being an excuse for murder is broken. I googled it and I couldn’t find more than the first page of the article. It seems to have been removed and deleted from several websites.

  • Falsely Accused Soldier
  • Manuel Dexter

    Hi Falsely, thanks for the tip, they must have removed the article in the last 24 hours. I grabbed a copy from Google’s cache – and now there’s a copy on AVFM as well.


  • Tom M

    The 16th and 17th Amendments to the Bill of Rights were a disaster, both used to give Big Money/Power (under the guise of the Federal Reserve – which has nothing to do with anything federal or any type of reserve) the power to take us down as a win for Marxism.

    The 16th amendment has nothing to do with rights for the people, but takes those rights away and hands them to those elites. The 17th feigns to be a victory for for the people, for democracy, but actually rips the footing out from under checks and balances, letting both the House and the Senate be bought out by big money at the same time as they are both now on the same page (no checks and balances) for both of them to likewise buy votes from the people using tax money and by selling out our republic.

    This includes producing more votes by using feminism to destroy families to specifically make women and their children dependent on BIG SISTER for their well being, which mandates an allegiance to the illusion that “daddy is evil” while “nobody cares like BIG SISTER.”

    “Just vote for BIG SISTER and you’ll all be taken care of.”

    The 16th and 17th are very pro-Communist Manifesto.

    • L.

      Hell yeah.
      I don’t live in the US but I wouldn’t want to at this point :)

      In the end, the ultimate goal of all that bullshit, women voting and feminism included, is to stabilize the society.

      How do you stabilize ? kill the unstable, beat it up and make sure he is immobilized by fear.

      Status ? Success. Why are there no riots or revolutions anymore ?
      Because everything’s fine ? don’t think so.

      Half the power is given to women who by nature do not welcome change.
      The other half is given to men who have been brainwashed into thinking their violence can never be justified.

      How did the US get independence ?
      How did slavery end ?
      How did democracy (officially a positive thing) start ?

      All just violence. Physical violence. Demonstration of power over the state of things.

      Now is all violence bad ? If you kill somebody who was going to kill you or harm your loved ones or pressure them into a life of despair and fear, is that violence “bad” ??

      Who does that violence, revolution stuff ?

      Mostly men, who want a better life, for them and their families.

      The real power is and always will be with the warriors, those who are ready to fight and die to obtain what they want.

      Any warriors around ?
      Don’t think so, most men are cornered, ridiculed and feel powerless.

      The very fact that physical violence is condemned more than anything has a base reason : it is the only way to overthrow a government (read mafia) or an abusive boss/whatever.

      I am against violence, be it physical or moral, but the fact is we have reached a state where most people are incapable of revolution, and that was the objective of the feminist stuff.

      You think that’s good because there’s less physical violence ? meh .. talk to you in another 50 years when even old-times slavery will look better than the modern society.

      • Tom M

        Democracy is a positive thing ONLY when tempered by the checks and balances of a true REPBULIC, which most people just don’t get.

        Otherwise democracy (as employed by the Communist Manifesto – in more pure form) can be used very effectively against itself to employ totalitarianism – just as it is by the 17th Amendment. Ignorance is bliss, and the end of a democratic republic…

        • Whitney

          Also known as the Tyranny of the Majority. Without individual liberties you are at the mercy of the masses.

          • L.

            Reminds me of a saying I’ve heard quite a few times in french, here’s a rough translation :

            “Tyranny means shut the fuck up, democracy means keep talking”.

          • Tom M

            A true democracy can be hearded like…., well, sheeple.

            That’s what the 17th amendment took us one step closer to – less republic and mroe democaracy, to buy us off, scare us and heard us where they want us to “vote” to go. The 17th may look great (a big win for the people via more democracy – power to the people – tyranny of the majority cowed by the real rulers) but it took more of the checks and ballances (the republic part) out of our democratic republic – the only really eeffective way to temper democracy.

            The Soviets used the Communist Manifesto which uses a more pure democracy which can be hearded where they want the voters to go, by buying votes, intimidating, using agit prop to scare the deomcracy right into totalitarianism… It’s all the people’s idea in the end, totalitarian police-state control, for their own good, “For our future, for our children” as Der Feurror said.

  • http://AVoiceForMen Roderick

    An articulate voice and mind, full of truths.
    We grow.

  • Donn

    I know this is OT, but felt it important to be read by the avfm readers:

    considering that we have quite a few obama supporters on here, I felt this article made it even MORE clear that Obama is a complete scumbag. Also read up on him dodging releasing Bin Ladin’s photos because that’s “not what the u.s. is about”, more like covering up whatever dirt the photos might reveal

  • Izzey

    This is so well written, and thoroughly researched.
    I want to go to every single link. (And I will)

    Chivalry must be recognized as a social malaise, and treated with the same contempt and scorn that open racism elicits

    That sentence is pure gold.
    And it will never be interpreted literally, or even objectively, by any feminist.

    I will come back to this.
    Thank you for this fine contribution, Manuel


  • The Zeta Male (2)

    This is an exceptional piece of work and you explain in-depth just how deep the rabbit hole goes. They are creating the “Man Bomb” scenario as Paul discussed in his YouTube presentation. I do have a question, my understanding of Zeta and how I have behaved personally is just not to participate in any of the bullshit these vampires create. I guess my question is should I be doing more to speak out and help stop the coming onslaught? I am told as a man I embody evil and should instead suckle as the breast of the master consumer or face the consequences. That milk spoiled years before I was conceived. By opting out and choosing to live a life free on all the bullshit that goes along with partnering with the entitled concubine I have faced ridicule that even includes not being hired for positions. Why, because marriage I am told supports stability. Really, by who’s fucking standards? If by stability you mean from a parasite/host comparison then ok but otherwise marriage is the equivalent of public execution while we cover the cost of the bullet. I would like to believe that I grew up very early in life but that is naive. I grew up the moment I stopped believing in fait and recognized the realities that be. I have considered myself a conservative for most of my life. Now I take exception with this whole idea of marriage/children and the conservative view point on the subject. I am often asked what my views are on abortion and I state that I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice, I am no-choice. Until I have a choice I don’t feel obligated to have an opinion. I don’t recall having any choice what so ever when my ex aborted our child, well other than the surprise bill I got to pay for her choice. The very idea of partnering with a sex that will hate me unconditionally for having a pulse makes me sick. “Women and children first – to the lifeboats, to medical funding, to receive justice, or financial assistance, to the front of the line for privilege.” Great quote Sam!! My response, I will own my own lifeboat, pay for my own medical care, have no relationship with the state (Marriage), finance a great life (My Own), and make my own fucking line. If the master consumer comes calling for my balls, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ. Lock and load!! God bless

  • Keyster

    Did I miss the news that there’s a new higher potency Red Pill on the market?
    Or did somebody just throw a flashlight down the rabbit hole?

    It seems our response has clarified and been better focused recently.

  • chris

    The link about the book “Women want More” is amazing. Its a treasure trove of information for the MRM.

    read that site, see what they claim.

    women control most spending, consumerism…..ok

    women therefore will pick the winner and loser companies of tomorrow….ok

    whats that look like? The winners will be selling I phone 4 CARRY CASES with friggin rhinestone studs and denim applique. Those boring men will be off in a lab somewhere trying to fund the next real advance in communications or computing devices while the companies left…if this book defined the day…would be saying hey we cant fund building an advanced device available in grey or black….we are cleaning up on these pastel colored carry cases!

    Yep, women will drive the economy…right into stagnation.

  • universe

    Very good contribution to balancing MsM journalism.
    Very much appreciate your work, so, thumbs up to your entire essay.
    Please keep writing. You are fast developing near guaranteed readership.

  • AdVader

    we don’t need equal rights, we already have equal treatment, femini$$m-samesex hijacked equality to gain unfair profits-provisions-prtections (gov’t-violence&mothermafia – married to the state while children&fathers are being molested by the state), we the people need protection against violations on human rights, we are no ‘diverse’ species though we are not equal, femini$$m-samesex also messed up non-discrimination, all kinds of terms-norms-laws are falsified by left&right-winged demorats with lipservices in backchambers, like fatherless-defathered (lesbian) households are a family, and nowadays elite-fembots misuse ‘diversity’ in stead of ‘variation’ ASIF equality, like intennis females have to earn ‘equal’ while males always will be better and have to play 67% more sets ..

  • Pingback: (Don’t) Fuck the Police | A Voice for Men()

  • Pingback: Conspiracy Theory At AVfM | The Black Pill()

  • Jay

    “What’s not widely known about feminism is that it is not now, and has never been, a grass roots movement. It was conceived, organized and funded by bankers who actually run the corporations and governments of the world. Some of this was revealed by Nicolas Rockefeller to the documentary film maker Arron Russo. Some is revealed by the employment of feminist activist Gloria Steinem by the american CIA[1], and her relationship with Henry Kissinger[2].”

    This is total horseshit and why AVfM cannot be taken seriously. The two references you cite are evidence that Steinem is linked to the CIA. But none make any case that bankers funded feminism, or that feminism is some sort of CIA plot.

    The rest of your conspiratard theory works just fine, so long as you believe those invisible bankers and the CIA is still working behind the scenes brainwashing women and men actively working with feminists to destroy our rights. But you have shown none of that.

    • Sasha

      Actually Jay, although I do understand your point about it almost sounding like some wild conspiracy theory, the fact that Gloria Steinem was funded by the CIA is well-documented, and Steinem was quite open about this. She was also quite open about receiving funding from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. They in turn were very open about the fact that ‘getting more women into the workforce’ and thus increasing the tax base, was their foremost aim.

      This is not the same as a conspiracy however, and JtO does not use that word, or the word ‘plot’. It’s quite possible for different actors to be working towards the same ends independently, and for motives that are obscure even to themselves. I don’t believe, for example, that the Rockefeller Foundation wanted to ‘destroy the family’ or somesuch nonsense, they simply saw something they identified as ‘progressive’, and thought it was worth supporting work in that area because, hey, more people working must mean more money for families too, right? Well, wrong as it happens, and as Elizabeth Warren explains in her lecture ‘The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class’ – (see YouTube), but it’s likely most feminists at the time didn’t fully understand the repercussions either, after all I’m sure I speak for pretty much all MRAs in saying that I fully support women doing any job or entering any profession they’re fit and qualified for. The misandrist element might have just looked like the kooky tone of a few extremists.

      Read ‘The Mighty Wurlitzer’ for more information on this topic: