Caveman

Three cheers for three male corpses

Heroes.

On July 20, in Colorado, an individual named James Holmes attended the screening of Christopher Nolan’s third bat-man movie, armed, and allegedly shot approximately 70 of the other attendees, killing at least 14 of them.

By now, this event has gotten so much coverage, and with so much editorial spin, that besides the attendees it is doubtful anybody has a clear picture of what actually happened. And given the reliability of human memory of high stress events like violent crimes, also doubtful the surviving attendees have a realistic picture.

However, the mainstream media is making great cake out of the actions of three particular individuals who were present at that screening; these being men, the same sex as the guy with the gun. These men, rather than killing, chose instead to die. In particular, three men, in the heat of the moment placed themselves between their girlfriends and Mr Holmes, the alleged shooter, protecting them from death at the cost of their own lives.

Our media is now calling them heroes. So what did they actually do that was – not “heroic”, since that word carries far to much emotional charge to be useful. I’ll say what these three formerly living men did was follow their hominid instincts; the same instincts, by the way, that every man has. That instinct is to prioritize the physical survival of women ahead of their own survival.

I’ll say that again – while we read our news and listen to commentary from every smooth faced liar, telling us how masculinity leads to violence, war, rape, every possible negative outcome – all because of penises – let’s pause and take a note that every man (excluding the occasional mental defective such as James Holmes) has the instinct to protect women ahead of himself in times of crisis. I’ll even bet that James Holmes, if he’d been in the audience rather than shooting into it, would have more likely thrown himself protectively in front of a woman than not.  I say this because in men, this is instinct. It’s a feature of male behavior which helped our species survive famine and predation throughout our developmental pre-history.

This, by the way, is the same instinct causing news readers to regurgitate the phrase “women and children” every time a group of human beings come to harm and at least one of them has a vagina – in order give the story extra-special pathos. As if the world is populated by first rate humans, and also disposable factory seconds, differentiated by Y chromosome.

These three particular dead men who used themselves as bullet shields to protect their girlfriends, they are heroes. At least, according to the myth making of enforcers of social conformity like William Bennett in his evangelizing article on CNN.com.

What Bennett and other priests of public conformity are doing is re-enforcing the mainstream narrative that a good man is one who suffers, or who dies for the benefit of a human with a uterus. The converse case would be if these guys had conspicuously acted to protect themselves, escaping from the shooting while less agile or alert and slower moving movie goers died? We’d be listening to the preening, strutting, amoral whores of the mainstream media describe them as cowards and shirkers; failed men for not doing their manly duty by dying for the convenience of others.

But let me be explicit about what I see happening. Our mainstream, which is to say, our corporate media – that which bends and fawns for access to the corrupt elected officials and modern robber barons of corporate statehood – is telling you, young man, that in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat. They matter more than you. Your best and most honorable path ends in you on a slab in the basement of your city’s morgue.

According to ideologues like William Bennett, honor and heroism stands on the fatalistic belief that a man has a responsibility to protect a woman, even to the point of death.

That’s what you’re for gentlemen; provide, protect, and when convenient for other people, die.

This is of course instinct. It’s wired into all of us. All of us with male identity, of course. But you know what else is instinctive? The urge, when faced with competition for resources, opportunity or status to pick up a rock and crush the skull of whoever stands in your way.

And somehow, despite the instincts of a million generations of our cave-man ancestors – almost all of us manage to make it through our variously stressful lives hardly crushing a single skull every month or so. However do we do it?

The instinct – expressing itself variously as chivalry or as fatal self sacrifice — is just one more that no longer has any discernable benefit. It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another. But Bill Bennett would wrap neanderthalish and fatalistic self sacrifice and devaluation of male identity in the pious cloak of Honor. This much prized Honor being nothing except a perverse system of mind control to compel men to make decisions leading to their own deaths, dismemberment, poverty, incarceration and, service to those who devalue male humanity in favor of male utility.

Anybody telling young men their value is as disposable appliances and corpses on which other people’s convenience, comfort and corporate profits run, deserves all our scorn and contempt. Bill Bennett deserves our scorn and contempt.

“..men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life [...] They need heroes like the Aurora three” [1]

No.

Men are not humans of lesser worth. They are humans. Those three men are not heroes, they’re just dead. The calculus of death, where one life is traded in celebration for another by preference of a vagina, is pathological and regressive. It must be recognized as the sickness it is. Those who lionized these men, whose fatal and unexamined instinct led to self-destruction; those who held them up as a heroic example to follow, are cordially invited to go first — or to go fuck themselves.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/opinion/bennett-aurora-three/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

  • Poester99

    straight to the heart!

  • Zorro

    The best “Fuck You!” to Bill Bennett and Hanna Rosin yet!!!!

  • http://mrathunderinthehammer.blogspot.com/ Dannyboy

    Remember femmies you fought for equal rights , that means an equal onus is on you to jump in front of a bullet for me or any other man.
    Stellar job JTO

  • Raven01

    I’d like to be able to offer a counter-point.
    I cannot. Not a single one to this article.

    Recent events underscore your point here, “What Bennett and other priests of public conformity are doing is re-enforcing the mainstream narrative that a good man is one who suffers, or who dies for the benefit of a human with a uterus. The converse case would be if these guys had conspicuously acted to protect themselves, escaping from the shooting while less agile or alert and slower moving movie goers died? We’d be listening to the preening, strutting, amoral whores of the mainstream media describe them as cowards and shirkers; failed men for not doing their manly duty by dying for the convenience of others.”.
    In the case of the Costa Concordia both the captain and male passengers were targeted. Men who had paid for the same voyage and the same access to lifeboats were ridiculed for valuing their own lives above that of the Holy Vagina. Women who could have been child abusers or husband beaters were arbitrarily given more value than any man, no matter how saintly a life he may lead.

    The action of those men on the Costa Concordia in contrast to that of the Aurora shooting has me wondering what has changed? Not all men, but some. Enough to be noticed have clearly and loudly said, “Fuck that noise” in response to the demand to sacrifice themselves for strangers because of the genitalia they were born with. Has it really take more than half a century of sexual persecution to awake the sleeping giant?

    Maybe this is another facet of why some fear our existence so much. There is never a feminist in a burning building, on a sinking ship, or in a movie theater under assault by a psychopath. Feminists do not want equality as we all know but, we may have a bigger fight for equality from the traditionalist front once feminism is dead. And, make no mistake, feminism is dying.
    I’d really appreciate input from the many people here on this. I am starting to think I should alter my “long game” for men’s equality if this is the case.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      You’ve put your finger straight one of the big reasons I refuse to indulge in feminist-bashing: because most of the dehumanizing attitudes we have toward men, which leads to a few at the top but many more scraping at the bottom, is ancient. Many Conserative Traditionalists offer a sort of Pitcher Plant effect, because they’re happy to agree with feminism bashing and they say nice things about men and masculinity, and that sounds sooooo nice! But in the end, it’s a trap, and you can’t get out. They still won’t come out of the “women are delicate flowers to be protected and cherished” and “men are powerful unless they’re worthless” dichotomy and if you prove vulnerable and in need of help, they’ll kick you to the curb in a heartbeat.

      Listen brother, I’ve seen it: conservative, traditionalist women who say things like “Screw feminists, they’re idiots” who go on to cheat on their men, rape them in divorce court, and alienate them from their kids. So when I see this sort of thing all I can think of is, “It’s a trap! Don’t fall for it!”

      Second, because decades of social training has taught egalitarian, open-minded people to believe that “feminism is about equality,” and the world is filled with everyday, ordinary women and men who have been taught for decades that feminism-bashing = “desire to oppress women.” It thus can alienate people who might otherwise listen. Did you want to spend 20 years trying to redefine a word, or did you want to make progress?

      Besides, I’m convinced that the professional feminists who trade in hate just gloat when you do it anyway. They laid the trap, they set the rules of the game, and you walked right into it. “Oho, you don’t like feminists huh? You then obviously hate women!” Meh. I recognize that criticizing feminism is not hatred of women, but too many people don’t. Why waste my energy? Why not change the subject and ask more pointed questions, like, “So, Johnny can’t read because of… patriarchy? So, women are a majority of the nation’s voters, but that means we live in… patriarchy?”

      For every ranting feminist who treats you irrationally, there’s a silent person who instinctively hears you get nasty back and stops listening to you, just because you’re a male arguing with a female. Whereas if you use the gentle art of verbal jiu-jitsu, you can often get that silent majority to listen to you. You “fuck their shit up” by refusing to play the game by their rules in the first place. “Feminism is about equality? OK, well then I’m a feminist too. So what are we feminists going to do about the sentencing disparity in prisons, about women who embarrass everyone with false claims, about the shocking number of women who abuse their children, and get more boys to graduate from college?”

      Oh sure, the irrational hateful feminists, especially the ones who make their livings at it, will spit venom at those questions. But I always remember who I’m really talking to: the audience, not to the venom-spitter.

      I also notice that the word “feminism” is an enigma word: it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean whenever the speaker says it, and, worse, the listener then hears it however the listener wants to hear it. It’s a complete barrier to effective communication. Just using it is like jumping into quicksand and then thrashing about to defeat the quicksand. Um, no, that’s not what you do when you’re in quicksand, you relax and slowly work your way out of it.

      That’s just me. If banging on feminists is your thing man, I’m not going to call you a misogynist or a bad person or whatever. But me? I’m looking after my sons’ interests in the long haul, and I’m convinced that if everyone tomorrow decided to stop calling themselves feminists, not a single thing we face would change. Which means I got better things to do than concentrate on defeating a word.

      That’s where I’m at anyway. But we all walk our own path.

      • Skeptic

        I have a different take on this.
        I don’t call it “feminist bashing”.
        I think you emotionally loaded the dice with that statement.
        I call it corrective education and offering self responsibility-adulthood to the listener instead.
        I also disagree with your statement that if everyone stop calling themselves feminist things wouldn’t change a jot.
        I think you overlook the fact that feminists choose their identity with that name.
        The fact is the thing you call “feminist bashing” seems to me to be gradually, inexorably having a positive impact.
        For looking around me I see less and less women using the term to identify themselves because of it’s growing association with infantilizing women. That in turn gradually marginalizes those who grandstand using the title “feminist”.
        Of course if you want to attack the philosophy of feminism more obliquely then be my guest.
        The more hands on deck for that the better as far as I’m concerned.

      • Raven01

        I understand where you are coming from and I respectfully disagree on this point.
        However, I also believe they is definitely a place for your stance in furthering men’s rights and achievement of actual equality.

        Honestly, I really do not like using the comparison but unfortunately it fits so well.
        Some people were needed to directly confront Nazi’s and take the battle to their house, others were equally valuable in sheltering the targets of the Nazi’s and just helping Jews, homosexuals, Poles, or political dissidents escape or hide till the shit-storm was over.
        Both are needed to weather the storm with as few casualties as possible.
        Personally, I am playing and revising as I learn both a long game and a short game. The people here have shown me that change in my own life time is not only possible it is likely. It is going to hurt and it is going to cost but, for my son and daughter it is worth it.
        Playing both ways also reaches more sympathetic ears.

        • Raven01

          Edit:
          I agree that there are a ton of pitfalls regarding traditionalism.
          Traditionalism enterred into willingly and with a clear mind is one thing but, there seems to be pressure to shoehorn people into conforming to the trads ideals willingly or not.
          That is a very sour note to my ears.

      • JGteMolder

        Oh, god, not this again.

        Say, what’s the url to the avfm article about “playing nice” again?

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          There’s more than one way to get things done, brother.

          There are people you play nice with, and people you don’t play nice with. The challenge is knowing when to use which approach, and I have no illusions that it’s obvious. It’s delicately threading a needle in a hurricane. But I agree with Raven and Skeptic that there’s more than one approach. I just try to be the cautionary note about alienating the wrong people, and, being fooled by people who look like your friend but aren’t.

          It’s OK, I don’t take it personally if someone disagrees with me. If we always agreed on everything it would be a sign something’s wrong, eh?

  • Kimski

    Bill Bennet needs a couple of months in the trenches on the frontline, to grasp what real life heroism and honor is about:

    Taking care of your buddies.

    You limit your protection to those that are able to protect you in return, and learn to deal with the loss of those that just didn’t cut it.

    Everything else is counterproductive to the survival of the group as a whole, and basically just stupid and needless selfsacrifice.

    If women are able to do everything that men are, they should be perfectly capable of fending for themselves, right?

    Selfsacrificing HAS to go, before we can even begin to talk about an equal society.

  • Arvy

    The ironies of feminist “equality” never cease to amaze. It’s not for nothing that they never seem to object seriously to their own infantilization where it suits their true agenda — as in “women and children first.” Children, yes definitely. Women? I’ll take their equal abilities claims at face value.

    How long, I wonder, will men continue to pursue their “obligations” to defend and protect the mates and homes and families (and communities and nation states) that are no longer theirs to defend and protect?

  • Robert St. Estephe

    I’ve been watching for this article. I didn’t know who would be the author, but I expected it. AVfM is truly the source of REAL news commentary, unlike the indoctrinated-from-kindergarten-onwards presstitutes of “Masters in Journalism Media.” Good Work.

  • AntZ

    Feminist man-hater Hanna Rosin has finally found a use for men: taking bullets:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/23/aurora_dark_knight_shooting_the_men_protected_the_women.html

    Meanwhile, fellow feminist bigot Jessica Wakeman warns that women are just as brave as men, because they know how to dial 911 on their cell phones;

    http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-07-25/the-soapbox-the-aurora-shooting-the-myth-of-mens-obligation-to-be-heroes/

    • Raven01

      Response sent.
      “Hannah, after your, “End of Men” talk do you finally have a use for men? Taking bullets in your place?

      You are a disgusting human being
      . The playing field has been skewed to promote women ahead of men that are more qualified in the name of “equality”. This undermines the effort and achievement of those women that deserve their position.

      These men were not “heroic”, they were expendable. On a personal level perhaps, they were heroic, maybe these women were stellar examples of humanity that really deserves that sacrifice.
      But, neither you or I know them or the veracity of that statement so, it is equally likely that they died to save a cheating skank, a child abuser, etc… We just do not have the information to form a valid opinion on this.
      I quite seriously and honestly hope that one day soon your husbands testicles descend and he leaves with your son and daughter to teach both to be decent, caring people rather than spiteful gender bigots like yourself.”

      • JinnBottle

        Raven – way good.

    • white demon

      I really don’t like to, but just can’t help it but quote the second paragraph from Hanna Rosin’s piece:

      “The families in Aurora, like the families in most once-prosperous middle-class American towns, no longer look like they did. After a series of recessions, the men aren’t working as steadily, and far fewer people are married. Several women were at the midnight showing with infants and toddlers, presumably because there was no one else at home to watch them. The woman who took her 6-year-old to the movie–the 6-year-old who died–was living with her own father, the girl’s grandfather. Jonathan Blunk has an ex-wife and two children in Nevada. His ex, Chantel, was also speaking on the morning shows. On the Today show interview, Jansen Young, the girlfriend Blunk saved, mentioned that Jonathan was thinking about re-enlisting in the Navy. She attributed that to his undying heroism, but it may also have to do with the fact that he, like a few guys in the theater, was working at Target and surely not making enough money to support one family, much less two. Young, meanwhile, had just finished getting her veterinarian degree, becoming the latest in an onslaught of women who have taken over that lucrative profession, which was not very long ago dominated by men.”

      “What is the relevance of this paragraph? I mean…..:

      what does men not working steadily,

      women bringing their toddlers to the theater cause maybe no one was at home to take care of them,

      the woman who was living with her father with the 6 year old girl,

      the guy who had an ex-wife and two children who was with his girlfriend,

      and with regards to his girlfriend, this: “Young, meanwhile, had just finished getting her veterinarian degree, becoming the latest in an onslaught of women who have taken over that lucrative profession, which was not very long ago dominated by men.”,

      have to do with 12 people getting killed getting killed? So, what she is implying is that the rest who got killed didn’t have a life or something? No details worth her mention?

      what is so important about: “Young, meanwhile, had just finished getting her veterinarian degree, becoming the latest in an onslaught of women who have taken over that lucrative profession, which was not very long ago dominated by men.”?????

      Why does this deserve mentioning?

      She then goes to say: “None of these life details are meant to detract from the men’s heroism. They are only meant to make it more poignant, and even beautiful.”

      (ye, right)

      Right after that she seems to ‘promote’ her book ” The End of Men”.

      She sounds to me like a those religious fundamentalists and apologetics who paint a rosy picture but in reality is quite the opposite?

      Man, people like this exist eh?

  • Tawil

    The “instinct” card kinda fell flat on me. This is equally as banal an explanation as saying that all men have an instinct to be violent. It also fosters a kind of fatalism that only the most willful among us can overcome.

    I prefer to think that men loosing thier lives is little more than a social construct that went into hypermode with the birth of chivalry in 16th century France. If we follow this explanation we are less likely to hold a sense of fatalism and apathy and are more likely to terminate the practice. Its actually easy to stop believing this in the shit.

    Our first move away from male disposability is to dispose of bad ideas- like those evolutionary psych ideas that say male disposability is an instinct.

    • Kimski

      “Our first move away from male disposability is to dispose of bad ideas- like those evolutionary psych ideas that say male disposability is an instinct.”

      Perfect!

    • Skeptic

      Totally on the same page with you there Tawil.
      BTW the word hero has it’s roots in ancient Greek language. It means to selflessly serve and protect.
      In other words – disposable slave. FTSU.

      • Tawil

        “selflessly serve and protect” – that says perfectly what heroes do, they show servility/servitude – mostly toward women.

        One of the Greek goddesses, Hera, is worth mentioning in this context. She is the goddess of marriage and status who is considered the embodiment of a female sense of entitlement and narcissism, along with traits of jealousy and spitefulness, and in these aspects she is considered the archetype of the feminist/feminism. Her name is cognate with the word hero (Hera/hero share same Indo-European root) and it was her role to dictate the behavior of so many Greek heroes. Hera’s main cosmic function was to tame and she was called “The Tamer”. She would tame the seasons, nature, animals and men. She was goddess of the yoke who tamed wild animals such as horses, oxen and dogs, and she would tame young men and women (remove their their wildness and freedom) by yoking them through the institution of marriage. Men were tamed by being made to serve as heroes.

        Warren Farrell provides a revealing story about Hera from Greek myth that spells it out:

        The Hero As Slave:
        Once upon a time, a mother who wanted to see the beautiful statue of Hera had no oxes or horses to carry her there. But she did have two sons. And the sons wanted more than anything to make their mother’s wish come true. They volunteered to yoke themselves to a cart and take her over the mountains in the scorching heat to the faraway village of Argos, the home of the statue of Hera (the wife of Zeus). Upon their arrival in Argos, the sons were cheered and statues (that can be found to this day) were built in their honor. Their mother prayed that Hera give her sons the best gift in her power. Hera did that. The boys died. The traditional interpretation? The best thing that can happen to a man is to die at the height of his glory and power. Yet had this been a myth of two daughters who had substituted themselves for oxen to carry their father somewhere, would we have interpreted the daughters’ deaths as proof that the best thing that can happen to a woman is to die at the height of her glory and power? The statues and cheers can be seen as bribes for the sons to value their lives less than their mother’s request to view a statue. The fact that the statue was of Hera, the queen of the Olympian gods and protector of married women is symbolic. The sons’ sacrifice symbolized the mandate for men to become strong enough to serve the needs of mothers and marriage, and to be willing to call it glory if they died in the process. Which is why the name Hercules means “for the glory of Hera”.

    • JinnBottle

      The “instinct” facet of the women-first paradigm does have a pedigree, tho. Every morning this summer that I look out this window, I see sparrows feeding on some crusts the neighbors apparently throw out onto their garage roof.

      That is, I see the *females* eating. Everytime I look, I see them chowing, while their husbands look on from up on the telephone wires (probably on the lookout for pigeons with guns or squirrels in camouflage). I think to myself, “Man, they spoil those broads!”

      Of course a feminist will counter with “You just choose to look at the wrong moment. A minute before, the males were pushing ahead of their mates, and had already glutted themselves”, blah-blah.

      As if contemporary homosapiens, let alone a feminist, would know anything about taking a marriage with bird-level seriousness!

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I don’t think it requires fatalism at all. Knowing our biology does not make us slaves to it; indeed, the first step in NOT being a slave to biology is–for a lot of people anyway–to recognize your biological urges and where they come from. I mean, hell, you’re a man, and you know that young men in particular tend to get aroused and even suckered by a pretty face. Does that make you a slave to a pretty face? No, but until someone points out “hey brother, you’re making yourself a slave to that pretty face,” it may take you just that much longer to realize what you’ve let yourself fall into.

      If you can find me any society anywhere in history wherein men did not do most of the fighting and protecting (I said most of it, not all of it), and wherein women did not do most of the childrearing (I said most of, not all of it), please share it with me. I suspect that if you research it you’ll find examples of it are pretty rare and isolated, usually involving small hunter/gatherer tribes, but even in most of THOSE cases, still, the specialization of roles by men and women was still the norm. Hunter/gatherer societies are often less RIGID about it, but wherever I look the dichotomies are there.

      So for me the question isn’t “am I a slave to my biology?” it’s “where have we as a society allowed those to go wildly out of kilter and let opportunistic people take advantage of it?”

  • Tawil

    The “instinct” card kinda fell flat on me. This is equally as banal an explanation as saying that all men have an instinct to be violent. It also fosters a kind of fatalism that only the most willful among us can overcome.

    I prefer to think that men loosing thier lives is little more than a social construct that went into hypermode with the birth of chivalry in 16th century France. If we follow this explanation we are less likely to hold a sense of fatalism and apathy and are more likely to terminate the practice. Its actually easy to stop believing in this shit.

    Our first move away from male disposability is to dispose of bad ideas- like those evolutionary psych ideas that say male disposability is an instinct.

    • BioCan

      When I think of the term natural instinct, I don’t often think of it as being used to describe absolutes wherein that is what all men are destined to do or become. I think of certain potentials or inclinations to act in a certain way, which both genders clearly show. The question arises “how much of it is learned from the environment, or from society, and how much of it is innate?”

      So I guess the sentence “male disposability is an instinct” would be “male disposability is an inclination”, but how much of it was brought by social pressures or innate psychological impulses is tough to say.

    • Kukla

      I personally think evolutionary psych definitely holds some legitimacy and that males and females do certainly have characteristics that are innate, but in a case like this(the movie theater shooting) it really doesn’t seem to matter if it was innate or not. . But I agree that the whole “male disposability” is mostly just social(though I do think the “protective” instinct is innate).

  • Raven01

    Completely O/T:
    Ladies and gentlemen, I have been quoted via AntiMisandry in a major metropolitan MSM news source in Canada.
    Big thanks to DannyBoy for the heads up. Keep FTSU in the Hammer brother.

    At issue is the negative portrayal of men in a case where a man did the unthinkable and behaved like so many women. This man killed his own children, I do not defend his actions. I simply asked what the chances of that tragedy being prevented if that man had felt he had even a reasonable chance of having his voice heard and counted with equal weight in family court.
    My aim is that honest dialogue about the realities of family court could prevent some of these tragedies, my goal is to save just one child’s life because his or her father is actually listened to when he is in crisis and receiving no support at all as is so common for men. A man that loses his rationale when dealing with a Ligia Filler and makes a bad choice, I demand help for these men. At even 20% of the support we currently offer women that leave men to ride the cock carousel and “discover themselves”, children’s lives will be saved. Maybe 1, maybe 20 a year, I don’t know and I don’t care as long as it is atleast 1.
    The MRM is being smeared again, and I will not stand for it. We hold the moral high ground and I want to trash our enemies publicly.
    As a consequence I am about to challenge the author of this article to a debate via Skype. Hopefully, this will lead to a more balanced article but I have few illusions of “fairness” in either courts or media.
    What I would like is help from anyone with a bit of time on their hands. I can make some of my own points but, I want to knock this ball out of the park. Any MRA’s with the time should this author not be a complete coward to help will be greatly appreciated.
    Between CS and living I don`t have a huge pile of cash on hand but, the best contribution that I can use will earn a $100 donation to the MRM group of the submitting MRA`s choice, if this actually evolves into an article I will double it to $200 in your name to the organization/project of your choice.
    What I need are studies on filicide, men vs. women, Quebec specifically will be a huge bonus as the article claims more men kill children than women which is false in every other jurisdiction that I am aware of.

    The article: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Fathers%2Bedge/6968504/story.html

    • Arvy

      You’re challenging a newspaper reporter to a “fair fight”?!! You’re either very brave or very foolish, but good luck to you all the same.

      • Raven01

        I am neither Avry. I have just had enough. I do not expect “fairness” and have my own strategy for that.
        Stay tuned, if it goes the way I’d like one will be hit out of the park for the good guys with loaded bases. If it does not go the way I’d like (which is what I expect) you can count on a single home-run still.
        This reporter is a coward writing under a pseudonym. I may use a screen name here but, I have never made any secret of my identity. I limit it on the internet pretty much for spam reasons, nothing else. I dislike having to tweak my spam filters, I have no fear or care about what any anti-male person may attempt to do to me.
        My one and only goal is to have other people think. To question what they have been spoon fed. If one person takes the red pill as a result I have won.

    • tallwheel

      I think this is excellent. No publicity is bad publicity. Who cares what the author’s opinion is? This is getting the message out there nonetheless, and smart fathers who read this article are going to sympathize with the quotes and groups discussed.

    • Paul Elam

      You rock, man. Please keep us posted.

      • Raven01

        Latest update unfortunately is no news.
        “Mr. Poynter, I am awaiting your contact so that we may debate this issue further.
        If Skype doesn’t work for you, I will be in Hamilton this Friday or Saturday and, will happily meet you face to face at the venue of your choosing to further this conversation.
        Please do not forget to bring your sources. I will be bringing mine.
        Quite honestly, I am very curious about this “study” that shows more men in Quebec kill their children than women. That would make Quebec unique in the western world if it is a factual rather than ideological representation. It definitely deserves some scrutiny and discussion on what exactly the difference is if it really is the case.”

        I doubt this clown has the parts to publicly risk having his prejudice called out and proven. On his website he also uses the same pseudonym rather than presenting a real person as the “executive director”. Even though I have a face for radio, I am now half tempted to address this article and this lazy, incompetent author via youtube.
        The trip may not be a complete waste however, if I can catch up with DannyBoy for coffee and a poster run. If we can meet up there will be photos to follow (if not a video of a debate with this Bilbo Poynter guy).
        My latest toy is a DSLR capable of 18 megapixels on a 3/4 CCD which in English means images that can be blown up perfectly to poster size. I’m no pro but, I’ve always enjoyed photograph and as a result have decided that I will toss up a webpage on the cheap that will offer images free for use to any MRA as they see fit. It will be pathetically slow to start but, keep checking back.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I will happily help you and while I haven’t decided who I’d like to see money go to I lean toward the Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women (the only source I can find in the entire USA that directly helps battered men). I can’t seem to figure out how to find your contact info though, so, drop me an email — I use gmail and the address is dean3500. (Anyone else who wants to write me from here is also free to do so just be aware that I get a ton of email so I’m not always super fast to respond and sometimes miss things, but I’ll be on the lookout for Raven’s email.)

  • Tim Legere

    It seems to me that if we lived in an equal world then the following would have happened:

    1. 3 men would have saved 3 women AND 3 women would have saved 3 men.
    2. Or, no one would have saved anyone else.

    Since neither of the above happened then we must live in an unequal world.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      As an ardent feminist, I commit my life to defeating the hero gap. 0.000000001 female lives sacrificed for every male life sacrificed, or ‘1 billionth on the life’, is patriarchal oppression of wimyn at its most heinous and I, for one, will not tolerate it. Indeed, I stand in stark solidarity with Mangyna Biden in making it my life’s work to right this horrible injustice against the feminine. We will not rest until this work is complete.

      Wimyn, for the glory of the ya-ya sisterhood, get out there in front and absorb those bullets with your flesh!!

  • TPH

    JTO, I could not agree more with your article. Now that feminism has destroyed the social contract between men and women, why do men act as human shields? Instinct surely, but this behavior is learned from others as well. Men are taught to die to save a woman, yet with the current state of gender relations, men receive absolutely nothing in return for their expectation to die, or be maimed to save a woman.

    The problem is women and men expect men to die for women without hesitation, old school gallantry or chivalry. Take your pick of either or both. Since chivalry and patriarchy are inexorably linked, don’t you find it a bit of a conundrum that feminists want to do away with the aspects of chivalry and patriarchy they don’t like, yet want to keep the aspects of both that will benefit the and keep them alive?

    In the end, hero’s are dead men that everyone but their families will forget about when then next sensational new extravaganza on a senseless tragedy erupts.

    And then there will be more dead hero’s to feature in the media.

    Until the story grow stale and loses ratings, or the next tragedy happens.

  • JinnBottle

    Those three poor bastards. Gave it all up…and it won’t take the feminists and mainqueen press a hundred days, let alone a hundred years, to revise them in herstory with exactly the same contempt that they recalled the men of the Titanic who lived and died by the motto “Women and children first!”

    Hey if we’re going to play primitive, how bout women performing the supreme sacrifice in mother’s-life-or-the-child’s birthing scenarios? It’s within my personal memory that the Catholic Church honored this.

    Yeah, right. Today’s infant better not even look like he’s going to be the slightest inconvenience to Mom – or else there’ll be a supreme sacrifice, alright: his.

    And yes, JtO, Bill Bennett’s “going first” seems like an excellent suggestion: He could cover *two* women, and maybe a daughter thrown in there, too.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      A best comment

  • TPH

    JTO, I could not agree more with your article. Now that feminism has destroyed the social contract between men and women, why do men act as human shields? Instinct surely, but this behavior is learned from others as well. Men are taught to die to save a woman, yet with the current state of gender relations, men receive absolutely nothing in return for their expectation to die, or be maimed to save a woman.

    The problem is women and men expect men to die for women without hesitation, old school gallantry or chivalry. Take your pick of either or both.

    Since chivalry and patriarchy are inexorably linked, don’t you find it a bit of a conundrum that feminists want to do away with the aspects of chivalry and patriarchy they don’t like, yet want to keep the aspects of both that will benefit them and keep them alive?

    In the end, hero’s are dead men that everyone but their families will forget about when then next sensational new extravaganza on a senseless tragedy erupts.

    And then there will be more dead hero’s to feature in the media.

    Until the story grow stale and loses ratings, or the next tragedy happens.

  • Paul Elam

    I would not bother commenting on this one, but if you want an example of a big fat shame sandwich, read this:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/an-awkward-engagement-woman-agrees-to-marry-man-after-he-ditched-her-in-aurora-theater/

    They let the racist comments stand, but deleted mine

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

      Right,

      So if two sheilas lifted me up and used me as a meat shield to protect themselves that’s ok ?

      And if that meat shield runs for the door like the clappers then it’s not ok ?

      That’s right. I am selfishly wasting a meat shield that could be used for someone else. A better type of genome.

      Thank you red pills for realigning my sanity. You may well save my life one day.

      P.S.
      Would I be a coward and run, oh you better believe it.

    • Truyardy

      “I would not bother commenting on this one, but if you want an example of a big fat shame sandwich, read this:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/an-awkward-engagement-woman-agrees-to-marry-man-after-he-ditched-her-in-aurora-theater/

      They let the racist comments stand, but deleted mine”

      LOL ofcourse they’re gonna delete all comments that strays from the narrative of men accepting their role as disposable beings. Paul what did you write? I would like to know.

  • externalangst

    What other species on the planet sacrifices themselves to save the life of their other sex. As far as I’m aware none. Not even the closest relatives to our species. Although I think there is a psychobiological basis underpinning this behavior, the cultural imperatives for males to sacrifice specifically for females may be more a cultural extension to our evolutionary programming favoring group selection.

    Males will put themselves at risk to reproduce and protect their young but have you ever heard of another male animal sacrificing themselves to protect a female just because she is female.

    That self-sacrificing specifically for women may be just as cultural as instinctual, might make it easier to reprogram this social maladaptation. However, the hypergamous instincts of women to devalue the average male may be just as (or more) evolutionary relevant as the male instinct to put themselves at risk for others. Also, one cannot ignore the advantage powerful men have for promoting the idea that average men should sacrifice themselves for women (and less explicitly stated for themselves).

    The adversaries of the average man are average women and powerful men & women. Broadly based instincts for risk are corralled and harnessed for the service of women and the powerful.

    A world where the average man has equivalent human rights as a woman is not in the interests of most women and other socially powerful members of society. Although it will be powerfully resisted, these culturally corralled instincts can and must be reprogrammed.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      It’s been observed in a number of species, although specific rigorous study on it seems difficult to find. Nevertheless, here’s one that looks at the phenomenon in crickets:

      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900959-6?switch=standard

      That said, I agree with you generally that a lot of this has at least as much to do with group protection as protecting the opposite sex in particular.

      In any case, I think much of what we see today in “chivalry” is taking normal and arguably healthy protective instincts–which both men and women have–and running them massively askew. If my wife is under physical assault, I expect to come to her defense; now fortunately I’m married to a Zeta Female who refuses to let herself be defined by social expectations and cultural conditioning (besides, growing up on a farm leads you to a sort of common sense about the world and things like this than most pampered city-dweller women, or men, ever learn) and she knows to protect herself (and has) and I know would do anything to help me she could in a tough situation–we’ve talked about it, and I know my woman would come to my defense, although we both know realistically she’d be far less able to do so through brute strength.

      Women do have protective instincts, and that includes protective instincts toward their menfolk. I think one of the problems with our warped culture is that we discourage these instincts in women (encouraging them to think only of protecting themselves) and encourage them inappropriately in males (preaching self-sacrifice as the ultimate in nobility).

      Now what amuses me about this conversation is that I’ve had it with self-described feminists, who also get very angry when you suggest that men and women both have natural instincts and inclinations. They call that “sexist.” The interesting question would be, are you on their side on that? (Just ribbing you mate, no need to respond to it.)

      I think much of what we see is warped social programming that directs our healthy instincts in unhealthy directions.

  • Rad

    We can’t judge the actions of those men because we can’t know whether they were motivated by the cultural narrative or genuine valuation of the other person.

    Asshats like Bill Bennett take this in one direction by penciling an ode to altruism. I think it is important not to make the same mistake in the other direction, and direct the attack to the spinjobbing of Bill Bennett and not to the actions of those men.

    Of course…in this culture, I am skeptical as to the men’s motivations too. Especially when I have not seen any girlfriends jumping in front of men to eat bullets. But, still, we can’t know the answer, so let’s not let our own version of spin fill in the blanks.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I noticed James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal recently felt forced to apologize for raising what I thought was a fairly interesting question, if perhaps a bit harshly phrased:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443477104577548173266014782.html

    • Bombay

      So it was not right for Tom Hanks to tell Private Ryan to “Earn it”. Where was the outrage?

      • Paul Elam

        Women don’t have to earn anything in that way. We have to just hand it to them, and if we question that it is misogyny.

  • Bombay

    I wonder if this guy will commit suicide or be the next mass killer. Given the high rate of male suicide, public shaming may be one of the major causes. Way to go red-pill shammers.

  • tallwheel

    I know what the feminists are really taking from this incident: Why is it always a gunman and not a “gunwoman” who carries out these massacres. Men are inherently violent, and need to be lessened in number/exterminated, castrated, or genetically re-engineered to stop this from happening. Please help me to counter this argument AVfM. Our misandric society pushed these men to do it?

    • BioCan

      It deals with a number of factors that I’m aware of. Not many of them are easy to explain and take some time. You also have to be talking to people who have an open mind about such matters. You simply can’t use a one-liner as a response unfortunately.

      Men on average are not involved in small and tightly knit social groups the way women are. They’re more independent. Look at the disproportionate suicide rate and that ties into this as well. I think it’s 4 men per 1 woman. Anyway, I’ve read before that men also have more violent thoughts (innocuous though, like day-dreaming and such) than women do on a daily basis. I don’t forget the exact numbers but it’s staggeringly different between the two genders.

      Mentally ill men, like the shooter, would have greater compulsions to commit acts of violence when affected by psychotic breakdowns and crippling depression. The social expectations for men to keep trucking even when faced with major emotional baggage does not help. Women often are encouraged and seek help from therapists, friends, and their families. Likewise, there is a communal or social interest for families and friends to help women out when they are troubled. They are a valued asset for reproductive purposes and all that.

      Surely, the higher aggression in men derives from the fact that they have higher testosterone and other factors. They are not more violent for the sake of being more violent. In cases of suicide, men are more likely to carry out the act of suicide while women are more likely to attempt it more. The same can be said for acts of violence committed against others while in a psychotic state and possibly affected by depression. Men will go the extra step to commit a senseless act of egregious violence.

      I’ve read a bit about the case and the shooter was described as a lonely student who kept to himself most of the time. Loneliness can cause a lot of psychological issues. He was also under a lot of stress from the competitive program he was in at that medical school. This was a case of one’s mental health gone horribly wrong. It has nothing to do with some inherent evil quality in men. I feel like that’s a misused talking point to decribe a lot of different stuff but it’s just not correct. Isn’t the inherent evil in humans, and men in particular, some sort of Calvinist idea?

      • gwallan

        Surely, the higher aggression in men derives from the fact that they have higher testosterone and other factors.

        Testosterone is unfairly maligned. At normal levels it actually has a calming effect on men. It is men who are deficient or overdosed in testosterone who exhibit aggressive behaviour. Where psychological aberrations are caused by hormones it is most likely hormone imbalances which are the source.

        • BioCan

          I don’t mean to malign testosterone. When I state that men have higher aggression and testosterone levels I forgot to include that it was relative to women. There are also men who display varying levels of testosterone within any population. However, having higher testosterone does cause men to have more aggression than in women. Thus, the greater likelihood for riskier and competitive behaviours that are exhibited by men. Testosterone is also responsible for the development of masculine features and male sexual organs.

          That is also true. Hormonal imbalances can cause a multitude of factors in men including depression to extreme aggression when testosterone levels are very low or very high. Men with higher than average testosterone levels also exhibit higher than average levels of aggression. It’s all very nuanced stuff.

          And you are absolutely right, testosterone is unfairly viewed as an evil and corrupting essence in men that must be removed or severely decreased (creating more imbalanced men, which is exactly what feminists don’t want?). There’s nothing wrong with embracing the effects of a chemical that make us who we are. The competitive drive and aggression levels can all be regulated well enough by any sane man. And if used correctly, they can be very helpful.

          • kiwihelen

            Check your biochem out, there is a growing body of evidence it ain’t as simple as high levels = aggression.
            There are other aspects such as receptor morphology and even epigenetic influences. Also the impact of levels of aromatase found in adipose tissue will influence the impact of testosterone as we can only measure unbound form, not lipophillic forms
            Having just had the experience of a chemically induced menopause for 3 months the impact of lowering my estrogen and progesterone on my own aggression was astounding. I think this whole area of biochem has been hijacked by gender ideology in what is presented in the media

  • Mateusz

    The problem with all the mainstream reporting of this story is that they fail to recognize the true nature of the “heroic sacrifices” made. The problem, for me, lies not in that the men died to protect their girlfriends, but that they were forced to. They faced coercion that women did not face. If they ran to save themselves, they would be branded cowards, as the man who did run to save himself was. Women, however, would not face such censure, and thus don’t have the pressure of society.

    I have not problem with people sacrificing themselves, upto and including their lives, for others, and I would honor those who do. The problem is that we (as a society) so often fail to recognize that men don’t sacrifice themselves as much as they are sacrificed. Men are forced to sacrifice. There is no reason why women should not be facing the same obligations as men (or for that matter, why men shouldn’t have their obligations reduced to the level of that which we place on women).

  • BioCan

    The incident at Aurora was a truly horrible event and my condolences go out to the familities affected by the violence.

    But, I have to agree with JtO on this one. Fundamentally, the natural instinct of men to sacrifice themselves for their female significant others or females in general can work in several different manners.

    1) The male sacrifices himself because the female in fact is pregnant with his child and his genetic legacy is continued through a bloodline. His fitness level is maintained even after death so to speak.

    2) The male sacrifices himself because he is emotionally attached to the female and his brain overloads on an instanteous dose of neurochemical transmitters when faced with danger that ultimately results in his death.

    3) Altruistically, living within a greater community or tribe is reflected within the male psychology. The female is a valued asset that cannot be lost and must be retained at all costs, even if that means that his life must end in order to protect the life of the female when faced with danger.

    Whatever the case may be, it is deeply rooted in the inherent psychology of men that has been with us since the beginning.

    I just wanted to point something else out. The act itself may have almost been involuntary because in a life or death scenario the sacrificial urge may be irresistable in some, particularly ones with girlfriends or wives. Due to natural selection, or even sexual selection, males on average will have more uncontrollable thoughts of sacrifice when in danger than women do. It’s just genetic. Think of people who have near-death experiences. There’s a huge overload of chemical and electrical sensations when they happen. This one just happens to be a male-dominated compulsion.

    Now, onto the morality of it. When you see it described on television as a heroic act it may mainly derives from the judeo-christian concept of the “ultimate sacrifice” which rewards people with the prospect of an afterlife if they had sacrificed themselves. This is pure conjecture but it may make sense. In ancient times, a concept such as that would have been necessary to protect females in small communities because they were indeed a valued resource for the continued survival of their group. Without women, no reproduction, and no continuation of bloodlines. The judeo-christian belief system is still very much entrenched into North American culture.

    However, in the modern day with massive nations which act as communities, is this sacrificial act entirely necessary? It may be if the female is pregnant with the child of the sacrificing man, but if she isn’t? It amounts to nothing more than a reported death. We no longer base all traditions and laws on these beliefs. In fact, it’s consistently repeated in many online communities that the separation of church and state is essential.

    So if one doesn’t follow those beliefs, and has absolutely no reason to sacrifice himself as stated above (investment in an unborn child’s potential survival), than what is the purpose of that act?

  • ActaNonVerba

    I agree with JTO. And, I also have something else I think about.

    According to the misandric culture and media, what these men do is indicative of the “goodness”, “courage” “competence”, and “selflessness” that resides in men. Men that can tap into that are then “worthy”. “If that’s the case” I say to myself, “then what can we infer about women from the actions of the women that folded like wet paper towels? These women essentially were quite comfortable in letting someone else murder themselves on their behalf.”

    Logically speaking (sorry if any women-except for the rare few- are reading this as I know you hate logic), if what those men do implies certain “stuff” about men, then what the women did implies certain “stuff” about women. Instead of “goodness” they have “badness”, instead of “courage” they have “cowardice”, instead of “competence” they have “incompetence”, and instead of “selflessness” they have “selfishness”.

    There is no real point to this. I’m just thinking out loud in a forum where “real men” ponder.

    • BioCan

      You have a good point.

      When they say that true excellence or male virtue is to sacrifice yourself, what do they even mean? How can it be virtuous? You’re dead. How can it be excellent? You’re no longer able to live a full life and contribute to society.

  • Kukla

    “..men need heroes to imitate whom they can relate to in everyday life [...] They need heroes like the Aurora three”

    So I’m supposed to imitate people who will jump in front of a bullet? Umm…no thanks.

    • white demon

      Nice one!

    • DruidV

      These fucking femi-twat media hacks all over the internet make me wanna puke. So sick of the femstream calling these white knight idiots “heroes” and now, “The Aurora Three”. God only knows what kinds of other ridiculous bullshit these yellow assholes will be spewing at us about this shooting, two days from now.

      I had to kill my T.V. a long time ago, because it hated my genitals and told me so, often. But, I see that the hatred of my genitals is inescapable, even on the web.

      It is my most sincere wish that every Man out there see they way society and moreover; the way females truly view us; disposable utilities ,ready to unquestioningly catch a bullet for the mighty vag.
      Enough is enough.

      FTSU

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    I remember my father being asked an intentionally entrapping question once “if your wife and mother were drowning, which one would you save”?

    It was asked with both his wife and mother within earshot.

    The “expected” answers were either “My wife, to bear my children”, or “My mother, blood is thicker than water”.

    Not one to ever give an “expected” answer, my father said “No one can answer a question like that until they are in the heat of the moment – then they act on instinct without thinking”.

    I thought of my Dad’s words when I heard about the three (or is it four now?) guys who died protecting the women they were with.

    One died protecting his girlfriend AND her brother, and as many people have pointed out, mothers protected their children.

    As a kid, I heard my Dad and his WWII buddies swapping war stories about guys throwing themselves on live grenades with reverence and wonderment, saving many lives while sacrificing their own, and I actually met a very disfigured VietNam era vet who threw himself on a grenade and lived.

    That there was three such men in that relatively small crowd of people is remarkable.

    The “heroics” of these men will fade quickly, and soon be dismissed, just as the 9/11 First Responders were, just as the thousands and thousands of war dead are, just as everyday husbands, fathers and son are.

    • kiwihelen

      A small hope experienced in the UK and in my native NZ over the war dead.
      My beloved attended ANZAC day this year in his home city of Christchurch which is still completely messed up post earthquake, and the dawn parade had between 5000-10000 people.
      I live in a small town in the UK (30000 people) but it is still an active recruiting ground for the Royal Anglian Regiment. I am in a civilian brass band but we provide music at the church and at the cenotaph on Rememberance Day. There was standing room only in the church (has room in pews for around 500 people) and around 3000 in the street around the cenotaph. We had vets from Gulf War 1&2, Iraq and Afghanistan with us that day. Vets still might be treated appallingly, but we are not allowing them to be forgotten

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        They are not forgotten – until it comes time for policies or even recognition of their sacrifice.

        Then it’s “I’m anti war, I’m a pacificist , they’re fighting for rich guys not me” time.

        The parades and interest in veterans of war dwindled down to almost totally being ignored from the late ’70’s to mid 90’s, when we suddenly found ourselves in “war” again.

        Then it was all flag waving heroics for a quick 2 week war coinsiding with WWII vet’s 50th anniversaries of major battles, and it was “cool” to be military once again. There was a 21 gun salute and a full color guard turnout for my father’s funeral in 1997. It was strictly volunteer, and we had been told no one bothers to turn out for fellow soldier’s funerals anymore. This was around the anniversay of D day, however.

        • kiwihelen

          Belonging to a Peace Church (Quakers) I’m often asked about the seeming contradiction of supporting Rememberance Day. I point out that it is the war, not the soldiers I oppose. Some of the most engaged peace activists I know are veterans.
          Both my grandfathers were non-combatant medics…one lost his life, the other his sanity. I honour them, not the governments that sent them to war

  • Codebuster

    How many of us realize that a fourth man sacrificed his own life during the Aurora shooting? I guess it doesn’t count when the life you save is that of another utility device. It only counts when the life you save is that of a woman.

  • Codebuster

    “Now that feminism has destroyed the social contract between men and women, why do men act as human shields?”

    Exactly. Blue-pill world needs to understand that the contract has been broken. Only a fool would sacrifice his or her own life for those that disrespect them while denying them their fundamental rights.

  • Skeptic

    I keep thinking (and here my mind boggles) of the fact that in USA if a man doesn’t register for the military draft he doesn’t get allowed the vote.
    Males surely must grow up there with the message that if they aren’t prepared to die sacrificing themselves for others then they are NOBODY.
    So as politically enfranchised human adults they don’t exist, period.
    Wow! Talk about a form of sexual slavery!
    I can only imagine that growing up in such a mileau has a very profound effect upon males.
    With that in mind I’m very skeptical about any of the ‘it’s male instinct to be a body shield for women’ type dialogue being bandied about after this tragic incident.

    • Kukla

      They’ll only talk about/admit positive aspects about male instinct when it benefits them. Otherwise they’re silent. Weird how that happens.

    • gwallan

      I keep thinking (and here my mind boggles) of the fact that in USA if a man doesn’t register for the military draft he doesn’t get allowed the vote.

      For American men the vote is not a natural, fundamental right. It is conditional. Women’s right to vote is unencumbered.

      For anybody who is interested the controlling instruments regarding forced labour (which includes conscription) at the international level are the International Labour Organisation’s two treaties on forced labour which date from the thirties and forties respectively.

      The Australian government could reintroduce conscription if it wished but is only able to conscript those who can be described as “apparently able bodied males”. Age is not an element in the treaties. I was a six foot tall thirteen year old before our previous conscription regime ended. I’m quite pleased we had an age limit in Aus. Some countries have legitimately conscripted boys that age.

      • Skeptic

        Thanks for feedback Kukla and Gwallan.
        I really can’t think of a more blatant form of discrimination against men in USA. It amounts to Cannon fodder or no vote for you guys. Fuck me! That’s insane.
        So they expect men to be ready to face bullets, mortars, bombs, gas and goodness knows what else in mortal combat AND be sensitive, socially polite gentlemen at the same time.
        WTF is wrong with that picture huh?
        What gets me too is the almost universal SILENCE from USA men about that. Talk about rolling over for Momsy.
        Mind boggling! Utterly creepy servility.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Most men I have confronted with their own obligation to register while the women taking their jobs and demanding THEY stay home and raise the kids usually come back with ;

      “Why bring up something that doesn’t happen anymore?” or “There will never be another draft, I’m not worried about it”.

      They really live in la-la land, thinking it will never happen again, so it’s no big deal THEY have to “sign a little piece of paper” while their “equals” don’t.

      • Skeptic

        Yep lala land indeed.
        If it will never happen again then there’s no need for a draft. Period.
        Just replace the word men with Jew or Black or Woman and you see the glaring sexism of it.
        Still the big silence from most US men I meet about this.
        I don’t see male self respect in that, and if men don’t show self respect then others can easily get it into their head that they are not to be respected.
        Or put another way men can expect to get shat upon because “they’ll take it………”
        Lapmaiden’s to Hanah Rosin’s sick message to “man up” every one of them.
        Destined to be laughed at on daytime talk shows when their cocks get cut off and thrown in the waste disposal unit.
        That’s the creepy part I was referring to in my earlier post.
        Blue pill mania writ large.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Perhaps you could help me with this. I have been trying to run down the claim that if a male does not register for Selective Service he cannot vote. I can find nothing in any law anywhere that says this. When I registered to vote at the age of 18 back in 1984, it was at least two years BEFORE I went ahead and registered for Selective Service (which I did only reluctantly but for reasons that had nothing to do with wanting to vote).

      In the US, requirements for the right to vote are set at the state level, and Selective Service is a Federal system. The penalties for not registering are mostly a matter of denying you access to certain federal programs and benefits. In theory they include putting you in jail although to the best I can determine that hasn’t actually happened in at least 40 years. Since 1984 I have registered to vote in a total of 4 different states (Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, and Michigan) and not a single one even asked if I were registered with Selective Service, and I know it would require massive coordination resources with the Federal government in order for the states to even check that.

      So, I’m just trying to be a good skeptic here and ask for evidence. I’ve seen this “men can’t vote if they don’t register for selective service” assertion before, and I can find no hard evidence that it’s so and have personal experience indicating that it’s not so and other objective reasons to believe it’s not so.

      I bring this up for the purposes of intellectual rigor and not allowing our opponents to say we make things up. If we can’t find strong evidence of this repeated claim that men can’t vote if they don’t register for selective service, we should stop saying it. And so far, the only way I’ve found that to be so is that in SOME states (not all), if you’re convicted of a felony you lose the right to vote, and in theory it’s a felony if you don’t register except no one’s actually been prosecuted for that in at least 40 years if not longer.

      Mind you, there are a bunch of OTHER Federal programs, including job assistance programs, training programs, even jobs you can’t get if you aren’t registered. So the sexual discrimination is definitely there. It’s just the “not voting” thing that I’m seeking to narrow down–I think it’s an urban legend that’s floating around and as such should be either verified or punctured.

      • Skeptic

        Dean, thanks for replying.
        It seems clear to me as the link here shows a young American man threatened with up to 5 years imprisonment for refusing to register for the draft –

        http://charleslife.com/blog/selective-service-system-what-to-do

        that federal law is as you say.
        Bearing in mind prisoners in can’t vote it’s still legally as I stated for young USA men before – No registration, no vote.
        I can’t explain why you would have been let off the hook at state level. Were they Quaker areas perhaps? Some folks turning a blind eye to federal law?

        What’s interesting to me is that clearly federal coercion to draft men to war hasn’t been repealed as a law, so it can be tightened up whenever the powers that be want to – but only applied to men, not women.
        Score one up for institutionalized misandry there.

  • Augen

    JTO:
    I think that in this sentence, “It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another.” you meant to say “is”, not “is not”. Please check carefully. You’ll be quoted out of context anyway, don’t be quoted out of context for something you didn’t mean to say!

  • Politically Incorrect F.Y. Too

    Men should never die for women, since women don’t care about men anyway.

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

    Oh good ol’ Billy. What would we do without you?

    Let me put it this way: there hasn’t been a need to continually populate the world like in the old days. Who would be more worth saving from a bullet, a man with an aspiring career in science and engineering or a woman who barely graduated from high school who already has three kids. Surely nobody deserves to die by the hands of a madman. It is revolting how some people like Bill would put a price tag on people, especially for as stupid of a reason as one having reproductive ability while the other doesn’t.

    If we are going to throw around the ‘hero’ label, then remember these kind words: “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” — General Patton.

  • Autcel

    I somewhat disagree with the article. Putting others above self even at the price of life is a virtue, not a weakness. However, the problem is the virtue is only valued when women or children are protected by men. When the situation is different, then suddenly said value is lost in the air, which is clearly misandric. I hope that this article does not cause anyone to think that “I should save myself and let others suffer no matter what trouble that happens,”.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    This article has been placed by the SPLC on their “Hate Watch.” To be fair, the astonishingly wealthy organization, being overstaffed, must find SOMETHING to do with all the extra time on their hands.

    In 1996 USA Today called the SPLC “the nation’s richest civil rights organization”, with $68 million in assets at the time.

    In the following article the SPLC talks about its own secret (illegal?) activities and its policy on “leaks” and what would seem from the language to be assassinations:

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/fbi-and-splc-had-an-informant-in-oklahoma-city-bombing-case/

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthewchristopherdavidson Matthew Christopher Davidson

    I guess jumping in front of your child to stop a bullet is a dumb-fuck thing to do as well, eh brah!?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      No, the dumb fuck thing to do is to read this article and infer that is what was being said, brah.

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      Fucking misogynist trash, equating a full grown adult female with a child. You should be ashamed of yourself, Matthew Christopher Davidson. That’s an empowered, go gurl, gurl power, ima survivor female your belittling there. A woman needs a man to take a bullet for her like a fish needs a bicycle, capiche, bra?

    • kiwihelen

      Most adults would regardless of gender, many adults not related to the child will make efforts to save their life. An I correct you are conflating these mans actions with the saving of children? Women are not and never should be considered children, because that leads to many of the problems that the MRM now need to address

      • Tawil

        My thoughts exactly Helen… he has conflated grown women with little children… he’s obviously still chewing on the blue pill.

        • Introspectre

          It is however, a interesting example of male feminist/white knight thought patterns, or should I say, irrational reactions. Don’t you think?

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthewchristopherdavidson Matthew Christopher Davidson

    Actually the dumb-fuck thing would be to think this article is saying anything at all.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      And yet you came in here to tell us what you think it said. Thanks for making my point, dumb fuck!

      • Kimski

        Damn!
        Now I got to go buy a new keyboard.
        This one’s got coffee sprayed all over it.

  • http://gravatar.com/scatmaster scatmaster

    LOL!
    Like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • http://gravatar.com/scatmaster scatmaster

    OT: Can someone tell me why I can’t vote on the comments?

    • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

      I am not able to login