More on the anti-man mentality

I’ve already taken Antiwar.com to task in a couple of previous articles, and unfortunately, I feel the need to do it again.  I fear that harping on one particular website may become repetitive, but at least the repeat of the offense is highly instructive.  Therefore, before I point out what is becoming increasingly obvious, I’d like to side-step the major points of two articles at Antiwar (one linked and one original), a third article from a blog that is frequently linked from Antiwar, and point out the most infuriating parts of each.  I single out this website because I visit it frequently, but what I am finding is not the fault of Antiwar.  It is deeply ingrained in the culture.  Thus, it is inevitable that it will reveal itself in the words of thinkers who have obviously never had to think much about misandry.

The first article is by Noam Chomsky and was linked from Antiwar’s homepage.  Much of it is taken up with articulating historical points that have been buried and forgotten concerning the Vietnam War.  Not having studied or verified any of these particular points, I cannot say whether I agree or not, but I do find it provocative.

I find it even more interesting that he was able to work in the Founding Fathers, and the unavoidable fact that what they had in mind was an idea of freedom married with a particular view of prosperity in keeping with ancient English law and philosophy.  In other words, Chomsky claims (and I also believe) that what the Constitution enshrines as the bullet points of “freedom” was not originally designed to include certain groups of people.  Chomsky is factually correct when he says, “Native Americans were not persons. Neither were slaves.”  True.  Even as late as the Dred Scott Decision, the best and brightest that the Federal government supposedly had to offer wondered aloud for all to hear: “Can a negro [sic], whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?”  Try saying that at a cocktail party with a straight face.

The native tribes were pushed off the land they needed to survive, the buffalo they needed for basic necessities quite possibly made endangered deliberately.  Dred Scott, a dude, fought and fought and fought for the opportunity to be left alone, and didn’t just fight for himself, but for his loved ones, both male and female.  Punishments for slaves who were noncompliant were severe and unconscionable.  So far I’m digging what this Leftist has to say.

And then, like so many other Leftists swallowed whole by feminists and misandrists, he says, “Women were scarcely persons.”

Really?  Scarcely?  How so?  Were their buffalo slaughtered?  Were they pushed as a group onto “reservations,” to be made into drunkards?  If any American women of the eighteenth or nineteenth century wanted to leave the house or the grounds without permission, were they whipped and beaten?  Were they made to work all day against their will?  Were they brought from another continent on ships where the smell of shit, piss, and vomit was so extreme that the men who worked on the ship refused to go down to their holding cells?  Were they paraded around naked at Caribbean auctions?  Did somebody ransack their teepees and longhouses?  Were they given blankets with small pox so that they would just hurry up and die?  Were they routinely referred to as “savages,” and “n*ggers”?

Only if the women in question fit into those subcategories as well, and probably less often than the men.

When one spends just 30 seconds thinking about that last sentence of his, about the “non-personhood” of women, in the context of an article where Chomsky points out that “the bombing of rural Cambodia, surpass[ed] the level of all Allied bombing in the Pacific theater during World War II,” it becomes, in every way except grammatical, a thoroughly indefensible statement.  The supposed oppression of women simply does not compare to wiping out Cambodia – men, women, boys, and girls – from the air.  This, like more and more of what I encounter written and linked at Antiwar, is just too painful.  All that Chomsky is doing with that sentence is repeating a cultural shibboleth that has no basis in fact.  Furthermore, by doing it, he is doing his own sex no favors.

He is not alone in the anti-war crowd, and most certainly not alone among men.  Arthur Silber is also a writer frequently linked from Antiwar.  In an article on the myths surrounding American immigrants, and in keeping with this great cultural myth about women, he wrote: “…that is, they are willing to be ‘Americanized,’ self-reliant, and independent in the mode adopted specifically by the ruling class in America — which is to say, by affluent, white (and until very recently, exclusively male) Americans, who have always determined the particular content of the term, ‘American.’”  As if women had no say in the matter.  As if no woman was consulted.  As if not a single wife of a single Founding Father spoke up at the dinner table, or in bed.  As if not a single female was allowed to enjoy the fruits of those precious votes.

Two otherwise extraordinarily intelligent men seem to forget something significant, and, unlike the above cultural tenets, very true: It is men who do the dirty work.  When you want smelly immigrants/Negroes/tribesmen to stay away, it is men who will do your bidding.  It is men and women who will give their consent – vocally, politically, mentally, emotionally, and even sexually – to the men doing the dirty work of empire and coercion.  It reminds me of an episode of “WKRP in Cincinnati”, where the radio station’s sales manager Herb Tarlek complains about his wife: “She thinks sex is a reward: [in falsetto] ‘C’mon, Herb.  Mow the lawn, or no num-nums tonight!  Uh-huh, uh-huh!’”

The reason two men who know a lot about the state’s hidden history know next to nothing about herstory is because the women, by choice, are usually not out in front doing.  This isn’t like the glass ceiling or its Patriarchy, neither of which can be proven.  This is, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, self-evident.  Women, for the most part, prefer to stay behind the scenes, where they wield more power than Chomsky and Silber can imagine.

The occasional portrayal of brutality toward women, frequently from other cultures (for a reason) and oftentimes cultures with which the ruling elite of this land mass wish to make war, is trumpeted loud and clear after it is conveniently filtered from what is happening to the men; the women who are influencing the men who are out in front doing are silent (just about the time that the whole brass section falls silent) and in the background.  Too busy shopping.

But there is another phenomenon at work while a falsehood whips its way around the world at light speed.  Original Antiwar writer Kelly Vlahos, to her credit, does not repeat any pointless platitudes like “Women were scarcely persons.”  However, in an article talking about adverse medical problems suffered by many veterans, the word “men” appears three times, once in reference to two male doctors who are discovering something they call “Iraq-Afghanistan War lung injury.”  Thus, one time that the word is used is not in connection to victimhood.  The two other times it is used, it does indeed concern the medical problems suffered by victimized veterans, but then it is simultaneously and deliberately included with “women” (just so we don’t leave any of our plucky little gals out of the victim narrative).

Even though the article is about veterans’ issues, and even though the vast majority of veterans are men, absent one anecdotal story of one male veteran — and a sprinkling of the words “he” and “his” here and there — the rest of the language used to describe those who suffer is littered with sex-neutral words: veterans, soldiers, people, servicemembers, individuals, etc.  Interestingly enough, the first link in Vlahos’s article, concerning “the high suicide rate among veterans [emphasis mine],” does not make the same unthinking slight: “The suicide rate among 18- to 29-year-old men who’ve left the military has gone up significantly [emphasis mine].”  I bring up these articles in order to point out two of the central memes of our rotting cultural muck, for which these articles have provided ample evidence, even though they are about other subjects:

1. Women have always been the victims of men.

2. Men can seldom be victims as men; merely as sexless people.

I am sure that if you look back in history, you will find evidence of women being put down as inferior in certain circles, having property taken by a court, and being denied the opportunity to vote.  I am also sure that if you look back in history, the same history that Chomsky decries in his article as being “unhistory,” you will find evidence of men being put down as inferior in certain circles, having property taken by a court, and being denied the opportunity to vote.  Furthermore, I am dead certain that, like the use of racial epithets, you will find examples that affect men or even married couples more than women.

Chomsky probably believes as most others do, that women who wanted the “right” to vote were just like Glynis Johns in Mary Poppins, innocently throwing eggs at the Prime Minister in her off hours.  (Speaking of Mary Poppins, I’d like to know why the father is the only one to get a lecture in that movie, since neither parent shows much of an interest in the kids.  Beyond that, what is the mother doing hiring a nanny, a cook, and a maid, when she has two adorable kids, a gorgeous house her husband worked hard to obtain, and no need for a day job?)  How was the denial of the vote to women close to anything that native tribes and people with dark brown skin have suffered with?  Were the latter two groups whipped, beaten and exterminated because they didn’t have access to the polls?

Suffragettes were indeed arrested, imprisoned, and force-fed.  But please keep in mind that “[b]y 1912 women still didn’t have equal [sic] voting rights with men and the suffragettes launched a more violent campaign that initially involved smashing shop windows.  Eventually this campaign escalated to burning stately homes and even bombing Westminster Abbey [emphasis yikes].”  Violent children often throw tantrums.  Violent adults often end up in prison.  I don’t believe they should be force-fed or tortured, but the suffering of women arrested in this regard does not compare to extermination and enslavement.  They were not protesting, like black and native peoples, because of the harsh treatment they received; they received the harsh treatment because of their violent protests.  Regardless, it takes center stage in the third wave act of Victim Theater.

The suffering allegedly suffered by post-suffragette women does not necessarily need to be widespread or statistically impressive.  It just needs an audience, which men readily provide due to their sexual and social programming.  Then the first statement – “Women have always been the victims of men” – can be true, even if it’s not technically, contextually, or even literally true.  It can be “true” in the sense that it makes you feel good to say it: Women have always been the victims of men.

The second meme – Men can never be victims as men; only as sexless people – is so fucking easy that it needs no explanation.  Just read Vlahos’s article again and try not to shake your head.  Here are a whole bunch of things that routinely happen to boys and not girls that I’m sure have escaped Ms. Vlahos:

1. Rough and tumble play, which is more likely to end you up with scrapes, bleeding wounds, and broken limbs.

2. Teasing, oftentimes physical, as a form of bonding and insult.

3. Being told by a great many adults (both male and female) to clam up, take it, deal with it, you’re on your own, etc.

4. Violent fantasies geared toward males in video games, television, and cinema.

5. Social stigma coupled with evolutionary impulse to protect women and children, especially female children, and violently so.  The more impressive the violence, the better.

6. A government schooling environment that seems more stifling, since it hardly involves any physical activity, and now includes being legally drugged into submission.

7. Erections that, for the first few years, won’t go away through willpower alone, making sexual arousal visible to others.  (A woman’s sexual arousal is always and everywhere easily hidden.)

8. Growing up in a culture that singles out members of your sex for derision when their genitals are mutilated.  When the culture isn’t doing that, it’s shaming you for continued possession of the same.

9. A serious lack of access to older members of your sex, with boys subdivided all day long and lectured to by women, unilateral divorce with preference for the mother, and a culture that is suspicious of single men who spend time with boys.

All this suffering, in keeping with what is learned at an early age due to #3, is suffered in silence.  No trying to burn down Westminster Abbey.  No throwing eggs at anyone.  No handing out feathers.  No call to get your “representative” to actually represent a single one of your views.  No buttons and pins.  No marches in the streets.  Just quiet suffering as you show everyone else in your platoon that you’re just as much of a man as they are.  There is no comparable contest of femininity for females.  If a woman or girl feels like being weak or just admitting weakness, most other women will rush to support her, making her feel like she belongs.  A man is far more likely to be left behind by the other men, if there’s even a group of men to belong to; hence, the manly suicides in the military, as opposed to the small number of female ones.

But we can’t even talk about possible root causes of all this suffering if we are not permitted to divulge the sex shared by the sufferers.  Once we are able, we can take the above nine phenomena and link them to the second cultural truism: “Men can seldom be victims as men; merely as sexless people.”  How true is that truism now?

The truth is that once the culture creates a certain level of hatred toward any category of humanity, actual victimhood is probably not far behind.  What the culture hates will simply not grow.  Watch this rather odd but very revealing collage of semen samples from NBC’s “Law & Order: SVU”.  It confirmed what I suspected from watching a spare minute of this awful program every once in a while.  Every time I chanced upon seeing a bit of it, someone somewhere said “semen.”

Now, think about that.  This is a show that has been on the air for more than a decade, a spin-off from another program more than two decades long, dedicated to entertaining millions of Americans every week using salacious, graphic language about terrible crimes.  Semen.  Semen stains.  Semen samples.  Semen on a dead body.  Crime.  Law, order, crime, and semen.  Am I setting up a straw man argument here?  I don’t think so, but I’ll knock it down anyway.

Semen is disgusting, if I am to conclude anything from watching this program.  How is it that a show that continually mentions semen in connection with horrific crime can remain so popular for over a decade?  Millions watch, but virtually no one notices.  It is as if the ejaculation of semen is something that the world puts up with but secretly detests.  Since only men make semen; since it is usually voluntarily ejaculated except for certain cases of rape and nocturnal emissions; and since the voluntary giving of this life-giving substance is usually frequent; what are men supposed to think if the culture embraces mainstream entertainment that virtually equates semen with crime?

The conclusions we are supposed to draw seem pretty obvious to me: Women and sexless children are the victims of semen, the victims of men.  Men are too quick to indulge their semen-connected desires.  Pornography is directly connected to men, semen, and the oftentimes unavoidable crimes that result.  Once you indulge a penis, all bets are off.  Unless, of course, he’s been thoroughly trained.

Men who are raised not to take their feelings seriously will probably feel a little tinge that is quickly ignored when semen is mentioned in a silly television program.  Men who are used to being teased will grin along with the giggling girls who laugh at a man whose penis is not only severed, but shredded in a garbage disposal, so that he can spend the last several decades of his life without one.  Men who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in government schools will go on wistfully believing that our government doesn’t take the sex of the accused into account because, after all, that lady is blindfolded, isn’t she?  Men will ignore writing like this article, because too much is being made of that which men should be able to handle.  The following is a list of what men get to handle, continued from the above list of boys’ concerns:

10. The vast majority of workplace deaths.

11. A culture that takes a dim view of sexuality, especially male sexuality, including semen.

12. Shorter life expectancies.

13. A roughly equal number of prostate cancer victims to breast cancer victims, with a great deal less funding.

14. The vast majority of difficult, back-breaking, weather-beaten work (without which we’d all be living in tents and caves).

15. Fighting, dying, and being maimed for life in all wars for all states, everywhere, all the time.

16. Fulfilling all traditional male expectations in romantic relationships with women.

17. Losing in family courts on a routine basis, many times after being falsely accused of any number of semen-related crimes.

18. Keeping his mouth shut about what he can remember from 1 through 9 above, and 10 to 17 after that.

19. As a direct result of 18, a much higher suicide rate.

As far as waking up the culture to misandry, that’s a lot to tackle, and I never even wanted to play touch football.  The same Silber that I mentioned above gave me the clue, however.  In one of his other articles, he mentioned a book entitled Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild.  I haven’t finished it, but I must confess to finding it quite inspiring thus far.  It concerns the fight to end the institution of slavery, a battle that began in earnest in eighteenth-century Britain, when, according to what is written on the back of my copy, “twelve men – a printer, a lawyer, a clergyman, and others united by their hatred of slavery – came together in a London printing shop and began the world’s first grass-roots movement, battling for the rights of people on another continent [emphasis you-know-whose].”  From the introduction (also quoted by Silber) we learn: “At the end of the eighteenth century, well over three quarters of all people alive were in bondage of one kind or another, not the captivity of striped uniforms [like now], but of various systems of slavery or serfdom.”

In other words, eighteenth-century culture thought in terms of slavery, as our culture thinks in terms of male disposability, utility, and culpability.  12 men started the abolitionist movement.  They didn’t finish it, but boy did they start it.  Do we have more than 12?  I think we do.  And we’ve already started something, haven’t we?  Perhaps someday, we’ll be able to replace those two ridiculous cultural memes with something a bit more sensible, like:

1. Women, as a group, have seldom been victims, but have far more often been protected and nourished, for the most part, by men as they were able.

2. Men as a group are victims of ingrained cultural hatred; women as a group are not.

3. You wouldn’t be reading this if some dude hadn’t ejaculated his semen years ago.

Changing a culture’s beliefs takes time, effort, and patience.  I find it heartening to think that some other guy out there put together that “Law & Order” video without me ever even meeting him.  What does that tell you?  It tells me that the effort is already well under way.  It tells me that the effort is organic and self-directed.  It tells me that I am not in control of it, and that I don’t need to be.  It tells me that it is gaining momentum.

It tells me that I’m not alone.  I like what I’m being told.

About B.R. Merrick

B.R. Merrick writes for "Strike The Root" and "A Voice for Men," and is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Zerbu

    Great article. It is INSANE how feminists are still complaining about how women are oppressed.

    Men were the ones who had it harder, regardless of what feminists say, and what did we get for our millennia of backbreaking labour?

    Continuous punches in the face. That’s what!

    The feminists make me want to be sick sometimes…

  • Darryl X

    I agree that it is insane how feminists complain that women are oppressed, especially given that they are demonstrably the most privileaged population in the history of the world. When a feminist calls for equality, I can’t help but to cringe since they enjoy so many more civil liberties then most men I know.

  • Darryl X

    There are considerable data concerning suicide in the US from the Nat’l Institute for Suicide Prevention, the Heritage Foundation and many other sources.

    In the US, approximately 1.1-million men have committed suicide during the past forty years. Approximately 1% of the entire adult male population of approximately 110-million.

    Of the 1.1-million male suicides, more than 250,000 are directly related to child support and divorce and excessive imposition and harassment and persecution by family courts and child support enforcement.

    Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children after child support enforcement and the family court harassed and terrorized and persecuted him and his children for more than a decade.

    I write “more than” because reason for many male suicides is unknown, but likely many of those are also a direct consequence of excessive imposition and harassment and persecution by family courts and child support enforcement.

    That’s more than 1% of all adult males who have been divorced and ordered to pay excessive child support and who are elibile for work (ie. not retired). And more than 2% of those men in arrears because the orders for child support exceed their means.

    Approximately 250,000 women have committed suicide in the past forty years. Almost none of these, for which the reasons are known, are a direct consequence of divorce or child support. Likely the number for which the reasons are unknown and are still related to divorce or child support is negligible.

    This incidence of mortality (suicide) affecting a specific and easily defined demographic (divorced men forcibly separated from their children and ordered to pay child support beyond their means) and attributable to a single cause (harassed and persecuted by child enforcement and family courts and the hardship it causes men who have no access to legal recourse or any practical relief) is a pandemic.

    The reasons women commit suicide are varied and often irrational and reflect their solipsism and mental illness. That means the problems are either treatable in a clinical setting or by taking responsibility for their behavior and circumstances for which they are solely responsible. Suicide among women is not a response to practical circumstances imposed upon them by a harsh environment and for which they have no recourse or from which they can get no relief but their own emotional response to a relatively benign environment for which they deny any responsibility.

    Suicide by men, however, is not an emotional response but a practical one after all their other options for subsistence and their children have been taken away from them. Likely a large proportion of these men would have died anyway from disease, exposure, malnutrition, etc… because they were denied the resources necessary to take care of themselves and had been abandoned by their communities.

    At the very least, they would have had to endure considerable practical suffering (as opposed to emotional) either on the street or in prison and the decision to end their lives was a practical one and not an emotional one.

    It’s hard not to see in these numbers and the reasons for them a deliberate attempt by governments (feminists) to eliminate or exterminate men. By eliminating these men, there are more resources with which feminists may enjoy excessive lifestyles and retire since they no longer have to be allocated to the ones who have died.

    Dead or not, many of these men are ineligible for any public assistance, including social security with which to retire. Those resources for long-term sustainance of men have been shifted to the short-sighted excesses of feminists.

  • .ProleScum.

    An important look out to, and location of the MRM within, the wider sphere of internet activism B.R.

  • Steve_85

    20 years.

    That’s the absolute longest I can see Feminism lasting in Australia. We have a very large aging population with not many being born. This country is going to be poverty stricken within 20 years and no amount of rocks being dug up and sold to china is going to be able to fund it.

    Socialism in general, and feminism in particular, will stop working once it runs out of other people’s money to spend.

    • Darryl X

      Although I agree with the spirit of your post, I disagree with a detail.

      You equate feminism with socialism but feminism is a form of fascism. Many forms of political, economic and social organization fall under socialism. For instance, many people do not understand that capitalism is a form of socialism. Capitalism is not a form of fascism.

      I distinguish socialism from fascism (and feminism as a part of fascism) this way: socialism provisions for the equal allocation of resources among a population. Everyone who can contribute does. Of course there are varying degrees and interpretation of this organization and mechanism with which those resources are allocated and how much everyone gets. Capitalism is a mechanism that allows some degree of equal allocation of resources. In some socialized organizations, people who contribute nothing are still given a minimal allotment out of humanity because some people are disadvantaged and can’t contribute or to prevent revolution. The US in the 1950, by President Eisenhour’s own admission, was a socialist nation. Approximately 10% of the population were recipients of public assistance and most of the other resources were distributed pretty evenly among the rest of the population, with slightly more going to those with educations in the natural sciences and less to those in business and financing. Of course all that has changed now.

      Fascism is when part of the population is enslaved and their labor is extracted under threat of imprisonment. That’s what the US is today. True scholars, those with university degrees or some record of accomplishment in the natural sciences, are actively punished. Education in general is punished. Achievement is punished. An oligarchy predates upon and steals from large fractions of the population. In the US, our governments snatch children and hold them hostage for ransom. Then they use that ransom from a large fraction of the population (mostly men who do all the work) and give it to another large fraction (mostly women who do no work and complain incessantly) for political influence and power. If the men run out of money to steal, they are jailed. THAT’S fascism. And feminism. And in the US, it is particularly egregious because it involves the trafficking of children and enslavement of men. In the US, many men have died because of this horrible mechanism. I hear about many countries and how bad their populations have it (and I agree it’s pretty bad in many places), but I argue that no country has it worse than the US.

      Perhaps in some countries, feminism is more a form of perverse and dysfunctional socialism, but in the US it is clearly fascism. And a horribly destructive and evil kind of fascism at that. Unless it is destroyed, feminism will cause the collapse of the entire US economy because slave labor is too inefficient to support an economy, especially such a large one as the US.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    Well done Mr. Merrick. it’s always good to hear from you.

    Even in my most liberal days I always though Chomsky was a bit of a left wingnut. That said, I’ve always thought him to be one of the most brilliant men of the last century. As a linguist he is without peer. I absolutely love the way he demolished B.F. Skinner’s theory of language acquisition. When I say that I have to also admit that Skinner (along with Freud) are easily my two favorite theorists. What I have never liked about Chomsky is his adherence to feminism. That was even before I knew how hateful feminism is. I guess that even a genius can have a blind spot.

    I don’t entirely agree that the Founding Fathers wanted to exclude “freedom” from particular classes of persons. I think they were forced to work within a cultural framework which accepted slavery and held certain cultural norms that would have prevented the adoption of the Constitution had they not made certain exceptions to the freedoms they were granting. But they left it sufficiently vague so as to allow the gradual granting of freedom to everyone as time passed and culture changed. I think this can be illustrated by men like Jefferson who freed his slaves upon his death thereby pointing the way to the future.

    As for your two cultural memes promoting misandry, you are right on.


    • keyster

      Had the Constitution’s drafters been a multi-cultural and diversity sensitive group, including a member of every identifiable victim group known today, liberals couldn’t complain about it being biased. It also would have taken years to complete and been absurdly long, with special attention paid to “all inclusive” language.

      It obviously favors the “privilaged white male class”, because they are the ones who’ve been most successful. Liberty and Justice for ALL, didn’t actually mean everyone.

  • keyster

    It’s a cultural war between men for female privilage with three fronts; the left, the right and almost everyone inbetween. It’s propped up by the remnants left behind of chivalry and feminism…both of which are anachronisms. They’ve destroyed each other.

    You’ll need to rally women to convince these men misandry is wrong. They’ll never listen to other men, anymore than slave owners listened to the slaves.

  • Dazza

    Great article Merrick. I like the use of the word ‘momentum’ at the end of the article. The pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that it is only a matter of time before it swings the other way.

    I feel deeply saddened for those men who have suffered terribly and even committed suicide at the hands of this misandric culture. Their suffering is not vain and no, you are not alone in your efforts to turn the tide. Men all over the world are finding out for themselves just how hated they are by this culture and they have had enough of the injustice. The red pill uprising is growing in number daily and that tells me that there is much hope amongst the injustice. One by one, men are walking away from the misandry and finding words of truth, hope and a sense of belonging with those who have walked the path before them.

    Perhaps even one day, when I type the word ‘misandry’ or ‘misandric’ in the comments box, it will not show up as ‘incorrect spelling’.

    Great article bro.

  • Rper1959

    Thanks B.R. only half way through the article, and just watched the full video from wikileaks about the apache attack on civilians in Iraq in 2007, very distressing and thought provoking stuff, especially confronting to me as a Australian Army Reserve Medical Officer well acquainted with Laws of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Conventions. Linking back to JTO’s excellent piece showing that the US political apparatus is elected by predominantly women voters, this should be seen as an overt display of women’s violence against humanity, perpetrated by indoctrinated military drones, on behalf of the governments women elect and the policy and military budgets women condone.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Women, per usual, did not march for male suffrage. In point of fact, men only got universal suffrage in England when women did. Before that, money-property-lineage-etc. determined who voted.

    Around the globe it wasn’t much different: “In most countries, full universal suffrage – with the inclusion of women – followed universal male suffrage by about ten to twenty years.”

    • Darryl X

      Thanks for the history lesson. I spend a lot of time contradicting feminists on this important point. I also like to remind them that for the most part, a majority of women in the US never wanted sufferage. They were dragged there by a small population of aggressive and radical feminists who wanted it but wanted a larger population of women to manipulate. They didn’t just want to vote but they wanted to coerce other women into voting.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    As I type this I’m listening to the radio. It mentions a public TV show scheduled for tonight about “slavery” after slaves were freed in 1863 in America.

    It’s all about MALE convicts being used as slave labor in horrific mines, etc. in the South.

    So, will women’s groups complain that it was unfair that females didn’t get to be modern-day slaves, too? Oh, right: It’s harder to be a prostitute today than a male worker in unregulated mines 150 years ago.


  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Mr Merrick. Always a pleasure reading your work.

    Anything I wished to say has been said in these fine posts above except one thing.

    It’s only been just now that I realised that when watching those detective shows about blood and semen, knives and semen, ripped clothing and semen that I realised I felt disgusting being tarred with that male brush.

    Now I see that the real face of the truly disgusting has been there all along.

    • Booyah

      yeah ive always been repulsed by that show and yet the woman of the household loved all of those CSI shows in their 20 odd different flavours. I think subconciously I knew why I didnt like it. I knew it was always man bad woman good. This article really bought it forward to the conscious mind though. Now I know and understand why I hate that show.

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

    exceptional article. There is one part which I find incredibly telling about feminism.
    The suffering allegedly suffered by post-suffragette women does not necessarily need to be widespread or statistically impressive. It just needs an audience, “

    Damn femies have an audience alright. Asleep at the wheel blindly following, drunk on the blue pill kool-aide of misandry.

    Thanks B.R.

  • tm

    Quoting B.R.’s excellent article:

    1.Women have always been the victims of men.
    2. Men can seldom be victims as men; merely as sexless people.

    Examples are everywhere:


    and this, linked:


    How many times do you hear sentences starting with “As a woman”?

    How many times do you hear sentences starting with “As a man”?

    • Bombay

      “The problem is acute in rural India and it is the women who suffer most. ”

      “It is not nice for women to go outside to defecate. That’s why every home should have a toilet. Those who don’t should make sure there is one,” Mrs Narre told the BBC.”

      And in other countries women still suffer the most because it is not nice for women not to have everything. LOL

    • tm

      I wouldn’t be surprised if there were actually more men than women employed as scavengers.

      I remember reading this story of an Indian sewage cleaning man a few years ago. There are probably thousands like him:


      Of course he’s not going to end up on a catwalk in New York like that woman.

    • B.R. Merrick

      Women indeed form the bulk of the scavengers, if the following links are correct. See here and here. From the latter:

      “Women form a bulk of the work force engaged in manual scavenging and continue to be engaged so after men of the family have shifted to more dignified professions. First priority, therefore , should be given to rehabilitation of women.

      Would that rehabilitation guided by an overwhelming majority of one sex affected over the other were the rule at all times and in all things. Wouldn’t it also be nice if everyone would realize who is going to be digging the hoped-for sewers, building the longed-for treatment plants, and installing the coveted toilets?

      • tm

        “Would that rehabilitation guided by an overwhelming majority of one sex affected over the other were the rule at all times and in all things.”


      • Darryl X

        Um… I don’t know what your point is. But I think it’s clear that women are parasites, not scavengers. Their host has to be alive. They want to know they have killed it. If it’s already dead, they don’t care. It’s not entertaining enough.

  • TPH

    Very good article. I’m glad you skewered Noam Chomsky.

  • Booyah

    “3. You wouldn’t be reading this if some dude hadn’t ejaculated his semen years ago.”

    I love this total reversal of the golden uterus warcry and so very true as well. Fantastic article.

  • http://www.artistryagainstmisandry.com Jade Michael

    Damn! You use the truth as an assault weapon in this one, Mr. Merrick. Holy shit. Anyone on the fence about men’s issues should be knocked clear into our side of the playing field after reading this. When someone backs facts with as much passion for writing and truth as you have, it’s impossible to not take a reader’s blindfold off.

    Terrific piece!

  • tm

    Re: “Women form a bulk of the work force engaged in manual scavenging and continue to be engaged so after men of the family have shifted to more dignified professions. First priority, therefore , should be given to rehabilitation of women.”

    Looks like in other places there are men doing the most horrendous cleaning jobs. Of course, as B.R. points out, in that case they’re not a priority anymore –at least not as men:


  • MGTOW-man

    Some women, and especially feminist women, have exaggerated about most things, most of the time, to most people. Sure, some of the stories they rant about were horrible. But if we ask many of the older women who remember how things were in the days of suffragettes, no votes for women (and non-landowning men too), and “no personhood” for females, they say that things were not nearly as bad for women as they have been made out to be by a relatively few disgruntled feminists who are mad they aren’t men (but blame men for nature).

    If feminists didn’t exaggerate as a rule, they would have had no audience in which to extract pity. Men knew this. They knew women were full of themselves, hopped up on their feelings that often distort reality for themselves, but they slowly were pressured to cave in anyway.

    So feminists exaggerate, but weak men continue to listen. Bad women aren’t going to change from being spoiled. It is men who we need to change. When they change, the world changes.

    This is why I say we MRA’s need to find ways to get the boys to learn something else besides the same old same old taught by example by fathers and men in general that is fueling the femi-socialist takeover. Just like everything else in history, when men quit helping, when men quit stilting up, when men stop being obedient puppets, when men quit lying to and covering for women, things will change.

  • respect for men

    Well, it’s been about a week or so since I first stumbled upon this site and I have to say it has given me much food for thought. I am a conservative Christian woman and I home school our children. I believe women’s place is in the home and her priorities should be her home. Men, not women, were designed to be leaders. Women function best caring for their children under the leadership of their husbands. That is why patriarchy held together societies for thousands of years and why matriarchy will never work. Many women today are behaving like bratty children throwing fits, protesting silly things and just “behaving badly”. So what do you do with an unruly child?–you ground them. So I can see how the natural reaction might be to say “Let’s return to a patriarchy”. And truly it would probably help, but it is moral character and personal conviction that guides a person’s course through life and so even if we were to return to a patriarchal society, as long as religion is viewed as oppressive and bad for society, I don’t see how much will really change.

  • respect for men

    I should probably add that in no way am I saying that atheists or people of faiths other than Christianity have no morals but rather that for many it is their faith that dictates to them their standard of acceptable behavior and therefore if faiths are frowned on, silenced, or considered an oppressive enemy, what will you then leave people in the way of accountability? In summary if there is no moral code, there will be anarchy, devision, and suffering no matter who is in charge.

  • TheSameDog

    For the sake of completeness I must mention Adam Jones here. From the Wikipedia article you wouldn’t infer that he wrote this seminal analysis of how MSM erase male victimization.

  • Tamerlame

    I emailed Chomsky trying to convert him to men’s rights. Doubt he will bite, but I wanted to try!