Women Declare Victory Over Men

Have you seen Hanna Rosin’s video where she’s smugly celebrating the “End of Men.” You can have a look at it here.

Here are the largest growing jobs projected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to the year 2016. All of them are women’s jobs except one or two, according to Rosin. But this will be corrected. Women are working on expanding Affirmative Action and Title IX to all the S.T.E.M. fields (Science, Technical, Engineering and Mathematics), to ensure there is no professional field in which women do not dominate. The feminized economy is here. Women are now excited that they are the majority of the workforce and that men are being economically marginalized.

I suppose they got what they wanted.

The question is why women think it a good thing that service jobs are the top growing jobs in the country. It may be that they don’t understand economics. Below is our trade deficit which is much larger now than in (2005):

I’m not sure women, at least the ones celebrating with Rosin, understand what a trade deficit means. In short it means that we don’t produce anything of tangible value to offer on the global market. Excitement about all this and the fact that men are out of work indicates they have little clue of what this all means for the future of our country. They are lauding the homogeneous service sector feminized economy, but they don’t understand the economic impact of marginalizing a nations men.

Strange, isn’t it?

They don’t seem to understand what the production of goods and tangible products means to an economy. Women are welcome to service everyone in our service economy, this is fine by me. But with as much political agency as women now have they would have fared much better in the long run by directing the government to do something more economically sound than abandon manufacturing and construction. And it is their call;  our government does what ever women tell them to do.

There is really nothing we can do now. Rosin has announced that she and all women will get us out of this mess and that men don’t have to produce anything any more. They insisted that the Stimulus Package be devoted to them….and it was… There is really nothing men should do now except drink beer, watch sports, play video games and collect unemployment until women rescue the economy.

Ms. Rosin was right, feminists lied to us about “the wage gap”. Women have been out earning men for years. It is only when they decide to have men take care of them does the gap show up at all. More on the wage gap HERE.

Women, I should also note, continue to have Affirmative Action in job hirings and college admissions despite the “End of Men.”

Rosin was also correct about the growing female dominance in education. A good thing according to her.

She also mentioned that women’s “empowerment” has affected marriage. Indeed it has, we now have the lowest marriage rate in American history:

….and the highest single mother birth rate in American history:

(Sorry the graph is a little dated we now have a 40% single mother birth rate and growing with significant trend momentum)

Women are getting exactly what they want, apparently. Our birth rates have dropped below replacement levels.
None of this is sustainable.

In other words, the United States is in grave danger.

In the meantime, I suggest that, as men, we continue to promote the conscious choice to not just liberate ourselves from the matriarchy, but to learn how to feed on it. No alimony and no child support to women and their children is a given. But we also need to learn how to take from them. Freely and without conscious or moral compunction.

This is the moment of truth for what remains of western male culture.

Women should now provide for men and our children in this new order.

If women form families they must now pay men alimony and child support should we decide to divorce them. Otherwise women should raise their own families. And that is perhaps what men with wives who are breadwinners should do; withdraw from the women and their families- and take what they can get as they exit.

Men fortunate enough to be unmarried should remain that way.

We will not have to worry about that, though, because in honesty the combination of hypergamy and economic primacy for women will be the final nail in the coffin for marriage. The more educated a woman is, the more money she makes on average. The more money she makes on average, the less likely she is to ever get married or have children.

Again, fine by me. This is what women want.  But they should not complain when economically disadvantaged men start putting an eye on that money.

Nor should they be surprised when we seek, not just an end, but an actual reversal to affirmative action for women in job hirings and college admissions. In fact, since it is the case that we now have separate and secular representation under law by gender in direct violation of The Constitution of The United States, we should now create affirmative action for men in all fields of work or study which men are a minority.

You want marginalized men, you get a marginalized mentality.

Men need to continue to find independence and liberation from women and their matriarchal families. This means an absolute rejection of chivalry. True female independence and liberation is here, right?

Let’s help them celebrate it with both, sawed off barrels.

Men must now begin to mount an offensive while defending our rights and our wellbeing. Men are beginning to understand clearly that women have finally proclaimed victory, and with it, “the end of men”. Everything women have sought after has come true for them beyond their wildest dreams.

And we will see that the net result is a entire class of women with the power to make the money, and that power will weigh on them like it has on men for thousands of years, like an anchor around their necks.  Perhaps we should tie rocks to the chains. The effect should prove even more interesting as they experience the consequences of their designed-to-collapse economic strategy.

After all, who are we to stand in the way of making a better world?

Denver Banning is the author of the Rebuking Feminism Blog.

About Denver Banning

Denver Banning was inspired to submit this article after reading A Voice for Men. If you too have ideas or experiences you would like to share with our readers. please click here

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://echosofwhisperspast.wordpress.com/ Capt. DaPoet

    Well said Paul…

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      No credit due here. This is from our latest contributor, Mr. Denver Banning.

  • http://echosofwhisperspast.wordpress.com/ Capt. DaPoet

    Sad to say but Empowered females (FPF’s-Financial predatory females) will in time give rise to the financial predatory male {FPM} who come to see the average member of the sistahood as prey…

    • Jimmy K.

      If they are all single women, why should they produce male babies?

    • Lucian Cross

      I prefer to think of the inevitable path men take of being
      Self-Reliant Survivors – SrS’s

  • http://echosofwhisperspast.wordpress.com/ Capt. DaPoet

    @ Paul…

    Ok missed that…BTW the link on face book isn’t working…I had to type in AVfM.com manually to read this article…

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      Thanks, I will repost. Sometimes the autopost has gremlins.

  • Jimmy K.

    If these figures are true, then we’ve lost the battle. Can you imagine the world we’ll live in within 5 or 10 years? The question is: how are we gonna stop all this before we’ve crossed the point of no return (which maybe we allready have crossed)

    • The White Rider

      Well, we are probably screwed. Do you honestly see the simpering fools that run the governments of western countries and pander to the female vote honestly taking the necessary measures to stop this?

      To do that, they’d have to put up with endless nagging and shaming language. Sounds like we’d better prepare for a collapse far worse than that of the USSR.

  • AntZ

    Please, lay off of the “women” and “men” polarization.

    The enemy is not women. The enemy is the rabidly man-hating feminist movement that has hoodwinked government into believing that they speak for women.

    Try asking 100 random women if they consider themselves feminists. You will probably hear 1-2 affirmative responses, at most.

    Women have as much to loose from this calamity as men do.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      I generally attend to agree with that, HOWEVER, I don’t think it unreasonable to acknowledge that the vast preponderance of women have either sat by silently (which many men have done), or taken regular and opportunistic advantage of the victim paradigm.

      We have fostered a darkness in the female psyche in western culture that is impossible to address without addressing women as a group.

      And after all, I have spent a lot of energy on this site confronting men as a group with little objection. We live in a polarized world, sexually speaking, and I don’t think we will foster solutions by being afraid to address the realities on the ground.

    • Aharon

      Agreed that in the long run (though it may be short too if we have a national implosion) women have as much to lose as men. Ultimately, it is indeed the ideology that is the source of the problem. Still, when a dangerous person embraces an ideology they have to be confronted to various degrees as being one with it. As long as individual women support feminism directly or indirectly then I find it natural to polarize.

      When it comes to spreading the MRA message, I agree it is best or most effective to focus more on the feminist ideology and the harm it is causing.

      • Benjamin

        The critical thing is that those men who are fighting in the “hot war”, when it comes, not protect any women in their community who are not submitted, under the direct dominance of, a man who is also fighting.

        When this Western world “Titanic” begins to sink, and we go for the boats, it must be “Men and their children first”. Then, any women who have been submissively serving those men, and earned the protection of those men, next.

        The other women must be left to go down with the ship. Show no mercy. We only have so many lifeboats!

        Let whatever invading army comes, have them. Be it the US law enforcement community, or the Chinese army, or the Muslims. Let those women be left to the sea that is engulfing us.

        We men must only protect our fellow men, our children, and those women who serve us loyally.

    • Nancy

      Well, yes, in a way. But think of WWII and fighting the Nazi’s. These were a group of highly brainwashed men who wanted to shoot you in the head. Yes, the source of their hatred was the elite who created the tsunami of brainwashing and these elite were indeed responsible. But you simply can’t give each German soldier a pass and not hold them accountable. You must hold them accountable and you must fight them. It’s a cheap trick to compare nazi’s and feminism but I think this parallel is important. We need to hold women accountable. Period. We must get beyond our chivalrous instincts of protecting them and giving them a safe nest. If we continue doing that we are toast.

      • Aharon


        It is not cheap to compare feminism with Nazis. As was well pointed out on the Angry Harry site, the women of Nazi Germany (and the women of the Soviet Union) were more supportive of their governments than the men were supportive. Furthermore, as others (I believe at Spearhead have observed) the way feminists treat men now is much the same as how the Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s.

    • AntZ

      True, most women support the feminist anti-man hate campaign through their silence. Also, most women would not hesitate to take advantage of the miriad legal and cultural priviledges that feminism has provided them.

      However, collectively women have as much to loose from wholesale collapse of economic and social stability as men do.

      Increasingly, he feminist gender-cidal hate campaign against men harms women as collateral damage.

    • Jimmy K.

      Women are ‘collectively’ responsible for current issues. You never hear them complain about the current situation which is a sign they approve current situation.The only thing they do is collect the allimony with a big smile on their face.
      It’s time to end this. Playtime is over.

    • http://mensrights.reddit.com kloo2yoo

      No, the enemy is the people who voted the rabidly man-hating feminist movement into office.

      Pay attention to around 12:00 when she talks about India’s call centers – staffed by women who (with state sponsored disproportionate help) learn English faster; China’s businesses being open by women (state sponsored) South Korea’s (state sponsored) effort to rapidly industrialize, by pushing women into the workforce. Look also at the female-preferred lending for small businesses in Africa, and Look also at the UN sponsored response to the Haitian Earthquake that offered food to women, and not men. The UN and major world governments are actively engaged at re-engineering society to the detriment of men.

      • Benjamin

        All future humanitarian, disaster relief aid must be available ONLY to men.

        Then, they can pass it out to those women and children who are under their care.

        Nowadays, the US or UN troops make it available only to women, and the men look like thugs when they come and take it.

        Help must go to the men. Then, the men will be strong, and rebuild their country. The men know which women deserve to share the food. And, of course, men are going to care for their children and for orphans of other men. That’s how men are. Not like selfish women.

        Those women who are not part of a good man’s team, will find a great incentive to sign up and become part of the solution, rather than continuing to be a free radical, causing the problems.

    • http://counterfeminism.info/ Porky D.

      “Try asking 100 random women if they consider themselves feminists. You will probably hear 1-2 affirmative responses, at most.”

      Then try asking them if they approve of what the feminists do on their behalf. You’ll get a hell of a lot more than a couple of affirmatives.

      • Edmond

        Well said.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      I find your comment naive and foolish. The enemy IS women. The enemy WAS the rabidly man-hating feminist movement that hoodwinked government into believing that they spoke for women. Those who spoke are now IN government, which would only be news if you’ve been napping for a decade or so.

      Ask as many women as you like to defend a man falsely accused of sexual harrassment or domestic violence and see how many takers you get. I’d be surprised if you get one in a thousand. The indifference shown by the vast majority of women towards suffering men since the birth of feminism is as hateful and ruthless as any act of ethnic cleansing.

    • Midnight Gypsy

      All I can say for sure is that when the Divorce court started talking about how much of MY money my ex-wife was gonna get she had NO PROBLEM becoming a Feminist.

  • http://echosofwhisperspast.wordpress.com/ Capt. DaPoet

    My own mother claims to not be a feminist yet doesn’t hesitate to take full advantage of the goodies feminists and their manginas steal from men as a group…So when a women claims that she isn’t a feminist I require her to prove it and consider her guilty as charged until she does…After all this is the exact same standard that men as a gender are held too…

  • Red0660

    Feminist tenets of thought have seeped into the minds of the nations women more than they know. It has been hammered into the minds of men. A well educated MRA will begin to see it everywhere. An awakening occurs. Feminism is infused into the public consciousness, it has become a part of us. It has myelinated into our social fabric and has affected ALL aspects of the social, political and economic. Denver Banning’s article illustrates this dichotomy well.

    Feminism is a diffuse cloud, an integral part of our cultural consciousness. We ingest it on a daily basis, we breath it in, it permeates our reality. For many men, and the vast majority of women, they don’t recognize it.. Our job is to open their eyes, to get their minds to think critically and to see feminism objectively for what it is, what it has become and the affect it has had. Our job is to get the public to think.

  • Anti Idiocy

    Almost all American women are feminists, whether or not they admit it.

    • AntZ

      Most American women take advantage of feminist priviledges, weather they are feminist or not. If the Treasury offered men the opportunity to pay only 30% of taxes, while collecting 70% of payouts, do you think you would refuse your “extra” 40% on principle?

      Most American women know that this lunatic anti-male hate campaign is leading to catastrophe, and that in the end everyone will be a victim of an eventual collapse in economic and social order.

      • Benjamin

        No, AntZ.

        If the Treasury offered that deal to men, men would vote for the Treasury officials to be put out of office, and lower taxes and regulations for everyone.

        When men smell an imbalance, many of them cannot stand the stink. And, even those men who delight in such fraud get caught up in shame when the gathered men make them own their feminine weakness.

        However, in a system that is infected with women’s suffrage, then all the women (almost), and many of the men, will take your devil’s bargain.

  • UncleRay

    It’s difficult to believe that people like Rosin can be so blind as to not see that the only reason women are getting ahead of men is because of government propping them up and positive discrimination. Now the economy is paying for it. Soon, the shit will hit the fan and these people will be put in their place. Hopefully.

    • Aharon

      Perhaps she is a mix of ignorant and opportunistically manipulating the numbers (along with her being arrogant).


        Ya Rosin does not care about anyone – only her bank account.

  • HQR3

    When I see stats like these, even though there is no obvious smoking gun, I wonder about governmental disincentives for the pharmaceutical industry to ever produce a male birth control pill. It seems like such an obvious moneymaker and the drug industry, with the greatest profit margin of all industries, is so greedy, that one would think they’d be pursuing it more avidly than the cure for HIV and breast cancer combined. They’ve been talking about it since they came up with the pill for women. Maybe the threat is the removal of tax-breaks and other goodies. After all, the pill for men could potentially affect society as much as every man becoming MGTOW.

    I would be interested in seeing just what gov’t perks that could easily be taken from the industry.

    • AntZ

      I work in the pharmaceutical industry.

      You are more right than you can know. A private form of male birth control will go very far in setting men free from enslavement into the feminist-mandated indentured servitude.

      However, you mis-understand the pharmaceutical industry when you concentrate on “profit margins.” Pharma has all but given up on development of new medications to treat disease, because of fear of litigation. Lifestyle drugs are the only real emphasis now – with the exception of male birth control.

      • Aharon

        I recall that when it was reported about this upcoming pill about one or two years ago, feminists said it should not be released or supported by the health-care since men cannot be relied upon to honestly take the pill. Huh? If anything it is the other way around with women getting “accidentally” pregnant even when using birth control. Men, who are not prepared or want kids can definitely be relied upon to take the pill. The so-called “accidents” are with women. Like probably all or most men, I know of some very suspect cases where most likely the woman sabotaged the birth control to get pregnant. Now, those men are financially supporting an ex-girlfriend and her (not his) child.

        • Don


          The reason feminist hate the idea of a male birth control pill is that it take control away from them and places it into mens hands. Lord forbid.

    • The White Rider

      Would male birth control pill sales outweigh the sales of medicine to or for people born due to “Oops” pregnancies? Perhaps not. This is a possible disincentive.

    • Jimmy K.

      I’m sorry but you are totally wrong on this one. I’ve got some very good news for you:


      • http://huntingforarchetypes.blogspot.com Factory

        Oh hey look, ANOTHER “The Pill for men is 5-7 years away article….

        Been reading these for over 15 years now…

        • Kratch

          that article even acknowledges they were testing back in 1990, so 20 years. But they want to get it absolutely perfect, so no coming out with a 99% one in the meantime, we’re better off having nothing apparently.

    • http://mensrights.reddit.com kloo2yoo

      the male birth control pill is a red herring. It may provide some benefit, but it won’t be an equalizer. If it’s ever released, “concerned” womens groups will immediately tell us how damaging it is to men’s health.

      • Jimmy K.

        It won’t be an equalizer that’s true, but it will give men the possibility of protecting themselves against those women who only want men for their sperm and the allimony afterwards. I think it’s a very good thing.
        Men will not listen to the women groups concerning health issues, because most men don’t think that much about health. Besides, paying allimony is not good for health either :)

    • Midnight Gypsy

      The best male birth control is Masturbation. It never causes unplanned pregnancies, Its never left unsatisfied (sighing beside you in the bed), Won’t give you some STD, and BEST OF ALL it can’t cry RAPE after it’s all over because it changed its mind.

    • Skeptik

      Yes HQR3
      I’ve been thinking and sharing this kind of view for years.
      Imagine in the not too distant future the second half of the sexual revolution is complete and men have their own birth control pill.
      That means an end to women having ALL the reproductive power.
      No more ‘accidental’ pregnancies.
      Men with rock solid assurance that their reproductive capacity can be turned on and off like a tap WHEN THEY WANT.
      If millions of men worldwide went on not just a marriage strike, but a reproductive strike in protest of women’s not being ACTIVELY involved in Men’s Rights Advocacy support work, how long would it take for the less unfair sex to grow more humanitarian?
      Not long I reckon.
      Scientists in Israel have come up with a non hormonal male pill with NO side effects, which is 100% and can be taken as infrequently as every month or even three months.
      The new paradigm will be “Women if you want to fulfill your biological drive to reproduce you’d better climb down of your supremacist pedestal and help out the menfolk, if yo don’t the tap stays turned OFF”
      Don’t kid yourself into thinking that women will be able to rush of to the fertility clinic and get sperm en masse there either. Fertility clinics can’t keep up with demand for sperm as it is.
      Here’s are links to the breakthrough new male birth control pill –



      Views (not all of which I agree with):


      • thehermit

        This is the same like automatic DNA- testing at birth. They will never do it, until men force it. We all know why.

      • Jimmy K.

        “Don’t kid yourself into thinking that women will be able to rush of to the fertility clinic and get sperm en masse there either. Fertility clinics can’t keep up with demand for sperm as it is.”

        If in a feministic society most men are poor, many of them will be willing to donate some sperm for a little money. And if that’s not working, feminism can allways create a new law for it so men are obliged to donate (they control the law).
        I even think there is a scientific breakthrough in making kids only from eggcells. Face it, we’re no longer needed for reproduction.

  • Pingback: Traveling Soldier | Finances, Currency Trading, Credit Cards, News, Articles()

  • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

    It seems Mr. Banning’s article is generating some active interest. It is doing very well.

    • Jimmy K.

      I allready sent the link of this page to a couple of friends. Hopefully this is a wake up call for them. However, I doubt it. But let’s hope so.
      I also mentioned your article in a comment on TED, I hope that’s allright for you. Otherwise I will delete my comment on TED immediately .

    • Skeptik

      I’m glad to hear that.
      I wrote to TED about their feminist gloatfest myself a few days ago but haven’t been back to see if my comments which I’m clear were respectful but firm got ‘moderated’ that is censored by some feminist gatekeeper or other.

      One question I asked was “In an age of rampant female supremacy how’s hypergamy going to work out for you?”

      I mention it here as it seems to distill the issue somewhat to it’s essence.

      by the way, keep up the fine work.
      I’ve enjoyed reading many of our writings a lot recently.

      I often contribute to the MENZ website at –

      Your name comes up there quite often in complimentary terms.

  • Anti Idiocy

    While this essay is fun to read, I don’t see much of it working out.

    For one thing, if more educated women make the most money but are less likely to marry, men aren’t going to get much of a financial boost from alimony. The women with more to pay in alimony won’t by paying any, if they haven’t married. As far as child support, women get it without marrying, but will men? I doubt they’ll be given primary custody much more in the future than they are now, especially if they haven’t married the mother, and without primary custody…

    And as for affirmative action preferential treatment, I don’t see men getting much of that legislated when politicians know that the majority of voters are women, especially when women are far more organized in their own interests than men are. Men won’t organize by drinking beer, watching sports, playing video games and collecting unemployment. Frankly, I don’t think things will turn around on a legal level until such time as politicians deeply fear men.

    In addition, in the past, when men earned the lion’s share of income, they, on the whole, willingly supported women. Women are showing NO desire to do any such thing. In fact, the attitude of women is generally a desire for revenge. To see an example, just watch that Rosin tape again and listen to the audience.

    I wish well to any man who pursues this dream, but I think the opportunity for a soft landing has passed. It’s good to pursue legislative agendas, which do have some little effect, and to engage in consciousness raising off and on the internet, which the UN is planning to control far more in the near future. But at this point, the best one can do for one’s fellow man is to warn him about the dangers of all relationships with women and to CYA.

    It seems to me that we are in the start of a depression, perhaps The Greater Depression. With freshly printed money, central bankers and their flunky politicians have propped up profits of the largest corporations, the stock market, and commodity prices, but they have done nothing to alleviate the fundamental problems in the economy — unemployment, massive debt especially government debt, collapsing home and commercial real estate values, pressures on currencies.

    Economically, we are stumbling into a much worse situation, and that stumble may turn into a collapse if the globalized economy is hit with another major blow, such as a break-up of the Eurozone, where the spreading riots, mostly by men, have been violent for months. Besides, women’s cushy service jobs are disappearing, since they’re largely in the government sector. The federal government may still be expanding with an increasing rate of borrowing, but many state and municipal governments are now employing austerity measures. The cuts in employment will probably continue to hit women more than men, since governments employ far more women than men. (That could change, of course, if women get away with demanding that for every woman laid off a man is laid off. If a government employs 100,000 people, 70% of whom are women and they lay off 20,000 women and 20,000 men, the employment ration will go from 7 women / 3 men to 5 women / 1 man. Don’t be surprised to see women demanding that.)

    Keep up the good work, gents, but don’t expect any handouts from the government or from women. CYA.

  • AntZ

    Is there a way to “opt-out” of society?

    The only way government will become afraid of men is if men start voting with their feet, opting out of a social contract that treats men as beasts of burden at the beck and call of female owners.

    When a few million men dedice to forego society entirely, living “off the map” in some way, the tax base will begin to vanish and THEN uncle sam will take notice.

    • Anti Idiocy

      Is there a way to “opt-out” of society?

      It’s not an all or nothing proposition. You could learn a trade. Know how to landscape and install home irrigation systems? Maybe you could trade your talents with someone who paints houses or is an electrician. And it doesn’t have to be bi-lateral. Such arrangements can be tri-lateral, quadri-lateral, etc.

      Then you don’t pay taxes on the work. And with less paid in taxes the governments, well, let your imagination run wild.

      I’m not recommending this, of course. Nor am I saying that I would ever do such a thing.

    • Pankaj

      Indeed, the only power men have got is their own productivity. There are ways of living “off the map”. There are even think tanks that discuss such ideas for reasons (moral, social and economic) other than ones discussed here. Its not hard to find them on the internet.

      FYI, there is no social contract. If you think there is, please produce a copy of it.

    • Midnight Gypsy

      My own “personal revolution” is based on a movie called “Brewster’s Millions”.

      In every Federal and Provincial election here in Ontario, I make a point of voting. I take my ballot, and carefully print across it “NONE OF THE ABOVE”.

      This FORCES someone to read it AND count it as a ruined ballot.

      If 1 million people don’t vote it is “Poor voter turnout.” If 1 million people vote for “None of the above.” then they have to notice it, AND publish that there were a certain number of ruined ballots.

      My hope is that some future election there will only be the incumbents, and their families voting. The rest will vote for “NONE OF THE ABOVE”

      I would have to think by then somebody may think that possibly the present form of government is no longer working.
      (In my opinion it has NOT been working since the early 1900’s when the bankers took over and staged the Great Depression.)

      • Rad

        You should not have to rely on someone else’s grace like that. Not that they will give a shit anyway.

        No matter what is written in there, your “NONE OF THE ABOVE” write-in gets lumped-in with the same spoiled ballots as Grandma Jenkins who voted for John Diefenbaker, and first-time Bobby who half-filled in the circle for marijuana party and then changed his mind to write-in “Obi-wan”.

        There is no way, statistically speaking, to separate the apathetic from those who disagree with all of the alternatives.

        What should be recognized, in congruence with individual rights, is that not everyone is going to agree with the choices offered to them. So, in any election or any vote on anything, by law, the first selection on the top of every ballot should read “Abstain.”.

        Then, voting no longer is perpetuating a social fraud, and it allows statistics to be gathered to better distinguish the apathetic from the willing. It also provides a platform for disillusioned individuals exist as a group: to actually have an identity, instead of allowing the castrated status quo to jadedly write-off everyone who doesn’t vote as “lazy”, as to afford them the ability to evade the existence of viewpoints that might threaten their comfy “reality”.

        What we need is a motion and movement to advocate “Abstain” and get this amended this into law. Without that, a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” doesn’t accomplish anything besides giving one a sense of self-satisfaction.

        As for the provincial level in Ontario. We have a party worth voting for:


        On the federal level…not so much.

  • Keyster

    Below is a list of famous and influential women economists:

    I aplogise for it being a rather short list.

    I’m claiming my independence from women henceforth, I feel so empowered and even a little sassy. Who needs a wife when you’ve got the life! Meeting some friends later for Pilates class, then a movie and margaritas. WOOOEEEeeee!
    You go guuy!

    • Pankaj

      Not true
      look up

      Anna Scwartz
      Deidra Mccloskey

      • Keyster

        Thank you.
        I add them to my list, assuming I don’t exceed Paul’s allowable storage capacity for this web site.

        • Pankaj

          Well there is good reason for women, especially “feminist empowered” women, not to like economics as a subject. Because economics (at least good economics) tells you that you can’t do anything you want and be whatever you want. It is simple fact of nature – which feminists are busy trying to deny.

      • John A

        Do you mean Deirdre McCloskey? She started out as a man.

        • Pankaj


  • http://saveservices.org/ teri stoddard

    I think you’re wrong when you say women who don’t object to gender feminist laws and policies are agreeing with and supporting them. Just six years ago I was one of those women. I went through my life believing what I read and leading a life that I thought was fair for everyone. They just aren’t reading or hearing the truth. They can’t find it in their magazines or on their TV shows.

    When I address women individually, or even online about the gender bias laws and policies that I’m working on changing, most agree that the laws need to be fair. Most women were duped by feminists, just like I was. We all fell for the line that feminism was the fight for equality.

    Please help me reform domestic violence laws! Next week we have to pull out all the stops to make sure I-VAWA does not get passed. I need all of you to take action, as well as tell others, when the action alerts are posted on this website.

    • Carlos

      I totally agree with this. I’ve been engaging the women in my family on these issues a lot over the last year. They genuinely resisted at first, telling me I had “become radical” and appeared to now “hate women” or that I should spend my time on more important topics. The things I was saying completely contradicted the way they learned to view the world and were very upsetting and uncomfortable for them. Little by little though they have come to appreciate the empress’ new clothing and see the misandry around them. I think most women truly believe that they, as a class, have suffered at the hands of an oppressive patriarchy throughout all of human history. The rhetoric that teaches them this is omnipresent. Once they see the reality for what is though they are disgusted by it and angry. Every woman has a son, father, brother or other male in their life whom the love.

    • AntZ

      God bless you.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      Hi Teri,

      First, as always, thanks for your good work.

      For a few years, during the 80’s, I was ignorantly on board with feminism. I supported them, with the best of intentions, in some overt ways, but mostly with my silence. There is such a thing as guilt by omission. especially when that omission just happens to benefit someone.

      As someone in the mental health field, staying in silent agreement was easy because it got me tons of approval from my peers and others. It was easy to stay blind to the harm being done, and for that I am responsible.

      I know it sounds harsh, but I do think that women collectively have questions to answer, (and so do men), It does not mean I want to paint a target on their heads, but I do think the primary beneficiaries of feminism, as are clearly illustrated in this article, can fairly be expected to be accountable for their omissions and their silence.

      It will not bring the wrath of the world on their shoulders, and it will bring healing to many who have been hurt.

      • Robert Lynch

        I think almost all of us were supportive in the beginning. We did have the best of intentions and no one saw the monster this would become. I remember thinking that men needed to change their ways and vowed never to “be like that”. I tried hard not to look at women as task masters or sex objects. It bit me in the ass hard. I too am guilty of silence, as well as being complacent for a long time.

        • Benjamin

          I am innocent of all these charges.

          I have always looked at women as sex objects. (Unless they’re married to another man, already.)

          However, I am reasonably gentle about it. (No need to thank me, gals. I’m just a great guy… it’s how I was made.)

  • !!SPARTA!!

    Yea, I’m sure that as soon as men start to take advantage of alimony, they’ll get rid of it or change the rules
    They’ll say:
    “Hey, you know that whole alimony problem that the men have been nagging us about about for all of these years? we now understand that it was really bad and as such, we’ll end alimony *for their benefit* because we sometimes don’t show it, but we really do care about men.

    knowing full well that it’s for their own selfish interests.

  • Robert Lynch

    Typical femminists. Don’t bother to get out there and scratch that surface. It’s just a typical narcissistic reaction. Welcome to the age of narcissism!

  • Bill L

    Keep up the good work, Denver. You should consider making this your life’s work. Fixing the damage done by feminists will take several lifetimes. A very noble cause.

  • Bill L

    My favorite book, on this topic: The Myth of Male Power, by William Farrel

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ MasculistMan

      The author is Warren Farrell not William Farrel.

  • Jonathan Mann

    Since women earn more now I believe they should be paying men alimony and that giving special privileges to women in educational admissions should be immediately banned. Its coming closer and closer to the eve of Revolution and when all the unemployed men in this country gain gender consciousness and rise up it will be a spectacular sight to see.

    Get your binoculars ready.

    • Jimmy K.

      “Since women earn more now I believe they should be paying men alimony and that giving special privileges to women in educational admissions should be immediately banned.”

      I fully agree.

      “Its coming closer and closer to the eve of Revolution and when all the unemployed men in this country gain gender consciousness and rise up it will be a spectacular sight to see.”

      I fully disagree. Take a look at it. Where do you see ‘ANY’ organized form of the MRM. Why should all men ‘suddenly’ wake up? The problem is that we as men are ‘negligent’ about this topic. We absolutely need to get organized. The only thing is: it won’t happen I’m afraid. Men are too scared to say they are a MRA because they are afraid they are laughed at by their peers. They are afraid to be considered ‘weak’ by other men. What we need is a shift in attitude. We need to convince other men that it’s not a shame to admit we’re oppressed by women and THAT my friend is (in my humble opinion) the most difficult part of the whole MRA process. To admit that we are getting the lesser of women at this moment. To admit that women control the world. I find it very difficult myself to admit this in public. To be honest I only admit it in the absence of women. After we got this shift in perception/attitude, men WILL get organized. It’s just we have to swallow the bitter pill first. My biggest fear is that either we will not get this shift in attitude/perception or that it will arrive too late.

      • Kratch

        “I fully disagree. Take a look at it. Where do you see ‘ANY’ organized form of the MRM. Why should all men ‘suddenly’ wake up? The problem is that we as men are ‘negligent’ about this topic.”

        The problems are we as men are polarized on the topic. There are still white knights out there eager to protect women’s rights (at any cost). We as a movement also have opposition from feminism. Nether of these things were present in the women’s movement to any degree.. For the large part, most women (and some/most men) agreed with what feminism was (supposedly) trying to accomplish, and there were no well funded and well organized, pre-established organizations actively and openly displaying bigotry trying to stop them. MRM’s have far more hurdles to jump because of this, and so it is far more difficult to accomplish.

        It’s isn’t negligence, it is opposition. We aren’t walking into a situation where we can say, hey, look at all these injustices that exist, we need to fix them… The reason, the injustices that need to be fixed were created by the very people who can fix them, and doing so would be an acknowledgement of their screw ups. Additionally, fixing them would piss off a well funded, well supported pre-existing organization that has actually managed to not only get away with, but actively encourages bigotry. It’s like black people trying to assert themselves in the south were the KKK was prevalent vs Canada, where people were far more open. Except our KKK is world wide and strong, and has government backing rather then having to break the laws to enact their bigotry.

        • D

          It’s not even just negligence, it’s just a long way to go and an uphill battle.
          I think that the MRM itself is likely to bifurcate around those who feel the pull of the strong psycho-cultural anchor towards arguing for a retreat to traditional male/female rolls as a backlash against ascendant feminism, versus those who recognize that as a dying punch and instead organize around a new formulation like the zeta male as a way forward. Success of the movement as a whole probably pivots on how these two strands sort things out, there are ways the can coexist and proceed, but they can also destroy each other. The future isn’t written on this yet.
          Otherwise, men turned off from (or run under by) feminism are most likely to be steered by the culture to any of (1) traditionalism, (2) surrender to white knighthood (3) surrender.

          You have to ask yourself: given a divorced man or a younger man considering marriage but apprehensive about it, or any other man facing any of the challenges befitting of MRM, if his primary media for is CNN and AskMen and any other MSM, what are the odds of him coming across anything that will enlighten him?

          Honest numbers at this stage require, I think, that we say: pretty poor.

          MSM is MSM because MSM has the hump in the middle of the bell curve. Not meaning to advocate right-wing politics but just to make a point (I’m a democrat actually) you have to compete with CNN by being Fox, with the Democrats by being the Tea Party.

          MRM is trying, MRM has a lot in its favor, not least of which is the bankruptcy of all other options available and the substance that is riping in the movement, but there’s a long way to go.

          Rudimentary formations are probably due, but organizational care should be taken to be sure these are seeded and cultivated for long-term strength. That alone may take a little study. Anyone out there with experience building successful movements?

          • Jimmy K.

            “That alone may take a little study. Anyone out there with experience building successful movements?”

            I think MRA best try to contact an existing organization and ask for help (for example SAVE or something like that). They probably have experience and know some pitfalls and things to watch out for.

        • Benjamin

          Men must compete with one another… we are made that way.
          We only co-operate in order to make war, or when we have a firm and reliable covenant of peace and co-operation among us. Those types of peace agreements do not work on a large scale.
          Men’s competing with other men’s households and families is what makes a peaceful society possible.
          We can never hope to achieve male-centric cooperation. It isn’t in the cards. It’s as sensible as those sharks in “Finding Nemo” who agree not to eat fish anymore. “Fish are friends, not food”. That just ain’t gonna last.
          But, we can agree to join forces with one another to destroy (only as far as necessary) any man who works toward female empowerment (i.e. women entering politics, or women becoming free radicals); and especially to destroy the women who enlisted his help.

  • Bill L

    Marriage laws need to be changed. The higher earner should pay child support. If a woman earns more than a man, then the man should get custody of his own children, and the house. His ex-wife should pay for this. She can find somewhere else to live, and pay for that as well. She should be allowed to see the children, one day, on the weekend.

    • AntZ

      FYI there has never been a case of actual legal enforcement of visitation.

      Hence, the correct wording would be “She would be allowed to see the children, one day, on the weekend, if her ex-husband wished to allow it.”

      If anyone has knowledge of a single fine or other sanction by any judge in the world for denying visitation, I would like to hear of it.

      Naturally, if a man fails to pay child support, he is immediately imprisoned. Even if failure to pay occurs as a result of loss of job.

      • Josh

        Are you sure they don’t enforce visitation when the father has the children and it’s the mother who is visiting?

  • Bill L

    Marriage law, and alimony should give a man his own children, even if he did not marry her. A lack of a piece of paper should not allow a woman to evade her financial responsibilities.

    And marriage or common-law splits should be able to be done quickly. A man should be able to get a hearing, within 1 month. If he can prove she earns more than he, then he should automatically get custody of the children, and her money.

    The hearing should take only a few hours. Personally, I don’t like to see people suffer in bad marriages. Marriage should be easy to get out of. However, a woman should not be able to out of her alimony. The man should automatically be granted the children, and alimony, if he earns less than her.

  • Bill L

    Men should be given 50% of all seats, in post-secondary education facilities, including all universities and colleges and various schools, by law.

  • Bill L

    Women who fail to pay alimony to her ex-husband, should be jailed briefly, the allowed to go back to work, to pay her bills. If she refuses to pay again, she should serve a minimum of 1 year in jail, and then allowed to resume her job, to continue paying alimony.

  • rebtus

    The picture on Time’s cover and caption “Who Needs a Husbands” is prophetic,
    Headline from today’s newspaper. Link

    Census: Fewer than 10 percent of city households are nuclear families

  • john

    get rid of women only govt programs….why is affirmative action still here??…men stop voting democrat. Its where all the feminists live and thrive.

    • AntZ

      Very complicated.

      Democrats openly support women because all social programs are targetted at women. However, sometimes social support “accidentally” ends up in the hands of a man.

      Republicans openly support Alpha males only, the top earners and power brokers of government and business. Since the Alpha males “manginas” who get their legitimacy by wielding the bloody sword of feminism, Republican support essentially ends up in the hands of women also.

      The reality, the only political party that supports men is the Libertarian party. Which does not count.

      • Jimmy K.

        Maybe you should contact them and say there’s a potential group of voters they can reach out for. They probably won’t do it cause they fear losing their women voters but someone can try to ask them.

      • Benjamin


        I have been opposing your posts all day, today.

        But, the last couple have been really good.

        This one was A-ok.

        Good work, señor.

  • D

    Slow Sunday morning, the boys have been wrestling and near-but-not-quite-fighting since they woke up, it hangs just on the edge of a fight, but at almost all times has teetered towards the laughing and great fun, but largely on account of the acute radar dad has for just that point where it can go the other way and without interrupting his own activities, he says in a slightly raised voice, “guys, take it down a notch” (or some such), and it comes down a notch, the boys don’t miss a beat, and good fun continues by all. After several hours, they are tired and without fanfare sit down with computer games, which they play together, and not really for too long, and in balance against wrastling all morning.

    Being a good dad does not exactly “come natural”, it takes some degree of preparation. You need minimal, cut critical training or guidance, and you need many years, ideally a lifetime, absorbed with the idea that “if there is just one thing you get right in life, this is it and it’s the most important thing you do”, and then those two things need to connect with your natural nature as a man.

    It’s worth an article, maybe even a book, not just a comment, but I think it’s a worthwhile hypothesis that much of boys seeming failure in society has to do with the fact that: (1) rising industrialism and capitalism (2) women (3) the judiciary in concert with women … have all disenfranchised fathers from their natural, anthropological, biological role raising boys – a role very well defended by Daniel Asmeus in The Case for Father Custody (albeit, along with a rear-guard apologia for going back to traditional male/female roles that has as much hope of success as a socialist hippie commune).

    A few simple ideas: boys and girls education is probably best for boys when they are educated separately from girls. Much data seems to support this. Additionally, while female teachers are definitely good in the mix, 1/2 or more teachers should probably be men. Co-ed programs and educational activities can co-exist with single-gender programs, and in a right ratio that would be healthy for everyone, but the core academics should be separate.

    One reason to militate for this politically is that it actually is possible – if only as an educational option if not for universal education. Much of the social change we’d like may be impossible or just too far off. Separate education for boys and girls would simultaneously close the widening academic gap between girls and boys and also between minorities and whites and Asians.

    Beyond that though – arguably zeta-maleship should focus on re-asserting the male’s role in raising children, all children, but especially boys. Grown men have a biological role dictated by eons of evolution: raise boys to form them into adult men. After 4-7 years with mom, they went hunting or to the carpenter’s shop with dad, 7-11 years later, they were ready for adulthood. We need to fight back to re-establish this ironclad expectation of family formation.

    Boys will rise to challenge when men lay challenges out in front of them and patiently, compassionately but firmly show them the way.

    I do not wish to impugn women as a whole by saying that they would as a whole react badly or incompetently to my sons who, this morning, were just expressing their energy and being boys, but I know my ex-wife: her response was to seek out psychiatrists who were willing to drug them into submission with the most powerful drugs you can imagine (way behind Ritalin). It’s hard not to suspect that much of the impetus around drugging boys to acceptable behavior is the absence in their (often female) caretakers of a sense of equanimity in response to apparent chaos, an equanimity that lets the holder of the equanimity remain calm and confident, because nothings really wrong, these are just boys, being boys, and in the presence of a confident adult male, they will be completely fine, in fact they will be better for it.

  • D

    “To remain attached to the stories that fill a boy’s dreams is not perculiar or immature: it’s a way to get things done.”

    Let boys dream dreams again as boys once did.
    Let men teach boys to achieve those dreams.

    Let Rosen and her ilk talk.

  • Bill L

    Denver, you should omit the reference to shotguns.

  • http://www.myspace.com/7558749 Michael Ejercito

    Here is a simple fact.

    For women to violate a man’s rights, they need a government.

    The reverse is not true.

    • Benjamin

      Dear Michael,


      Women who murder men in their sleep never needed a government.

      Secondly, women don’t have the “rights” that you’re referencing. We ought to be calling them women’s wrongs, not women’s rights.

      Equality is not only unachievable, it’s wrong in the first place.

      One thing you have successfully pointed out, though, is that the natural point of balance, in man->woman relationships, is not one of equality.

      As I have said to folks for many years: Marriage is not a two-way street. It is two one-way streets.

      However, I do think that we ought to promulgate a slogan in the MRM movement, “Rape is a two-way street.”

  • Pingback: Hanna Rosin on the rise of women (TED talks) | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception()

  • http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com red0660

    Now is the moment of truth. Women never wanted equality. As Ms. Rosin said they want “the end of men”. The conflict and consequences are only now just begining. Men must find liberation and independence in this new order. Men should have nothing to do with women’s families!

  • Elder Swami

    This is arrogance at its worst. I think thugtitian said it right when he said “for a woman to say they don’t need men is like a young child who has been given an allowance and her own room saying that she no longer needs her parents”

  • http://www.maskedwriter.com Masked Writer

    Well, it’s finally here. Women have declared their victory over men, but most men haven’t the faintest idea that they were in any war at all that would require an open declaration of Feminazi victory. How men let the man-hater women gain control of our educational institutions, news media, family structure, and government will baffle historians a thousand years from now. There is one idea that offers a little hope. That idea is that history repeats itself. Women have dominated societies in the past such as the Sauromatae, Amazons, Iroquois and others, but eventually the men rebelled against their respective man-hater matriarchies and found freedom. As history repeats itself, male rebellion against matriarchal oppression will also be repeated. Let’s not let the new man-hater elites take us to new levels of economic and psychological oppression. Let’s all recruit as many men as possible to join the war against the Feminazi man-haters now before it gets even worse!

    Also, let’s all take a moment to remember some of the most oppressed men in the world such as the Hopi men who are only allowed to take their clothing and personal belongings when their women decide to divorce them and make them leave the house. From the beginning of any relationship between Hopi men and Hopi women, everything belongs to the Hopi women, even the children, Hopi men have the least amount of rights to property and to their own children of men anywhere.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      Fascinating. Do you have some sources on this?

    • Jimmy K.

      Yes I would like to have some evidence too. It sounds interesting.

  • http://www.the-spearhead.com/masculinismoenlinea/ Daniel Martínez

    This article surprises me for two reasons:
    1) how stupid feminist women can be
    2) how many women are feminist in america

    Conclusion, a country in wich half of the population is so stupid is doomed. Specially if you consider that the other half wants to protect the stupid half.

    • Jimmy K.

      ‘Conclusion, a country in wich half of the population is so stupid is doomed. Specially if you consider that the other half wants to protect the stupid half.’

      Which is even more stupid I’m afraid :-(

    • thehermit

      “Conclusion, a country in wich half of the population is so stupid is doomed.”

      Remove the fathers from the family for a decade or two, and that’s what happens.

  • VB

    I am a woman and a feminist. Please do not tell me what women want. I will tell you what women want: they want to have a freedom of choice, whether it is to be educated or not, to get married or not, to have kids or not and to work or not, period.

    If you follow Denver Banning’s logic, women should not work – this would be stealing jobs from men. They should get married young, have as many babies as possible, and take care of their working husbands – after all, he would be in charge of family’s finances since he makes all the money. He can also practice beating her in his free time since she will no choice but to stay with anyway – she has no skills or value of her own.
    And women should not even be educated – maybe some reading and writing to get groceries, but very basic – after all a woman’s duty is to have babies, to keep her husband happy so he does not leave her and keep her marriage strong.
    Wait a second, doesn’t it remind you of something? Oh yeah, Iran! This is the country where there is no feminism and the rank of women is reduced not even to a dog – a dog obviously has a higher status in the society – to an object that must have an owner, and this owner is a man. Is this the society you want to live in? Is this the society you want your daughters to be brought up and your mothers to survive in? If your answer is “yes” I sincerely congratulate you – now pack your bags and go to Iran or United Arab Emirates because you will definitely fit in, just like in many other countries where women are treated like dirt.

    Women, even feminists, do not want men rights, jobs or education to be taken away. And if a man wants a woman to be below him, he is not a man because a real man is not afraid to lose his masculinity – he knows it is impossible. Men will always be stronger than women, period.

    Evolution made men and women co-dependable. We are like two eyes – you need both to see. We are like two legs – you need both to walk. There is no such thing as victory over men, the title of his article is misleading. We are not at war. We need to work together to make this world better for ALL OF US.

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      Please do not tell me what women want. I will tell you what women want:

      First thing first. If you intent is to get anyone here to actually listen to anything you have to say, coming off like an instructive bitch will not get the job done. Just food for thought. No one on this site is getting lectured to by you.

      Second. The rest of your post was a very lame version of the same old very lame bullshit explanations of what feminism is “about” that has been floating around in the heads of the pathetically ill informed and gullible for fifty years.

      Except for one thing you managed to get right:

      they want to have a freedom of choice, whether it is to be educated or not, to get married or not, to have kids or not and to work or not, period.

      Of course they do princess, and of course women having all those choices mean that men have to stand by ready to fill in the gap for the choices that don’t involve work or education. So you want to be a bread winner, or you want to be a leech, but either way, men must support it.

      You are an opportunistic whore who wants it all.

      Fine by me. If you want to be a parasite living off the work of men, then go for it. You want to work, go for it- I don’t care. But if someone told you expect me or anyone else here to tolerate your condescending drivel about relationships between men and women, they lied to you.

      And so let me put it this way. You don’t tell me what feminists want, I tell you what feminists want. And just like you, the rest of them want the same thing; all the choices in the world and none of the responsibility that comes with any of it. You are social and governmental leeches, terminally burdening the culture around you with a sense of entitlement.

      And as we watch your miserable lot whining your way to the top of a dying culture, most of us with real educations will be laughing our asses off when it collapses beneath your dead, useless weight.

      We are at war, bitch. It has been going on for fifty years, right in front of your smug, blind, narcissistic eyes. The only difference now is that men are starting to wake up and fight back.

      Deal with it.

      • http://men-factor.blogspot.com The ScareCrow formerly known as Richard


        KEEP IT UP!!!!

        I LOVE IT!

    • AntZ

      Hello, VB. Welcome to a place where men come to discuss their experiences and possible solutions to their problems.

      If you are an evil/vile person, then I have nothing to say to you.
      If you are a good person, I have a proposal for you. Choose your favourite feminist forum, it does not matter which one it is. Choose one of the following sexist anti-male policies that hurt both men AND women, and ask the powerful, politically connected feminist lobby to support the men’s rights movement to seek a solution.

      1) The majority of commercial airlines prohibit all men (but not women) from sitting next to unaccompanied minors — some airlines (Quantas, BA, Air New Zealand) do so openly. The reason given for the sexist policy is to prevent child abuse. Since there has never been a case of in-flight child abuse, the policy addresses a non-existent issue. Also, targeting any class of people for “collective guilt” is morally repugnant, and would never be permitted for any group other than men (can you imagine the uproar if airlines asked people of middle eastern descent to sit in the back of the aircraft, to prevent terrorism?).

      2) The newest anti-domestic violence campaign features posters of goon-looking boys in gang-like attire, and suggests that fathers “teach your boys young and teach them often, that violence against women is never justified.” The sexist hate-campaign against boys is justified by justified by the feminist toady Christopher Kilmartin because “while the vast majority of men are not violent, the vast majority of violent people are men.” The anti-boy hate campaign targets 5-7 year old boys who are just beginning to read, and who cannot possibly understand the subtle difference between individual guilt and collective responsibility that Dr. Kilmartin puts forth.

      Both campaigns hurt men and boys directly, by criminalizing the male gender itself.

      Both campaigns hurt women indirectly, by describing all men as “depraved predators” who cannot be trusted around vulnerable people. As millions of men withdraw from nurturing roles such as father, husband, and caretaker, women are forced to bear the majority of these (mostly unpaid) work — causing millions of capable women to drop off of the ladder of success due to exhaustion.

      Feminists support these policies, despite the collateral damage to women, because they know that the more hot air that they blow into their make believe “depraved predator” male construct, the more financial resources, political resources, and institutional resources are made available to them.

      Feminists have long ago betrayed women, by declaring a gender-cidal war against all men, because this war increases their power.

      If you do not believe me, check for yourself. Post a comment on any feminist site, asking for support in ending these policies that hurt both women and men.

      Unlike “AFfM”, you will not simply be ridiculed and laughed at. You will 100% of the time every single case, be expelled from the site. When it comes to diss3enting opinions, feminists have the same opinion as Kim Jong Il.

    • Benjamin

      Hi, VB!

      And, welcome. :-)

      In response to your request for teaching…
      Yes, that is exactly the kind of society I want to live in, and the kind I want my 3 daughters to live in.

      By the way, you silly girl, have you ever seen how men treat their dogs? We love dogs, and treat them very well! Women would do themselves a favor, to learn how good it can be for those who (like dogs) team up with a man! Look at any hunter and his dogs. They really love each other, and have a wonderful time together! And, by working together, they all get plenty to eat!

      Are there any bad dog-owners? Yes, there are a few. But, that is where your analogy breaks down. You see, dogs are on their own in this world. But, young women have the advantage of belonging to a man who loves them (their father). And, he (with a few loving words from the mother, most likely) will not want his daughters to go to a bad guy. Plus, unlike women, fathers are very able to discern whether a gentleman caller is a bad guy… right up-front.

      I’ll repeat what I’ve often written. Yes, Islam is 30 degrees off course (to the right), when it comes to man->woman relationships. However, the West is 120 degrees off course, to the left.

      Lastly, do not try to tell any of us what a “real man” would do. No woman has any idea what a real man is, nor what he would do. Women are good at detecting and identifying real men… but they have no comprehension of what they are made of, what makes them tic, nor how they decide things.

      Remember, we are everything that you are, and then some. You are a lot like us… and we really like you very much (and we like our dogs, too)… but you lack part of the genome, lovey. You are literally man-minus. But, that doesn’t have any bearing on how much we love you. I love my girls more than life. More than anything else, besides my Elohim, and my son. But, I am not kidding myself. They are adorable bearers of a portion of the code for humanity. But, my son has it all.

  • thehermit

    “Wait a second, doesn’t it remind you of something? Oh yeah, Iran! This is the country where there is no feminism and the rank of women is reduced not even to a dog – a dog obviously has a higher status in the society – to an object that must have an owner, and this owner is a man.”

    You know nothing about Iran, do you.
    Iran has feminism, perhaps not the western type- and 66% of the students on universities are female.

    • thehermit

      Also they have a skyrocketing divorce rate.

    • Pankaj

      Isn’t it always so amusing that people talk of foreign culture as though they know everything going on “over there” and how horrible it is for women?

      Crazy foreigners.. always changing reality to falsify the CORRECT perceptions of those in the “free world”. Them Commies are always up to no good. Wait.. let me resync that – Them Islamists are always up to no good.

  • VB

    Dear AntZ,

    Thank you for giving me an option to be a good person. As for anti-domestic violence campaign posters and the airplane seating rules, yes, those are certainly not right and discriminatory. If there is a petition that I could sigh – I will gladly do it. However, those are tiny drops in the bucket compared to domestic violence cases in Africa, discrimination against women in some Muslim countries (sorry to bring up religion) and even some Asian countries. We do not need to go far to see what is happening in the States, where 85% of domestic violence victims are women. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003). I am sorry I am in the wrong place – I feel like an African American at a KKK convention, however, I believe you should hear the other side. We are in it together. We should not be at war, we should help each other and start by building a bridge towards mutual understanding.

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      Get the shit of your head and look into research on IPV that isn’t filtered by police bias.


    • Pankaj

      You believe that folks here haven’t heard the other side? LOL! Probably heard too much of it, hence can’t tolerate any more of it.

      Stick around, but only if you drop that arrogance of making such assumptions.

    • AntZ

      Dear VB,

      I apologize if I sounded condescending, that was not my intent.

      For most of my adult life, I have been what is known in the MRM as a “mangina”, a man who acted as an enforcer of anti-male feminist hate. My mother is a woman’s rights professional who is paid to jet around the world giving opinions on feminist issues. She is a horribly abusing mother who had three of her four children raped by older women when we were 11, 12, and 13 years old, because we were not acting “manly” enough. She shares the common feminist vision of all men as “depraved predators”, and when her four male children refused to validate that vision, she tried to have us indoctrinated into our proper role as vile and simplistic cavemen.

      For the first 40 years of my life, as a result of this and hundreds of other acts of abuse, I tried to make myself the perfect feminist paragon of the genetically evil male who is reformed by feminism into a harmless and subservient toadie. This all changed when I found myself denigrating my six year old son for being born male in response to New York’s new anti-DV campaign, which targets 5-7 year old boys.

      I went to Feminist sites for help, and was rejected and reviled by every single one. The first place that I found help was “Pelle Billing dot com”, who was kind enough to run a story on the feminist hate campaign. If you want to see the story, google “pelle billing misandry ny”.

      I have never looked back. Now with open eyes, I see feminism for the hate-fuelled gendercidal force that it is.

      Feminism derives its POWER from the public perception of men as depraved predators. This perception leads to financial resources, political resources, and institutional resources for feminist hate-mongers.

      You point out many problems faced by women around the world, which I accept. I point out many problems faced by men around the world, which I think you accept.

      The “bridge” that is missing is the realization that feminism is NOT the solution to either of those sets of problems.

      Feminism is an institution that serves nothing but itself.

  • VB

    Dear AntZ,

    I am sorry about your mom. It is horrible enough to have a monster like that for a mother, but to endure it for so long and to carry this cross for the rest of your life – it is an impossible task, for any human being, whether it is a woman or a man.

    I agree, there are some radical feminists. I did not meet any of them (thank God) but I assume they must exist. They give feminism a bad name. Feminism should be all about “different but equal”. I am talking about having the same rights.

    Do I believe that women are superior to men? Hell no. In fact, I think that there in some ways men are more adapt to the environment then women are. That’s why women could never compete with men in orienteering or even soccer. However, I must admit that our brains are wired differently and we are quite distinct not only physically but psychologically as well. Either way, we are the same species. But let me ask you this: if tomorrow you have a nuclear war with, let’s say, North Korea, will you still consider women as your enemies or will you treat them as your allies in this war? National loyalty comes before gender differences, I assume.

    I wish you luck in your endeavors: seek and you shall find justice. Do not be dismayed by circumstances – you are fighting for the right cause.

    But please believe me – for every feminist who gives this movement a bad name there is a genuinely concerned citizen, and it could be a man too – to cast his or her voice in support of what humanity holds dear to us all – helping a fellow citizen whose rights have been stripped away, whose status was reduced to near zero and whose voice will never be heard.

    In the war between sexes there will be no winners – we all will lose, especially children. Not all women are men-haters. Not all feminists are created equal. In fact, most women I know actually like men and enjoy their company (me included). I also believe that not all men view women as their enemies.

    I am going to leave this board because I got here by mistake (obviously). Here goes my superior spatial orientation skill! But I enjoyed reading your posts, because you have shown me your gentle side and it is gentleness that makes men so appealing. Enjoy your day and good luck once more!

    • http://avoiceformen.com Paul Elam

      I am going to leave this board because I got here by mistake (obviously). Here goes my superior spatial orientation skill! But I enjoyed reading your posts, because you have shown me your gentle side and it is gentleness that makes men so appealing. Enjoy your day and good luck once more!

      Translation- I finally figured out my bullshit was transparent in a place like this. Oops! Time to go! But here is a little reward for you for being a “good” man that behaves himself like a woman wants him to.

      AVfM Editorial Reply: FOAD

    • Benjamin


      Hi again! :-)

      No, my petite princess, if a war breaks out with North Korea, I will not consider women to be my enemies, nor my allies. I will consider women to be my helpers.

      You’re right, we’re all in this together. The men are the captains of each ship. The women are members of the crew. Some bigger ships even have other men on the crew, too (not sexually, don’t get me wrong.)

      But, each man is an actor in this world, and he leads a company of zero or more children, and zero or more women, and zero or more hired men. Women are not our allies. They are our helpers. Or else, some of them can be our enemies, for a few moments before we destroy them or leave them to be destroyed in their own lonely lack.

      Team up, VB. Sign up for a good man’s team, and then help him happily (exactly in the way you described in your post from earlier today). Prove to him that you’ll be worth protecting when the rit hits the shan.

      You’ll be glad you did! :-)

  • Primal

    Is this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoNmQX09rX0 our future? Someone needs to go in for the kill. Whining won’t do. There were and there will be more ugly alpha hyenas like Hanna Rosin. The best lion we have so far is lionESS Christina Hoff Sommers. As you can see from the second vid, the lionesses can’t get the job done. We need some masculine LIONS who know how to FOCUS.

  • http://latoyabridges.co.cc/ Latoya Bridges

    Dear AntZ, I am sorry about your mom. It is horrible enough to have a monster like that for a mother, but to endure it for so long and to carry this cross for the rest of your life – it is an impossible task, for any human being, whether it is a woman or a man. I agree, there are some radical feminists. I did not meet any of them (thank God) but I assume they must exist. They give feminism a bad name. Feminism should be all about “different but equal”. I am talking about having the same rights. Do I believe that women are superior to men? Hell no. In fact, I think that there in some ways men are more adapt to the environment then women are. That’s why women could never compete with men in orienteering or even soccer. However, I must admit that our brains are wired differently and we are quite distinct not only physically but psychologically as well. Either way, we are the same species. But let me ask you this: if tomorrow you have a nuclear war with, let’s say, North Korea, will you still consider women as your enemies or will you treat them as your allies in this war? National loyalty comes before gender differences, I assume. I wish you luck in your endeavors: seek and you shall find justice. Do not be dismayed by circumstances – you are fighting for the right cause. But please believe me – for every feminist who gives this movement a bad name there is a genuinely concerned citizen, and it could be a man too – to cast his or her voice in support of what humanity holds dear to us all – helping a fellow citizen whose rights have been stripped away, whose status was reduced to near zero and whose voice will never be heard. In the war between sexes there will be no winners – we all will lose, especially children. Not all women are men-haters. Not all feminists are created equal. In fact, most women I know actually like men and enjoy their company (me included). I also believe that not all men view women as their enemies. I am going to leave this board because I got here by mistake (obviously). Here goes my superior spatial orientation skill! But I enjoyed reading your posts, because you have shown me your gentle side and it is gentleness that makes men so appealing. Enjoy your day and good luck once more!

    • Pankaj

      “But let me ask you this: if tomorrow you have a nuclear war with, let’s say, North Korea, will you still consider women as your enemies or will you treat them as your allies in this war?”
      My answer: Feminists = Enemies! As a man, I have renounced all national loyalty too. Let them all perish, I am not fighting in any wars in any way.


    “National loyalty comes before gender differences, I assume.”


  • XYChromatic

    I suppose what Angry Harry said is true: Women’s brains are more malleable. Put women in positions of power and the elite can control the masses.

    Furthermore, if women were alwasy so smart and intelligent and as strong as feminists would have you believe, then they would have never been “oppressed” in the first place. Women, as a collective, would have nipped that in the bud as soon as the first early man decided what was best for his family unit, and women would have worked together WITH men to build the world in which we currently reside.

    To quote John the Other, “women never were, are not, and never will be equal to men.” Let them continue to elevate themselves in this consumer/serviced based economy. The end result is that we will no longer have an economy or, rather, an economy with severe dysentary. And everyone knows how men react when faced with impending doom.

    And as far as men not being able to focus, that’s complete and utter bullshit. Just look at the modern advances we have. All created and fostered by men. Hanna believes, by extension of her words, that her own sons and husband are idiots. Go figure.

    To all MRAs and MGTOW: don’t bother helping women. The government is their new husband, boyfriend, lover, and protector. We as men are no longer obligated to protect or love them.

    And that frees up much needed time and resources to get ourselves in order.

  • Sasha

    Anyone sounding the alarm on the current state of society is going to come off like the kind of survivalist loon who buys himself a bunker in Nebraska, or simply the kind of awkward customer who mutters to himself and even the barman’s sick of listening to.

    Nevertheless, I’d ask everyone who’s read this article to put aside 45 minutes, and watch this video of a 2008 UC Berkeley lecture by Elizabeth Warren entitled ‘The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class’.


    Some additional commentary here:


    Those are the facts, and here’s how I (backed by the IMF and World Bank frankly – this is a pretty mainstream outlook) believe things will play out over the next ten years.

    Wages will stagnate, falling in most western societies by 7-8% of current levels. The cost of housing will rise, but no more than 10% of current levels. Any meagre growth in the global economy will be more than offset by lack of consumer spending, as households scramble to reduce their chronic debt burden.

    It’s a very complex picture (certain exceptions too: Germany’s economy continues to thrive, Australia’s dependence on extractive industries could go either way, depending on whether China can find a way to control a soft landing etc. etc.).

    So now let’s throw into that the facts that denverban and Hanna Rosin raise about the continued social changes caused by what we’ll call the ‘rise of women’ for want of a better term.

    What you’re left with – and anyone trying to predict where society’s going based on current trends is pretty brave, but here goes – is an extraordinarily bleak and difficult picture by any measure.

    The fact is that – for most people – a lasting pair-bond, a marriage – hasn’t just been a ‘nice to have’ – it has been absolutely essential IF you want to have a lifestyle that can in some way cling to ‘middle-class’ and if you want to have children, which most people do.

    And for the last 40 years it’s imploded.

    What’s extraordinary is that women – and it IS women, it just IS – haven’t understood and don’t seem to understand that collective impact and consequences of what they’re doing. The rising rate of divorce isn’t just a side issue, as policy-makers and the public seem to believe, the disenfranchisement of men isn’t just an adjunct social cost, it’s an absolute catastrophe for our economy and well-being.

    It is no exaggeration to say that the bankrupt and bereft state of Greece in 2012 is, on current trends, absolutely inevitably the destiny of a dozen more economies by 2024-2028. If the US and UK aren’t there by the earlier date I’d be amazed.

    In my job I regularly socialise and work with mid-level and senior policy-makers in government departments and think-tanks in both Canberra, London and – slightly less frequently – Washington. I cannot emphasise enough the sheer alarm with which seasoned observers view current economic and social trends. Desperation would not even begin to cover it. The panic with which they are searching for policy solutions is boundless, and when I speak to them it is quite clear that they haven’t a clue – not a clue! – what the issues are. Everyone else is just looking the other way.

    It’s quite unbelievable. The other week I was having drinks at a US election party in London and talking to two young men from the State Department. Their response to some of the above was to nod solemnly and say ‘yep, the President’s got a tough task ahead in strengthening the social contract’.

    Social fucking contract? What’s a social fucking contract? Has anyone ever seen a ‘social fucking contract’? Christ it was lucky there was a free bar.

    The hard fact is that I’m no better than the rest of them. It’s all a fucking game on the carousel. There is something that prevents us seriously discussing the long-term consequences of our current way of life. It is by any measure simply unsustainable.

    And what it comes down to, I’m more and more convinced, is the invisibility of ‘men’. Mens issues, what men want, what men do, what choices they make – never, never factor into any equation. Yet in the real world what men want matters. You will simply never find a report, any research whatsover from any body of any kind, into how men are living their lives – if there is I simply can’t find it. I asked a leading pollster about this once, and he paused and thought for a second and then straight out told me ‘that’s not necessary, men aren’t a group, they’re not the same, I can’t see how that would be useful’.

    Doesn’t anyone ever wonder about this? Is it just me? And any triumphalism from MRAs about what will be the mother of all readjustments to come – and it will come, it will – is totally misplaced. Womens wants – their need to ‘have it all’, their blind addiction to their feelings, their selfish rebalancing of society to their needs – will entail a very harsh and difficult future for millions of us.