Twitter Flickr

#YesAllWomen is Complete Nonsense

In the last few days, ever since Elliot Rodger’s killing spree in California, media has been absolutely buzzing with hysterical propaganda against guns, men, and white people. Should you happen to be a white male gun owner, you might well be Satan himself according to some of these people. I’m torn between laughing at it, and hiding under my bed. On the one hand, the information is just so blatantly false that one is tempted to simply ridicule the people spewing it, on the other, it is a very real threat to my safety.

So far I’ve focused on the gun control aspect of it, because that’s generally the go to after any shooting. It was a pretty good bet, because predictably this was pinned to the NRA by many. It matters not to them, that half the killings were carried out with a knife, several injuries were caused by a vehicle, and the shooting took place in California where guns are all but outlawed. When have facts ever been a part of the gun grabber’s argument?

The more disturbing trend is one I’ve also been combating on my blog for some time. Radical feminists and “anti-racists” who demonize men and white people. Many libertarians thought I was crazy for battling back and forth with the likes of Antonio Buehler and Cathy Reisenwitz, but I sincerely hope the recent frenzy shows you why I’ve taken these problems so seriously.

I was shocked and terrified to hear Elizabeth Plank say “This is a white male thing” on MSNBC, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger was half Asian.

#YesAllWomen Is Complete Nonsense

#YesAllWomen Is Complete Nonsense

The discussion of Elliot Rodger’s killing spree is now revolving around “misogyny” and led to the hashtag #YesAllWomen trending on twitter. Now, there’s no question that Rodger had serious issues with women. He was a 22 year old virgin, and if you watch his YouTube channel you can understand why. He is said to have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at a young age, he was very socially awkward, and he was not masculine in his appearance or mannerisms.

I think it’s worth pointing out, that Elliot Rodger said rather specifically in his manifesto, “If only one pretty girl had shown some form of attraction to me, the Day of Retribution would never happen.” He also bragged about having $300 sunglasses. I can think of one way Elliot Rodger might have gotten more than one pretty girl to show some form of attraction to him, for the price of a pair of those sunglasses, and that’s legalized prostitution. Feminists who drive so much of the policy agenda in the world however are split on that issue, and as with so many things pertaining to the State, the people who favor more laws tend to win.

Just like the gun control fanatics focus on guns with absolute blindness to the absurdity of their case, so do the radical feminists focus on “misogyny”. Never mind the fact that Rodger actually killed twice as many men as he did women. The #YesAllWomen hashtag claims that all women live in fear of violence from men, feeding into this insane narrative of an over looming, “patriarchy” victimizing and oppressing all women. To them, Elliot Rodger is just one example of this horrific life that women must suffer through at the hands of their male abusers.

Now, it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world. Be it by nature or nurture, this is how we’ve turned out, and for better or worse this is the situation that we’re in. If you ask me, the effort to change this by encouraging men to behave more like women is how you get guys like Elliot Rodger. He was an effeminate guy who considered himself the “perfect gentleman”. Women predictably didn’t find this attractive at all, the strategy failed miserably, and it drove him out of his mind. This kind of social engineering is unnatural and destructive and easy to predict. In any case, the fact that men do most of the violence in society has upsides and downsides for women.

On the upside, it means that the necessary violence in the world can take place without their participation. Men, traditionally have served as the defenders of women. Regular readers of my blog know that I am not shy about discussing defensive force, but I deplore violence and seek not to engage in it. Still, for better or worse, I have a certain instinctual tendency to rescue the “damsel in distress”and use of force in that scenario is on the list of options. I don’t suspect that I am alone in this. If a woman is being harassed or attacked in a bar for example, it is far from unheard of for other men to intervene, even resulting in physical violence between the two men while the woman walks away to safety. The merits of this are arguable, but I imagine this is quite common. Generally this instinct is different between males, who see each other as being responsible for their own defense.

On the downside, this means women are largely defenseless, especially in places with strict gun control laws. If violence is a foreign and scary thing to you, then when someone wants to do violence against you, defense does not come naturally. People, men and women, sometimes use violence to take what they want from other people. Sometimes it is money, or cars, or other scarce resources. Women are in the unique position that they have exclusive access to something nearly all men want, often above all other things, the price of which can vary dramatically. That some would take it by force should hardly come as a surprise to anybody, and as unfortunate as that may be, it is not unique to women.

However, this narrative that women are somehow disproportionately effected by violence from men is pure nonsense. The fact of the matter is, men are far more likely to do violence to other men, than to women.

According to the US Census Bureau, men are more than three times as likely to be murdered than women.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, men are consistently more likely to be victims of any violent crime, at a rate of 29.1 for men to 23.3 for women, and for serious violent crime the rate is 10.2 for men, to 9.9 for women.

If you don’t exclude prison from the equation, men are raped more often than women in the United States.

The numbers change when we talk about domestic violence situations, but only slightly.

Women commit more than 40% of domestic violence crimes reported in the UK.
For every 100 men who kill their wives, 75 women kill their husbands.

We can bet that the numbers are actually higher than this, because society doesn’t much care when women do violence to men. Just look at this video of how a crowd reacts when a man puts his hands on a woman, compared to how they react when the woman does far more violence to the man. People intervene when the man touches the woman, but laugh when the woman strikes the man.

When it comes to government oppression, the numbers are absolutely terrifying for men.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, men are more than ten times as likely to go to prison than women in the United States. People will point out that men commit more crimes than women, but not at a ratio of 10:1. According to the FBI, men are roughly three times more likely to be arrested for a crime, but ten times more likely to go to prison for it. According to a 2011 Study by the University of San Fransisco, women guilty of capital murder are far less likely than men to be sentenced to death, and defendants who kill women are far more likely to be sentenced to death than defendants who kill men.

In war, men do most of the fighting, so it makes sense that they take most of the combat casualties. But did you know that men also make up a disproportionate number of civilian fatalities in war? Gender stereotypes that equate a human’s sex with its specific role in combat can result in viewing all men as potential combatants, while rarely ever questioning women’s placement in the category of civilians.

With all this in mind, what exactly is it that you feminists are freaking out about? The fact of the matter is, you’re safer than you have ever been. You’re far safer than men will ever be, and for the most part we’re actually pretty okay with this. Why are you trying to redefine rape? Why are you demonizing we who protect you? Why are you so offended that we are organizing to protect ourselves from your legislative and social engineering agendas? Why all this focus on the Men’s Rights Movement?

I’m a contributor to A Voice for Men, one of the most recognized outlets for Men’s Rights Activists (MRA’s). You accuse us of “misogyny”, but you do not link to any specific incidents. You do not quote anything from our publication. You make non-specific references to forum posts by unknown persons in unknown places. Like all of this gender hysteria that you feminists are drumming up, there’s absolutely no basis in reality for these allegations. There’s certainly nobody from this publication advocating violence against women, even as women increasingly call for government violence against us. If we were calling for violence, we certainly wouldn’t have Stefan Molyneux as a featured speaker at our upcoming conference in Detroit.

Elliot Rodger was a killer. Unjustifiable initiatory violence was the issue, and that sort of behavior is universally opposed by men’s rights advocates, by libertarians, and by all sane people. Guns had nothing to do with it. Half of the fatalities were inflicted by knife, and several of the injuries were inflicted by his vehicle. Roger took his own life once he met resistance from police, so if the people of California had not been disarmed by their government, we can safely assume this rampage would have been cut short by a single act of self defense. Making this about gender is even more ridiculous. Four of the six people killed were men. Nobody would tolerate it if white people went around demonizing black people whenever an act of black on white crime occurred, and pinning this on an entire gender is even more despicable than that. Men are your benefactors, your protectors, and your providers, we are quite literally dying to please you. So the next time you trend a hashtag about us, maybe you say “thank you” instead.

Originally Published at ChristopherCantwell.com

Feature image by Garrett Heath

About Christopher Cantwell

Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • Mark Wharton

    You think a hate movement that feeds off of silencing those who advocate for equality and human rights will say thank you?

  • Kutastha

    Great article. The end reminded me of this:

  • David C. Morrow

    Reminds me of the feminist response to the murder of actress Rebecca Schaffer by an insane fan. Schaeffer was a beautiful young actress, costar of the sitcom “My Sister Sam” with a promising career ahead of her when she was murdered by a guy named Bardo (I think), who said “If I can’t have her nobody can.” Feminists immediately announced that this showed the “deep contempt” men have for women. No, it shows how men are brought up to place females on a higher level then themselves as being so precious and valuable they seem worth risking execution for. That guy could have been killed by the cops or anyone else and nobody would’ve cared because he killed a beautiful young female. Far as I know he’s still locked up.

    • Mark Wharton

      And of course Jodi Arias pretty much murdered for the same reason, but no one is screaming misandry.

  • librtee_dot_com

    Copied and pasted from my FB. (I was responding to a clickbait story about ’17 most harrowing quotes’, almost all of which were generic copied and pasted Feminist talking points – http://sfglobe.com/?id=871&src=share_fb_new_871)

    Here’s what I don’t get about #YesAllWomen.

    It was created to give women a space to “share their stories of everyday sexism and misogyny”

    But, if you actually read the #YesAllWomen tag, that isn’t what you read.

    The vast majority are women telling not personal stories, but rather repeating things they have read here and there. I spent quite a while reading the tag, at least an hour; less than 5% I read could be described in any way as ‘personal stories.’

    For instance, these 17 in this article – only one is a ‘personal story’, #17.

    So, this campaign is designed to prove that *all* women personally suffer from sexism, misogyny, and violence.

    But, doesn’t it instead demonstrate just the opposite?

    • Susie Parker

      It proves women enjoy sharing hysterics. I personally don’t know a single woman who has been genitally mutilated, but I keep hearing how it’s somehow men’s fault “we” suffer at their hands.

      From my own experience, I once told my sister in law an upsetting story of an instance of sexual molestation I experienced as a child.

      She seemed unusually interested in the story and had me repeat it several times. She hadn’t shown much empathy or concern about other bad experiences of mine, but this one she really zeroed in on.

      A few months later, in front of a group of friends, she started repeating My story as though it had happened to her – using my vocal inflections, and tearing up exactly as I had.

      I thought she was mocking me! It felt like she was literally de-pantsing me in front of everyone, until she turned to me, searching my face for approval of her story…looking for attention and sympathy.

      I realized she had simply liked the dramatic quality of my story so much she had adopted it as her own. She didn’t even realize I was the original source of the story.

      If you notice, cops shows, murder shows, extremely violent and over the top perverted CSI type shows proliferate on TV now days, usually featuring woman-as-victims. I really believe women are internalizing that stuff and adopting it as their own, just as my sister in law had. It’s like the Coast Guard fielding hundreds of calls to report the shipwrecked people stranded on Gilligan’s Island.

      Those old PSAs proclaiming “In America a woman is raped every thirty seconds” should have included “…on TV”.

      24/7/365 some woman, some where on TV is suffering rape, domestic abuse, violence and murder.

      • librtee_dot_com

        I can’t help but Feminism and the media have teamed up to fill women’s head with fear and paranoia, to make them perpetually fearful and timid, to amplify the intimidation that violence causes a thousand fold.

        A generation of weak, fearful women who are scared of the whole world.

        This is the polar opposite of everything I ever thought Feminism was while growing up.

      • 42p0ner

        “…she turned to me, searching my face for approval of her story…looking for attention and sympathy.

        I realized she had simply liked the dramatic quality of my story so much she had adopted it as her own. She didn’t even realize I was the original source of the story.”

        Disturbing.

      • Mark

        Oh my god; that’s like a sort of trauma-Munchausens. Did she genuinely believe it had happened to her?

        • Susie Parker

          This is the same woman who went on to accuse a 5 year old neighbor boy of raping her daughter after she and his mother got into a disagreement, then falsely accused my son of raping her daughter 5 years later after she and I locked horns.

          She seemed to believe it absolutely at the time, or absolutely believed my story was now her’s to take.

          My son ran into her years afterward at an Airport, where she started crying, trying to hug him, and insisting he “just let it go”. “Just let it go” meant months of incredible disbelief, humiliation and fear, forced to accept a guilty plea to avoid jail and being beaten up in jail anyway, years of sex offender “treatment” he couldn’t comply with as an innocent person, years of sex offender registration, damage to his entire family from the fall out and thousands and thousands of dollars.

          “Just let it go. Let’s be a family again”.

          For all he was put through, I never once saw him break down and cry until that happened.

          “I always thought at least she was crazy, Mom. I thought she was crazy enough to really believed it happened. Now I know she wasn’t – she knew it was a lie all along”.

          Absolutely Munchausens. Factitious disorder. Borderline Personality Disorder.

          Oh. . .and family.

          • PoeTentiate

            i’m fucking speechless

          • Daniel Freeman

            I was going to guess cluster B. The whole thing.

          • Sean McLeod

            Thank you for sharing your painful story Susie.

            I was born to a dark psychotic family, most of my formative years were a blackout. I was beaten unconscious (my jaw is warped from impact), forced to eat vomit and experienced hair loss before the age of 7. As I child I was deathly afraid of my parents even seeing me with a sore cut, lest they give me “something to cry about”. I don’t support pity, I am simply a survivor in a world that seems frankly fucked. In grade 3 my teacher (who resembled my father) sought to correct my “shyness” by splitting my face open with a hard cover text book. I shut down, my speech was failing, and learning stopped. I mentioned the incident to my mother, she attacked me, enraged that I would bother her with such crap. She later switched schools 5 years in a row, and yes I landed in grade 8 with my previous grade 3 teacher, again.

            My mother later paired up with an alcoholic who didn’t like the smell of me, violence and belligerence continued…

            At age 20 I was 6’2″, about 160lbs, my ribs were showing, I would pass out on the bus to work, I was a walking dead. The only thing that saved me was leaving “home” and being homeless. Facing the streets was far better than a house of insanity and pain, I gained 30 lbs in a couple of months just scavenging for food, and felt alive for the first time ever in two decades. To this day several of my family members attempt to pull me back into the fray, saying, “Grow up, we are all just human beings and make mistakes!”. I do not hate them; rather, I see them as heinous caricatures of human beings, psychotic zombies who deserve no mind. Now, I am living each day as though it were my last, for I have nothing to loose. I am the inevitable result of a society that does not give a dead rat’s ass about boys.

          • Susie Parker

            Thank you for sharing your story with me as well. It’s disquieting how many young men share such similar horror stories of abuse, neglect, mother’s boyfriends and violence.

            My father spent his whole life vying for his mother to bestow just some small gesture of love in his direction. Just the smallest sign. She never did as far as I knew. She didn’t even attend his funeral.

            I remember as a rebellious teenager, chiding him for continuing to try to have a relationship with her, while she was so awful toward him in return.

            “What sort of person would I be…if I didn’t love my mother…” The poignant way he spoke those words, even now, bring tears to my eyes.

          • ExpatMatt

            Jesus, Sean, it is horrific that anything like that could happen to anybody. I hope you’re doing ok, and getting on with living a good, fulfilling life.

      • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

        Dear Susie Parker – please write more and often on this subject!

      • Doug Hart

        Susie……Does your sister make a habit of this kind of behaviour? She sounds narcissistic personality disordered to me. Commandeering the life stories of others as their own is a huge marker for this…………. I hate to say sickness. Psychologists say these people are sick and don’t realize what they are doing, but for my money the fact that they tailor stories around whoever is not out of the room tells me this behaviour is deliberate and calculated.

        • Susie Parker

          Yes, she does. She’s a sister in law, not my sister.

          • Doug Hart

            She’s still too close for comfort

          • Susie Parker

            She’s been out of my life for 15 years, but the pain and damage she caused still affects my life every single day.

          • Doug Hart

            I bolted from my mothers house in 2009 and she’s been dead for two years. I can still hear that droning voice that compels me to put my head in a paint shaker to make it stop.

      • PaulMurrayCbr

        “It proves women enjoy sharing hysterics.”
        You know the lynchings in the south? Most of them were for rapes. How many of them would you bet were sheer fabrications, FRAs?

        • Susie Parker

          The claim is most lynchings were for other reasons, rape being just some. I’m from Tulsa, and grew up hearing about the “race riots” where the entire black district was burned to the ground because an elevator operator claimed a black man got “fresh” with her.

          I could be charitable and say “most” lynchings weren’t false accusations – but the thought of even one false accusation resulting in such a horrific ending is beyond evil.

        • Graham Strouse

          Back in 1923 the town of Rosewood, FL was burned down after a white woman made a false accusation against a black man. Took the families of the survivors more than 70 years to get reparations.

      • Graham Strouse

        While genital mutilation was and sometimes still is the norm for males…

      • PaulMurrayCbr

        Amazing.
        Those little miracle stories that christians like to tell one another spread the same way. It doesn’t really matter that it didn’t actually happen to you, because the *story* is true. Even if you embellish it just a little when you tell it.

    • Doug Hart

      In a court of law it’s called hearsay and is irrelevant and inadmissible.

      • Susie Parker

        Depends on the court of law. Hearsay is admissible in some cases. My son’s case accepted TRIPLE hearsay.

        No. This in not “my” America any more.

        • Doug Hart

          I didn’t mean to imply it didn’t happen but just because it happened doesn’t make it legal or right.

          • Susie Parker

            I understand completely. It’s unbelievable and no one wants to believe this is now happening in this country, but I can assure you – it is.

            I’ve posted this many times, but I don’t think most people can bear to read it, or believe what they read, but every word is true.

            I know. I saw it happen.

            This is the slippery slope. This. Is. It.

            http://www.paulstuckle.com/InformationCenter/ChildAbuse/TheEliminationofConstitutionalRights.aspx

          • plasmacutter

            The spirit of Salem is alive and well in the public consciousness.

          • Doug Hart

            My mother was involved in a murder in the 60’s her accomplice spent 14 years in prison …she walked away scot free.

          • Susie Parker

            You must have been a pretty young kid at the time. After all the “if only I could go back and do things differently” thinking (and it’s no comfort to hear) but you probably would have succeeded only in bringing more harm upon yourself if you had tried such a thing. You were a kid. Unless an adult sought you out intentionally to hear your story, it’s very unlikely you would have gotten heard by someone who would help.

            I’ve agonized a thousand times over with “Why did this happen”? In my case, I was an adult and strongly suspected this woman was harming her children – yet I said nothing. I knew I should have reported her, but I didn’t. Yes, I was solidly afraid of her, very sure she was capable of relentless revenge and causing me great harm, so I kept quiet and simply tried to avoid her rather than deal with my suspicions.

            People have laughed at this notion and called it superstitious, but I believe my son was harmed because I said nothing and did nothing to save her children from being harmed. That’s the only conclusion I’ve been able to come up with.

            I’m very truly sorry for your pain.

          • Doug Hart

            Thanks for your kind words. I was 8 when she was arrested and 10 when it went to trial. She used to cheat on my father and tell me lies to tell him to help her cover her tracks. He never put me in the position of having to lie to him, but I lived in constant fear of starting WWIII. But if I had told him what went on during the day when he was at work, she would have lied her way out of it and my father would have believed my mother over me and like my sister, I would have been kicked out of the house before I was an adult. I had a councilor ask me once about an unrelated event…….he asked if I would have done things differently if I could go back and change my actions knowing how things turned out? I said cha! but of course! he told me it sounds good but that I wouldn’t have. He said that when you made the crappy choices you ( I ) made I acted on the best information I had at the time I made the bad decisions and if I went back and got a do over knowing what I knew when I made the bad choices and nothing more that I would still make the same decisions that got me in the mess I was in, so rather than obsess on things that I can not change, accept that I made the decisions I made with the best possible information I had when I had to make it and move on. I would imagine this philosophy works better if you screwed up your own life as opposed to thinking you could have done better by your kid. But it still works. Does that make sense? That is….you are condemning yourself for actions using the hindsight that was impossible for you to possess before you handled things the way you handled them.

          • PaulMurrayCbr

            “He said that when you made the crappy choices you ( I ) made, you (I) acted on the best information I (we) had at the time”
            A little insight that I had in my 30’s. Perhaps most people come to it in time.

          • Doug Hart

            It seems that Susies son didn’t make bad choices he had them made for him. Your supposition is correct concerning me but not her and her boy.

          • Doug Hart

            I am almost 60 and the more I know the less I understand.

          • Graham Strouse

            I think part of the problem is that even if a judge strikes down statements from the official record after they’ve been said the “evidence” can still linger in the minds of the jurors.

      • PaulMurrayCbr

        There are several exceptions to the rule.

        • Doug Hart

          Anything goes if your lawyer doesn’t object to the testimony in open court.

  • Dagda Mór

    “Radical feminists and “anti-racists” who demonize men and white people.”

    Oh yeah I love wrecking their narrative by pointing out that Irish people (the whitest of the white) have been enslaved, persecuted and upon occasion damn near wiped out right alongside Africans. Possibly even to a greater extent, time was when an Irish slave fetched a lower price than an African one.

    “Now, it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world.”

    Is it though? This is another accepted truth I’m starting to question. Once you exclude wars as they take place with the full approval and support of women, and accept that as is often said intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence, stir in gender symmetry into the mix, and it starts to look very like men and women are both equally violence prone, give or take maybe 10%. Violent criminals would hardly even show up on such a scale as there are so few of them. The difference is that the results of violence from men can be more visible and dramatic as men are physically more powerful.

    “On the downside, this means women are largely defenseless, especially in places with strict gun control laws.”

    Places with strict gun control laws that are effectively enforced usually also have a large police presence as well though, with the police standing in lieu of everyone being armed.

    “Women are in the unique position that they have exclusive access to something nearly all men want, often above all other things, the price of which can vary dramatically.”

    Okay let’s knock this on the head yet again. Women enjoy sex just as much as men, maybe moreso (it is quite possible for men to have multiple orgasms jut not as likely). The idea that men just aren’t attractive enough and need to pay is a huge apart of gynocentric society, an assumption that has built up after many generations of social reinforcement, feeding hypergamy and other such foolishness. The idea that there should be a price to be negotiated is flat out wrong – men need to learn to give their meat and two veg its proper value, which is every bit as valuable as any vagina.

    • Susie Parker

      White Irish slaves were “indentured servants”, meaning they cost their owner nothing. No ownership investment meant no health concerns, no feeding, or sheltering – dead or broken down Paddies were replaceable.

      • Dagda Mór

        Partially true but most of the enormous numbers of Irish sent to the plantations in Jamaica by the English were full chattel slaves, buried in the fields where they dropped. A sad story but a useful fact to have handy when dealing with modern day racists who want to hate on white people and in particular men.

      • Nunya Bidness

        The Irish were sold in exactly the same way as African Slaves in the New Orleans slave markets.

        “From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and
        another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from
        about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped
        apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and
        children with them across the Atlantic (when they were sold into slavery). This led to a helpless
        population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to
        auction them off as well.”

        • Sadman365

          What a fucked up world we live in! And I’m the selfish one for not wanting to bring children into this crazy world to be sold and bought and killed….. My head’s spinning.

    • alex brown

      “Oh yeah I love wrecking their narrative by pointing out that Irish people (the whitest of the white) have been enslaved, persecuted and upon occasion damn near wiped out right alongside Africans. Possibly even to a greater extent, time was when an Irish slave fetched a lower price than an African one.”

      Irish nearly wiped out? I know the potato famine killed about a million Irish, but think you are using hysterical language.

      • Dagda Mór

        The famine was only one of the more recent excesses visited upon the nation. Cromwell alone killed, drove out or enslaved about half the population over a very short period of time.

        At this point I usually ask, “why does it matter as it changes the point being made not in the least”, then you bluster something like “well you shouldn’t use excessive language to describe atrocities”, and then I say “what, are atrocities a personal issue for you?”, yadda yadda yadda.

        So lets not and just say that we did.

        • millionario

          Hey Big Dagda,
          Have you read “White Cargo”? I you haven’t, please do. You may find it interesting.

        • ExpatMatt

          And before Cromwell, there was Black Tom Tyrant; and before him, there was William Strongbow; before him were the Vikings… Ireland has had a lot of atrocities, invasions, famines, and massacres over the years.

          • Dagda Mór

            Indeed, one could almost say that someone trying to wipe out or enslave half our population is business as usual for us. ;-)

          • ExpatMatt

            Damn! As the descendant of Englishmen, Normans, Vikings and snobby American WASPs, I was hoping you’d fail to notice till we could try again…

            Ah, well. Plan B, then: get a longship together and sack the Hamptons.

        • Graham Strouse

          It’s true enough. The population in Ireland today is still lower than it was before the famines.

      • Guest

        Its a historical fact The Irish immigrants were forced to fight the newly freed American slaves …in NYC for the dirty-est and dangerous jobs in the US.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      You can’t separate the State from the violence done in the world. Most violence is carried out by the State, and most of its enforcers are male, hence men do most of the violence. Absent the State, we might well say women do most of the violence.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      And of course “effectively enforced gun control” (imagine such a silly concept) and a “large police presence” is just the presence of an ever more massive amount of violence in the society.

    • Vương Vi-Nhuyễn – 王微軟

      Irish aren’t the whitest of the white, in fact most Europeans are ”pink people”, Asians should be considered ”real white people” as most Viets, Filipino, and Thai I know are paler than any Irishman or Swede I’ve ever seen, only Japanese are yellow or brown (Okinawans/RyuKyuans) and some North-Koreans, Kyrgyz-Turks and Khmer, but that aside slavery was present in almost every aspect of history before it was outlawed, here in the Netherlands we read how the Latin race (the Roman Empire) kept Germanics as slaves, slavery is not a matter of skin colour, no matter if it was the main form of slavery in those U.S.A. history didn’t start with Columbus, it started with Sumer (the rest before is speculative history which is an entirely different but often well accurate subject).

      Also Americans have no idea what ”race” really is, I’m a black man with dark-brown hair and brown eyes, in those U.S.A. I’m a Latino/Hispanic, my father is a white man with blue eyes and blonde hair, in those U.S.A. he’s a Latino/Hispanic, my fiancée is an Asian woman with dark-brown eyes and extremely dark-brown hair, in those U.S.A. she’s a Latino/Hispanic, everywhere in the world I’d be engaging in ”interracial dating”, in those U.S.A. I’m ”staying in my own race” it makes no sense, this is why I don’t take the U.S. American notion of race serious, in those U.S.A. race is literally what you call yourself, I can classify as ”Latino/Hispanic” there because I have a Spanish-last name and my Mother is a Sambo (mixed Native-American and African) from Latin-America, or I could just call myself ”African” or ”White”, my fiancé has an Ñ on her name and has Spanish blood (even more than I) she can classify as ”Asian” or as ”Latino/Hispanic”, this is why I like Israel more, I just go there and call myself ”a Jew” because I’ve had a female lineage of Jews before me, of-course Zimmermann is an odd case as his mother had African blood and the fact that he was born before 1994 thus falling under the ”one-drop rule” Zimmermann is a Black Latino (¿confused yet?) The main character from ”Saved by the bell” was also considered ”Asian” forget that he is blonde and looks whiter than Screech, American concepts of ”race” are relative and you’re only ”white” when it’s negative, if George Zimmermann was assaulted by someone we would’ve read how he was a ”Latino victim of white supremacy”.

      • Dagda Mór

        “Irish aren’t the whitest of the white”

        I’m an Irish man living in Ireland, so trust me on this. http://i.imgur.com/fPUUf.jpg

        “as most Viets, Filipino, and Thai I know are paler than any Irishman or Swede I’ve ever seen”

        Having lived for extended periods in two of those three countries I can only say to this and the rest of your comment

        ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
        ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄███▄▄▄░▄▄██▄░░░░░░░
        ░░░░░░░░░██▀███████████████▀▀▄█░░░░░░
        ░░░░░░░░█▀▄▀▀▄██████████████▄░░█░░░░░
        ░░░░░░░█▀▀░▄██████████████▄█▀░░▀▄░░░░
        ░░░░░▄▀░░░▀▀▄████████████████▄░░░█░░░
        ░░░░░▀░░░░▄███▀░░███▄████░████░░░░▀▄░
        ░░░▄▀░░░░▄████░░▀▀░▀░░░░░░██░▀▄░░░░▀▄
        ░▄▀░░░░░▄▀▀██▀░░░░░▄░░▀▄░░██░░░▀▄░░░░
        █░░░░░█▀░░░██▄░░░░░▀▀█▀░░░█░░░░░░█░░░
        █░░░▄▀░░░░░░██░░░░░▀██▀░░█▀▄░░░░░░▀▀▀
        ▀▀▀▀░▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀░█░░░░░░░░░▄█░░█▀▀▀▀▀█░░
        ░░░░█░░░▀▀░░░░░░▀▄░░░▄▄██░░░█░░░░░▀▄░
        ░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░█▄▀▀▀▀▀█░░░█░░░░░░█░
        ░░░░▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀░░░░▀░░░░▀░░░░░░░░
        ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

        • Bombay

          LOL – I had to look three times……

        • PaulMurrayCbr

          Billy Connoly does a bit:
          “I’m Scottish, so when I go to the beach I’m pale blue. Takes me a week to get white.”

          The brits like to go to Spain or Greece and lie out in the sun all day, getting a little sunburned and going back home with a tan. They’ve been doing it for years, no probs.

          Then they visit Queensland and do the same thing there. Hello, burns unit!

      • Mateusz82

        Not to mention that “Asia” isn’t a race… it’s a continent, with many, many races (56 in China alone). I’ve met Chinese folks as pasty as any Irishman, and would be considered white by any American, yet they have Asian ancestry, in China, as far back as records were kept. Oh, and yes, Chinese minorities do get tired of being told by the Han majority that they (the minorities) “don’t look Chinese” or “don’t look Asian”. It’d be like insisting George Takei doesn’t “look American”.

      • ExpatMatt

        I live in SE Asia, and almost every Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian or Burmese person I’ve met is darker than almost every white person I’ve met. Other Asian ethnic groups certainly can be pretty pale (Suey Park calling herself a woman of color made me laugh out loud. She’s got more melanin than I do.)

        SE Asians are certainly darker than half-Scandinavian me. 25 years of short-sleeves make me forearms…not as dark as the palest parts of my girlfriends body. Just sayin’ beware hyperbole.

        I definitely agree that America has a problem with racial confusion. It’s why one of our favorite questions is “What’s your background?”, meaning where are your ancestors from? Yeah, even from one white person to another (and we’re mostly pink because our skin is so pale that you can see red arterial blood through it. Or sunburn.)

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      “Oh yeah I love wrecking their narrative by pointing out that Irish
      people (the whitest of the white) have been enslaved, persecuted and
      upon occasion damn near wiped out right alongside Africans. Possibly
      even to a greater extent, time was when an Irish slave fetched a lower
      price than an African one.”

      The very word, „slave” – has its origin in the name of the Slavic people. Who just happen to be… you know… white blue eyed blonds.

      But don’t you dare point that to the “anti-racists” of the day. :)

      • DukeLax

        The theory is that many of the “Slavs” escaped the Roman empire by heading north into euro-asia

      • ExpatMatt

        A-yep. Racism isn’t a whites vs. everyone else situation. Amazing how controversial those pesky little facts can be.

        “No Irish Need Apply.” Arabs being among the most prolific slave-traders; Africans among the most prolific enslavers of black people; many Slavic groups getting exterminated in Europe by Europeans (the original Prussians were a Slavic tribe, iirc, essentially wiped out through genocide and slavery by the Teutonic Knights); hundreds of thousands of European slaves taken by the Ottomans; Chinese virtually enslaved in the US after centuries of Chinese domination in Asia. I could go on, and on. I mean, Swedes tell Norwegian jokes to this day!

        Humans can always find a reason so dehumanize any outside group, if we’re raised to think we’re superior. Equality for all is the only survivable long-term strategy, in my opinion.

    • Mark Wharton

      Look at bonobo chimp females who attack men who refuse to fight for their amusement, Human females who choose to breed with violent men over “gentlemen.” Women may not be directly as violent, but they certainly use violence against others by proxy.

    • Sadman365

      Thank you. The “men do most of the violence….” bullshit made me furious. This is coming from a guy who’s supposed to be an MRA but then he perpetuates the same old feminist propaganda.

      We teach men to be “tough” and hide their feelings and never complain when we treat them like animals, or even less than animals. We force them into military service (conscription) and send them to fight in savage wars (The women of England say go, and the white feather campaign, the women of Egypt goading men to fight for their (the women’s) honor in the recent Arab Spring….) and tell them they’re “heroes” when they kill others (men only of course) and when they sacrifice their own lives, and tell them they’re cowards and traitors who deserve to be hanged if they dare to refuse to fight in these wars…. but then we’re surprised if more men commit more violence!

      Women commit almost 50% of DV, and Christopher himself talks about this and provides links as evidence.

      Women do MOST of the violence and abuse against children, and more mothers kill their own children than fathers do. (stats prove most of the violent offenders and rapists have been abused physically and sexually BY THEIR OWN MOTHERS. So you can say behind every violent man there’s a violent woman).

      More and more reports that show that girls are becoming increasingly more and more violent and in fact rivaling even the most violent boy gangs. In fact, I think there’s an article right here that talks about this phenomenon in the UK.

      Also, if we look closely -not that it hasn’t been proven already- I’d say MOST of the crimes men commit, commit ON BEHALF OF WOMEN, or are manipulated by WOMEN to commit them ( violence by proxy). If I got a penny every time I heard about a man duped and manipulated by a WOMAN to commit a crime -to serve her interest- I’d be a billionaire, literally.

      Just because the misandric media is always eager to portray men as savages (by focusing almost totally on crimes committed by men) while turning a blind eye to all the violence that women commit whether directly or indirectly, does NOT mean men are actually more violent. I think you know this, Chris. So, I’m not exactly sure how you still think men are more violent.

    • PaulMurrayCbr

      “Oh yeah I love wrecking their narrative by pointing out that Irish
      people (the whitest of the white) have been enslaved, persecuted and
      upon occasion damn near wiped out right”

      The English, who did this, went on to do it to a quarter of the whole damn world. Ireland had a lower population than them, was less technologically advanced, and was conveniently right next door. Ireland was the British Empire’s tutorial level.

      • Dagda Mór

        Actually the British Empire didn’t expand in any meaningful manner until the invention of the field howitzer and the machine gun in the mid to late 19th century, as can be observed here

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Empire_evolution3.gif

        said inventions being used largely against people armed with spears and muskets. And keep in mind that Portugal and Spain among others previously had more significant holdings until around the same time, so eh yeah.

        If you’re trying to say it was a tough time for everyone however, I would agree. Continental Europe was wracked by wars all throughout those centuries, which often led to new technology and tactics.

  • Partridge

    An excellent article, though I would add the following observations:

    First. while it may be true that men do most of the violence in the world, it may not be by such a large majority as is generally supposed. One indication is the fact that 40% of domestic violence, as mentioned in the article, comes from women. For obvious reasons men’s violence is far more visible, whilst women’s violence is often unnoticed, hidden or ignored.

    But the fact remains that the vast majority of men and women in the world are not, never have been, and never will be, violent. And this is worth mentioning and remembering.

    Secondly, regarding the ‘absurdity’ of gun control, I find it absurd that guns are still so freely available in the USA and certain other parts of the world, certainly as compared with their availability in Europe.

    In the UK, for example, where there is strict gun control, the percentage of murders where firearms are involved is miniscule compared with the rate for the USA. On the other hand, the highest rates are to be found in Honduras, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, Venezuela, Swaziland and South Africa. Compared with these, the rates in the USA are themselves extremely small. This would suggest that gun control is only one factor in determining the rate of gun homicides, and that the general pervading culture of the society also has a great effect on attitudes towards the rule of law and the use of guns.

    Even so, it is surely undeniable, and this certainly appears to be confirmed by statistics, that the greater the degree of gun control, the fewer the numbers of murders involving guns.

    • Susie Parker

      Mexico has the strictest gun control laws in the world, and that country is terrorized by Drug Cartel criminals with ILLEGAL guns.

      • Ohone

        Mexico introduced the strictest laws because of the problems with the pre existing proliferation of guns.

        • Susie Parker

          Well, thank goodness all those gun problems are now ….solved!

          • Ohone

            Point to where I said that.

            If you are going to come back with another feminist style snark answer, please don’t.

          • Susie Parker

            That was a MHRA snark style answer. A feminist would have agreed with you.

            “When guns are outlawed, only Mexican Cartels will have guns” apparently was a bumpersticker that went ignored.

          • Ohone

            Its was the exactly same shit you get with feminists, knowing pretending a person said something they didn’t.

            “”When guns are outlawed, only Mexican Cartels will have guns” apparently was a bumpersticker that went ignored.”

            Probably because its dumb.

            Only the gangland criminals and terrorists have guns in Ireland, so they generally only use them on each other and emo kids and random idiots are shooting people.

            If only the mexican cartels had guns, there would be fewer people shot with guns, its a fact.

          • Susie Parker

            Who sounds like a feminist now?
            Or a dumb little kid.

            I’m sure Detroit’s strict gun laws are preventing lots of gun deaths, too.

          • Ohone

            The gun proliferation preceded the laws, the like mexico laws are there because of the guns, the problem pre-existed the laws.

          • Susie Parker

            And now the gun control laws have exacerbated the problem, but there’s no going back, of course – Cartels be damned.

            Turn about being fair play, it would be a smart move to to disarm US citizens -THEN sell criminals guns.

            Should be fun seeing how that plays out.

          • Ohone

            So your point is if there is a pre-existing gun problem, and then you legislate against it to try to fight it, it doesn’t just disappear immediately – this is obvious.

            “Turn about being fair play, it would be a smart move to to disarm US citizens -THEN sell criminals guns.”

            What happens when guns aren’t normalized is higher level criminals just use them on each other, while petty criminals, random idiots and kids don’t shoot people because they don’t have access to guns. So murder by gun plummets.

            Can’t believe this of all times, there are mra’s arguing for proliferation of guns.

            This comments section is missing a few brain cells.

            Why the fuck now?

          • plasmacutter

            Keep straw-manning gun ownership by implying guns have no legitimate purpose as a tool. I’m sure people in comfortable, gated communities who visit from hyper-left echo-chambers are readily agreeing with you.

            The banning of tools is a form of collective punishment. Rather than punish bad actors who mis-use tools, you deny proper tools to many more people who have legitimate use for those tools.

            Who cares about people who have to deal with wolves, bear, and moose trespassing on their property, or people who are compelled by economic circumstance to live in gang neighborhoods.

            In the mean time, I’ve spent the last 16 years having to visit hacker sites for basic media backup tools because those tools were similarly straw-manned as “tools of theft” and banned under the DMCA.

            How about we ban kitchen knives. They’re one of the most common weapons used in Domestic Violence. We should ban most kitchen tools and require expensive licenses and background checks, so only restaurants will be a source for food.

          • Ohone

            “Keep straw-manning gun ownership by implying guns have no legitimate purpose ”

            The irony. Claiming I’m implying something that I’m not to construct a strawman.

            Am I on a feminist or mens rights site?

            “How about we ban kitchen knives. They’re one of the most common weapons used in Domestic Violence. We should ban most kitchen tools and require expensive licenses and background checks, so only restaurants will be a source for food.”

            That argument is called a reductio ad absurdity fallacy.

            This comments is full of ideologues who cannot seem to make an honest or accurate argument, cloned behaviour, like in the feminist echo chambers.

          • plasmacutter

            This seems to be your pet false-accusation DARVO today: “You’re straw-manning”.

            You just presented violent crime as a “gun problem”, as in guns are a problem, not a tool, and presenting the issue with the clear implication violence would vanish if guns disappeared.

            It’s really hilarious that you present this straw-man, get called on it, then engage in DARVO

            http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/01/19/presto-change-o-darvo-deny-attack-and-reverse-victim-and-offender/

            Before guns were used in gang activity, they used knives. In places like britain where it’s easy to choke guns off at the ports, the violence has reverted right back to knives.

            I don’t know about you, but I’d rather die to a quick shot to the head than a slit throat.

          • Ohone

            “This seems to be your pet false-accusation DARVO today: “You’re straw-manning”.

            Oh the irony, lets prove the irony.

            “You just presented violent crime as a “gun problem”, ”

            No I didn’t, that’s yet another strawman. Violent crime exists without guns upping the anti, I never said it didn’t.

            Or are you extracting information from my mind again, or is it your “implication” trick where you get to make up what other people said.

            “presenting the issue with the clear implication violence would vanish if guns disappeared.”

            So, this implication you imagined, is clear.

            “It’s really hilarious that you present this straw-man, get called on it, then engage in DARVO”

            So its not you doing it over and over, its really me doing it, and you are not projecting.

            “Before guns were used in gang activity, they used knives. In places like britain where it’s easy to choke guns off at the ports, the violence has reverted right back to knives.”

            Stating the obvious.

            “I don’t know about you, but I’d rather die to a quick shot to the head than a slit throat.”

            Illogical and dishonest argument – a stab can kill quickly, a gun shot cause a slow agonizing death.

            Why the fuck are mra’s arguing for gun proliferation now of all times?

            The stupidity and ineptitude is unbelievable.

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-practice-of-rhetorical-discipline/

          • plasmacutter

            It’s really cute how you communicate through implication, then deny that implication.

            Here’s one of your clearer implications that it’s a gun problem and not a violent people problem:

            If only the mexican cartels had guns, there would be fewer people shot with guns, its a fact.

            And no, it’s not a fact. The slaughter only accelerated since the gun control laws.

            Now-disarmed, entire towns have been de-populated.

            In fact, knowing people were dis-armed “empowered” the cartels to begin using more agonizing methods of death such as torture, skinning alive, and decapitation.

            The stupidity and ineptitude is unbelievable.

            more ad-hominems.

          • Ohone

            More projection, lets prove it …

            Watch this,

            you said

            “t’s really cute how you communicate through implication, then deny that implication.”

            then you said

            “Here’s one of your clearer implications that it’s a gun problem and not a violent people problem:”

            This whole conversation has been based around you claiming that implications are being made, that aren’t being made (strawmanning).

            You are deciding in your mind that you know what people are really saying, and attacking that, instead of what they are actually saying.

          • plasmacutter

            Reductio ad Absurdum isn’t a fallacy, it’s a proper logical technique.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

            I applied the exact same ideological approach for gun control to kitchen knives, using the exact same justifications, doing everything but accuse stay-home parents of being “domestic violence apologists” for defending their ability to feed their kids.

            This comments is full of ideologues who cannot seem to make an honest or accurate argument, cloned behaviour, like in the feminist echo chambers.

            DARVO again.

            http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/01/19/presto-change-o-darvo-deny-attack-and-reverse-victim-and-offender/

          • Ohone

            You reduced the argument to the absurd.

            You could not honestly disagree with the fact that if guns aren’t normal for civilians, civilians murders by guns will be fewer and far between.

            So you reduced it to the absurd.

      • Mark Wharton

        It doesn’t help that the US government supplies guns to them

        • Susie Parker

          I know. It’s brilliant. Disarm a population and then sell assault rifles to it’s criminal element.

          That’s the very scenario these idiots are bleating for…

    • Christopher Cantwell

      That is such a shallow thought process. The violent crime rate skyrockets, but “gun crime” goes down and you think your statist agenda a success? It’s absolute nonsense. This has been settled so many times, I can’t believe anyone wise enough to the ways of the world to be reading this publication still thinks gun control helps anybody but a tyrannical government.

      • plasmacutter

        They’re typical “sensing” types. Anything that doesn’t impact them personally doesn’t matter. They don’t have guns so they don’t care.

        If you try to ban hammers because they’re used to break and enter, you’ll suddenly hear them whining about how it’s not the tool but the person who uses it.

    • https://www.facebook.com/ Darryl Jewett

      yes but where you have fewer men able to defend their families with guns you have more government interference and systematic extermination of men by force with or without guns.

      • plasmacutter

        “Systematic Extermination”?

        Ok, I just had an argument yesterday with a guy claiming extremist hyperbole comes from the men’s movement as well, making it no different from feminism.

        You’ve just made me wrong. Great.. that discussion thread was huge.. now I have to find it and apologize. : (

        • Daniel Freeman

          You might not be universally right, but you’re ubiquitously right, and that’s good enough. It’s silly to expect universality anyway.

      • Ohone

        This post is insane sounding.

        “As long as the government fears a man walking into a shopping mall with a gun and using it in retaliation for its blind and irrational and unprovoked attack upon him, then it will be less inclined to attack him first and without provocation. And the government is populated by feminists and cowards.”

        Mods – feminist plant here trying to make it look like the movement supports spree killing.

  • Mark Samenfink

    Elliot Rogers was Half-Asian Half-Ashkenazi, which is closer to turkish than white.

    • https://www.facebook.com/ Darryl Jewett

      From a genetic perspective, Turks are Caucasoid (=white). So are Europeans and those of Middle Eastern descent. Most Africans (with exception of extreme northern Africa (who are Berbers and Caucasoid too) are Negroid. Most Asians are Mongoloid. Most south pacific Islanders including native Australians (are Australoid). There’s one more group that is distinct genetically but I forgot what it is.

      • Mark Samenfink

        Turks are Ottomans, they are not Caucasoid. Their bone structures tend toward mongoloid features.

        • PaulMurrayCbr

          “Ottoman” is (was) an empire, not a race. This is like saying that Italians are not caucasians, they are Romans.

          • Mark Samenfink

            Right, sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant that turks are former populace of the Ottoman Empire, a southern european/middle eastern point of origin, and as such are not caucasian, Well, I suppose that depends on whether you put your stock in taxonomy for racial determination, in which case there are technically only 3 races and they would be closest to caucasian, but from a phenotypical perspective they would be considered north african/phoenician/middle eastern, generally determined by olive complexion, semi-mongoloid skull structure, brown hair, inability to digest lactose, and a tendency toward having significant body hair. I say semi-mongoloid skull structure as the jaw and nose tend to be mongoloid but eye sockets and dome tend to be caucasoid. So, lets say you take just the taxonomic race determination, the kid is still half malaysian so just calling him white is still a disingenuous political move rather than one concerned with the facts (not that any of those reporting him as white were concerned with facts anyway, as they almost all called him an MRA shooter, when he wasn’t an MRA and killed just as many people with a knife.)

      • Mark Samenfink

        Further, Ashkenazi would be more of a southern turk anyway, as they are (supposedly) one of the original tribes of israel

  • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

    So we have the latest over stewed and reduced instant stock cube of feminist flavour – #YesAllWomen. Oh the gals and gender demagogues are cooking up so many new dishes … pass the Cilantro.

    Add #YesAllWomen to the spice rack, next to #RapeCulture, #SlutWalk and #NotAllPeopleSwallowFeministVictimClaimingWhole. The last one is universal seasoning which many have been taught tastes terrible. College feeding can be like that.

    Odd how the same gals have forgotten so much so quickly – #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, and of course they are all so desperate to push #BanBossy into the depths of internet history to cover up the general asininity and the idiocy of collusion with … well…. idiocy.

  • Susie Parker

    “I was shocked and terrified to hear Elizabeth Plank say “This is a white male thing” on MSNBC, despite the fact that Elliot Rodger was half Asian.”

    Kind of like George Zimmerman was a white male racist?

    I’m always late to the party as far as current movies go, but I just watched Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips in utter dismay.

    Navy battleships, paratroopers parachuting out of airplanes and Navy Seal teams all converging to do battle with four raggedy Somali “pirates” – because even though they only had a battered little fishing boat and four machine guns, they easily over powered the multitudes of unarmed men on a massive freighter.

    Millions of taxpayer’s dollars squandered, an epic battle scene – all because four men, one a barefooted teenager – had guns while they did not.

    • plasmacutter

      Heck, the men themselves don’t need to have the guns, all they need are a couple light turrets with an IFF system to prevent piracy of this nature.

      • PaulMurrayCbr

        Sigh. Merchant ships go into harbours of other people’s countries. This is why they never have guns of any sort. None. Would you be happy for a – say – Italian vessel with an armed crew to dock in New York? A Burmese ship sporting a couple of “light turrets” to dock in San Francisco?

        The rule of the sea is very, very simple. A ship with guns is a warship. The very fact that this doesn’t occur to you says a great deal. It seems to be news to you that the coast of Somalia is not, in fact, United States territorial waters.

        You want to know how these Somali “pirates” regard themselves? As volunteer coastguard, policing foreigners dumping toxic crap in their fishing grounds. You know what? They might have a point. As with the Vietnamese army, or the Iraqi and Afghan “insurgents”, many people just don’t seem to get that people who live in a place have a right to defend it, even if they aren’t white.

    • Chris Dagostino

      Susie, I tend to be wary of women who consider themselves an integral part of Mens’ Rights, but I’m glad you’re here. God bless you for your experiences and honesty.

      • Susie Parker

        Thank you. I appreciate your saying that.

  • Ohone

    Couple of things.

    You didn’t say why the #yesallwomen thing is nonsense.

    Its absolutely absurd to say there is no connecting to civilian kids getting their hands on guns and using them for spree killings, and the proliferation and normalization of guns in a civilian population.

    • Christopher Cantwell

      It’s the exact opposite. Where guns are normalized, children are taught their proper respect for weapons. It’s almost only in heavily restricted places that kids get their hands on guns and do irresponsible things with them.

      • Ohone

        This sounds like more of the wishful but illogical thinking that comes from US pro gun libertarians.

        If that were true, Europe not the US would be the hot spot for spree killings.

        Were guns aren’t normalized, most people cannot get them in the first place, they people that can are well connected and the well connected wont be doing business with random idiots, not to mind some emo kid.

        • Mark

          I agree; I’m anti-guns myself.

          But I think it’s a city dweller versus country dweller thing. Someone living in the country sees someone with a gun and thinks “probably shooting rabbit”, someone living in the city sees someone with a gun and thinks “Probably about to perform a robbery”. The environment shifts the context of how a gun is perceived. The first uses of a gun that come to a country-dwellers mind are fairly legitimate; the first that comes to a city-dwellers mind are mostly frightening.

          In most parts of Europe city dwellers outnumber country dwellers because cities have higher populations than the country by definition. In the states however; the rural areas are vast – the population ratio between city and rural are probably much nearer in parity, and I suspect that is the real reason why American and European attitudes to gun-legislation are so different and also explains the difference from state to state.

          That’s not me telling anyone what to think, just telling them why other people may not be of the same mind.

          • Ohone

            I’m not pro or anti guns.

            I see the feminists using this shooting to shoehorn their ideology into it, now we have an mra trying to shoehorn illogical pro gun arguments into it.

          • plasmacutter

            Every pro-gun argument is illogical to you.

          • Ohone

            Is it?

            How do you have access to my inner thoughts?

            Why is it the people here are graced with the ability to know what people really mean and really think, even though they didn’t say it?

          • plasmacutter

            I read them when you make them “outer thoughts”.

            You have chosen to shift goalposts, deny your own clear implications, compare apples and oranges, deliberately mis-attribute thoughts and ideas, and insist people, organizations, and things behave in manners inconsistent with empirical observation rather than concede a point.

            You then claim everyone else is “illogical” and incompetent.

          • Ohone

            “You have chosen to shift goalposts,”

            I have chosen to ask you the method you use for accessing thoughts and reading between the lines to to decode what people are really saying, so you can attack that instead of what they are saying. Thats fair, you are displaying magical abilities, I’m asking you how.

            This is so funny. Its one projection after another.

            “deliberately mis-attribute thoughts and ideas”

            This conversation has been about you not attacking what people are actually saying, but your attacking something that they did not say and don’t not think based on what you have decided they are “implying” and through your mind reading magic.

          • Ohone

            “empirical observation rather than concede a point.”

            Oh my god.

            What has been happening is that you couldn’t concede the point you strawmanned the hash tag.

            Then you couldn’t concede the point that if a person doesn’t have a gun, they are less likely to shoot someone with a gun.

            Thats basically what this insane conversation has been about.

            Now you are projecting what you are doing on to me.

          • plasmacutter

            unfortunately for you your counter-points don’t apply to the US.

            In the US rural population outnumbers urban.

            I’ve also had the privilege of living in urban/suburban areas while traveling to rural/pro-gun areas to visit my father.

            Make no mistake, in these areas every day is a “slow news day”, if kids were being killed with guns they’d be on that news. They’re not.

            @christophercantwell:disqus is right. In places where firearms are normalized and ubiquitous, everyone, including children, are taught respect for guns.

            I suggest you research the history of toys and consumer products. More responsible generations had toys which if mis-used could cause serious harm. We didn’t have significantly higher injury rates during those periods because parents taught their kids proper caution, and kids who didn’t listen learned really fast.

        • JoeDisqus56

          Guns are very very common in lots of parts of the US where murder rates are very low. I grew up in a small town in Wisconsin and people up there have guns. Many people hunt and those who don’t frequently have guns anyway.

          • Ohone

            Low compared to what, other american states? Its gun murder rate (1.7) is just .3 per 100,000 lower than the highest gun murder rate country in europe (2 per 100,000) – Ireland, which has lots of gangland and terrorist activity.

            And its a fairly rural and laid back state.

          • plasmacutter

            First you claim gun control helps lower violent crime rates.

            Than you rationalize the fact that ireland, which has tough gun control, has a higher gun murder rate.

            Finally, you only examine guns in a vacuum and don’t count all violent crime.

            The UK has nasty problems with stabbings and bombings for instance. I find it funny you mention Ireland without mentioning pipe bombs.

            Banning tools is a form of collective punishment. Bad actors who mis-use the tools will find new tools to mis-use, but the majority of people who properly used those tools are now out of luck or forced to live under the threat of capricious incarceration by the state

            How about punishing actual criminals rather than banning guns, which are a legitimate tool of household defense.

          • JoeDisqus56

            If you looked closer you’d find that most of the murders are in Milwaukee and Racine. Most of the small towns and rural areas have very low crime despite lots of guns. Guns aren’t a problem for civilized people.

          • Ohone

            The rate of gun murders in the american states with the lowest rates of crime and gun murders, is on a par with European countries with the highest rates of criminal and terrorist activity.

            Arguing there is no connection between guns being available and people getting shot, is as retarded as thinking having gun is still some sort of deterrent to a government that can assassinate people with drones from the other side of the world.

            And why would we chose to argue for guns now … of all the times?

            I cannot get over the ineptitude.

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-practice-of-rhetorical-discipline/

          • plasmacutter

            The rate of gun murders in the american states with the lowest and gun murders, is on a par with European countries with the highest rates of gun murder.

            Dodge, weave, and shift goalposts all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that the states with lowest gun murder rates are pro-gun states, and the EU nations with the highest rates have strict gun control.

            This is clear indication it’s not about the guns, but about the character of the people.

            “Gun Control” was minimal in the 1950’s. We didn’t have wide-spread mass shootings and drive-by’s in major urban areas in the 1950’s. (in fact, most gangsters back then used knives).

          • Ohone

            I said

            “The rate of gun murders in the american states with the lowest and gun murders, is on a par with European countries with the highest rates of gun murder”

            then you said

            “Dodge, weave, and shift goalposts all you want”

            Can you demonstrate how starting those facts is dodging weaving and shifting the goal posts?

            “it doesn’t change the fact that the american states with lowest gun murder rates are pro-gun states, and the EU nations with the highest rates have strict gun control.”

            That’s yet another straw man.

            I never did say it changed that fact you dodging, weaving, goal post shifting and projecting loon.

            I was the one who pointed out that rural american states with the lowest gun murders and lowest crime, have almost as many gun murders as European countries with the highest rates of gang and terrorist activity, you loon.

            Americans best, is on a par with Europe’s worst.

            You are detached for reality, you just alter reality to suit yourself and project the characteristics of your one arguments, on to me.

            You been posting in an echo chamber too long.

          • plasmacutter

            Wow.. DARVO DARVO DARVO.

            Deny
            Attack
            Reverse Victim and Offender.

            Keep going! The logically inept and those who already have an agenda may actually believe you!

          • Ohone

            So the new strawman is that I’m an employee at fox news.

            Care to share what thought process of yours lead to you deciding to construct me as an employee of fox news, so you could attack an employee of fox news instead of making an honest argument against something I said?

            Let me guess, I implied that I work for fox news … right?

            Its just one dishonest argument after another.

          • plasmacutter

            Oh look, Ohone used his favorite word again!

            Ohone, would you like some straw man flavored ice cream in reward for your latest DARVO?

          • Ohone

            Now that is an actual Ah Hom, even if that was my favourite word, its irrelevant to the argument.

            Are you now denying that pretending im an employee at fox and attacking me on that basis is a strawman?

          • plasmacutter

            You throw the word around like spaghetti at the walls, it’s very relevant.

          • Ohone

            This is whats happening in reality,

            you are throwing strawman arguments around like spaghetti, and I am then using the word to point out the nature of the arguments your are making.

            My use of the word is correlated to your use of strawman arguments.

            Had you chosen not to make one after another after another – the word wouldn’t have come up.

            This whole insane conversation, is revolving around you making strawman arguments and me pointing out your dishonesty.

            You are like the knight who says neep.

            You keep coming back with another dishonest argument, only to have it demonstrated to be dishonest.

          • plasmacutter

            Can you demonstrate how starting those facts is dodging weaving and shifting the goal posts?

            I don’t have to when your posts exist for everyone to read. I mean, you can ignore your own post history but it doesn’t make it go away.

          • Ohone

            So you are not able to demonstrate how this

            “”The rate of gun murders in the american states with the lowest and gun murders, is on a par with European countries with the highest rates of gun murder””

            is dodging weaving and shifting the goal posts.

            You will not win an argument in which you take the position more people having guns means more gun murders any more than you will one taking the position that more people having apples doesn’t mean more people are going to eat apples.

            It’s stupid of you to even try.

          • JoeDisqus56

            You need to look at demographics. Who is killing who. Most of europe is old and most violent crime is committed by the young.

            Guns are still a deterrent for government. Citizens wouldn’t win a direct conflict with an army, obviously, but a lot of armed citizens would make occupation much more difficult to maintain.

          • Ohone

            “You need to look at demographics. Who is killing who. Most of europe is old and most violent crime is committed by the young.”

            That’s irrelevant, untrue and just attempting at moving the goal posts.

            Wisconsin has the lowest crime, and as many gun murders as the European country with the highest crime, you aren’t honest enough to concede that.

            “Guns are still a deterrent for government. ”

            No, they love having “domestic terrorists”.

            They aren’t afraid of a few people with .22 that cannot logically make the connection between people having guns and people shooting people.

            You are living in the past.

    • John Adleman

      Why it’s nonsense ohone, is because it completely ignores the institutional misandry which is glaringly apparent in the education sector by the over medication of little boys, the proliferation of the ADHD diagnosis. It’s further demonstrated in the professional literature, as well as statistics.

      It’s all noted on my blog which has a ton of information if you’re interested. You’ll just have to invest the time to click the links and read if you are.

      http://prisonerofthesystem.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/superiority-masked-as-equality-with-denial-deflection-dismissal-and-exaggeration/

      • Ohone

        I’m already very familiar with all our issues – I’ve been around the movement for 5 years now.

        I think by the same logic as you are arguing, any men’s rights page that isn’t mentioning x, y and z women’s thing, is also nonsense.

        The #yesallwomen and the # nonotallmen thing says yes all women have experienced x, y or z thing, no not all men do x, y or z things.

        I don’t think that neglecting to mention men’s x,y and z things makes it nonsense. It just means they are concerned with x, y and z thing only.

        • John Adleman

          Just as I targeted one of the meme’s regarding the M&M’s. Men do not know anymore than women do which ones are the bad eggs. So we are in just as much peril as they are. However, that’s not necessarily seen as valid.

          • Ohone

            Can I see that m&m’s post?

          • John Adleman
          • plasmacutter

            Wow.. it still hasn’t been flagged offline? I challenge you to upload a gender-reversal, because the reverse is also true.

          • John Adleman

            I did on my blog, just not on twitter.

          • plasmacutter

            I’d do it on twitter and link to the original tweet. I mean really, the worst they can do is ban you. I wouldn’t that a big loss for a format which only facilitates bit.ly news feeds and trolling.

        • plasmacutter

          Except for all the rhetoric used on MHRM sites, I’ve never seen sites like AVFM insist #yesallmen suffer from these things every day.

          men contend with a legal system which has been perverted to allow women to use the state as a tool for abuse, this does not mean every single man suffers every day under this deliberately engineered legal abuse.

          The hysterical and cynical feminists behind #yesallwomen are trying to imply every woman has to dodge mass shootings by criminally insane half-asians in late-model bmw 3-series each day.

          • Ohone

            MRHM are saying that men suffer in an unfair system every day.

            “The hysterical and cynical feminists behind #yesallwomen are trying to imply every woman has to dodge mass shootings by criminally insane half-asians in late-model bmw 3-series each day.”

            No its not.

          • plasmacutter

            MRHM are saying that men suffer in an unfair system every day.

            They’re not saying all men suffer in an unfair system every day, they merely point out the LAW is warped denying men who are treated unfairly any recourse.

            No that’s not what its saying. Its saying that all women experience some form of harassment or rape or violence from men, and that not all men do it.

            And that’s still hysterical and patently false. I know not a single woman who has suffered harassment or rape or violence from men.

          • Ohone

            “Except for all the rhetoric used on MHRM sites, I’ve never seen sites like AVFM insist #yesallmen suffer from these things every day.”

            Ok

            The #yesallwomen thing isn’t saying that all women suffer these things everd day either.

            I cannot believe this comments section. The strawmanning is at least as bad as manboobz, and drawing out the dumb libertarian “there is no connection between shootings and the proliferation of guns” idiots now, of all time.

            The comments section is missing a few brain cells.

          • plasmacutter

            The strawmanning is at least as bad as manboobz

            #yesallwomen

            The hashtag says it all. It implies every single woman is subject to “oppression” in their everyday lives which is complete and utter hysterical bullcrap.

            It’s not straw-manning, it’s reality, otherwise it wouldn’t be #yesallwomen

            “there is no connection between shootings and the proliferation of guns”

            Who is straw-manning now? That’s not what’s being said. What is being said is:

            a ) There is no connection between violent crime and a specific tool of violence. In the UK for instance police must wear high-tech chain mail because stabbings are much higher there due to the lack of guns.

            b ) Banning guns through the criminal code does not impact the proliferation of guns, it merely means criminals are the only ones who will have guns. (for reference, see Mexico)

          • Ohone

            The hash tag means every women will experience some form of male violence.

            The corresponding hash tag #nonotallmen means no not all men are doing it.

            This is a strawman argument you made

            “The hysterical and cynical feminists behind #yesallwomen are trying to imply every woman has to dodge mass shootings by criminally insane half-asians in late-model bmw 3-series each day.”

            which you are now going to deny making.

            “b ) Banning guns through the criminal code does not impact the proliferation of guns, it merely means criminals are the only ones who will have guns. (for reference, see Mexico)”

            Correct, and when higher level criminals are the only people using guns to knock each other off, random idiots and kids won’t be shooting people because they have not got guns.

          • plasmacutter

            The hash tag means every women will experience some form of male violence.

            And this is patently false and sexist.

            Correct, and when higher level criminals are the only people using guns to knock each other off, random idiots and kids won’t be shooting people because they have not got guns.

            You mean Random Joes and parents with kids won’t have access to the weapons they need to defend themselves from cartel violence.

          • Ohone

            “And this is patently false and sexist.”

            That many well be true, but its beside the point. The point was you attacked a hysterical strawman version of it.

            “You mean Random Joes and parents with kids won’t have access to the weapons they need to defend themselves from cartel violence.”

            Illogical argument.

            Average joes and kids don’t do business with cartels in the first place.

            I live somewhere where there is high levels gang activity, average joes and kids have no dealings with it and so no need to defend themselves for them whatsoever.

            There is no normalization of guns, so petty criminals, average joes and even street cops don’t have them.

          • plasmacutter

            The point was you attacked a hysterical strawman version of it.

            No, I didn’t, you confirmed I was attacking the correct perception of it. Just because you declare something a straw-man doesn’t make it a straw-man, unless you’re god, in which case prove it by smiting me where I sit.

            Illogical. Average joes and kids don’t do business with the cartels in the first place.

            Willfully blind.

            Cartels engage in “protection rackets” and move into and take over towns via intimidation through murderous force. A well-armed populace willing to fight back is the ONLY way short of direct military occupation to neutralize such activity.

          • Ohone

            As I predicted, despite publishing a hysterical strawman, you are going to turn around straight away and deny it.

            You said its trying to imply something that is isn’t saying, for the purposes of strawanning.

            “The hysterical and cynical feminists behind #yesallwomen are trying to imply every woman has to dodge mass shootings by criminally insane half-asians in late-model bmw 3-series each day.”

          • plasmacutter

            Don’t claim that’s my straw-man.

            THEY are the ones applying #yesallwomen to this guy’s mass shooting, turning #yesallwomen into a straw man.

            As I predicted, your willful blindness is expanding in the continued deliberate ignorance of the true nature of cartel activity.

            Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people legitimate tools because of the bad actions of people they can’t control.

          • Ohone

            Don’t claim your strawman is your strawman.

            Why, might you become aware that you are making a strawman and I’m supposed to protect you from that reality like the other poster here will?

            “As I predicted, your willful blindness is expanding in the continued deliberate ignorance of the true nature of cartel activity.”

            Im ignorant because I know the cartel dont do business with average joes and kids, there for the cartele and average joes and kids aren’t doing hits on each other?

            Is the “true nature” if the cartel not doing business with other cartels … but average joes and kids, tell us all about it.

          • plasmacutter

            Again you’re willfully blind and intellectually dishonest.

            FEMINISTS are the ones applying #yesallwomen to this insane person snapping.

            THEY INVENTED THE STRAW MAN!

          • Ohone

            Oh the irony.

            No, the feminists claimed that every woman will experience some form of men harassing, raping, abusing or abusing them.

            You made the hysterical strawman,

            “The hysterical and cynical feminists behind #yesallwomen are trying to imply every woman has to dodge mass shootings by criminally insane half-asians in late-model bmw 3-series each day.”

            Now you are trying to deny it, despite the fact you published it.

            along with another strawman or two in every post you make to me.

          • plasmacutter

            You are willfully blind. I’m done addressing you until you’re ready to open your eyes.

          • Ohone

            Ok, given I’m wilfully blind and you are not a making one strawman argument after another

            You said

            “”Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people legitimate tools because of the bad actions of people they can’t control.”

            Before I face up to that terrible thought.

            Can you please explain through which process you extracted this information from my mind, in order for you to attack it.

          • plasmacutter

            Can you please explain through which process you extracted this information from my mind, in order for you to attack it.

            you expressed it in this thread?

            I mean how intellectually dishonest can you get?!

            the “Deny” part of DARVO.

          • Ohone

            “you expressed it in this thread?”

            Ok, rehashing earlier strawman.

            I didn’t express it to you. First you said I “implied it” but didn’t say it, now you are saying I out right expressed it.

            “I mean how intellectually dishonest can you get?!”

            The irony.

            Given that I didn’t express it to you in the first place, that is an intellectually dishonest argument..

            I simply pointed out that the fact that the more people that have guns, the more people will be shot, and its stupid to argue otherwise.

            A fact that you aren’t honest enough to concede.

          • Ohone

            Here is the thing you don’t understand.

            In an echo chamber strawmen arguments work well – because there is no one to challenge you on it, you always win – it creates an illusion of power and omnipotence because you always win.

            You have tried IDK how many – I’ll guess – 30 strawman arguments in succession, none of them have worked … its being going on for hours.

            It just doesn’t work, you are repeatedly trying what usually works for you but you aren’t winning.

          • Ohone

            “Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people legitimate tools because of the bad actions of people they can’t control.”

            Come on mr. strawman, tell us the process through which you extracted that information from my mind.

          • plasmacutter

            have you or have you not been advocating for the banning of guns (a tool)?

            have you or have you not been denying the lawful uses guns provide (a tool for defense)?

            Punishing law-abiding people for the abuses of a minority of bad actors is called “collective punishment”.

            I’d also like for you to count the number of times you’ve flung the “straw-man” accusation in this response thread. Who is hysterical again?

            #logic-is-for-grownups

          • Ohone

            “Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people legitimate tools because of the bad actions of people they can’t control.”

            Come on mr. strawman, tell us the process through which you extracted that information from my mind for you to attack.

          • plasmacutter

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

            Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions.

            #logic

          • Ohone

            Said Mr. Stramwman.

          • plasmacutter

            Said Mr. Ad-Hominem.

          • Ohone

            No, an ad hom is “you have a blue hat therefore everything you say is wrong”.

            And I never made that argument.

            II’m pointing out the fact that you are making one strawman argument after another.

          • plasmacutter

            No, an ad-hom is any derogatory term applied to the person and not the point.

            Mr. Ad-Hominem

          • Ohone

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          • plasmacutter

            Indeed it is. You’ve been doing it constantly.

          • Ohone

            Oh yes, reality is whatever you declare it to be, we aren’t bound by accuracy or honesty here at all.

            If we publish an hysterical strawman and are called on it, we just deny we ever made it and whoosh its gone!

            We can read peoples minds and attack the thought as know they secretly have.

            We know what people really mean, even if they didn’t say it!

            The cartel and average joes and kids are at war!

            Thats the true nature of the cartel!.

            You are too used to publishing nonsense and having people validate it here.

          • plasmacutter

            Oh yes, reality is whatever you declare it to be, we aren’t bound by accuracy or honesty here.

            And the clearest example of DARVO yet.

            http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/01/19/presto-change-o-darvo-deny-attack-and-reverse-victim-and-offender/

          • Guest

            Oh Adele, give it a rest, would you?

          • Ohone

            Good idea.

            It seem to be impossible for the people I’m talking to understand the logic that the more there is of something, the more likely it is that it will be used.

          • Ohone

            “Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people”

            Lets just pretend for a second I am really thinking that.

            Through what process are you able to extract the information from my mind, given I have not said I believe anything remotely like that?

            I cannot believe the behaviour I’m seeing here, its full on feminist style strawmanning lunacy, there is even the 2I can see into your mide and see the awful things you are thinking and attack them” strawman construction.

            I can’t believe this shit.

          • plasmacutter

            “Face it, you believe in collective punishment by denying law-abiding people”

            Lets just pretend for a second I am really thinking that.

            Through what process are you able to extract the information from my mind, given I have not said I believe anything remotely like that?

            have you or have you not been advocating for the banning of guns (a tool)?

            have you or have you not been denying the lawful uses guns provide (a tool for defense)?

            I cannot believe the behaviour I’m seeing here.

            Took the words right out of my mouth.

            let the Ohone DARVO parade continue.

          • plasmacutter

            The #yesallwomen thing isn’t saying that all women suffer these things everd day either.

            This is the third time you’ve shifted the goalposts in this discussion section.

            It’s really easy to fling “straw man” at the wall like spaghetti while shifting the goalposts. Of course, it’s all completely and deliberately intellectually dishonest, typical feminist.

          • Ohone

            Isn’t it interesting that you are accusing me of making strawman arguments, and then in your next breath accuse me of being a feminist?

            There should be nothing controversial about asking an author to male a clear argument and back up their claims.

            There should be nothing controversial about pointing out that the more people that are given apples (or guns) the more apples will be eaten (or people will be shot).

            Its just seen as controversial here because of the echo chamber effect.

            If I don’t agree with a popular but straw or illogical argument uncritically, I am set up as a straw feminist, and attacked.

    • PoeTentiate

      n/a

  • http://www.StudioBrule.com Steve Brulé

    “it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world.”

    As Warren Farrell points out, from an early age men are socialized to be disposable, and are often treated inhumanely in the process. Why should I be surprised that a small fraction of these men break and decide to get even while disposing of themselves? Maybe the solution is to treat men and boys like valuable human beings in the first place. Is that too radical for feminists?

    • Andrejovich Dietrich

      “it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world.”

      As soon as I hear words like “absolutely”, “incontrovertible”, “beyond doubt”, and others along that general thought of “do not disagree with me”. I shut down. Because if something were absolute, there would be no need to state it. It means somebody is trying to close off a topic from being called out.

      • Doug Hart

        Hearing something prefaced by the words “it’s a well known fact that………” sends up a red flag for me.

      • https://twitter.com/TicklishQuill Isaac T. Quill

        “it’s absolutely true…” = Thought Terminating Cliché

    • Mark Wharton

      Women and men reward this violence and then the feminists go omg violent men while they shun pacifist men.

  • alex brown

    “He was a 22 year old virgin, and if you watch his YouTube channel you can understand why. He is said to have been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome at a young age, he was very socially awkward, and he was not masculine in his appearance or mannerisms”

    If a 22 year pd pretty female was socially awkward and was pretty looking would she have trouble finding intimacy? Females hate themselves, they hate men who are not manly and not masculine enough.

    Good enough reason not to care about what women think.

  • Jeremy

    Men also have something all women want, protection. However, civilization and the FI have made the protection of women so ubiquitous that most women have absolutely zero concept of what life would be like if they had to exchange their services for male protection.

  • alex brown

    Police kidnap via females is not included in the violence stats.

    Women falsely phone the police to get men arrested all the time in the UK.

    I if phoned some gangsters to snatch someone and hold them in a cell for 12 hours, the state would throw me in prison for 10 years for false imprisonment.

    I consider statist thugs who snatch men on the word of women nothing more than gangsters. They even arrested me when I was a kid on the word of my own mother. (She also got into violent relationships all the time with men too. She enjoyed them.)

    When my mum attacked me with weapons police did jackshit. Police where more than willing to arrest me though!

    Police now slam 10 year old boys in police cells, when I was a kid they didn’t put kids in the cells, they do now.

    If a woman smashing a boy over the head with a plank of woman will not get a woman arrested, I can imagine how many crimes females fail to get arrested for,

    Women are the more violent sex in the home, lets not beat around the bush here. Most homeless men are the result of females chucking men out.

  • Chris Smith

    Enough…While I’m all for debate, it ultimately leads nowhere. The question is, what to do?

    The best thing you can do is to spread the word of men’s rights to the younger demographic (young men). We all knew guys like this. I’ve known several like this. #yesallwomen is a delibaerate attempt to silence men’s rights, to keep vulnerable men from self-identifying. Its an attempt to paint self-aware men with the Elliot Rogers brush. Fewer of us means less pushback, less backlash.

    Men’s rights needs to be tackled economically. Whether its going MGTOW, traveling and investing in other countries, the marriage boycott, these are things that mainstream media pays attention to. In other words, your money, or lack of, frightens them more than what you have to say.

  • Mark

    I found this exploration of the M&Ms meme quite amusing:

    http://slamnetwork.tumblr.com/post/87179282343

  • koko

    Yes all women or the joke.
    Every year in this country one million baby are sexually mutilate.
    Not girls but boys.
    This simple fact, ladies, just shut your mouth.

    The day it will be gone then you can be able to talk about equality but not before.
    ;)

  • Vương Vi-Nhuyễn – 王微軟

    This is why prostitution should be legalized. (>_<)

  • reuvenavram

    The same weekend as the Isla Vista incident there were mass shootings in Myrtle Beach and Miami. Ten people were shot, 3 were killed in Myrtle beach during a “Bike Week” celebration. Other than a few paragraphs in CNN, the only people discussing it were on “racist” blogs.

    You would think the Progressive and African American community would be concerned about 10 African Americans shot and 3 Killed during one spree in Myrtle Beach, but the only people who seem to care are racists! That’s very odd.

    • plasmacutter

      If the shooter isn’t white they’re out to bury it. The feminist media elite have a specific macro-narrative they’re after: white men are the root of all social evil.

      • reuvenavram

        But the Isla Vista shooter wasn’t “white”–or at least he’s as “white” as our President is….

  • plasmacutter

    Almost all hashtags are complete nonsense. Discourse was bad enough when people were boiling nuanced subjects down to 128 characters. The reduction of such subjects to a single #hashtag should represent criminal negligence in a society which depends upon a well-informed electorate.

    • Fatherless

      Our society relies on a well informed electorate?

      • plasmacutter

        Why do you think it’s been circling the s-bend for the past 25 years?

    • iggy

      I agree. I don’t use hashtags as it is to generalized and seems to be entirely about being trendy, a kind of hipster way of posing activism.

  • DukeLax

    I find it interesting that the white gender-feminist Elite ( who now run American media) Like to Inflame the public that its the white working class hetero males …..who are the real bad guys.

    Thats like the ruling elite saying…no we aren’t the real elite….these broken / un-educated males over here ………are the real super-power who are dominating all others.

  • Eon24

    From one of those articles linked, the Not all men: how discussing women’s issues gets derailed article:

    “Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying.”

    Why is it, I wonder, that women seem to rally together so quickly and effectively, even over the most ridiculous causes?

    • politicalcynic

      Silencing tactic. “We don’t have to listen to you, you need to shut up and listen to us”.

      Try asking one of those posters “Why do you get to dictate things?” sometime. Then get the marshmallows. The bonfire will be spectacular.

    • Ohone

      We use the NAFALT and the NAWALT arguement, the #notallmen thing seems to be the same argument in reverse.

  • visionary_23

    Just a point of clarification: if “forced to penetrate” were included as “rape” in CDC surveys and the like, even WITHOUT prison rape, we’d have, by some metrics, equal amounts of men and women being raped (likely by the other gender).

    We simply exclude the vast majority of likely female rapists of men because, vagina.

  • Mateusz82

    Just so much stupid in the media regarding this… He is Half Asian/half European… so it’s a white thing. I guess his evil white side overpowered his good yellow side, like the symbiot costume taking over Peter Parker. And when it comes to the racial aspect, it just shows internalised hatred for being Asian… since, you know, people with European decent never have any internalised self-hatred.

    When it comes to looking at him as a male, it’s all evil all the way.

    Social Justice Warriors apply their selective outrage. When addressing his white side, he’s a terrible monster and proof that white people are all privileged psychopaths. When addressing his yellow side, he’s a victim, and it’s proof that society drove him to such a terrible act (because, you know, white people are evil, and society = white people being evil). When addressing him being a male, then it’s simpler, and he’s just evil.

    Are they also going to declare the Japanese who invaded and committed acts of rape and genocide in the Nanjing Massacre to be white Europeans?

  • politicalcynic

    One of the BEST responses to this has been the #YesAllCats hashtag. If you start playing with the same general feminist BS using cats and dogs-its hysterically funny.

    And sometimes the best way to win a battle…is to make your opponent laughable.

  • politicalcynic

    Man up is one of the most vile, misandric, sexist, condescending phrases around.

    And feminists LOVE it.

    That pretty much says it all.

    • Ohone

      Feminists are opposed to “man up”, they say its one of the factors that causes men to bottle up their emptions, not ask for help etc. Its what they call “toxic masculinity”

      Does anyone here know what they are arguing against?

      • Turbo

        Not necessarily. When it comes to the “man up” thing with feminists, it will depend entirely on what they are arguing and what position they are taking, victim status, empowered woman, or anything in between.

        • Ohone

          Who do you mean by “they”, can you demonstrate what you are saying with a source?

  • Fatherless

    What are “real human emotions?” What are fake human emotions? Who gets to decide what’s real and what isn’t? Is there some set of emotions I’m not supposed to express because they are not real enough? Or is it the emotions that are too real that I’m not supposed to express? Why does anyone but me get to decide what I should express?

  • Ohone

    Christopher.

    You are not actually disagreeing with the feminists when you say some men are committing violence against men and women and that women need men to protect women from men.

    ” With all this in mind, what exactly is it that you feminists are freaking out about? The fact of the matter is, you’re safer than you have ever been.”

    This argument boils down to men are less of a threat to you than they were at some point in the past.

    “You’re far safer than men will ever be”

    This just says men are more violent with men, than they are women.

    ” and for the most part we’re actually pretty okay with this.”

    This says for the most part men are pretty ok with men being more violent with men, so women should be too because men are less violent with women than they are men.

    “Why are you trying to redefine rape?”

    They are redefining rape, in order to get more convictions of a certain type of rapist that was previously difficult to convict – this is 101 stuff.

    “Why are you demonizing we who protect you?”

    Protect them from other men? The counter part # is “no not all men. That means “no not all men”

    “Guns had nothing to do with it.”

    Except for the fact a gun was used and someone will a gun can kill more effectively and from a distance and is harder to stop.

    It’s important that we know well what their arguments are – that way we will stop corroborating their arguments while under the illusion we are defeating them and defeating strawmen arguments.

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

    “Now, it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world.”- I’d like to say here that I do not believe anyone can say this with any certainty, for a wide variety of reasons. I just wanted to say that. It’s a common belief and it needs challenging. (Note: We often publish things here I don’t agree with. I just wanted it noted that this is not a position I share.)

    • Ohone

      I think the reality is this, and I can support it with studies.

      * Women initiate most DV and commit most child abuse

      * boys are abused harder

      * boys who witness abuse in the home are more likely to act out violently.

      * therefore women have been socializing most violence into culture and likely always have

      * therefore feminism, conservatives and gender myths covering this up are part of the problem

    • Mark

      I think if you include “professional violence” i.e. the military, the police, bouncers etc. then it probably is unequivocably true since these roles are predominantly held by males but then that is a product of the gender stereotype and not a reflection of people’s true natures.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Not entirely. According to the Wikipedia article, he wounded 13. Early on, “two women were killed and a third was wounded”; when he fired at a nearby couple, “the man was wounded, while the woman received a superficial graze injury.” Later, “he continued firing, hitting several pedestrians, including a woman who was injured in the leg at a 7-Eleven convenience store, and also struck a bicyclist and a skateboarder with his car.” Toward the end, “Rodger spotted a deputy and exchanged gunfire at 9:33 p.m. before fleeing in his vehicle, hitting a second bicyclist with his car in the process,” then “fired shots at pedestrians, wounding four people,” and “fled again, collided with another cyclist and then crashed into a parked vehicle.”

    So, excluding the “superficial graze injury,” he wounded a woman, a man, several pedestrians (including a woman), a bicyclist, a skateboarder, a second bicyclist, four people, and another cyclist. That makes two women, a man, and ten sexless people (of whom six have curiously specific modes of transport, despite lacking gonads).

  • Andrejovich Dietrich

    Now while I realize that feminists don’t harsh their rhetoric against men until the death ratio is something like 100:1. But it doesn’t make sense that a Misogynist would be trying to kill more men than women. At least in the logical world that the gray matter thinkers live in.

  • Copyleft

    One of the funniest comments I saw regarding #YesAllWomen was “Finally, finally, for the first time, women are speaking up about the problems they face. They are refusing to remain silent any longer.”

    For the FIRST TIME. Finally. Uh-huh.

  • “T”

    The #YAW movement has got to be the most egotistical, narcissistic plea for attention I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing across social media. These people have managed to take a public tragedy and make it all about them. “People died, but more importantly, I caught a man staring at my ass today! Think of the children! Will someone please think of the children?” Well, missy, if you didn’t like it, maybe you should’ve told him to fuck off instead of engaging in your asinine social media sympathy grab! Talking about how women don’t owe men sex? Well guess what? Men don’t owe you anything, either! I respect someone based on the quality of their character, not on how many X chromosomes they have. You want to be treated as a human being? Well, that also means not expecting to be put on the pedestal. It’s not even remotely fair to call out the male race just because of the actions of one mentally unstable individual. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

  • aao

    I of course agree with most of this article, but in my opinion its fanatical defense of guns and gun-owning ruins it. If you’re going to say people who are pro-gun control are “absolutely blind” and their “case” “absurd”, you should at least throughly say exactly HOW and WHY. To throw attacks such as that in such a gratuitous fashion in an article only hurts AVFM and our cause and won’t help winning new advocates and supporters.

  • Larkhall

    Christopher Cantwell writes:

    “Women commit more than 40% of domestic violence crimes reported in the UK. For every 100 men who kill their wives, 75 women kill their husbands.”

    The juxtaposition of these two sentences is frankly dishonest. The UK murder rate for women killing their husbands is less than half that. Check the reference Mr Cantwell himself thoughtfully provides:

    “A hitherto unremarked peculiarity of homicide in the United States is that women kill their husbands almost as often as the reverse. For every 100 US. men who kill their wives, about 75 women kill their husbands; this spousal “sex ratio of killing” (SROK) is more than twice that in other Western nations.”

    The title of the paper he’s quoting is: “WHO KILLS WHOM IN SPOUSE KILLINGS? ON THE EXCEPTIONAL SEX RATIO OF SPOUSAL HOMICIDES IN THE UNITED STATES*….. Ferchrissakes..

    • TimMellon

      Females kill in more surreptitious ways, like poisoning, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if females are actually the #1 killers.In most cases of death not even routine toxicology tests are done unless foul play is suspected. The guy’s 50 and suddenly drops dead? Oh just a heart attack, it’s common. Even when some foul play is suspected they rarely go any deeper than the usual poisons. I can tell you plenty of poisons to use to kill someone that won’t be detected unless you’re actually looking for it and perform more extensive testing.
      I suspect cases where the guy just accidentally fell down the stairs as well.Females are the more violent sex as we can see with lesbians who have a 70% violence rate.

      • Larkhall

        You might find the following site useful – the Wall Street Journal’s “Murder in America” (http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all&ks=F) though all that hard data will kinda pour cold water on your claims about female killers. You can examine all the data, and sort it by whatever means you want. It’s a great site.

        In the period 2000 to 2010 there were 13,463 murders by female killers. There were 105,291 murders by male killers..

        Are you suggesting that women are so clever that we commit more than 90,000 undiscovered homicides a year?

        No, we kill at a ratio of nearly a tenth of yours, and when we do, it’s often in self-defence. I refer you to the paper: “Gender and Homicide: A Comparison of Men and Women Who Kill” ()which reveals that “Compared to men, women more frequently kill in situations in which their victim initiated the physical aggression.” When women kill it is often in self-defence.

        Across the world women commit far less violent crime of all sorts. If women show such a low incidence of violent crime it’s entirely inconsistent to suggest that they commit the majority of homicides. Check international crime figures – search “Homicide by gender,” “Crime by sex” – none of what criminologists know supports your contention, Tim.

      • Larkhall

        I’m sure some people literally get away with murder – the example you gave of a man falling down stairs is a good one. But do you really think it’s only women who get away with such crimes?

        You might find the following site useful – the Wall Street Journal’s “Murder in America” (http://projects.wsj.com/murder
        You can examine all the data, and sort it by whatever means you want. It’s a great site.

        In the period 2000 to 2010 there were 13,463 murders by female killers. There were 105,291 murders by male killers.. Works out as 7.8 male killers for every woman.

        Are you suggesting that America women are so clever, so ingenious that they get away with more than 90,000 undiscovered homicides a year? Homicides committed so skilfully that the authorities never even notice? Damn, they must be smart!

        No, we kill at a ratio of nearly a tenth of yours, and when we do, it’s often in self-defence. I refer you to the paper: “Gender and Homicide: A Comparison of Men and Women Who Kill” (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/… which reveals that “Compared to men, women more frequently kill in situations in which their victim initiated the physical aggression.” When women kill it is often in self-defence.

        Across the world women commit far less violent crime of all sorts which makes it highly unlikely that they commit the majority of homicides. Check international crime figures – search “Homicide by gender,” “Crime by sex” – none of what criminologists know about violent crime supports your contention, Tim.

  • Nakita Kestler

    Look, it’s not about being a victim or demonizing men. Maybe there are some like that, but that’s not what “yesallwomen” is about. It’s about the routine and socially acceptable attitude that women are sexual objects. Yes, the majority of us have been harrassed by someone who thought they were owed sex. We were told not to wear tank tops in school because we would “distract the boys”. It’s not a problem with men, it’s a problem with our social structure. These attitudes are harmful to you too, so why are you making us the enemy? We should be working together, as we were meant to do, so that everyone can be equal- period.

    • TimMellon

      I doubt very much that you were ever a ‘sexual object’, whatever that means.Wearing tank tops? Why would a school dress code be of any interest to me, or be harmful to me? Can you think of anything more trivial?

      • Nakita Kestler

        It’s just an example of the attitude that’s pervasive. And its harmful to men because it promotes the idea that guys are dogs that would be distracted by something like that.

        I don’t understand the venom in some of these replies. I never claimed men don’t have their own rights and problems. But it doesn’t have to be “women’s” issues or “men’s issues”. They’re people issues.

  • Nakita Kestler

    Wow. I posted a comment explaining our perspective, with no hate speech or bad language, and it was removed? Why? All I did was disagree with the article,and did so civilly. In fact, I expressed the opinion that both genders should work together to correct issues that affect both of us. Do you censor everyone who disagrees with you?

    If you want people to see your side, you shouldn’t shut them up when they’re trying to have a discussion.

    • politicalcynic

      Umm..gee…I see you in at least two places below….

      Sorry to upset the victimized apple cart here….

    • Andrejovich Dietrich

      Tell that to your feminist boards that have blacklisted me for my opinon. And while I was being told to die, shove things in my orifices, and some pretty radical nasty crap. I stayed, calm, and on topic.

      I see you posting, and bringing your unique thought process without barring or blacklisting here. There is an old saying I am reminded of. Something to do with a pot and kettle. I don’t need to explain what a pot and kettle is do I? I assume you may have seen them when passing through the kitchen.

      • TimMellon

        Ignore whatever any of these feminist say because it’s just a tactic they use. She knows very well that no comment she made was banned.In fact, you should remove her comment that claims this.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

      Nobody’s deleting or censoring your comments, and polite dissent is welcome (forceful dissent is tolerated, up to a point — but not personal attacks so much and no, I’m not saying you’re doing that).

      Comments get held back for moderation in certain circumstances. Read the top of the embed carefully for any warnings that may be relevant. Just now, two of your comments got flagged (although there is nothing wrong with them so they got re-approved.)

  • politicalcynic

    #Yesallwomen started over a man who killed TWICE as many men as women. But all it’s about is “oh the poor women” and “this proves misogyny kills”. In addition, the hashtag almost instantly devlolved into things like “If men were a bowl of m&ms and only 10 percent were poisoned would you eat a handful”, complaints about every petty thing that anyone wanted to interpret as “misogyny” and people who actually posted things like “I won’t be happy until all men are dead and I want to kill them myself”.

    Sorry-but the facts here are simple: Those using #yesallwomen took a tragedy in which more MEN were killed, made it ALL about women, never expressed ANY sympathy or outrage over the death of those men of any kind, and then bashed men.

    The “social structure” with the problem is the one which believes that men are disposable, that men’s lives are less valuable and that using a tragedy in which HUMAN BEINGS were killed warrants making a “political statement” about 1/3 of the individuals killed while ignoring the other 2/3’s based solely on…their gender.

    So why, exactly, should that be seen as something that is “not about” misandry? And why should any man, after having his life publicly devalued that way, support it?

    • Nakita Kestler

      Any loss of innocent human life is a tragedy. While he may have killed more men than women, he went to a sorority house with the intention of killing those girls and stated in his manifesto women were part of his reasoning for doing what he did. So it shouldn’t be surprising that it’s raised a discussion about misogyny.

      Just because your complaint may be valid doesn’t mean that ours aren’t,and you seem to want to fight with us. We want equality, for everyone, and though there may be radicals who scream more loudly about their ideas, most of us are not like that.

      It shouldn’t be about how many people of each gender were killed. People were, and it’s called a lot of attention to both causes – even though they’re really the same thing.

      • Fatherless

        This “he was on his way to a sorority house so it was really all about what he meant to do to women” doesn’t explain him knifing his three roommates and killing another man on the way. He didn’t have to kill those men to get to where he was going. They weren’t guarding the sorority house door.

        People like you will look for any bullshit excuse to minimize male suffering. There is no working with people like you. There will be no compromising about the equal value of male life.

        Did you really think you were going to come here and get us all to say “wow, I guess this person is right, my male life doesn’t matter.” How about that for objectification?

        Fuck you and fuck your tank top objectification. I’d rather be a sex object than be an invisible death object.

      • Andrejovich Dietrich

        You really do cling to that bigoted position no matter what. So what ratio of male deaths to women would in fact get you to think maybe, possibly, perhaps, it wasnt about women. 10:1, 100:1?

      • TimMellon

        Rodger wrote in his manifesto that he wanted to kill men who in his mind were better than him.Twice as many men were killed.
        Females have more rights than men so let’s stop this equality nonsense.
        And btw, gender is a linguistic term. When you’re referring to a human the word is sex.

      • TimMellon

        Are you a lesbian? Because feminism is lesbianism. These feminists can’t speak for 10 seconds without bringing up something that includes lesbians in it. Why is that? Do MRA’s bring up homosexuals every time they have something to say?

  • politicalcynic

    We know most women DON’T think that. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be so many women HERE. LOL.

    The problem is NOT “women” or “men”. The problem is the ideology known as “feminism” and what it does.

  • Mike Schonewolf

    I absolutely agree that the #yesallwomen is ridiculous and it leads to such bigoted hashtags as #killallmen.

  • Andrejovich Dietrich

    So how would you explain all the rhetoric? Public Displays of affection?

  • LikkiCurry

    Except, no you aren’t “sexual objects” more than men are disposable, and no “AllWomen” – this is bigotry in it’s purest form. Some small percentage of women. You clearly don’t even attemp at understanding the problem of rapists and people who physically abuse others – your insight ends at “he did it, meaning he is evil, and reason why he did it is MISOOOGYNYY”. Except misogyny is the symptom, not the cause – as you might realize if you studied psychology for a while. Nothing happens of itself, and actual hatred doesn’t come from thin air – most of the abusers have grown up in abusive environment themselves, and accumulated emotions while not managed properly and not released, can lead to a disaster. If I was raped by a woman, would that give me the clearance to say “All Men Are In Danger of Women”? No, because that’s ridiculous, it’s a singular case and it happens all the time in both ways. I’m sorry, but even in this thread, you’re purposefully victimizing yourself to get sympathy for your case. Elliot Rogers was an insane person. It is highly likely, that he wouldn’t have done that if society wasn’t pushing an idea that he needs a woman in his life in order to be a worthy person on him, but the fact is that he had plenty of problems and he can’t be used to describe all men as a gender.

    The problem with this hashtag is the same as with whole feminism – you want to fight for equality, but you will always put women above men and will never treat men equally to women. Even if it comes to death of men, you have no empathy for them. Don’t expect people to support you.

  • Kaitlin Powell

    The yesallwomen# revealed to me two basic tenents – one being wow this was horrible, now i want to talke about me, the second was a veiled and not so veiled cry for “More Patirarchy” Elliot and Jodi Arias are the blue and pink within the same boat of mental illness, narcissism and instability. Elliot wanted control at the point of getting sex, Jodi wanted control at the point of getting a relationship – they used violence as a means to “get even”. Elliots spectrum of those that he hated was himself (or his Asian half) thus killing his roomates that he droned on about hating as they were (Sterotypical Asians – per his missive) then went after the unattainable women aspect – (that only women seem to care about, which reveals a streak of collective fear – but I digress – Jodi had wild crazy sex with her victim – stalked him, slashed his tires and harassed his girlfriends – she exacted revenge at the point of her losing control (trying to get the relationship) the spectrum of Elliots hate was wide and Jodi’s were focused, however – they represent the same drive – lack of control, mental instability and narcissism that resulted in violence. The real issue is that women want/expect all men to atone for Elliot while men were shocked by Jodi, but did lash out. Fear manifests itself in people through anger (outward) or depression (inward) – the fear from the yesallwomen# went both ways – many women were lashing out, while many were being depondent. What was the source of this fear? I dont know, but blaming a collective for your fear is bigotry, plain and simple.

  • TimMellon

    it ends by saying that the large majority of women kill their husbands
    in acts of self defense. usually after years of physical abuse from
    which there is no escape.

    We don’t know that because the guy is dead and unable to give his side of the story and naive jurors side with the female. Most of these women are just violent and want to get rid of the man for some reason but don’t want to have to give up any of their life style so disposing of him is the ideal solution if you know you can away with it with some emotional sob story about “abuse”.

  • jbantifem

    I agree with Dean. There’s no real proof that men perpetrate more violence than women do. The statistics are all over the place because we never get the truth.

    This video made me quite angry. People literally think it’s funny when a man is getting slapped around. Yet look at all the people coming to the woman’s rescue. It’s disgusting.

    Every one of us should intervene whenever we see a woman hitting a man. Always. I have and will continue to do so in the future. If other people don’t like it, too bad. There MUST be equality in this matter. And it has to be done in a non-threatening manner to both genders. This White Knight bullshit about intimidating the man is nothing more than hatred and completely non-productive.

  • Evolved One

    “Feminists who drive so much of the policy agenda in the world….” Seriously??? Dude, you are so wrong.