Women, men – and the truth

Recently, John the Other ran an article here, “Socialized psychopathy, modeling female misbehavior,” in which he postulated that women were inherently amoral. It was written in JtO’s typically provocative fashion, and created some dissent, some of which even spilled into one of my personal friendships in a very sad and unfortunate way.

Does John’s article skirt the edge of convention and in fact dance over it wearing muddy combat boots? Well, yes.

Do his points contain enough reason that they warrant vetting and further exploration? Yes, they do, to a certainty.

Part of the dissent in the comments asserted that material of this sort was a mirroring of feminist strategy; to effectively operate within a “man good, woman bad,” paradigm. Yet when I went back to give another, intentionally more thoughtful read to the piece, I find that assertion unwarranted, and in fact consciously avoidant of important details contained in the article.

I will not go through a point by point analysis here. That may well play out in the comments if that is what readers desire. It is all still there, just as originally posted, through the link above.

There are actually more important issues at hand that I will choose to address. And, honestly speaking, I think it feeds into an already severe problem for me to take the time to present a defense to John’s already well stated ideas when there is so much more at stake than just one article.

The value of this discussion is that it brings us to a needed vetting of the concept of deconstruction; of whether it is appropriate or helpful to evaluate aspects of the modern psyche of men and women, and draw conclusions as to how those observations may or may not contribute to misandry in society.

To answer this is simple for me personally. If we cannot look at the roots of social customs like hypergamy and chivalry honestly, and seek to understand their origins, then not only are we wasting our time here, we will have also proven to be hypocrites and liars with no right to be here in the first place.

Either that, or we must subscribe to the feminist doctrine that all sexual identity is socialized and that none of this is inherent to our nature.  I am willing to give that idea due examination, but can’t assume it has any validity in advance.

The fact is that even on cursory examination I can make sense, through a sociobiological lens, of female selfishness and male disposability. I can even speculate that had women adopted a moral code that placed them in expendable roles, it would have resulted in the end of all of us a long time ago. If that is true, it does not make women bad, it makes them human.

I can make the same quick analysis about male disposability. Had men not been willing to risk and die for procreation and female survival, we likely would not be here to have this discussion. And the same inference applies. This does not make men good, just human, and disposable, which we are trying to rise above.

The entire philosophy of this corner of the men’s movement hinges on understanding all this and looking at how those roles, applied in a modern setting without such immediate survival needs, have come to visit all of us in ways that are detrimental and often unnecessarily deadly.  In particular, we look at how these things play out in our social infrastructure in places like courts, schools and the workplace.

So unless I am wrong, and there was no biological mandate that ever urged women to self-preserve at the expense of men, and to take advantage of their blood and labor without compunction or moral compass, then this is a conversation we must have.

It is just as vital that we understand what drives men to chivalry when the time and practicality have long past; indeed when the practice of it is dangerous to men in ways that no longer serve any benefit to the species at all.

If this conversation is going to be squelched by voices confusing it with misogyny, or our own internal PC aphorisms to “not do what the feminists did,” even when we didn’t, then I hope people will let me know so I can pack up this tent and go home. Just kidding. I am not going anywhere.

I hope, as this conversation gets some perspective from the fine minds that frequent this site, that at the very least we can rise above having to qualify that this is not about vilifying women, or developing a corrupt paradigm in which they are blamed for the ills of the earth; that we can immediately disabuse the notion that we are acting in the same way that feminists do.

For those of you who interpreted John’s article as a feminist-like attack on all women, it is customary in the mainstream to offer an apology, something along the lines of “if you were offended, we apologize.”

First, I don’t offer apologies that start with the word “if.” Those apologies are empty and meaningless. And second, I don’t offer apologies when nothing wrong was done.

What I do offer, what we offer at A Voice for Men, is people of good intent, trying to slog each and every day through the gender insanity in this world, trying to find answers; trying to find truth. We will not always hit the mark, but will not miss because our aim is clouded by hate, prejudice or ignorance.

Where we do err, we will strive to be better, but not because of PC mandates and swallowing blue pills. This website will continue, as we always have, to examine how men and women came to be the way they are.

I have been doing that myself for years, and always with the hope that at some point we can assist men and women, at least the few who want to, in rising above all of it and meeting each other in a place where they see each other as human beings instead of human doings.

We won’t get there without the truth, and the truth won’t be found unless we allow ourselves to look for it.

Support us by becoming a member

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

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Stu

    “We won’t get there without the truth”

    Feminists believe the truth is manufactured, and their version of the truth, conjured up with their chants and slogans and magic spells…..and lies……is just as valid as the true truth.


  • mongo

    If one accepts that men and women are inherently different, it is inevitable that we will arrive at descriptions of those differences.

    Where we most differ from feminists is that we are willing to acknowledge this reasonably, rather than deny it. We are also in the ironic position of wanting law to treat people equally, regardless of their differences, whereas the feminists want law that treats the sexes differently, in spite of arguing that there are no differences!

    • Stu

      Feminists arguing that there is no difference between the sexes was a ruse all along. They have always sort special privileges for women and no accountability for women, as well as special obligations for men.

      The way feminists see women and men in the same way that slave owners seen black slaves…….they are born to be masters…….blacks are born to be slaves.

      This makes them the largest most powerful group of extreme bigots left in the world. Bigger than the KKK ever was……bigger then the Nazi party ever was…..infested in more countries than any other ideology ever was……and at the same time….disguised enough to render their bigotry almost invisible to the majority…..invisible enough to have the majority support them.

      They have hit a wall though……any further encroachments on men’s rights or any further entitlements for woman are going to be near impossible to hide for the bigotry they are. We are reaching the point where any progress by them can only be made by exposing their bigotry and hatred for all to see. As the victims of feminism increase… does the awareness of its true nature and agenda……..and it can’t progress without victims……it does not produce…….it takes off of others……it can only grow by stealing and oppressing. Resources…..labor….money….opportunities……are taken from society……along with the benefits to everyone……and the benefits are transferred only to women…..they do not create any additional resources……they merely confiscate resources for their exclusive use….depriving others.

      I don’t know when the tipping point will be reached……but I know they aren’t going to stop until it is.

  • Robert Full Of Rage

    I don’t believe there was anything wrong with JTO’s article. It is important we understand the female and male psyches’. I appreciate that AVFM is not being apologetic and will not dismiss subjects because they might hurt some people’s feelings. Sticking your head in the sand will not make the world a better place, nor will it help us understand one another better.

    Hypergamy is not a dirty word. Men’s lack of understanding of the female psyche has caused us a great deal of pain. Personally, I feel much safer with the knowledge I have about the workings of the female psyche. I used to be ignorant to this knowledge, and I paid for it with heartbreak after heartbreak. If people can’t be honest about their own behaviors, then they will do more harm than good.

    I have been guilty of giving into my chivalry instincts in the past, especially when I was a blue-pill man. I have learned to ignore my chivalry instincts, but it is not easy. I am ashamed to say that there are times when I still commit chivalry. I am guilty of chivalry on rare occasions, but once is one time too many.

    I have been honest with all of you about my shortcomings, so I hope everyone can do the same thing. Our behavior might be ugly at times, but trying to cover it up is even uglier.

    • Robert Full Of Rage

      I never want to see a subject matter sugarcoated so no one feels alienated. I would like to see people call a spade a spade, even if it makes people feel uncomfortable. I hope AVFM does not go soft. I am not going to compromise my approach to feminism by using kid gloves. I understand there is a time and a place to be diplomatic, but there are also times and places that call for fucking someone’s shit up. I really enjoy this website, so I hope I don’t start getting shamed for being too harsh.

  • TDOM

    I am one of those who took JtO’s words as an “attempt to paint men as morally superior to women.” It simply sounded that way to me. I responded that “Doing that makes us no better than the feminists.” However, I began by stating “It’s an interesting thought JtO, but I’m not sure I can agree. It’s worth exploring though.” I will stand unapologetically by all of those comments. It is, in fact, a topic worth discussing, it is also a position with which I disagree. I explained why.

    One of the things that I have always enjoyed about this site and many others in the manosphere is that such discussions take place and we are free to disagree and we can be civil in our disagreement. Paul you are correct stating that “We won’t get [where we are going] without the truth, and the truth won’t get there unless we allow ourselves to look for it.” One way of looking for it is to voice our opinions and discuss our differences.

    As such I have begun writing a series of articles at my blog called Nature vs. Nurture. The first segment is posted ( and is a philosophical discussion of epistemology (the nature of knowledge). I’m currently researching part 2. When completed I’m planning on submitting it in its entirely to this site, but will continue posting the segments on my site as each is done.

    John’s discussion was provocative. It’s too bad that it may have hurt some feelings or damaged some relationships. But if it is worthwhile to discuss these issues, then it must be acceptable to disagree.


    • Stu

      Blasphemy :)

    • Paul Elam

      As aways, TDOM you approach your dissent with reason and with unity in mind. And it is certainly acceptable to disagree, which is why all those comments remain.

      What was not acceptable was some of the stuff that happened behind the scenes. That clearly bled over into my writing, and I apologize for that.

      But I do have a challenge for you. If JtO is correct, and I think he is, that human sociobiology mandated development of moral codes, e.g. to sacrifice for others with life and limb, which it did not mandate in women, then how do we honestly articulate that without being concerned that we are claiming superiority?

      Personally, given the modern state of affairs, I see that morality in men as a deficiency, not an advantage. But we have not even gotten that far in the discussion.

      The real question here, and I am posing it to you and everyone else (but not that we ever need to dwell on it) is if it is honest and accurate to say that men have more body strength than women, then why is it so out of line to speculate that we also have a set of moral codes that women were not forced to develop by evolution?

      • TDOM

        “… why is it so out of line to speculate that we also have a set of moral codes that women were not forced to develop by evolution?”

        Very good questin Paul. My answer is simply that morality is not genetic or biological. There may be some biological basis for behavior (I will address this in my Nature vs. Nurture series), but morality results from the interpretation and value judgements placed on those behaviors.

        For instance, a man kills his wife. This statement alone brings negative value judgements and many would state that he committed an immoral act. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he shot her after an argument in which he wrongly suspected her of cheating. Most would consider him guilty of murder. But perhaps he shot his wife who was wielding a knife and had just placed that knife at the throat of his 4 year old child and threatened to slice it open. He has just committed the exact same act. He shot his wife. But this time most of us would consider it justified in order to save the life of his child. We might even think him heroic. But it is the exact same behavior. My position would be that if genetics are involved, it is the same gene that would predispose him to violent behavior in both cases. Socialization may prevent him from committing the former act while encouraging the latter. Value judgements (moral vs. immoral) placed on that behavior would be the result of that same socialization.

        As my Nature vs. Nurture series moves into the psycho-socio-cultural realm I’ll have more to say on this.


        • Paul Elam

          Well, if we are forced to ignore any possibility that aspects of the psyche are rooted in sociobiology, then I would agree with you, but that only puts us at an impasse. Notwithstanding the fact that I believe those value judgements you allude to also stem in some way from our psychobiology.

          Of course I am not ruling out the obvious impact of socialilzation. But at the risk of droning on too much about psychobiology I also cannot ignore the possible influence it has on socialization itself.

          For instance, our early roots dictated that men protect women. Are we to say that the nature of our military and police efforts have no connection to that at all? That instead all of that transpired because of a set of value judgements that emerged, seemingly from nowhere?

          • TDOM

            “For instance, our early roots dictated that men protect women. Are we to say that the nature of our military and police efforts have no connection to that at all?”

            On the contrary. The behavior evolved due to natural selection and is most certainly related (if one accepts evolutionary psychology theory). That we place high moral value on this however, is socialized. In fact, our view of morality is often viewed as one of external control. Morals are often said to be handed down by God. I tend to believe that behavior (or at least tendencies towards behavior) is a combination of bio-social factors, but value judgements and morals tend to vary between cultures and are more likely to have been create by societal norms than biology. But it is an interesting argument.


            “That instead all of that transpired because of a set of value judgements that emerged, seemingly from nowhere?”

          • Jeremiah


            Whereas the morals we had 150 years ago were “handed down by God” (in other words, religion promoted these morals in order to suppress the worst elements of human nature, especially female nature), today our morals are merely extensions of the worst elements of female nature (such as selfishness and weakness) and the most easily manipulated elements of male nature (to protect women). So, you’re right, socialization is quite important, but all of the problems we have today are rooted in nature.

          • TDOM

            @ Jeremiah
            One of the functions of morality is to restrict natural behaviors. It serves to encourage those we have judged to be “good” and restricts those we judge to be “bad.” What we see in feminism’s new morality is the lifting of those restrictions on female behavior and the imposition of new restrictions on male behavior.

            Both men and women evolved specific behaviors, various societies developed systems of morals to place controls upon those behaviors for the benefit of those societies. What we have seen with the acceptance of feminism is a socialized change in the behaviors we now view as “acceptable” from a societal standpoint. The behavior is the same. The problems we experience today are problems because social acceptance of natural behaviors has changed. Thus the problems are not due to nature, but are due to cultural acceptance of behaviors once deemed harmful to society and restrictions of behaviors once deemed beneficial.


          • Jeremiah


            That’s a good way of putting it, but:

            “Thus the problems are not due to nature, but are due to cultural acceptance of behaviors once deemed harmful to society and restrictions of behaviors once deemed beneficial.”

            But these cultural changes are rooted in nature. If females weren’t naturally more selfish, the culture never would have changed to accommodate them. What happened was that with the luxuries of technology women were given the luxury of the opportunity to revert to their base desires, in other words, nature.

            You might also say (though perhaps it is stretching) that traditional cultures were an extension of male nature to care for others. Males got together and developed religious memes that would be for the greater good.

      • Ivo Vos

        Paul, very good question, why it would be out of line to question the possibility of a different set of moral codes ? And I would like to add, what kind of differences might be described and why do differences in morality often lead to heated debates ?

        Here are my two cents.
        There is the question about the nature of morality. What is morality and what makes it different from, say, a technical description of a car or the best way to hunt sabre-tigers ? Morality has to do with our own, human, behaviour and by necessity postulates what kind of behaviour is to be preferred or avoided in our daily circumstances. It can be seen as a prescriptive, behaviour oriented interpretation of our emotions. And by implication prescriptive about the way we think about our emotions, what we normally describe as our feelings. Describing feelings as interpretations of our emotions instead of the actual inner emotional state of ourselves, the ‘real thing’ so to say, will probably be literally inconceivable for most people. What our consciousness makes out of it, that is to say how we interpret our inner emotional state is ‘all there is’ (at least to our conscious minds). So how can there be something else, it surely does not present itself in another way. But there is a catch, or there are a couple of ‘catches’.

        First, how did this interpretation arrive in our world ? Did we suddenly receive these interpretations as the result of the magic of ‘Thor’s hammer’ striking us with this new possibility or did we slowly develop it over time. And if some variant of ‘Thor’s hammer’ exist, when exactly does it strike a child ? We have to assume that we slowly developed the possibility over time and became far better equipped to communicate these interpretations to each other. We became ‘social’ animals. But we had to start, just like the other animals, with what we share with other animals as inner communication in the form of emotions. Very successful, in a evolutionary sense, but very confusing for us as well. The interpretations became our ‘reality’. But there is no reason to assume that what we think the world is, is actually nothing more or less than interpretations of our emotions. It is a communication property, cannot be described in terms of physical properties of the world we already have at our disposal and we only have very recently just begun to scratch the surface of human communication, let alone communication in general. We are used to describe the world, including our ‘inner’ world, our internal communication, in mechanical terms, as a construction. Communication is not a construction, no matter how hard we try to apply the in other fields successful ‘Western scientific method’ (as described by Karl Popper among others) to the phenomenon. So, I assume that what we think reality – or ‘The Truth’ – is, and that includes morality, is actually interpretation of our emotions and in most cases we use the interpretations of others. Principally, we cannot communicate our emotions, our inner states, directly. And that’s why we love music, but that’s another story.

        Second, morality is inherently very, I mean really heavily, emotion bound. I could argue that mathematics is an interpretation of emotions aimed at reducing one of our strongest emotions, fear (and thereby introducing unbelief and another heated argument, the heat alone would make a compelling argument about the emotional nature of the construct), but morality is by implication emotion bound. Morality has to do with daily behaviour, decisions about what kind of behaviour is (supposed to be) appropriate and as social animals, dependent on one another, has immediate consequences for our self and our survival possibilities. We cannot make decisions without emotions driving the decision. Computers can make wonderful computations, but they cannot make decisions. Contrary to the common belief, and in the past decades convincingly demonstrated by neuro-scientists, humans cannot make decisions without emotions. Evolutionary, this makes a lot of sense. Why would the wisdom of life on earth, accumulated over billions of years, suddenly be thrown away by the ever changing interpretations of humans assuming to be smarter than life in a single life span ? Not very likely, in spite of our religious, and emotionally laden fervour to convince ourselves otherwise.

        Third. If morality, instead as a universal truth can be viewed as interpretations of our emotions aimed at surviving as a social species in varying environments, variations of moral codes can be expected in various circumstances and over time. And that is precisely what we witness. It is ongoing evolution of our interpretations, based on daily experiences and our ability to change the environment in order to gain better survival possibilities, as demonstrated (afterward interpretation) by the actual outcome. And wherever people, raised with different moralities meet and suddenly have to live in a common, shared environment we can expect emotional disputes, sometimes leading to all-out wars. Very emotional, hardly rational. Human history is written by these disputes, up to today. It is about how we think we can survive as humans, it is directly related to our life. At the same time, speculations about how to better our circumstances in a fictional future world, and in this fictional future world what kind of morality should be in place, is also an indissoluble part of our morality. And our emotional conflicts will be over differences in these ‘future world’ moralities.

        Fourth. Besides different moralities based upon biological sexuality and the different emotions that we can witness in our daily lives, up to very recent times we have constructed different (and overlapping) survival spheres, or differing circumstances in which we lead our daily lives, based on sexuality. With great evolutionary successes. Men, generally have been busy with exploring an ‘outer’ world. And have been busy with moral constructs based on their experiences in this ‘outer’ world. A world where being able to survive in hostile, external experienced conditions had to be faced. The morality had to be aimed at surviving in a world experienced as an external, or in other terms ‘objective’ world. And trying to make sense out of that. Women have been busy with exploring, and consolidating, an ‘inner’ world, the survival of our naked existence as social species. A world where the behaviour of other members of the group is an absolute condition to survive, as an individual and as the mother of offspring. The morality had to be aimed at surviving in a group and placed a higher priority on the behaviour of the group and it’s members, and thereby a higher priority to agree on the shared interpretation of emotions within the group. In my view, in which feelings are interpretations of emotions, women were by survival necessity more driven to ‘share their feelings’, or in other terms, agree upon a mutually shared interpretation of emotions. Which has the appearance of becoming the actual ‘inner world’.

        Fifth. There is growing knowledge about sexual differences of our brains and the internal processing of emotions. That does not mean that there exists a basic difference in learned skills in whatever field between men and women. All the evidence points in general (statistical) equal possibilities. From a evolutionary view, it would be very, and I mean really very, very strange that sexual differences on this aspect could survive in our species. Just to state one question, how would we be able to pass on our mental, our communication possibilities to next generations if there were sexual differences in this capacity that sets us apart form other species ? On the other hand, and also from an evolutionary viewpoint, differing variations between men and women exist, and that implies men vary more on mental capabilities. These are evolutionary important, but relatively very small variations that normally don’t make much difference in our daily lives.

        The way we handle our emotions however shows some remarkable differences. And I don’t mean the usual prejudices about how men come from Mars and women from Venus. Emotions in women seem to be far more ‘locked in’ as part of the ongoing interpretations while emotions of men are less ‘locked in’. We share the same kinds of emotions, but our inner communication of them differs (in general, or ‘statistically’). We can have endless, and in most cases pointless, debates about the morality (that is, if one way is better or not in terms of human survival) of it all. Personally, I don’t think morality is applicable. Both ways have their pro’s and con’s. And from what I have learned, women are perfectly able to inform us men about the con’s in a way that is hard for us to conceive. I have a hard time to experience this emotional processing anyway, my internal communication is less suited for such a task. On the other hand, for most women it is pretty hard to experience emotions of men in the way men do. Their inner communication is ill suited to do this task. And that’s what we experience on a daily basis.

        Sixth. As an imperative for our survival, we have a really strong interest in convincing other people about our moralities, our interpretations of our emotions. Based on the very same emotions, it will be an ongoing endeavour to convince others of our interpretations as the only possible truth, with or without the aide of various sorts of Gods or external forces equipped with human agency, as our life depends on it – literally. And when others, in our case feminists for instance, are hell bound to impose their morality upon us, more often than not we have no alternative other than to offer an alternative morality. Preferably based on our evolutionary advance when the subject of morality is the ‘outer world’.

        So, after this rather lengthy exposition (I surely hope George Olduvai will help with correcting everything that has been lost in translation), I assume basic differences in moral codes between men and women, and they were partly based on our evolution.

  • Jeremiah

    I always say “it’s not misogyny if it’s true (and it’s not misandry if it’s true either)”. The PC police don’t seem to like that.

    Truth is our ally, politically correct censorship is our enemy. The folks who get upset when we have these discussions aren’t actually seeking solutions to these problems at all, they’re just looking to feel good as if they’re helping, even though they’re really not.

    We’ll never change anything if we’re not honest for fear of being portrayed as “misogynists”. The real problem is that we live in a culture that literally embraces lies, where the truth is seen as WRONG. That’s the so-called “progressive” modern society we live in.

    These issues are much larger than just men’s rights or sex differences. Those are just a piece of the puzzle. There are serious flaws in our culture today, and we cannot solve the problem of misandry without examining them. Collectivism vs individualism, leftism vs conservatism, the establishment vs the people, masculinity vs femininity, feminization of men, sex roles, the decline of rhetoric, the decline of the rule of law, intentionalist vs textualist interpretations of the constitution, whether a written constitution works at all, technological stagnation, lack of self-sufficiency, big government, destruction of the family unit, the decline of the middle class, hedonism vs responsibility, the decline of practical wisdom, the self-esteem movement.

    We are just ass-backwards in so many ways, but they are all related, and there is a cohesive answer to how things *ought* to be, because we really ought to be seeking a society that *works*. And the only way we get there is by continuing to examine these issues and tell the truth about what we find, pushing past the societal biases we’ve been infused with. We only succeed by changing the dialogue, much as Ron Paul has done to some extent in the US presidential race: We change the dialogue and we don’t play by their rules.

    • Jeremiah

      I also wondered if you guys have seen the following study:

      * Women are more sensitive and less utilitarian than men.

      * Women are more warm and less reserved than men.

      * Women are more apprehensive and less self-assured than men.

      * Men are more emotionally stable and less reactive than women.

      * Men are more dominant and less deferential than women.

      * Men are more rule-conscious and less expedient than women.

      * Men are more vigilant and less trusting than women.

      You can consult the following for definitions of these terms:

      • Jeremiah

        Now if you want to see something even some people here might find controversial, what about this?

        All of the typically masculine personality traits are, in my opinion, *superior* to the typically feminine personality traits if you want a just and reasonable society rather than one built on weakness and emotional instability. Feminine traits have their place, of course, but encouraging femininity in men does not generally end well for cultures (they collapse). Most men should act like men, not women, if we want a stable and just society. There is a reason patriarchal societies thrive: because men are simply better equipped to be the leaders and drivers of societal advance, and women are (a little too) happy to go along and be provided for.

        Women are more easily manipulated than men and they are less rational. Women are the sex that votes for big government because they prefer to be taken care of rather than have to take care of themselves (women’s suffrage led directly to the welfare state). Women have been content to contribute very little to building civilization while men were busy creating it out of the harsh realities of the world we live in. (barbarossaaaa, Why should I want men to be more like women? I don’t. No one who values a just and functional society should. I don’t accept the widespread feminization of men. It works against us, and that’s exactly what our enemies want.

        Am I pushing unjust responsibilities on men? Is this too “traditionalist”? What if there can be no “equality” for men and women? What if that is a dream? What if there can be only equity, a system that isn’t equal but is fair to men, women, and children, and doesn’t end in the dying out of the society?

      • Jeremiah

        Here is a quotation by Demonspawn on the matter of rights, responsibilities, and privileges and traditionalism:

        There is no such thing as equality between men and women. MRAs who advocate for equality, even equality under the law, are actually arguing for a system of female superiority, even if they don’t realize it.

        There is more than just equal rights to create equality. There are also equal responsibilities and equal privilege. The crux problem is that there is no way to attain equal privilege until both men and women are seen to be at the same level of individual disposability. That simply won’t happen as long as women are the reproductive units of the human race, among other factors.

        So when you add equal legal rights to a socially privileged/preferred/protected group, those legal rights/responsibilities which are equal at this moment will quickly shift to greater rights/less responsibilities to the privileged group.

        The only sustainable general equality between men and women is men having more rights, women having greater privilege and less responsibilities. i.e. The system we had before feminism screwed it up.

        And here is some elaboration:

        • Perseus

          This is precisely what has been formulating in my own mind.

          There are so many levels of projection in ‘feminism’, but the ‘male privilege’ con has got to be one of the most insane. As I have become aware of female privilege, it has come to fascinate me on a daily basis. It is so deep, so pervasive, and it starts from birth. I have been imagining the distinct thoughts that mothers must have when giving birth to a male or a female. I can only imagine that when a woman bears a female, she has thoughts about how pleasant and enjoyable the girls life will likely be, how she will be taken care of by others and free to explore the intricate joys life has to offer. But when she bears a male, her thoughts must be of the sort: the life for a male is an ugly one, I wish you the best, but I know it’s likely to suck.

          One fundamental difference in female/male perspectives which I have recognized is that females look at life as a continuum of opportunities to have ‘fun’, and accumulate pleasant life experiences, passaging through the various stages of life with intent. While those aspirations are present for males, they are generally overridden by the knowledge that he is going to have to provide for himself and others, and so ‘fun’ and the pleasantries take a second seat to earning his way through life, and in fact earning enough excess that he can attract a mate and reproduce. In short, with the knowledge that they will be taken care of, female priority is lolling around, indulging in personal gratification at the most subtle level, and really just enjoying everything life has to offer. While a male’s priority is wrestling an abundance of resources from the environment in which he finds himself. And the big lie in feminism is that “since females have careers and make money, there is less financial burden on the man”. This is a lie because of the fundament of hypergamy. Even females in med school say they would only marry a man more “successful” than them. Nice. Thanks affirmative action. This is the truth of ‘male privilege’ and always has been. Modern females who entertain the filthy lie of ‘male privilege’ are truly low lifes.

          So to return to Jeremiah’s comment, female privilege is inherent and intrinsic, it is something that exists prior to anything civilization has to offer such as ‘rights’. In this light, it is highly plausible that the inception of ‘rights’ can indeed be seen as something conceived of to improve the conditions for males, to attempt to equalize the playing field with females, males being the ones with a deficit of inherent privilege. This then having the consequence of unleashing male potential in a way that is otherwise precluded by female-centric dominance.

          ‘Feminists’ assail ‘property’ as a construct. The reason for this I think can be traced back to the following. Male social value has tended to be in what he does, ‘laboring'; but doing things is very transient, it has no stability without the concept of ownership of the products of that labor. Female social value, and indeed her biological imperative, both manifest internally, mooting significant value to be gained by a construct of ‘private property’. Indeed such a concept is at odds with her interests to receive the benefits of male labor for free. Because of the nature of the female, the construct of ‘private property’ and ownership of the fruits of one’s labors is not in her interests. So they are communist, socialist, marxist by nature because they want goods from others in exchange for nothing. Note that females break consistency- they do not want sex to be ‘communal’ or freely accessible, they want to control this as private property, primarily for the purposes of control and manipulation which it affords them.

          • BertieW

            When my wife gave birth to boys, my mother told her she was lucky to have sons instead of daughters. She said sons will always take care of her when she gets old.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Actually the old adage is :

            A son leaves home to take a wife,
            but a daughter’s a daughter for life.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            You theory is good to a point, but women had the “lolling about” part DOWN – Leave It To Beaver era Bridge clubs, Country clubs, Coffee klatches and the like.

            Women have rejected ALL that in favor of The Rat Race, (some of) The Dirty Work (10% of the military IS female and they ARE being injured or killed in war zones), and Single Parent Breadwinner.

            Traditional female “lolling about” is actually despised and rejected by most females. Even Motherhood is relegated to warehousing children with strangers who do not love them. Baby’s first step is witnessed by Miss Pookie at Kindertown while Mommy proudly struts her stuff prosecuting rapists or pepper spraying OWS protesters.

            Women who go the traditional “lolling about” route are scorned and reviled by their peers. It’s simply unacceptable.

          • Jeremiah

            Excellent, Perseus.

            “So they are communist, socialist, marxist by nature because they want goods from others in exchange for nothing.”

            This sums is up. Leftism is inherently feminine in nature. Conservatism (not Republican!) is masculine in nature.

    • Jeremiah

      Ooh, I forgot to mention one of the biggest influences, education. Our educational system is a fucking joke. See Keyster’s comments at The Spearhead:

  • Dazza

    I liked the article by JtO. It reminded me of what Schopenhauer said in respect to women lacking a sense of justice.

    We need to pursue the truth. Without it, we are in dark and have no idea how to move.

    “I was running toward my dreams, tripped over reality and hit my head on the truth” -Unknown-

  • Tawil

    “they are amoral – simply lacking in a moral or an ethical compass. Whether this is innate or learned is a matter for speculation outside this discussion’s scope, although my own view is that it is a socialized characteristic.”

    Straight to the point: the golden rule of quality MRA discussion has always been to avoid demonizing women in general, and to focus instead on the demonizing of feminism/ists. If we need to target negative behaviors of women generally its important IMO to talk of how feminism and chivalry (or capitalism or whatever) have fostered such behavior, and to assiduously avoid essentialist claims -particularly negative essentialist claims.

    The word sociopathy- its a clinical term with a very precise definition, actually another term for ‘psychopath’ (ie. a psychopath is what the person is, and sociopath refers to what the psychopath does). To use a psych term in a layman’s way without giving an explanation of the difference between formal and informal usage is asking for trouble. Most folks have the internet these days and are becoming educated about psych disorders, or at the very least get some idea about disorders at the cinema. Psychopathy/sociopathy refers to an intractable personality disorder applied to people who are incapable of empathy – and this is not the case with the vast majority of women.

    These issues could have been more carefully addressed, though I’m not out to shoot down the good work done (and being done) by JTO. As Paul said in a previous piece there is no professional team of editors and advisors here, and so quickly generated articles are bound to appear from time to time and create misunderstanding.

    • Tawil

      PS. While the majority of women are capable of empathy and moral conscience I agree with JTO that society has socialized women to not exercise moral agency and empathy when it comes to males. Though the term sociopathy is not ideal I get his point and he’s dead right.

    • Jeremiah

      “avoid essentialist claims”

      Avoiding generalizations means never accomplishing our goals. This is one of those screwy things I mentioned about modern society: this idea that nobody is allowed to generalize. Because oh golly, we might offend someone!

      [Side note: a discussion of what our goals are is important. My goal is a stable, healthy, functional society that is as fair as possible. Without that goal in mind, the results of any “solutions” put forth are ephemeral.]

      “Straight to the point: the golden rule of quality MRA discussion has always been to avoid demonizing women in general, and to focus instead on the demonizing of feminism/ists. If we need to target negative behaviors of women generally its important IMO to talk of how feminism and chivalry (or capitalism or whatever) have fostered such behavior,”

      You’ve got it backwards! Feminism took hold precisely because it is an extension of female psychology! Chivalry took hold precisely because it is an extension of male psychology! You’re focusing on the symptoms, not the cause.

    • blueface

      I think sociopath / psychopath is entirely correct in the discussion of feminism for two reasons.

      For one, feminism is a natural home for psychopaths. My ex had the courts and the police jumping around. She was the centre of attention and and had the added joy of watching me going through the wringer. She told the most horrendous lies just to watch the show.

      Not only had she no empathy for me, but the damage done to the kids who went to her and those who stayed with me didn’t make her hesitate for a second. She had no empathy of anyone.

      She did it because she could: Power. And, when her lies started to unravel, she pulled out the pity card: abuse.

      All of this is classic psychopath.

      For feminism as a whole, psychopath is a useful metaphor. Look at the National Plan being devised for Australia. Who does that do any good for?

      The only thing that the National Plan will do, given that the diagnosis (domestic violence = men hitting women) is factually wrong and the solution (demean and degrade men) is morally wrong, is distort the dynamics of domestic violence.

      The academics, social workers, and other feminist groups who devised this plan get to watch the show.

      Relationships will be more fractured, more false claims of violence will be reported, more courts, more speeches, more reports, more conferences. No empathy for the couples under the microscope. No empathy for the disenfranchised men. No empathy for the tax payer funding this. No empathy for the police and others who have to implement this nonsense as though it will really work.

      The reason for this: Power.

      And if someone notices that domestic violence is not actually being solved, out will come the pity cards of under-funding, under-mining, and patriarchy. Again, although it applies to a group, classic psychopathy.

      • Tawil

        Feminism itself does have psychopathic elements in it, I totally agree. But that is a different proposition to describing “women” as suffering from the disorder… a disorder in which the sufferer is incapable of empathizing or of having a conscience. Women are capable of the latter, so use of the term sociopath needs to be carefully explained.

  • AntZ

    Again with all respect, with all humility, here is my opinion, illustrated with an example:

    CHESS: There has never been a female world class chess player. Examination of the social and financial situation of world class male chess players suggests that these men had no particular logistical or training advantage. It is easy to conclude that women cannot compete because they lack some fundamental intellectual capability.

    Similar arguents can be made for other purely intellectual endeavors such as mathematics and theoretical physics.

    If we look at areas where social, economic, and educational advantages DO matter … women do far BETTER compared to men. An extreme case is medical school and law school, where success requires a vast outlay of resources. Women are the majority of graduates in both fields.

    Fact 1: The performance gap between men and women is SMALL (or negative) in technical fields where resources matter.
    Fact 2: The performance gap between men and women is LARGE in purely intellectual fields where resources are unimportant
    Conclusion 1: Women are not the intellectual equals of men
    Conclusion 2: Women enjoy a substantial resource advantage relative to men

    SO WHAT? I suggest that an MRA should NEVER engage in this kind of thinking.

    >>> Any suggestion that women lack any capability (intellectual, moral, physical, character) implies male obligation as “caretakers” of women <<<

    In other words, any suggestion that women cannot take care of themselves implies that men must be responsible for women.

    * Feminism has succeeded in eliminating all female obligations to men.

    * The goal of the MRM should be to eliminate all male obligations to women.

    How can men justify terminating our "nanny" contract as caretakers of women, if women are "helpless"?

    Conclusion: It is in the best interest of the MRM never to discuss any flaw or flaws in female character, intellect, or other capabilities.

    If this is difficult to do, remember that, even if men are better than women at abstract intellectual achievment, women may be better at the only game that matters: POWER.

    After all, in every Western nation, who are the serfs, and who are the masters?

    Egyptian royalty were terrible at mathematics and geometry. They had SLAVES to do that kind of work. We are rapidly heading towards the same kind of world.

    • Stu

      I don’t think that recognizing any areas where men, or women have innate advantages in ability or performance implies that one owes the other any of the resources or benefits they can generate from their abilities.

      For example, men are stronger than woman. This means we can do many things better…build houses, clear land, mine metals….etc etc. Does that mean men owe woman a house built with male labor…….NO. Does a bigger stronger more capable man owe me some of the produce of his labor……of course not. Individual women may trade something they have for something men have that they want……and it’s up to each to decide if the price is right. Individual….not collective. Women have the ability to have babies……so they should have babies for men….for free…..right……to compensate us for nature not giving us that ability. Nobody would suggest that.

      Any abilities you possess, whether innate or aquired…….are yours….you own them…and should be entitled to keep anything produced with them unless you personally….not the collective….not the state…decide to trade them for something else. You have no right to demand those better or differently equipped provide you with anything……only to barter the produce of your labor and skills and abilities in an exchange of services and goods. You have the right to beg for charity…but no right to force anybody to give you anything.

      Anything else just leads to a society that discourages those that can……not too……and those that can’t…..or would rather not……to mooche of others….and pursue unproductive lives based on trivial pursuits… a child seeking amusement and entertainment….without a thought to providing anything for themselves. That might be ok for a child…..but when adults are like that…’s game over for society.

      • Malestrom

        ”* The goal of the MRM should be to eliminate all male obligations to women.”

        I agree, but only insofar as this will speed up the proccess of civilizational decay and collapse after which point a new, healthy society can emerge based on the old model of mutual obligation. This is the only way forward as I see it, trying to have women’s obligations restored is futile, it would be like an power company trying to get a customer to start paying his bills again voluntarily even though they are still supplying his home with electricity. He will start paying again only when they shut off his power.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Is this something like the old Soviet Union, where the women did the labor and the men drank Vodka?

          • Skeptic

            the characterization of USSR women as slavish workers and USSR men as idle alcoholics dishonors an enormous amount of USSR males industrious sacrifice. It seems a feminist thing to say.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I specifically said “OLD” Soviet Russia, it’s my understanding the NEW Russia is not that way.

            You know? Back when Russia was the “Evil Empire” and had the largest prison population in the world?

            Maybe we’re going through those same….growing pain?

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Thanks, Skeptic, for prodding me to do the research.


            Wow. Talk about …”without firing a single shot…”

            1917-1955 “Stalin insisted that young women must be fully equal to men, and could and should do anything a man could do. Peasant women often performed hard physical labor in factories, heavy construction building dams, roads and steel mills in summer and winter. Women could also advance through education, as men could. The preferred profession for women was medicine: by 1950 75 percent of all Soviet doctors were women. However, women were expected to make great sacrifices for their great opportunities. The vast majority had no choice but to work outside the home as their husbands could not earn enough to support a family, even though men held the best jobs.”

    • Jeremiah

      Is your final conclusion sarcasm? If the goal of the MRM is to eliminate all obligations then the actual result is destruction of society.

      • operationoptout

        With all do respect, what possible interest would the MRA have in correcting yet another fucking problem we did not create. Would we be appreciated for do so? Would the system change for the betterment of men? I guess my question is, why would an MRA be interested in continuing the status quo? Personally I’m tired of fixing their fuckups, doing so would not negate the fact that I am male, a rapist, a cheater, a war monger and an all around piece of shit. If society is to collapse due to male lack of participation then I guess feminism has finally been exposed for what it is, useless.

        • Jeremiah

          What is your goal as an MRA?

          • operationoptout

            My goal,

            Life (unbridaled), libery (from male servitude), and the persuit of happiness (minus the toxic fiminist self important troll)

            I want to FTSU!!……..more RED pills please!

      • AntZ

        Women have no obligations towards men.

        Men must have no obligations towards women.

        I don’t think society needs to end.

        Collectively: men should not pay for women’s lavish medical spending and unfunded retirement spending.

        Individually: men should not fund women’s lives after marriage. Shared physical custody of all children, no alimony, no child support.

        However … if it means the end of society, I still don’t give a shit. I would rather be a free man in an apocalyptic social breakdown than a feminist slave in a well ordered police state like sweden.

        • Jeremiah

          Actually rather than the destruction of society I think it’s more likely you and your children, if you have any, will be slaves, even moreso than we are today. I don’t think you’ll be free. Perhaps you’re like me, and not planning to have children for this reason. To some extent I do actually hope for a collapse, because the likely alternative seems so much worse. If you are planning to survive the collapse long term, you’ll need to be self-sufficient or your freedom won’t last for long.

      • Eincrou

        • “Is your final conclusion sarcasm? If the goal of the MRM is to eliminate all obligations then the actual result is destruction of society.”

        No, it isn’t sarcasm. There is a looney strain of MRAs who actually think they can create a society in which men separate from interaction with women. AntZ has been one of these.

        As impossible as feminism’s goals of an androgynous society are, this delusion of creating a total separation between men and women is even more contrary to biological realities.

        Obviously, their ridiculous ideas can never spread or take hold. No argument could ever be persuasive enough to convince men and women to do this.

        But they are crusaders, so they irrationally continue believing in both the desirability and feasibility of their imaginary social structure.

        Yes, the result would be the destruction of society, but no more than a few hundred men will ever believe in these ideas. Don’t fear these ideas. Not many men are so unimaginative that the only “solution” they can think of for our problems as men is to literally destroy civilization.

  • DenisfromMND

    As a group, women are weak and pathetic. Women as a group have no moral compass when their (view of) reality crosses into the male reality. It always has been women and children first. Male chivalry and female privilege have been spouses for an eternity. Speaking truth is at the core of the MRM. What is said here is the truth-but try speaking these truths in what passes for “polite company” and see what happens. Speak these truths with family, friends, aquaintances. You will become aware in short order that you have spoken/committed a mortal sin. Open discussion of these truths run into a thick fog of high emotion (men & women). And the endless beating of the drum of “men bad-women good” keeps those emotions high. It’s my belief that this is intentional. Everything is set up to preserve the status quo: privilege for women. Women today still speak of all the feminists lies as if they were true. They were’nt true 40 years ago and they are not true today. And I’m sure that for most of these women, they really do believe their own bs. Everything is set up to preserve the status quo; not only from the immense feminist machinery in place, but more importantly because of the nature of females. Afterall, if the culture allowed for these truths to break through the fog then truth would get out. Chivalrist men are just as amoral as most women. But it is by far the mass of women who benefit by keeping the truth unmentionable. How many of them do you ever hear speaking out for the truth in these matters? How many females are listening to us? I mean…really…listening to us? Not many.The nature of females: amoral, weak, pathetic. And it’s worked out pretty well for them for a VERY long time.

    • Paul Elam

      I think you give me a great opportunity here to express why I also insist that we value weight these “truths”

      I think we have a couple of possible routes to walk with what we discover and come to believe.

      I will use the moral compass as an example. I believe completely that there was no survival related pressure for women to sacrifice for men, speaking in evolutionary terms. Indeed, I think there was the pressure to do the opposite, and that it worked to rather impressive results related to the species.

      But now that belief challenges me to make a choice where I want to go with it. I could pick the path of “As a group, women are weak and pathetic.”

      But I think this would be a rather weak and pathetic net result of my research, leading me nowhere of benefit.

      The other way, my chosen one, is to just recognize that the legacy of hypergamy presents some modern pitfalls for men, and challenges for women to consider, at least the ones that are willing.

      If that sounds like two ways to say the same thing, it isn’t. It is the difference between making lemonade out of lemons, or just being sour.

      • Skeptic

        Actually Paul,
        there was a great deal of pressure historically for women to sacrifice for men, speaking in evolutionary terms. That’s because in days gone by, depending upon where they were and the level of health sophistication, up to 40% of women died during childbirth. Also with no social welfare system women were under social pressure to give birth many times so that those offspring could support their parents in their old age.
        Of course it was men largely who invented the technologies to make childbirth much safer these days freeing women from such risk.

        I like Warren Farrel’s take on this in ‘The Myth of Male Power’.
        He postulates that each sex had areas of power and powerlessness and there was a trade off between the sexes. Women risked their lives on the birthing table, men risked their lives on the battlefield. For their respective sacrifices generally as a rule men got political power outside the home and women inside it.
        There was a kind of rough power balance.
        Feminism has however only expressed women’s powerlessness and men’s power (AND grossly exaggerated both to boot), leaving unspoken men’s powerlessness and women’s power.
        Thankfully the latter is being gradually being addressed by the Men’s Rights Movement.
        A task many men confront is to stop puffing themselves up as success objects with macho BS and show true humility in expressing that powerlessness.
        Of course that makes them unattractive to many women so many of those men may also have to overcome sexual addiction to women at the same time.
        The task many women face is to hear men’s powerlessness and act with sympathy –
        something they as a demographic clearly aren’t currently doing.
        If neither sex can achieve these things it seems to me the enmity between the sexes will continue indefinitely.
        Such a protracted conflict is bound to leave many casualties.

        The historical tradeoff between men (women supply sexual gratification and children, men supply protection and resources) has been so successful that the planet is bulging with 7 billion people, and possibly even more on the way, so environmentally that tradeoff appears to be a cultural dead end anyway.
        For that reason and to empower men I’m excited about the pending arrival of the non hormonal birth control pill.
        I also suspect that with the case of male invented technologies freeing women up, I think the invention of the MBCP and other technologies may well lay the ground male emancipation from traditional sex roles too.
        More on that later perhaps as I’m working on an article along those lines.

      • Skeptic

        Actually Paul,
        there was a great deal of pressure historically for women to sacrifice for men, speaking in evolutionary terms.
        That’s because in days gone by, depending upon where they were and the level of health sophistication at their disposal, up to 40% of women died during childbirth.
        Also with no social welfare system as we know it today in place women were under considerable social pressure to give birth many times so that those offspring could support their parents in their old age.
        I think to be more fairminded these facts should be acknowledged.
        Of course it was men largely who invented the technologies to make childbirth as safe as it is these days freeing women from such risk.

        I like Warren Farrel’s take on this issue in ‘The Myth of Male Power’.
        He postulates that historically each sex had areas of power and powerlessness, and that there was a trade off between the sexes. Women risked their lives on the birthing table, men risked their lives on the battlefield. For their respective sacrifices generally as a rule men got a certain amount of political power outside the home and women a certain amount of political power inside it.
        There was a kind of rough power balance.
        Feminism has however only expressed women’s powerlessness and men’s power (AND grossly exaggerated both to boot), leaving unspoken men’s powerlessness and women’s power.
        Thankfully the latter is gradually being addressed by the Men’s Rights Movement.
        As such a task many men confront is to stop puffing themselves up as success objects with macho BS and show true humility in expressing their powerlessness. Of course that makes them unattractive to many women so they may also have to overcome sexual addiction to women at the same time.
        The task many women face is to hear men’s powerlessness and act with sympathy – something they as a demographic clearly aren’t currently doing.
        If neither sex can achieve these things it seems to me the enmity between the sexes will continue indefinitely.
        Such a protracted conflict is bound to leave many casualties.

        One thing seems very clear to me – the historical tradeoff between men (women supply sexual gratification and children, men supply protection and resources) has been so successful that the planet is bulging with 7 billion people, and possibly even more on the way, and so environmentally that tradeoff appears to be a social-cultural dead end anyway.
        For that reason and to empower men I’m excited about the pending arrival of the non hormonal birth control pill.
        I also suspect that as with the case of male invented technologies freeing women up, I think the invention of the MBCP and other technologies may well lay the ground male emancipation from traditional sex roles too.
        More on that later perhaps as I’m working on an article along those lines.

        I see I’m straying away from the topic at hand somewhat so will close for now.

        • Kimski

          “up to 40% of women died during childbirth.”

          Ehh.. They died because the doctors that helped in the delivery came directly from cutting up corpses. As soon as this fact was discovered, and doctors were taught the necessity of washing their hands, the death rate dropped dramatically.
          Besides that, I agree completely. Men invented everything in a maternity ward, and has made childbirth as safe as it is today. Women have helped in childbirth for the entire duration of the human specie, and have come up with absolutely nothing in the process. Billions of womens lives have been saved because men chose to get involved in something that was considered ‘female issues’.Today most women are perfectly capable of walking out of the door a couple of hours after giving birth, and their prolonged stay in the hospital is nothing more than a safety precaution in most cases.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Consider for a moment that “chivalry” or White Knighting” is actually an agreement among males – rather than an agreement or obligation between men and women.

          “I won’t rape or steal your women, if you don’t rape or steal mine”.

          In an orderly society this agreement exists among men. Those aberrant males NOT abiding by this agreement are hunted down and lynched, beaten, murdered or cast into prison for not abiding by the agreement.

          One lone male may not be able to ward off assault by a larger or armed male, but summoning the cooperation of other males for aid enforced the message that such behavior was not tolerated.

          Women are expected to do their part by behaving in a chaste manner, dressing modestly, and avoiding situations such as being alone, or out after dark. Women who do not adhere to those constraints are considered “asking for it”. Although rape is never acceptable for the general good of all the message is “Don’t make this difficult job any harder than it has to be”.

          In times of war or social upheaval the “Chivalry” agreement does not exist between enemies. History is replete with horror stories of raiding Viking’s raping and plundering, Whites and Indians, the formation of the KKK, the Japanese raping Chinese women, or Russian soldiers after the Battle of Berlin, American GIs in VietNam, while revering their own women “back home”.

          Again, unresearched, unsubstantiated and incomplete, but…I just don’t find “all women are this” and “all men are that” to be a valid premise.

      • DenisfromMND


        Yes. The essential natures of men are very hard wired. Chivalry exerts a powerful (while simultaneously subtile) force in the lives of men. The most self aware MRA is always subject to it’s influence but develops a greater awareness of it over time. We are all at different places on this journey. I suspect that is where many of the misunderstandings among MRAs originates. Chivalry is why men are selfless when dealing with women. Chivalry often involves some form of pain on males and as such, it does have some self limiting aspects-but men are conditioned to “take it like a man” anyways. Men are awakening slowly.

        The opposite side of chivalry is female privilege. The essential natures of women is also hardwired. This influence on females is no less powerful than chivalry is on men. It constantly reinforces itself and constantly exerts itself. Female privilege has no such self limiting mechanism. What-females will one day object to too much privilege?!! I don’t think so. Women are not awakening to their loathsome selfishness. It is in fact getting worse.

        Women: amoral; weak; pathetic.

        Not everyone can handle the truth.

    • Tawil

      Regarding behaviour, women are not “a group” other than in some abstract statistical sense, and on behalf of those many women who are not “weak and pathetic” -including the strong, intelligent and empathic women on this site- I find the generalization offensive. There’s no need for stereotyping…. you will sound less of a misogynist, and more factual, if you say “many women” or “most women” or “the majority of western women”.

      There’s a nice little piece from Jung that speaks to this issue:

      JUNG: “Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual facts, theories help very little in this respect. For the more a theory lays claim to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts. Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality. Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact. The exceptions at either extreme, though equally factual, do not appear in the final result at all, since they cancel each other out. If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of 145 grams, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings, that he could pick up a pebble of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams. The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality.” [the Undiscovered Self]

      Frankly with the ‘total’ stereotyping going on by a few posters I’m amazed our women contributors have kept their cool… Kudos to them!

      • Jeremiah

        Only a fool thinks a generalization implies that the stereotype applies to every individual.

        “Regarding behaviour, women are not “a group” other than in some abstract statistical sense”

        This is silly. Women are statistically different from men in fundamental ways. It isn’t abstract at all. It’s right in front of you.

        • Tawil

          The world is full of fools, and you’d be a fool to not recognize that.

          • Jeremiah

            And I’d be a fool to pander to a world full of fools.

      • DenisfromMND

        If JUNG wrote that then he has wasted a lot of his time.

  • Dannyboy

    I believe we might be missing an important aspect to this whole debate and that is pre second wave feminism and post second wave feminism.
    Humans are social animal types. We engage each other socially and pick up traits that way as well.
    Current society ( feminist dictated ) encourages women to become morally bankrupt. A lot of women fall for it, and engage in it. Some women see through it but still don’t speak out about it. Even fewer women speak out against it.
    Further to the point when one human sees another getting away with unethical behavior and notices nothing is done to correct said behavior it tends to increase that behavior.
    I think it is incredibly difficult for women to not engage in unethical and morally bankrupt behavior after all society has given them the green light to do so. Their friends may encourage them, the peer pressure is huge and in their lives most of the time.
    Is it nature? Not sure, but I am not willing to rule it out. I am however willing to bet my bottom dollar that a substantial part of the puzzle is nurture.

    • Stu

      Exactly….the worst of their nature is being nurtured and grown by our feminist culture. The best of their nature is being rendered obsolete and disadvantageous to a woman who possesses it. The entitled, amoral, immoral, bitchy parasite woman gets goodies… most women will adopt that behavior.

      • Dannyboy

        Is it being rendered obsolete or ostracized by femie dictated society ?
        I say the latter imho.

      • Jeremiah

        “The entitled, amoral, immoral, bitchy parasite woman gets goodies… most women will adopt that behavior.”

        And although women do this in large numbers, only a few men behave this way. And they are the most successful of men, the so-called “elite”, the Dark Triad. Men like this have to be a little less obvious about it, but I don’t think that’s why there are so many more women like this than men. It’s just that women are more susceptible because, as JtO has said, most women are inherently amoral.

        Feminist culture is just an extension of female psychology. It was also fostered by a small number of Dark Triad males to their own ends.

        The average male’s flaw, on the other hand, is we are too willing to sacrifice for what we perceive to be the greater good. Whereas women, for the most part, are inherently selfish, men are, for the most part, inherently selfless.

        It’s also worth noting that selfishness is becoming an excellent reproductive strategy for BOTH men and women. Good men and women are both losing out, while the selfish and amoral men and women are winning.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      That’s something that can be said of any human being of any stripe. The apalling behavior of American Service Women at Abu Ghriabe prison or Marines pee ing on enemy corpses are both examples.

      I think the disappointment is that women used seem uncorruptable, but as it turns out, they are corruptible as anyone else.

      • Dannyboy

        I was only keeping to the article subject matter.
        I am a firm believer in the saying
        ” there are bad apples in every bunch”
        Your references illustrate that perfectly, if we were talking about society in general ( all demographics ) I would have phrased my comment differently.

  • keyster

    The self-annointed AVfM Ombudsman weighs in.
    (Fully aware it’s at his own peril. ;))

    First, if everyone who writes here, comments here, were to read Fidelbogen’s master-work on the importance of “Rhetorical Discipline” every so often, these misunderstandings might be mitigated.

    The “in-your-face”, “take-no-prisoners”, FTSU, extreme writing styles about a subject matter that’s about as Politically Incorrect as possible, is a limited approach.

    At some point you have to decide whether you’ll continue to write for the few “transcended” (informed) or begin writing for everyone else; whether you write to dazzle the elite literary critics already in your back pocket, or for the general reading public that buy books in airports. (I reference Pierce Harlan’s recent submission as an example. Note the style.)

    The “we’re MRAs!, We compromise for no one! This is war!”, etc. and so on, is a romantic notion that rallys the troops, but lacks the saavy (discipline) needed to advance and mature the narrative; win the hearts and minds of the civilians.

    This is deep, sensitive, heady, intellectual territory here. Don’t assume your knowledge is as advanced and intimate as everyone else. Singing opera to the choir becomes an echo chamber. A 3 chord bash with a catchy melody is a more appealing vehicle. I know, I know, you’re really, really smart and witty and have a need to prove it, but ya know what? Nobody cares.

    You are a messenger that represents what’s perceived as an “extremely radical” position. Write as if you’re writing a letter to your best “blue pill” friend or relative. Stop writing to me. I’m not the audience. I know how to read between the lines and translate the meaning of all this utterly intense shit.

    Stop teaching Calculus to a Basic Math world.
    It confuses them, frustrates them and sometimes enrages them for no good reason. Don’t deliver Red Pill writing to a Blue Pill world and then wonder why the target shuts down, gives up and walks away in disgust before he’s even had a chance to process “Men?” and “Rights?”.

    • Codebuster

      But what if I don’t care what they think? What if I don’t care if the world goes to hell in a handbasket? The world is as it is because of stubborn ignorance and arrogance on their part, and no amount of intelligent rationalization will make one iota of difference to them. I like being right, and I’m not going to temper my language for anyone, just to make them more receptive. If others don’t recognize their moral obligation to seek out the truth, that is not my problem.

      • Jeremiah

        This is how I feel.

        Have you read any Mencius Moldbug? I quoted him below.

        The truth is I know I’m not going to do all that is necessary to fix the system. The small contribution I can make is to tell the truth and hope some people listen and grow, and continue to listen and grow myself. It’s really all I am capable of doing, because it’s not in my nature or my ability to practice rhetorical discipline or whatever you call it.

        • Codebuster

          Very interesting article indeed, by Mencius Moldbug. A bit long though… favorited for following up on the last half later. But it resonates with what I’ve seen in Australian politics, too. Not quite the same terms (we don’t have a von Mises institute here), but there is a clash between the theorists and the hands-on pragmatists who manage to subvert everything to their own agenda, albeit drifting ever leftward as one ideology swallows up another to become a new mostrosity.

          • Jeremiah

            I thought you’d enjoy it because you are one of the more penetrating MRAs I’ve encountered, and that fucker is penetrating. I thought about mentioning the length, but my scorn for the modern day aversion to lengthy texts convinced me not to. :)

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        My last comment for the night, then I promise to shut up.

        Where would black people be today if there were no Martin Luther King and only the Black Panthers?

        If you aren’t old enough to remember, ask someone who is.

        Where would black people be today if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton didn’t exist?

        My answer? A LOT further ahead.

        This isn’t a CIA funded movement by Pampered Poodles.

        I’m not entirely sure the Civil Rights movement didn’t have some help from a higher power, but it’s certainly more comparable to the MRM than the Feminist’s Movement tactics were.

        My two cents, probably worth half that.

        • Jeremiah

          The civil rights movement was of Marxist origins and was definitely pushed by the establishment. The MRM is not.

          You might read this discussion in which Mencius Moldbug participates for an interesting perspective:

          Warning: offensive lol.

        • keyster

          MLK, how topical!
          He was a wise man who understood that a few choice words, when strung together, resonate and have power.

          Malcom X and the Black Panthers were scary and mean, fomenting anger, trying to mount some sort of black insurrection.

          I think we all know what ended up working.
          Feminists merely rode the Civil Rights coat tails.
          Imagine if Angela Davis had the power!

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            “Women’s Liberation” rode the MLK coat tails until hijacking the “movement” as their own.

            “Women” somehow managed to get themselves declared an “Oppressed minority” and left the Civil Rights movement behind in the dust.

            MLK did more for the advancement of priviledged white women than he did for his own people.

            Sad, but true.

    • Tawil

      Well said.

    • Jeremiah

      My concern is that such arguments will not actually change the fundamentally flawed assumptions of the average person. It might make them think about the surface issues, but not the fundamental problems. Feminists won by lying so that people would, over time, change their fundamental belief systems. They won by infiltrating academia and teaching children lies which most will never again be able to question.

      Just look at all the people at r/MensRights who keep trying to come up with Marxist solutions to problems, when Marxism is the cause of the problems. It’s completely ineffective.

      So we need to be honest and hope to convince the minority of people who will actually listen. Maybe that means some rhetorical discipline, but if you never have articles like JtO’s, then you never find the truth. Can you really say what JtO said in a way that doesn’t offend most people? I don’t know how, it’s not something I’m capable of, but maybe some people are. And not everything that must be said can be said without the masses reacting badly.

      The minority of people who are willing to see the truth are the ones who are capable of actually doing something about it, if anyone is. So shouldn’t we focus on them? But where do we go with that minority? Men’s groups in the government? No, because government is the problem. The system is the problem. We can’t do what the feminists and leftists did. We can’t reform the system from within. The system cannot be reformed. It must be replaced.

      You should read this article by Mencius Moldbug: This goes far beyond men’s rights.

      (Actually, reading this again Mencius does seem to believe that rhetorical discipline or whatever is important, but that’s not all that’s required.)

      “If you really want to defeat Washcorp, you need to do much, much better than this. You need a real institution with real money and a real staff. Your goal is to be more credible than the official story. You cannot do this with one person.

      You need to build a Web site that anyone with a screen and a mouse can click on, and get an accurate understanding of reality, including all the bits of history, government, economics, science and current events that Washcorp doesn’t want you to know. With a 5-minute overview for casual readers, and enough depth that a PhD with a standard Washcorp education will come away at least gritting his teeth.

      You need to hire Steve Sailer and Michael Totten and Greg Cochran and Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Steve McIntyre and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and Razib Khan and Michael Yon and Jörg Guido Hülsmann. Or at least people who are at least as smart, at least as knowledgeable, and at least as expressive as the above.

      You need to produce a coherent corpus of authoritative information, a la Diderot, not just a random jumble of essays. You need to crowdsource, but not without editorial control, so that Conquest’s Second Law does not do its thing. You need a place that anyone who speaks English can go to find out what is actually going on in the world, and update that knowledge every day. And above all, you need to be right. The task of replacing Washcorp’s pile of nonsense with some other pile of nonsense is simply not solvable.

      And then you need to wait ten or twenty years. Because this stuff doesn’t happen overnight. Your accurate description of reality has to become more fashionable than the official “mainstream” truth. Fortunately, the latter is extremely boring, chock-full of pretentious cant and intentional obfuscation, and often transparently self-contradictory. But you also have to be more fashionable than all your “alternative” competitors (see under: Alex Jones), which is definitely nontrivial. Too bad. It has to be done.

      The way to defeat a massarchy is to create and propagate a credible alternate reality that outcompetes the official information network. Fifteen years ago, the propagation part was almost impossible. Today it is trivial. All that’s left is the creation, and I bet it could be done in half Cato’s budget. Bored billionaires of Plainland, you have nothing to lose but your Washcorp. Why not give it a shot?”

      See also:

      Especially the Dawkins series.

      Beware, it’s quite a read.

    • Paul Elam

      Well articulated, but, I respectfully submit, incomplete.

      If the articles were intended only for the edification of the blue pill masses, I would agree. But a significant portion of our energy has to be with red pill readers in mind. In that respect we are writing about calculus to calculus fans.

      They, in turn, go speak to basic math students. That is a big part of how and why this place has worked so well.

      • keyster

        IMHO the litmus test of a solid narrative is to be able to direct my neighbor or a friend to it and they’ll at least be able to grasp the basic assumptions. And then there’s the potential benefactor.

        But when the first line of a comment reads, “As a group, women are weak and pathetic.”. There’s absolutely no way I’ll do that. In other words if I say “I’m a men’s rights activist and belong to an organization called “A Voice for Men”, there is no way in hell I’m directing them to this web site if they wanted to know more. Sadly, this isn’t the place for that.

        Misogynist rants are a non-sequitur that will keep this effort on the lunatic fringe. They’re bound to be misinterpreted and construed as “hate”. Turns people off, shuts them down.

        I just don’t see this ever getting to the next level, breaking out, without a concerted effort behind Rhetorical Discipline. It’ll remain a “niche market” of misanthropic nihilists high-fiving and preaching to each other. While a demand for this exists among a small disparate worldwide group (which I’m a part of), a more disciplined, “professional” approach is needed to build credibility and gain mainstream traction. Let’s strike a chord, rather than one rather profound, droning note.

        MRA’s are up against a juggernaut of professional feminists; lawyers and PR/Marketing experts. They have this shit down pat. Why can’t we?

        • Tawil

          “But when the first line of a comment reads, “As a group, women are weak and pathetic.”. There’s absolutely no way I’ll do that.”


        • Jeremiah

          “MRA’s are up against a juggernaut of professional feminists; lawyers and PR/Marketing experts. They have this shit down pat. Why can’t we?”

          I already quoted Mencius Moldbug above on how to do that.

  • Codebuster

    Good timing with this article. I am, by coincidence, putting the final touches into a submission that feeds directly into this.

    The nature/nurture debate is the most important one facing our society. My own position is that nature OR nurture is a misnomer. There’s another process going on. Often people misconstrue my stand as nurture, and in some ways it does align with the systems theories that were inspired by the left. However, the leftists have always misrepresented or misunderstood their interpretations and theories. I began to see them drop out or become silent on the matter when it began to dawn on them that systems theory does far more harm to their cause than good. I touched on this with the important idea that children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. This is a powerful systems theory perspective, and if one is stuck in the genocentric paradigm, it will be ignored.

    Another important idea inspired by systems theory is in my next submission. It is the idea that the provided-for sex does not have their intellect stimulated anywhere near to the extent that the provider sex does. On the face of it, there is much to please the misogynists, because the inevitable outcome of this, on the face of it, is that women cannot help but be dumber than men. Why? Because it connects experience with how the brain is wired, and women who can luxuriate in the freebies of being provided for and having everything done for them don’t have their brains stimulated as men do. Intellectually, they cannot be anything other than stunted and underdeveloped. If you treat an adult like a child, they will never grow up.

    Ultimately though, things aren’t as simple as this. Men and women have different kinds of intelligences. The intelligence of men is creative and at the boundaries. It is concerned with making things work, making things happen, and getting it right the first time. A computer, a control box, a car engine, have different meanings to men and women. For a woman, these things are black boxes, the inner workings of which are irrelevant to them. They don’t want to know. They don’t care to know. It’s an extension of their entitlement thinking. Provide for me. Fix it. Make it go. Don’t bore me with the details. Being provided for rots the brain. The brain, quite literally, atrophies. However…

    Women’s intellect concerns itself more with rules. While women retreat from STEM careers, they find more affinity with rules-based careers, like law or business. There is no onus, in these spheres, to make things work. But obey. Do what you’re told. Are women less intelligent than men? Can’t comment. They do remember lots of stuff, probably more so than men do. They also imitate one another well. The intelligences are different. The amorality to which JTO refers relates to this ambiguity to which women are not obliged to take sides. They don’t have to make things work. They don’t have to be accountable for their actions. All they have to do is obey. Obey the rules. And turn up. And associated with this is a different kind of intelligence that is reflected in how their brains are wired. Women’s brains are constructed more of glia, while men’s brains have more neurons.

    The mainstream established theories (evolutionary psychology, biology) have put a stumbling block preventing us from accessing these important points. Systems theory is a huge improvement. And I remind everyone… systems theory may have received its inspiration from the left, but increasingly, the left has been abandoning it, quietly, my guess is with the realization that there is nothing that will kill them off as effectively as a good, properly interpreted systems theory. Do we remember Vliet Tiptree and the radfem hub, on AVFM? She sees the writing on the wall. She knows that the only thing that can save feminism is a reinvigoration of the genocentric idea that maleness and femaleness are fixed, predetermined conditions, and that the female must always seek protection from the male. I’m pretty sure she would regard the genocentric perspective (it’s all in the genes) as her friend and ally.

    Anyways, enough for now. I should have my submission in soon.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      This comment shows remarkable insight into the core cognitive differences between the minds of men and women. The bit about women and rules resonates particularly well with me. I’m quite looking forward to reading your article if this is what it’s about.

    • justicer

      Very very interesting hypotheses, Codebuster. Keep us informed of how it goes.
      One small suggestion. What about the idea of epistemology, the acreditation of meaning or truth?
      Is there a male epistemology vs female epistemology, and is that influenced by the sex-differentiated brain? The feminists have a warped and unscientific answer based on cherrypicked evidence, and they have constructed a belief system around it. What about belief? Is woman more inclined to believe before she questions or checks evidence? Isn’t female disbelief related to transgression, rather than scepticism (i.e., woman is afraid to transgress, so disbelieves; while a sceptic is ready to throw both sides over if shown the evidence).
      Is woman more inclined to ignore evidence and cherish belief as an end in and of itself? Is this related to the nesting habit? Is this why so few women create philosophical systems that solve moral problems; and go out and invent things and come up with discoveries?

    • Kimski

      ‘Men and women have different kinds of intelligences. The intelligence of men is creative and at the boundaries…Women’s intellect concerns itself more with rules.’

      You bring up some interesting points in your entry.
      Would it be correct to say that men are better at thinking outside the box, as opposed to women as ‘inside’ thinkers, if you regard the ‘sides’ of the box as the rules?

      • Darryl X

        I disagree that women’s intellect concerns itself more with rules. It only does if the rules support their immediate gratification. I do not believe women are intelligent. I don’t say that to be mean but in response to disparities between men and women in intellectually challenging curricular in institutions of higher education. Even though, on average today, young men comprise approximately only 40% of those matriculated at university, they still comprise the vast majority of those in curricula concerning engineering, math and science, and still represent a disproportionate number in the arts. Women gravitate toward accounting and business administration and women’s studies and social work (all this amounting to bull shit and require little or no effort or sacrifice or risk or challenge and enable and reflect their malignant narcissism and addiction to power and control). Women are not intelligent. Just solipsistic and manipulative.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    Stu: “The entitled, amoral, immoral, bitchy parasite woman gets goodies….”

    ………now…by strong arming, by legalities, by lies.

    My unresearched, uneducated, wise ass theory is:

    Used to be the pretty girls, the attractive women got the goodies just by being nice.

    Now it’s Ugly Ducklings and Man Haters striking back, forcing their way into the entitlement pie with lies and laws, while Hotties enjoy the best of both worlds. THEY aren’t suffering which is why they don’t speak up. It’s a WIN for the Homlies, and WIN-WIN for the Hotties.(Ever notice you never see Attractive Women at Slut Walks or Take Back The Night rallys?)

    Homely Men and Old Guys could always rely on gobs of money to over come their short comings in attaining the Trophy Wife, who only had to be pleasant enough to keep her prized position.

    Homely Women and Older Women know that no amount of money could make up for their shortcomings. Men are visual creatures and simply not equipped to overlook unattractiveness. A Hot Man with a Homely Woman makes for a Short Romance – til the money runs out.

    Ahhh, but rust never sleeps. Attractive Women and Trophy Wives had to worry about aging and losing their looks/entitlements.

    Now? Problem solved! The Man Haters and Not So Attractive girls pursue high paying formerly male careers thanks to gender quotas, AA and business loans, while the aging Prom Queens or Bitchy Princesses are cashing in come divorce time.

    Or am I just being cynical?

    • Bombay

      ….and career minded/power hungry women suck on the government tit.

  • Paul Elam


    “On the contrary. The behavior evolved due to natural selection and is most certainly related (if one accepts evolutionary psychology theory). ”

    Sorry, really confused here now. Isn’t this a psychobiological explanation?

  • Denis

    I like the discussions of evolutionary psychology, socio-biology, anthropology, etc. and I don’t see anything wrong with discussion of general differences between men and women. The only risk of acting like feminists is if those general differences result in policies that discriminate against individuals based on stereotypes.

    That type of discussion may not be conducive to the general public but we shouldn’t limit ourselves from higher learning at FTSUU. I’m still not so certain how this is useful for effective activism as “amoral” is a loaded word and most people aren’t very deep thinkers and rely on their initial perceptions and feelings. Per Sun Tzu, I don’t think the direct approach of shifting the discourse 180° from the current belief in women’s virtue will be effective.

    • Jeremiah

      Anti-discrimination is a modern day value. If you want a functioning society, such ideals may have to be discarded. For example, how do you solve the problem that women’s suffrage necessarily leads to a welfare state?

      See the following comments by Demonspawn:

      • Denis

        May, if, might…don’t know, the evidence is hardly conclusive. How do you solve modern day problems with out of date, unpopular beliefs?

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Here’s a TRUTH for you:


          If you want to give credit where credit is due, MLK was in fact the”liberater” of middle class white women.

          • Eoghan

            I may have td’d you by mistake.

        • Jeremiah

          These ideas are not out of date, they are just intentionally maligned. Truth is what’s important. How do you solve these problems? You simply BE. You BE a man, you tell the truth, you don’t cower in the face of the hordes of people who are spewing falsehoods. Thereby you change the dialogue just as Ron Paul has:

          • Denis

            That’s hardly a prescription for change and it doesn’t even make logical sense to continue a strategy that has resulted in failure for decades. Those days are long gone.

          • Jeremiah

            Denis, I am starting to think you’re nothing but a troll.

            Do you have an account you use r/MensRights?

      • Eoghan

        “how do you solve the problem that women’s suffrage necessarily leads to a welfare state?”

        There are simple ways that the welfare state can be dramatically shrunk that the mens movement is already advocating for. And welfare state isn’t inherently bad. Taking away women’s vote is politically impossible and political suicide to suggest. So there is no point even discussing it, its just a waste of time and its made for the men’s movement. The end of civilization is nigh moral panicists and zelots need to seperate from the mens movement. Nobody is going to buy reverting to a 3rd word social and economic system and sexual taboo.

        • Jeremiah

          Go back to r/MensRights, Marxist.

          • Denis

            Eoghan has been around here longer than you and his commentary is much appreciated. The failure is on your part in simplifying feminisms as a socialist political doctrine.

          • Jeremiah

            Eoghan has NOT been around here longer than me. He came around trolling The Spearhead initially, and was laughed out of there. He has been a radical leftist, bordering on communist, from the beginning. He thinks feminism was good, to a point. He thinks that all we need to do is change the laws and this will fix our problems. He is wrong. At r/MensRights he goes by the name Sigi1, and I have had countless discussions with him regarding this, and he NOT ONCE actually presented a valid argument for his baseless theory that all we have to do is institute a few laws and magically everything will be wonderful in our leftist utopia.

            Also, feminism is Marxist. That is a fact. Don’t be silly.

          • Denis

            I would suggest that you quote his words rather than relying on unsupported ad hominen. Such personal attacks do not lend credibility to your argument, whatever that is.

          • Denis

            Your opinions are not fact. There is a good argument to be made that feminisms draws on both capitalist and socialist support. Historically, the first wavers were ultra conservative abolitionists.

          • Jeremiah

            You are using “ad hominem” improperly. However, here you go:




            Demonspawn and I have asked Sigi1 and other extreme lefists at r/MR countless times to provide evidence that their leftist strategy will result in a fair society for men. These conversations have ALWAYS ended in them either failing to provide evidence, admitting that they’d rather see society collapse than NOT have a leftist utopia, or admitting that they merely have FAITH that somehow their leftist utopia can work.

          • Jeremiah

            Feminism is Marxist. That is a fact, not an opinion. I am not in the mood to educate you as to this fact considering your mouthiness.

          • Denis

            It’s an old argument and really off topic on this thread. Feminisms draws support from fascism as much as socialism. The capitalists have benefited from the increased labor force, consumerism driven by women’s “independence” and wealth transfers from men.

            This is a place for more advanced discussions rather than the political rhetoric of a single minded echo chamber. coughspearheadcough.

          • Jeremiah

            Socialism IS fascism.

            And now you’re executing the typical leftist tactic of claiming it isn’t “relevant”. It’s “off-topic”. Oh, please, anything but a discussion that might question my belief system!


            Lol The Spearhead is now a political echo chamber? I have to say, you are an idiot, my man. I’m not going to shit up AVfM dealing with your BS anymore, though. Take it to Reddit where this kind of BS is common. What is your Reddit username again? Mine’s JeremiahMRA just like it is here.

          • Denis

            Actually, I’m just not interested in arguing about politics on a topic about sociobiology or engaging with someone who’s best argument is pure adhominen.
            We have higher standards here.

          • Jeremiah

            This is a thread about truth.

            “Women, Men, and the Truth”


          • Darryl X

            Socialism is not fascism – please read my comment later in this thread for the distinction and its application to feminism and men oppressed by it Socialism doesn’t allow anyone to fall through the cracks anymore than anyone else. Fascism forces them through the cracks and then punishes them for going through the cracks.

      • Malestrom

        Simple; you make voting conditonal on being a net taxpayer and registering for the draft. This will eliminate upwards of 90% of the female voters de-facto with no explicit sex discrimination.

        It also has the added benefit of eliminating a good portion of the male voters who vote wrongly.

        • Denis

          This only works in a strict hierarchical class based system which leaves a portion of the population unrepresented and voiceless. This creates more resentment, dissent and potentially violent socialist revolutions.

          • Malestrom

            Why? It seems simple and fair enough to me; if you don’t contribute to the national coffers you don’t get to decide how that money gets spent and if you aren’t prepared to put your own balls on the line at crunch time you dont get a say in when the country goes to war. How is this unfair?

            Bleeding heart pansies sending better men than themselves to fight is the reason we find ourselves embroiled in optional wars. If you have to go do that shit yourself suddenly you’ll find a lot less enthusiasm for invading other countries.

            I shouldn’t even need to comment on the inherent injustice of people who don’t pay taxes deciding how other people’s money is spent and how much of it is taken from them.

          • Denis

            I’m merely stating that these types of systems are less stable because of the need to forcefully repress peasant revolts.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          “Registering for the draft” or actually enlisting to serve?

          ANYone can waltz into a post office and fill out a postcard with the thought they will never be forced to serve.

          Not all men worthy of voting are able bodied.

  • Rog

    can i ask a question here? i dont know how you would measure this but when a small child see`s there loved one in danger how much more or less likly is one sex to protect them from that danger? ,,, i have seen several instances where little boys try and protect people they love but girls hide behind the one in danger(use them as a meat shield).. and i say the younger the less likly to be socailised into that behavior?

  • Adi

    We can argue until the end of time about what is the stronger cause for male/female differences. We’ll never know. It’s a chicken-or-egg problem.
    Fact is that both biology and society play a significant role. How much respectively, is impossible to tell – alone because of the fact that society itself is a product of biology. Civilization and culture were shaped around our biological needs. A culture of predators, for example, would have looked entirely different (and probably never evolved as far as ours). There is absolutely no way we can discard either one as a cause for gender differences.

    It really doesn’t matter that much though. There are countless primitive biological instincts that haunt us and cause us an enormous amount of trouble every day. Gender differences are only a small portion of that. Alone the “fight or flight” instinct is responsible for many accidents, deaths and who knows what more. And don’t even get me started on financial investments.

    Bottom line is, nature is cruel and harsh and we are a part of nature, but we do NOT want to stay a part of it. Because “survival of the fittest” and other natural laws are not compatible with a stable society. Essentially we are in a kind of puberty and we’ll only get away from most of today’s problems when we can finally break free from nature’s ruthless constraints. And only medical, technological and scientific progress have any hope to ever accomplish that.

    If we don’t, then not only are we never going to have gender equality, we’ll also never survive as a species. The next hundred or so years are the most dangerous and most important of all time.
    Basically it’s either grow up or die.

    • Skeptic

      Yes, Adi.
      I see the next 100 years as a crucial time for humanity too.
      I keep going back time and again to some words that Warren Farrel wrote in his great book
      ‘The Myth of male power’.
      I don’t have the exact quote to hand, but basically what Farrel was saying is
      that the Men’s Movement will be the longest, most drawn out of all human rights
      movements. The reason being that unlike with other human rights struggles men would have to
      overcome their biological predisposition and thousands of years of cultural messages to self sacrifice,
      or in other words to be heroic.
      Interestingly he also points out that the word hero comes from ancient Greece and meant
      ‘someone sacrificed, a slave’.

    • Jeremiah

      “Because ‘survival of the fittest’ and other natural laws are not compatible with a stable society.”

      Yes they are, to some degree. That’s why we need something like libertarianism. If you do not allow the weakest to fail, and you take from the strong to give to the weak, your society will collapse.

      “In economic theory, moral hazard refers to a situation in which a party makes a decision about how much risk to take, while another party bears the costs if things go badly, and the party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would if it were fully exposed to the risk.” – Wikipedia

      For example, the government subsidizes single motherhood through welfare and “child” support. Therefore, single motherhood is encouraged, which results in a host of social ills. If the government did not intervene, however, single motherhood would drop significantly. Same goes for divorce, etc.

      What we need is less government intervention, and more personal responsibility. Trying to force everyone to be “equal” by transferring wealth from the successful to the unsuccessful is a recipe for failure.

      • Malestrom

        ”If you do not allow the weakest to fail, and you take from the strong to give to the weak, your society will collapse.”

        This is a nonsense though. The strong always take from the weak and there is nothing anybody can do about it. Who exactly takes from the strong to give to the weak? Who does that? If stuff is being taken from you and given to others then you are not ”the strong”.

        • Jeremiah

          I guess it depends on how strong. Today the “most fit”, i.e., the most evil men, encourage a system where less fit (but still above average) men are forced to give the results of their efforts to those well below average. This is to the benefit of a very small percentage of human beings, but harmful to everyone else.

          And this is only possible due to collusion of government and corporations.

          With something like libertarianism, perhaps it wouldn’t be strong vs the weak but contributors vs leeches, producers vs consumers. I would like to see the people who produce real value for society REPRODUCE.

          • Malestrom

            Yes, exactly, but again, that has always been the system. The strongest men live their entire lives in abject terror of those beneath them, their biggest fear being to be torn down and replaced by a competitor. For this reason they encourage fighting and competition between lower brackets, supporting the truly weak against those just below them.

  • Open War

    At some level we’re rehashing the old debate between nature/nurture which is conclusively not an either/or issue. If that were the case there would be no sense in changing minds because we’re all just biologically determined animals (or indistinguishable blank slates). Neither proposition is correct in all instances.

    The black panther comparison is fitting here. Separatism is the only conceivable outcome of splitting the MRM by sex. We have many female supporters here just as the black civil rights movement had white supporters. Further, our issues are not sex specific but about the end of privilege and the beginning of equal accountability. The nature nurture debate is a distraction from that purpose.

  • justicer

    The point is (as I see it), that this discussion is a tonic, not a cure-all.
    The debate takes feminist orthodoxy and subjects it to a what-if speculation. I don’t know whether I support JTO’s conclusion, but his examination opens up legitimate debate.
    According to what I see, when gender-fems say that “gender is constructed,” they don’t mean all gender is an artificial construct that needs to discarded. They mean “constructed by Patriarchal Society.”
    So off they go, forging their own myths about gender. One of them is that females are superior to men, and that, where inferior, it’s all because women have lived under Patriarchy, not because they haven’t been clear-eyed about their own biological inheritance.
    Hence, JTO’s speculation is permitted by the mandate that feminism itself extends to its own constituency, to define gender, women, and men.
    Let’s be generous to feminism and not call that “just wanting to be a bigot.” But if you do that, you have to accord the same generosity to the mens’ movement: if we examine women’s biology, which includes inherited pschological tendencies, then it’s not with the aim of being bigots, it’s to examine the evidence.

  • Malestrom

    I simply agree with JTO’s original peice, women are amoral.

    This is not to say women are bad and men are good, men do evil things. The difference is men do evil things fully understanding and accepting their evilness, a man makes a choice to place his own interests above what he knows to be abstractly right. Women on the other hand, simply never consider how anything affects anybody but themselves, we can see this everywhere with misandry. Our common rebuttal to women getting paid less is that men die on the job at an enormously higher rate, your average woman will simply never have even thought to consider this. When she formed her opinion about the state of women’s pay, all she needed to know was that she doesn’t like that women get paid less, that is where the proccess will have ended, there will have been absolutely no effort to consider it from any other angle. Similarly, to a man the current state of reproductive rights seems insane, it seems so manifestly obvious that if a woman can legally refuse all parental responsibility post conception then a man should be able to as well. This seems obvious when one is applying the principle that parental obligations should be equal. The problem is women hold no such principle, they dont hold any principles, they look at each side of the equation in isolation and ask themselves ”what is best for me?” and that is the end of it.

    Only men come up with moral codes of behaviour, they can be imposed on women or a few women may choose to follow them voluntarily but female minds do not generate them. Women do not start at principles and then apply them to situations, they simply look at each situation individually and ask themselves how their interests are best served. This is why their views seem so inconsistent to men, there are no underlying principles, which a male mind naturally looks for, there is just haphazard emotional rationalization. Female thinking really is the chaotic mess it seems to a male observer, there isn’t some kind of underlying order that we just can’t percieve.

    • Jeremiah

      Very well put. Women’s solipsism.

      • justicer

        jeremiah, I remind you that it was liberal late-capitalism that created all the preconditions for gender-feminist tyranny. It wasn’t the ‘welfare state’ itself (Britain, post-WWII; Sweden a bit later) that fed into the idea of Female Entitlement. No, it was the contraceptive pill, invented by men and wildly promoted by a male-dominated pharmaceutical industry and by Western men, who thought sex without the risk of children was a great thing (it is, sort of).
        True, eugenics and social engineering were particular dreams of the extreme left, at one point. But it was the German fascists who actually attempted to implement them first, and no, Hitler was right when he admitted that Nazism is not socialism, it’s a capitalist compromise designed to prevent their state from collapsing in extreme conditions.

        True, too, marxism-leninism set out an early model of extreme relativism, where there was a “progressive morality” and a “reactionary morality,” which essentially cancelled themselves out, resulting in sanctioned a-morality, which has latterly been adopted by campus-based feminism and by postmodern extremists, all of whom will eagerly label themselves ‘on the Left’.
        However, it wasn’t a socialist female who invented in-vitro fertilization and the test-tube and designer babies, all of which point to the Feminst Utopia, and male-independent underclasses, and narcissistic, social engineering experiments such as our lesbian-couple-that-requires-2-kids, and our Grannie Jones, who wants to give birth to her daughter’s egg.
        In declaring yourself anti-marxist and libertarian and even pro-Ron-Paul, you come close to my own raw preferences. However, you should not be throwing insults at Dennis, above, and you should respect the bipartisan spirit, the scholarly tone, and our desire not to label people and dismiss them.

  • Malestrom

    ”jeremiah, I remind you that it was liberal late-capitalism that created all the preconditions for gender-feminist tyranny”

    Correct, since the preconditions for gender-feminist tyranny are simply a sufficiently wealthy, prosperous, peaceful, ordered, safe, comfortable society, which is exactly what Capitalism provides.

    So what is your point? Are we then to stop aiming for these things? What do we do then? Parasites are attracted to health, do you make yourself unhealthy to avoid them? Capitalism is still the only option.

    • Denis

      The point is actually a counterpoint to the proposition that feminisms is marxist socialism. It’s a matter of understanding feminisms rather than suggesting that capitalism or socialism would be effective at addressing it. It seems to me that those who seek power will use feminisms to their benefit.

      • Darryl X

        Feminism is not Marxist socialism. It is fascism.

        Socialism is when the government elected by the people distributes resources to everyone equally so that no one falls through the cracks or who are disadvantaged in some way (either through their own actions or the actions of others).

        Fascism is when distributing those resources results in a population from whom no more resources may be extracted and that population is punished because they have no resources.

        Men are broken by the government and then punished by the government for being broken. Convenient, huh? This dynamic is a classic description of malignant narcissism, which is the foundation of those participating in a fascist regime.

        In the US, a man who is ordered to pay an excessive and irrational amount of child support and can’t pay because the government has forced him into poverty with the excessive order and then taken away his driver license and passport to compel him to pay, making it harder for the man to get or keep a job and pay child support, is jailed for arrears.

        That’s fascism. Not socialism. But I appreciate the spirit of your argument.

        • Tom Snark


          “Socialism is when the government elected by the people distributes resources to everyone equally so that no one falls through the cracks or who are disadvantaged in some way”

          Is like saying “feminism is just about equality.”

          Watch what they do, not what they say.

        • Jeremiah

          Idealistic socialism is a beautiful utopia ain’t it?

          ACTUAL socialism is fascism. And feminism is socialism.

          Feminism, just like all socialism, pits a supposedly “wronged” group against a supposed “privileged” group, resulting in elimination of rights for the supposed “privileged” group.

          That fascism can only be of the right is a huge lie intentionally perpetuated by the establishment.

          See also:

          “Leftism” and “Leftism Revisited” by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin and “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.

          Brave New World Aldous Huxley

    • justicer

      I was objecting to what appeared as jeremiah’s pinning of feminism solely on “marxism,” Malestrom, and his extremely partisan reply to Dennis. Were you bothered by that?
      Other than that, all those wonderful things about capitalism, I agree, are wonderful– I too am a fairly conservative person.
      There’s a small component of feminism that has its beginnings in a sort of collectivism, granted.
      However, that’s not, imho, what gave root to gender-feminism. What started the gender-fem takeover was the idea of women without men, sex without children, couples without consequences, and families without fathers, which are the direct results of reproductive technology combined with consumerist ethics, and not much else, in my humble opinion.

  • JohnMcG

    I think that if the MRM movement wants to be an actual *movement*, something that aspires to get beyond us sharing war stories about how things are, and tries to change them, we need to aim for better quality in our writings than “a charitable reading of it would not find it offensive.” We have to aim to persuade people who are on the other side or on the fence.

    The original article fails in this regard. It may work as a rallying cry for those already on this side, but it is extremely unlikely to convince anyone not already convince.

    I started reading the article in question, but stopped at, “With a small number of exceptions, western women have collectively demonstrated themselves to be unequipped with a grasp of personal accountability, ethics, compassion, or empathy.” Ironically, the writer’s next sentence to support this generalization about “western” women was to cite an Australian blogger. It was there I concluded the article was essentially asking me to trade one set of stereotypes for another, and I stopped reading.

    At this point, one can accuse dismiss me as a red-piller, launching a NAWALT argument, tell me how unfair it is for me to jump to conclusions about the article without reading the whole thing. Well and good. But that’s not going to help get anything done, and the circle of this movement will remain closed. If we’re going to get any movement we are going to have to make arguments that have some appeal outside of those already converted.

    This isn’t to say that we can’t talk about sensitive subjects, only that it must be done with skill, skill that, in my opinion, was absent from the original piece. A skilled comic can joke about race, sexuality, parenting, marriage, and all sorts of sensitive subjects and get laughs. If I were to attempt to do the same thing, I’d offend many more people than I entertained.

    I apologize that this seems to be ragging on JtO, but I think it is harmful for us to tell ourselves that people only found the original article offensive because they are ill-equipped to deal with Truth, The Truth must be told. In fact, it is so important that it be told that it must be done extraordinarily well.

    • Jeremiah

      There’s something to be said for telling truths in a certain way.

      “By all means, use a moderate and reasonable tone to promote extreme and radical ideas.”

      But some of us simply can’t do that. I know I am personally unable to; hell, I’m not a great writer, which is part of the reason I haven’t written an article in ages. I suspect JtO is not the type who’s willing or able to write like that either. But his opinions are invaluable.

      I don’t think AVfM is really the place to worry about such things. AVfM is the cutting edge, and yes, the radical edge, of the men’s rights movement. AVfM pushes the boundaries, unfolds the hard truths that nobody else wants to look at, and doesn’t give a hoot whether the PC police are offended or not. I just posted something here detailing what I mean:

      Now it’s true, AVfM does have some writers who are willing and capable of presenting radical ideas in a moderate and reasonable way. Paul Elam does it (sometimes). Pierce Harlan over at FRS does it all the time (but it’s easier since he’s focusing on an issue that’s acceptable to the mainstream). I’m sure there are a few others who can do it and are willing. But there are a lot who simply can’t or won’t, because it’s not within their capabilities or their nature.

      So the truth is right now I would hazard a guess AVfM will continue to offend the PC police, because there’s nothing else that can be done. Perhaps someday if the MRM is big enough, there can be a website that is a little less radical / a little more palatable to your average Joe, but it isn’t right now. And even if there is, there will always be a need for a place where blunt truths are appreciated and radical ideas are presented in all their horrific glory.

    • John the Other

      “I apologize that this seems to be ragging on JtO”

      no need for apology, and I am not bothered even slightly by being ragged on.

      I will clarify my purpose in using a blunt, and possibly offensive writing style.
      I used to take a much kinder, gentler approach, lay out my arguments carefully, and present them to appeal to what I imagined was most people’s innate empathy and reason.

      Surely, (I imagined) if I can just explain clearly that men are brutalized by the family courts, citing peer reviewed studies, then readers will “get it”, and act to right this, or that, or the other great injustice.

      The response I got from this approach was a total, universal indifference. If its women and children under threat, everybody acts like their hair is on fire, if its men dying, yawn, nobody gives a shit.

      Meanwhile, men are dying, going to jail on false accusations, being systematically excluded from higher education, etc etc, and the world sleeps, men included.

      This is why being “nice” or “polite” or socially acceptable has no interest for me. It doesn’t work. It’s also why I don’t try to convince anyone who hasn’t made up their own mind based on evidence already in font of them. Im writing for people who already get it. For those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that men are increasingly marginalized, or who promote that marginalization, I mean to rhetorically slap them across their smug sleepy faces until they hurt too much to keep ignoring the problem. (speaking figuratively of course, as I abhor violence)

      • Tawil

        It’s a straw horse/deflection to claim you are merely fighting against people who want nice, polite, gentle, kind stuff, and that you, on the contrary, will come in with the hard truth. Are they really calling for insipid gentleness and sugar, and nothing else? That’s certainly not what I’m reading.

        What some here have called for is accuracy– to be delivered as hard and steely as anyone wants to. Stereotyping and generalizing sometimes lacks the precision needed to convey an accurate picture, and at worst can come across as demonizing too many people – some of whom may not deserve to be demonized.

        The majority of your posts are consistently accurate and extremely well crafted… certainly better than anything I could do. High applause. But occasionally you mess up, and do a less than perfect job like most mortals do. If we take the one controversial post in question I find your arguments there generally valid except for those few lines that have been (rightly IMO) criticised.

        Accuracy was what JohnMcG and several others have highlighted for subsequent discussion. Saying how blunt and offensive you intend to be seems to skip over this point, doesnt it?

        • John the Other

          maybe I misread his post and omitted to reply to all of it. However, the request to provide a more acceptable and less tactless delivery style is one I’ve had from a number of sources in the past weeks. I may be biassed towards answering that repeated complaint

  • Jeremiah

    I was on the shitter just now when a thought came to me. What is the difference between r/MensRights and AVfM? What attracts the movers and the shakers of the men’s movement to sites like AVfM, put pushes away the do-nothing “men and women are the same” clowns who have a much greater presence at r/MensRights? And it’s articles like JtO’s that make the difference. It’s the content that makes the difference. The more blunt articles we have that state the truth but are offensive to the average PC fool, the more we attract people who appreciate the truth and don’t care about PC bullshit, and the more we push people away who are unable to appreciate the truth no matter what we say. With the articles, we decide the community.

    So it depends on what kind of community you want. When I go to r/MensRights, I largely argue with people in an attempt to show them the truth. I rarely learn anything except from a select few genuine MRAs. But when I come to AVfM, I’m looking to learn and to have a real discussion. I can’t have a real discussion with people who still think men and women are exactly the same, or that feminism isn’t inherently Marxist, and that any discussion of the fact that feminism is Marxist is “partisan”. I go to r/MensRights for that BS. We constantly have people at r/MensRights whining that discussion of these topics is “divisive” because they don’t want to find the truth, they want to find what’s easy and comforting. And now there are a few people in this thread doing the same thing.

    So if the rhetoric at AVfM were to be tamed, it would result in a community that is tame, a community that doesn’t want to discuss issues, a community that doesn’t want to solve problems, a community that is more interested in bickering and arguing points that have already been refuted a thousand times over in the manosphere, than actually having discussion that results in new ideas and new learnings. It would be a stagnant community like r/MR.

    If the rhetoric is tamed, divisive ignoramuses are attracted and all they do is divert and distract. On the other hand, if we all agree on everything, then people get bored. But we’re not there yet! We don’t agree on everything. We agree on a lot of things, yes. But we still haven’t answer the question of how we make things better for men. We don’t agree on how to do that. We don’t even agree if the goal of the MRM is to make things better for men or just to free men from sex roles. So there’s a lot we can still learn without opening the floor up to discussions that have largely already been resolved by taming our rhetoric so much that we invite people who aren’t really here to learn but to troll.

    • justicer

      Jeremiah, you’re avoiding the point or missing it, as least with regard to what I said.

      True, my word ‘partisan’ is a euphemism and maybe it didn’t do the job. Maybe better words were ‘strident’, ‘ad-hominem’, ‘personal’, ‘dogmatic’, ‘noisy’, or ‘shrill’. Your exchange with Dennis was all about you being frustrated, not about the arguments. Did anyone say you had to answer Dennis’s points? If they piss you off, just ignore them.
      I’m not the referee here, so do what you want to do. However, I’d point out that you actually questioned Dennis’s motives, rather than dealt with his points; and called him a “troll” for not obeying your wish, which was to not reply to you, but accept your labels as “truth.”
      Frankly, I suspect you need to spend more time on the “shitter,” as you put it.

      • Jeremiah

        Oh, please, look at the conversation and you will see Denis was the one provoking me and spewing BS he knows nothing about. He didn’t make a point because he didn’t have a point. You can see the exchange here:

        I called him a troll afterward because he was acting like one.

        “Frankly, I suspect you need to spend more time on the ‘shitter,’ as you put it.”

        And you prove once again that just like Denis and Eoghan, you are not here to have a discussion, you are here to be a pain in the ass. I’ve seen this a million times at r/MensRights. Marxists band together to troll people who don’t agree with their ideology that is extremely harmful to men’s rights.

        • justicer

          Everything we disagree with is pain in the ass, J.
          The Red Pill is designed to produce pain in the ass; the blue one, not.
          So there ya are, I plead guilty.
          Sorry for the quip about the shitter, it was just too inviting a target to pass up.
          I accept that your real goal is to have a conversation. But anger isn’t conversation.

          • Jeremiah

            You can’t have a conversation with a mangina, and Eoghan (Sigi1) is a mangina. Believe me, I’ve tried with him countless times over at r/MensRights.

          • Denis
          • justicer

            Jeremiah, I like the passion and commitment you seem to have. This is undeniable. Seems to me, though, that light is the first requirement, heat is the second.
            Show us that your debating opponent is a mangina; don’t just tell me he’s one, by labelling him that way. Labelling people makes you sound like the troll, not him, because all it does is provoke a shouting match which disrupts the conversation.
            – Point me to Ron Paul’s anti-feminist or pro-mens-rights platform.
            I’ve just done a spin through his website. I have failed to find a single reference to the following: “men’s rights”; “divorce”; “fathers’ rights”; “fathers”; “custody”; “gender”; “sex”; “bias”; “gender-based”; “due process”; “feminism”; “misandry”; “divorce court”; or “false rape”.
            – I’d love to know how Congressman Paul can help our movement.

  • Skeptic

    Yes, I understand Doctor’s hand washing brought women’s death during childbirth rates down dramatically.
    After the technology of Doctor’s hand-washing was introduced the rate plummeted to only about 1% of women dying during childbirth.
    The point is that child birthing was somewhat risky until only very recently in human history, so there was a kind of balance of obligations which carried inherent risk between the sexes in days gone by as women were literally expected to ‘deliver their end’.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist the word pun.

    • Kimski

      It’s okay.
      Anything that puts a smile on my face goes.

      -And I get your point. My point was that left to nature, the percentage of women dying giving birth is no higher than your average mammal, which is very low. There is much more likely a high death rate of children, and this doesn’t pose any danger to women, as such.

  • whatif…

    hey fellow zeta’s this is my first post so I hope you show some leniency towards me as I am in my learning stages. I have read a number of articles on this site and pose a query to my fellow posters and the writers of this site it is a hypothetical question by the way (in case you try to read me wrongly as a secret white knight). ‘how do we know that women are actually conscious of causing harm to men, when they are thoroughly convinced that they are only “acting” in their perceived best interest of “mankind”.

    • Darryl X

      I believe neither that women “believe” they are acting in the best interest of men nor that they are aware of the harm they are causing. As concluded in one article on this site (the socialized psychopathy one I think), women are not “immoral” but “amoral”. It’s not that they are unconscionable, which suggests they understand the consequences of their actions and choose to do bad things to others, but that they have no conscience, which suggests they are unable to understand the consequences of their actions. Either way, they must be held accountable for their actions and failure to do that for forty years is the reason they continue to behave the way they do. If they can’t do it themselves, someone must do it for them and no one is.

  • TigerMan

    I think the most important factor here is not to what degree is a certain trait (i.e. amorality in women) more predominant in women than men but rather WHY is such extremely negative attitudes along with the double standards etc getting any traction with our ELITES (which as we know are at least as likely to male as female)? WHY are snake oil salesmen like Joe Biden allowed to peddle extreme radical feminist prejudice as if it was actually a “good thing” for society and women and children for example? Don’t get me wrong because Joe is not alone we have enablers like him by the score and more in practically every country in the west. Men’s lousy attitudes, bigotry and double standards ARE challenged and especially by the elites and this would be fair enough if this was equally challenged when women were doing it. So I guess we must either believe that our governing elites are very naive and very ill informed or that they have more than an inkling of the truth but have actually consciously chosen to back negativity for their own reasons (for I honestly fail to see how it could serve the “common good” to back the lies, bigotry and negativity of the radfems).
    Thought experiment: Since men are still the majority in most parliaments and senates etc do we think from our experience that if we increase or allow to become predominant those MRA’s who are the most extremist that suddenly we will see their demands not only being taken seriously but women’s interests being put second to them?
    Whereas the egalitarians (which happen in fact to be the vast majority of MRA’s) would be largely ignored? I think just verbalising such questions reveals the absurdity of the situation we are in. Forget about “chivalry” that is a red herring – sure it exists but it simply should not be still so predominant in the context of 50 years worth of “equality” social engineering unless there were “other reasons” at play. My guess is that what our elites really fear is men en masse and empowered via a form of “press” (i.e. the internet where unlike the MSM we actually have a right of reply etc) that they do not control YET.
    In short our fight is for most part with other men. Men who are almost by definition “alpha males” (but not all alpha males just too many of them for comfort) that reside in our various corridors of power. As such and for reasons already strongly hinted these men for the most part cannot be persuaded by reasoned arguments (just like most of their radfem useful idiots), therefore they must be destroyed and how we destroy them is a matter of ethical concern, personally I am thinking in strictly non-violent terms and I have some ideas that involve taking the “gloves off” more than this I am unwilling to say here.
    In short it is my view that unless we defeat the enablers we are “pissing in the wind” as my peers would say.

    • Jeremiah

      Please put spaces between your paragraphs man, it’s hard to read.

      • TigerMan

        Yes a fair point.

  • TigerMan

    I had an illuminating experience a number of years ago on usenet (alt.feminism I think it was) – this truly obnoxious feminist posted a number of highly inflammatory comments along the lines “If you think things are bad for you guys now it’s only going to get a LOT worse blah blah blah”. She didn’t even attempt to engage in any kind of reasoned debate but rather just gloated at what her sisters had got away with and what more they were about to get away with in future etc. I read the headers to her post and discovered that she was using her corporate mail server and most likely making these posts during working hours etc. I even knew the company (it was DEC – Digital Equipment Corporation since taken over by Compaq then HP) and had only recently completed an IT contract for one of it’s PC manufacturing plants based in Scotland. Anyway I sent her boss an email asking them if they were happy for one of their employees to be making bigoted posts using their corporate resources etc. Yes I SNITCHED on her and in fact made a public announcement to that effect in the newsgroup. Now one other chap equally as concerned about the same issues as I (as far as I could etc) called me out for my behaviour saying it was a “low” thing to do etc. That was the moment when I realised that a lot (perhaps too many) of men had not realised that our opponents are banking on us being “true to type” i.e reluctant to complain or “whine” , not snitching/grassing up even an enemy or putting it more simply still being somewhat chivalrous in our actions. I realised a long while ago even back then that a WAR had been declared and that it was vital we learned quickly not to let them leverage our own good qualities against us. By the way I have never regretted my actions nor am I in the least bit ashamed and would gladly do the same again given the circumstances.

    • Jeremiah

      Damn right. I reported a woman who was posting bigoted shit just the other day to her boss (turns out it was her former boss). It works.

      • TigerMan

        Great to hear that other men are also freeing themselves from the yoke of knee jerk chivalry. :)

  • Darryl X

    This article and the one about socialized psychopathy are excellent. They are a summary of my own philosophy which I developed independently a long time ago, the reality of which has been dismissed or ignored in public policy, law, politics and finance.

    There are a few errors, like estimates concerning paternity fraud. Actual incidence of paternity fraud is between 6 and 14%, based upon my own observations as a behavioral ecologist and the scientific literature I have consulted (concerning DNA studies of which paternity was not an objective or goal of the study, so the studies and observations about paternity were objective).

    The 30% referenced in one article on this site reflects the incidence of paternity fraud among men who actually are suspicious and test DNA of themselves and their children. It is not the percent of actual paternity fraud.

    Also, although 6-14% of women deliberately misidentify the father of their children and happen to be wrong about the identity, another 6-14% misidentify the father but happen to be correct about paternity. So, technically, they are not guilty of paternity fraud because they are correct when they guess about the paternity of their children. They have a 50% chance of being right. It’s either their husband (or unmarried partner) or it isn’t. Half the time they are correct and half the time they are not. Which means that half the time they are actually guilty of defrauding two men and half the time they are not but they still don’t know that. So, when you read reports that a father has been misidentified, the man who is paying for the child really is the victim of paternity fraud (and another man has not been advised of his paternity and parental rights). But half the time, the man really is the father and is paying for a child that really is his, BUT the mother doesn’t know that and is still guilty of lying about paternity because she really doesn’t know. It just so happens that 50% of the time the man who is paying for the child really is the father. So estimates of paternity fraud approximating 6-14% (where the father has really been misidentified and is paying for a child who isn’t his) should be doubled to about 12-28%. It just happens that half the time the paternity is correct even though the mother isn’t sure. From her perspective, she’s still defrauding the man, whether it’s his child or not, because she doesn’t know.

    There is some other incorrect information. Like the rape statistics. False allegations of rape approximate 42% only as a function of a woman’s retraction of the allegation – in the 42% figure, retraction is the only criteria for identifying a false allegation of rape. But if other criteria were included, like other evidence that she is lying, including eye witnesses, alibi, no evidence that a rape even occurred, etc…, the actual incidence of false allegations for rape exceed 90% (that’s from articles I have consulted and from my own studies).

    Anyway, these articles are great despite some of the discrepancies and I am collecting them and sharing them with colleagues (and maybe some day my children if I ever see them again). Keep up the great work and journalism.

  • Darryl X

    Concerning information from my previous post about paternity fraud, any figure referenced concerning it is staggering and has profound implications for civilization. Also, figures concerning paternity fraud have considerable implications for incidence of adultery. If that many women are guilty of paternity fraud, as determined by data from objective studies of DNA, the number of women guilty of adultery can be extrapolated and it is very discouraging and challenges completely any inate or primitive desire of mine to associate with women. They simply are untrustworthy in the most fundamental interpretation of that concept. A man can have no meaningful relationship of any kind (professional, romantic, sexual, intimate, friendship, etc…) with a woman if they are that dishonest.

  • Darryl X

    @TigerMan – I agree that “enablers” (and that is a great description of the men who promote the irrational and irresponsible and dishonest and manipulative behavior of women because their behavior is akin of addiction to a drug) should be called out and held responsible for their behavior. These men are just as bad as the women they enable. For example, any man that is engaged in an intimate relationship with a woman who is receiving child support or who is not even divorced from her husband yet and her receipt of child support and/her sexual addiction is being “enabled” by that man should be condemned. Only problem is: it makes for a lonely life because so many women (approx 80%) and so many men (hard to quantify) engage in these extremely destructive behaviors. Try finding a woman today for a long-term intimate relationship who is not receiving child support and/or who is not pursuing a malicious divorce and alienating children from their real father. It’s almost impossible. As a matter of fact, try doing anything today that does not involve oversight or association with a woman like this. I personally would never court a woman who is or was receiving child support or who is not yet divorced (or who is even divorced for that matter), but many men would unfortunately. The path of righteousness is lonely.

    • TigerMan

      The kind of enablers I had in mind were those of high influence and could be of either sex for that matter. We know that the sexist VAWA in the USA wouldn’t have got anywhere without guys like Joe Biden for example. The enablers at the highest reaches are surely numerous, enough in fact to have come to the dominance that defines the current orthodoxy we live under. How long is it now since the release of the “agent orange” files – quite a few weeks and despite many of us helping to give as wide circulation to this information NOT A PEEP have I heard from the MSM. My own submissions were not even acknowledged even to the emails I sent to the MP Dominic Raab (Tory MP who once had the bottle to criticise radical feminist activism in the house of commons).
      This is why bills like SOPA and PIPA must be fought as the internet is practically our only hope of getting our voice across because the MSM have for sure been well and truly muzzled. The next 20 years I believe may well be the most critical the human race has ever faced, renewables are limited but the demand for them will continue to escalate dramatically (think China for most part) and we still have not succeeded in liberating ourselves from dependence on them. If we are not to wipe each other out in the next 20 years or so we will need some radical shifts on many levels to occur. Leadership and control by fear-mongering is too dangerous and must go therefore a revolution is needed that will sweep away our elites and their divisive methodologies.
      Personally being almost 62 now (and in common perhaps with not a few others here) the odds are that the end game is likely to occur after I have checked out. Same cannot be said for my younger relatives though and I am very concerned for the future they may inherit from us.
      I only mention that last bit because it will help explain why I think we might find ourselves with unexpected “bedfellows” on the way and that might well not be a bad thing.

  • TigerMan

    Wow this comment thread has been a real doozer but I think it is great to see such an exchange of ideas expressed with passion but a relatively low level of resort to ad hominems.
    The thing that I do find most heartening considering the range of opinions expressed here is that we still share overall egalitarian goals and that that is our unifying heartfelt passion. Onwards and upwards :)

  • Roderick1268

    It is sad that JTOs article caused upset among friends back at base camp. But it does expose that AVFM founders put honest discussion as a priority.

    Wiminns groups have never done this as a rule.
    They just lick their wounds in group sympathy then blame.

    There is a place very few woman can cope looking.
    This place is – – the things woman do.
    Denial, self deception and lies about men, is far more palette-able for woman than attempting to understand why they are motivated to do what they do.
    We survived as a species because of the complementary differences between the sexes.
    Unpleasant behavior of females has been covered up and hidden so long it has turned into the ugliest elephant in the room ever imaginable.
    Mens less than appealing attributes (rare as some of them may be) are heralded by the town crier morning noon and night. Our nose’s are rubbed in it.
    This all dominating scornful voice-over follows us every place.