Trusting Women

Women and Trust, The Ugly Truth

Women control human reproduction. This has been the case throughout history. In almost all sexually reproducing species, it is females who select mates for reproduction, and males who compete to be selected. Humans are not different in this respect.

The invention of modern contraceptive technologies has not changed this fact but has cemented it. This means that women also control access to sex, and thereby control men and society at large. This is neither objectively good nor bad. It is simply the truth.

In the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies what we now call second wave feminism rose to prominence. Many of the movement’s stated objectives were simple matters of equity. These objectives; women’s admittance to higher education, political office, the clergy, and the right to be taken seriously in courts of law, were met. However, they were not accomplished by force against the male dominated establishments of of education, politics, business and the church, but met willingly, by men who saw clearly that sex is no barrier to competence. Unfortunately, simple justice was only a small part of a movement which alert adults now correctly call a hate movement.

Women presently hold almost absolute control of the courts, the education system, the entertainment industry, the government, the family courts, and the police. That is not to suggest women hold the majority of jobs in those fields, rather that female-centric ideology is the dominant narrative. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that this female centric ideology includes a deep and  irrational hatred of men.

  • As evidence of this, consider the documented fact that men are far more likely than women to be the victims of violence [1], at every stage of life. But in the United States, a special set of laws called the violence against women act exists on the books to provide extra protection for women, and a fast track to conviction for men, bypassing many of the checks and balances of normal jurisprudence.
  • Based on accusation alone, our society will now utterly destroy the life and livelihood of any man of whom it is whispered: rapist. Conviction in a court of law; not needed, accusation is guilt.
  • Family court judges and lawyers are increasingly admitting that frivolous abuse of protective orders is prevalent against men, and are cynically used as a routine tactic in divorce proceedings[2].
  • Our society persists in a widespread hysteria, propagated by our media that within every law abiding, hardworking man, there lurks the heart of a kiddie-fiddler. That the word pedophile is applied almost exclusively to male perpetrators of this rare crime, while offenders if distributed by sex are approximately equally dispersed between male and female. [3] The 2008 US Department of health and human services report of child abuse indicated 42.6% of offenders in child abuse to be male, and 56.2 % being female. This report covered general abuse, including neglect, physical psychological and sexual abuse, with sexual abuse forming only 7% of overall abuse of children.
  • In cases where an adult woman is caught sexually abusing a minor, she is described by the media using terms like “teacher”, “caretaker”, or “older woman” or simply “lover” – and her crime is called “an affair”. In cases where the perpetrator is male, it is called “abuse”, “sexual assault” or “rape” and the perpetrator is called “pedophile” – for the exact same type of crime.
  • All domestic abuse in which the provisional victim does not leave after the first incident of violence means that two people, and not just one person, are responsible for the continuation and maintenance of that violent relationship. To presume that woman in such situations are powerless to extricate themselves is to cast for them the role of a child – for an adult woman in an adult relationship. To be sure, here are men who abuse their spouses, but to imagine that this happens in a vacuum and that women in such relationships do not equally abuse, assault, and instigate violence against their spouses is to live in a fantasy world.
  • In cases where women are the primary aggressor in an abusive relationship, men assaulted by their spouses who seek outside help will find themselves not helped, but arrested, imprisoned, and stripped of their home and children by a legal system which starts with the basic assumption of women’s innocence, and men’s villainy.

Our society is now to heavily tilted towards the criminalization of the male identity, resulting in the fact that there is no social, legal, or practical negative consequence for women who lie about abuse, violence, threats, or sexual abuse, or who use the law as a tool to denude men of their property, careers, homes, and children.

A man entering a relationship with a women does so on only on the hope and the trust that she will not exercise her social, legal, and political power to destroy him. This hope is founded on nothing but optimism, as there is no longer any de-motivator to women to casually and easily destroy a man for profit, or sport, or simple whim.

Women as a sex are neither inherently “bad” nor “good”, just as men, as a sex, are also simply human beings. Some are malicious, most aren’t.

Unfortunately, where advantage can be taken by individuals within a system, it will be taken. And the our society currently affords terrible privilege, power and exception from responsibility to women. Because of this, and in a climate where most elements of our society tilts toward a vilification of men and protection of, enablement of, and elevation of women; men cannot reasonably trust women.

That bears repeating : in this system men cannot reasonably trust women.

In relationships, the odds for men are stacked against any outcome except betrayal and destruction. Certainly, many women are not unethical, nor are seeking to exploit men’s near non-person status in our society. Unfortunately, many women are seeking just that outcome. There is no social or legal obstacle to women who would exploit the system we now enjoy; the system where all men are bad, and all women are good.

Women, we men can’t trust members of your sex in this system. There are admittedly few men alert to this fact as yet. The men’s movement is just waking up, there will be more of us. This is not hatred towards women, it’s just awareness and self preservation. It’s a system established by over 50 years of feminism. It is apparently what your sex wanted, and now you have it. Or, maybe this isn’t what you wanted. But if it’s not, what do you mean to do about it?


  • Unrewarded

    *GASP*! How DARE you cite statistics? You’re just drawing away attention from women because you’re a RAPIST! MAN UP and play on ***EQUAL*** level with us feminists!

    • Unrewarded

      i no sister. hes just soooooooo bitter mayb wen hes not so negative hell get some pussay. these mra weirdos need to stop bitching… statistics and reason are for LOOOOSERS.

      • Tom M

        I think they are so scarrrry! I’m affraid!

  • Eff’d Off

    Beautiful piece, thank you.

    [img] bumping.jpg[/img]

    • BeijaFlor

      I thought that was “Cane Rape.” Like the “Birth Rape” story a month or so ago.

  • codebuster

    This means that women also control access to sex, and thereby control men and society at large.

    The “traditional” transaction went more or less thusly:
    1) Women controlled access to sex;
    2) Men controlled access to resources (not only material resources, but also political, legal, etc).

    But men have now abdicated their responsibility wrt resources, surrendering it all to the feminist Matriarchy (and their idiot white knights in power). And thus, in effect, women now control access to both sex and resources. Frightening.

    • Rad

      Well, women also (eventually) gave up traditional control of sex, in the sense that you can get it without having to marry her etc.

      While that occurred culturally, the laws that governed marriage (and children) did not change. Thus women received all the same benefits as men without taking on the corresponding responsibilities. That’s where the privilege began.

      • fidelbogen

        “Well, women also (eventually) gave up traditional control of sex, in the sense that you can get it without having to marry her etc.”

        Nope. Nothing was “given up”. Merely reconfigured.

        If you carefully reflect upon all the feminist innovations wrt “rape” and “male violence”, you will see that women effectively have MORE (and more draconian) control of sex than they ever did.

        So, as I have concluded elsewhere, it is a vitally important strategy for men to assert power and control in this realm by some highly innovative thinking which goes against the grain.

        Of course, pussy-beggars, PUAs and alpha cocksmen might find that this subverts their cultural paradigm.

  • Matthew

    Great piece,
    but I have heard of similar information for several times.

    Unrewarded have cited an interesting point. To beat feminists and their obnoxious ideology, we are doomed to face irrational comments from others.

    I think we should seriously figure out some ways to deal with them. According to my experience, most men can be easily convinced if we give them good reasons to believe in us.

    But we need to think about how to deal with women, not all, but most of whom just aren’t receptive to reasons.

    Obviously, trying reasoning won’t do any good, but I doubt if trying emotional tactics will be effective either, since we, as men, are just not biologically designed to be able to do this.

    What can we do?

  • Tom
    • Raven01

      If you think that is bad look into Florida’s take on the Castle doctorine.
      They’ve taken a reasonable expectation of being able to defend your home from intruders to new heights of idiocy. In one case an off duty cop was at a house party and while drunk became quite obnoxious and was asked to leave. The cop then shot the home-owner claiming “because he had a broken leg at the time he felt threatened”….. not charges were laid.
      So not only can cops enter your home illegally in Indianna, in Florida off-duty they can shoot you dead in your own home and not be charged.

  • Stu

    As far as I’m concerned you should be able to refuse entry to anybody to your house and if they enter, you should only be required to order them to leave once, and after that you should be allowed to use whatever force is required to remove them……..up to and including shooting them dead if they are armed

    • Tom M

      If they are armed – forget the warning – take the dangerous intruder out

  • KARMA MRA MGTOW – above the law
    • Tom M

      NICE job, Mick!

    • Patrick Henry

      Does Mick ever come to this site?

      • Patrick Henry

        I ask because I would like to hear his story. Maybe even a show call in.

    • B.R. Merrick

      “I’ve asked for help … so many times, no one wants to help the blokes; the chicks get in first and start throwing stones, the blokes don’t stand a chance.”

      That man is gorgeous, inside and out! Even the article talked about his “muscular build,” but didn’t bother to mention his muscular brain, or his muscular will. That’s a dad and a half.

    • railroadwino

      I get the feeling that the video in that link showing a poll sympathetic to Mick, a supportive caller, and a relatively unbiased news report had A LOT to do with the fact that Mick is telegenic. If a balding, overweight, middle-age dad had climbed that bridge he would be vilified and laughed at.

  • Tom M


    I said, “me, Me, ME, MEEEE, damnit!”

    • Tom M

      Sweet! Got just a touch of femichivalrist knee jerk reaction there, did I?;-)

    • Tom M

      Truth in a nutshell – Ooooh, how painful!

      Gotta love it!

  • ProleScum

    Manuel, your rigor and lucidity serve as a beacon of hope in this long misandric night. Hats off to you sir.

  • Stu

    Mike Fox is on 60mins

    That’s here in Oz that is

    Seemed like an msm positive report about the plight of men for a change. It’s all about parental alienation. He said is is going to continue the fight, and that these TV and radio appearances will prove positively to his kids that he loves them. He did say that he will be continuing the fight even after his personel situation improves.

    Looks like the feminist system has created yet another MRA. A very ballsy one too.

  • Stu

    Btw, on polls here in Oz, most people support his protest. The court responded by banning him from seeing his kids. I don’t know how often he was allowed to see his kids before……probably every two weeks…..which was obviously not being enforced. So the court thinks the problem with him not getting to see his kids…….is that he has any access at all……..ban that……problem solved…….for her.

    • Raven01

      Sickening, and we see more and more PAS every year. And so far I am not away of any country that even officially acknowledges PAS exists let alone is a problem (likely because the vast majority of those guilty of it are women).

      With the information we have (Facts not conjecture) on fatherless children and their likelihood to thrive and succeed, P.A.S. should be listed for what it is… child abuse.

      • Tom M

        The vast majority of PAS accompanies false abuse allegations. Stop and prosecute the false abuse allegations and you eliminate a LOT OF ABUSE and related problems. But, that starves the DV industry and all their hangers-on and thus cannot be tolerated…

    • Red0660

      They responded by banning him from his children? So when will things turn violent in western nations?

  • Ben

    This is quite probably the most informative, convincing, and concise article on feminism, its basis and path, from an anthro / fitness selection standpoint I have ever read! Outstanding work, Manuel. I feel that it is absolutely crucial to point out the basics, as you have done here, when trying to inform the general public about the MRM and the virtually invisible femi-fascism crisis. I have had much more success pushing red pills when I start by explaining that women control reproduction and access to sex, whereby largely controlling men, including powerful men. Pointing out the biological origin of gynocentrism is like a skeleton key for unlocking the collective blue pill psyche.

    At first I was reluctant to try to recruit a member of the general public to the MRM using this angle but, astonishingly, many uninformed persons absolutely eat this stuff up! I can only speak for myself, but I often start by talking of peacock tails and girraff necks to try to explain the very basics of natural and sexual selection (most people don’t even know the most basic of the basics). Then, I move into the notion of the disposibilty of males, how and why that was naturally selected for group survival, and how such factors shaped our culture up to and including our highest levels of government. This approach has been most successful for me.

    When people do not understand these basic concepts, they are likely to resist what we say and force us to answer questions such as, “Why is this so? How could what you are saying even be possible? If it were as you say, why haven’t I heard this on the news?” It seems to be of omni importance to point out the biological premise of gynocentrism and femi-fascism in order to convince anyone that what we say is true. I have found that without first explaining the said biological premise I will often be unsuccessful of convincing anyone of anything even after showing them examples of misandry and sexism against men until I am blue in the face. People need to know why, or “how” for that matter, our claims can possibly be true. I am completely convinced that this biological approach to explaining the men’s crisis to the general public is to be the opening move. It makes our claims seem possible.

    The most polished presentation with hundreds of examples of proof of the misandric stronghold in our society will be a waste of time if people cannot first relate to “how” this can be possible. Presenting examples before hand-feeding the ignorant masses a crash course on human evolution and the fact that females control and manipulate males by turning on and off sexual access to males is like using a morning star to tear down a fortress. The wall (that is, their information filter) has to come down first, then the morning star (facts) will work (sorry for being so metaphorical).

    Without explaining the whys and hows, it often results in blue pillers, even after they are convinced, for the most part by what we are saying, in making a U-turn and rejecting our validity at a later time. I have done a lot of thinking about this and started realizing one thing: When a scientist conducts an experiment, and finds results that are consistent with his expectations, he will be easily conviced and numerous replicated studies will not seem necessary. However, when the scientific findings are completely unreasonable and inconistent with his original intuition, a hundred more experiments with the same results and unshakable proof may still have him feeling a little leary of his findings. This, IMHO, is why the “whys and hows” need to be understood by our listeners first and foremost.

    This article accomplishes that goal with flying colors.

    • Benjamin

      Your last point about scientists, and others, was spot on… when it comes to the masses of morons out there.

      That is one of the primary reasons why medicine is so lousy in the “western” world, these days… because any discovery, no matter how well documented and repeated, is rejected as a fairy-tale by M.D.’s, because they don’t have a model for “how” it works… what the mechanics are.

      So, you wrote about the same thing happening among the white knights and manginas… they don’t have a model in their minds, of a world where women hold power and hurt the men. How could that happen?!

      So, no amount of evidence will convince many of them. They need a story to hold onto… not facts.

      • Ben

        Good comments Benjamin. It took me a few months to realize that even perfect, unshakable, scientific data will be rejected by nearly everyone if they do not have a story to hold onto, as you say. People tend to act on what they “feel” or how things “seem” rather than proven statistics or documented examples. When people have an opportunity to learn about things such as men being protectors of women, while women are protectors of themselves, they begin to have some “ahh haa” moments. People need to be “primed” for new information that is contrary to popular belief.

        • fidelbogen

          Ben: There is another angle to this that you have possibly not considered.

          While I agree that people are VERY slow to let go of their “models” (paradigms), and need a dramatic paradigm-shifting experience of some sort to jolt them out of it, I also realize that paradigm-shifting can happen in a variety of ways.

          Some of these ways are more subtle and gradual. For example, when the people in a social environment start playing with new ideas — even to the point of believing them — then it becomes progressively harder and harder to hold on to an established model.

          A peer group effect sets in, augmenting the power of suggestion. At some point, a critical mass obtains and a marked acceleration of conversion occurs, and then you have a collective paradigm shift when the capacity to doubt new information is fatally compromised.

          Simply knowing that people around you have stopped believing in X, makes belief in X harder to sustain.

          So the trick is, to start slow and small with the conversion process, and build up a demographic snowballing effect.

          One needs to begin with those who are already ‘easy targets’ — and it takes a bit of ‘people sense’ to figure out who these might be. Then, work your way up the ladder to the slightly more difficult targets, etc etc…

          That is how you build critical mass. Do the easy work first, and you will build up the necessary leverage to make the hard work easy at a later stage.

          Never work any harder than necessary; that’s a cardinal rule!

    • Tom M

      Excellent, Ben! You are not only quickly picking up the general and whole principles of the truth of these interrelated gender matters, but didn’t have to go through the ultimate refiners fires (married with children and then divorced…) to help you get it or force you to get it.

      You’re also far ahead of many in spreading the truth, and spreading it to to a group who needs it most – younger men.

      An article, perhaps?

      And perhaps a flier to distribute on KKKampuses across the nation,
      “Why Feminism? Why Chivalry?”

      • Ben

        Thanks Tom. I am going to start writing articles as soon as I feel that I have something of enough value to contribute, which may be very soon : )

  • Fredique

    Domestic Violence protection should be gender neutral so it protects all victims equally regardless of gender.

    As for women controlling all those fields. I don’t think it can be appointed to one gender, but rather a small select group of “elite” whom are both men and women who pull the strings.

    And also that any accusations by a woman should be provided with proof, and that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

    The above two points combined with Shared Parenting policies for good parents (so good fathers don’t lose contact with their children) are crucial to make the current system more fair for all.

    As for women’s power in reproduction. The general sexual power of women over men has noticeably diminished in recent times: due to products like Fleshlight (sex toy for men), the ability to travel all over the world for love and affection, wide variety of pornography to satisfy sexual needs etc.

    And also the incubation of children (in external uterus) will eventually be a reality as well, albeit probably in the far future for “designer children” who are likely more close to perfection, healthy etc than any human womb child.

  • Stu

    Yes very depressing though that the thing that allows misandry and radical feminism to take control of society… men. If it is so hardwired into our biological makeup that we will build a system that destroys our own freedom….is there any hope. Well, there is……it’s called collapse.

    There is one other hope. Men as a group, have to recognize this biological trait, that in a natural environment may very well serve a purpose, but is obsolete and actually threatens the existence of society itself.

    You see, if we don’t recognize that, then eventually, things will be stacked legally and socially so far against men that there will be not enough men left that are willing to give a rats arse about being productive, having families, or even being law abiding. Things will collapse at that point, and decend into a third world scenario, which would sweep feminism into the rubbish bin in two seconds flat.

    The other thing is to recognize exactly what our primative instincts are driving us to do. A mangina or white knight thinks he is responding to some higher moral standards, but really he’s just driven by pure animal instinctive mindless behavior.

    Once the majority of men are aware, and understand why they have the urge to protect women and grovel to them, at all costs, it’s easier to start building a system that discourages that behavior, or even goes as far as to ban the bahaviors that lead to it. For example, in Islamic societies, the dress code for women was designed so that a woman could not use her womanly charms to influence the behavior of men. Men are not constantly aroused and manipulated by tit and arse displays. Provocative behavior is disallowed. Virtually every trick in the book that women can use to obtain advantage from men, and control of men, is forbidden. Extreme in some countries, yes, but it works.

    The reason women protest so strongly that they should be allowed to dress anyway they wish in public, is exactly because it is a tool of controlling men. This only works for reasonably attractive women, and only as long as all women are not doing it.

    I believe that all successful civilisations developed rules governing behavior that discouraged, or banned, the primative primate behavior of both sexes, in order to harness the productive and positive contributions of both sexes towards building and maintaining a society. In order to do that, you have recognize the primative urges that promote the behavior that is detrimental to developing and maintaining society. e.g. Hypergamy in the female

    Basically, if men can’t have families, where the children are theirs, and keep them in tact…..there is little hope for civilisation. In fact, it would have never gotten off the ground at all until the situation arose where those conditions could be met. Anyone that thinks overwise……show me a civilisation that was built without that condition being met

    • Snark

      “and only as long as all women are not doing it.”

      Yet each individual woman will do it, since she seeks to gain advantage over her peers.

      This is where slutdom fails.

    • Raven01

      Men allowed it to happen and it is up to us to stop it.
      We collectively embraced the experiment and it has failed miserably.
      Great comment, you have motivated me to try approaching my Member of Parliment here on such issues, particularly the DV groups locally that openly admit “male victims do not matter”.
      And not I think I’ll go more “in your face” and show up at the next take back the night march in a t-shirt from here
      by mensrightsguy, as much as I loathe giving money to a company that also sells misandric garbage.

      • Patrice Stanton

        1) I am a woman. 2) I am anti-feminazi/anti-femi-facist/, etc. 3) That Zazzle designer, “mensrightsguy” isn’t too swift ["I hate feminist" ??!] and his products are WAY overpriced.

        I’m a better designer and use CafePress. Tell me what you want on a shirt (and if you want it for white/light colored T’s AND dark/black t-shirts or just one color-group) and I’ll put it up on Cafepress and bring the link here. AND make the mark-up a ‘mere’ $2 per item over their price.

        Though I ‘try’ not to use them in speech or writing, I’d consider using “4-letter words” in the designs with a proviso.


        p.s. In answer to the ‘what are you doing’: I am a fledgling writer in the Spec Fiction/Dystopian genre; my ‘near-future’ worlds are meant to be a wake-up call in several ways, not the least of which is due to their man-hating, decidedly Feminist-gone-amuck political/cultural/civilizational climate.

        • fidelbogen

          I just visited your blog. I can see that you are a person with smarts and talent. You are also female.

          You are just the kind of person we need more of in the non-feminist sector.

          So, it is good to see you around.

          Since you are into graphic design, you might think about doing bumperstickers and the like…?

    • Benjamin


      You couldn’t have said it better, when you wrote, “if men can’t have families, where the children are theirs, and keep them intact…..there is little hope for civilisation.”

      99.999% of the people don’t get that. It is male characteristics that make all of us able to survive and thrive… the men, the children, and the women. Male ego, male competitiveness, male co-operation (clannishness, the tendency to form teams), male jealousy (“zealous” and “zeal” are actually the same words as “jealous” and “jealousy”). These are the traits that make safety and happiness possible in the world, and make us able to have food and clothes and luxuries.

      But, may I say my friend, that “civilization” is our enemy, too? In a country having good laws, there wouldn’t be much “civilization”. Men who are civilized are those who have been tamed enough to live in the cities and work for “the man”. Civilized men are cattle.

      Let me put it this way. There are a few men (some alpha’s, in the MRM model of the world) who are trying to dominate us all, forever; and keep us working to produce lots of economic output… so that they can take almost all of it, and get richer and more powerful every year.

      That group is who wants us “civilized”. And that group is who wants feminism to thrive.

      If men were permitted to have their families (their children, their women, etc), then men would not work so hard at things that transfer the fruit of their labor to the alpha’s… and they wouldn’t spend a lot of time in the cities.

      @Stu, you also hit it right on the head, about Islam.

      Most all of you won’t want to hear it… but classic liberalism will never lead to success or happiness.

      Islam is a religion wherein the manwoman relationships are set, about 30 degrees too strict. If we’re looking for the straight and good way, Islam is 30 degrees too far to the right of center.

      Western countries are about 150 degrees too far left. About 150 degrees too lenient toward- and empowering of- women.

      The truth is that we need only to turn back to the Torah.

      There we’ll remember that women have the right to complain about domestic violence and then leave their husbands… if he knocks her eye out, or breaks one of her bones, or even just knocks one of her teeth out. You may think that’s not enough power for the women… but the other alternative is visible to you today, outside your window.

      Turning back to obeying the Torah of Yhwh, we’ll remember that inheritance of property is only to the sons (not the daughters, and a double-slice to the firstborn son. This will cause every woman naturally to seek to cooperate with and productively work together with a man, who will inherit from his father… rather than try to divide the inheritance of her own father and burn through the money for her pleasure and wasteful comfort. Money that some man earned, not her.

      (My great aunties did this, here in the USA. Grandpa wanted to develop on the inheritance land, but the two sisters simply wanted to cash it out. Grandpa’s hand was forced, since these females were extended inheritance “wrongs”, and the land sold for its farm value. Now, a few years later, that is the most expensive township for luxury homes in this area, and part of Great-Grandad’s old farmland is a PGA tour golf course and a resort. There go the family fortunes.)

      Obeying the laws of the almighty, who endowed us with certain and unalienable rights, we’ll move back to the good, old way… when a woman who made a false claim that her husband slapped her (or even a true claim that he slapped her) would be told to go home and not piss him off, next time. (By the way, that system is still in place and is normal, in most countries today.) Wow! That would be terrible! A system of rewards wherein women are incented to make their husbands happy and content, and wherein there is negative response to bad attitudes, etc! My my.

      But, if MRA’s keep standing on the idea of men and women being treated the same, by our legal framework, then there is no hope for the MRM.

      The day when women are rational, honest, accountable, responsible, ashamed of the failings, etc… that day is not coming. It never has occurred, and we ought to stop pretending that it will. They cannot be made rulers nor jurors, nor any of that. They weren’t made for that. And, they are some of the most wonderful things in the world… but they’re not any of those things I just mentioned.

      • Denis

        “But, if MRA’s keep standing on the idea of men and women being treated the same, by our legal framework, then there is no hope for the MRM.”

        That is the legal framework that we have. To make a 180° turn as you suggest would require a dismantling of the legal framework which is an impossible proposition. While the idealist perspective is interesting, I’m a realist and a pragmatist.

        • Benjamin


          Hey, Dennis. I imagine that you were sincere, in what you wrote… but it’s still making me laugh a little.

          You don’t really think that it is too dificult to turn back 50 years worth of changes, do you?

          Our legal framework supports what I wrote, very well. Heck, repeal a couple of constitutional amendments from the last couple generations, and you’re done. So, you couldn’t really have meant that to be a “pragmatist” requires resignation to failure. (For example, “equality” teaching.)


          Besides, I said we needed to turn 150 degrees… not 180. :-)

          No, our legal framework (while it needs to be changed, sure) will support the requirements I laid out above, quite well. There is no difficulty there.

          And, if anyone in MRM is even slightly interested in success, then take your cue from the sodomy movement, of the past couple generations. They have succeeded in getting the 15 things that they wanted, because they demanded 45 things… extremely further than their real goals and needs.

          You don’t get where you need to go by asking for only what you absolutely need, and then compromising from there… that’s your pragmatism, I guess. You get there by demanding the whole kitty, fighting for it, and then compromising from there.


          • Denis

            It’s not just 50 years of changes. Women were getting pussy passes over 100 years ago for killing their husbands and the tender years doctrine was made law in 1839.

            While you advocate for 150° turn, I might be targeting for say the 90° turn. Your 150° turn is extremely unpopular and turns people off, my 90° turn has relevance to many modern men and women.

            That’s not resignation to failure, that’s recognition of the massive amount of work for MRA’s.

          • Benjamin


            You seem not to be bringing to mind that this isn’t just an intellectual experiment… but the real world.

            Every Mutt needs a Jeff. Every good cop needs a bad cop.

            Every person who is turned off by men calling for good and right solutions (that’s me), will as a result feel a closer affinity to those men who are calling for not-yet-good-enough solutions (that’s you).

            Feminazism has always turned off the majority of sheeple. But, Denis… they’re winning.

            Sodomy has always repulsed the large majority of the people… but, dude, they’re cleaning up. (Or making a mess, depending how you look at it.)

            Amigo, you cannot win by putting forth a message that’s appealing to the masses. But, we do need a few folks who will spin it the most appealing way, for the masses, once in a while. (That could be your job!)


          • Denis

            It’s not happening Benjamin, christians are not turning back to obeying the Torah of Yhwh and it is not popular among youth. That is the world we are living in.

            I also don’t like other people dictating my life on one extreme or the other. For me, the MRM is a men’s liberation movement.

          • Benjamin

            Denis… you zeta male, you.

            I’d appreciate it, genuinely, if you would quit with the garbage about “other people dictating your life”, and “extremes”, etc. Those are really just ad hominem attacks, with smoother words.

            Likewise, I shouldn’t probably have rattled your cage as much as I did.

            So, I am only asking you to be honest with me, and the other readers. This board is having a conversation, or a list of people’s inputs, about changing the world, the government, society, the legal system, etc. Yes, you very much are contributing your ideas about how to change “the world we are living in”, and how to “dictate” the way people live their lives.

            I am just pointing in the direction of what will work. You need not be angry about it… you’re probably just feeling pissy about it, because it doesn’t come from your exact type of mindset.

            Lastly, the points I made to you are about liberating men… just as you wrote, too. Almost everything that needs to be done, for us to come into compliance with what’s right, consists of removing various bad law… that is to say increasing liberty.

            The laws in the Torah (the word means “the directions”, by the way), are much fewer and less complicated than what we have now, in the West. So, I kinda have to call “bullshit” on you, when you resort to saying that you don’t want people dictating your life. Because this guy talking to you is telling folks to stop dictating your life, through feminist balderdash. Don’t bite my leg for it, sen~or.

          • Denis

            Sure, I’d like men to think for themselves and consider all the possibilities for their lives and not restrict themselves to black and white thinking. That’s liberation.

            As much as you dislike feminists, that doesn’t mean that your ideologies are an acceptable replacement.

          • Tom

            The question is not if it will turn back, but when and not why it will turn back but how. Fred Reed wrote a piece recently about a new book by Jared Taylor:

            Things can change very rapidly when we give up political correctness and acknowledge that there is a two-tier society. One thing not addressed in Fred Reed’s article is where Feminism fits into the picture. With collapse and fragmentation happening all around us, we can probably turn back 200 years of changes very quickly.

          • Benjamin

            Tom, I appreciate your saying so.

            (Thanks for the link, too… I’ll read it.)

            You’re saying what people sometimes don’t want to believe.

            A lot of people think that social, and even geologic, processes happen gradually. But, you’ve hit it right on the head. The things we MRM-types rail against… they’re all about to go away quickly. Explosively.

            I hope that people will learn which way things ought to go, so that we can steer them that-away. Because, things are about to move /somewhere/!


      • thehermit

        The first step should be to close all the sperm banks and not donate anymore. That would be some kind of male empowerment.

      • J.G. te Molder

        Obeying the laws of the almighty, also has us stoning adulterers, stoning people who play with a leather ball, ie 90% of the entire male world population, hacking rape victims to pieces and sending them out to our relatives, then hunt down the rapist and kill him/her… and then kill every single last of his/her family members, men, women, and children, we’d be taking priests at infallible word and hand our kids over to them to be abused by some of them, be the slaves of nobility, and whatnot. For three thousand years we followed the good book, and for 2,800 years of it we were all oppressed slaves of a tiny elite. And for the last 50 we’re heading right back to that status quo, only this time the religion is feminists, the nobility is bankers, and the knights enforcing their rule is women always ready to cry rape, and the manginas running to their cause.

        No, it’s time all religion goes the way of the dinosaurs, and we teach our children the methods of rationality and critical thought and the scientific method in school. As well as all the science of truth that shows how society works, and how people can try to manipulate it so our children are armed against it. This would include human biology, the power of sex versus resources.

        • Eff’d Off

          Please write a longer piece about this and send it in to our Paul..

          You voiced one of my core beliefs 100 percent.

        • guest

          Excellent comment, so very true, I agree with just about all of this comment.

      • fidelbogen

        “The day when women are rational, honest, accountable, responsible, ashamed of the failings, etc… that day is not coming.”

        This may or may not turn out to be true. But pending the arrival of the necessary definitive proof, my policy is to be “agnostic” upon this question.

        Thus, you will never hear me going around preaching — as some will do — that “women are mercenary children by their nature.”

        I have no doubt that some women are that way, but I leave open the gate of possibility that others are not.

        So. . . finally: I allow every woman the necessary latitude to prove that she is what she is.

        I stand back, I stand clear, and I watch.

        And whatever she eventually proves herself to be, I hold her duly accountable.

        But I don’t start with any preconceptions.

        The idea is to keep an open mind, but weed out the bad apples right quick.

        If one would insist that women are “mercenary”, then I think they would be “mercenary” enough to maximize their ultimate advantage.

        And when feminism proves manifestly destructive of their ultimate advantage, I think we can expect to see women in critical numbers turning against it in a “mercenary” way. ;)

        Such is my vision.

  • Mark G

    Since this is a touchy subject, please try to understand the point that I am trying to make, as I may not be the best person at getting a point across. First, I do not condone rape, because it is an act of violence and should be punishable as such. What I dislike about “rape hysteria” in our society is that rape is a “gender crime”, in that only one gender can commit the crime. Although MRAs try to point out that women are just as capable of crimes that men are, this is not true with rape, simple for this reason: Men are always sexually “on” and programmed to believe that women, and sex with women are the greatest thing in the universe and supposed to be one of (if not THE) goal of the life of a heterosexual male. Therefore if a woman were to “force” herself sexually on a man, the man would not be opposed to this, because this is what he is “supposed” to do.

    How often does popular culture (TV, movies, etc) show a man making an advance towards a woman only to get slapped, punched or even charged with a crime or injured for doing so, presenting the meaning: women (or at least that particular woman) is not interested in the man. Then, look at all the times we are shown situations in which a woman initiates contact and how often does the man oppose the action. Look at commercials like Axe Body spray that specifically show men getting sexually assaulted by women for using their product. At least, it would be considered sexual assault if the genders were reversed. I cannot even think of any time in which a woman is slapped, punched or charged with a crime for initiating sexual contact with a man.

    Picture the story of: A person is in an elevator when a stranger gets on. The stranger suddenly puts their arms around the first person, pulls them close and starts to kiss and fondle them. If the first person is a woman and the stranger is a man, this is a clear sign of rape, or at the least sexual assault. If the first person is a man and the second is a woman, then this is man’s sexual fantasy, worthy of being sent to Penthouse Letters.

    I just dislike the whole rape scenario in our society because it is, yet another thing, that is bad when a man does it, and acceptable when a woman does it. The reason for this is because men are always “on” when it comes to sexual contact with women and they are never, ever told that this is a bad thing. They are kept in a perpetual state of always needing physical contact with women, like a drug addiction, that women will always have this power; women will always have this sexual control, while men will be the controlled. Which is why rape is a gender crime that only men can commit.

    • Denis

      You’ve described overwhelming societal attitudes and stereotypes about male victims quite well. Unfortunately, you have ascribed this behavior to all men and that simply isn’t true.

      Women also like sex and want sex, they just aren’t portrayed as such. Men don’t always want sex and men aren’t always “on”. Even the obvious average physical difference in strength doesn’t apply to all individuals. In many instances of sexual assault, there is no physical coercion but rather psychological coercion, in which women are perfectly capable of.

      What do you think those societal attitudes about men being always “on” does to boys who are abused by women when they are told that they are supposed to want it?

      • Bombay

        100,000 thumbs up. A real man always wants it – NOT!

    • Mark G

      I am sorry, it appears that I failed to make my point, which is why I started with a disclaimer. Basically I was trying to say that rape is a crime that only men get accused of because they are biologically and socially programmed to want sex, whereas women are informed that it is a choice. I recall a saying when I first joined the MRM many years ago, “When it comes to sex, for men it is a chore, for women it is a choice.” That is what I meant by men being “on”. I don’t mean on, always, just “on” when the opportunity arises.
      Therefore a man would never accuse a woman of rape; it is something that only men get charged for.

      >>What do you think those societal attitudes about men being always “on” does to boys who are abused by women when they are told that they are supposed to want it?<<
      Yes, that is what I am saying is part of the problem. Men\boys are told by society that they are supposed to want it, which leads to a situation where men would not accuse a woman of rape or sexual assault, because they are programmed to "want it".

      • Snark

        I think most people agree with you, Mark. The way it was phrased in the previous post made it seem like it was your point of view that men are always sexually ‘on’, when actually that’s the point of view you were attacking.

        • Mark G

          Lesson learned for me: If I think that my post needs to being with a disclaimer, then I probably should not post it. Heh. ;)

      • Denis

        It was a bit vague and needed clarification, but I didn’t automatically assume ill intent.

      • Tom

        While men overwhelmingly get accused more often, some women (mainly teachers and caretakers) get accused of rape and sexual assault, too. There was the case of Tonya Craft last year. It’s sad to see women use the same tactics on other women that we well know are used against men with impunity. It’s one of the reasons that False Rape Society has on its marquee “Giving voice to the men and women harmed by false rape accusations”

    • J.G. te Molder

      Also notice how all those women who trow themselves at men in those commercials are super hot women of ultimate fantasy?

      Picture it with Slut Walk crowd, ugly women, disgusting women, and heavily overweight women. Picture becomes different, doesn’t it?

      The problem is not that what those women do is sexual assault and isn’t called as such, quite the contrary. The problem is that when men do it is called sexual assault when it isn’t. A man should be able to signal to women he wants them and use innuendo and his physical presence and even touching without being asked to. And indeed, that is in fact entirely okay – as long as women are attracted to you. And that is the problem.

      Nothing should be a sexual assault let alone rape, until there is (attempted) forceful coercion while the victim is telling you they don’t want it and are fighting back.

      If merely looking suggestively, smiling wrongly, putting your arm around someone, giving a suggestive touch from man to woman is a crime, it is criminalizing all heterosexual conduct. And indeed, for those feminists claiming all hetero sex is rape, that’s exactly what they want.

  • Rad

    As I have written elsewhere, this coercive system we have in place incentivizes women to take advantage of men, and men to be suspicious of women. This morphs consensual heterosexual sex into a dysfunctional and unhealthy activity on a culture-wide scale — and pits male against female in an unending power struggle.

  • Eff’d Off

    Yuk !

    That same company cranks out the following venom all for the sake of making more money for the execs and stock holders who can buy more things for “me me…. more things, me.”
    There is no other motivation and fuck me if it causes a few problems eh !

    Nope count me out. I’d rather be stranded on an island and forced to listen to Kylie Minogue, Liberace, Bette Midler and that git Barry Manilow on a never ending loop for fucking ever and ever.

    Yeah, take a look at these slices of hate and remember that t h e only reason for their existence is to be as siren-bots with little crowbars poking at your wallet.

    Any penny to these cunts is a penny used to make their machine possible.

    They get nothing from me except a burning effigy of Kellett “Doc-Martin kicked” right up their clackers.


    • Eff’d Off


      The company I am referring to calls itself “Zazzle.”

  • Denis

    “Women control human reproduction.”

    As Stu mentioned, this is an important issue for discussion and one that I would really like to learn more about, especially the various pro-con arguments and biological bases.

    Is this always true in other species? I spend a lot of time at “African Lion Safari” (canadian version). I watch the peacocks and that seems to be case. The lions are quite active (I took video). There were only two males in the pride, the older was obviously dominant and had his choice but there were so many females that the younger one got some too. The females were not very discerning, they were obviously in heat and very receptive to either of the males. The goats and other herd animals are much the same. What about the ducks? Most of them are already on their nests and the few remaining females are chased to exhaustion by groups of males. In modern western society women have their right to choose, but in other cultures with dowries and arranged marriage there doesn’t seem to be women’s control of human production.

    Great article and excellent references as always.

    I’ll further add that reference [3] doesn’t break down the perpetrators of sexual abuse, which is often the case for these government reports. I suspect there is a motive to maintain stereotypes rather than expose them. Also from reference [3], 64.7% of all investigations were unsubstantiated and for all cases of child maltreatment, 80% involved a parent and for all cases of sexual abuse, only 27% involved a parent. There a lot of additional interesting observations such as the risk of fatality is higher for boys across all age groups and especially for infants. This report doesn’t break down the perpetrators of child fatalities(^motive^), but other data consistently show the biological mother being the greatest perpetrator. (Canada2008, Mother and other 35.5%, Father and other 14%, Father and Mother 21.5%, Other 29%) Further breakdown by age of child, shows that mothers are especially skewed as perpetrators against younger children.

    in this system men cannot reasonably trust women.

    • Tom M

      The family terrorist:

      “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy!!!”

      “Your mama brought you into this world, and she can take you right back out of it.”

      The family protector is the FATHER, but you’d never know that from educators, media, police, courts, politicians and their hangers-on.

  • Denis

    “in this system men cannot reasonably trust women.”

    Perhaps more related, a feminist eats the red pill:

    Despite no evidence, despite the fact that she is obviously a troubled woman, despite other attempts by her in the past to accuse people of hurting her in some way, despite her own admissions of wanting to sue others still, despite my son’s spotless record and the support of myriad women who have known him for years, the state has chosen to pursue this “case.”

    If you think that women don’t lie to get back at men, how naive can you be? Yet we live in a culture of “women don’t lie,” a culture fostered by women’s groups since the 70s. A culture I helped create and support. A philosophy I believed.

    Now there are women’s groups with a strong political voice. There are women in political office, policewomen, and so on. Men and women now are predisposed to believe women when they accuse someone of rape. It is sometimes a knee jerk reaction that we have not evaluated for its veracity. We have not wanted to hear that women sometimes lie. The system has supported all women even those who lie.

    They’ve made it easy for them. If it is proven that a woman has lied, they are not prosecuted. They are at most sent to counseling. And being a “victim” can be intoxicating to some. It can let them off the hook for being responsible for their own actions.–anonymous/

    Have you seen this blog?

    • Patrick Henry

      A conversion of a hard core feminist gives me hope.

    • Tom

      Paul ought to interview the writer of Very interesting writing there.

  • Luek

    Women do control 100% of the sex this is true. And they do use it to manipulate this is also true. But if sex is so damned great and worthy of selling ones soul for then why do we refer to things that are overrated, second rate or disappointing as “not worth a fuck?”

    • BeijaFlor

      Maybe because “fuck” was considered the most obscene word in the language, back when I was young? It still has some sting in it.

      Personally I prefer “not worth a shit”.

  • Kimski

    I’ve read somewhere that the guy who invented the pill regrets it to this day, due to the sociological problems it has created. He is now making theater-pieces about science for the stage.

    I’ll bet he doesn’t regret it half as much, as a certain percentage of the male population does.

  • David Green

    Manual the real ugly truth is that the average male is as unworthy of trust as the average female.

    • Patrick Henry

      I have to call BS on this one David. Get out in the real world much?

      • David Green

        @ Patrick

        Men are competitors and only a FOOL trusts a competitor.

    • Herbal Essence

      Even if this were true, the point is that female evil is enabled by our society, while good men are punished for the actions of bad men.

      • Tom M

        “…for the very highly EXAGERATED actions of bad men.”

      • David Green

        Yet Herbal it is dishonorable men who do the punishing and there are many more dishonorable men in this world then honorable. Hence I do not trust men any more than I do women as men are as un-worthy of trust as women.

    • Keyster

      One thing the majority of women lack, that the majority of men have…
      …is honor.

      Women used to at least have dignity, but they’ve lost that as well.
      Women cannot be trusted with power, because they’ll excersise it over men.
      …or maybe you haven’t noticed this happening lately.

      • David Green

        Re: “One thing the majority of women lack, that the majority of men have…
        …is honor.”

        Keyster if the majority of men were truly as honorable as you FALSELY claim then there would never have been a need for the Men’s Movement. As men who are truly honorable do not willfully mistreat other men but dishonorable men do.

        • Raven01

          Honour can be misled. The “intention” counts for much. It is quite possible to be honourable while still being wrong………
          Enter Chivalry.
          This is misplaced honour. Equating supremacy of women with the good of the whole community. And demanding honourable service of men.
          We know better so such service from any of us would be dishonourable as we could not be acting in good faith.

  • Jabberwocky

    “Unfortunately, simple justice was only a small part of a movement which alert adults now correctly call a hate movement.”


  • criolle johnny

    Sigh, the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Amendments were ALL mistakes!

  • stefanie

    Just a thought – women are only around men based on the hope and trust that they will not abuse their superior physical strength. So it goes both ways.
    Don’t get me wrong – I support the MRA. But to say that you cannot reasonably trust women? This would also mean that women can never reasonably trust men.
    Any men, if he so chooses, could kill me with his bare hands. Chances of him getting caught for that are minimal (at least in my country). Any man, if he so chooses, could rape me. Chances of him getting jailed for that are (In MY country) minimal. Any man could harm me in any way he wanted, and still I am alone with men often enough.
    It’s not unreasonable to trust someone with more power. There are many good people, of both genders.

    • Paul Elam

      Does anyone ever make sense (in YOUR country)?

    • Al

      What country is this, by the way, if you really wouldn’t mind to say?

  • 33mike

    “Women, we men can’t trust members of your sex in this system. There are admittedly few men alert to this fact as yet. The men’s movement is just waking up, there will be more of us. This is not hatred towards women, it’s just awareness and self preservation. ”

    Unfortunately there are many men who we can’t trust either who have betrayed the male race.

    Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

  • Pingback: Australia Today.. I feel more loathed and feared for being a woman.

  • Pingback: Women, you have surely earned It | A Voice for Men

  • Pingback: Ray Kurzweil's predictions coincide with my predictions of women substitutes!

  • Jo

    “As evidence of this, consider the documented fact that men are far more likely than women to be the victims of violence [1]”
    This is true but you neglect to mention that majority of perpetrators of violence against men are men, and the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against women is women.
    Especially important to note is that of the violence committed against women the majority is committed by their partner – this is not true for men. This is why there is a special category of violence against women, not because there is a conspiracy against men but because the crime being perpetrated by a man or woman against their partner is considered a special case because it is not random, it involves high levels of controlling behaviour and misuse of trust. It is focussed on violence against women because the majority of violence between partners is perpetrated by men. Now I do believe though that it having a specific group for female victims of domestic violence can lead to male victims being neglected and that should be addressed – probably not by getting rid of women’s groups, but by having inclusive domestic violence groups which are not named as women’s groups. However, it is disingenuous of you to simply state that the majority of men are victims of violence without any context.
    “To be sure, here are men who abuse their spouses, but to imagine that this happens in a vacuum and that women in such relationships do not equally abuse, assault, and instigate violence against their spouses is to live in a fantasy world.”
    Really? You think that women who have been hospitalised by their partners or had knives held to their throats or chained up like dogs or electrocuted with a cattle prod are committing equal acts against their partners? It is well known that there is huge issue of power and control in these crimes – which explains why men, who are stronger than their wives, can also be victims of abusive relationships – it is a fantasy to assume that there is equal power in these relationships.
    “In cases where women are the primary aggressor in an abusive relationship, men assaulted by their spouses who seek outside help will find themselves not helped, but arrested, imprisoned, and stripped of their home and children by a legal system which starts with the basic assumption of women’s innocence, and men’s villainy”
    What can I say? Hyperbole.
    As for bias in the legal system, I do agree with you that it is there – it really shouldn’t be as the foundations of justice crumble when the courts cannot be impartial -but is should still be noted the bias exists because of the large majority of domestic violence victims in heterosexual relationships being women. It is a stereotype based on a truth, but a stereotype none-the-less and therefore should not be welcome in the justice system.
    As for the accusation of men being paedophiles, I also emphatically agree with you. There is certainly a bias against men when it comes to perceived risk of abuse. Men and women believe that a strange man is much more likely to commit abuse against their child than a strange woman. In reality the risk of either is extremely low and there is no distinction between the genders in abuse rates.

    • Kukla

      “This is true but you neglect to mention that majority of perpetrators of violence against men are men, and the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against women is women.”
      Kind of irrelevant. Violence is violence.
      “Especially important to note is that of the violence committed against women the majority is committed by their partner – this is not true for men.”
      - Actually men get abused just as much by their partners(if not more) than women do. But men are also the victims of violence elsewhere.
      “This is why there is a special category of violence against women,”
      - No, there’s a special category for women because they’re WOMEN. They get put on a pedestal essentially.
      “It is focussed on violence against women because the majority of violence between partners is perpetrated by men.”
      - Very wrong.
      *Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.*
      “but by having inclusive domestic violence groups which are not named as women’s groups.”
      “Inclusive”? Or just Men’s DV groups.
      “However, it is disingenuous of you to simply state that the majority of men are victims of violence without any context.”
      - I think the context was meant to be in general.
      “Really? You think that women who have been hospitalised by their partners or had knives held to their throats or chained up like dogs or electrocuted with a cattle prod are committing equal acts against their partners?”
      - Are you nuts? How many women experience that kind of abuse anyway? A VERY tiny minority. And for all you know they could be. I wouldn’t doubt that many women who have been abused also abuse their partners as well. It isn’t as one-wayed as you think.
      “it is a fantasy to assume that there is equal power in these relationships.”
      - Not really. It doesn’t necessarily mean the power is equal, just that they are both perpetrators.
      “What can I say? Hyperbole.”
      - It’s not a hyperbole, it is a reality in a lot of cases. Maybe not always to THAT extent but pretty close. The whole “Violence against women” craze going on today, now THAT is a hyperbole. Actually more like an outright lie.
      “You think that women who have been hospitalised by their partners or had knives held to their throats or chained up like dogs or electrocuted with a cattle prod”
      - Definite hyperbole.
      “but is should still be noted the bias exists because of the large majority of domestic violence victims in heterosexual relationships being women.”
      - That isn’t the reason for the bias at all, the bias is there because of a false female victimization and privilege in that sector of society. And again, WRONG.
      “It is a stereotype based on a truth,”
      - It is a stereotype, but it isn’t a truth.
      “In reality the risk of either is extremely low and there is no distinction between the genders in abuse rates.”
      - Actually the majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by women(and abuse in general). I have definitely seen statistics on this before but I cannot seem to find them at this time. But it is low either way.
      All you’ve done is just said a lot of the things feminists say, which have been proven false.

  • Al

    Excellent points, JtO! I would rather say it’s not about women in charge, for, as you youself suggests, women in command doesn’t necessarily mean a problem or a solution. The problem is the ideological cognitive distortion: The view of humanity to be poisoned by misandric discourse.

    Your text exposes one important element in violence and hate crimes, man: opportunity. In this system, with this kind of poisoning, people can be terribly harmed just for being a man.

    The system is designed to create 2 levels of citizenship.

    And not only creates opportunity for different kinds of violence, but also encourages it (revenge against “millions of years of patriarchy”).

    Moreover, it’s like a parasite with numbing local toxine, lol… the victims often don’t notice exactly what’s going on… and other potential victims just aren’t paying attention, cause we haven’t been indoctrinated for ONLY 50 years, nope!


    What would you call someone who is a feminist but for men? Menist? Yep, has no name.

    Yeah… I’m both a feminist and a “menist”. I’m a woman, but I defend the rights of both men and women. I think that what you have said is all true, except for one small detail. The way you present women by saying that most of us will lower ourselves to blame you and ruin your “near non-person status” is a bit offensive. Of course not all women, but not most either. Just like only few men subjugate and abuse women, same with the opposite occurrence.

    Even though we have been dealing with sexism longer, doesn’t give us, to generalize, a right to oppress men as a gender. Men are not to be oppressed! Neither are women!

    Both men and women are oppressed in different ways and in different measures. They both deserve to have an end at this matter! They both deserve to live in peace and equality for human rights.

    There are things men can do better than women, and there are things women can do better than men, but GOD DAMMIT, when it comes to human rights, discrimination, equality, and justice, we should all be treated the same.

    Being racist is such a taboo in our society now-a-days (but not completely) that it is not politically correct to refer to someone by race, but now by ethnicity. When is the day when the same level of dedication and acceptance is played towards women AND men!? When!?

    Women’s oppression is obvious and bluntly said to the point of redundancy, while men’s oppression are silently visible. They are transparent to society and are not recognized.

    • Kukla

      “Yeah… I’m both a feminist and a “menist”. ”


  • donB

    When I read the book “manliness” by Harvey C. Mansfield, there was a passage, ” Who would have thought that women would seek to become single mothers so fast?”

    The answer is… all men should have known that some women couldn’t be trusted. Men knew women well and that while most of them were/are balanced and good people who didn’t mind the sacrifices they needed to make for the good of our species—helping most people, most of the time, about most things— the bad “apples” will unfortunately influence the rest if given the chance. That is exactly what has happened.

    Inherently, women are selfish. As mothers in care of offspring, they almost have to be. But when they let their nature spoil so much of the other things we also need as a species and hold dear, they turn into exactly what we have today.

    However, not all of the blame is on women; much of it rests on he backs of men—particularly the men of yesteryear and the ones today who still allow feminism to foment and fester into what it has and does.

    The mens movement is not about hatred. It is about repairing. Its goal is to try and fix a world gone mad at the hands of misguided women and apathetic men.

    The men of before did not try hard enough to resist the synthetic replacement scheme driven by a relatively few disgruntled women. Those men confused biological hard wiring with the duties of men. They confused manhood with the physical acts of typical maleness as a sexually reproducing species. They forgot about all the rest of what being a man entails. Today, most men still do—STILL DO!!!

    A man, as protector, should have never let the world, families, and stability unravel like it has in the ways it has over women.

    With things having gotten so bad and against men and boys, as well as the family unit, men should be able to see that the equality promises of feminism were empty lies that sought to provide superiority to females.

    It doesn’t have to be that way. Men can do things to stop this fallout. We CAN return to a more sane approach. But as we are finding out, the task here is huge, for getting mainstream men to actually act on their observations to redo this mistake is the greatest obstacle that faces us. We have our work cut out for us. I sincerely hope that the men of today will grow enough courage to change themselves so they can change the world. That is why I write here. That is what gives me hope.

    I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. I believe our main task as men is to get the average women to see how wrong things are now and motivate them to help men overcome it. When we have the masses of women helping us by turning on the feminists, then we stand our biggest chance at turning this thing around. That again is what the MRM is about. The MRM is good.

    The gaining of cooperation from ordinary women, I think, given this late date, can most rapidly and effectively be achieved by changing the way our boys are socialized to defer ONLY to women to determine their worth, power, image, ego, and happiness. Via these sacrifices of men, when there are literally millions and millions of unhappy, lonely, old-maid women who have seen their lives go by without realizing their most prominent dream of the ideal family structure, then we will generate an army of willing women who will take action to reverse the damage done by obliviously hate-filled, misandric feminists.

    It is late. We must do more than complain…as complaining is the first step out of several lengthy ones. I would like to see an influential national-level organization spring up on behalf of men. I look forward to the International Mens Day. I hope it gets used wisely to bring attention to our cause(s). The more men who participate and tell other men, the better off and successful we will be.

    In addition to writing our congressmen, voting our consciences, retraining our boys, and so on, in the meantime, MGTOW… because if men keep doing as we have so far, we stand no chance at change—except to be erased. Abstaining from women and from trying to have a decent family is uncomfortable. It is enormously sacrificial. It is unnatural. But what other choices do we have? The boys of the future will turn to us men today and say,” What did YOU do to help stop radical feminism’s hatred of males? As for me, I will not have my head hung in shame. I hope you will not either.

    The current chaos is what we get when we do nothing—like our fathers did. We must not repeat those same old mistakes.

    Hindsight is 20/20. There is more to being a man than having sex, getting married, having babies, and letting only THAT give us manly feelings. It is time we learn our lesson and practice all the other things too that entail real manhood.

    Teach the boys differently, example it when you can! They need role models. We are at the 11th hour, so…

    Get busy!

  • Pingback: Women and Trust, The Ugly Truth

  • Tom

    Dear ladies who read this, take notice of the following.
    We men are’nt close minded, we’re not sexist or “rapists” we can easily call you “whores” for spreading your legs for the money we earn.
    We the male species don’t see too little we see too much, and those of us who haven’t noticed will soon notice, the blind of social equallity is slipping from our eyes and voices are starting to be heard.
    The media does’nt even hide the fact of your love of superiority, childrens TV shows brainwash them with the picture of the idiotic male and the heroic ever smart female belittling him.
    “Pedofiles” a term used for an ADULT with sexual intrests in children, note adult is in capitals and the word male or female isn’t mentioned.
    Equal rights were fought for, world wide for hundreds of years and now “feminists” spit on the hard work of their predecessors who did want equallity in both genders.
    A face off between genders is sure to come sooner or later and hopfully the triumphent will see the light and do what is right and set equality, Deminashing superiority once and for all.

  • Melody Brooke

    I am a woman who has come to recognize all the things you list here. Yes, men have more physical strength than women; but women have way more power in ways they don’t even acknowledge or recognize. What will revolutionize our culture is for women to recognize that men are even more emotionally sensitive than we are. Women are given all the tools to manage emotions and men told to “man up” and not to even be aware of their softer feelings. In my practice as a therapist I repeatedly see women being completely oblivious to what (to me) is obvious pain in their mates. Women who are supposed to be the more emotionally aware, are often completely blind to the pain men suffer and as a result behave as perpetrators. Until our culture acknowledges that men are capable of being hurt, abused and taken advantage of legally and personally nothing will change. I cringe every time I see a billboard that says “1 in 4 girls are sexually abused” as though the 1 in 6 (reported) boys are not. It is a travesty that perpetuates abuse in our society.

  • ataloss

    Very well written and one of the most insightful, truthful pieces I’ve ever encountered on men’s current plight as a result of Fascist Feminism. Thank you sincerely for such a refreshing article.

    As a man just coming up on his 46th birthday in a few days, I’ve seen many changes in our society throughout my existence. I have a very good memory and recall events many years in the past. Even when I was quite young. As a result, I remember then as well as I remember last week most of the time. The shift in power I’ve seen in my lifespan is quite daunting, to say the very least.

    I consider myself a realist, not a pessimist and at this point in our era I do believe we, as human males, are too late to change what is happening to us. While our plight is most definitely due to the emotionally irrational decisions women have been making for several decades, we men must take much of the blame ourselves. We let it happen just as much as women made it happen. Some may say that we never should have given women control to begin with, but it’s too late for ‘what ifs’ and ‘should not haves’ at this point.

    I am a firm believer in true equality and am far from a chauvinist. However, I believe in equality for everyone. When we look back 100 years ago we are told about women’s strife and their struggle for rights and equality. However, we also see much more well adjusted children, less crime where people come from homes which had enough food, proper shelter and adequate , child-rearing guidance from their parents. Feminism has, for the most part, destroyed any sense of family stability in our society.

    Aside from the strife, grief and horrible inhumanities men face today, the family unit is now a total disgrace. More and more young people are committing horrific crimes because their parents divorced and Mom is too busy with her career and assorted lovers to properly nurture her offspring. Thus, Feminism is destroying the Maternal Instinct human females have been so revered and respected for since the beginning of human bipedal evolution.

    The point of my rant is that while we men are certainly suffering, we cannot forget that human beings overall are also digressing as a result of this Fascist doctrine. Women and men should take a good look around themselves and soak in the scenario. Watch your teenagers. Watch their friends. Take note of their inability to properly communicate with other human beings. Speech is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Texting is now the most predominant form of communication. Rarely do we hear that Feminism plays a huge part in this saddening human communication shift. Which gender is more apt to own a cell phone? A female of course. It’s no secret women are the more sociable gender among our species. How often do men talk for hours on the phone? Or spend hours in a day texting friends, socializing on Facebook and the like? Children see this behavior and pick it up. ‘Monkey see, monkey do.’ Who is the most predominant,. influential figure in a child’s life? Why, Mother of course.

    Feminism is the end of human civilization as we know it. When humans can no longer communicate verbally, family solidarity has crumbled and trust amongst human beings is lost, we cannot survive for long. Unless a massive shift occurs where ALL human beings wake up and see the astounding mistakes we are making, the human race is doomed. This is reality, not negativity.

    What can we do about Feminism and what is doing to the human male? I know not. I truly wish I did.

    Thank you for letting me take the floor for a few minutes.