How feminists define gender traits..

One can only nod in affirmation after reading the article beneath. This is precisely the technique that slut-feminists use to distort and manipulate the general consensus that has now been promoted about men in society. They have the barefaced temerity to deny this. Their hypocrisy and double standards are glaringly obvious as one can learn, if you ever have a look at the range of books they push at those nasty, misandric "Women's/Gender Studies" courses. All are led by sexist, misandric females and male members of that hate movement to ensure that consensus stays in place..

The only way it will be removed or changed would be to remove those courses off campus in every college or University in the western world and begin promoting harmony and trust, instead of endless malice, lies, misinformation and exaggerations, that movement is known to foment and spread on a daily basis..

How feminists define gender traits

The ever so common feminist mantra in our misandric society is “men bad, women good.” To put it another way: men are inherently bad by nature, and women are inherently good by nature. If a man or boy ever displays a positive trait, or if a woman or girl ever displays a negative trait, it’s then identified as a social construct. In the mind of a feminist, and someone who believes feminism, women are the embodiment of everything good about the human species, and men are the embodiment of everything bad.

	Male	Female
Positive Trait	Learned	Innate
Negative Trait	Innate	Learned

Feminists switch between believing that all human behaviour is socially constructed, and believing that there is innate human behaviour, depending on whether the belief will support the “men bad, women good” mantra. They deny that there may be any innate positivity in males, or any innate negativity in females, by psychologically projecting any negative female traits onto males, and any positive male traits onto females. This way, they can continue to take down males.
How traits become male traits
Whenever someone who possesses male genitalia (that is quite literally the one and only requirement, a male personality isn’t even needed) displays a negative trait – it is a male trait. When someone with that same genitalia gets angry, it is “male aggression.” When a male does something stupid, it is because males are stupid.
This does not just apply to traits that are actually associated with maleness. The trait does not even have to actually be masculine for it to be seen as a typical male trait. As long as it is negative, and the person is male, it is a male trait. Even if it is equally likely to be displayed by females, it is still viewed as male behaviour. In fact, it could even be a typical female trait that is rarely displayed by a male, and feminists and other gynocentrics will still view it as a male trait, simply because it is something they don’t like.
The negative trait, whether it is typical male behaviour or not, gets attributed to the male gender. Even if it is only one person who has displayed it.
Of course, it is a common mistake for someone to attribute traits to someone’s gender, age, race, religion or other group, even if it is not a typical trait of that group, and this is a mistake that most people, regardless of their own gender, age, race, religion or other group, make. However, feminists and other gynocentrics not only go overboard with shaming the male gender in any way possible, but they even institutionalized their beliefs as the norm that men are bad and women are good.
Phrases such as “men are stupid”, “boys will be boys”, “*sigh* boys”, “all men are jerks” and many others can be used for any purpose, as long as the person they are used on has male genitalia.
Another thing worth mentioning is how male-on-male conflict is viewed in regards to gender. In a negative situation where both the perpetrator and the victim are male, it is often that both are blamed, even if the victim does everything he possibly can to avoid the situation. If a male so much as explains a lie that’s been told about him by another male, he is accused of retaliating, as a result of his maleness of course. The term “boys fighting” can be used even if only one boy is actually doing any fighting, though a male being a victim of male-on-male violence can be viewed as violent.
What they say about females who display negative traits
When a woman or girl displays a negative trait, unlike a man or boy, it is viewed as a social construct. For example, if a female ever perpetrates any kind of violence, it is always because a man wound her up (even if it is something stupid like not getting her the right gift, it is still the man’s fault.) Some feminists even blindly blame negative traits displayed by females on patriarchal discrimination. Negative traits displayed by females can also be portrayed positively. For example, when a female attacks a male, even for a stupid reason, it is sometimes considered perfectly acceptable, and in our society where everyone has been poisoned with misandric views, it is assumed that the male deserved it.
When a male and female are in an argument, the female is usually the one believed by default. Why? Because according to feminists, females are never wrong, only males are. If the female is reacting negatively, it must have been because the male did something very bad, whereas if a male is reacting negatively, it’s his nature. Some feminists even consider any male who dares say no to a female to be a misogynistic woman-hater.
Some people make jokes about how women and girls who do show negative traits or do stupid things are acting “like men/boys.” This label can be applied whether the behaviour is masculine, neutral, or feminine. It just has to be negative to be seen as a male trait.
In situations where both the perpetrator and victim are female, unlike where both are male (which was mentioned above,) it is seen as a social construct and that both parties have suffered problems in their life. Many feminists try to label this as a result of the so-called patriarchy. Generally, neither are really “blamed” for the situation.
So, an outline on who is by default blamed for problems…

Male problem: It is a result of his male stupidity.
Female problem: It is a result of the patriarchy oppressing her.
Male-on-male conflict: Both are to blame.
Male-on-female conflict: The male is to blame.
Female-on-male conflict: The male is to blame.
Female-on-female conflict: It’s a social construct forced by the patriarchy.

So remember, the feminist mentality is that there are no positive male traits or negative female traits, and anything that contradicts the “men good, women bad” mantra is a social construct. That, folks, is how feminists define gender traits. Anyone who dares to question it will be labelled a misogynist by feminists.

Written by Zerbu

3 Posts in Total See Them »

Zerbu is an AVfM reader and MRA who has stepped up to plate to offer articles to the site.

Just Re-confirming That Hate Movement..

The Slut-Feminist Confession..

This is for those ignorants, who are still of the opinion that feminism is about equality and is not a HATE movement..

______________________

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
Popular Feminist Graffiti -
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"

Amazon Odyssey (p. 86) - Ti-Grace Atkinson
"(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"
Against Our Will p.6. - Susan Brownmiller
"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."
- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students - Catherine Comin
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.) - Jilly Cooper
" How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."
In "Female Liberation" - Roxanne Dunbarr
"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin :lol:

"The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used."
- Andrea Dworkin
"Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left...is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity."
- Andrea Dworkin
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Ice And Fire - Andrea Dworkin
"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
- Andrea Dworkin
"The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed."
- Andrea Dworkin
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."
- Andrea Dworkin
"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo."
in The New York Times Magazine - Jodie Foster :rolleyes:

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine...What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal."
- Sylvia Fraser
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
The Woman's Room - Marilyn French

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
The Woman's Room - Marilyn French :blink:

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French :blink:

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
(Her emphasis) - Marilyn French
"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
- Marilyn French
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...."
"Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon
"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
- Germaine Greer
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
Rape: The All-American Crime - Susan Griffin
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
- Sheila Jeffrys :lol:

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
Former Congresswoman - Barbara Jordan
Catharine MacKinnon (...) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid -- ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed -- they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.) - Donna Laframboise
"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
summarizing comment on the WAS document,
(A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.) - J.Levine
"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
- Judith Levine :lol:

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'"
(explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.) - Judith Levine
"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with -- husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."
My Enemy, My Love - Judith Levine
"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
(Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) - Catherine MacKinnon
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
quoted in Professing Feminism:
Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies - Catherine MacKinnon :lol:

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
- Catherine MacKinnon
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism -- the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group -- skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism -- the oppressed have no alternative -- for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men -- but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women -- kill your fathers, not your mothers"
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
"We live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against women."
- Katha Pollitt :lol:

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.) - Valerie Solana :angry:

"'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
Scum Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men..."
One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 - Elizabeth Stanton
"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck"
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. - Unknown

www.razberry.com/raz/

One Orange with plenty of Lemons..

Another Dose of the bleeding obvious..

The above "lesson in gender equality"hurrmmph!!, is a very apt primer for the next video. In order to discuss any issue with a feminist, one must have a certain sense of humour, this would ensure that cognitive dissonance does not become part of your makeup, surreptitiously invade your sanity..

You can't be too careful these days..

Feminism? Forget it, sisters..

If there is one single issue that we can safely, consistently and constantly argue about Feminism, it is the fact that they are compulsive liars of the first degree..

Without any fear of contradiction. Not from a rational mind anyway.

We have demonstrated that HATE is Feminism's number one priority,without fail. We have demonstrated that feminism is run by radical feminists via the RADFEM Hub forum, plus the hidden forum where they promote murder, gendercide, child abuse with systemic terrorism in either deed or words..
These are the feminists who hate all man and boy with a toxic and deadly passion as to want to see them all removed from the planet. These are the same feminists who have the ear of legislators and government department heads while they set about destroying any and all rights any male did have. These are the same male haters who can be traced to Universities, Lobby Groups, political parties promoters and enforcers. These same feminists can be traced to attend meetings where illegal activities are discussed and promoted.

For further evidence see here, here and here..

These people have to be stopped, removed from office or positions of power and separated from society as it is their single wish to destroy what we have today. A free and democratic existence which has been generated after centuries of learning and they just want to tear that all down and introduce some replacement based on lies and deception. That's what feminism is all about. Hate, malice and the war between the sexes..

They are solely responsible for this monstrous action and behaviour. It has to be stopped..

Feminism? Forget it, sisters

At last, the truth is out – men do work harder than women, says Neil Lyndon.

The long night of modern feminism might be about to end. A glimmer of light is flickering in the encircling gloom.

Do men do more work?

A study published this week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has found that men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together.

This is the first time I can remember in 40 years that an authoritative study on a key issue of so-called gender politics has come out with a self-evident truth that runs directly contrary to orthodox feminist ideology. The fact that it has been written and published by a woman makes it even more delightful.

Ever since the late Sixties, it has been an incontestable article of faith in the feminist creed that men are lazy, slobbish, barbaric, barely civilisable and incapable of switching on the vacuum cleaner without breaking it – and eternal shame on Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Miller for boasting about the fact that he lives up to that mould-encrusted cliché.

It has been an essential tenet in the feminist catechism – endlessly repeated on Woman’s Hour and in the Guardian – that men exploit and oppress women at home and in their domestic arrangements in the same way that men put women down at work and in the wider society.

Like every other tenet of modern feminism, this potty notion was always balderdash (or more frankly another word beginning with “b” – why be polite about so pernicious and poisonous a creed?). Not only did it run contrary to the evidence that British men work longer hours, for less pay, for more of their lives than any of their western European counterparts – and then spend their weekend mowing grass, cleaning cars and fixing shelves. It was, also, obvious that, as life changed so fundamentally for women in education, employment and sexual life, men changed, too.

That much was transparently clear even 40 years ago when I was at university. Not one of the young men I knew expected or even yearned to marry a woman who would be a domestic serf. Every one of them – me included – wanted a more equal partnership than our parents’ marriages and looked forward to being more actively engaged in their children’s upbringing – just as they looked forward to hearing the happy chink of coins when their partner’s monthly pay-cheque landed in the joint account.

Many of those men had lived alone, learnt to cook and run a home before they lived with women; and some of them – me included – have looked after children alone after marriages failed. More than 300,000 men in this country are the sole parents of children, fully responsible for every element of their domestic lives. Are they to be told – as Fay Weldon declared with majestic stupidity last year – that they are congenitally incapable of picking up a sock?

All my adult life, I wanted to create a family life of equal partnership with a woman and, after many failures, finally achieved it in my 50s, with the mother of our two little daughters, now seven and four.

In our home, I do most of the food shopping, more of the cleaning and some of the cooking. My wife sees to the laundry and is responsible for about 65 per cent of the childcare while I have been responsible for paying about 95 per cent of the bills. When she works, I do everything in the home and everything for the children. When I work, it’s the other way round. We share the gardening – incompetently.

Our is not an unusual arrangement. Only a body of people blinded by ideology – as feminists have been – could fail to see that millions of men and women in this country are harmoniously working out their own domestic arrangements, and that men have been active, enthusiastic partners in these changes.

What next? Might a respectable study soon reveal that, contrary to what we are always told, one in four men does not batter the woman he lives with? Or that not all men are rapists? Might the entire edifice of lies that comprises modern feminism now be about to tumble?

Hasten the day.

Prolonging the Illness..

Occasionally someone will put forward a good explanation and argument against feminism. Regardless of the damage and suffering that syndrome has caused, there are still people trying to justify the feminist behaviour. I wonder what it would take for a feminist to step back have a reality check, admit that the treatment is better than prolonging the illness..

With the exception of Wikipedia..

Feminism is a sickness, or more accurately it is a syndrome. Let me quote Wikipedia “a syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together”.

Because feminism is essentially a cluster of behaviors (syndrome) we cannot reduce the whole thing to one word “equality” or one behaviour “equality seeking” as does the Wikipedia description of feminism. We need to include misandry, violence, oppressive rule, narcissism, and many other qualities belonging to the syndrome. These behaviours are demonstrated by all feminists, all over the world. Moreover, when we name the latter characteristics we see that the syndrome also includes dissociation and denial of these more negative elements belonging to the cluster, as the negatives are never included in feminist-inspired definitions.

So here is a more accurate definition of the syndrome feminism:

-seeks power under the euphemism of “equality”
-is narcissistic
-misandric
-violent
-interpersonally controlling and exploitative
-has overly positive view of itself despite negatives
-displays dissociation and denial of negatives

The call to action ..

Ray..

“All right, I have an agenda. Call it a vision for the future; an idea where things ought to be heading. And no, I don’t mean AVfM. I mean ALL of this. The whole game. The whole revolution. The whole damned enchilada. Just imagine: a world without feminism.”

This is what a
men’s rights activist
looks like.

===============

WANTED:
People to engage in Men’s Rights Activism

I wish somebody would put those sayings on T-shirts so I could buy them and wear them.

It would be nice to find one, or two, other good MRA’s within a reasonably close driving distance so we could collaborate on men’s rights activism projects. What’s close? Los Angeles County/San Fernando Valley for starters. Out of several million people living in my neighborhood, you’d think one, or two, wouldn’t be hard to find.

Link..

Sweden; Demand a Men's Network..

One would wonder if there was any opposition left in Sweden at all after reading and viewing those videos and viewing a few sites. As far as I can tell, cowardice could be claimed to be taken place as the feminised population just ignores, as well as promotes that feminist hate movement to it's inevitable destructive end..
I am glad to see this post today..

And join up as well..

Pelle Billing . com
Gender Liberation Beyond Feminism

Men’s Network Launched in Sweden
December 15th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

For quite a while I’ve been thinking about starting a Men’s Rights organization in Sweden. The rationale for wanting to do this is quite straightforward: Sweden has at least 50 well established Women’s Rights organizations, but the only men’s organizations we have are a few small fathers’ rights groups. Since I believe that gender equality goes both ways, and that men’s and women’s issues are just as important, it’s been natural for me to want to correct the current imbalance.
What’s been stopping me, and a couple of other men’s rights activists in Sweden, is that we simply don’t have time to set up a new organization. Between writing, lecturing and having day jobs we already have our hands full. However, the other day I got an idea of how to break the deadlock. Why not start a men’s network on Facebook, as a simple way to have a central gathering place for people in Sweden who are interested in men’s rights.
Said and done, the Men’s Network (Mansnätverket) was launched yesterday, and we are already approaching 200 members. If you want to support the men’s rights movement in Sweden, then please consider joining the network. You don’t need to be Swedish to join, you simply need to believe that men’s rights deserve the same attention as women’s rights. To enable you to make an informed decision of whether to join, I’m translating our 15 point platform below:

Gender equality - in other words equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for men and women - is at the core of all work on gender issues.
Men’s issues are important and need to get full recognition from society.
Gender neutral legislation is a basic principle of ours. Currently, men are the only group who are discriminated in Swedish law.
Men are traditionally viewed as expendable by society. Dangerous jobs are performed by men, the ones fighting in wars are men and men are expected to sacrifice themselves for women when danger arises. How is this compatible with the theory of male power?
Men’s voices should be considered equally important to women’s voices in discussions about gender equality and gender roles.
Homeless people. 75 percent are men.
Suicides. 70 percent are committed by men.

Continued: http://www.pellebill...ched-in-sweden/

Valenti's Hypocrisy : Marries and Spawns..

Valenti and Her mangina Clone..

Let's have a small look at how feminism has destroyed normal human behaviour and the relationship between the sexes..

1. Women, regardless on how you view it, with either feminist goggles or their tunnel visioned myopic viewpoint. Women want babies, it's not going to be reconstructed which is why feminist hysteria has not tried or bothered. But they have tried to stop women from procreating as they have two problems with it.

a. Producing an offspring would allow the female to become a full time mother. Feminists have already demonstrated how much they loathe motherhood (yet and hypocritically, give birth to children themselves in a family situation aka feminist hysteric and professional hypocrite Jessica Valenti) and are trying to ensure that ALL children are dumped into the state's baby sitting service so they can control and segregate the sexes at will. Do not be disillusioned into believing that they actually give a damn. As far as radical feminists are concerned, your body is contaminated if you allow any sexual relationship with them loathed men. You are referred to as a "het" female, which already indicates your contamination level. They hate men that much..

b. Women flourish in a family situation where both parents are present. This is unarguable. Feminists encourage everything else but. Single mothers are the norm to such a degree that they are now regarded as "the family" and compensated by the feminist induced money trough via government largesse, which is ofcourse our hard earned tax dollars at work, to ensure this situation is ideal for the mother only. It is such a known fact that I do not even need to supply links or studies or facts, as you would have already worked all of this out already (skeptics can no longer deny it either). Feminists turn against their own whenever they promote abortions or single mothers as it is a doctrinal requirement and no face saving feminist will state otherwise for the fear of being rejected or facing ..

Valenti and spawn..

Valenti's hypocritical actions are to be marvelled at and demonstrates again what their end goal is. Here we have a feminist who promotes a male hating ideology, who's goal is to malign and denigrate all men so as to change their very being by turning them into pretend females, a character that women per se, do not want any part of. So we have Valenti who spends her entire time time malignng all things male. Gets married and has a "BABY" ,which feminists in general have been fighting against and promoting as not being a choice and instead promoted that being married was akin to being in prison, motherhood is a jail sentence and to be avoided by any and all means. It's what feminism promotes and demands of it's enablers. So what does hypocritical Valenti do ?
The exact opposite of what her doctrine promotes and encourages, this female who has been promoting in opposition, all along. They say one thing and do precisely the opposite. I know, it's simply amazing..

One wonders why this, now neutral, has any credibility left at all ?..

How Abortion Affects American Men..

"Did you hear the one about"

Amazingly, I still come across sites that assesses feminism for what it really is in a scholarly fashion. I have found this to be rare but maybe I am not looking hard enough. There certainly are plenty of MM sites as our "movement" expands exponentially and for the right reasons. It is men per se who are more interested in good policy, honourable outcomes as well as introducing laws that have reasonable and just outcomes. Feminists have killed any idea of reasonability as they have skewed the majority of laws to favour women only and thereby ensured that the law is and will be held in contempt..

Those laws in place before feminist contamination were an extension of the Magna Carta which tried to ensure that you could not be thrown in prison at the whim of royalty or any dictator. Those laws have been bastardised by feminists to such a degree that even having one's day in court to answer false claims of abuse, regardless of severity, no longer happens, you are automatically guilty or you go through a process akin to the communist show trials. Common law has been assuaged to feminist doctrine to predetermine any man's outcome when faced with any charge, false or otherwise. Now it is automatically assumed that one is guilty (only requirement is a penis) as in their opinion, the false claim is the evidence as well as proof as far as the Courts/Universities are concerned. Bear in mind also that the majority of those reassigned laws were put into place by (feminist) women and that alone should give an indication why it is so damaged and biased..

Those laws also indicates clearly what the world would be like if run by women. Those new laws are emotive rather then judgemental, based on theoretically emotive reactions and response rather than truth and facts, assumption of guilt rather than "innocent until proven". Biased towards prison time rather than rehabilitation. Biased also to allow women to shirk their accountability or make them answerable to no one..

Feminist/socialists have long believed that childbearing is the linch-pin of female oppression.

Here is one of those feminist leaders stating their usual hate message, as only they can..

Margaret Sanger, a Socialist and the founder of Planned Parenthood, once said, "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

And I bet you always thought that feminism was all about "equality" instead of wanting to remove anyone that stands in it's draconian way..

Some of the topics on that site are usually just ignored or hidden under a barrel as it's outcome and discussion levels would ofcourse demonstrate the sexism and anti-male bias in feminist doctrine and the laws they have skewed..

How Abortion Affects American Men

How Abortion Affects American Men - A Psychodynamic-Relational View

Michael Simon, a clinical psychotherapist, has written a paper on "Male Partners and the Psychological Sequelæ of Abortion: A Psychodynamic-Relational View."

He argues that abortion is a traumatic experience and therefore impacts on both male and female sense of self-integrity. The severity of the impact on one's psyche, he concludes, can lead to problems that have previously not been recognized in abortion research.

Simon acknowledges that any research on abortion is highly controversial because of the political aspects of abortion, and such research attracts great scrutiny from both pro- and anti-abortion supporters.

Simon looked at earlier research, especially studies done in the 1990s, and saw that while studies did acknowledge negative psychological sequelae of abortion for women, the majority of studies concluded that the negative sequelae of abortion was negligible from a public health perspective. He went on to say:

"Yet persistent anecdotal information -from colleagues in clinical practice doing individual, couples or family psychotherapy and from numerous friends who have experienced abortion- would suggest otherwise. The abortion experience is a profound one...with long-lasting effects for many. "

Simon pointed out that the difference between studies that show significant post-abortion effects and those that show only mild negative reactions to abortion, can be attributed to factors such as religious affiliation, ethnicity, culture and female partner attitudes. These are considered to help explain how men cope with and respond to their partner's abortion, as well as how men and women make abortion choices.

Of those studies which indicate negative sequelae of abortion (in women or their male partners), conscious guilt is most often reported, however mild.

Previous studies
According to Simon the first serious research was Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth's "groundbreaking 1984 sociological study 'Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses and Love'. However, not much has been done since that work, and there are to date (1997) few theoretical or empirical researches either on the psychological sequelae of abortion, or on intrapsychic dynamics of the abortion experience for male partners."

Simon did a computer search which came up with less than 100 studies, reports or theoretical pieces which dealt even marginally with the male partner's responses to abortion. He found that even fewer represented theoretically-based research on the psychological sequelae of abortion in men.

Shostak's research reports that about one-half of the women obtaining abortions are accompanied by their male partners to the procedure. Those males who do accompany their partner to the procedure, typically find that their experience is predominately characterised by waiting and isolation. Shostak says:

"Those who wish to offer comfort during the 15-minute abortion procedure (perhaps 70%) are generally barred from doing so. Those who wish to offer comfort during the hour-long recovery period, (perhaps 90%), are generally told this is not permitted. Since over half of all pregnancies (56%) are unintended, giving a cold shoulder to these waiting-room males could not be more mistaken."

Male response to abortion
Studies have shown that while young adult males might support a woman's 'right to choose' to have an abortion, they also feel that it was "not appropriate for a woman to have an abortion if her male partner objected." 1Simon points out that this suggests that young males, while deferring to the woman's decision and having no legal rights in the abortion decision, have very strong feelings about the pregnancy and decision to terminate. This is borne out by other studies. 2

According to Simon: "The present study argues that male responses to abortion are determined by a complex web of factors. One important factor is the degree to which the experience is perceived consciously and unconsciously as a relational experience, that is, as pertaining to one's partner, potential or existing children, one's family and to the society

Feminists Surprised by Response..

Time in ~~out~~..

I did wonder if feminists would take the opportunity during the "Occupy Everything" fiesta to spread their poison as they can no longer find any issues to groan and whine about anymore, as we have already read and seen in the past year or two, no one is really interested in promoting or helping that hate movement.

The only way they can get their "whine" out is by crashing other activities which have absolutely nothing to do with their false doctrine. They do not even have sufficient numbers to expose their rabid notions anymore. Surprise..

One does wonder what the general consensus is towards those male haters. Here we have a rather succinct example on how the feminastie movement and it's minions are viewed..

It would appear to be having that affect without our efforts or encouragement. It appears to be just a normal response from individuals who have witnessed those malcontent's actions in the past and have decided to label them for what they really are..

Disgusting offensive things were said about women/ feminists eg that we were bitches and sluts I objected about these offensive things and asked that the person apologise, then I indicated with my hands a ‘time out’ sign, which we did.

Gee!!, I wonder whatever induced those people to clarify what the general consensus was about feminists and their male hating behaviour. What amazes me the most is that they were offended. Apart from the fact that their behaviour is totally offensive is apparently entirely besides the point. Feminists and their delusional ilk feign surprise whenever it reflects their own doctrine, behaviour and attitude. Chee!, I use to teach my kids about this type of behaviour and warned them that it was only expected from children..

Well, at least the rest of the population have grown up and don't have that "The World Owes Me A Living" response.. .

Works for me..

Tim Blair article..

They’re still doing better than Occupy Adelaide:

Groups of at least two members working in two-hour shifts would watch over the site each night.

Back to Sydney, where one devotee will see out her existence at Martin Place:
I want you all to know whether OS is here or disappears, I will be here, my intention is to be here 3 times a day for rest of my life.
Maybe she’ll keep turning up for Occupy Sydney’s general assembly meetings, which seem to be freewheeling affairs:
Disgusting offensive things were said about women/ feminists eg that we were bitches and sluts I objected about these offensive things and asked that the person apologise, then I indicated with my hands a ‘time out’ sign, which we did. But the women present have not got an apology yet and I can’t see how this behaviour and attitude to women will help grow Occupy Sydney. There is no way I support sweeping it under the carpet as this seems to be an ongoing problem.

Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg : The Radical Truth..

It's just another example of "I told you so" as the Swedish Feminist model once again just demonstrates precisely what we expected their response to be. Sweden is the feminist epicentre as we have already explained so often. Feminists are not interested in peace and harmony as they claim but only interested in malice, bigotry, hate and lies.
The male feminist Futrelle has already clearly demonstrated that. They fit the end result into some kind of melodramatic panacea while they justify murder and hate to fit it into their socialist/humanist model. One does not have to search far to find out how feminists fit the current male hating situation into their doctrine of justification. In their opinion, the end justify the means. They are quite happy promoting anti-male hate, as far as they are concerned, it's the expected outcome. But fail to comprehend and ignore the fact that their own doctrine promotes it. Their "Scum manifesto" promotes death to all males and that outcome is the only violent outcome they are interested in..

November 23, 2011Paul ElamACTIVISM, FEATURED

The radical truth about Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg

Truth is regarded as a terrible word in this age of deconstruction. ~ Katherine Young, while fielding questions at the Conference on Male Studies.

Imagine this scene: The government and media are working in concert to produce propaganda that legitimizes hatred and violence perpetrated by one half of the population on the other. They use the theories and philosophies of an individual that attempted to murder two people based on their sex, and develop material that is shaped and molded to influence the minds of young people and then they disseminate it through high schools.
Now imagine this: Anyone who objects to it is branded a “radical.”
If this sounds like the story line for some dystopian novel; something that would even elicit shudders and chills from Franz Kafke, think again. This is actually a modern non-fiction; a news report being played out in Sweden, a country that has become the most prolific purveyor of class hatred since post Weimer Germany.
For those that have not seen it, here is a self-explanatory example of Swedish wares. And another tidbit that has emerged since this video was highlighted on this website is brought to us courtesy of the shooter in the video, Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg, who reportedly attends school at the University of Gothenberg, Gothenberg, Sweden. She has also been identified as the director of the SCUM Theater in Sweden.

Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg

Segerberg is also involved in a performance in celebration of “Straight Hate Day,” an attack on heterosexuality in Swedish culture. The writer who reported this story on Straight Hate Day claims they don’t really hate straight people, just the heterosexual norm. I would ask how far a leap it is between hating heterosexuality and heterosexuals, but that question would be interpreted by Swedish newspaper ETC. as a threat and a hate crime, which brings us to the real point.
After my recent interview with Eigil Söderin, of the Swedish newspaper ETC, it came as no surprise that shegutted the conversation and reduced it to what she felt she could use to demonize me and the men’s movement, painting us as violence advocating misogynists bent on causing harm to women. That is pär for the Scandinavian course these days. To be fair, much higher profile media sources have tried than ETC, which is a significant website in Sweden, but actually gets less traffic than AVfM.

STILL, THE LARGER QUESTION REMAINS.

What, in the current political zeitgeist and climate of sexual hatred against men and boys, is the appropriate stance to take? Well, Pelle Billing, a known MRA from Sweden, has made his feelings known in his interview with ETC. He said, and I am paraphrasing through the Google translator here, that “We were in contact when Paul Elam was Editor of Men’s News Daily, when I experienced him as a pretty calm person. Since then he has radicalized.”
And if that is what Pelle said, then he is half-correct. I still consider myself level headed. But yes, I have radicalized. And so will you Pelle, if you actually want to get anything done.
That is not a personal indictment of Pelle Billing. He’s done a great deal of work on men’s issues. But unless his quote was taken out of context, he is dead wrong on this. Did I really hear Pelle telling a newspaper that is supporting murder-based-on-sex advocates of the SCUM Manifesto- which they are treating like a mainstream political movement – that he is concerned that Paul Elam has radicalized?
WTF, Pelle? Say it ain’t so!
Now, of course, the quote from Pelle was just the sort of fissure creating fodder that Söderin was looking for. Her attempt here is to divide MRA’s and hopefully weaken us; stall our growth. That tactic reveals a great deal of ignorance of the MRM as a phenomena, though, and a failure to understand that if anything, they have only served to make us collectively stronger. In the end, I am not going anywhere, and they are now more likely than ever to have to deal with Pelle, who remains a valuable asset despite the gaffe.
Also, before anyone becomes upset with Dr. Billing, please consider that there is a lot that could be lost in the translation here, as well as the distinct possibility that ETC is just outright lying about what he said. I have no ill feelings at all.
One of the lessons here in my mind is that words like extreme and radical are really just so much semantic quicksand. From the calls to destroy the nuclear family, to the promulgation of countless lies, to the SCUM Manifesto and that horrific video, to the celebration of hating heterosexuals – it is hard to imagine things already being less radicalized.
I search my conscious for the willingness to emulate any of this toward any group of people, including feminists, and I find nothing that will allow it. I have no capacity to stage a mock murder and orgiastic dance of celebration or licking the blood off of a victim’s wounds. I have no ability to embrace a hatred of any sexual preference and actually plan its traditional celebration. Hell, I don’t even have the brazenness to make up statistics or revise history in order to achieve political goals. And I am the radical?
What I do have is the willingness to “out” hate mongers and put a light on them in front of as many people as I can. It is one of the very few weapons I have in a misandric zeitgeist dominated by government, media and social complicity. And it is one I use not with a wish for harm, but with sadness. Misandry is an evil. It must be confronted and its purveyors must not be allowed to wrap themselves in the comfortable shroud of impunity.
And let us be clear here. While ideologues and news reporters, already demonstrably deficient in integrity, will paint this as incitement to violence, I will instead remain focused on the truth. This is a reaction to the ideological and real violence that feminism has fostered for fifty years and which now has taken a governmental seat in the country of Sweden.
I not only have a right to present what is already public information, I have a moral obligation to identify the agents of hate wherever and whoever they are. I intend to fulfill that obligation regardless of objection or dissent. If you don’t want to be identified as a bigot and a social criminal, then quit advocating murder and hatred.
John, please put this disgusting bigot on the registry.

Written byPaul Elam

Feminist : Let's Eliminate All Men While They Protect US..

Feminist Genocide and Mass Murder Plan.

The most terrifying and frightening side about the feminist's male hating and male extermination plan does not apparently include any response from males. Their ignorance is astounding, they are playing a game where they presume that men are way too "pussy whipped" to respond to their malice and hate. They assume that it will all be regarded as humour. You know "It's a joke, where is your sense of humour", claim, which that hate movement's merchants have been claiming all along while they cast all men and boys into the abyss of nonentity.

Another author named Rebecca Carter published a plan to exterminate men. Naming her piece of female supremacist hatred “Proposition 777.” She classified this execrable incitement to class hatred as humor.
`Oh, you silly men, I was just kidding – why can’t you take a joke and see how funny your proposed extermination is.’ The article has since been taken offline.

They fail to comprehend that they are desensitising their audience and fail to comprehend also that once that task has been completed, their anti-male tirades achieved it's desired outcome, there has to be some response, one would imagine. Do they honestly believe that everyone will just sit back and watch them destroy all things male and then turn around and applaud their actions..
Male feminists and mangina might be wetting themselves and finding this funny but the majority of society will be appalled by this disgusting behaviour. If this is an indication of future feminist behaviour, it's outcome is only constrained by male decency, self respect and honour but even that has it's limitations..

Meet Perri O'Shaughnessy's (Pamela O'Shaughnessy)
http://www.simonandschuster.com/multimedia?video=27805665001

This really is past the ridiculous and well as stupidity. One would have to question whether there is any humanity left in those women..

November 21, 2011John the OtherA VOICE FOR MEN,FEATURED, MEN

A Feminist Conception of Violence

Yesterday, readers of a voice for men met the face of feminism in Sweden. Cute, bubbly girls who have spontaneous orgasms while pretending to murder a man, execution style, then licking the bullet wounds on his head. Prior to seeing the video from the spiritual inheritors of Valerie Solinas – I thought such abyssal, malevolent and psychopathic madness existed only in fiction. The gaudy and flamboyant evil displayed in the staged fantasy of these young women is hard to fathom outside the context of particularly violent comic books.
The concluding message, “Do Your Part”, translates to: “we’re not kidding, but we haven’t quite worked up to isolating and murdering men for real, yet.”
On the video version of the article on Swedish feminist murder enthusiasts, I’ve already been accused of being sexist, of having no sense of humour, and of being violent. I intend to discuss the topic of psychological projection in greater detail soon.
But this returns us to violence, and the feminist concept of it. This needs clarification, the now normal concept of violence between women and men is that women can and should employ violence against men for any reason, and at any extreme, up to and including murder. The accepted idea is that men, if they’re “real men,” should not only take it, they should continue to uphold the male half of the social contract which is to protect women and provide for them. The female side of this once included something like “..and women shouldn’t punch, kick, stab, bludgeon, shoot and otherwise mutilate, injure and murder men.” Something like that, but that was burned to the ground by half a century of feminist agitprop.
Amber Portwood on MTV’s “teen mom” slapped and punched Gary Shirley, a man twice her size. Gary stood there and took it. Commentary on the youtube video of this abuse called him a “real man” for passively absorbing the beating. This is the male side of the social contract – protect women – still upheld by men while women indulge freely in male-targeted violence.
Sharon Osborne and a daytime studio audience, as well as a majority of the home audience cheering and jeering over Catherine Becker’s severing of her husband’s penis and her destruction of the severed organ in a garbage disposal. The female audiences response to this was laughter. Osborne, pressured after a letter writing campaign from men couldn’t stop her giggling for even the 3 minutes it took to read her phony apology. “I’m so sorry, ha ha ha.”
The former Lawyer and Simon and Schuster published author Pamela O’Shaughnessy who blogs as Vliet Tiptree, and who posted a public manifesto calling for a campaign of male targeting eugenics. A former lawyer, arguing for the same thing pursued by Joseph Mengele.
The Feminist activist and writer Eve Ensler whose own poorly planned article on the Huffington post simultaneously chastises men for an alleged failure to protect women, while she bangs her bongo drum of victimhood – naming wars where men are routinely targeted for rape, and pretending rape is a female only problem. This same author who in her own play, declares the rape of a child a good rape.
The word depraved fails utterly to describe Ensler’s ethical position.
The ongoing exhortation to men to protect women – while remaining silent and passive to attack against men betrays profound cognitive failure in feminist ideology. That’s a charitable view. The alternative is that this is wilful and conscious from the bright lights of violence-wrapped-in-humanism.
Another author named Rebecca Carter published a plan to exterminate men. Naming her piece of female supremacist hatred “Proposition 777.” She classified this execrable incitement to class hatred as humor.
`Oh, you silly men, I was just kidding – why can’t you take a joke and see how funny your proposed extermination is.’ The article has since been taken offline. Classification as humour wasn’t quite enough to provide plausible deniability. A copy of the piece is located here.
The concept of violence as it appears to be understood by women in a feminized society is that women are uniquely permitted to indulge in assault, mutilation, and murder as long as the target is male. This is the practical norm – even while feminist ideologues claim that women are the universal victims of violence. The forced eugenics enthusiast Pam O’Shaughnessy encapsulated this in her statement:
“Our Sharp, Clean Boundary/Definition of Oppression that begins and ends with Women.”
This is a clear attempt to morally justify any act of male-targeting aggression, brutality or damage. If you can define oppression by who it targets, then anything is excusable, up to and including the murder of children or men.
http://authors.simonandschuster.com/Perri-O’Shaughnessy/43321272
Meanwhile – men, the traditional protectors of women and children – are expected to keep on keeping on. Never mind that the feminist-mainstream narrative is normalizing your murder, gentlemen. Continue protecting and providing. In fact, men, you must keep protecting women while those same women are advocating your deaths.
I’ll assume readers of this article are not so demented that this incongruence needs to be explained.
The shocking stupidity of this position is further demonstrated by the puerile scribblings of feminist bloggers attempting to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement. According to a public statement made on the site occupypatriarchy.org : the article “Statement On The Right To Safely Occupy” simultaneously condemns men for participating in the universal oppression of women and LGBT identified people, and in the same article, demands protection and the right to “safely occupy.”
Straight white men are bad, and oppressing women and LGBTs, right?
I’m confident that plenty of non-heterosexed identified individuals will take umbrage at the implied inclusion in this childish nonsense, but just in case anybody is confused about who’s actually the major recipient of violent victimization in the real world. Heres a graph from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHS. ALSO, PROTECT US, YOU BAD PATRIARCHS!

How can adults function in the world while exhibiting this level of disconnect from reality? The simple answer is that adults can’t. Children on the other hand, can, and do.
Western society, through a 50 year program of indoctrination has produced at least 2 generations of women with the developed personal accountability of children, but the sense of entitlement of royalty or poorly raised teenagers. However, this is more than just a generation of overgrown spoiled children. The cultivated climate of class-victimhood, feeding on itself in a feedback loop for five decades is manifesting a perception of men as less than human; unworthy of human rights, and suitable objects of scorn, exploitation, mutilation and murder.
If this culture of hate were cultivated in psychologically mature minds, it would provide a fertile climate for class or ethnic warfare. However, this manufactured entitlement and rage is rooted in social immaturity, a childish frame of reference in which the spoiled teenager attacks the parent, while always knowing they’re safe from harm because the parent they attack will always protect them.
The general failure of female accountability, cultivated in Western society is one of the principal forces behind projects like Register-Her.com. Individuals were listed who committed child rape, or muder, or who carelessly levelled false allegations of rape for the relatively trivial gains of advantage in divorce. Those were placed on the registry by Paul and myself to provide a non-violent mechanism for accountability in the face of ongoing failure by the courts.
The willful and organized promotion of hatred is major in this ongoing cultural failure, which is why corrupt public officials and bigots are also listed.
The ideology driving escalated male apartheid has always promoted and relied on indirect violence. The outsourcing of direct force to state funded enforcers as well as conformist men, still buying into their allowed role as dispenser, as well as recipient of violence on behalf of the preferred sex. Unfortunately, the culture of female unaccountability and exemption from consequence has escalated. This manifests as an increasing number of women advocating murder, mass murder, and in growing numbers, directly engaging in male targeted violence and murder. This all developing in the climate of female exemption from consequence.
Crystal Dawn MacKenzie was the Canadian woman who after stabbing her husband was acquitted in late 2010. She walked free even after her defence attorney admitted during the trial that she had options besides murdering her husband.
Kasey Anthony is the mother who after evidentiary determination that she’d murdered her child so she’d have more time for partying, was treated a victim by western media.
Men’s rights activists are clearly not the only people noting this tradition of female exemption. While childish in their developed accountability and emotional maturity – women are certainly capable of rational calculation. This is manifest in an increasing number of female advocates of murder and mass murder of men. Like poorly socialized children who’ve not yet learned to see the people around them as humans – a small but noticeable segment of women and girls have learned they are not accountable, and indulge in a type of infantile tyranny. Kill all men, abort male babies, or even kill them after they are born – women’s empowerment taken to the absurd and homicidal extreme of the claimed power of extermination of males.
For members of the human race who, due to possession of a Y chromosome, find themselves identified as appropriate targets for murder, this posses a logical problem. Western courts have already demonstrated that male-targeting violence, including murder is permissible. This is not a question of whether the war against men becomes a shooting war, or however described, a war in which combatants are killed. Men dying on the job, or at the hands of state-enforcers, or white knights, or in any situation where their deaths are hidden behind their job titles proves the earnest brutality of our hatred towards men. The only question is at what point in the escalation of the killing of men, they begin to fight back with more than words.
It is neither practical, nor ethical to passively tolerate attack, or violence, or murder. For the self-declared advocates of murder and male extermination – from whom the intention to kill is amply demonstrated, the only ethical response can be self defense, which is the prevailing reason why this culture must embrace the agenda of the MRM, which is to prevent further violence from happening.

The Reality Blog