The Feminist’s Guide To Debate Tactics

Post image for The Feminist’s Guide To Debate Tactics

by Female Masculinist on October 24, 2009

Observing comments made by feminists on MRA blogs – or on any blog or forum post which is even slightly critical of any aspect of feminism – for the last few years has made something very clear: feminists have no idea how to debate.

This is probably due to the overwhelming feminist hegemony in educational institutions. Women dominate the teaching profession, particularly in grade school, and all of these women are feminists. Girls have a powerful innate need to please the authority figures in their lives, and all they have to do to please their teachers is parrot feminist propaganda on cue. This leaves them completely unprepared for the outside world, where reciting this bunk results in demands that they produce facts and logic, things they have never been asked for before. The poor feminists are startled that their dutiful recitations do not result in a pat on the head, but instead in challenges they do not know how to meet.

So as a public service, I am providing this handy guide for feminists on common debate mistakes. This way, the next time you encounter one of those nasty old misogynists, your attempts at argument will not simply confirm his existing low opinion of women!

Mistake #1: “You’re only saying that because you never get laid!”

There are two problems with this argument. One is that in many cases, it isn’t true. Most of us misogynists started out believing all the bullshit about female equality we heard in school and on TV. It took a great deal of experience with women, in the workplace as well as in dating, to make us realize that in fact, women are very different from men, and in most respects inferior. Most feminists are straight women, so you’ll just have to take my word for this: having sex with women does not in any way enhance respect for women. Quite the contrary.

The second problem is, even if the man you are addressing is celibate, this proves nothing. It has no bearing whatsoever on sex discrimination laws, child custody agreements, polemics about the “male gaze”, women in combat, or anything else you might be debating. A very smart man in ancient Greece called this the “ad hominem” argument. You have probably seen this phrase in internet fora, but it is usually used incorrectly, by people who apparently have no idea what it means but know that it is a bad thing. An “ad hominem” argument is an attack on the person making the argument in lieu of a reasoned rebuttal of the argument itself.

Mistake #2: “You must have a small dick!”

This is another ad hominem argument. Once again, men with small dicks are still capable of stating facts which are correct. Unless you have some scientific studies that show that men with small dicks are always wrong, it’s best not to use this one. Besides which, MRA’s have all heard it so many times that it makes them conclude, probably correctly, that you don’t have any actual information that might back up your contentions. “You must have a small dick!” is basically feminist code for “I have no clue what I’m talking about!”

Mistake #3: (used against female antifeminists) “If it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to keep a blog!”

 I have seen this charge levelled against women whose antifeminist opinions are far more moderate than mine. Feminists seem to believe that women used to be barred from the First Amendment until some heroic feminists got us in on it. The fact is, women and men have always had the same degree of freedom of speech. In the days when the Inquisition could burn people at the stake for heresy, men did not get away with any more heresy than women did. In Europe today, men and women, at least white ones, are equally subject to spurious hate speech laws. That women pre-Women’s Lib did not have freedom of speech would have come as a great surprise to Sojourner Truth, Carry Nation, Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abby Kelley Foster, Madame de Stael, Renee Vivien, Radclyffe Hall, Rebecca Protten, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Hunt, Elizabeth D. Golek, etc. etc.

If you want to use this argument, if you want it to be taken seriously you must offer the names of these mysterious feminists who gave women the right to blog. Dates and how they went about doing so, as well as some sort of evidence that women used to be kept silent, would also be useful.

Mistake #4: “Okay, so it’s true that women aren’t as good at science and stuff, but that’s because girls are raised differently from boys! If we were raised the same we’d be just as good at it!”

First, we don’t know that. The only reason to think that it is the case is that feminists want to believe it. There is no evidence. Your wishes are not a valid argument.

Second, there is considerable evidence that sex differences are innate. Feminists who try to teach their boys not to be violent are invariably dismayed when their toddling sons use the dolls they’re given as weapons. A boy who was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision knew even before he was eventually told the truth that he wasn’t actually a girl, and the attempt to turn him into one resulted in severe psychological problems; he ended by committing suicide at 38. For more on this, go to my blog and see the sidebar sections on “What Schools Are Doing to Boys” and “Biology Is Destiny”.

Mistake #5: “Women were too busy taking care of children and doing housework to invent things or discover things!”

And just what do you imagine men were doing while your ancestresses were cooking dinner or sewing clothes? The vast majority of them weren’t lounging happily in a library devising the principles of geometry or gazing through a telescope. They were mostly breaking their backs on farmland or in mines or smithies, enduring months of malnutrition and brutality aboard trading ships, getting shot at in armies, and other such fulfilling career paths. Yet somehow, men managed to build civilization in between.

For thousands of years, babies were delivered by midwives. Women had complete control of this profession. It never even occurred to the men who ruled the societies to interfere with midwifery. None of these women with the freedom and opportunity for hands-on experience invented the forceps. Instead, a man named Peter Chamberlen invented them around 1600, when the idea of male doctors delivering babies was still a controversial idea, and one chiefly engaged in by the decadent rich. In other words, men had scarcely arrived on the scene before they were inventing things that women had not imagined in thousands of years.

Commenter Paul came up with another excellent example: for the last few centuries, upper- and middle-class women were encouraged to learn to play musical instruments. A lot of these women had the leisure to spend a great deal of time on their music. Yet there have been very few female composers of any note, and black American men – not a privileged group by any means – invented both blues and jazz.

Finally, in the last few decades a great deal of effort has been expended on “encouraging” women and girls to achieve in traditionally male fields, and the lower and higher education systems are feminist-dominated. Where is the Renaissance of female creativity? Where are the female Leonardos, Isaac Newtons, and Mozarts? Women have made achievements – before and after feminism – but they are not equal to those of men.

Mistake #6: “Men have higher IQs, but that’s because the IQ test doesn’t measure female aptitudes!”

First, demanding that the rules be changed because you are losing impresses no one.

Second, the historical fact is that the IQ test is rigged in favor of women.

“The one exception to the general rule that different groups or populations usually differ in average IQ is that both sexes have approximately the same average IQ on most tests. This is not, however, a true empirical finding but a consequence of the manner in which the tests were first constructed…the two sexes were defined to have equal intelligence rather than discovered to have equal intelligence.” (Evans and Waites, 1981, 168).
(Evans, B.. & Waites, B. (1981). IQ and mental testing: An unnatural science and its social history. London, UK: Macmillan.)

More discussion of the slanting of the IQ test to minimize differences between men and women can be read here, here, here, and here. And despite the slanting in women’s favor, men still score consistently higher on them.

 Mistake #7: “I guess Thomas Jefferson’s slave mistress wasn’t oppressed then, huh!”

Hijacking the misfortunes of other groups – slavery, the Holocaust, indentured servitude, dhimmitude, the potato famine, etc. – is tacky and does not prove that women are equal to men.

 Mistake #8: “I cannot believe how ignorant you are!”

I think that feminists don’t know what the word “ignorant” means. It means that the person doesn’t know something. For example, I am ignorant of the Mandarin word for “insect”, because I have never studied Mandarin.

The only way this charge would make sense would be if you thought that the person you were talking to had never heard the glad tidings that women are equal to men. Unless you can come up with convincing evidence that someone on this planet hasn’t heard this nonsense, calling an MRA “ignorant” makes no sense whatever. We have all heard the feminist gospel. We aren’t ignorant of it. We simply don’t believe it. Indeed, given that feminists apparently believe that it was a heroic feminist campaign that won women the right to keep blogs and clearly don’t know that IQ tests are slanted against men, you are clearly the ignorant ones.

Of course, as a male blogger pointed out and I discussed, what women actually mean when they say this is that it’s stupid to believe unfashionable things because unconventional opinions make it harder to be socially accepted. For women, who are by nature dependent creatures, this is of paramount importance; the abstract value of truth has little appeal for most women.

 Mistake #9: “I think this site must be a joke! You’re a troll!”

The world is full of people who disagree with you. Facing this fact is part of growing up.

 Mistake #10: “You’re just too immature to handle a relationship with an independent woman!”

First, see #1. “Ad hominem”, remember that?

Roger Devlin handled this one quite ably:

 A highly successful women’s magazine editor has written a book of advice for young wives stating: “Giving, devoting, sacrificing … these are the actions of a good wife, no? No. These are the actions of a drudge, a sucker, a sap.” Instead, women are urged to emulate a wife who threw her husband’s clothes into the garden to teach him not to leave socks on the floor: “He understood I meant it.” Or another who wanted her husband to help with the laundry, and hollered at him: “Are you a f***ing retard that you don’t see me running up and down stairs? Listen to me and stop your bulls**t.” Or another who discovered this interpersonal skill: “Just stand there and start screaming. If you stand there and scream long enough, someone is going to realize that you’re standing in the middle of the room screaming [and ask] ‘Why are you screaming?’” (pp. 245-47)

What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?

Mistake #11: “I am so very upset by what you’ve said! I nearly fainted! I almost threw up! I am trembling in horror!”

Evolution has designed women to use their emotions to manipulate their mates into providing for them and tending to them. We know you can’t really help it, but in a debate, particularly one about the alleged equality of women, it isn’t appropriate.

We know that a lot of what you’re doing here is putting on a display for other feminists. “See how terribly upset I am by this heresy! I am one of you! I am, like, totally sincere!”

But when debating with us, all that such “arguments” do is convince us that we’re right, that women should, for the most part, be kept out of masculine realms such as industry and science, because they are too weak to endure hearing facts they don’t like.

When Nancy Hopkins responded to Larry Summers mentioning the possibility that men might be somewhat naturally better suited to science – he even added, “I hope it isn’t true” – by fleeing from the room in a nauseated swoon, all she actually accomplished was to demonstrate to the world that women are too delicate and fragile for serious business like science. Do male scientists flee from the room when they hear hypotheses they hope aren’t true? Even black men respond more constructively to discussion of the black-white IQ gap.

If this is how women react to disagreement, it is a matter of public safety to keep them legally unequal:

Somebody in the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles needs to look into suspending Dr Hopkins driver’s license. She obviously doesn’t need to be driving.

Now, I’m not saying that women can’t drive, nor am I implying that Ms Hopkins’ remarks are evidence in that direction. Republican women mostly seem to do ok at it, anyway.

However, given her self-reported reactions to Summers remarks, what would happen if she were driving down the street and accidentally punched up Rush Limbaugh on the radio, for example? Rush makes one of his “feminazi” jokes, and she throws up and blacks out.

When she then plows into a busload of innocent children, the blood will be on Rush’s hands, obviously. Still, that doesn’t help The Children.

 Source: Should Nancy Hopkins be driving?

Also? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

 Mistake #12: “What are you smoking and where can I get some?”

This was funny the first 5,000 times we heard it, but it’s getting old. More importantly, it’s irrelevant. I don’t use illegal substances, but even if my bloodstream were a cocktail of half the things Americans can be arrested for using, I might still be right.

 Mistake #13: “Just because I’m wrong about the trivial details doesn’t mean that there were no Battles To Be Fought for women’s rights.”

Vague, sweeping assertions are not a viable argument. Those “trivial details” you can’t be bothered with are. If you don’t have any concrete facts, your rhetoric is just that.

 So what kind of arguments will MRAs listen to?

We like facts. Go looking for dates, names, legislation, documentation, and statistics. Find a scientific study, if you can, that indicates that women might in some field have the potential to be equal to men. Find statistics showing that society has become better in some way since women’s privilege, er I mean feminism, took root. Of course, you’re at a disadvantage here, since all of the facts show that women are innately inferior, that women of superior achievement will always be in the minority, and that women’s liberation leads to all sorts of social pathologies – rampant divorce, child abuse, inflation, eating disorders, and a general lowering of standards so that women can keep up. But if you hope to change our minds, you’ll have to try to find some facts that support your case instead of ours. Good luck!

_____________________________________________________

Read more of the Female Masculinist at her blog.

{ 162 comments… read them below or add one }

Puma October 24, 2009 at 13:15

I love the photo!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
21Guns October 24, 2009 at 13:19

I liked the photo of the naked dude better.

Nice nail polish, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan October 24, 2009 at 13:28

I have to agree, the photo choice was perfect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:28

Mistake #3: (used against female antifeminists) “If it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to keep a blog!”

This has to be the most annoying of them all for me. Thank you feminism for destroying every possible chance to have a meaningful relationship with a man. I will forever be in your debt. *GAG*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
someone October 24, 2009 at 13:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 32
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:31

It’s so funny. I actually got the excuse that before feminism, “women couldn’t ride bikes”. I forgot to mention the fact that now not only women can ride bikes…but they can ride a carousel of cock, a la Roissy! LOL Thank feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 24, 2009 at 13:32

I have posted a couple times on fenist and yea was deleted quick. I think I had a valid point the post had a woman talking about her 4 year old son jacking off.

Who did Roissy Ban?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:33

Someone,

I don’t think that’s because they don’t know how to debat. I think it’s because they are sick of explaining everything over and over again to people like you who will NEVER get it. When my blog goes up, I’m banning idiots too!

Kimberly

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 20
someone October 24, 2009 at 13:35

Kimberly, you are just making wild assumptions, and the fact that you want to ban people you disagree with shows that you’re an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 23
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:42

I said I was banning idiots. Not people with whom I disagree. Get it right.

I hope you’re not married. If so I’m putting out a prayer that your spouse wont suffer much longer.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 24
Indomitable Thoughts October 24, 2009 at 13:48

I recently encountered these shaming tactics/mistaken argumentation styles arguing with a woman on the comments section of a fairly anti-feminist blog post. The shaming tactics just kept getting more and more pathetic, and she even used an underhanded tactic to try and shame the author. I refused to argue with her over anything after that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
someone October 24, 2009 at 13:51

“I said I was banning idiots. Not people with whom I disagree. Get it right.”

It means the same thing. Someone who disagrees with you == idiot.

“I hope you’re not married. If so I’m putting out a prayer that your spouse wont suffer much longer.”

How delightfully random.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 13
Indomitable Thoughts October 24, 2009 at 13:54

LOLOLOL, examples described in the post in its very own comment section. Awesome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Deansdale October 24, 2009 at 13:56

Kimberly, why are you arguing with people you’d rightfully ban from your blog? :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:57

I’m not opposed to having a conversation with someone who disagrees with me, and has the info to back up their disagreement.

Yes, my comment was random. When I saw your post I thought to myself, I wonder if this person makes someone miserable on a daily basis….I should say a prayer. That’s all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 13:57

@ Deansdale

Very true! :0)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:02

This article would be perfect, except that FM has not included an example of a perfect retort to the boilerplate feminist one-liners.

This article should provide such instruction, in order to combat these attacks.

See here for an article from a few years ago, on exactly how to debate the memorized one-liners about the Iraq War/War on Terror. These are designed to stump the low-IQ leftist parroting them, and this article from FM similarly needs to provide examples of answers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 24, 2009 at 14:03

Still hanen’t seen “someone” come up with any evidense of roissy banning anyone.

Surprizing?

Not really with what has been learned in the post.

Great post by the way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 24, 2009 at 14:05

If you would like to see wonderfull examples of feminist shaming language being used go here to game can save lives at roissy’s.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/game-can-save-lives/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:07

For instance, roissy bans people he is unable to argue against

Wrong. Roissy bans NO ONE, including some individuals so awful that just about any other blogger would ban them.

You seem to be a woman who has exactly the debate skills discussed in the article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Deansdale October 24, 2009 at 14:09

someone October 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“”feminists have no idea how to debate.”
Neither do MRAs/PUAs.”
It must have avoided your attention that MRAs get banned at feminist sites because they (the MRAs) cite facts, statistics, etc. It happened to me a couple of times. I didn’t use shaming or dirty language, I didn’t offend anyone just told them what they said was not true and linked to some information proving my point. No matter, it got me banned.
OTOH when feminists do post on MRA/MGTOW/PUA sites, 99% of them start with serious insults, shaming language, and no facts WHATSOEVER. If you want examples you can see at least a hundred in PMAFT’s post about sci-fi (if they aren’t filtered out already). No wish to debate at all, they just came in and told everyone that every men not kissing feminist ass are terrified of small basements where there parent’s empowered and independent penises live, or something equally intelligent :]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
wow October 24, 2009 at 14:09

What happened to lady rain on roissey? Anyone?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:10

That photo could do more to persuade men into an MGTOW life than most other things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:12

One other issue is that the Internet enables a level of a) rudeness and b) evasion that is not possible in a face-to-face setting.

Thus, leftism as a whole, and feminism in particular, really could not be at critical mass before the Internet, because it was too hard to find sufficient extremist with whom to form a circle-jerk of groupthink.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Harry October 24, 2009 at 14:14

@Female Masculinist

Another great piece.

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech October 24, 2009 at 14:16

“I am so very upset by what you’ve said! I nearly fainted! I almost threw up! I am trembling in horror!”

Don’t forget the “rage blackouts” that reading anything by a MRA/PUA/MGTOW causes.

Who did Roissy Ban?

If Roissy actually did ban anyone it’s probably someone who said that he had a small dick or no dick or some other form of trolling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:20

Again, Roissy is less likely to ban anyone than just about any blogger around. This includes racists, feminists, people who say Roissy is a loser, etc. He is actually the most lenient blogger, wrt banning, that I have ever seen.

He will butcher their comments brutally, but he bans no one.

This is mere projection on the part of some feminOrc that quickly bans ‘idiots’ (which everyone here of course qualifies as).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
someone October 24, 2009 at 14:22

“Wrong. Roissy bans NO ONE.”

Except, you know, the people he bans.

“You seem to be a woman who has exactly the debate skills discussed in the article.”

Because I correctly pointed out that roissy (and MGTOW, and surely others) ban people who they are unable to argue against? Yeah, that makes sense.

Pro-male: “If Roissy actually did ban anyone it’s probably someone who said that he had a small dick or no dick or some other form of trolling.”

Not so. roissy doesn’t care if someone trolls his blog. It’s dissenters he has a problem with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:23

Harry,

Did you contact those bloggers on Keven Driscoll’s behalf? If so, what (if anything) did they say?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:25

“someone”,

He doesn’t ban anyone. None of the regulars there will agree with you.

What has YOUR handle there, before he allegedly banned you?

You are providing a perfect example of exactly the stupidity that Female Masculinist describes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Girm October 24, 2009 at 14:30

In fairness guys sometimes use stuff like “your ugly” or “you can’t get a man”, or “your a fat sow” on MRA websites from time to time. It’s not the same level of outpouring you see from the feminists, but it’s there. We all recognize that these types of argument are BS but a lot of feminists really seem to believe they are real arguments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:32

Even polite dissent is banned on just about every feminist website.

The fact that ‘someone’ is not yet banned here (and has never been banned at Roissy’s) shows the moral superiority of men over women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
julie October 24, 2009 at 14:36

What a beautiful post. I don’t know what else to say. :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Female Masculinist October 24, 2009 at 14:37

@Fifth Horseman: Rebuttals for MRAs wouldn’t have really fit in this article. Still, I’d like to see someone write that article. I generally just quit when I realize the fembots are just going to keep having hysterics and flinging around insults instead of having an actual discussion. I did once see a summary on an MRA blog of how these debates usually go: MRAs state their case. Feminists use shaming language. MRAs produce more facts to support their contentions. Feminists use more shaming language. MRAs get bored and go play video games. Feminists congratulate themselves on winning the argument!

@ Kimberly: I look forward to seeing your blog when you start it! Maybe you could comment on my blog letting me know?

Harry October 24, 2009 at 14:53

@ Grim

“In fairness guys sometimes use stuff like “your ugly” or “you can’t get a man”, or “your a fat sow” on MRA websites from time to time.”

They do this because they are so exasperated and because they have decided to fight back by using the same kind of language to show the feminists that “Two can play at their game.”

I can assure you that the hurling of shaming insults towards ANY men (not MRAs especially) who protested against any feminist doctrines had been going on well before MRAs, or the internet, were even heard of.

When I eventually got on to the internet, circa 2000, I saw so much of this going on that I quickly realised that there was no point in trying to talk to these nasty, stupid women.

And, eventually, some MRAs decided to throw back at them what men had been experiencing for years.

Feminism is a thoroughly wicked, empty-headed, bankrupt ideology. This is why feminist women need to hurl insults. They do not have any alternative.

And, quite frankly, I would ban everyone of them from appearing here if this was my site. Just as they have done – in the mainstream, in academia, in government – to everybody who disagrees with them.

Their aim is to disrupt, not to discuss.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 14:57

started out believing all the bullshit about female equality we heard in school and on TV. It took a great deal of experience with women, in the workplace as well as in dating, to make us realize that in fact, women are very different from men, and in most respects inferior. Most feminists are straight women, so you’ll just have to take my word for this: having sex with women does not in any way enhance respect for women. Quite the contrary.

Ha ha! So true….. White Knighting, Pedestaling, and Oneitis are DIRECTLY corelated to a lack of experience with women, and are quickly cured by having sex with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on woman.

This is why socialcons are they way they are – they are deathly afraid of female shaming language, which is extremely effective against socialcons. That is why they would rather throw other men under the bus than risk the displeasure of a woman who might unleash the dreaded shaming language.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ferdinand Bardamu October 24, 2009 at 14:59

The Fifth Horseman:

What has YOUR handle there, before he allegedly banned you?

I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that “someone” is Tokyojesusfist/contrarian/you know who, the clown who, despite admitting to being a virgin (and thus having no experience with women), runs around claiming Roissy is wrong about everything. He was banned for being a completely and utterly boring troll, but keeps going to increasingly desperate lengths to post his bilge water over there (I think at one point, he mentioned he was using a specific browser for no other reason then to circumvent Roissy’s IP ban).

But then again, this is just a guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
someone October 24, 2009 at 15:00

“What has YOUR handle there, before he allegedly banned you?”

I was none other than TJF. I was banned multiple times, and some of my posts were also deleted. It’s unlikely that I’m the only one who’s been banned.

“You are providing a perfect example of exactly the stupidity that Female Masculinist describes.”

If making factually correct statements is stupid then I guess I’m really stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Harry October 24, 2009 at 15:01

@Fifth Horseman

“Did you contact those bloggers on Keven Driscoll’s behalf? If so, what (if anything) did they say?”

Yes, I did; but, as yet. nothing has been forthcoming – which, I must confess, is fairly typical of those “mainstreamers” who tend to write about men’s issues.

Roissy also has nothing to say on the matter; thus far – which surprises me.

However, I and a couple of others intend to be an irritation for the two prosecutors concerned after Kevin Driscoll’s trial – whether found guilty or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ferdinand Bardamu October 24, 2009 at 15:01

I should add that TJF is the only person I know of who Roissy has ever banned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Ferdinand Bardamu October 24, 2009 at 15:01

someone:

I was none other than TJF. I was banned multiple times, and some of my posts were also deleted. It’s unlikely that I’m the only one who’s been banned.

And I was right!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 15:02

Indeed.

In fact, a woman who expresses any basic fairness or sense of justice, on any MRA or Game website, is very quickly and generously praised for her fairness.

There really is no comparison between feminist suppression of polite dissent vs. male treatment of even moderately obnoxious feminists, let alone the praise that good, fairminded women receive for what should be the basic maturity expected of any (legally recognized) adult anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 15:05

Harry,

Yes, I did; but, as yet. nothing has been forthcoming – which, I must confess, is fairly typical of those “mainstreamers” who tend to write about men’s issues.

It is perfectly appropriate to persist 3 or 4 times with each, since they get a lot of email. These are all bloggers with 10K to 200K visits per day. Reaching out a second or third time is perfectly acceptable.

But I guess that is the best we can do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 15:08

I should add that TJF is the only person I know of who Roissy has ever banned.

Really? He was banned?

Even then, it was after months and months of dragging everything down. To let TJF go on this long was *extremely* lenient of Roissy. There are many others Biting Beaver, Lucifer, etc. who are not banned, which shows how hard it is to get banned there. It would take a tremendous amount of hard work to get banned at Roissy’s. More hard work, in fact, than it would take to learn Game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
someone October 24, 2009 at 15:14

“despite admitting to being a virgin (and thus having no experience with women), runs around claiming Roissy is wrong about everything.”

A statement or argument is either true/reasonable or it isn’t. “I’ve been with x number of women so I must be right” is not a valid argument and does not prove anything.

“He was banned for being a completely and utterly boring troll”

This is no different from the intellectually vapid bullshit you get from feminists. Substitute troll with misogynist, chauvinist or bigot or whatever, and the meaning isn’t changed. It’s nothing but an empty insult. Not a single person on roissy’s blog (or elsewhere on the Internet) has proven, or really even attempted to prove, that I am a troll. They don’t even seem to understand what the word means. And at the same time, the blog is rife with actual proven trolls who escape all accusations of trolling simply because they side with roissy.

Making random accusations without any evidence or reasoning and using words without understanding what they mean… how exactly are PUAs any smarter than feminists?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Connie October 24, 2009 at 15:14

I haven’t encountered, “If it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to keep a blog!” I have encountered, “If it weren’t for feminism, you wouldn’t have the right to vote.”

I’m a woman and I vote (sometimes; depends on whether there’s anybody worth voting for). I’ve read arguments that we’d be better off if women had never been given the franchise. Perhaps, but what do you do about it now?

I’m a staunch anti-feminist, but even I like being able to vote. I like voting against feminist enablers and others who have damaged family, education, the military, basically our whole culture–although it’s hard to find candidates who will support traditionalism. And I doubt you could find one who’d say publicly they’re against women voting.

Yes, this particular genie seems to be out of the bottle, and it’s unlikely to be forced back in. That being the case, how is the damage done from female voting to be undone? I think that’s largely what the MRM is all about and that’s why I support it; but how do you counter a “thank a feminist if you vote” one-liner?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Harry October 24, 2009 at 15:20

@Fifth Horseman

“But I guess that is the best we can do.”

Not really. I can do much better! It’s just a question of finding the time to do what I need to do.

But I would be grateful if you would harass Roissy.

He doesn’t need to talk particularly about the Kevin Driscoll case. But, surely, he must be aware of the existence of the type of women who go around making false accusations, and why.

And I wish that you and other Gamers would keep needling him until he talks about them.

After all, it is surely the case that all those young men who are sexually active (and who follow in his trail) need to be aware of how to deal with such women.

My own advice can be seen here, …

http://www.angryharry.com/esDealingWithFalseAccusations.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 24, 2009 at 15:24

First of all, great debunking of the above common mistakes.

Now to nitpick:

It took a great deal of experience with women, in the workplace as well as in dating, to make us realize that in fact, women are very different from men, and in most respects inferior.

This can be seen as mostly a male-dominated view and, to me, another emotional ‘mistake’. Inferiority is a subjective value judgement. Once they see the myth that women are indeed different in nature, they automatically view it as women being inferior. Women are encouraged in this emotional perspective of looking at the world in the encouragement of misandry e.g. men are horrible because they’re more violent. Basically, the sins and flaws are different but the genders are complementary. For example, as a woman, I see great value in simply raising a child properly and keeping their father committed to me as opposed to e.g. inventing the oral contraceptive pill (just to propose that progress and civilisation — while fun — needs to be proved positive. Reproduction rates are low. Is “civilisation” simply a kind of society that is mostly conductive to liberated female sexuality and all its consequences?)

The more valid points that feminists do and can make and can be backed up is the following :
a) men are inherently violent and this needs to be strongly suppressed
b) men suppress female sexuality
c) men suppress female individual expression
d) men use any power advantage over females in negative ways
e) women are pacifist and their influence is conductive to a pacifist society
g) women overall make better and more complaint workers in the every day setting (as opposed to your examples of high-achieving males).
Note, these points are not equalist, these are misandrist based on masculine qualities. Feminists are mostly lying when saying it is about equality. It is about taking any power away from men, who have their disadvantages as well as advantages in terms of their natures. The point is whether misandry is valid and to what extent it should be exercised. These are the points that need addressing and that a counter-movement needs to be aware of. You can either be radical men’s rights or moderate, and the way you deal with these points probably define that. I can disagree with some confidence with b) at least, especially after reading Baumeister and Twenge’s Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality.

The problems currently is stated to be primarily with these pathologies you stated: “rampant divorce, child abuse, inflation, eating disorders, and a general lowering of standards so that women can keep up. ” Let me add false rape accusations and corrupt rape legislation to the list to complete it.

Inflation and eating disorders specifically are multifactorial and there needs to be a strong argument to place them at the feet of a defined feminised society.

An expansion on the issue of child abuse would be useful. It is difficult to see how child abuse is a feminist-induced problem: although I remember seeing figures show it’s more common amongst women in terms of physically and in terms of neglect (but not sexually), there is no evidence to my knowledge this is reduced in less feminised cultures.

Another interesting avenue which seems neglected is why feminism has been a disadvantage to women. You have touched on this. Again, it is a little explored avenue because the primary proponents of anti-feminism are men. When there are several ways in which it has been detrimental — and will be further with current trends — to women themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
someone October 24, 2009 at 15:25

I just realized that the errors committed by Ferdinand Bardamu were actually outlined in this blog post. Specifically, “You’re only saying that because you never get laid!” and “You’re a troll!” Also ad hominem.

Heh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Talleyrand October 24, 2009 at 15:28

Always enjoy reading your posts FM.

The feminist shaming language comes out of fear. If they knew they were right, if they knew they weren’t ultimately dependent on men, they would merely be dismissive of MRAs and all that.

Such strong language isn’t just indicative of hate of their part, but real soul churning fear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ferdinand Bardamu October 24, 2009 at 15:28

someone:

A statement or argument is either true/reasonable or it isn’t. “I’ve been with x number of women so I must be right” is not a valid argument and does not prove anything.

Yes. And the statements you write on women, sex, and game are not true, because you have no factual basis for them. Roissy has been with more women than you, so his assertions are grounded in reality. If you don’t have that breadth and depth of experience, kindly shut your mouth and listen to those who do.

Not a single person on roissy’s blog (or elsewhere on the Internet) has proven, or really even attempted to prove, that I am a troll.

From Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

By that definition, you are a troll. You never post anything but attacks on Roissy and others, and when people challenge you to provide factual evidence for your assertions, you refuse. Dissent without substance is disruptive to a discussion, so therefore our assumption is that you’re only posting there because you like being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. The fact that you keep going to great lengths to circumvent Roissy’s bans further suggests you have no other purpose in posting there then to be a pain in everyone’s ass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Ferdinand Bardamu October 24, 2009 at 15:30

someone:

I just realized that the errors committed by Ferdinand Bardamu were actually outlined in this blog post. Specifically, “You’re only saying that because you never get laid!”

You admitted to being a virgin months ago. I was merely stating a fact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 24, 2009 at 15:32

I don’t think that’s because they don’t know how to debat. I think it’s because they are sick of explaining everything over and over again to people like you who will NEVER get it. When my blog goes up, I’m banning idiots too!

If this is a sampler or your writing, I don’t think you’ll need to ban anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 24, 2009 at 15:32

TJF’s/contrarian’s’/someone’s “inconvenient truths” that’re just supposed to rock the world with their “freedom-of-speech” value:
– Any society produced by Islam is not a valid society, nor did it produce anything of worth.
– Nobody can define what is alpha or beta, therefore anyone who uses the words is not making sense.
– All women who may respond to PUA Game are not quality women.
I don’t know why he felt the need to repeat himself. Again. And again. Maybe he was baited? I don’t know. Anyway. Point made. Repeatedly.
The end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Female Masculinist October 24, 2009 at 15:37

@Bhetti: That’s true, when I was summing up some of the social pathologies caused by feminism, I just mentioned them. Explaining why feminism causes them would have been too long a tangent. But I and other MRA bloggers have discussed the reasons many times. For starters, there’s my sidebar “Matriarchy is Child Abuse”.

Your points are valid, but one can’t put every bit of information in every post.

Thanks for reading!

HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO October 24, 2009 at 15:57

Kimberly “I hope you’re not married. If so I’m putting out a prayer that your spouse wont suffer much longer.”

Anyone see the irony here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 16:02

@ HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO

Don’t take me so seriously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO October 24, 2009 at 16:05

I gotta take TJF’s side on this… one of the main things that lends MRAs moral superiority is that we don’t stifle debate from people who disagree with us to the extent feminists do. What posts/ideas did he specifically ban you for?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone October 24, 2009 at 16:13

“Yes. And the statements you write on women, sex, and game are not true, because you have no factual basis for them.”

Even if this were true, it has nothing to do with how much experience I have or don’t have, unless you can argue why some specific claim of mine is invalid due to inexperience. Right now you’re just using “You’re only saying that because you never get laid!” as an argument.

“By that definition, you are a troll. You never post anything but attacks on Roissy and others.”

I see what you did there. You redefined “attack” as “something I don’t agree with” and hoped nobody would notice.

“When people challenge you to provide factual evidence for your assertions, you refuse”

What factual evidence, exactly?

“Dissent without substance is disruptive to a discussion, so therefore our assumption is that you’re only posting there because you like being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive.”

Good thing that my dissent isn’t without substance, then. Also, why aren’t roissy’s supporters ever accused of trolling even though they meet the criteria? Could it be that this doesn’t actually have anything to do with trolling?

Bhetti: “Any society produced by Islam is not a valid society, nor did it produce anything of worth.”

This argument ended something like six months ago (in my favor), and people are still crying about it (and can’t even get the details right). I don’t know if that’s hilarious or terrifying.

“Nobody can define what is alpha or beta, therefore anyone who uses the words is not making sense.”

This is self-evident. If these words have no accepted meanings, how could it mean anything when you say “this person is alpha/beta”? The same applies when a word has been rendered meaningless through repeated, widespread misuse (bigotry and racism are two examples).

“All women who may respond to PUA Game are not quality women.”

That is my opinion. What about it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 16:15

@ piercedhead

My post may not have met your “needs”, but the subject matter is still valid. From observation, these guys and gals are just sick of going over the same thing, with the SAME people. People who are thick in the head, and don’t have anything to back up their points of view. Then resort to shaming and insults. Who wouldn’t get sick of that and resort to banning?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 24, 2009 at 16:20

someone: Simply restating a perceived summarisation of your commentary, not wishing to state at this time on their validity or who won. If there’re any major points of disgreement you wish to voice or the statements about your opinions are inaccurate, this is probably a chance to state them now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 October 24, 2009 at 16:25

Something that I’ve observed is that the most annoying trolls of several of the blogs of the writers of this magazine seems to like to set up shop in here. Mostly white knights and feminazis. Although it isn’t new, a shared ban list would make the noise go down.

Arguments agaisnt females always seem to end (at least in person) when I say “I don’t give a shit how you feel about it, [Insert truth here] is a fact and you can’t deny it”. And I play online games, I have been far worse insulted on the Internet, so silly things like this are kind of tame, actually. The typical Internet Tough Guy curses way more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
roissy October 24, 2009 at 16:25

tardfistshimself:
Except, you know, the people he bans.

i ban no one except obvious spammers.

Not so. roissy doesn’t care if someone trolls his blog. It’s dissenters he has a problem with.

you are very stupid. nearly every other comment on my blog is a dissenter of my good works. i do occasionally creatively edit comments if i find them particularly tardish or silly, and i will occasionally delete comments that are the equivalent of human spam. your insipid comments are often of the latter variety, repetitive wastoids of aspergery drivel, where you sometimes will literally leave four or more comments in a row that practically say the same thing word for word. i imagine you slapping your forehead like rainman over and over while crafting your tardboy replies.

don’t take it personally tfh, but did you definitely fart?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 16:25

Feminists and their male bitches would make great shark food.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 16:27

Feminism does not cause social pathologies, it is the social pathology.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 16:34

On an other note, If you believe that you can destroy Feminism through debate… keep dreaming.

Feminism is like a parasite, a virus.. a cancer. You cannot reason with a parasite, virus or a cancer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 24, 2009 at 16:38

This bears repeating :

Roissy is very lenient, and it would take a tremendous amount of hard work to get banned at Roissy’s. More hard work, in fact, than it would take to learn Game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tarl October 24, 2009 at 16:54

I personally wish Roissy would be more brutal about banning morons like Biting Beaver…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 17:08

Why debate what can be corroded and destroyed? Why play fair?

Look, no woman can give you anything of value beyond sex. Why pretend that there is more? Does having kids, marrying etc really benefit you in this day and age?

Just look at your own interests objectively, and screw the rest. A system that treats you as a disposable sperm donor/ slave laborer is not worth saving.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 17:33

@ Female Masculinist

Blog wont be MRA/PUA…..more Anti-feminism from a female point of view. Nothing too exciting. What the email I can reach you with?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 17:38

@Tarl

“I personally wish Roissy would be more brutal about banning morons like Biting Beaver…”

I’ve seen comments on his blog, and if you get banned by Roissy you are the lowest of the low. That guy lets everybody and their evil twin post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 24, 2009 at 17:43

Slightly OT but it’s something that’s been on my mind. The feminists you all speak of, did they identify themselves as feminists or are you just basing this off of what they said? Unless they specifically identified themselves as feminists, all of them use the same insults, and the commentors made mistake 3 especially, I don’t see why it should be assumed that they all are feminists.
————————-
Bhetti,

This can be seen as mostly a male-dominated view and, to me, another emotional ‘mistake’. Inferiority is a subjective value judgement. Once they see the myth that women are indeed different in nature, they automatically view it as women being inferior. Women are encouraged in this emotional perspective of looking at the world in the encouragement of misandry e.g. men are horrible because they’re more violent. Basically, the sins and flaws are different but the genders are complementary. For example, as a woman, I see great value in simply raising a child properly and keeping their father committed to me as opposed to e.g. inventing the oral contraceptive pill

Excellent, excellent points. I don’t see the sexes as one being superior and one being inferior (that’s half the problem right there). I see it as the sexes complementing each other. At least, that’s how it’s meant to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 17:52

@ Renee

“Excellent, excellent points. I don’t see the sexes as one being superior and one being inferior (that’s half the problem right there). I see it as the sexes complementing each other. At least, that’s how it’s meant to be.”

That would be one of my only gripe about the MRM. Some of them tend to see women as completely inferior, or atleast this is what they post on their blogs. But in reality, we as men and women complement each other. I can whole heartedly understand that most of them speak out of anger, pain and frustration. And honestly I can’t fault them for that view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 18:45

To all the woman who infest this site,

A quick question- What can you offer a man beside sex?

If I can buy sex for 200-300$/hr (or less abroad) and not pay alimony or child support, why should I care about your ‘thoughts’, ‘feelings’ and ‘decisions’? What is in it for me? Why should I care about what makes you wet?

As far as I am concerned.. you are an aging,lying, manipulative POS who is a drain on my life force and finances.

The underlying issue is that, in the last 100 years we have passed beyond a point of no return. Older constraints, patterns and behaviors no longer work.. and the process has certainly sped up in the last 30 years. It cannot end well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Girm October 24, 2009 at 19:01

Kimberly said

Excellent, excellent points. I don’t see the sexes as one being superior and one being inferior (that’s half the problem right there). I see it as the sexes complementing each other. At least, that’s how it’s meant to be.

That may be the core the issue with the modern age, men and women no longer compliment each other. Or maybe our once forgotten tradition allowed us to complement each other and the removal said traditions destroyed that balance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 19:09

To all the men who frequent MRA, HBD and PUA sites,

Two issues:

1. All this talk about which guy deserves what… who the f**k do you think you are? god? or do you hear voices in your heads?

Let me repeat this- A civilization of our complexity cannot exist without implied consent of the absolute majority. Maintaining consent over any prolonged period of time requires almost everyone to benefit from participating in the system.

Ancient civilizations, or even 18th century civilizations, were nothing like our current setup. They were incredibly unstable, rebellion prone and of low productivity.

Now some of you might think.. we will be the survivors of a collapse. Wrong! The spread of weapons and technology obviate that possibility. If it comes to that, there won’t be anything left.

2. While I have never denied that being a assertive man (game) helps with women, blaming those who do not succeed is not going to help you, in any manner.

Let me give you an analogy.. can you create a stable system by telling people that they will starve in their old age if their investments do not work (plan A)? No!

There is a reason we have social security (plan B). There is plan A (game) and then there WAS plan B (barely tolerable relationships- pre 1960 marriages).

The reality is that men today do not have a plan B, and that is going to cause more problems that people can imagine. We have reached a stage where smaller and smaller groups can cause more and more damage.

Of course, you can always think I am just nuts (or exaggerating). The future will decide if I was prescient.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Girm October 24, 2009 at 19:22

@ Advocatus Diaboli

Let me repeat this- A civilization of our complexity cannot exist without implied consent of the absolute majority. Maintaining consent over any prolonged period of time requires almost everyone to benefit from participating in the system.

South Afica during apartheid directly contradicts your point. They had a stable society that was very advanced (nukes and very modern tech). One of the reason they were left alone for so long is everyone figured their system could not last long. By the 80s it was clear that outside forces were needed to destroy apartheid state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 19:31

Girm,

I am not so sure.. The US had legalized apartheid till the mid-1960s. The south africans had friends in the west. The west had a decent demographic profile and they had not hit the wall of system incompatibility (economic-social) yet.

So how are white south africans doing nowadays? Must be enjoying their version of the thousand year reich..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Girm October 24, 2009 at 19:55

@Advocatus Diaboli

Ok explain how:

A civilization of our complexity cannot exist without implied consent of the absolute majority

Is compatible with nations like China and the former South Africa? Or admit that your point is wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 20:06

Girm,

You missed the “prolonged period” part… In the old days you could get away with it for a few generations.. now it takes about a generation and a half for the magic to wear away.

Tough luck.. So are white SAs enjoying their thousand year reich.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 20:16

@ Girm

I have to give credit where credit is due. It was Renee that you quoted. Good quote still. :0)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 20:20

@ Advocatus Diaboli

“A quick question- What can you offer a man beside sex? ”

Depends on his needs and wants. Each man is different.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 20:48

Kimber,

The question was rhetorical. Women cannot give a guy anything of value other than sex.

The rest is BS and parasite induced delusions. I see women as parasites with one possible use.

The current socio-legal climate has made them more akin to a cancer, rather than a garden variety parasite.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
spunk October 24, 2009 at 21:20

Why even ‘debate’ with feminists? An individual must possess a certain level of intelligence before any meaningful debate can be done. Here’s a litmus test for the (lack of) intelligence in feminists:
Feminists still believe in the BS called the ‘gender wage gap’. You know, the one that usually goes, ‘For every dollar a man makes, a woman makes only (a fraction of a dollar). How oppressed women are! We need more pro-female affirmative action…’

Soundly disproven, but great way to generate emotionally-driven ammo for feminist causes. It is, after all, one of the key doctrines to promote calls for gender equality(another big fairy tale).

The next time some feminist wants a debate, administer the gender wage gap litmus test. Ignore if she fails the test.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Kimberly October 24, 2009 at 21:37

@ Advocatus Diaboli

“The question was rhetorical. Women cannot give a guy anything of value other than sex.”

Is this something that has always been?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz October 24, 2009 at 21:45
someone October 24, 2009 at 22:40

roissy: “i ban no one except obvious spammers.”

You are a liar.

“you are very stupid. nearly every other comment on my blog is a dissenter of my good works.”

Which doesn’t change the fact that you will start waving the banhammer if you are cornered, and have no problem with obvious trolls as long as they are on your side.

“i will occasionally delete comments that are the equivalent of human spam. your insipid comments are often of the latter variety, repetitive wastoids of aspergery drivel”

Here’s a great example of how PUAs are no different from feminists. This is roissy’s idea of an argument.

“where you sometimes will literally leave four or more comments in a row that practically say the same thing word for word”

This was caused by the browser I used and WordPress itself. Even with a normal browser WordPress can cause problems, because it’s a piece of shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Puma October 24, 2009 at 22:44

someone – you sounds just like Aly from yesterday.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo October 24, 2009 at 23:03

Women have a very different approach to debating than men have.

Men treat an honest and open debate as a search for truth. They use logic as their touchstone. If their initial opinion is shown to be wrong, they will change it. Men invented formal rules for debate. Women would never have done this in a million years because they don’t want to find the truth unless it makes them feel good.

Women are creatures of emotion rather than logic. If something “feels” right to them, it IS right, as far as they are concerned. To a woman, logic is simply one of many methods that she can use to get what she wants, and it is not her favorite method. Her emotions are more important to her than objective truth or logic. If a temper tantrum works better than a carefully reasoned argument, a woman will throw a tantrum.

This is true even at the highest echelons of society. Take Harvard, for example. President Larry Summers lost his job because a bunch of women who happened to be professors threw a collective tantrum, not because his original argument was refuted. His original argument wasn’t even seriously debated, according to male standards of logic and civil discourse. He was replaced by a lesbian as a politcal gesture to placate women and make them cease their tantrum.

This is why many men don’t even want to talk to women unless it is absolutely necessary for their job or they want to have sex with a chick. They act like spoiled children who throw fits when they don’t get their way.

Feminism is essentially a series of temper tantrums thrown by women over a span of four decades.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Deborah October 24, 2009 at 23:30

Internet Debate mistakes that irk me:

USING ALL CAPS TO VISIBLY SHOW HOW ANGRY AND LOUD YOU ARE! THIS IS THE CLOSEST THING LOUD OBNOXIOUS PEOPLE HAVE TO SHOUTING OVER OTHER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET.

Cursing every @#$%ing other @#$&en word because you don’t have the vocabulary to articulate a real argument. “I am extremely fucking offended” (a quote that has definitely been used by angry commenters on this site) makes me think of a peeved 12 year old whose upset that Adam Lambert didn’t win American idol – not of an “intelligent and accademic” person, even though some of these neigh-sayers claim to be well read and educated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 00:01

Feminism is essentially a series of temper tantrums thrown by women over a span of four decades.

And codified into laws that bypass the constitution and treat a man just as badly as if he were in North Korea.

Don’t forget that. Feminism would merely be something to make fun of if not the ability to ruin and enslave an innocent man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 00:06

Feminists still believe in the BS called the ‘gender wage gap’. You know, the one that usually goes, ‘For every dollar a man makes, a woman makes only (a fraction of a dollar).

Yes. That crap was in the cover story of Time Magazine last week, for god sakes.

They always leave off the second half of the sentence. The full, factually correct sentence is :

“Women earn 75% of what men earn, for generating 60% of the productivity that men generate. ”

That is the full, factually correct sentence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Dandy October 25, 2009 at 01:19

Who is this person debating with? His mother?

What is there to debate?

“does not prove that women are equal to men”

We don’t have to prove anything. If you don’t think women are your equals go fuck your equals then and leave us alone. Simple, yes?

And I am so sick of women who “can’t find a man” blaming feminism for that. For heaven sakes, look at this Kielbasa feast!! If you can’t find a cock here honey feminism definitely ain’t your problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 01:23

I have to say that FM’s writing style strongly mirrors that of Ann Coulter in terms of biting humor tucked within sentence after sentence. This is high praise, that I am giving here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Deansdale October 25, 2009 at 02:01

Nemo October 24, 2009 at 11:03 pm
- it’s an instant classic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul October 25, 2009 at 02:04

One of the difficulties as I see it is that when a woman says something is ‘unfair’ or simply that ‘she does not like it’ then such words carry a weight far beyond their meaning. The debate is always unequal as men are naturally intimidated by women. May be intimidation is no the right word but certainly in the presence of a woman a man is in a sense restrained.

Also women are good with words. They produce them at a rapid rate. Listening to a woman and trying to understand what she is saying can result in one’s mind being saturated. I have experienced this myself. Rich Zubati claims that women become better at words as they age and men become worse. To illustrate this he gives the example of an old woman shouting at an old man ‘don’t you understand me’. He says this is something we have probably all witnessed. The point is the old man has become confused and can not process words at the rate the woman is producing them.

Even if Zubati’s example is not know to you I am sure most of you will have had the experience of wanting to flee from a woman just to get away from her voice. Same sort of phenomena as Zubati describes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 25, 2009 at 02:36

Also women are good with words. They produce them at a rapid rate.

I think the idea is to fill the air with their noise so there is no room for yours Paul. It’s often the way with articulate people. Say a lot and hog the limelight.

It’s very hard to get a piece of anyone’s attention if they are not accustomed to hearing from you, and suspect someone else will talk over you very easily – even if what that other person is saying is just well-wrapped garbage that they’ve heard a million times before. Witness the same effect of a television being turned on in a room full of people talking to each other – the slickness of the presentation completely trumps the fact that it will tell you nothing you don’t already know. Everyone will fall silent until someone turns the awful thing off.

If men want to re-assert themselves, they will need to learn how to take back the dialog. It starts with developing a thicker skin and a deafness to their fury (which is actually a kind of bullying, and the easiest to resist if a conscious effort is made to recognize it, know it for what it is, and counter it).

It’s often said that men talk to communicate, but women talk to commune. Maybe this is true, but there can be no doubt that they have an advantage through practice. It’s an area where we can up our game, and delighting in resisting their puny attempts at silencing us is a good attitude to start out with. Nagging, shrill harpy voice? I laugh in their face. Fortunately, I have a home free of all unwelcome noise to return to every night, so it’s a lot easier for me to do than for those unfortunate souls who are stuck under the same roof, but I’ve always found the less seriously I take anyone, the less inclined they are to harass me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 03:14

If men want to re-assert themselves, they will need to learn how to take back the dialog.

Why re-invent the wheel. The tactics that are effective at diffusing a woman’s tantrums and turning the situation back in the man’s favor are available and prominently advertised. These tactics are contained within the discipline known as Game.

A lot of men wish to have the upper hand with women, yet make heavy weather of a situation has a proven and widely disseminated answer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
menareangrynow October 25, 2009 at 04:54

@FEMALE MASCULINIST

Brilliant post, with humor too. I love it. You’ve already gotten a 100 comments! But, I guess that was inevitable considering what you’re talking about. This was bound to attract angry eyes. They might even say you’re not a real man. Wouldn’t that be funny!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 25, 2009 at 05:41

I’ve seen this point voiced by at least one commenter before (by the name of Lucifer, and Advocatus Diaboli is very similar as a name) so let me ask about the natural extrapolation of it: If a woman — any woman of any type — has no value besides sex to a man, then what value does a man have to the same man who believes this?

The logical derivation of this belief if it is logically held seems zero, to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 06:35

Bhetti,

Most human ‘reality’ is a creation of the mind, and is distinct from physical reality in that it requires belief to exist.

While our perception of physical reality (light, matter etc) is incomplete, it exists independent of human belief.

However concepts like relationships, institutions, rules, hierarchies, life goals require all parties to believe in something that is not real, unless they choose to . I am not saying that beliefs cannot have real world consequences, rather that they can be destroyed or changed unlike physical reality which can only be rearranged to do something else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wulf October 25, 2009 at 06:46

Thank you, Female Masculinist, for your very informative insights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Female Masculinist October 25, 2009 at 07:03

I do think that there is more to be gotten from male-female relations than sex and children – I agree with the nonfeminist women here who have argued that men and women have complementary differences – but feminism has made it all but impossible for that kind of rewarding relationship to develop.

Gunslingergregi October 25, 2009 at 07:22

”””””Now some of you might think.. we will be the survivors of a collapse. Wrong! The spread of weapons and technology obviate that possibility. If it comes to that, there won’t be anything left.””””

Not true. The first to perfect anti missle technology will be the last one standing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 25, 2009 at 07:29

””’not of an “intelligent and accademic” person, even though some of these neigh-sayers claim to be well read and educated.”””’

So every person that voices an opinion must be well read and educated?

These are the people that will be killing all the educated in the revolution and ya wonder why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 09:00

Gunslingergregi,

Missiles are the most expensive and obvious ways of delivering payloads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 09:14

Female Masculinist,

Ya.. if there is more to it, women have to first stop being parasitic. But as we know, that is impossible.. because even in the ‘good old days’, many marriages were held together by social pressure.

I do not have faith, belief or willingness to sacrifice anything for the good of humanity. If human beings cannot evolve, and get stuck in their hobbesian BS and justify such BS through philosophy, religion or culture- that is their problem.

If it destroys humans as a species, who cares? It is not possible, or desirable, to help those who want to screw you over.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 25, 2009 at 09:56

””””Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 9:00 am
Gunslingergregi,

Missiles are the most expensive and obvious ways of delivering payloads.”””””””””’

But if you could stop the opposition from delivering there payloads via missiles then lets say you are china would have little to fear of nuclear consequeces to actions. Then mount a worldwide conventional weapon blitkrieg using troops and remote and hardwired platforms to take out the worlds armies civilian and military hard targets. Only need to produce around 3,650,000 planes for over kill and 5 billion small arm rounds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 10:44

Gunslingergregi,

You are thinking in terms of battles of victory, I am thinking in terms of a war of anhilation.

It is possible to win a technical victory even if the ultimate consequence is mutual anhilation. Watch “dr. Strangelove” for some ideas..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 25, 2009 at 12:05

I do think that there is more to be gotten from male-female relations than sex and children – I agree with the nonfeminist women here who have argued that men and women have complementary differences – but feminism has made it all but impossible for that kind of rewarding relationship to develop.

Hey, FM. Great post!

OT: I’m intrigued to come across a lesbian who is not only not a feminist, but one who actually *likes* men. I’ve been wondering how you’ve reconciled your orientation with your views on gender relations, since they seem profoundly at odds on the surface, at least as far as my experience of lesbians goes. I mean, the reason I don’t read lesfic is because of the subtle (or not so subtle) anti-male undertones it usually contains–I’m bi, and I hate being told I’m a chump for liking men.

Is there a specific post on your blog you can point me to that will explain how you arrived at the convictions you embrace?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Asher October 25, 2009 at 12:09

“And I am so sick of women who “can’t find a man” blaming feminism for that. For heaven sakes, look at this Kielbasa feast!! If you can’t find a cock here honey feminism definitely ain’t your problem.”

Thanks for the great comment. i laughed my ass off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Deansdale October 25, 2009 at 13:53

Bhetti October 25, 2009 at 5:41 am
” If a woman has no value besides sex to a man, then what value does a man have to the same man who believes this?
The logical derivation of this belief if it is logically held seems zero, to me.”

If a women doesn’t have anything to offer to a men it’s because she doesn’t want to offer anything. American/western women are raised to believe that they have every right to take everything they want from life and they don’t have to give anything to anyone. Feminists indoctrinated WW that giving anything to men is a betrayal to the sisterhood and supporting the “patriarchal oppression”. So they see it as their lifelong duty to oppose men in everything men want or do.
If you realise this you’ll understand why men say that most women offer nothing besides sex. They are not capable of giving/doing anything a men might want from them: a decent conversation, a bit of kindness, encouragement, appreciation, gratitude, etc.
WW hate it when men “objectify” them and demand that men realize all the values they have – only they don’t have any. They miss the most important point in all this, namely that they have to be pleasant if they want men to like them. You cannot demand respect or love from anyone. You have to be respectable and lovable first. This thought eludes them all.

On the other hand, men usually give other men what they want from them: a decent conversation, understanding, help, etc.
So men have “value” to other men while women do not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 25, 2009 at 14:02

”””””Advocatus Diaboli October 25, 2009 at 10:44 am
Gunslingergregi,

You are thinking in terms of battles of victory, I am thinking in terms of a war of anhilation.

It is possible to win a technical victory even if the ultimate consequence is mutual anhilation. Watch “dr. Strangelove” for some ideas..
””””””
No in the scenerio I decribe chinese would be the only people not dead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epiclolz October 25, 2009 at 15:18

I think you could reduce the argument bias to the reliance on a pathological 100% Blank Slate Standard Social Science model frame of reference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zammo October 25, 2009 at 16:03

Haven’t we learned from feminism that reason and logic are tools of the patriarchy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 16:05

More craziness :

An NYT feminist author claims that 9/11 set back women’s rights :

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/140542

Note that she does not, mind you, admit that Al-Qaeda’s ideology is actually oppressive towards women. No. She just says that 9/11 corelates with women taking a step back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 25, 2009 at 16:18

The argument I particularly hate by feminists is that any differences between the genders is because of The Patriarchy. And the accompanying implication that The Patriarchy needs to be taken down and that it is all pervasive, in a way akin to the madness of an extremely hopeless conspiracy theorist.

Deansdale: Now that makes it clear what a person might have in mind when they say this, or at least what discontentment it may represent. A reaction to an entitled mentality. It’s not that they can’t offer but they don’t and are actively stridently offended at suggestions otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Female Masculinist October 25, 2009 at 17:43

@Kis: Yes, I did write a post about that: Why I Am A Male Chauvinist.

I get fed up with the politicization of lesbianism too. I don’t even go to gay bookstores anymore, or feminist bookstores – I used to go to those because they have a lot of lesbian stuff, but the quality of what they had has declined sharply.

kis October 25, 2009 at 21:21

Thanks, FM. Will go check it out. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman October 25, 2009 at 23:01

Bhetti,

down and that it is all pervasive, in a way akin to the madness of an extremely hopeless conspiracy theorist.

That is why feminism would be nothing more than an object of ridicule if not for their views being codified into ruinous laws.

If not for the judicial system backing this insanity, feminism would be the butt of jokes, like the flat Earthers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 10:36

Isn’t the problem more a general lack of rhetorical skills? That’s something I’ve always admired about modern classical education (à la The Well Trained Mind): it’s emphasis on logic, rhetoric, and grammar (rules).

I do think women are worse about this. Not because we are incapable of learning to think logically and express ourselves clearly but rather because nobody insists that we do or bothers to teach us how; it’s not a skill valued in women. It’s rare for a woman to call another out for a breach of rhetorical etiquette.

I’m a bit of stickler for rhetoric and I find women look down on me for that; in their eyes it shows a lack of feeling. I actually have a much wider and complex range of feelings than many of them, I’m just able to set that aside and continue the conversation. And if I do have an emotional outburst I tend to apologize for it immediately; I don’t want my lack of self-control to taint my position.
I prefer to address each comment according to its own truth whereas they feel that there are “types of people” you just shouldn’t speak with. I’ve actually had some of my most interesting conversations with people I don’t like. Just because I don’t like a person or think that they’re “nice” doesn’t mean that, on a certain point, they cannot be right.

What I notice women often do is something called “inverse ad hominem”. They do this with their friends, “She’s my best friend, she tells me X, therefore it must be true.” And they do this with politicians, “I don’t know how he votes or what his pledges are, but he looks like a nice guy so I’ll vote for him.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Female Masculinist October 26, 2009 at 12:01

@Black&German: Very true. I think part of the problem is that at the same time as large numbers of women were given more than basic education, educational standards were generally lowered.

Black&German October 26, 2009 at 12:52

Yes! Education seems to be less and less about “Just the facts, Ma’am” and more and more about touchy-feely stuff. My mother learned more in high school than most college graduates learn today. Perhaps that is what is fueling the “higher education” rush?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cptnapalm October 26, 2009 at 13:52

I remember there being a list of things that feminists say. I think it was 37. I have not been able to relocate it, though. It contained several of the items in the article. I recollect that the place that posted it would get trolled by feminists and it was really funny because all their spouted indignations were on the list. Eventually, someone started mocking their posts by writing “soandso wrote: 14, 7, 12, 9, 8, 3″

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 26, 2009 at 14:14

Note that she does not, mind you, admit that Al-Qaeda’s ideology is actually oppressive towards women. No. She just says that 9/11 corelates with women taking a step back.

Yep, wrote about that at my place yesterday. Really misguided woman. Fantastic career, yet she whines. What an annoying piece of human refuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman October 26, 2009 at 16:35

I don’t think we need to bad mouth western women.

We can just call them the brainwashed dupes of powerful men who are committed to destroying our society. These women have the intellectual capacity of a 7-10 year old boy and the mannaers and behaviours rather similar as well. As such they should be seen and not heard. If we could spank them we would…but above all they should be told to sit down, shut up, show respect for the real men speaking and not be entertained in any other discussion than calling them intellectually inferior with the entire history of civilisation as evidence. As FM says, when they come up with some evidence, which they can’t because it does not exist, them maybe we might entertain the idea of talking to them.

Me? Personally? When the funds transferred back the guvment by my ex are safely in my bank account and each and ever women who spoke poorly of me for no reason with no basis in fact for what they were saying has apolgised to me and restored their honour then I might consider listening to western women. Until then they are welcome to the echochamber of feministing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman October 26, 2009 at 16:47

Bhetti October 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm
“Inferiority is a subjective value judgement.”
Typical woman….can’t understand that inferiority is a fact…no a judgement…
Man are better than women. Dick Masterson has written an entire book on the subject and has produced is MANevidence and MANlogic which would scorch and sear the brain of any woman who read it so women are strickly banned from reading his book. Now shut up, do something useful and make a man a sammich.

What does a feminst have on her ipod?
“Breath in….breath out…..breath in……breath out….”

Bhetti, thank you for demonstrating you are an idiot. Just one more of them….you are in good company……as for ‘someone’…..nothing left to say.

Advocatus Diaboli October 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm
“A quick question- What can you offer a man beside sex? ”
The offer the ability of a man to have his children…and I mean HIS children….children should always be the property of the man because women make terrible single parents. Without a man to tell her what to do most women are completely useless. Evidence? The history of the world. If women did anything there would be a subject called herstory as well.

Apart from sex, women offer nothing. They know it. Which is why they deny it so strenuously. If women wanted sex as much as men we’d see equal numbers of male prostitutes as women. Women use sex as a weapon. Sad thing for ugly fat western women is, there are plenty of hot eastern chicks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 18:35

Now shut up, do something useful and make a man a sammich.
Had to laugh at that. What, not horny? You are so jaded, Globalman.

Female Masculinist, like your blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 27, 2009 at 04:25

Yes. That crap was in the cover story of Time Magazine last week, for god sakes.
Are they still bringing up that tired trash? That’s what you get for reading Time. Change your subscription to The Economist. They debunked that a long time ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Men's Rhetorical Advocate October 27, 2009 at 12:57

Very nice blog. I’ve used many similar arguments, usually resulting in the woman saying “I can’t talk to you anymore, you’re making me too upset” or “You have your opinion, I have mine, everything is subjective, and you’re a man, which makes you the enemy, so YOU’RE WRONG” or “I don’t agree with all of feminism, but I have to, because the world is against women.”

For fun, when appropriate, tell her she’s committing a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” error in reasoning. If you’ve ever seen a doggie look confused, you’ll know what i’m talking about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Prometheus October 31, 2009 at 02:20

Good post, and I look forward to reading through your blog.

It is an unfortunate truth that the vast majority of women come to the debate table with no more than a bundle of ad hominem arguments, vague, trivial, or irrelevant facts, and a slew of personal anecdotes that over-generalize and are foolishly intended to prove the rule. The female logic center is a poorly-engineered machine that takes in valid points of argument and outputs unintelligible verbal slop. It’s refreshing to see a woman – if indeed you are that – of exceptional reasoning ability. You should be held in higher esteem than your female peers when it comes to logical debate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
fainsleep November 4, 2009 at 06:04

@Advocatus Diaboli:

Wow, reading some of your comments scare me. I believe that many modern social problems are derived from the direct/indirect demonization of men. I think somewhere down the line what feminism represented skewed from equality in areas such areas like politics/voting to un-rationally calling men inherently evil. I don’t know your story or what you’ve been through, but I personally as a man do not like being demonized or called evil by birth, how is calling a woman a parasite any better? I was pretty hopeful that MRA represented the complementary union that kimberly and others mentioned. I’ve listened to many feminists in college propagating the issue that women should not marry or have kids in order to promote their selves in life and careers, or in other words families are evil bastions of male dominance. I believe this is because the argument for feminism is based on the whole conflict theory, where equality in the sense of balanced utility is moot and the real conflict is two or more opposing parties in a power struggle where those in power seek to keep it and those without it seek to take it. Therefore feminism to a feminist is the party without the power and in order to gain that power they must completely destroy/put-down/override/derail/demonize all men/masculinity/male-power/ect. The best way is to attack the families. A think that a woman without a family + bitterness + a doctirne that justifies bitterness (whether truthfully or not) yields a promotion of this form of anti-male feminism. In this regard, I can’t differentiate their views from yours. Feminism: masculinity=bad implies men are evil. You: women=parasites implies women are evil. :(

In general, at best I hope that it’s just your bitterness that I’m reading and not actual moral guidelines you live by. I personally don’t believe that the view of women as parasitic as a workable ethical theory, although there do exist many public issues regarding gender that need to be looked at from another perspective other than the dominant feminist view.

What scares me, as I stated earlier, is that your writing style and views expressed seems to me like either a bitter man who’s been through hell, or a pro-feminist propagandists who is posting in this specific comment section so people who read this article will conclude that men are just as bad in the points discussed and concluded that the issue isn’t worth looking into.

I guess I should disclaimer that these are personal views to keep from offending anyone, or in case anyone takes my beliefs or thoughts as inherently true just because it’s written somewhere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Javier November 5, 2009 at 11:02

I think I have read similar observations about forceps and music in the book “Sex and Power in History”, by Amaury de Riencourt (Delta Books, New York, 1975), a great history book drescriptive of the position of women in the most important civilizations until the present, which knock down many feminist myths with solid historical evidence. As a very politically incorrect book it has almost been ignored by editors, but I strongly recommend it to everyone interested in hearing the other version of the history, if he is able to find the little remaining copies left in internet bookstores.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rodney November 27, 2009 at 19:02

Based on this and her other posts if “Female Masculinist” is female as the name suggests, she deserves some sort of Nobel prize for “common sense”.

I love “Female Masculinist”! Mere words cannot praise her enough. Sorry I’m getting carried away. Its just that sane women are in such short supply these days.

Three billion women on this earth and one of them is sane and free of the feminazi mind control. She is mankind’s last and greatest hope, sorry, sorry, I’m getting carried away again. Its just that, well I thought they’d gone extinct.

I think we need to start up some sort of breading program, to save the species. From her we could repopulate the earth with sane women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rodney November 27, 2009 at 19:45

Oh she’s a lesbian. Knew it was too good to be true. We finally get a sane women and she’s not the breeding type. I still love her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
just curious December 21, 2009 at 14:20

Just a few questions, answers or links to posts directly addressing these would be nice
1. What is considered female liberation by people writing here?
2. What do you believe a women’s place is and what are her rights, assuming she is intellectually inferior?
3. Again, assuming women are inferior to men in most respects should they be despised by the more superior males and dominated for their own good? Or should they be dominated for the good of the males only?
4. Why should women care what you think considering they can procreate with a help of a sperm bank and support themselves and their children? I am not trying to be sarcastic with this question, we all know that this is true. But it might be a rhetoric question since you are probably not trying to communicate with women or am I wrong in assuming this?
Thanks

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 21, 2009 at 14:22

just curious,

Go be curious someplace else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
just curious December 21, 2009 at 23:45

@snide remark,
hvala na odgovoru. Tvoja sposobnost debatiranja je fenomenalna a znatiželja na razini krumpira.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Lia January 15, 2010 at 17:28

To begin with, your argument that men who are celibate or have “small dicks” are still capable of reiterating “true facts” completely misses the point of why women say it. From a psychological standpoint, many men who are intimidated by the female sex because of an incapability to overcome their anxiety and be romantically involved with one, or have inferiority/masculinity complexes due to having “small dicks” are more likely to take out their frustrations via anger and hostility toward women, belittling them in order to feel better about themselves. This is a trend in psychology which I could find the citation for in a number of studies had I the time or cared enough, but I suggest you look it up yourself before you make another pathetic attempt at responding. Speak to any number of psychologists; I’m fairly sure that they will agree.

And while it is true that before women’s lib we did frequently have the “right” to free speech, a woman was nevertheless extremely looked down upon for exercising it. Do you think that if men were belittled, ridiculed and shunned for expressing their opinions throughout history, they would have done so as frequently? The answer is that we may never know, because history did not play out that way. But odds are, they wouldn’t have, just as women frequently didn’t.

Furthmore, there is still psychological debate and ambiguity as to whether differences in math, science, and English abilities (the latter of which women are thought to be far better than men with, by the way) are innate or learned, but there is plenty of evidence toward these things being learned as there is to it being innate. The psychological jury is still out on this one, so I highly doubt that YOU are qualified to be making such assertions (I must have missed the point at which you cited your credentials for making all of these psychological assertions – Ph.D in chauvinism with a bachelor’s in biased and completely one-sided argumentation?). Also, your ONE case study is completely useless. Show me statistics. If you knew anything about psychology, statistics, or science, you’d know that your one example proves very little about gender as a whole.

Furthermore, while you are correct that men were out “breaking their backs on farmland or in mines or smithies, enduring months of malnutrition and brutality aboard trading ships, getting shot at in armies, and other such fulfilling career paths”, what you have failed to note is that, first and foremost, women frequently took part in these activities alongside their husbands on farms and certainly on trading ships, and also that these men were generally not the ones making inventions and discoveries. Scholars, explorers, doctors and scientists were, and for the vast majority of history, women were prohibited from entering these professions and thus relegated to housework. Women were also prohibited from entering universities until relatively quite recently in history, and thus the education facilitating many of those said discoveries (like the doctor you name as an “example”) was not made available to women.

And considering that our liberation has been relatively recent in human history, I daresay the female Renaissance of creativity may be forthcoming. Hold your breath for it.

As to the IQ tests, while you are correct, it is also worthwhile to note that while men do tend to score higher on the tests, it is only very slightly, by 3-5 points, as one of your “sources” notes. Furthermore, as these tests are given worldwide – meaning, in many countries where women have yet to be regularly educated or encouraged in the arts or sciences – that this miniscule difference may very well still be explained by the influence of unequal gender roles in society and misogynistic cultural beliefs. Give it another few years and I am fairly confident that the slight IQ advantage you tout will most certainly shrink.

As to the rest of your so-called “arguments”, I won’t even deign to respond, because you’re just attempting to make jokes at the expense of people who are outraged at your idiocy or citing random specific examples that have little use in actual argumentation and which you only mention because, unusual as they are, they manage to support what little you have to say. The fact that your “evidence” as to gender inequality frequently boils down to a handful of specific and unusual examples does not exactly bode well for your opinions, my dear.

So having nullified your ridiculous arguments with the abilities given me both by my innate intellectual abilities and the university education made possible for me to obtain by my womens lib predecessors, I’d just like to say on a personal note that I suggest you try and crack open a textbook on, say, history, or even preferably psychology, evolutionary anthropology or modern education practices around the world (instead of the pseudo-sources of dubious and clearly abundantly biased blogs who clearly fail to mention the abundance of research in direct opposition to your claims) before you attempt to belittle the gender to which you purportedly belong, “Female Masculinist”.

And by the way, if you truly are a female, as you claim, then I highly suggest you reconsider fueling the fires of men who only wish to belittle and control you yourself. While you’re at it with the psychology textbook, try and check out “self-defeating behaviors”. Who do you think your pandering to male misogyny is impressing? If you’ve grown to hate women because you find the vast majority of them to be less intelligent or strong-willed as you, I truly can understand where you’re coming from and feel your pain. But I feel the same way about a vast number of men as well. There’s really no need to try and put science on your side to justify your opinions, because it truly rarely is. Your logic is not really going to stand to people who actually know what they’re talking about, so please, stop trying before you embarrass yourself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
Welmer January 15, 2010 at 17:34

This is a trend in psychology which I could find the citation for in a number of studies had I the time or cared enough, but I suggest you look it up yourself before you make another pathetic attempt at responding. Speak to any number of psychologists; I’m fairly sure that they will agree.

-Lia

Typical. If you “cared enough” to find any studies, you’re “fairly sure they will agree.”

So very convincing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Qoutidian January 19, 2010 at 16:00

@ Lia,

If you are so bent on proving Female Masculinist wrong, then blogging an essay of criticism certainly will not help. You’ll have to post links for your counter-argument as well so that they are open for us to analyze just as you analyzed Female Masculinist’s piece.

And just so you know, people here aren’t unaware of happened to people in history, nor to what people forged out of history.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 19, 2010 at 16:07

‘Lia’ forgot to add the last letter to her name, the letter ‘r’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Snark January 19, 2010 at 16:21

@snide remark,
hvala na odgovoru. Tvoja sposobnost debatiranja je fenomenalna a znatiželja na razini krumpira.

Wow … add another one to ‘feminist debate tactics’ … suddenly switching to a language which your opponent doesn’t speak. LOL!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 19, 2010 at 16:22

Don’t even bother. Another feminist shrew who is simply not worth the energy because she is beyond being convinced of anything other than her own feminist orthodoxy. A waste of breath, guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mrs. Pilgrim January 21, 2010 at 08:08

You know, there are just times when I can’t resist an opportunity to dissect and destroy…

To begin with, your argument that men who are celibate or have “small dicks” are still capable of reiterating “true facts” completely misses the point of why women say it. From a psychological standpoint, many men who are intimidated by the female sex because of an incapability to overcome their anxiety and be romantically involved with one, or have inferiority/masculinity complexes due to having “small dicks” are more likely to take out their frustrations via anger and hostility toward women, belittling them in order to feel better about themselves.
Is it fair, therefore, to assume that you also accept as valid the argument that most feminists are such because they weren’t asked to the prom, are too ugly to get a date, or feel threatened by their male colleagues?

This is a trend in psychology which I could find the citation for in a number of studies had I the time or cared enough, but I suggest you look it up yourself before you make another pathetic attempt at responding.
“I’m worried enough about your arguments that I posted a short essay on why you are lacking in wisdom, but I’m not worried enough to substantiate my position. In other words, I’d prefer you just take what I say at face value, or else go do some busy work to prove my position FOR me.”

Speak to any number of psychologists; I’m fairly sure that they will agree.
And if I speak to a fair number of Word-of-Faith preachers, I’m fairly sure they’ll agree that lack of prosperity is due to one’s failure to donate more money to their ministries. If you can’t see the parallel here, I don’t know what I can do for you.

And while it is true that before women’s lib we did frequently have the “right” to free speech, a woman was nevertheless extremely looked down upon for exercising it.
Is THAT why we never heard of “Frankenstein” before the 60′s? But that point aside, proof is required for such an assertion.

Do you think that if men were belittled, ridiculed and shunned for expressing their opinions throughout history, they would have done so as frequently?
Any political or religious reformer runs that risk. In fact, why don’t you take a long look at the Bible book named “Acts of the Apostles” to see what kind of resistance men come up against–yet they speak out anyway! Are you suggesting that women are cowards by nature and require the consent and protection of men in order to speak out?

The answer is that we may never know, because history did not play out that way. But odds are, they wouldn’t have, just as women frequently didn’t.
If you believe that no man has ever experienced ferocious opposition to his expressed opinions, you have no knowledge of history.

Furthmore, there is still psychological debate and ambiguity as to whether differences in math, science, and English abilities (the latter of which women are thought to be far better than men with, by the way)…
This assertion makes me laugh because your English skills have been lacking throughout your post. For instance, prepositions do not belong at the end of a phrase.

…are innate or learned, but there is plenty of evidence toward these things being learned as there is to it being innate.
There is also plenty of evidence to support the assertion that women’s suffrage has led to the economic collapse we are witnessing today. Shall we therefore relinquish the vote?

The psychological jury is still out on this one…
If it is “innate”, then I propose to you that the primary experts on the question would be neurologists. (Either that, or you need to spend some time at this site here.)

…so I highly doubt that YOU are qualified to be making such assertions (I must have missed the point at which you cited your credentials for making all of these psychological assertions – Ph.D in chauvinism with a bachelor’s in biased and completely one-sided argumentation?).
Do you consider this to be a viable arguing tactic, or may I now publicly pronounce you a Womyn’s Studies major?

Also, your ONE case study is completely useless. Show me statistics.
Have you ever heard that phrase about pots and kettles?

If you knew anything about psychology, statistics, or science, you’d know that your one example proves very little about gender as a whole.
At least she offered SOMETHING of substance. What do you bring except bare assertions of your personal opinion and allegations that “everyone knows”?

…Continued on next post!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Mrs. Pilgrim January 21, 2010 at 08:48

Furthermore, while you are correct that men were out “breaking their backs on farmland or in mines or smithies, enduring months of malnutrition and brutality aboard trading ships, getting shot at in armies, and other such fulfilling career paths”, what you have failed to note is that, first and foremost, women frequently took part in these activities alongside their husbands on farms…
Give us proof that there was no division of labor on a farm.

…and certainly on trading ships…
Thus all the historical record of brave pir-ettes.

…and also that these men were generally not the ones making inventions and discoveries.
Overall, perhaps. But are you suggesting that sailors were never coming up with new ways to rig sails, or that farmers weren’t breeding better crops and livestock?

Scholars, explorers, doctors and scientists were…
Ah, the elitism that demands that we accept that “only dedicated scientists ever have anything to teach”!

…and for the vast majority of history, women were prohibited from entering these professions and thus relegated to housework.
Have you ever heard of a midwife?

Women were also prohibited from entering universities until relatively quite recently in history…
“Prohibited” does not mean “bloody unlikely to be accepted”. Give some legal citations.

…and thus the education facilitating many of those said discoveries (like the doctor you name as an “example”) was not made available to women.
And here we have the dogma that learning can only be had from the Anointed Priests of the Temple.

And considering that our liberation has been relatively recent in human history, I daresay the female Renaissance of creativity may be forthcoming. Hold your breath for it.
“I can’t prove it; I have no evidence for it; but I promise it’s going to happen! Just you wait!” Tell me, will it happen just before December 2o12?

As to the IQ tests, while you are correct, it is also worthwhile to note that while men do tend to score higher on the tests, it is only very slightly, by 3-5 points, as one of your “sources” notes.
Really? From the fourth link: “What is new in Lynn and Irwin’s work is that they quantify this fact, and also find a small but significant adult male advantage in average IQ.” And you claim to have superior English skills?

Furthermore, as these tests are given worldwide – meaning, in many countries where women have yet to be regularly educated or encouraged in the arts or sciences – that this miniscule difference may very well still be explained by the influence of unequal gender roles in society and misogynistic cultural beliefs.
Oh, this must be why most of the engineering majors in American colleges are male: because girls in Outbackistan aren’t getting a fair shake.

Give it another few years and I am fairly confident that the slight IQ advantage you tout will most certainly shrink.
Again, you have no basis but blind faith for your position. Pray tell why anyone should convert to your beliefs.

As to the rest of your so-called “arguments”, I won’t even deign to respond, because you’re just attempting to make jokes at the expense of people who are outraged at your idiocy or citing random specific examples that have little use in actual argumentation and which you only mention because, unusual as they are, they manage to support what little you have to say.
“Never mind that this is a post trying to explain to feminist trolls how their demonstrated favorite tactics are ineffective; you need to disprove feminism!”

The fact that your “evidence” as to gender inequality frequently boils down to a handful of specific and unusual examples does not exactly bode well for your opinions, my dear.
And what should we make of the fact that you offer absolutely ZERO proof of gender equivalency…Shnookie?

So having nullified your ridiculous arguments…
As Dogbert put it, “My queen pulls an Uzi out of her purse and slays your entire side. I win.”

with the abilities given me both by my innate intellectual abilities…
Do you hear that sound? It’s called “laughter.” I realize it’s something foreign to feminists.

…and the university education made possible for me to obtain by my womens lib predecessors…
If you’re holding yourself up as an example of the best that Women’s Lib (note the capitalization and punctuation) has produced, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

…I’d just like to say on a personal note that I suggest you try and crack open a textbook on, say, history, or even preferably psychology, evolutionary anthropology or modern education practices around the world…
So rather than using known instances and statistics, you’d prefer that FM investigate theory? (Make no mistake; psychology, evolution, and pedagogy are all studies of the as-yet unprovable and certainly unquantifiable. But hey, you’re not hurting for understanding of science.)

…(instead of the pseudo-sources of dubious and clearly abundantly biased blogs who clearly fail to mention the abundance of research in direct opposition to your claims)…
Unlike you, who cite…nothing. Clearly superior.

…before you attempt to belittle the gender to which you purportedly belong, “Female Masculinist”.
And we should look to YOU as an example of why FM has miscalculated?

And by the way, if you truly are a female, as you claim…
Do I detect the sweet savor of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?

…then I highly suggest you reconsider fueling the fires of men who only wish to belittle and control you yourself.
I thought you were against suppressing women’s expression of political opinions?

While you’re at it with the psychology textbook…
Because she’s SO going to run out and investigate your unsubstantiated emotional railings…(And nice of you to assume that she hasn’t.)

…try and check out “self-defeating behaviors”.
Like posting to complain that someone hasn’t substantiated her position sufficiently, while giving no substantiation of one’s own position?

Who do you think your pandering to male misogyny is impressing?
Conversely, whom do you think you’re impressing with your post here?

If you’ve grown to hate women because you find the vast majority of them to be less intelligent or strong-willed as you, I truly can understand where you’re coming from and feel your pain.
Why do I doubt this?

But I feel the same way about a vast number of men as well.
Now THAT I can believe. You have demonstrated that you think anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated and intellectually inferior–so naturally you hate most people.

There’s really no need to try and put science on your side to justify your opinions…
“Hey, I never offer any facts to support my arguments! Seriously, stop trying to PROVE things!”

…because it truly rarely is.
Your Womyn’s Studies textbooks tell you so!

Your logic is not really going to stand to people who actually know what they’re talking about, so please, stop trying before you embarrass yourself.
And you have proven your superior knowledge how, exactly? That point aside, why are you trying to suppress a woman’s free speech by belittling, ridiculing, and ultimately shunning FM? Talk about self-defeating behaviors…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 04:02

Mistake #5: “Women were too busy taking care of children and doing housework to invent things or discover things!”

But not too busy to watch the countless daytime programs directed primarily at them in their millions. These programs wouldn’t exist if they didn’t watch them.

Rule one in the housewifes handbook of how to appear as though you’ve been busy all day: Leave the ironing until he gets home and do it when he’s sat down watching tv. He may feel guilty and do it for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 04:15

@ms pilgrim: Research this yourself. During the industrial revolution there was a milestone in working conditions for men, women and children (at least in the UK so I’ll presume similar in the rest of the western world). Employers were forced to allow the eight hour day for women and children but men had to continue with their 12, 14 and 16 hour days. Women were more than happy to be likened to children back then. I presume this because there wasn’t a womens movement to insist that they receive the same conditions as men. No suprises there. Then as now women don’t seek equality, they seek privilege. The prime reason for this appears (at least to me) is because women wish to be rewarded for giving birth. They may not say it out loud but women believe this.

Equality, but we give birth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 04:25

Mistake 7: Feminism has been hijacking and riding the back of the civil rights movement to there own ends for decades. Playing on the REAL emotions of men to manipulate more privilege for themselves. The fact our society is steadily going down the toilet as a result of this means nothing to them. Their greed insists they ignore all evidence to their being wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 04:40

” So what kind of arguments will MRAs listen to?”

Bravo on this article. I agree. Give us FACTS. Not whining, nagging and whimpering. Or the same old female dogma we’ve heard, were duped by and now reject. We’ve heard, ” The world would be a better place if women ran it”.

Our eyes tell us that’s simply not the case. Accept you’re wrong and let men put the crap that’s occured straight again. IMO, first step is get rid of this ultra permissive society we’ve been allowed and encouraged to grow around us. Feminists need this ‘thinking’ to exist and prosper. Political correctness is the shield they hide behind. It stops the truth of facts being spoken aloud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 04:55

” Mistake #10: “You’re just too immature to handle a relationship with an independent woman!”

Not only is it incorrect it’s simply untrue. The moment a woman becomes involved in a live in relationship she becomes privileged by law, so the independance ceases to exist.

The only way a man can avoid giving her this privilege is to avoid marriage and having children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 05:25

”Give us proof that there was no division of labor on a farm.”

There’s division of labour NOW.
Recommended weight limit for lifting for males is 25kg, 18kg for females. I know women are supposed to suck at maths but surely they can see that doesn’t represent ‘equal’ measure. Even if one male and female carried the same amount of packages (unlikely because women move like sloths) the weight carried by the male would excede that of the female (just to spell it out for those like someone, incase your logic can’t perceive it).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 05:29

”the male would ‘exceed’ that of the female ”

Yet the female would expect and receive the same pay for doing less, by law.

Female equality, the scales always tip in her favour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Harrytoo February 5, 2010 at 05:35

”For fun, when appropriate, tell her she’s committing a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” error in reasoning. If you’ve ever seen a doggie look confused, you’ll know what i’m talking about.”

Very funny. If I can ever get my mouth around it and have the opportunity, I will. Think I’ll look it up first, so I know what I mean. LMAO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
time-before August 23, 2010 at 10:59

The reality is yes women have fighting tactics of all ideological backgrounds: christian women hearing a debate well call you a non -believer, or feminist man, on it goes. Fox news watchers and the right wing have score card of retorts and labels for anyone that is challenging them.
School teachers are feminists? Man were did that come from? What study says
that?
Women are crazy like men in their own right – like all humans. Seems to to me though that all the wars and religious killings – are at the hands of men. Women love to talk and well debate – that could be blessing or curse. Still feminism has risen and has changed our world and ideas without a shot being fired – no one was killed. Almost no male created ideology with significant change to society has been risen without the sword or sword taking their heads.

Anyone knows that if you so much as talk to child a human being as idiot, lacking and foolish and incapable – they will become that in part with children 100%

Still I will say this women in the feminist movement love what I call log jams in the mind – blame, shame and ridicule. They have their own form of elitism and if you don’t respond in the right way you get: You just don’t get it.” Bam! Your dismissed.

You can be called a sexist for disagreeing with them or talking anthropology ….men sexualize women – that is true, TV and the advertisement mind takers use it – and even with girls. On the other side, that men want as much sex as they can get with as many partners as they can get if they can is pretty down right tribal ancestral reality -nothing has changed their. Women have been used as barter, sold outright, set a drift in in the marriage market to sell themselves to the highest bidder. Legalized whoring is what that was. The church also like to increase its births and at the same time increase confession – power becuase men do roam.

Changing the ideas and power relationships pisses people off. That many women are tough to fight verbally is a reality that people would like them to settle and to go back to 1950′s mentality.

Now that church is screaming again in American society – it is worse. I like the fact that men want their guns in church as a right. Killing tools in the house of God but forbid a woman let her hair down, were mini skirt, hell a bikini in church – she probably be shot or close to it. As much as Christian’s think of themselves as past the Islamic barbarity – in reference to women the church has only just crawled couple of steps out of the water.

I am by no means willing to bow to them in may places – like the Christians who dislike evolution, the feminist don’t like it either – that we are animals – underneath or social graces- is unbearable….yet has history has proven, people can change become aware. Otherwise the earth would still would be flat, the earth in the center of solar system – theocracy and Aristocracy – still the rule of the day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Pk April 4, 2011 at 07:42

The problem is that very few of us here, whonagree with the article will ever publicly own up to our opinion. Everyones toobscaredbhow they will be judged by women who they eventually must mate with. I got into a lot of trouble with this myself!

This however is my bible!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Erin July 1, 2011 at 15:37

How can you think “men’s rights” are neglected when you think women are inferior to men, have not contributed to the building of society, and are not capable of one-upping them? Since men are in far more positions of power than women, and we are so innately inferior, what are you worried about? Pick up a fucking history book. Half of the things you are bitching about (chiefly child custody and alimony being biased in favor of women) changed through feminist action in response to the old laws that ensured MEN ALWAYS GOT THE CHILDREN AND WOMEN DIDN’T GET SHIT. That ensured women were LEGALLY OWNED AS PROPERTY. So you have your little issues. We. have. more. I concede that male rape needs to be treated far more seriously. However, the fact that it isn’t, is not feminism’s fault. That is patriarchy’s fault: a system built on exploitation, where women are chiefly oppressed by men, but men are also organized into castes to oppress each other. Your movement is equivalent to the poor, white people that make up neo-nazi movements thinking they need to “take back America” from other poor people, who happen to be of color. You are angry people and you are misguided in your choice of enemy. If I ever met one of you and heard you rambling about this shit, I’d deck you right in the fucking face.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
Dan Avenell September 4, 2011 at 23:29

As someone said, even polite debating is banned on most feminist websites… the reasons given are bs…

1. We are so tired of repeating our truths that banning dissenters is justifiable.

2. Anyone who comes here to debate is automatically a troll.

3. (my favourite, and is used on not-radical-feminist-enough women too) This is a rare, precious feminist space, where women many of whom have suffered abuse or been raped come to share their experiences… why would you come here and dismiss or try to discredit how they feel?

Haw!

Oh and Erin/person above me, you seem to have some anger issues there, but when were women legally owned as property? Apat from black women, like black men, who feminists love to draw analogies with, which are actually offensive to people that were actual bought and sold slaves, and often tries to ‘out-victim’ them – ‘Women were the FIRST slaves.’

This BS is why many feminists get ridiculed and their man-hate opposed & exposed (see your post, threatening violence to someone you disagree with, proving the original post correct that many women are incapable of calm rational debate and go crazy when anyone disagrees with them)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jane February 1, 2012 at 13:14

Is it so scary for a man to imagine that he might have to cook half of the dinners, wash half of the dishes, fold half of the laundry and change half of the diapers?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Brittney May 2, 2012 at 12:46

If you honestly, as a woman, think women are inferior to women, and aren’t just trying to get attention from these losers online, I really pity you. Neither gender is “superior” to the other; they’re complementary. It’s funny how much these guys complain about misandrists and “man haters” but these guys actually DO think women are inferior. I don’t know any feminists who feel that way about (all) men. So much hypocrisy….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lucy November 10, 2013 at 04:41

this is like a masterpost of every argument that has never been used by a feminist ever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kent January 25, 2014 at 16:24

This is like a masterpost of every argument that has been always used by every feminist forever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 17 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: