The Spearhead and its commenters have come under fire from the usual suspects for being too strident, uncompromising and angry, and for not behaving like obedient little boys. Of course, this is a typical political ploy — point out your opponents’ anger as proof that they are the bad guys. Never mind the fact that many, many men have every reason to be angry; that doesn’t matter. What counts is how slick you are and how reasonable you can appear, even if what you’re proposing is unconscionable. For example, it never ceased to amaze me how people such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz could dispassionately argue for war, despite the fact that it meant that tens of thousands of entirely innocent people would die. From a moral standpoint, this seems worse than some fire-breathing jingoist screaming for national revenge. There’s something about dispassionate arguments for killing that is extraordinarily creepy.
Following the shooting of Arizona Representative Giffords, the hue and cry from the left about “violent rhetoric” was deafening. It calmed down a bit when the shooter, Jared Loughner, turned out to be obsessed and likely insane, but not particularly motivated by political rhetoric. Actually, the conspiracies he ascribed to were characterized not by how emotionally compelling they were, but rather by being very odd, like him. So it wasn’t Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck who motivated Loughner to pull the trigger. No, it was something that had gone wrong in his mind, much like what motivated John Hinckley to attempt Ronald Reagan’s assassination.
But again, it didn’t really matter whether or not political opponents were responsible for Loughner’s murderous spree — the goal was to dominate the debate. And this is exactly what men are facing from feminists today. Whether or not we’ve done anything wrong, and whether or not we’ve advocated for truly atrocious things as many of our opponents have (for example Valenti’s suggestion that we get rid of presumption of innocence), we’re supposed to be ashamed and follow their rules concerning what we can and cannot express, and how we can express it.
I’d like to make a comparison to another debate that is occurring right now amongst feminists and their ideological allies. It directly concerns feminists, including one who is a registered member of Jessica Valenti’s Feministing site and a rather prominent Philadelphia-area activist. It also concerns a horrific series of crimes that are coming to light, so sensitive readers, or people who are just having a bad day might want to hit the back button on their browser and come back to finish the article only when they are in a good, confident mood. Yes, it is that bad.
William Saletan of Slate, a liberal Republican who is essentially pro-choice and has criticized the Catholic Church for alleged misogyny, recently wrote a piece about Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortionist who has been charged with murder for killing seven viable babies and one patient. In Saletan’s essay, he questions the feminists’ uncompromising position on abortion. The details of the case are disgusting. In fact, they are downright nauseating.
Because many of his patients were very late in their pregnancies, Gosnell would induce birth, delivering living, breathing babies. In one instance, a baby was left crying on a table for 20 minutes before he killed it. Gosnell ended the babies’ lives by a process he called “snipping.” This consisted of stabbing the child in the neck with scissors and severing its spine. Gosnell routinely flouted the law, fudging the reports on fetal age in order to abort babies beyond the legally-imposed 24 week limit, which is a very generous timeframe. In one documented case the child was nearly six pounds — within the normal range for a full-term birth. Gosnell made a joke about that baby boy, saying he was big enough to walk him to the bus stop.
Although investigators initially raided him for illegal prescriptions, they found a house of horrors in his clinic:
What they found, according to the report, was “filthy, deplorable, and disgusting”: Blood on the floor. The stench of urine. Cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women moaning in the waiting or revovery rooms, covered with blood-stained blankets. Broken equipment. Blocked or locked exits.
[...]
investigators found fetal bodies and body parts in garbage bags, plastic bozes and bottles at the clinic.
The grand jury report is much worse. It includes pictures, so please don’t look at it unless you have a strong stomach. From the report:
Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant – seven and a half months – when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.” Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.
Although there is room for debate amongst ordinary, decent people concerning early-term abortion and whether or not it is morally acceptable, I don’t think anyone with a conscience or a shred of decency could condone what Dr. Gosnell was doing in that Philadelphia clinic. And this is where feminists come into the picture.
In his article, Saletan highlights statements made by Steph Herold and Susan Yanow, a couple of prominent feminists who recently wrote a piece defending abortion at any time during pregnancy.
Saletan includes the following quote from the two in his article:
Women have no obligation to make a decision as soon as they possibly can. The only obligation women have is to take the time they need to make the decision that is right for them. Don’t we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Don’t we reject the anti-choice rhetoric that women make the decision to have an abortion callously? The pro-choice movement takes a step backward when we judge that a woman has taken too long to make what may be a life-changing decision. Shouldn’t we want women to take the time they need to make the best decision, regardless of where they are in the pregnancy?
The gist of the feminists’ argument comes down to the idea that women have “moral agency,” which is interpreted by feminists to mean that whatever she chooses to do with her child is a moral choice that is beyond criticism. This is really the heart of feminist ideology: anything a woman wants, at any time, is “moral.”
From Steph Herold and Susan Yanow’s response to Saletan:
When leaders in the pro-choice movement start to speculate about restricting abortion rights to appease the anti-choice movement, they have lost sight of what the pro-choice movement is about: respecting women as moral decision makers.
[...]
An early choice to end an unwanted pregnancy, while medically easier and to some more politically palatable is not necessarily a better or more moral choice. Women deserve to have all the time they need in order to make the best pregnancy decision for themselves and for their families, even if this means having a later abortion.
[...]
The only obligation women have is to take the time they need to make the decision that is right for them. Don’t we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an unwanted pregnancy?
After looking at the grand jury report, which was so bad that I don’t think I’ll be able to eat for hours, it’s surreal to see these feminists arguing that killing viable infants at a late stage of pregnancy is “moral.” But this is exactly what they are doing. They may call it “abortion,” but when you kill a squirming, crying baby with a pair of scissors, that’s murder.
Yes, these feminists are openly condoning murder, and calling it a “moral choice.” Not only murder as in “in my opinion, it’s murder,” but murder as in you will do time in prison for it today, decades after Roe v. Wade.
Given this fact, how far would we have to go at The Spearhead to match their own rhetoric? Well, if you’re going to compare apples to apples, I suppose I’d have to write an essay stating that men, having human rights like women, are “moral decision makers,” and if they want to blow a feminist’s head off with a shotgun they are simply making a “moral choice” that we ought to honor. And if, after performing this procedure, they chose to freeze her corpse in a water cooler, who am I to judge?
Of course, we never go that far at The Spearhead. I draw the line when it comes to killing or maiming people. But does that stop the feminists? Of course not. How could you expect people who count enthusiastic and outspoken supporters of murder among their ranks to exercise any restraint or fight fair? The thing is, they will do and say whatever they can in an effort to shut us up, so they can escalate their own rhetoric and promote their plans without any opposition. They’ve already done away with constitutional due process through abuse of restraining orders and DV laws, millions of men have been ruined through no fault of their own, children are deprived of fathers en masse, and now they’re supporting baby killing. I’m convinced that the next thing they will push for is outright slavery — there’s already a good deal of support amongst feminists for putting fathers who are in arrears on child support in penal labor camps.
It is precisely for this reason that toning down our rhetoric is the last thing we should worry about. Our opponents’ concept of morality simply isn’t the same as ours. To them, objective morality does not exist, and we’d have to abandon it as well were we to play by their rules. In other words, if we were reasonable and “understanding” toward them, we’d be their accomplices.
At this point, given what feminists have done and how much farther they want to take things, we would be making a grave mistake in compromising with them or giving any ground at all — this is not the time for appeasement. If anything, we need to turn up the volume and fight them all the harder. It is the moral thing to do.
{ 190 comments… read them below or add one }
Isaiah 57
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
17
Good piece, Mr. Price.
I’ve been considering touching on the topic of rhetoric myself. One problem I see is that the readership of The Spearhead doesn’t like to be told what a “real man” is but is very quick to “take away manhood” so to speak from targets they label “manginas” and “white knights.” I’m not defending manginas or white knights; merely pointing out the intellectual inconsistency that occurs when you shame a man you don’t like if your only criterion for “real” manhood is having a penis.
I’m sure I’ll get downvotes for this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
38
“Given this fact, how far would we have to go at The Spearhead to match their own rhetoric?”
This is a brilliant post — maybe my favorite of all your posts — very, very well written. It should be cut out and pasted on every refrigerator in every home of every person of good will.
Trying to justify the murders of human beings (i.e., people who’d already been born) by hiding behind the cliches of abortion advocacy demonstrates not only that these folks are morally bankrupt, but flat-out stupid.
My guess is that it’s not the tone of our rhetoric that bothers these people. It’s the fact that finally, and at long last, there are powerful and popular voices that credibly refute their extremism. For too long, their inanity went unchallenged.
I agree: time to turn up the volume. That’s what I’m doing at False Rape Society.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
69 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
42
My Rhetoric is, since I had it house-trained, extremely tame. It is quite obedient and is now the perfect house-pet. Guaranteed not to upset any visiting Spinster or Mangina. I cannot say the same however of my Cat-Egorical Imperative, which continues to upset guests by pointing out that whereas they claim to wear the finest raiment (bought at that mix and match boutique going by the name of Cultural Marx – but not Spencer – how trendy!) they are in fact threadbare if not entirely naked.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
4
I agree. Rhetoric is a weapon, and we must choose our weapons carefully if they are to bring us victory.
With this in mind, we should use rhetoric that is highly targeted and destructive to our opponents. We should seek to discredit them, and to damage them personally, professionally and politically.
On the other hand, we should refrain from the type of unfocused woman-bashing that often surfaces in MRA discussions. This causes too much collateral damage, which ultimately is damaging to our cause. In order to win this battle, we will need some female allies – not the majority of women perhaps, but a well motivated minority.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
15
Thnaks, Pierce. And I should say that you’re doing a damn good job of it.
“I’m convinced that the next thing they will push for is outright slavery — there’s already a good deal of support amongst feminists for putting fathers who are in arrears on child support in penal labor camps. ”
All too true. Why wouldn’t they, considering they are killing the most innocent lives. Considering they are throwing fathers into debtor’s prison and committing other human rights abuses against them.
Brilliant article. All too often, we are too polite with rude, aggressive women who believe that murder is a moral choice. Tasers and guns are probably just around the corner in the feminist arsenal.
As far as I’m concerned, if the feminists are angry or annoyed at us, or nervous, we must be doing something right.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
3
Dr Kermit Gosnell
Dr Kermit Gosnell
Dr Kermit Gosnell
Remember that name for future debates. Remember that this ‘creature’ is what we are fighting. All issues of women’s right to choose are irrelevant when this is occurring. Women have the right to choose, but also have a DUTY to ensure this right is exercised according to law, and human morality.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
J. Durden
Nah, I think youll find most mature members of the MRM are open to constructive criticism.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
85
Sen. Rick Santorum – “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?”
Senator Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?”
Senator Boxer: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
She couldn’t simply say “yes”. Why? Because Boxer, like most feminists, believes that a mother should be able to kill their child whenever they want. That’s why when mothers drown their kids in tubs or lakes, feminists come far and wide to defend the mother. “Sending the mother to jail would be inhumane” they say.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
77 
4
Not in the Gosnell case. And even if they were it wouldn’t matter; the feminists insist that all choices to terminate, regardless of circumstance, are “moral.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
84
These feminists are attempting to construct quite an interesting realm. They claim that it is a moral necessity to give women as much time as they need to determine whether or not to keep a pregnancy, yet the line has to be drawn somewhere. For pro-lifers, the line is conception and for pro-choice, it used to be birth. No matter where the proverbial line is set, it can and will always be argued that it is arbitrary. Case in point, the pro-choice feminists argue that the actions of the physician slaying a crying newborn are justifiable. In reality, society needs consistency. What is preventing feminists from claiming that women should have the moral choice of leaving their children post birth since that pregnancy might have been “unwanted”? Obviously it is a stretch to any well adjusted person, but following the feminists’ train of thought, it would not be a logical leap of faith. It may be callous and stereotypical, but why should society afford women all the time in the world to make a decision, when they did not take the time to consider the ramifications of the actions that put them in that situation in the first place? This case perfectly highlights the underlying motivation of feminists, which is; women must always have the flexibility to change their minds without any consequences.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
1
Women & manginas will invent whatever reason they need to shame men, regardless of the reality on the ground.
Many astute Spearhead commenters have pointed out that women routinely accuse nice guys of “only being nice in order to get laid.” They will then turn around and sleep with assholes, rationalizing their behavior thusly “He is strong, confident, and knows what he wants.”
So, let’s expand that picture.
1. Women (and manginas) across the country berate masculinity. “All men are pigs.”
2. Women (and manginas) do everything they can to break the kneecaps of the average man.
3. Women claim to want the “new age” touchy-feely emotive man.
4. When a man is “new age” women accuse him of “just trying to get laid.”
5. Women throw themselves at men who are the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim to want.
6. When the alpha thugs and assholes break their hearts, women use that as evidence that “All men are pigs.” Go back to step 1.
Therefore, I really don’t think we should even pay attention to what women think of us. They’re going to think whatever they want, regardless of what we do. God knows they’re never going to be able to rationally refute our arguments.
With that said, I would suggest that we avoid language that advocates violence. Not because I think its evil, but because I think violence is the last resort of weak minds. BTW I apply that opinion to any group that advocates violence, not just men.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
10
The usual suspects surely have no problem with the slogan “Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History”. Yet they demand that men be “well behaved”, for some reason or other. So this is just another example of the feminist double standard. Actually, it’s a single standard: “Women Good, Men Bad”. Except this latest round actually exposes the real feminist standard: “Women First, Babies, Children, Men And Anyone Else Just In The Way”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
3
“A Child Is Not A Choice”. For once, a simplistic bumper-sticker slogan aptly touts a counter argument to this mindless support of abortion at any cost. This particular abortion case is merely the ultimate logical outcome of out-of-control feminism/progressivism. For years I’ve said, “fine ladies, you want a late-term abortion so badly? Then let’s just induce birth, and we’ll hand you a black garbage bag and you can just chuck the child (oh, excuse me, fetus, if that makes you feel better) in there and suffocate and dispose of it at the same time! But I guess that is one step too far – the abortionist is still required to provide just enough distance from the act of killing that the women can always later state that they “didn’t really mean it”, or didn’t fully realize what they were doing, like you can outsource moral and ethical obligations so easily.
As for the topic of rhetoric, I think we are losing sight of the forest if we implicitly assume there is some “gold standard” of terminology that will be universally effective while simultaneously inoffensive enough for people we don’t want to piss off. The fact is, people are persuaded by different things. Yes, logic is universal, and fact is independent from perception, but at the end of the day emotion – even for men – is a big factor when it comes to persuasion and passionate committment to a cause. I think a chorus of voices, if not a cacophony of them, with multiple parts will in the long run be more effective than a unified, ‘party-line’, on-point message.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
48
Thats a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying peppered with appeals to emotion, and of course the obligatory charge of being a mangina!
“Well Behaved Men Seldom Make History”.
That’s reality. Deal with it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
5
Lara, putting aside how one might feel about abortion, these were no more “late term abortions” than was the Lincoln assassination.
You would do well to find a thread on another site that is actually discussing abortion so you can vent. The Grand Jury Report wasn’t about abortion. If the Grand Jury Report is true, there were multiple times more murders here than occurred in the Arizona rampage.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
I perhaps should add that this difficulty (what one unfortunate commenter invariably refers to as “disciplined” rhetoric) was inevitable. Any writer or speaker/debater must first follow the dictum: know your audience. Then craft your prose accordingly. The question then is: who is our audience? And that is the problem with the internet; widely accessible, indiscriminate, anonymous, constantly in flux, how do you cater the message to the “right” listener/reader? Currently, the targets are so numerous and large that the arrows don’t have to be aimed that well, IMO – you’re bound to hit something – but that may one day soon change. I don’t have an answer to this dilemma, but would love to hear any proposed solutions.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
42
These murderous women who went in to have their babies killed should be charged with murder and treated as cold-blooded killers along with the doc, but all I hear from the media is “vulnerable women” this and “victimized patients” that. It’s infuriating to witness just how Orwellian and pc the media stations like CNN have become in their quest to remove any and all accountability of women from their crimes.
And to those who say these women didn’t know late-term abortions were illegal, I ask you since when has ignorance of the law been an excuse for murder or any other crime? The banana boat legal system is even less credible than Stalin’s show trials for gulag-bound political enemies and the Orwellian feminist media. Every time I turn on CNN I see the SAME Philadelphia DA throwing every invective and slur he can towards the doc and yet going to pains to describe the murderous cunts who went in to have their babies murdered as “patients” and “vulnerable victims”. Either charge them all with murder or don’t charge anyone, fuck the legal, cultural and social hypocrisy that flies over the heads of so many.
The women who went in to have their fully gestated babies exterminated by this man should not be called “patients” and treated as victims, but rather they should be known for what they are, “accomplice to child murder”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
6
The only living things that deserve deliberate, slow death are criminals.
Even enemies deserve a swift death.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
21
Men have a long, long, VERY long way to go to match women’s rhetoric of hate.
I will serve only two instances, from among an almost unlimited number of instances:
1-Try to match the SCUM manifesto if you have the heart to do it. See if there is enough hatred in you to produce such a text.
2-Match the all too well known feminist credo: “All men must die”.
See if you can muster enough hate to come up with such horror. We are no match against women when it comes to hate.
And then they say we have to tone down? What would make those harpies happy?
(don’t tell me: I know: men’s collective suicide is one of their hottest dreams)
Even the most violent men rhetoric is no match against the female hatred for the opposite sex.
The black widow has been left in the dust. Women have reached the summit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
6
If Kanye West can say “George Bush HATES Black People!” and get only high praise from his liberal media propagandist allies, it follows that the MSM wanted to further motivate their audience to echo his sentiment – and promote a desired reaction.
Words are what motivate people to ACT.
Feminism is just ONE component of Liberalism; all components of Liberalism must be eradicated or the result will be the same as leaving several vials of Smallpox virus to re-propagate.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
14
Not to mention these that they’ve already done away with …
Equal Protection – Part of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Indentured Servitude – Part of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Fathers know all to well how Family Courts routinely disregard (or, at best, skirt) these fundamental rights. In fact, one can say that slavery is alive and well when it comes to ignoring indentured servitude as it applies to child support. Lose your job and have a support order? You better find some other way to bring in the money or risk going to prison. And the mother? She can take a job with a pay increase, decrease, or even have no job at all and not have to worry about accountability (just as long as she doesn’t physically abuse or kill the child). So much for equal protection.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
2
What a strange post from Mr Price. It begins by asking me to tone down my Rhetoric and then tells me that the women in the Saletan case justify murder of a child that has been born alive, on the sort of ground that even a Gorgias (see Plato) would never have even contemplated using.
Such ‘rhetoric’ only persuades me (and it seems to be getting worse) that women as a species are creatures lacking (by Male standards) in any morals, (as it is all about them, other people being seen as n0 more than objects).
I am reminded that Philosophers like Montaigne, Hume and Smith were at pains to point out that what we see as morality is often no more than culture; that where one society approves of one thing and hates another, another does the opposite, but where in our advanced western civilised post-slavery society did any one previously ever attempt to justify the murder of a child (and on such utterly spurious reasoning too)?
Is this message the sort of rhetoric that he is concerned about. I just call it as I see it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
19
These people fight tooth and nail to keep their god-damned choice (I use that term literally):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/08/david-cameron-interview-abortion-limit
With advances in medical technology, many many babies are viable at 24 weeks:
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/a/prematurebirth.htm
Killing a baby later than 20 weeks is exactly that: killing a baby. Not abortion; murder. Even if you agree that women have the right to abort unviable foetuses, I absolutely fail to see how that can be extended to babies that no longer need their mother’s life support systems. That these feminists have no qualms about baby killing tells me everything I need to know about them.
I wonder how abortionists who ‘abort’ 23 or 24 week old babies can live with themselves. I suspect that many are psychopathic to be honest, as anyone with empathy would be hard pressed to kill a baby in cold blood.
As to the broader point, and in response to Eoghan: you’re a mangina not because of a difference in opinion, but because you’re afraid to say the things you claim to believe in. You’re also pushing other men to not say what they believe in because ‘it might look bad’. Whichever way you want to rationalise it to yourself, this is unmanly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
3
In Western society, women already possess the right to murder their own children under the flawed and supremacist cultural belief of “what she brought into this world she can also take out”
A child is liable to be murdered by his mother all the way up to the age of 5, during which time no other consequence but a charge of infanticide will be leveled at the mother with the expected slap on the wrist (a few years of probation) as punishment.
Women are honored with the title of “mother” simply for having a uterus and giving birth. It has no bearing on whether they are actually loving parents or child abusers/murderers who drown their children in bath tubs or go out partying while their child is left to fend for himself, or she brings home thuggish boyfriend-of-the-month, or she spends her child support payments on all you can eat buffets or shop till you drop sprees as her entitlement mentality dictates instead of actually living up to the duties and sacrifices which define an actual “mother”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
4
Yep the volume needs to be turned up.
Most of my ideas are not new, I have been reading sites like this for at least 15 years and posting for two, but I have the conviction of my ideas being that I have entered the feminist gauntlet, family court, with eyes wide open, came face to face with the enemy, and won. My convictions are drawn from hard won experience.
You cannot make an omlette without breaking eggs.
Price, excellent position paper, great choice of timing. I will never forget the Dr. Mengela of feminism, Dr. Kermit Gosnal.
If you look at it that way, in some ways feminists are worse than the Nazi’s. At least, when confronted with their atrocities, the Germans repudiated Mengela and his tactics.
The feminists seem, to a woman to support Gosnal.
One more thing, a poster above mentioned that feminists think they can kill babies right up until birth. That is untrue as the above quote from Sen Boxer indicates.
Feminists want the right to infanticide and this should extend to when the children are under age 12 as evidenced by their support for Susan Smith, Andrea Yeats and other child murderers.
Even the nanny who shock the baby to death in Boston got no jail time.
They cheered for thet mutilation of men, Lorena Bobitt and we said nothing. Then they killed their kids for a date with an Alpha, and we said nothing, Susan Smith.
Now we have discoverd they have child murder mills, will we remain silent, I will not.
We, as men have a moral responsiblity to our children and society to stand up to this or, as Price says, we are enablers and just as guilty, IMO.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
4
To answer the question in the title: No
Be honest, uncompromising, straight-forward and resolute. Sometimes this means getting passionate about what you believe in, and in this particular movement that is often the case.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
According to the National Enquirer, they were all the result of the women being abducted and raped by aliens.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
6
@J Durden:
The Spearhead doesn’t like to be told what a “real man” is but is very quick to “take away manhood” so to speak from targets they label “manginas” and “white knights.”
I agree – those terms are male-bashing. Nothing less. It is hard to listen to people talk about shaming language when they themselves use it.
I also love the “alpha-male-bashing” I find on some of these sites too.
Cause we all know that alpha males like the Duke Lacrosse Players, John Cleese, Tiger Woods – have all that “power”… And exercise it to give their wives 25,000 a month for the rest of their lives – and don’t get the kids either just like the …rest…of – … us? er uh wait….
When I hear that – It reminds me of sociology101 – and how the women professors tried to convince me that all the problems in the world were the result of a handful of men called “patriarchy” (i.e. alpha males).
Thumb it down brothers.
I’ll keep sticking up for my fellow man regardless…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
6
Should Men Tame Their Rhetoric?
-No, of course not.
Those feminist lapdogs, aka Manginas are often “manly men” following the traditional man-code of defending women and opposing men’s rights.
Why does The Spearhead give a voice to these manly manginas that oppose men’s rights?
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
18
@ Gunn
I’m amazed the family planning “charities” get to call themselves that. And the Guardian seemed happy to use an unflattering picture of the poor guy.
Rhetoric regarding abortion, I think, must always be directed at a third party. The pro-choicer arguging will never, ever consider the infant to be anything other than a lump of cells. Some will see babies as nothing but a lump of cells even years after birth. Certinaly some will see children as nothing more than bargaining chips in a divorce.
Leaving early-term abortions aside, when it comes to late-term abortion, the only rhetoric that can win is rhetoric which reveals the late-term supporter for the sociopathic monster they are. Reveal it to a third party, make them back their own words up. Look at the Barbara Boxer example given above, where she cannot even say that a child which has been born is a child.
Early-term abortion supporters can be reasonable, normal people – even if I think they are grossly deluded. But late-term uspporters must be drawn into public and made to reveal themselves as monsters. If that means toning down the rhetoric, or toning it up, so be it. Adjust rhetoric to draw the beast squirming into the daylight.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
@ Simper
I do not think that women use the reason, what I brought into the world I take out ( a frequent saying my father would use when “disciplining” us as kids). That is a male way to think.
In looking into the writings of women from the 1800′s I see that women think they are truely more moral than men and this moral superiority occurs as a result of them being female.
The truely think that men are the cause of wars. Feminists today are motivated to remove all males from decision making positions because they do not trust a male human being to have any shred of morality.
I believe this is pure projection. We have given them a century of unchecked power. This has been the most violent century in human history and now they want to kill the children.
It is time to say……NO.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
5
I agree. Turn up the volume.
Send letters of encouragement to Dominic Raab! We finally have someone in political office who recognizes misandry to the full extent of the evil that it is.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
2
Eugenics isn’t that terribly complicated of a subject….except for a person who is trying to defend it morally.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
4
@ Herbal Essence:
I think we do need to pay attention to what some women think of us. Men are a minority in a democracy, and MRAs are a subset of men. We need some female supporters if we are going to be successful.
I don’t think we should take violence completely off the table. We are descendants of men who fought, killed, and died to secure their independence and liberty. If things come to the worst, we may have to do it again.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
12
The issue of late-term abortions will, before long, be seen as the genocide that it is.
That feminists refuse to distinguish between early and late term shows what their next step will be : they will lobby for the right of a mother to kill a 1-year-old baby.
Wait for this ‘right’ to be pushed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
39
@zed
Damn, the “rape culture” has gone intergalactic.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
Here is a good bumper sticker :
‘Pro Choice’ = Me, Me, Me, ME!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
3
UK feminists go on the offensive, asking for “men’s say on sexism”, but what they really mean is sexism against women only. It’s all an attempt to discredit Dominic Raab and other men who are tired of being discriminated against:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/26/sexism-andy-gray-richard-keys
My response:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
4
@Lara
“I wonder if these late term abortions are on babies that have been diagnosed with things like Down Syndrome.”
More precisly, those babies have been diagnosed as an Inconvenience for the mother syndrome. A baby cannot be more guilty than that.
Women have raised themselves up to the status of goddesses. They have built a huge pedestal for themselves and now they are lost in rapture of the contemplation of their own image. I like to call that “Self worshipping”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
6
Eoghan, you don’t actually seem to explain anything.
Your postings alternate between whining, “you guys are mean and don’t understand me” ; and bullying, “you guys are gonna get us all in trouble with teh wimmenz”.
But what you do not do is, in a clear, concise manner, actually explain what it is that you are trying to persuade the rest of us to do. Since it isn’t clear what you want, beyond some vague notion of “rhetorical discipline” (a term that so far as I can tell you will not define), each man reads into your text what he sees, based upon his own life experience.
If you are truly attempting to communicate, then do so. Lay out in simple, short, unambiguous sentences what “rhetorical discipline” actually means. Provide clear, easy to read examples of text that fits “rhetorical discipline”, and other examples that do not. Flitting around threads posting whining posts is not going to cut the mustard.
If you won’t do this, then one logical conclusion is that you are actually just what Zed said, a concern troll. Other men have already written you off as merely another version of Futrelle. I’ll give you a chance. Not an infinite supply of chances, but a chance. I close with something that I have said to feminists off and on for years:
If you wish to be taken seriously, then act like a serious person.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
I can’t even comprehend how evil a person must be to support late term abortion. A very good friend of mine gave birth to her daughter at twenty four weeks due to pregnancy complications. Her little girl had a rough time of it at first and spent several months in the NICU but is a thriving four year old today. My own daughter arrived several months after her and was also a preemie having been born at thirty five weeks. It’s very disturbing to realize one of the murdered babies mentioned above was a mere five weeks younger than my daughter when she was born. Micro-preemies and preemies do live and thrive despite their early arrivals. How our society can justify killing these children is beyond my understanding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
And don’t expect the medical community in the US to stand up for these murdered children.
When Palin was running, every female physician I know had exactly the sam opinion: She was irresponsible for bringing a Downs Syndrome baby into the world.
I was raised around children with severe birth defects and mental retardation. They are people too. They have feelings, joy, sadness.
So where does the eugenics stop? I am more convinced daily that we are fighting an evil the likes of which the world has never seen. This evil is about to be unleashed on a world wide scale.
We have a chance to stop horrors we cannot yet imagine. If we have the courage to confront it.
History will judge us poorly if we do not.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
In recollection of the 1970s, before abortion in Canada was considered ‘legal’, I attended a series of public events and meetings at a local university. These were the days long before evidences refuting feminist ideals were collected and publicly disseminated.
But, still, the feminist agenda was funded by the federal government, even in those early days. Pierre Trudeau, the Prime Minister of that time, being one of the Liberal globalist elite, saw to it that feminist ideas were to be mainstreamed. He, the PM, even made ‘women’s rights’ a campaign style slogan (remember the “Why Not?” buttons, you older fellow Canukians?) And, that it was, as we came to see for ourselves feminist encroachment onto society over the years.
Anyway, at the time, this particular university hosted a series of public events so non-academics could participate in the post-secondary environment. This particular year’s theme was feminism. Even Gloria Steinem, that useful agent of globalist inspired social change, appeared as a guest speaker.
During one abortion seminar, one woman, then appearing in her late 40s, spoke to the audience of impressionable young people about her 7 ( yes, 7) backroom coat-hanger abortions administered by some kindly mid-wife type of individual or more. The speaker, relaying embellished stories or not, spoke of the need to ‘de-criminalize’ or morally sanction safer sanitized abortion procedures. The main rallying cry of the speaker, regardless of whether she was a plant or not, was to project the need to eliminate the unsanitary dangerous nasty coat-hanger back-room abortion procedure from pregnant teens or older females. That got audience attention. And sympathy.
Now, today, it appears that the abortion option has become an industry, of sorts. And, has spawned spin-off industries, as well (umbilical cords, prepuses, for medical purposes, for ex.).
Gone, perhaps, is the hushed environment of the filthy, dangerous, coat -hanger probing style of back-room abortion method. Abortions are procured in safer environments, protecting, to a degree, the health of young women. Only for that alone, the health of the mother, has murdering innocent pre-born children progressed. In light of that, yes, our culture has progressed (inched forward) toward an abyss.
Maybe one way to limit the amount of annual abortions is to criminalize the men who administer the assisted murder of pre-born humans. Isn’t it mostly men who administer aborted fetuses? Take away the men who perform these procedures and perhaps there will be few others who will murder pre-born infants.
It appears that once again, it is men who are doing the dirty work for women. Let female physicians murder infants for the sisterhood. Then criminalize them too. They’re equal under the law now. They asked for it.
And no, I’m not going to tone down the manner of delivery of expression. Abortions are nasty affairs as are other morally repugnant inconsistencies. No amount of polite talk will make these less so. Meet the unconscionable with the full spectrum of direct speech. This may also have to include purposeful anger as one means of pointing out error and especially if not many apear to be listening.
(As men, we are viewed as the ones to reap the consequences of other peoples’ sense of irresponsibility. We don’t have to controlled by what other people think for us yet we can also be aware of how we come across to others. In striking a balance, we have to be aware of when it is the other person who has the perception problem or whether we are creating one for ourselves. In review, I’m confident that many of the commentators here are keen enough to know the difference).
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
One more thought, pro-abortion feminists can’t even be bothered to tame their rhetoric out of compassion when a woman has had a miscarriage. I’ve unfortunately had several pregnancy losses and the last one happened during my second trimester. Hours after the traumatic event, during which I saw our dead baby, a female OB/GYN actually had the nerve to correct me when I said “baby”. She said that what I saw wasn’t a baby but the “products of conception”. This was a baby whose little heart I had seen beating on an ultrasound, whose kicks I had felt in the weeks before he died, and who had left painfully and unexpectedly early that very morning.
Similar experiences have been shared by numerous parents who has lost a baby through miscarriage or stillbirth. This cruelty is sadly very common. I hesitated to share such a personal anecdote but the point illustrated by such experiences needs to be highlighted. There exist doctors and medical professionals so cruel and malicious that they don’t even allow their patients to call their dead children whatever they want to. They don’t respect their need to grieve or the horrible experiences they have just lived through. The mantra of “my body, my choice” does not apply when the ownership of one’s body or what one’s body has done may harm the almighty feminist sacrament of abortion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
38
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
36
Jessica Reed responded to my e-mail with the following:
My reply:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
Meistergedanken: “I think a chorus of voices, if not a cacophony of them, with multiple parts will in the long run be more effective than a unified, ‘party-line’, on-point message.”
Good point, and something I (and likely others) are going to be contributing in the not so distant future: the co-ordination of our movement into concrete ‘demands’ or principles. Will be useful in providing focus as well as keeping opponents on the defensive. But you are also right, in that it shouldn’t hobble the MRM which is full of very sharp minds who will be pushing the movement in new and better directions.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
There is no reason to tone down the rhetoric. No matter what we say our enemies will still claim we’re violent and angry. Or they will say we have small penises or are bitter about not getting laid or that we’re sexual degenerates. Nothing will change their minds so why bother? Speak up instead.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
4
You think that I haven’t explained my position because the ideological blinkers have told you what my position is, twenty different versions of “you’re just afraid of strong independent women” from twenty different people here doesn’t make it true, it just means that you are all responding by repeating the same ideological mantra, but I don’t think that you realise that’s what you are doing here.
That’s not what I asked you to do. I did not ask for self-righteous indignation or whining. I asked you to clearly explain, in simple sentences, what it is that you want. Start by defining your term “rhetorical discipline”. Then give an example of text that has the property of rhetorical discipline.
If you are truly attempting to persuade, if you are as skilled a writer as you imply, then it should be very easy for you to define your term, and provide an example of it.
PS: If you want to be taken seriously, act like a serious person. Run-on sentences are to be avoided, if you really want to communicate.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
J Durden wrote:
“One problem I see is that the readership of The Spearhead doesn’t like to be told what a “real man” is but is very quick to “take away manhood” so to speak from targets they label “manginas” and “white knights.”…merely pointing out the intellectual inconsistency that occurs when you shame a man you don’t like…”
‘take away manhood”intellectual inconsistency’? ‘shame a man’??? ‘What are you talking about? The MRAs here speak openly and with honesty criticizing and finding fault with a white-knight/mangina’s behavior and actions and that is your ‘feelings’ about what is going on? Take your midol.
Those knights and mangina serfs are essentially making society worse since they are rewarding the bad behavior of feminists with even more chivalry and appeasement.
Rule 1: Do not appease or keep giving away one’s rights and property to an enemy that is sworn to oppress or destroy you.
Rule 2: Paraphrasing an old teaching; ‘when one is kind to the cruel then one is being cruel to the kind’.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
5
Hestia, it is truly horrible and grotesque that a woman who has suffered a miscarriage should have her vocabulary corrected at such a moment, in such a heartless manner. It seems to me that the nurse in this case was so rigidly ideological that perhaps she said those things just reflexively, without even thinking at all.
Which is in and of itself a very alarming thing. Because it indicates a nurse who puts ideology above basic human decency. That kind of mental rigidity, coupled with the intentional dehumanization of the dead child being mourned, leaves me wondering who else the nurse would be willing to regard as a mere “thing”.
At the risk of some noob invoking Godwin’s law, that nurse seems like someone who could have served Mengele, and willingly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
@ Anonymous
Hestia said it was here femi-cook doctor, her, OB-GYN, you know the field currently being completely feminized, who said this.
This makes it, to me, 100 times worse.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Another trick :
Always use the word ‘misogynists’ in quotes in order to correctly delegitimize it. That word is more misused/overused than the word ‘racist’ ever was.
Also, either put the word ‘feminist’ in quotes, or replace it with the more accurate misandrist. Let’s start calling misandrists, as misandrist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
I’m telling ya, globalization also corrects some of the worst excesses of ‘feminism’.
Rest assured that most of the rest of the world outside the lefty West would find the notion of late-term abortion to be nothing less than a murder. A cruel atrocity.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
And here is Slates latest on moral relativism, they invoke Teresa Lewis found guilty of hiring hit men to kill her husband and step son and now awaiting execution .
http://www.slate.com/id/2268200?wpisrc=obinsite
It’s astounding. They clearly are implying that a woman who had her husband and step son killed by contract killers should get clemency, they don’t say it out right, but the tone is unmistakeable.
Then they go on to justify the unjustfyable, how is it that the women who hired Dr. Mengele Gosnell to kill their children are not just as guilty as Teresa Lewis.
Frankly, from my reading of it, they made the case that these women are just as guilty.
That we don’t hold them as guilty and punishable as Teresa Lewis says more about our society than anything else.
Societies are judged on how they treat the most needy and fragile: Children.
The more I learn the more I fear we are living in an amoral society worse than any described in written history.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
49
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
54
@SingleDad & Anonymous Reader- At first I assumed this was some weird isolated experience, especially considering my age. Being a very young wife and mother I had grown accustomed to being treated poorly by medical professionals at that point and was a few days shy of turning 22 when this incident happened. However, once I began to reach out for support on several online communities and IRL at a support group, I was stunned to learn that this treatment was not uncommon at all and had absolutely nothing to do with my age.
The lack of sensitivity is disturbing but more so if how wedded to ideology these doctors and nurses appear to be. Here are professionals who are supposed to help bring babies into this world yet they care so little for the unborn. It really opens the door to many troubling questions. Does this adversely impact the care a preemie might receive? What about a mother presenting with signs of premature labor, PPROM, or the assortment of other complications that may arise? Can people who don’t believe the baby is a living child really be trusted to make the best calls?
But more than that I think my experience and that of so many other people (both women and men for these issues impact fathers as well) highlight a grave concern so many of us have with feminist ideology. By this I mean what sort of evil is bred by a worldview that has so little regard for the most vulnerable among us and one that is clung to so dogmatically, even in the face of great pain that should bring about empathy in a sane individual. Where is the point reached between disregard for the lives of unborn children and completely dis-valuing all life? We all know what feminists say about men and know all to well how some of the most radical will go so far as to ask if men are necessary at all. Just rhetoric? In light of my experiences of the darkness and evil of pro-abort women I’d say not.
I won’t tone down my words and rhetoric until this evil no longer exists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
4
The most offensive comment I’ve ever seen on this site was this:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=658&#p5803
That’s very tame compared to the stuff you regularly see on Jezebel.com, for example (Roissy and Roosh should be castrated for their writings, all Congolese men should have their dicks cut off etc.). In fact, Globalman isn’t actually using passionate, angry rethoric. His statement sounds kind of monstrous, but reverse the sexes and you’ll find that such a comment wouldn’t raise many eyebrows on a feminist site. Mary Daly has said much worse things about men. Was she excommunicated from polite society? No.
Globalman’s attitude towards female children who’d grow up to be feminazi bitches is the same as that of feminists towards unwanted children: their death is no loss, for they’d become a liability. Therefore feminists have no right to complain about such logic.
Or look at this comment to the same column from Rebel:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=658&#p5819
He’s offensive and somewhat generalizing but I think about his statements and I cannot dispute that he’s partially true. Feminists, on the other hand, routinely use rethoric that is not only much more outrageous but is also untrue and has zero factual basis.
Feminists have the same attitude towards anti-feminist men, unwanted children and political opponents as the Khmer Rouge had towards their class enemies: “To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.” That’s what they believe in, and that’s exactly the attitude they deserve in return.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
5
@ Höllenhund
And this is the reason I raise the question, what is next? If we could have stopped the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t we have? I honestly don’t know. Our society is so f’d up I really don’t know anymore.
But I think most here would. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t see a group of caring men and women really out to stop the feminist juggernaught I would not be here.
I agree, women have for generations seen men as less than human so why not take the next step? They kill their own children and brag about it, have parties to celebrate it, why not just get rid of the male problem once and for all?
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
They still need to keep a few men around to kill the rest, and adult men have this nasty habit of fighting back – unlike babies, who can’t.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
3
About abortion parties:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/141140/my_first_abortion_party/
Sick
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
The sweeping social and demographic changes following Roe v. Wade have all but guaranteed that women in America will eventually lose their choice.
However our society decides birth control policies in the future, this much is clear: abortion rights must be stripped from women.
Women’s rights must never again be a criterion for determining if and how abortion is carried out in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wanted to point out a few things, just in case anyone is still paying attention to Eoghan, The CuntLips of ManBoobz.
When men use the public statements of feminists against them, those who are quoted praising or making extreme statements are leaders of well-funded organizations, or academics in influential positions, or policy makers.
Quotations from an anonymous commenter on a random MRA blog (which this is not, as Welmer has repeatedly stated), who may very well be a woman or a bored cat, would have no more impact than the bullshit that women routinely invent, whenever it suits them, anyway.
And feminist quotations affect men and women differently.
They allow men to learn about the true nature of women (often for the first time), because they identify attitudes and traits that then become visible in almost every woman.
But when a woman reads these same quotations, she thinks to herself: “If all of these feminist leaders think that what Valerie Solanas wrote in the SCUM Manifesto about doing to men is acceptable, then I must truly be a sweet and nurturing Mother of Creation ™, since I just want to take his children and money, and throw him in jail.”
So what would impolite comments allow women to learn about men? That they are upset with women and use naughty words?
But when men read angry comments about women, they realize that they are not alone, and that what they are feeling is reasonable and right.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
4
No need. They discredit themselves just fine without us. We should seek to bring to light these things that discredit them instead.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
and adult men have this nasty habit of fighting back
If only this male trait was more true (or less misdirected) than it currently is….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
Except, of course, for the genital maiming of innocent children. You make an exception for that.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
As J. Durden said above, the topic of rhetoric is worth further examination.
Every ideology or movement is stratified into “action tranches”. You have the vanguard, the goons, the intellectuals, the politicians, the writers, the diplomats, the marketers, etc.
Some at the Spearhead are vanguard – I’ll call some goons and that shouldn’t be seen as a put down because each “movement” falls along these fault lines. But everyone plays a certain role. Mr. Price serves a purpose – he is an organizer of material, funds, and broadband. zed serves a purpose. He is more of an old-timer who has seen a lot of different things. His tactics and language may alienate some people, but his hard-charging methods and inflexibility on fundamental issues provide a guiding-post for others. We all reflect off of guys like him and take their methods and experience into consideration as we develop our own style. Some guys are more extreme in their language. They wish violence. I don’t happen to agree with that, but that is also a role that is an inevitable corollary to the movement.
Feminists were the same way. Communists were the same way. Democrats have historically been the same way. Our founding revolutionaries were that way too. Some are more radical in thought, some more radical in action. Some prefer to sell the idea in Trojan Horse fashion. This is the natural structure of the thing, and it will evolve based upon extraneous events and internal strife.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
“Don’t we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an unwanted pregnancy?”
Men wrote the moral code that defines civilization:
The Bible
The Magna Carta
The Constitution
What defines the space between abortion and infanticide?
…because legalizing infanticide is obviously next on the agenda.
A woman that can kill her young is not a moral creature.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
But it takes dogged determination: that boycott of Lifetime Network will finally pay off in 50 years.
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
@SingleDad- That link is most disturbing.
On a similar abortion support note, there are organizations that assemble volunteers to serve as clinic escorts for women seeking abortions and also doula organizations that are now offering their services during and after abortion. http://abortiondoulas.com/
For those unfamiliar with what a doula originally was, it was a woman who is trained to provide assistance and comfort to a woman during childbirth and during the first days at home. They might help a laboring mother make decisions about which interventions, if any, to use during childbirth and provide help with pain management for those who opt for unmedicated births. Doulas will also take over the birthing coach so that a father can have breaks during a long labor. A post-childbirth doula typically provides help with light housekeeping duties, breastfeeding support, and may make meals for the new parents as well.
To go from that positive career to one that assists with abortions is very bizarre. Guess everybody wants to make a quick buck from the abortion industry….
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Oh, that’s what you meant — the circumcision issue. Acksiom, I think this is a practice that is dying naturally (at least it is where I live), but many adult men are circumcised today, so it is a sensitive issue for us. In any event, it has never been and never will be condoned here, but opposition to the practice is better pursued in another forum.
Last word.
I thought I was ready, despite the warnings. I was wrong.
Even though I concealed carry a .45, and would not hesitate taking out a goblin or two, these are just babies for chrissake.
Happens every day, lest ye forget
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
26
Eoghan,
I am curious to know what your blog looks like, and how you word things there. Please, send us a link, so we may better conduct ourselves in your image.
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
It’s curious how sensitive we men are to charges of being angry.
Misandric ‘feminists’ are trademark violent, raging and amoral – and have been for decades – yet we all know what effect calling them ‘angry’ would have: absolutely none at all.
I have never, ever heard a ‘feminist’ fear for the credibility of her cult by expressing concerns over their violent, extreme language and proposals. If anything, all they do is round on anyone who would suggest moderation and pile shaming language and ridicule on them.
We should really be asking ourselves what motivates this inner restraint on our part, and whether it is more of a rationalization wrt ‘feminism’, rather than a reasoned and reasonable stance. Some things must be eliminated without restraint – we understood this with Nazi-ism.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
I would suggest that inner restraint in the face of injustice is cowardess and enables the injustice making us silent collaborators.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Perhaps you could point out some of these “high road” movers? The only people I’ve seen get any traction at all are the ones who say things that get people’s knickers in a wad. I hear a lot of guys talk about some sort of high road approach, but I’m not sure where it is hiding. So far I really haven’t seen much evidence of it.
What would you consider examples of this approach?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
What would you consider examples of this approach?
In my opinion, “Men Going There Own Way” is taking the high road.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
In my opinion, “Men Going There Own Way” is taking the high road.
Totally. Game is also a high road (yes, I said it).
The only ‘low road’ would be outright Sodini-style violence.
So far, we have been taking the high road.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
This article alone shows that we have the higher moral ground.
Has Feministing or Jezebel ever had an article questioning if THEY were going too far in THEIR actions and words?
Until then, to all critics : STFU.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
3
Not yet had time to read all comments, but this topic was already examined some times, for a recent example:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/tolerance-immersion/
The leftists accuse the right of racism and the right instead of laughing at this “shit test”, is put on defensive. No Republicans are not racist so their head is black, no the Tea Party is not racist so their head is female. Pathetic beta all of those.
For the gamers here, the solution is never accept or stay in the “frame” of the left, never permit the left to steer the ship.
The left has the immunity and the impunity of every shaming language or act of violence. They always claim victim status and they are always above the law. This happens in whole world not only in USA.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
5
“…respecting women as moral decision makers.”
I agree with the article, this women thinks murder by way of abortion is moral. Shifting gears I bet this same women also thinks promiscuity is moral too. After all promiscuity among women is a hallmark of female power. So, according to feminist morality abortion and promiscuity are wonderful, wholesome and empowering things, in fact, they are rights. This is why letting women run things leads to disaster. Its not empowering, its not a right…its common sense, its taking responsibility for ones actions. sex has consequences sometimes, its not some disposal item, as a matter of fact the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. What is abortion but a delayed form of contraception. It starts and stops with selfishness. She knowingly and willing went out and got laid. On TV everything always works out so she was not only surprised that she got pregnant but she was mad because it wasn’t suppose to happen to her. No worries, greys anatomy and many other gynocentric leftist tv programs are there to remind her that you can just abort that little worm growing in you. Yes, its not you be mad at that innocent human being that to no fault of its own is growing inside of you. According to TV/feminsts, its not fair that your right to be promiscius is interrupted by something as antiquated at pregnancy, not to mention her right to maintain her body and attractiveness. Oh and it will interfere with her career. Oh the horror.
Why, am i having such a difficult time seeing contempory women as moral?
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Off-topic: a great movie review by Steve Sailer.
http://takimag.com/article/blue_valentine_and_the_decline_of_men/print
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
I’m sorry, after reading this article, along with the grand jury report, I seriously hope they fry that son of a bitch. This is flat out murder no matter how much spin you put on it. It’s for reasons such as this why feminism is slowly losing it’s credibility. This is way beyond the pale. Men must go forward.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Demands that the MRM tone down the angry rethoric are normally based on the idea that it should reach out to non-feminist women for support. This looks good on paper. The main problem with that idea is that feminists will always be able to capitalize on two things that MRAs cannot: women’s a) inability to understand cause and effect b) innate urge to blame men, especially right-wing white men, for all problems. Don’t forget that feminists are masterful propagandists and are in high spirits nowadays. Consider all their cheerful articles about the “end of men”; just like the Wehrmacht High Command in July 1941, they apparently think final victory is at their grasp. They will have no problem presenting the increasing educational and economic underperformance of men as proof of their unworthiness and innate female superiority. The economic recession will probably continue and you can be sure feminists will try to exploit that to the fullest. We will see articles shaming men for “abandoning fatherhood”, “immaturity” etc.
The MRM can try to compete with them for women’s approval but it’s a hopeless cause. Feminists have an enormous advantage for the reasons I listed and average women are infinitely more likely to believe their bullshit than to listen to polite, inoffensive MRAs. Female support is only useful if it’s so widespread it enables legal reform, and the MRM will never achieve that even if they try their best. Nobody can beat feminists at their own game: courting female approval. I’ll concede though that female MRM sympathizers would be very useful at debating and shaming manginas and white knights, as TFH has said.
All in all, I’m not invested in the MRM and if they decide to court female support, I wish them good luck and won’t try to stop them. It won’t do them any harm (UNLESS feminist fifth columnists infiltrate their proto-movement and destroy it from within by sowing discord). But it won’t get them far either.
However, MRAs can capitalize on something feminists cannot: the fact that feminism is a sham ideology and an unsustainable system digging its own grave by minimalizing male investment in society. When feminists do anything that speeds up this process, like alienating the genders from each other eve further, they simply need to be egged on. The sooner their edifice collapses, the sooner we can start to rebuild from scratch, which is the only solution.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
As an excop, social worker, and a victim as a child of extreme child abuse including sexual from women, – after working with teens who were beaten, abused and humiliated for years by females (Yes, we ALL know men do these things, we have heard it thousands of times by adulthood) women who have been on the bash men bandwagon for decades get pissed off when the rare men tells them “So does your momma” regarding all forms of violence. I have files and files about gender. Women abusing boys and girls sexually, physically, and women who are violent towards women, boys, girls and men, are common. How long are boys and men to hear that we need to be castrated, feminized, or pay a male crime tax… because men are such assholes, before we are allowed to say “Shut the fuck up” for awhile. Crime tax. Ya, I will pay it if women who abuse children pay their share and if we tax women everytime they use something invented by a man or have a fee for everytime a man dies in a coal mine, or at sea, or dumping garbage, or in war… Some of us are angry. We have been abused as a gender for decades. What is said about men was once said about blacks. Too aggressive, prone to crime, don’t care about our families. We call women bitches and the tell us we don’t respect women (No, not all women) and yet they call us dogs, child rapists, pigs, say just like the KKK said about blacks that we are “Less evolved” and then what, wa wa, some man is angry and raised his voice, rattled his shackles too hard, …
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
3
“To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.”
How might these words apply to a post-menopausal woman? I believe the aging feminists sense their increasing social/biological irrelevancy and I have noted a rising concern toward the threat that younger, fertile women pose to these old crones. History shows it was generally the younger women who drove the barren, older ones out of society, not the men. Patriarchy was of immense benefit to older women, but they’ve pretty much flushed that down the toilet, haven’t they?
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
They never had any value in the sexual marketplace but they’ve traditionally found ways to keep themselves busy. They looked after their grandchildren while their children worked, for example. I see fewer cases of that taking place nowadays. They also policed the behavior of their female grandshildren, knitted, did housework etc.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
It seems to me that you are confusing “shaming” someone with accurately describing their position with an insulting term. The intent of shaming is to make someone doubt themselves and their self-worth. Calling someone a mangina is an insult, but I’m sure no one who has attracted the term has lost a moment’s sleep worrying whether that makes them an inadequate person. In short, they are not shamed by the term.
A mangina is a man who believes feminine values and priorities are superior to masculine values and priorities.
A white knight/women-firster is a man who believes that that men are disposable and women are indispensable.
If I call a man by either term, I am describing his belief system/worldview, not his “manhood” or lack thereof.
Which is not to say some man won’t call another and mangina AND question his manhood, but I doubt that comes from a man who has dropped the RealMan(tm) nonsense.
Perhaps you are so used to seeing manhood questioned as a debating tactic that you are reading something into those terms that is not there.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
I googled for more on Cloud’s excerpt of the exchange between Senators Santorum and Boxer and found this article by George Will in Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
One of the first comments is:
“Just as George Will can talk about baseball, yet never understand how A-Rod felt as he was approaching 600 home runs, he will never understand how a woman feels, and the choices she faces, when she feels the first signs of life fluttering in her belly. Please stick to what you know. You may not legislate my body.”
That sums it up right there. A woman’s feelings and choices are more important than such abstract concepts as right and wrong, the right of an innocent to life or what is best for society as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
I swear, if even ONE of these things are true…. this man should spend the rest of his life in prison.
There just is no reason for this stuff to be going on, and anyone who defends stuff like this needs to be put into the nearest mental institution and checked to see if they are a psycho/socio-path.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Well, we darned well no women are aborting Elvis’ babies!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
>>The MRM must take the high road. This cannot be stressed enough. If you are unable to take the high road in your own life. Please leave the MRM alone. –CM
Yep, I have heard this s**t before.
From 1978 till 1993, I wrote op-eds on the mistreatment of men. When I started, I assumed it was logical to use “disciplined rhetoric” to obtain sympathy from the press and authorities. It, of course, did not work. I quickly realized nothing I could say would elicit sympathy from those who were actually causing our problems.
So, I went for the jugular. I was not nice. My wife would come home from work, and ask, “Did you have an op-ed today?” Then,she’d tell me that some woman at work came up to her, all red in the face, screaming so loudly my wife could not understand her.
I’d say, “Don’t worry about it. She was one of the women I was writing about.” Heh, heh.
A mangina came up to me one day. There are so many of them in the world. He said, “It’s not what you say. It’s how you say it. You gotta’ say it differently.”
I asked, “So, how do I say it?”
He said, “Well, I don’t know, you just gotta’ say it differently.” Of course, he didn’t now how to say it differently, because the problem was not how I said it. The problem was that I said anything at all. I was supposed to act like a sheep led to slaughter with a handful of hay like all good manginas.
Edmund Burke said in the 18th Century , “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
Let us examine history.
The US has always had a problem with slavery. Finally in the mid 1860′s, Republican Lincoln summarily decreed the slaves to be free, so of course the blacks mostly vote for the party of the KKK, go figure. From then until the mid-1960′s, black girls were raped by whites, and black men and boys were summarily lynched on dubious accusations. Blacks often lived a life of terror and isolation from any useful part of the economy.
Young blacks wanted to fight. Older, “wiser” men told them, “No, we must take the high road. Be patient. Our time will come.” This went on for ONE HUNDRED YEARS!
Finally, in the 1960′s, blacks began a Civil Rights Movement. MLK preached they must take the high road, and not resist violently, nor with strong words.
Today, if you listen to blacks, they will tell you MLK won civil rights for them. They are wrong. MLK did not win civil rights for them.
They thought so, because they only associated with other blacks and civil rights advocates, who all felt highly inspired by MLK.
I, alas, came from a very racist family, and they are racist to this day. I also worked with some very racist people. The sort of people who applauded when whites broke arms and legs of sweet little black kids who were integrating public schools. For blacks to win civil rights, blacks believing in it meant nothing. Something had to convince those who oppressed and hated them to change their sinful ways.
And, it was not MLK who did that. It was Malcolm X and his statement that those who continued to abuse and kill blacks were facing death by automatic weapon fire. That scared the (crud) out of the racist people I knew. They said things like, “He is going to kill us. I better shut up.” And, they did, so Civil Rights became a reality. If you want to believe MLK did it, that is your right, but I was there.
The MSM had to know this, but they are also pushing the bogus belief that violence accomplishes nothing, so they push the MLK myth.
Around 1895, German pastors began speaking from the pulpit that there was a Jew problem that could only be solved by exterminating them.
As time passed, abused of the Jews grew worse, and finally laws were passed to take away their legal rights. Jews wanted to fight, and their wise, old leaders told them, “No, we are an educated people. We must take the high road and show them we are good people.” Except for a very few total idiot Holocaust deniers in the Manosphere, I think I need not explain how that worked out.
Taking the high road simply does not work. It has never worked for any group facing a pogrom. If you studly “take the high road” heroes would use your time and energy studying history, instead of attempting to convince everyone of your intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us, you would know this.
For 45 years, the man-haters who run this country have been saying privately they want to kill most men. I read MS. in the 80′s, and it was there. In recent years, they have shushed the stupids who have been saying it publicly, but you can be sure they are privately saying, “NOT YET, STUPID!” Not, “STFU, you evil fiends, we don’t stand for that.”
Killing large numbers of men is the only one of the original feminist goals which has not yet been achieved. And, all the other things they have done to men were directly or indirectly in the original lists.
I subscribed to MS magazine in the 70′s and 80′s, until my stomach would not take it any more. They told right out in there, their original goals. The world cannot be safe until most men are terminated.
I tried to tell other men, who treated me like s**t. “Why do you worry about things like that? This is the USA, and nothing like that will ever happen. Don’t you have more important things to do?” Actually, no, I did not.
Exactly what the Jew leaders told worried Jews in the 20th Century.That worked out real well.
Jews who survived got two simple lessons. First, ALWAYS BELIEVE THOSE WHO SAY THEY PLAN TO KILL YOU.
And, second, NEVER AGAIN. That means when people threaten you, don’t sit around, talking about high roads and moral superiority, rather arm yourself and fight to the death.
CM, if you want high road inaction to carry on the ineffective high road inaction plan of the last 45 years, that is your business. Some of us have more education, and understand what we are fighting against. It is foolish and ignorant people like you who need to get out of the MRM.
With a lot of time freed up by this act, you will have plenty of time to go pound sand.
Let me add some notes, since you not only don’t seem to grasp history very well, you also do not seem to grasp current reality.
Women can sexually maim you and walk.
Women can shoot their non-violent husbands to death while they sleep and walk.
Totally non-violent men can be jailed with no hearing, based on lies by a woman.
Men spend decades in prison on sexual charges not supported by any evidence.
Women can commit adultery and get the house, the car; the kids; and most of a man’s income via literal slavery.
Men who are unemployed because of affirmative action programs which give jobs to lesser qualified women, and can’t pay their slavery fees, lose their driver’s license they need to drive to work.
They also lose their passports so they can’t go overseas to work.
Then, they are tossed in jail.
So, CM, just how bad does it have to get, before you admit maybe a bit of anger is appropriate?
I suggest you practice holding your breath. I think you will need to hold it for at least two hours with your plan.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
10
And standing front and center with every feminist is the real enemy – a mangina attorney. Sans attorney’s it would never have gotten to this point. I’m sure such comments give Opus and his brotherhood of predatory practitioners a tightening feeling around their necks, as well it should.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
What exactly do you mean by that?
I wrote an article on stopping male genital mutilation here at The Spearhead a year ago: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/02/27/stopping-male-genital-mutilation/
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
I don’t know about anyone else on here, but this shit makes me angry. The depths to which the female rationalization hamster enabled by the white knight support will go to justify ALL female behavior is baffling. That Mangina and his fellow femcunt belong in an asylum. Are you kidding me “respect Women as MORAL choice makers” what a freaking joke. The fact is that most women today (not ALL, i know some dumb dumbs operate under “selective seeing”) are basically Children. They are incapable of taking responsibility or being held accountable.
Here’s Why: Most women today have over 10 forms of birth control, excluding abstinence, male condoms and a STERILIZATION, which they can use to prevent pregnancy. They have 13 roads/avenues/paths/ safety nets (“10 + the 3.” just some help for the dumb dumbs out there) to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But as we all know, we live in a world of uncertainty and some people “accidentally” get pregnant or something goes wrong and they get pregnant. So now abortion is available to women (“both overgrown kids and the RARE cases of mistakes” *I’m talking about types of women. By the way*) to terminate their pregnancy if they so wish to. Now these “anti-family extremists” are advocating to extend these safety nets to include Murder. Can women ever act like adults?
My Belief: With all the options available to women to prevent pregnancy, abortions shouldn’t really be allowed. BUT (i know some dumb dumbs are already getting ready to respond) for the rare occurrence that a woman does become pregnant, I believe abortion should be allowed only within a certain time-frame; 3 months to be specific. So if a woman fails to use her last “get out of jail free” card, she must carry the baby to term, after which she can decide to give the baby up for adoption (of course giving her enough time to make the Moral Choice to decide whether or not to go ahead adoption). Wow another safety net (must be nice to be an overgrown child).
To answer potential comments from “dumb dumbs” and women drunk on hamster urine. Lets say for example that a high school girl gets pregnant, she has her baby at the “back of high school dumpster outside the prom venue” or “in the basement of her abusive conservative parents’ (FATHER *feminist interpretation*) home, while being Very silent,” she can drop the baby off at many safe haven abandonment centers such as hospital, fire stations or police stations. If she MORALLY chooses to, of course. There is absolutely NO justifiable reason why any woman (that goes for all) should be given the option of late term abortion.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Damn nice post Anon 68.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
5
Wise comment from a wise old man, Anonymous age 68.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
4
Here here Anon 68, thanks for the lesson, keep em coming.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
4
Violence tends to have a finalizing effect in any dispute, ’tis true.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Also ponder this.
Suppose an expectant father is excited about becoming a Dad. The pregnancy is in the 8th month, and he has been eagerly counting down the days. The birth is just a month away.
And the woman decides to get a late-term abortion.
Imagine how the expectant father would feel in such a case.
Why aren’t men making noise about this?? “I thought I was going to be a Dad, but she killed the baby at the last minute, and I could not stop it!!!!!”
I would imagine this situation is not all that rare. Where are the protesting dads?
Or maybe the onerous child support laws and The Bradley Amendment were designed to silence men from protesting abortion???
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Great comment from Anon Age 68, which should be converted into an article in its own right.
Spruce up that comment into an article.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
No THF. We American men know that for many generations we have no say if our women keep or abort our children.
This was hashed out in the 1960′s-70′s and any men that questioned it were considered dangerous and, if given the chance, imprisoned. I don’t have numbers, I was there.
It is well known that if you piss off your pregnant wife enough, she will punish you by aborting your child. So, we don’t protest because we lost that battle long ago.
We don’t even have a say in what our daughters do when they are 12 years old, should they become pregnant. By law we have no right to be notified.
But up until recently you needed your wifes written approval to get a vasectomy.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
If you are looking for an example of this watch the Godfather movies, I believe it was part II when Diane Keatons character aborts Al Pacino’s characters child just to hurt him.
At least he had the balls to turn his back on her.
And keep the children.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
-Zed
Thanks Zed. Thats a respectable inquiry.
First i’ll respond to your question.
Difference between an inferior (low) road and a superior (high) road approach is pretty simple:
The inferior man is a man of vice will endlessly seek power and benefit for himself or who where his loyalties are. He is not concerned with what is right, but only the the advantage to him/her is. There are no standards for his action, no question to what is right, just what he can do for himself. Once power is acquired it is used without restraint. He boasts of his power and gets himself in trouble…This leads to his downfall.
A superior man is a man of virtue, and never makes this mistake. He is conscious at all times the danger of pushing ahead regardless of circumstances. He does not make an empty display of force or acts belligerently. His standards are focused to the general good of all not just where his interest is. He works through virtues. His greatness depends on being in harmony with what is right.
Really i’m not explicating anything more than what W.F Price already stated:
– W.F. Price
Then:
-Anonymous age 68
Anger is fine. But any emotion without restraint or control – is chaos.
No, I think Anger is absolutely appropriate and necessary… we’ve been kicked in the balls by those cold feminazi steel toed high heels for long enough. It’s time for men to wake up… If this doesn’t piss you off… then something is wrong. Anger however isn’t the goal here it’s only step one – we have to do more than just get angry… Anger doesn’t accomplish anything any more than any other emotion is an accomplishment in and of itself. It’s just a driver to take action. Then to take action one is concerned with what is right.
The MRM is a movement that is in harmony with what is right.
That is, when the MRM wins everyone wins. Men, Women, children, animals, nature, etc.
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
15
The misandrists at Feministing are troubled that Home Depot is marketing paint colors that a man can use to paint his ‘Cave’ in :
http://feministing.com/2011/01/27/home-depot-makes-the-man-cave-official/
Just one room. Yet having that private space is ‘anti-woman’.
I think we should needle this hags with another article glorifying the joys of the ‘Cave’.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
THF you have to stop reading that stuff. It will just give you high blood pressure.
It’s like commenting on a little girl tea party, because, ultimately, that’s what it is.
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Just to comment on the overall issue of whether sites like this are making progress:
Firstly, there weren’t anything close to a forum like this 10 or even 5 years ago. There is a inter-connectedness growing rapidly that is clearing away superfluous ideologies into a coherent voice.
Secondly, although it may appear we are preaching to the choir, MRM sites do provide food for thought, a place of refuge for victims of the gender war, and the incubation and refinement of real solutions.
Thirdly, to the male victims of the feminazis over the past thirty, forty years, these sites and the MRM is a vindication of their grievances, a redressing of sorts. MRAs like myself heard of or witnessed the misandry and never forgot, and are waiting to set the record straight.
Finally, and this is my true hope: all of these articles and comments are being compiled and assimilated by someone into the next phase of the MRM, with the presentation to the world of a List of Demands, if you will. A sharp tool with which to push our agenda and keep the Oprah’s and Pelosi’s on the defensive.
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
I have been working on a post,which I titled, “The Feminization of Rhetoric”. Since I don’t know when I will get around to finishing it and since it is timely here, I will post the quotes I am using from chapter 3 of this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5SRDicjOYxkC&pg=PA1&dq=rhetoric+history&hl=en&ei=bCZCTYDsLoP6lweC-NXvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=rhetoric%20history&f=false
Several “a-ha” moments occurred to me in the following quotes, which has convinced me that men need to reclaim rhetoric from the hands of women and be able to express themselves in whatever way they see fit.
Rhetoric as it used to be and as I see here is the “powerful psychological tool” that can defeat feminism. Women have taken this tool away from men. Rhetoric has become so feminized that even men shame other men by saying ““Such anger does not contribute to a meaningful dialogue” or “if you can’t have a civil conversation, please leave”. These are all attempts to take away one of man’s most natural and powerful tools. I think feminists are betting on that you will all just sit back and be shamed into ‘polite’, feminine conversation, while they hijack Rhetoric. BUT something created by men and for men, never works on a woman. Oh how she tries, but she just can’t debate like a man and then often has to resort to the ever famous “shaming language”.
“Real men don’t fight women”. How many times have we heard that?! This is how it all started; women coming into college and eliminating Rhetoric and in turn the heart of being male. Once stripped of that key tool, women could beat men into submission however they wanted to, all they had to say was “be nice to the ‘ladies’”. Women think they engage in Rhetoric, but all it is, is a “dumbed down, preetified” version. Real Rhetoric is seen here and places similar and it may seem “mean”, but we have not seen Real rhetoric for close to 200 years. No one knows what it looks like anymore, all we know is feminized Rhetoric. So, when women whine about all the “mean, nasty” men, they should be reminded that this was life before women came onto the scene and demanded entrance in males spheres. If you don’t like it, women, then go back to baking, knitting or blogging, and let men have their tool of Rhetoric and to use it as they see fit! Men once protected you from this ‘harsh’ world, but you demanded to be included in it, starting with higher education. They changed their rules for YOU, as a courtesy and now that you are ‘educated ‘ and ‘independent’, let men regain what they have lost.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
21
awesome simply awesome that goes to all of you. I have never seen talk like this in a public forum. The whole world can see real rational thought. Thank you Welmer.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
29
Huh, we’ll tone down the rhetoric when it gets to the point where we are writing books and articles blaming women for infecting the universe with their evil, as Mary Daly did for men, or writing songs about wiping out all the women, as Otep Shamaya did for us blokes. Until then we are by far the more responsible side in the gender wars.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Here, here.
Good post. Anyone who thinks you can win over feminists by trying to accommodate them and moderate your language is living in a fantasy land and is as much a part of the problem as any potential solution.
All of the major books on men that have tipped a hat to feminism have been criticized as if they were Daniel Amneus’ “Back to Patriarchy.”
Harvey Mansfield, Lionel Tiger, Sam Keen, Robert Bly…all of these men — despite openly congratulating women on their achievements and acknowledging the value of a society that equally values the contributions of men and women — have been dragged through the mud by feminists.
There is no middle ground with feminists.
Only levels of submission.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Gentleman,
We have to keep up our resolve. We cannot slacken our perspective nor can we let the enemy steal our thunder. This appeal for a “softer rhetoric” is nothing but signs of weakness and surrender. We cannot give in now, especially when the tide is finally turning in our favor. Understand this…these feminists want nothing more than us to remain subservient and unabashingly obedient to their commands. Only aggression and militant resolve will win this fight. They are manipulative, crude, and often use emotions to try to dissaude their opponents from logically breaking down their arguments and revealing these creatures as power hungry little “empresses” they are. This plea for patronizing pacification is nothing but a sign of the enemy finally bleeding.
Alucard
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
5
2 words:Electric Chair
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
I have a weak stomach, so haven’t clicked the links. But is it just me, or do all the examples of murdered babies have the same gender:male?
and beat some sense into her.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
poor aliens
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Amazing post, Laura.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Laura,
Thank you for that post, which was indeed amazing.
The information in the quoted passages was quite interesting, and new to me.
I am looking forward to reading your article, once you have had a chance to complete it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
From Steph Herold and Susan Yanow’s response to Saletan:
“Don’t we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an [unwanted pregnancy]“?
This sentence is an oxymoron, a moral decision maker, would not allow themselves to have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
Two different chicks from my past had abortions, one of them i financed the abortion, the other one i sanctioned by my silence and not protesting of the decision (it’s what i wanted too). Today i have a son, but the truth is 2/3rds of my children never stood a chance, they were never born. My first kid would be 10 this year the other one would be 7 years old if a different decison was made.
I’m an atheist but if there’s an hell i’m going there, myself , Steph Herold and Susan Yanow will probably be in the same temparature range of hell.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11
There is no middle ground in any declaration of war. The enemy is the enemy, and the moment we give a flying toss for what they think, we’ve lost.
Maintain the rage and never relent. These are pigs of the worst kind that we are dealing with, with their double-speak and their stupid rationalizations. They have neither honor nor self-respect. This kind of pig will even murder their very own and justify it as a right of choice. There is no negotiation with this kind of pig.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Single Dad: “They cheered for thet mutilation of men, Lorena Bobitt and we said nothing. Then they killed their kids for a date with an Alpha, and we said nothing, Susan Smith. Now we have discoverd they have child murder mills, will we remain silent, I will not.”
We need more men like you.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Actually you didn’t, CM. I asked you to point to some examples that were having an effect. I didn’t ask for a general description. Who out there is getting anything done by the approach you advocate?
To me it looks like the same losing strategy that men have followed for the past several decades. At the national political levels rhetoric is fairly hardball, and even then progress is measured in inches, not miles.
I have yet to see even one observable significant political success achieved by appealing to people’s higher natures. Younger men look at older guys’ track record of being losers and are not much impressed.
When I stopped waiting for losers to wake up and come around was when my own life took a measurable turn for the better.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
I believe the former Dr. Tiller of Kansas perfected a way of killing the child in the womb, so it would not be considered murder legally. That was his “expertise” provided the woman claimed she was under duress, which of course she would be instructed to do.
Abortion of the fetus takes place while the woman still posseses the child in “her body”. Murder of her child takes place as soon as it leaves her body. It then officially becomes a legal human. If she plans to abort, it mystically becomes “foreign tissue” and she’s merely making a “life style choice”. If she plans to bring it to term it’s all of the sudden “my baby” and she’s going to be a mommy soon.
Please read the above paragraph again and tell me that ain’t some f*cked up sh*t. If any one every asks you to describe an example of cognitive dissonance in women, just say, “Making the choice to kill their young”.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
I hope everyone read’s Laura Grace Robins’s post above.
Not only does it expose the destruction of masculinity in education, but it hints as to why we have so much “internal conflict” in the MRM.
This has been discussed before, of course. Men are natural competitors.
Today’s feminized society tells us it’s wrong to engage in a heated discussion with other men about our differing views. We’ve lost some of our ability to see it for what it is – a competition for dominance, not a grudge match.
Men like to argue issues & ideas. I often see men at the bar discussing politics, philosophy, and other concepts. How often do you see two women at a bar doing the same? So while most of us can agree on the fundamentals, it’s fine for us to argue on the specifics, and we can do so without creating enmity between one another – it’s a competition, sure, but at the end of the 9th inning we can still tell each other “Nice game” and slap each other’s hands.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
You should not care what Furtrelle or other similar Feminists do with comments or quotes from your articles, because regardless of how reasonably it is written, they will find some way to paint it in a poor light without addressing any of the substance. “Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him.” In a similar exercise, you could even take Furtrelle’s own writing and find ways to paint him as a anti-feminist misogynist. Doing so would be equally meaningless.
If all they want to do is grab random comments or paragraphs from articles, and write meaningless derogatory dribble that doesn’t even address the issues being raised, then let them. Let them give you the free publicity. People who actually want to see more will come and visit, and that’s when your writing, your viewpoints and your issues will speak for itself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
“Just as George Will can talk about baseball, yet never understand how A-Rod felt as he was approaching 600 home runs, he will never understand how a woman feels, and the choices she faces, when she feels the first signs of life fluttering in her belly. Please stick to what you know. You may not legislate my body.”
That comment from the George Will article posted above amuses me greatly. “YOU may NOT legislate MY body”. Really? Her body, her choice!
Well, then… tell it to the COMMERCE CLAUSE sugar tits!
They want national healthcare with a mandate that all citizens/legal residents (and maybe illegal ones too) to buy a government approved health care plan. Thats the legislature with their hands all over her body and mine. But I’m just some racist hate monger whack-job for pointing out their flawed logic. Its all about fweelings and helping people! Stop being selfish!
The rhetoric has to go up a notch. It has to go up to 11. Why? They, feminists and liberals/social-progressives or just pro government types have already done so. For the past 2-3 years I’ve grown more and more angry at the compromise, diplomatic, lets all have a nice calm discussion line of political strategy. How’s that working out eh? Not too well. They still call MRAs whack-jobs etc..
My own democrat congressman tossed out the whack-job line and blamed talk radio for Tucson in a local paper. Yet a week later a democrat in the House is calling republicans Nazis.
As I said, I’ve moved away from a diplomatic, lets talk it out stance since at least the Darren Mack insanity and debate over how to treat that tragedy. I like Glen Sacks most of the time and his path may work out but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. He can play the moderate but until the “extremists” get their voices out there all the feminists are going to do is call Glen and his ilk are loser whack-job wife beaters etc. etc..
Anyway, rant over and good article WF.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein
I believe Albert’s quote summarizes the MRM movement quite well. Don’t get me wrong, I admire what the Spearhead is doing and enjoy the articles and member commentary very much. That being said….
The steps required to actually get journalistic attention requires a intellectual demeanor that does not hold punches. The Spearhead and every other men’s site plays wiffle ball in a hard ball world.
If you want to play hardball get the women off this site immediately. A real man’s organization does not allow women. I will never support any men’s group or site that allows women to participate or supports or pimps “game”. Watch as the maginas even within the Spearhead membership, and maybe even Mr. Price himself come out to defend the right of women to post. It’s sickening to watch the debate and illustrates clearly why the movement will go nowhere.
There’s a good reason why for millennium women have been asked to leave the room when men are discussing matters of importance. “It is the moral thing to do” You folks seem to think this is about cordial coed debate and event commentary. If your hosting ISP isn’t threatening take down action, you ain’t doing it right. If you can’t get the women off the site, or actually believe that their involvement is somehow beneficial to the movement, then by all means keep doing the same thing.
Do you really want to turn up the volume?
N.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Everybody should shut his mouth because feminists don’t want to hear the reality!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Welmer. Congratulations. Just Brilliant. AGAIN!
This is being pinned at the top of my ‘Best Spearhead Articles Ever’. Every young men should have the lies and hypocrisy of western women shoved so far down his throat it makes him want to PUKE. And this article does JUST THAT. THANK YOU!
As far as ‘women are moral decision makers’? What a TOTAL LIE THAT IS!! All across the western world women are committing PERJURY for personal gain and the REST of the women go along with this. Western women have thrown their morals in the toilet and FLUSHED HARD. Manginas like Thomas Matlack then stick their head in the toilet and shout support to follow the morals into the sewer by claiming that men are somehow responsible for the womens actions. Indeed. Thomas says, and please allow me to quote him directly:
“Yes, good men love women. But we love women in all their complexity, for the things they do, for their intelligence, their wit, their athleticism, their creativity, their power, their force of personality.”
These women don’t exist in the west any more. Maybe they did once. But they don’t now.
We should ‘love’ women for their ‘creativity’ of committing perjury in the courts so as to steal and abuse our children? Two words for you and the likes of you Thomas. F*** YOU!
Intelligence? Oh please. Women are so ‘intelligent’ they can’t figure out perjury, kidnapping, extortion and theft are crimes. They are so ‘intelligent’ they can’t figure out killing babies and child abuse is wrong. They say “It is my right to kill my baby but you do not have the right of freedom of speech.” They say “I can do no wrong and you can do no right”. They say “I have a right to abuse my children and you have to pay for that child abuse.” And THEN they claim to be ‘intelligent’?
Western women are SO DUMB that they have to invent things like ‘emotional intelligence’ to cover for the fact they are stupid. If women are so ‘emotionally intelligent’ why can’t they tell murder, child abuse and destroying a man are WRONG? Eh? I say ‘women are now dumb as rocks’ and I point to the 100 MILLION or so cases of ‘no fault divorce’ that has caused devastation of the western world for my evidence. Women HATE on me for doing so. GOOD! They merely demonstate that they lack the ‘intelligence’ to make an argument to the young men by spewing out their hatred and bile at men like me who are pointing to EVIDENCE.
I have made the statement, and backed it up with PLENTY of EVIDENCE called ‘civilisation’, that women in the west exhibit the logic and reasoning skills and other aspects of ‘intelligence’ of boys 7-10 years old. I will not back away from that statement. I have challenged women to explain to me how it came to be that men were circumnavigating the globe while women had not invented the forceps therefore condemning tens of millions of their sisters and babies to die horrible painful deaths. Indeed. Virtually ALL the medical advances that make child bearing the safe procedure it is today were invented by MEN and NOT WOMEN. I have never got an answer to that. Women simply do NOT have a track record to point to that exhibits their ‘intelligence’. I looked. I can’t find it. Neither can the women.
As far as ‘tone down the rhetoric’? Two words come to mind for anyone who says that to me. F*** YOU. I will not back away from that. You women, and I do mean virtually ALL WOMEN I TALK TO IN THE WEST laugh at men like me who have our children kidnapped and all that we have ever worked for stolen or destroyed by your sistas. And then you are ‘upset’ when we stand up for our inalienable right to be the father we choose to be to our children, to maintain our property rights to the proceeds of our labour? F*** YOU. And the more men who point out your LIES AND HYPOCRISY the better.
I am going to tell every young man I meet my story and how all the OTHER WOMEN supported my ex in my particular case. I am going to publish documents, emails, names and addresses. I am going to tell young men that “5% is the new 50% if you are a man.” Every time I get into a cab? I tell the cabbie my story and ask him to tell every young man who gets into his cab just how bad marriage is now. I am going to call the Manginas like Thomas Matlack the manginas they are.
I am going to call ANY MAN not willing to hold a woman who has claimed equality as ‘equal before the law’ as in ‘same crime same punishment’ and do so by sitting on a common law jury a mangina as well. It’s about time all REAL MEN got right into the face of these men who refuse to hold women accountable for their actions. I am going to lead the way on that. Other men are welcome to join me in exposing the hypocrisy of the MEN who refuse to hold women accountable for their actions. I am going to call ANY WOMAN in the english speaking world who has claimed equality who has NOT completed the bonded affdiavit of lawful equality to a man a LIAR AND A HYPOCRITE. I ask other men to join me.
In 2008 I told my closest women friends that if they did not assist me in stopping my ex abuse my former children and stop her committing crimes I will spend the rest of my life making damn sure there were fewer ‘good fathers and husbands’ like me available to them.
They laughed at me. Well? Are they laughing now? No. They are not. I was one man that the women and their criminal associates in the legal fraternity should NOT have f***ed over. I might have remained ignorant and dis-believing had this not happened to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
5
Jay Hammers is quite right. We men can argue and disagree, but tomorrow any disagreement today is all forgotten and we start again. With women however, the grudge goes on forever. e.g. last year one female was trying (constantly) to remind me of things I had (allegedly) done years earlier. Even if she were right – she wasn’t, and even if she was, I would say ‘it was my body, my life, you are not my mother and I was not married to you’ that is hardly the way to win friends. May she enjoy her cats!
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
HE. Correct. Women have made themselved irrelevant by choosing to be liars and hypocrites. Our efforts are FAR BETTER DIRECTED to the MEN who support their lies and hypocrisy. The really BIG liars and hypocrites are manginas like Obama and Biden. Rudd. Blair. Brown. The list is long. It is THESE men we are well advised to denounce as manginas with their balls in their wifes purse.
@ALL. The manginas are now trying to characterise being called a mangina is just ‘shaming language’. Well? These manginas know a LOT about shaming language. But they seem to miss one important fact. For ‘shaming language’ to be ‘shaming language’ it needs to be a lie. When I call a mangina a mangina it is true. Therefore it is NOT shaming language.
Hestia, your ‘society’ does not. There are MANY men like me who take the position abortion is wrong and that a FAR better solution is to carry the baby to term and adopt. I changed my personal opinion on this when my first child was born. In my opinion, it is often when a man holds his first child for the first time that he comes toi realise the evil that abortion is.
And people should read this for the orwellian newspeak it is. You are right Hestia. Once you see their little hearts beat on the ultra-sound? This is a human being waiting his/her time to come into the world.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
Jay..thanks for the pointer….this is my email to Jessica.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
Thank you for the accolade. I have said MANY provocative things to ‘uspet the wimminz’ to get them all ‘upset’ and then pointed out that what I have said is EXACTLY what they do to us.
The other one I like is ‘I would not help a woman being raped in the street’. This gets the ‘wimminz’ all ‘upset’. Then when I point out this is EXACTLY how they treat us when we are raped in the courts. What do the ‘wimminz’ do? They get MORE UPSET because the comparison is CLEARLY THE SAME.
Indeed. There is no recorded increase in suicide in women who have REALLY been raped but there is a doubling of the suicide rate in men in divorce. ALL the reseach I read points to the RAPING a man gets in a court to be FAR MORE DAMAGING to the man than any RAPING a woman gets in the street. Or, in the raaayyyyyypppping they get in the marital bed.
I have gone out of my way to be ‘offensive’ in order to expose women as the liars and hypocrites they are. But I have NEVER gone so far as to say ’90% of women should be killed’ which is a COMMON feminist demand. I have NEVER gone so far as to say that in order to liberate women the taboo of incenst must be dropped.
For spewing out hatred and bile us men simply can not compete with the ‘wimminz’. They are the masters of spewing hatred and bile. And they HATE it when their hatred and bile is reflected to them so the young men can see for themselves what western women are like now.
How many WOMEN denounce the hatred and bile being spewed out constantly by women at us men? Almost NONE.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
4
Jay. Good observation. Many have called my posts ‘angry’ and many wimminz have claimed ‘Peter hates women’ from what I write. But when I gave my interview for the Irish Free Man Site many said ‘GM does not sound so angry as he does in his posts’. Well? Where was the ‘anger’ in my posts?
In the MIND OF THE READER. Men have been feminised into thinking ANY STRONG EXPRESSION OF VIEWS must be made in an ‘angry’ or ‘hostile’ or (heaven forbid) ‘violent’ way. Us older men know this is not true. Strong expression of ideas, even violence, is rarely associated with anger in men. Violence is most usually associated with JUSTICE in men.
When I was on the football field as a kid/young man there was a LOT of violence and almost NO ANGER. I grew up in a time when not only was violence perfectly ok, it was applauded if it was delivered fairly and justly. A ‘fair bump’ that left an opposition player somewhat incapacitated was applauded. And he’s going to try the same to you. Similarly. Hard words and direct confrontation in an argument, which is the style I choose nowadays in this arena, is absolutely fair and just as long as what I say is true or clearly marked as an opinion. The ‘wimminz’ and manginas would have you believe otherwise. They would have you believe “unless you say things in the way I demand then I do not stand for justice”. Hypocrites.
For those who wish to listen to my 2 hour interview on TNS RADIO you can click here. Many have commented that it was an excellent interview. Vince really hit the nail on the head with his line of questioning in many places. It will tell you young men exactly what you are in for if you get married. It is 54MB.
http://www.peternolan.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=tns_globalman.mp3&tabid=538&mid=1230
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
Laura Grace Robins January 27, 2011 at 18:21
Rhetoric is not ‘owned’ by anyone. It has not been ‘taken off men by women’. It has no role in removing the crimes of feminism from your society, in my opinion. The tool that will remove feminism from your society is the rule of law as expressed by a jury of 12 men. Period.
The ‘legal fraternity’ and the ‘political classes’ (as the BBC/CNN now likes to call our elected re-presentatives) are criminals. They are subject to the law. There can be no rhetoric that will work with criminals. They are best to be ignored with the exception of putting them on trial when it is seen they have committed a crime.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Indeed anon you have pre-empted the next position I shall be rolling out should men fail the challenge to sit on juries to try my cases and the case of any man bringing forth an allegation under oath.
My challenge to MEN is simple. Create common law courts and empannel juries of 12 honest men of honour and integrity to try cases sworn to do so fairly and justly. Video record the proceedings and the jury deliberation so that efforts to subvert it by manginas will be recorded and they can be accused of perjury for breaking their oath of service on the jury should the evidence be sufficient.
I have been issuing this challenge to men here for over a year now. We are going to get our juries in Australia. We have the second grand jury sitting in two weeks. In Australia it is now just a matter of time before we get juries to try my cases.
Now. What if these men in other countries refuse to sit on these juries?
My position is this.
If a man is not afforded the protection of a law? Then he has no obligation to obey that law. Period. I have recently said to a hypocritical pastor in Australia. “If women are allowed to break the law of thou shalt not steal, or thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, why can’t men break the law thou shalt not kill?”
Note I put it to him as a question. Mangina that he is he took a QUESTION and made the claim that I had called for the killing of women and sent that claim to some associates of mine in an apparent effort to slander me. I was therefore required to call him the liar he had chosen to be. Bit sad for a pastor who is VERY public in Australia to be caught lying so easily. You’d think he had more sense than that. Especially in dealing with me.
My claim is this. If MEN do not give their FELLOW MEN a path to justice then those MEN who have had crimes committed against them have a right to dispense their OWN justice as THEY SEE FIT. Alas. The Manginas called ‘police’ will make every effort to punish those men despite not protecting them in the first place. So the ONLY method of ‘justice’ that these MEN can dispense is one where no witnesses are around to testify against them. And the BEST way to organise said justice is to ‘swap problems’ with another man in ‘stranger on a train’ style.
My position to women and manginas is:
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Break the gender feminist -law enforcement misinformation Alliance, and you will have stopped the flow of gender-raunch “Empowerment” rhetoric.
The world may ask one day..How did a small group of gender-raunch become so powerful in America??.. and the bold and educated will say it was because American law enforcement kept arresting innocent men-boys (manufactured statistics) to feed America gender-raunch all the “Empowerment” rhetoric they needed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Perverts in America “Empower” themselves by perverting the natural flow of justice in America.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Rhetoric: seeing that the next topic is ‘Women are Paid to lie About Rape’ I would say to PeirceHarlan that that is an example of Rhetoric that should perhaps have been toned down because of course that is a misrepresentation of what the CICB does. Women are not paid to lie; they (male or female) are compensated for an injury. It is an emotive misreprersentation of what is supposed to happen to say that they are paid to lie. (They may lie but so might anyone who seeks compensation for any injury). It is that sort of thing, though the newspapers do it all the time, that the misnadrists might fairly use against us to allege misogyny. Just saying.
Like or Dislike:
4 
13
Our message is legitimate and valid. The red herring argument and shaming language that seeks to distract and deflect from our message is invalid.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
“Should Men Tame Their Rhetoric?”
No! It is a war, and men should do whatever it takes to survive it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
Eoghan, That’s not what I asked you to do. I did not ask for self-righteous indignation or whining. I asked you to clearly explain, in simple sentences, what it is that you want. Start by defining your term “rhetorical discipline”. Then give an example of text that has the property of rhetorical discipline.
If you are truly attempting to persuade, if you are as skilled a writer as you imply, then it should be very easy for you to define your term, and provide an example of it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
“If you want to play hardball get the women off this site immediately.”
Women are welcome to post, and men are welcome to not acknowledge them…if they don’t like it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Hey, all the quislings are urgently needed in Egypt to explain to these guys that they need to “tone down their rhetoric.” “Everyone knows” that their extremism will be used by David Futrelle to discredit them.
Oh, wait…
For the whole world? How can this be!?!?!?! <-extreme sarcasm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110128/ts_yblog_thelookout/unrest-in-egypt-whats-going-on
Quick, Eoghan, get thee to Egypt to explain to these guys how “rhetorical discipline” will solve all their problems!!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
I firmly believe that objective morality does indeed not exist. Personal morality is nothing more than opinion on good and bad, so it hardly can be called that. So morality can only honestly be defined in either a religious or communal context, and since religions and communities vary, so does their moral rules, which is exactly what the feminist rhetoric demonstrate. However, since morality is communal (i.e. shared among a group of people), then the MRM is precisely held together with their shared moral values, should express them to bring likeminded people to their cause, and lobby for them to be reflected in the legal system in which we live. We shouldn’t say “we are moral, they are not”, rather “our moral values reflect more adequately those of other citizens”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Sir-come-sizzion?
lmfao
I like my cut cock.
Missing foreskin? Oh, what horror.
There are veterans with missing limbs who whine less.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
Anonymous Reader
I’m not claiming to be a skilled writer at all. What I talking about is not giving tools to a political enemy, strong words of course yes, but nonsense thats easily turned around and weaponised, no.
Thats all I meant, the numerous posts since have been dealing with what I term as foolish, ideological rhetoric and group think from a succession of posters.
“You said X therefore without a doubt you are a mangina, white knight-rook to queens pawn – alfa beta hopscotch who’s scared of women” whatever, reworded and repeated over and over and the me explaining that all roads dont lead back to women, for some.
I’ve posted with feminists in the past, I know knee jerk shaming rhetoric and blind ideology when I see it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
15
You’re like some schoolyard Poindexter, simpering “hey, we’re all guys!” to the ruffians about to steal your lunch money.
You project ZERO respect.
Therefore, you are the prime target for swirlies and legitimate questions regarding your masculinity.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
18
Your opponents branding you as lacking in the masculinity department are unfair: It’s apparent you are a woman.
Not only do you CONTINUE to project zero respect,
but your arguments are consistently devoid of any logic.
You are the Roger Allann Curry of the Ovarian Sect.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
19
Has no one been paying attention to the PUAs around here?
Why would you guys think women would react differently on a cultural level than they do on an individual level? MRAs standing up, taking names, and kicking ass is what’s going to bring women over to us. Have none of you paid attention to the “you’re weak” aspects of feminist shaming?
Women are powerfully, POWERFULLY attracted to guys that Get Shit Done(tm). If we as a movement project that image, we will win. If we follow feminist advice to ‘take the high road’, or appease women, or take a subservient role in these matters, we will fizzle and die.
Count on it.
Feminists are.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
Eoghan, once again, that’s not what I asked you to do. Once again, I did not ask for self-righteous indignation or whining. I asked you to clearly explain, in simple sentences, what it is that you want. Stop waving your hands around, babbling about “strong words”, and show us what you want us to do.
Start by defining your term “rhetorical discipline”. Then give an example of text that has the property of rhetorical discipline.
If you are truly attempting to persuade then it should be very easy for you to define your term, and provide an example of it. It is beginning to look like Zed’s first, penetrating assessment of you was correct.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
“They are not really branding me as lacking masculinity Firepower.
They are mostly taking turns in bleating the same shaming tactic over and over like good little ideologues, I note you have made a slight deviation from the flock and are calling me a woman, just a rewording of what the last 20 guys said. There is no weight in it, especially from the “real men” that are clearly obsessing over women, having been taken apart by a personality disordered one.”
Ok, how about this…
Your position is functionally indistinguishable from that of a feminist troll. Whatever your sex, your ideas are not only worthless, they are actually counterproductive to this movment. Others have attempted to point this out, but you’re so damned sure of how right you are, that you won’t listen when guy after guy tells you your head is up your ass.
So I’ll put it this way.
You’re wrong.
Dead wrong.
And no amount of arguing on your part is going to change that.
Get it?
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
Factory:
Has no one been paying attention to the PUAs around here?
Yup. I have. A lot of others have. And one of the first axioms of Game is simple: “Don’t pay attention to what women say. Watch what they do”.
Why would you guys think women would react differently on a cultural level than they do on an individual level? MRAs standing up, taking names, and kicking ass is what’s going to bring women over to us. Have none of you paid attention to the “you’re weak” aspects of feminist shaming?
Exactly. Trimming our rhetoric to fit feminized tropes is part of the problem, it is not any part of the solution. We got where we are by catering to women’s demands for “fairness” in family court, “fairness” on the job, and so forth.
Women are powerfully, POWERFULLY attracted to guys that Get Shit Done(tm). If we as a movement project that image, we will win. If we follow feminist advice to ‘take the high road’, or appease women, or take a subservient role in these matters, we will fizzle and die.
+1 on that. Remember Roissy’s point that feminism itself is a gigantic, generational shit test. More and more it appears to be the truth.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
17
Eoghan, yet again, that’s not what I asked you to do. Yet again, I did not ask for self-righteous indignation or whining. I asked you to clearly explain, in simple sentences, what it is that you want. Stop evading the issue, stop babbling about unfairness. You want us to do something? Tell us what it is.
Start by defining your term “rhetorical discipline”. Then give an example of text that has the property of rhetorical discipline.
If you are truly attempting to persuade then it should be very easy for you to define your term, and provide an example of it. It is beginning to look like Zed’s first, penetrating assessment of you was correct.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Anonymous reader
Are you one of the damaged commentators obsessing about evil women and conspiracy theories from here that’s getting published and republished on social networking sites? If not I don’t want you to do anything, but perhaps encourage these guys to get help and be mindful of how their talk is being used.
I think it was three days since I said that. John Dias echoed my sentiment as did a few other guys that you probably know, it went over fine for them.
All thats been going on since is a bunch in ideologues taking turns in insisting that I’m one the strawman characters from their conspiracy theory come to try silence them like their ex wife did because I’m afraid of what women will think, which I suspect is them projecting their old selves or an aspect of themselves on to me, and attacking that.
Thats the last time I’m going to type that out for you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
15
Eoghan
Are you one of the damaged commentators obsessing about evil women and conspiracy theories from here that’s getting published and republished on social networking sites? If not I don’t want you to do anything, but perhaps encourage these guys to get help and be mindful of how their talk is being used.
I’m an adult, reading your ever-shifting demands. I’m asking simple questions, and watching you evade them.
I think it was three days since I said that. John Dias echoed my sentiment as did a few other guys that you probably know, it went over fine for them.
“People agree with me”, the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The truth of a proposition is independent of whether a majority agree with it or not.
All thats been going on since is a bunch in ideologues taking turns in insisting that I’m one the strawman characters from their conspiracy theory come to try silence them like their ex wife did because I’m afraid of what women will think, which I suspect is them projecting their old selves or an aspect of themselves on to me, and attacking that.
You came onto this site with demands. One of them was that men write using “rhetorical discipline”. I’ve asked you simply to define that term, and provide an example. You have evaded and avoided those simple, clear requests.
What’s your real agenda here?
Thats the last time I’m going to type that out for you.
Good. Your evasions are growing tiresome.
Now, define “rhetorical discipline” and give us an example of it. Stop whining, stop blaming men for being mean to you, stop evading.
Put up or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
@Factory: “Has no one been paying attention to the PUAs around here?”
I have been, and yes, Game works at least as well in a cultural/social setting as it does in an individual setting, perhaps better due to there often being several women present and that whole female competitiveness thing kicks in. What has been most satisfying is not the IOIs flashing from the women, but the looks of astonished amazement from the men when they realize WHY the women I’ve just ripped into are flaring their eyes, playing with their hair, and thrusting their chests at me.
Feminism is the ultimate s#!t test. And many first-wave MRAs failed it. Miserably.
@AR: “I’m an adult, reading your ever-shifting demands. I’m asking simple questions, and watching you evade them.”
So why do you keep feeding the troll a cookie? Trolls LIKE cookies. What will it take for you to realize how you are being played?
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
17
Tame the rhetoric? No, rather, amplify it.
What the feminists and manginas tell us to do, we don’t do and instead do the opposite.
Also, it’s never about men’s rights.
It’s about feminism which, for the past four decades, eroded and decimated men’s rights. The men who toiled and built up the world since recorded history.
It’s about feminism, a hate ideology founded on deception and wishful thinking. For the longest time, men have rolled over. Now, thanks to the Internet and sites like this one, more and more red pills have been served, and men are beginning to fight back.
We have zero tolerance for feminism, ‘gender equality’ and any adherents/apologists/sympathizers of feminism. It’s a war, and everything is fair game.
There will be no holds barred.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Any emotive characterisations of us is You Am l bullshiat.
For the psych majors, its called projection.
For all the other nornal folks who know how to keep it real, its their bullshiat thrown at us. Solution? Ignore it. Larf at it. Snigger. Just dont give it any fuel.
Stop addressing them, their agenda and their modus which is an emotional psych-babbling la-la-land dribble-fest. Which we have to buy into for it to have any currency.
Men… wake up.
MRM… wake up.
Spearhead contributors… wake up.
Stop feeding the beast.
You are only starving yourself by doing so.
lm seriously beginning to wounder whether you are genuine. Your strident refusal to detach from their shiatty rhetorical modus and in fact engage in and thus fortify them and theirs, looks dodgey.
Stop reacting to them and start framimg the thing.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Way late to the party, but… I agree that men should *not* tone down their rhetoric if they don’t want to. Our society is biased against passionate speech. People who obviously care deeply about what they are saying are treated suspiciously. The constant message is — if you want to be taken seriously, express yourself as dispassionately as possible. I think that’s unfortunate and we should be more accommodating of passion in public discourse. It is possible to feel emotion and be rational at the same time. The discourse on this site is honest. I may not agree with it, but it is honest and I don’t believe in discouraging honesty.
Additionally, a clarification to the feminist responses to Saletan, I think the writer may have confused the timeline. The pro-choice article was published Dec 8, 2010. And the authors responded to an article that Saletan wrote at that time. They were writing a solid 6 weeks before anyone knew about the Gosnell horrors so in no way should their comments be taken as an endorsement of what Gosnell did. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that delivering a baby and then snipping his spinal chord is anything short of murder.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
“The riskiest thing you can do now is be safe. Stay away from average products for average people. That’s risky. The safe thing to do now is to be at the fringes. Be remarkable. Being very good is one of the worst things you can possibly do. Being good is average. No one’s going to notice it. Figure out who does care and wants to hear what you’re doing next and sell something to them.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_sliced_bread.html
It wouldn’t be a waste of your time to watch the whole video. It could be fuel for an article on the application of these marketing ideas to the MRM and whether we should tame our rhetoric, or just something to keep in mind as the MRM gains more attention, AVFM Radio becomes a reality, and Bill puts together a Spearhead book.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Ah, you are all being willfull obtuse. I was suggesting that something be done about the minority from the comments section here that are being bounced around blogs and social networking sites as jokes. Despite the hysteria, accusations and silly mis -characterisations, there was never a suggestion that the writers themselves change what they are doing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
12
“MRAs standing up, taking names, and kicking ass is what’s going to bring women over to us.”
Women will never side with, support or want to be around men who hate them and who are hostile towards them. You can forget about that naive dream of yours right away. Women will never join you. You are haters.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14
Besides, why would you want women? Weren’t you going your own way?
Like or Dislike:
0 
14
Islam is the ONLY antidote to the feminism virus.
Why do you think it is so maligned in the Western “media”?
Don’t be afraid to learn more about it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Dear All:
Many good points stated: thanks to many.
“Islam is the ONLY antidote to the feminism virus.” Not so. Recall that Iran has in its universities 65% women as well as many other femininist characteristics. Recall that the Iranian government caved in as per that woman who murdered her husband after she had committed physical adultery. Her death sentence is on hold and one can anticipate that it will be downgraded to some further feminist remedy.
Should we tone-down the rhetoric? No way. We should tone it up as well as act up ALWAYS. Appeasement does not work: period. Consider Proverbs 29:21 RSV (one could consider this the Contra-Feminist Proverb) “He who pampers his servant from childhood, will in the end find him his heir.”
Proverbs 28:23 RSV “He who rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue.” Proverbs 10:10 RSV “He who winks the eye causes trouble, but he who boldy reproves makes peace.” Proverbs 10:19 RSV “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is produent.” Proverbs 29:11 RSV “A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back.” The KIND of thing we say should be rebuke but the DEGREE (volume/quanitity) should be brief. Proverbs 11:12 RSV “He who belittles his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains silent.” Proverbs 17:27 RSV “He who restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.”
The extreme and ever-mounting injustices of Feminism/Feminists must be opposed. The utter injustice of Feminist government (and more) is totally to be opposed. Proverbs 17:15 RSV “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 24:25 RSV “but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will be upon them.”
Men (and women who are in favor of men) must address Feminist lies and hate forwardly: Proverbs 18:17 RSV “He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” FEMINIST CLAIMS/LIES/HATE MUST BE SCRUTINIZED SYSTEMATICALLY AND IN FRONT OF THEIR AUDIENCES WHO ARE PROPAGANDIZED BY THEM SUCH AS IN THE GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS, ARMED FORCES, CHURCHES, ETC. Such speakings must be in places where there are those present who are not 100% feministized. Even in the government schools, one can find some civilized girls and boys. Proverbs 23:9 RSV “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.”
The following could be stylized, “The Men’s Proverb” Proverbs 27:17 RSV “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Because women do not do such, overwhelmingly, they are quite dull. Intellectual sparring is virtually nonexistent among them. I’m sure we’ve all had experiences in which men discuss a matter heatedly (it’s not a fight) and a woman interves because she does not conceive that an intellectual process of raising up is in progress. I certainly have and such intervening women are always Feminists (in my experience).
PeterAndrew:Nolan(c) Lord Denning (high-level judge) wrote in one of his very short books the idea that if there is not correction within a system, there will be correction against it. It is true that the lynchings in the United States were stopped by violence, not Side Show Bob Martin Luther King. Such violence, including lethal violence, “put the fear of God” into the criminals who inflicted their horrific crimes. Of such lynchings, approximately 80% of the victims were male and most were, “black” (mixed white/black race) AFTER the 1861-65 Internal War of the USA/CSA.
Similarly in India, Gandhi was also a Side Show Bob as per his effectiveness. Gendre Bose was a quisling of sorts (an Indian who escaped house arrest in India and made his way to Germany during WWII). He succeeded in obtaining 2000 Indian Army POWs who decided to join the Waffen SS (that’s right, brown-hair, brown-eyed, brown-skinned Indians). They fought against the Allied invasion of Normandy (Hollywood, etc. cover-up such to this day.
With the Germany First policy of the Allies, things were going better for Japan. Bose went to Japan and recruited 30 000 Indian Army POWs to form the, “Indian National Army” (substantively a unit of the Imperial Jaspanese Army. There were 10 000 treason trials to be administered in India during the post-WWII period and each time there was a trial, Bose woudl stir up crowds to a frenzy. Even during WWII, the Indian Empire was becoming administratively headless as Britons increasingly refused vice-regal appointments as Lieutenant Governors and, as such, Australian General officers were appointed to such lethal offices. The pattern eventually perculated to the top in Lord Mountbatten being appointed as Viceroy (he had been the Supreme Commander of British Empire Forces in Asia during the WWII). (Recall that Indira Gandhi was assasinated and that was just an extension of the pattern set as per the treason trials and British Imperial distate for lethal Indian hegemony.)
The unfortunate generals could not trust the armed forces below them and Britain increasingly found it difficult to get appointees for vice-regal positions and with the schedule of 10 000 treason trials and the Bose agitations, it was time to leave.
The Indian Government and British Government agreed to tell the same lie as their interests were mutual. To inform the world, including agitating criminals that violence is what worked, would have sparked hell in India and hell on Earth for Britain. The lie is of remaining value for India but its value to Britain has wained long ago.
Before that war, almost 100% of lynching victims were white and the primary targeted groupo for such were the United Empire Loyalists and the Pennsylvania Quaker (“pacifist) named Lynch was responsible for the so very much of it that the crime was named after him. American tax collectors were lynched following the US Revolution (see Romans 13:1-7 to recall that those who rebel against the state bring judgement onto themselves).
During the Third Reich, the male nazis were wimps and could not stand up against the Feminazis originals. They murdered 600 000 babies in the womb each year of the regime, with a total of approximately 7 000 000 babies murdered almost 100% of whom were, “master-race” babies. What is more, the murder of the physically handicapped and mentally handicapped was at the behest of Feminist women’s groups.
The point of discovery of such handicaps was typically during the tender years up to age 5, well within the virtually sovereignty of women. The inconvenience of such persons motivated the, “mothers” (egg providers, really) to press the men to exterminate them on their behalf.
As per, “blacks” or, “African Americans” (African American is a geographic term, not a racial one–North Africans are typically light brown to white and, as such, constitute, “African Americans” to the extent that they emmigrate to the USA and establish citizenship–as do their descendants) were mostly Republican throughout the post-1861-65 War and well into the 20th Century. An examination of American history shows that the Republicans were actually on the high ground morally as per most matters related to the civilized treatment of, “black” Americans durng the above-mentioned time.
Third-world and non-Western countries murder babies also. China murders tens of millions each year and Russia murders 3.5 million in-utero babies per year at the astounding rate of 66% of pregnancies end in abortion. The most lethal place on earth is a woman’s womb and the most violence womb on the planet is that of the Russians.
“Hear, hear.” means, “Listen, listen.” It is not a locational instruction whose corollary would be, “There, there.”
According to a friend of mine (I have not confirmed his claim) that when Barrack Obama was an Illinois Senator, he was responsible for passing legislation which allowed women to murder their children within something like five days after birth. One could describe such as post-natal abortion or just perhaps do-it-yourself baby murder with no hitwomen nor hitmen required.
Great discussion. Very, very worthwhile. Thanks to so many.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
This is a men’s rights site. So I find it strange that the main injustice against men issue remains unspoken.
Men have absolutely no right and all obligations regarding pregnancies, abortion decision, and of course 25 years of paying half their income (sometimes twice their income!) in child and spousal support.
As it is being mentioned occasionally, men should have a chance to opt out of child support for the first months of pregancy. Or at least, if they opt out, be responsible only for basic poverty line support, not US$ 10 k per month, just because they make good money.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/men-pay-child-support-even-if-fraud-deceit-lie-rape
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Seems that most men’s rights people are strongly against abortion!?
It seems that the topic is not central to men’s rights, except as exposed in my post right above (I post this separately so you can downvote me for this opinion here without downvoting the topic above about men not having any influence about abortion)
Let us see if we can agree to disagree. The author seems to be tolerant of dissenting opinions on early term abortion. That certainly is the main issue
Probably everyone will agree that abortion is something unpleasant that should be avoided. By good planning, by good birth control, by self control and refraining from risky sex (and lying about birth control).
On early term abortion: are there many people here who think doctors and women should spend years in jail for performing early term abortions? Or doctors should be killed to save embryos?
Again, of course, women are the only ones that make the decisions, and men have to pay at all cost. But men cannot have the baby against the mother’s wish, even if they were willing to assume all responsibility, financially and child care (a commitment that probably would be void and invalid by family law in all countries).
This leaves the issue of late term abortions.
I would say that the gamut of opinion on that would run from “murder” as expressed here to “allowable but at least somewhat morally disturbing”.
Now do I understand that right, that women really are 100% unconcerned about goofing up, waiting a few months too long and then have absolutely ZERO moral concerns? That really looks weird. Late term abortion, or already born “abortion” due to tardiness and indecisiveness, that seems really immoral.
Now, before the advent of birth control, early term abortion, and social security, “abortion by infant killing” was a method of birth control. For a desperate mother with no means to support, a few centuries ago, or in the amazon jungle, that might be possibly morally defensible. If she does not kill her 3rd and 4th kid, the first two might die.
But this is not a valid argument in our modern society.
There is famous philopher Peter Singer, whose conclusions are contested but whose logic is very sharp. He makes a point that saying yes to late term abortions means saying yes to killing a born baby of the same developmental stage outside the womb.
Peter Singer
http://human-stupidity.com/awareness/peter-singer
He actually advocates allowing infant killing up to 30 days after birth (and is a proponent of animal rights too). And yes, he can explain it very logically: A caged pig or cow is more aware and feels more suffering then a just born infant. Please don’t vote me down, I am just giving food for thought, not definite opinions about such issues, nor am I advocating these things.
Now, it never occurred to me, nor to Peter Singer, I believe: If you would allow baby killing in the first month, that could finally re-instate equal rights: men can kill recently born infants as well as women.
(again, not a recommendation, just food for thought). And I think everyone agrees that an option for men to opt out of child support duty at an early stage of pregancy would be a much more humane way to achieve equal rights.
I am only adamant
a) that people should not be jailed for early term abortions,
b) that good planning and birth control should be applied to avoid the need for abortion
c) that abortions should be done as early as possible, if at all
d) and that men should not be forced to pay for babies born due to female fraud, lies about birth control, and refusal to remedy the lie with an early abortion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Dear All:
I support the notion that no abortions (murders) should be allowed at all. And no child support should be paid/required for illegitimate children. Illegitimacy is the foundation for high crime, high parasitism, low self esteem, low birth weights, low educational performance and high irresponsibility.
Illegitimate children should be taken away from the biological parents and be put up for adoption to married couples. Thusly, the exact opposite of the above -mentioned ills would be aided and abetted.
It should not pay to be a slut/crime factor etc.: it should cost. Let’s stop rewarding social ills and start punishing them.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
The rhetoric of the Spearhead, or any organ of expression of free men everywhere, should eschew advocacy of violence (except in the clearest cases of self-defence, and then only when all other avenues of avoiding injury to person and property are exhausted) but for OUR purposes, NOT theirs! Feminists, and their “progressive” ilk, always employ the threat of violence if they don’t get their way, because they know that otherwise no sane person would listen to them at all! We, on the other hand, can do better!
That being said, why shouldn’t we express the strongest distaste of these women and their hideous ideas–and I’m not even talking about abortion here–clearly, straightforwardly, and consistantly? If abortion, to use their favorite example, is a “choice” for motherhood on the parts of women, why shouldn’t men, for rhetorical purposes only, have a free pass to murder–in the name of “freedom of choice”–pregnant women who wish to inflict slavery on them, claiming the product of their labor for their own use (and the use of THEIR children) without the man’s knowledge or consent? You aren’t advocating murder of pregnant women per se, you are simply extending the feminist argument to the reductio ad absurdum where it naturally leads!
Feminists, and many other such groups, aften claim that “rage” gives them a justification of superheated rhetoric. I don’t think that we have to resort to it except for purposes of illustrating to readers and listeners how irresponsible and irrational such creatures are! I certainly don’t think, however, that we should “play dead” and give them a free pass at our expense!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Women’s weapon is their tongue – so the best way to deprive them of the opportunity of poisoning your mind and soul is:
#1: Ignore or play deaf
#2: Remove yourself physically (without looking back or saying ONE word)
Usually both- in sequential order.
In my experience- this will leave them totally dumbfounded.
Show them that you don’t really need them (except for MAYBE one thing!).
Ramses
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
I agree with you there human stupidity. I don’t believe that abortion rights aren’t a mens issue unless its Legal Choice for Men we are talking about and I’m wary of pro-lifers using us as a trojan.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14
Forget the “masculinity issue,” then:
I repeat. Not only do you CONTINUE to project zero respect,
but your arguments are consistently devoid of any logic.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
The divine chastisement will befall this depreaved and wicked society for the slaughter of its unborn. In the words of the late F. D. Wilhelmsen, “it is enough for an angel of God to vomit this nation out of history.” And when it happens as Bishop Richard Williamson predicts, “people will shake their fists at the heavens and say, “who do you think you are, God?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }