Feminist Censorship

by Featured Guest on November 21, 2012

By Ethical

As followers of the men’s rights movement (MRM) we can’t help but second guess the direction the movement’s leaders have taken. Thousands of well-written articles on countless blogs, so many devastatingly clear facts on our side, and yet we seem to be making such slow progress towards solutions. All this makes young men, already prone to doing their own thing, even more difficult to involve in growing the movement. Not that this isn’t understandable. If it’s true that attention spans of young men are fleeting except when seized by anticipation of imminent danger and excitement, young men might drift away after waiting fruitlessly for the MRM’s strongly worded articles to provoke an explosive reaction on hitting the newsstand. Because all they’ve heard so far is silence. The fact remains there are virtually no male MRM writers published in the broader public media at all. Outside of the websites in the manosphere you have to look hard to see where our words have even caused a ripple.

What’s often overlooked when we try to address the MRM’s comparative lack of exposure (as opposed to feminism lurking everywhere) is that beyond us in the MRM raising the bar by accumulating even more convincing facts, beyond us laying out even more logical and gripping arguments, beyond us capturing even more emotionally moving stories, there is the simple unassailable truth that as far as the popular media goes, pervasive and unrelenting feminist censorship makes these efforts moot. Because in virtually every mass media outlet in the country, whether conservative or liberal, whether Republican or Democrat, editorial policy overwhelmingly prohibits men from publishing articles on men’s rights. The few writers editors allow to publish articles on these issues are women. Some of these women represent the cause admirably, but nevertheless men’s voices are banned from being heard.

So I understand why not too long ago, popular game blogger Roosh called out the MRM for being ineffectual and cautioned young men against joining. Commenting on what he saw as the MRM’s seeming impotence in the face of feminism’s GREAT WALL OF ENFORCED SILENCE, he accused the MRM of “not getting the job done”. To true believers like yours truly his words stung like iodine on a friction burn. From the popularity of his website, and a review of the comments on the post, young men are listening too. The web information company alexa.com ranks Rooshv.com at 22,967 in the US by web traffic. Roosh nearly outranks feministing.com and its entire 11 woman staff who together garner only a slightly greater traffic rank of 19,666 in comparison, despite the fact Roosh is creating content alone.

Of course to be fair to the MRM, in my view Roosh’s “facts” about the MRM not having delivered are extremely flawed. In reality the MRM has been successful in lobbying for shared parenting legislation or a presumption of joint custody in a number of US states as well as in other jurisdictions worldwide such as Australia and the U.K.

Feminism’s female supremacists are recognizing this too. One article entitled “Men’s Rights” Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective ” said the following of the group “RADAR” which the article described as falling under “the broader umbrella of the men’s rights movement”:

… lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.

Curiously just like the MRM, Roosh and his young followers seem to have no doubt that popular opinion and therefore government policy is based on blatant feminist misinformation that they also find deeply objectionable. Still they see no sense joining the MRM’s effort to lobby our governments in order to remove the deeply feminist biases, just as they see no sense in trying to stem the barrage of feminist propaganda that misinforms the public into supporting those feminist policies. But in the interest of openness to the truth, the feedback of these young men isn’t to be discounted. In fact their apathy begs the question: ” why do men who take issue with feminist doctrine universally perceive feminist censorship to be so widespread, oppressive, and unchangeable”?

According to psychologists who’ve studied the phenomenon of women demanding men be censored from speaking the truth, both feminist censorship, and young men responding to feminist misinformation largely with apathy, might be inevitable. It turns out that in forums where supposedly both men’s and women’s opinions are welcomed, while men tend to be truly comfortable only if they’re free to speak their opinions, women tend to be comfortable only if forums are free of opinions they find disagreeable. As a result women tend to want men banned from forums if the men express opinions the women disagree with. GirlWritesWhat speaks eloquently about this at 17:30 in her video entitled “Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go?”

“Plain speech … [is] often discouraged when women are present in order to spare feelings and prevent discomfort. Outspokenness is replaced with drawing new rules of discourse, and ingenuity with protocol all of which render a feminized [environment]“

Though men will typically put up with it she says, they tune out, conceivably resulting in the apathy noted previously. Thus supposedly public forums become spaces men are no longer interested in participating in because without an equal accommodation of men’s need to speak freely, such forums are no longer welcoming to men. GirlWritesWhat elaborates at 20:10 in the same video:

Where are men retreating to? They’re retreating to the internet to the few men’s spaces that haven’t tailored their rules of conduct to suit women’s easily offended natures and need for comfort”

Knowing we can’t be heard in the popular media, young and old we come to the manosphere to share knowledge. But as Roosh might ask what’s our end game in doing so? Are we in the MRM gathering facts and statistics in preparation for an honest debate while feminists are laughing behind the scenes after having already called security to keep us out of the debate hall?

Make no mistake that men are excluded wherever our interests run counter to feminism. There are countless examples of feminists censoring men from discussions surrounding gender issues this way.

“Lace Curtain” – the tendency of most major institutions to interpret gender issues from only a feminist perspective or from a combination of feminist and female perspectives.

Dr. Warren Farrell, The Lace Curtain, menweb.org

“This is pretty much the norm on feminist websites”

KrissytheWorldWithin, Censorship in Feminist Media (a feminist woman objecting to feminism’s censorship)

[Hume] … assumes that the only serious threat to freedom of the press comes from a despotic government desirous of imposing centralized censorship of what appears in print, and which it is be able to do by fiat. This is not so; there are other, subtler threats to press freedom.

I have noticed that whenever I used the word “Mankind” in an article, it emerges in the printed version, without my permission, as “Humankind”, a word I despise as both ugly and sanctimonious … The change is made with such regularity, and in so many publications, that the government might as well have decreed it, though in fact it has not. There is, presumably, a monstrous regiment of sub-editors at work, all of like mind.

Theodore Dalrymple, Feminist Censorship and Language Reform, mensnewsdaily.com

Real world examples of feminist censorship

Some feminist who was too lazy or incompetent to rebut my claim just banned it.

The message will always get out. Your best bet is to post something as to why you disagree.

Barbarossa, Feminists resort to censorship … again

Feminist propaganda dominates the media, workplace, and educational system, while anti-feminists are either ignored or berated for being “unfair”, “barbaric”, or “politically incorrect”. As a result, almost all important antifeminist contributions are hidden from most people.

Amy Chavez, University of New Mexico [web page now censored]

Serious critique of feminism has been absent for more than a decade … critique and questioning of basic feminist principles became unthinkable. My own [antifeminist] books are lost in “zone of death, the eternal ice of quiet rejection.

Jan Deichmohle, gabnet.com [translated from German]

For feminists the only legitimate rebuttal in any debate is another brand of feminism. No doubt if each purports to be the “true” feminism, then hearing both out is always in the interest of women. Otherwise there can be no dissenting opinions, there is only feminism and “hate speech”. And hate speech of course needs to be banned.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, names Men’s Rights Activists as a hate group, citing the MRAs’ … virulent misogyny, spreading of false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

Radfem News Service, radfemworldnews.wordpress.com

True there are some feminists who openly acknowledge having an agenda of censorship, i.e. those who would either ban pornography or at the very least enable women to sue pornographers for damages:

[Catharine A. McKinnon’s] 1993 book, Only Words… opposing the US constitution’s first amendment interpretation of pornography as protected speech … considered it hate speech … “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words” … with real power … to cause the rape and murder of women.

… why not censor pornography? “Our approach is not to ban, but to offer a civil remedy to people who can prove they were harmed – rather than empowering the police and putting people in jail, which doesn’t do any good anyway. Pornographers keep their businesses going in jail.”

Stuart Jeffries, The Guardian, writing on Are women human? by Catharine A. MacKinnon

But there are other feminists who just as militantly insist that asking women to refrain from any level of nudity or sexuality (particularly lesbian sexuality) on the grounds of its inappropriateness in certain circumstances, is an either an outright assault on women’s sexual freedom, or a misogynist hatred of women’s bodies.

“The Body Is Not An Apology, an international movement focused on radical self-love and body empowerment, account was SUSPENDED from Facebook after posting a photo of an empowered female body and tribal women in Senegal with their breasts visible. We believe this sort of cultural and gender discrimination is absolutely asking women to apologize for their bodies and is unacceptable.

Sonya Renee Taylor, The Body is Not an Apology, from a petition on Change.org

Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) stands against censorship, particularly of sexual materials, in the defense of women’s sexual expression.


Since restriction of women’s right to sexual expression is the only type of censorship feminists acknowledge, in their minds they’re actually the victims of censorship rather than its perpetrators, since television networks, film and music companies still have the right to censor the [women] artists whose work they produce.

Without the liberty to protest, parody, and mock sexism, and to communicate information about women’s lives (including their sexual lives), women could not have made progress toward equality in the workplace or broken down sexist stereotypes in pop culture.

Feminism and Free Speech: Arts Censorship, Feminists for Free Expression (FFE)

That feminists contend women are the real victims of censorship despite the massive devastation feminist censorship imposes against men leaves us incredulous. Standing just beyond the reach of feminism’s mind control rays, we have to marvel at such evidence of the collective rationalization hamster on steroids, spinning millions of mental hamster wheels furiously to outrace the truth in order to reach another irrational conclusion.

Little wonder few men young OR old really learn what men are up against until they’re up against it themselves … completely unprepared and alone; never learning how much they’re being shortchanged in the educational system until trying to see in hindsight why it failed them; never learning how much the family law system is stacked up against them until it’s way too late to arrange their affairs defensively.

This censorship is measurable and verifiable. The specific mechanism by which it happens is the tendency for women as a group to suppress any opinion that isn’t biased towards women, in contrast with the equally measurable and verifiable tendency for men not to support another man unless they specifically agree with the man’s opinion.

GirlWritesWhat explains at 20:35 in her video entitled “How feminism conned society, and other not-so-tall tales”

A 2004 study of gender differences in automatic in-group biases found that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own-group preference. Only women showed this bias in all four experiments, and in 3 of them all subjects, male and female, showed a strong bias towards women. …” which is horrifying to me because it means women in power will act strongly in the interests of women, whereas men in power exhibit no own-group preference at all but will act more often than not in the interests of women as well.

She also states at 11:35 in “Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go?”

“It’s not that men can’t manifest any form of own group preference, it’s just that when own group preference manifests in males it just isn’t based on maleness alone. There has to be a common purpose, a common set of ideals, or principles, a common sense of duty or cause …”

This censorship is now so pervasive all throughout society from academia on down we can no longer count the number of professors who have publicly criticized academia for having become the centers for mass indoctrination they now are, rather than the centers of higher learning they were supposed to be. We’ve reached an inflection point in history where censorship of the masses prevents wide dissemination of the truth, but the ubiquity of the internet extinguishes any possibility that the lies will go undetected.

All this brings the MRM to a devastating impasse. Newspapers and magazines know women will have deep objections to any article that doesn’t blatantly favor women, many women going so far as calling efforts to address the increasingly poor educational success of boys or efforts to address the cruel imbalance against men in family court as “woman hating”. Media outlets know as a result that women will effectively boycott any newspaper or magazine which prints articles championing men’s rights, particularly if that article is written by a man. No sensible media company executive would print the truth under these circumstances, especially given that women control most of any household’s spending on the products that businesses pay the newspaper money to advertise.

Since as a consequence men generally can’t be paid for writing on men’s rights the way women are paid for writing about feminism, this censorship also has a incalculably huge impact on any discussion that impacts public policy.

In fact the impact of this censorship is so severe it’s enough to make us question our most fundamental and treasured assumptions about democracy as a whole, namely:

  • that our democratic freedom of expression means we are effectively free to express our opinions
  • that because we lack state censorship in our democracy, there is free access to information, and public opinion is formed through this free access
  • that because our democracy is freely elected, public policy will be representative of that public opinion
  • that because our elections are free and fair the interests of one demographic won’t be over-represented far out of proportion to their relative population

Politicians offer platitudes about efforts towards evidence based government, but a creeping chill tells us the fundamental assumptions of our system are broken. Democracy 2.0 is long overdue.

When this censorship becomes a weapon enabling courts to illegally strip men of their children and property and to condemn men into alimony slavery on a routine basis, it makes such a mockery of democracy it’s almost enough for us to even begin questioning our efforts to spread this “democracy” that has so betrayed us. Because if we’ve been betrayed so badly there could be no greater political sleight of hand than causing us to spend billions sponsoring foreign wars that destabilize the countries we need for resources, that run foreign streets red with blood in the name of encouraging the very system that grinds us down daily with its suppression of THE TRUTH. Not that I’m any man’s revolutionary. I know which side my own bread is so generously buttered on. With my oversized SUV, with my blue-tooth car phone system, with my car’s GPS navigation, I’d be the last to demand non-interventionist foreign policy if oil would become so expensive ambulances couldn’t afford gas to get my elderly parents to the hospital if one was dying, or supermarkets couldn’t afford to transport the produce I need to feed my children with. Still if faced with anything short of that kind of duress I would choose to live with less because no one wants to be part of doing EVIL unto others. And I would start living with less by demanding less feminist government intervention in my family affairs.

But back to feminism; why should feminists be so threatened by an honest discussion that they’ll go so far as undermining our very democracy this way to censor away any dissension?

Censorship has always been a hatred of the truth

Barbarossa, Feminists resort to censorship … again

Because feminism’s censorship is highly effective. But there’s no disputing that it creates such systemic misinformation it breaks all the above assumptions about the merits of democracy. Basing public policy on this systemic misinformation is devastating. Much of the cruelty inflicted against men and children in courtrooms as a result of unjust rulings happens because of misinformation spread by these feminists, including the misinformation fueling the domestic violence industry, the misinformation leading family court judges to value fathers only in terms of the money that can be stripped from them rather than placing a value on giving children time with fathers, or the misinformation that women earn two thirds of what men earn.

So rather than question our “end game”, given all we’ve had to fight just to speak our piece, we in the MRM need to give ourselves a break for sometimes seeming to make slow progress. Having myself just finished writing “We’re Stupid and We’ll Die”, an article criticizing the majority of men for complicity in having created this feminist mess, that goes double for me. Contrary to feminism’s assertion that we “the patriarchy” control everything, with feminism’s censorship we’ve literally had to battle the entire corporate and government establishment to make whatever progress we’ve made. We can only be proud of what we’ve accomplished. We can even take some encouragement from the seeming disengagement of young men. Because despite all the censorship, despite truth of the anti-male injustice being largely hidden from all except those who actively go out of their way to search for it, young men are still in record numbers refusing to swallow the humiliating feminist propaganda pissed on their heads since birth, and in those same large numbers they’re also finding places online where they aren’t so castrated. Not all of them may be coming to the MRM, but regardless of whether they wind up at one of Roosh’s sites, or anywhere in the Roissysphere, they’ll get a dose of red pill knowledge just the same.

It’s ironic that as democracy in its current form races towards a hard stop against the limitations on honest discussion, we as a society will survive or perish on the backs of these young men. We can only hope after they’ve taken the red pill they still agree to carry us. These are the same young men who increasingly will have endured frustrated childhoods filled with the court’s refusal to listen when they asked for more time with their fathers, who will have been shafted out of an education and become unemployable because of education policies that openly favored already high achieving girls, who will have been passed over for whatever jobs there were left because they lacked a vagina, and who will have seen from the experiences of their fathers and uncles that divorce laws are too savagely misandrist for them to care in the first place about becoming a cubicle drone just to one day save enough to get married. God forbid these young men might get a little angry and opt out of any social or economic roles we need them to fill when they discover that on top of everything else, they mattered so little to us we allowed them to be emasculated by feminism’s lies all their lives as well because it was too much of an inconvenience to fight this feminist censorship. These chickens WILL come home to roost. It’s too much to hope that feminism will reverse its course before they do; the gender dynamics driving women to vote for female supremacist policies and men not to resist seem to be innate in the current system.

Fortunately, as compulsively as they censor the truth now, feminists could also conceivably lift the veil of lies for their own self interest. Because you don’t have to look far to see how well the rights of women will be protected in a rag tag nation of unemployable, disenfranchised, betrayed, and very angry young men. God forbid indeed.

{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob November 21, 2012 at 12:56

I also read roosh’s blog and articles every once and a while. I can tell you that it becoming quite popular and will most likely continue to gain popularity due to the fact that it keep young men interested due to the relativity to there current life (sex and just living life to the fullest). Roosh shows young guys that they don’t have to be with their bitchy feminist gf to get laid, but traveling the world and giving guys tips on how to use girls, and also where to find the most feminine women. Believe it or not, I went and spend a semester abroad a little while ago in Colombia. It was great because it opened my eyes to how beautiful women can be. I had several beautiful gfs while I was their and I can tell ou with certainty that I will never go back to American bitchy women. Thankfully I am self employed and have the luxury of traveling a lot and I am able to spend my time enjoying all of the truely beautiful women in the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Noble Dragon November 21, 2012 at 12:58

Great article and well written.

Many years ago, when I was new to the men’s rights movement and idealistic about it, I yearned to help unite the divided factions of the MRM. I saw, as did everyone else, that our message was not getting out to the public at large. But I assumed that this was because of our internecine conflicts. I thought that if we could just find common ground and join forces, we could form a big powerful movement, then everyone would take us seriously and society would change.

A wise man gave me pause to think, however. I was driving to dinner somewhere with Warren Farrell and I expressed the above sentiments to him – I was clearly frustrated with the “in-fighting” amongst the various branches of the MRM. He pointed out that the fractionated efforts of men’s rights activists wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, wasn’t necessarily a problem to be solved. He saw value in, for example, multiple different men’s rights organizations independently lobbying congress, or hammering the media, or whatever, on the topic of, say, Fathers’ Rights. He didn’t think it was necessarily better to have one large, monolithic, organization doing all of the lobbying, etc. He then proceeded to give me some insight on why both models had intrinsic value. I’d never thought of things that way.

It has been 15 years since that conversation. I spent the ensuing 10 years working actively in the MRM, but drifted away some 5+ years ago. In all this time, much has changed, but one thing hasn’t – the very topic of this article: the fact of successful feminist censorship of the message of men’s rights. Feminism still has 100% control of the public discourse on gender issues. That has not changed.

But something else *has* changed: technology. The internet has really blossomed. Fifteen years ago, the internet was barely alive. Today, it is a vast space for communication and exchange of ideas; indeed, among the youth it is the pre-eminent form of ideas-sharing. When I first wished to get involved with the men’s movement, it was in the late 80-s and early 90-s (I was in my 20-s). I wrote postal letters to people and talked with them on the phone. Today, a young man in his 20-s has ready access to thousands upon thousands of blogs, websites, videos, etc. He knows he is not alone in his thinking.

Furthermore, the internet is the medium through which young people today achieve almost all of their communication and receive almost all of their information, entertainment, and education about matters in the public domain. The mainstream media are less important to today’s young people.

So, maybe Warren Farrell was right. Maybe we don’t need a united front, or a united voice. And to extend the idea to the internet age, since the mainstream media are no longer the sole arbiters of information transfer, maybe the tens of thousands of independent voices, falling on the ears of millions of young men (and women) will ultimately shape their behavior, despite feminist hegemony of discourse in the approved MSM channels.

And those behavioral changes may just manifest as silent choices – MGTOW and the like. So, maybe making a big, public splash is not necessary. Maybe it’s not necessary to confront or battle feminist censorship. Maybe the stream of social consciousness will end up just flowing quietly around the obstruction, as a clear mountain stream flows around the ungainly boulder lying in the path.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Morrisfactor November 21, 2012 at 13:36


Another great article, full of insight which we knew to be true, but to see it there in black and white – disturbing to say the least…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel November 21, 2012 at 13:44

Men’s rights activists are those men who, falsely, belieeve that discussion with women will bring forth the truth.

How futile!

On the other hand, Men Going Their Own Way are men who have, at long last, understood how the “game” is played. And have opted out.

It’s quite all right to waste one’s time dealing with fairy tales but eventually, the “game” has to be brought to a stop: men have to spend their time and energy somewhere else.

In short, the time has now come to drop everything and do the things for ourselves and ourselves alone.
In time, every MRA will open his eyes and wake up.

I have made the decision to go my own way and I feel much better now than I ever did when I thought I was “fighting”.
My attitude now is “I just don’t care” and I know for certain that many men do exactly what I do.
As goes the song:”It doesn’t matter anymore”.

Carpe Diem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Zorro November 21, 2012 at 13:47

Another stunning article.

Censorship is breathtakingly effective because you need formulate no facts nor rebuttals. Merely mute your opponent and paint them as bigots (“Either you’re a feminist or your a bigot.” –Gloria Allred).

Stifle either the prosecution in a court case, or the defense, and you have murdered the very concept of justice. Feminism has emerged as a genuine threat to an ongoing democracy. We’re headed for a mushroom cloud of economic and social collapse, and I flatly blame the fembots and their White Knight mangina enablers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Zorro November 21, 2012 at 13:48

“…or you’re a bigot. I HATE IT WHEN I SCREW UP LIKE THAT!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dannyfrom504 November 21, 2012 at 14:20

thank you for the Mr. Price.

what i find funny is how i get angry/hateful posts about me from BOTH sides. i def see the validity of both the MRA and the “game” sites. depsite saying, on countless occassions, that i have no intention of marrying yet i do VERY well with interacting with women. it really does neither side any good to pit against each other.


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo November 21, 2012 at 14:21

Before I got out, I was standing at my area of responsibility; and the men and women I worked with ganged up on me for reading this site. They had had enough of my “blatant Ihatewomen.com” sexism.

Both the women, and the men, all vehemently felt I was too misogynistic; and based their argument on one of the male’s friends who only he claimed to know; had won custody in an easy fight. I was given no information to verify; but they all pointed and said “see, see, youre wrong!”

All their arguments were subjective, and based on feelings. None of them had any real experience. One of the guys I worked with who was divorced, had a kid from a prior relationship agreed with me that we could not win it was a fact. Yet they shut him down; and took it out on me. They refused, based on emotion; and I had found out they had all been backstabbing me all along. I wrote them all off.

The one girl knew better than to ever ask me for help again. On anything. The others, many of these men were going through painful divorces; now no longer asked for my advice. I had cut them off, and told them nothing.

One woman was the cause; all these betas responded even to their own detriment.

To Roosh, Roissy, and the others; I don’t blame you. Yet still I remain.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Spark November 21, 2012 at 15:10

OT-Worth an article.

“Reactionary men who fear and hate strong women”

New editor explains to film reviewer that he no longer wants movie reviews of movies featuring strong women heroines and weak beta males:

“I did not say that women should have lesser courage or true, inner strength than a man. I merely said I do not have an interest in seeing men depicted as weaker, dumber, more cowardly or lower than women. In other words, no male bashing. And, consequently, no female bashing.
Calleri jumped to the illogical conclusion that, since I did not want male bashing, I must want female bashing.”

Calligari quits and runs to Roger “Beta” Ebert



Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Spark November 21, 2012 at 15:14

Editor responds to Roger Ebert and Calleri in comments:

“As for Calleri, there is good news, too. He is back at his hobby and will apparently be writing his tedious reviews on an internet site. He should soon be able to go to movies again for free.
In the meantime, in what is generally described as a declining newspaper market, the Niagara Falls Reporter has doubled its distribution during the last seven months. We owe a hearty thanks to our growing ranks of readers who are, for the most part, as far removed from the values and morals of Hollywood as Calleri is from being a legitimate, full-time, working writer. ”


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer November 21, 2012 at 15:21

One can make a comfortable living as a feminist, and they aren’t about to let some usurpers show up and siphon off any of the funding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
GT66 November 21, 2012 at 15:42

Personally, other than specific work done by groups like Fathers & Families, what platform points are the MRAs moving forward in the social and political spheres? I see lots of generalities, lots of justified complaints, but specific action items? Nada.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster November 21, 2012 at 16:10

More Lays in 60 Days
Lobby politicians for changes to misandric laws


Cum all over some hot bitch’s face
Have a hot poker stuck up your ass

Why oh why aren’t more young men joining the MRM?

One issue is branding. Roosh has a brand, Himself. The MRM has some bloggers (and their bloviating commenters-like me), hiding in the shadows behind the internet. Nobody’s out there. A face and force. Marc Rudov was for while, but even he gave up – and organizing wasn’t his priority – making money was….productizing the men’s movement. See how well that worked out?

So you can organize and stratagize on how to f*ck women, or you can organize and strategize on how to fight them politically. Which sounds like more fun?

It’s a branding problem, a marketing problem to reach the young – just like conservatives are nashing their teeth over right now. Liberals have Jay-Z, Bruce Springsteen and Jon Stewart. Conservatives have Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight and Rush Limbaugh. Oh joy…

Fighting Feminism is a zero sum game because of one reason and one reason only. Women have pussies and men’s rights activists do not. If women didn’t have pussies, the men’s movement would be much more successful. Do not underestimate the power of the pussy. Roosh understands at least that much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Glupak November 21, 2012 at 16:38

Every now and then on men’s rights or game blogs, a true gem of wisdom is found that adds a long missing piece to the puzzle. As its implications sink in, it’s like first seeing the Matrix all over again. This brilliantly written piece is one of them.

The missing link that has been puzzling me for a long time is this: how is it possible that women, as the weaker sex, so completely took over society, politics, the judicial system, and the main stream media? After reading this article, I realize that the answer has been right there in front of me: the herd mentality. Like many, I was aware of its existence, but I failed to comprehend its allencompassing scope.

Insult one woman, insult the sisterhood. It’s how we end up with rhetorics such as the ‘war on women’. Men don’t function that way: insult a nerd/hipster/biker/SUV owner/, insult all nerds/hipsters/bikers/SUV owners; but never the entire brotherhood of men, for there is no such thing. Men bond over a common cause, not membership of their sex. Ever noticed how diverse magazines targeted at men are? Check out your local newsdealer. There are special interest magazines for sailing, guns, cycling, motorbikes, cars, hifi, phones, IT, you name it. Now check out the women’s rack (heh). All their magazines are the same. Diets, fashion, celebrity gossip, relationship advice. They wouldn’t even notice that they are reading the wrong magazine if the covers were exchanged.

This is why men’s rights gain no traction in the main stream media: women not only read the same stuff, but they also buy the same stuff. Therefore advertisements targeted at women are WAY more effective than those aimed at men, which is why there are so many of them. With so much at stake in terms of ad revenue, no editorial board can afford to offend women.

The same logic applies to why politicians put so much focus on women’s issues: they all care about the same stuff. It’s quite simply a LOT more efficient than addressing men’s issues, because there is no such thing. Apart from a small intersecting set, we all care about different things. I used to wonder why no politician would cater to the male vote. It seems so obvious now: you CAN’T. There is no such thing as the male vote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 21, 2012 at 17:23

keyster said (paraphased):

“[Why] Lobby politicians for changes to misandric laws [if it's like having] a hot poker stuck up your ass”

True. But unless he’s superhuman one day Roosh is going to get drunk, slip up, and jump off the saddle a millisecond too late while riding bareback. Or he’ll just piss off some woman who’ll falsely accuse him of something. Once the judge sees his blog he better have an Ecuadorian passport ready. I wish him the best and hope none of this never happens. Life would be dull without outlaws. But if it does, much as he says he’s taking control and putting himself out of reach of these anti-male laws, he would feel the red hot poker deep in his ass all the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Glupak November 21, 2012 at 17:32

Adding to my comment above, I believe that the concept put forth in the article is important enough to merit a technical term of its own: female homogeneity.

Concepts such as hypergamy, solipsism, and the rationalization hamster go a long way in streamlining discussions and making sure everyone is on the same page. Female homogeneity, and the way it shapes public opinion and secures political majorities, is too important to be ignored.

Though absent, to date, from MRM lingo, the homogeneity of females of pretty much any mammal species is, in fact, a well established fact. There is ample evidence that males, as nature’s guinea pigs, display vastly more dispersion around the mean than females, on virtually any metric.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd November 21, 2012 at 17:40

I addressed this over at Dalrocks …

Getting women into the MRA isnt the solution, as women are herd driven & group consensus

As I’ve stated before, all you have to do is disseminate the MRA, via blogs, youtube channels etc

Women operate on a tipping point, that is a certain number of ppl have to agree as a group, before their herd mentality kicks in & they start supporting mens rights

We’re already seeing massive support in the comments sections GLOBALLY IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA

We have to push for group consensus, so the herd mentality of not just women, but laypersons start to become aware of us

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 21, 2012 at 17:42

Noble Dragon said:

Maybe the stream of social consciousness will end up just flowing quietly around the obstruction, as a clear mountain stream flows around the ungainly boulder lying in the path.

Thanks for taking the time to write such a powerful comment. Whether consciousness grows the way you suggest is to be seen. Clearly most men are unaware of men’s rights issues, or even of the issues “GAME” seeks to address: that dynamics between the sexes today now tend to leave the average western male shortchanged from lack of the increasing levels of “player” skills proponents feel are called for in this dysfunctional sexual marketplace.

As men we like to think we’re captains of our own ships and don’t need any help in dealings with women, but this complete lack of input into the discourse means feminist laws are slowly removing more and more of our options. Roosh et al. don’t seem to be holding out in hope that “red pill” knowledge will spread as you suggest it might. From what I gather they thoroughly believe most men will bathe in ignorance until the very moment of social collapse. The lack of male awareness that brought us to this cliff is a direct result of censorship. All a censor has to do is make the information hard enough to find most men won’t take the trouble to look.

The African-american community is probably the best barometer of whether some “consciousness” will manifest itself in reaction to social collapse. More than any other that community has been devastated by generations of state sanctioned undermining of the fathers position in the home. The more-likely-to-be disenfranchised, unemployable, and disconnected children of these fatherless homes grow up to be less likely to be equipped to take a strong father role and to have any defense against being stripped of their role as fathers in turn. I haven’t seen studies but anecdotally I’ve seen a seething anger and widespread acknowledgement of the problem on social media. But for all that emotion there’s little concerted political action. African American men, like all men it seems, don’t tend to ask the government for help to solve their problems with women. Perhaps men just stop doing whatever it is (getting married, having a job that can be garnished) that most directly causes the problem to manifest itself.

If the African-american community is spiraling towards even greater fatherlessness and even deeper collapse, that canary in the coal mine might be telling us there’s no way for feminist censorship’s effect on policy to self-correct. But on a positive note there’s Warren Farrell’s proposal for a White House Council for Men and Boys. Warren is one of the only men’s rights activists to have penetrated the “lace veil” and be given voice in popular media. Mind you he’s had to acquire absolutely ridiculously prestigious credentials to get that right (as opposed to the average first year intern feminist journalist who gets to speak quite freely). He’s been fearless enough to use his own name and built up a brand as keyster mentioned. Being the full-time object of irrational feminist hatred would be pretty damned grating. He is absolutely HEROIC.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh November 21, 2012 at 17:43

Even if you can’t argue with women you can probably argue with a lot of men. Not all of them but hopefully enough to erode the feminist support base.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
AnotherPerspective November 21, 2012 at 17:59

Who cares what Roosh says really his forum fights like a bunch of women and tries to censor people they aren’t bastions of any kind of knowledge or freedom except approaching women frequently to get laid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zorro November 21, 2012 at 18:18

I’m 52. If I were 22, I would pal up with Roosh in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t go NEAR the MRM. From the eyes of a kid, the MRM are a pack of withered old white men with bitch issues.

Now, as a withered old white man with bitch issues, I categorically deny that claim, despite the fact that I made it.

Just sayin.

As a young guy, WE SUCK MAJOR ASS. And Rooshy is getting those kids laid.

No, DUH!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Szebran November 21, 2012 at 18:46

Good article, long but good. Well thought out. My opinion is that Roosh and everyone else expects a magic wand to be waved and that within 24 hours feminism will be overthrown. But real life wont work like that. In this war there will be no blitzkreig.
Patience, persistance and perseverance is required. We are currenly in the education phase of the war. We already know the media is a feminist propaganda machine. So the internet will have to be used to spread information.
Roosh made a mistake by cautioning young men to join the MRM. This cuts of a channel for spreading information to men about feminist control of society.
Only when enough people have access to information / education can the next stage in the war effectively begin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TheBiboSez November 21, 2012 at 19:10

GWW’s videos are being picked up and shown in some college classes now. This is a tiny start, to be sure, but I find it a cause for hope.

She talks about it here:

This points to one great strategy for us – cultivate our female MRAs!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dejour November 21, 2012 at 19:12

Do you have any links to Amy Chavez or her books?

I tried a google search but came up with nothing. Possible the problem is that Chavez is a common name. Possible the problem is that there is a more popular Amy Chavez who writes books about Japan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo November 21, 2012 at 19:16


The thing about Roosh and other PUAs is that if the MRM succeeds they lose market share.

There will always be a market for what Roosh says; but a myraid of laws cut out to limit wanton sexual activity is not in his best interest either.

I don’t think he is wrong; we are not going to win this like feminism did. We are going to have to force a male version of birth control; and allow Roosh, and Roissy, and Rollo Tomasi and crew to keep dropping the hammer on the next several generations of women.

Leet’s be honest about this for most men; marriage as we talk about it is dead. We can’t go back under the current conditions. We can only allow the natural course of events to speed up. The feminists won; now it is time for their appointment to their solo appearance in the “Showcase Showdown” with Drew; because Barker has left the building.

Essentially, the bitterest segment of our movement is sadly going to be the right one; for all the wrong reasons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Norm November 21, 2012 at 19:22

Feminism(marxism) doesn’t want people to think for themselves which is why they want MRM articles to be censored. They can’t handle the truth. The MRM is making more headway than you may think. Look at the marriage rate declining and the decline of many newspapers and tv stations which were mostly left leaning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader November 21, 2012 at 20:07

All of this simply supports what TFH has been stating for a while: any representative government that gives voting rights to women will, in time, become a police state. And then it will collapse, at some future time, for the economic and social reasons.

TFH’s Misandry Bubble should be read by every man, and disseminated widely.

PS: These facts are why sensible men are not sitting by the doggy door, wearing their collar and holding their leash in their mouth, waiting for Mommy to return home. This is why sensible men are not Manginas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
American November 21, 2012 at 20:10

Wow, Ive heard a few MRA’s on different sites lately talking about how Impotent the mens rights movement is at this point.
I say, we are right where were supposed to be. The more Gender-feminists f@ck up academia, the more Gender-feminists pervert American law enforcement, the more gender-feminists make dating women a legal liability….the more they make the case for us that the gender-feminist construct needs to be “De-constructed”.
So i say,… Enjoy the fight, enjoy de-constructing gender-feminist theory, for tomorrow when it becomes obvious gender-feminism is bankrupt, then everyone will be doing it, and it will get crowded around here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Pirran November 21, 2012 at 20:14

“It’s a branding problem, a marketing problem to reach the young – just like conservatives are nashing their teeth over right now. Liberals have Jay-Z, Bruce Springsteen and Jon Stewart. Conservatives have Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight and Rush Limbaugh. Oh joy…”

It’s also a money problem (outside of the Net). The resources required to set up an MRA publication / network / program in the MSM and the inevitable hail of abuse it would face in the teeth of organized rad-fem lobbies (and their liberal male mangina counterparts) would require the capital of a billionaire. No advertising revenue would be a given and extremely deep pockets would be required for the avalanche of nuisance law-suits for years.

Ironically, if you could face down that initial but prolonged surge, it would be an obvious money-making opportunity. A genuine MSM publication / program directed at men without needless accomodation given to women. Look at the success of Top Gear (and it pulls it’s punches every time) whilst barely scratching the surface of what’s feasible.

Sadly all the nerdy billionaires have been co-opted. I suppose Joe Francis doesn’t have much left to lose; the feminazis and their pet DA’s have already made his life a misery (not that he’s necessarily the most moral being on earth – but he wasn’t strangling puppies either). He’s also an example of what they would do to anyone putting their head above the parapet. No wonder the Net is still the obvious medium.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay November 21, 2012 at 20:16

What is most important for the MRM is to ensure this technology of ours called the internet become immune to all attempts to control and censor it as the UN has done:





To circumvent all attempts at censorship is one of the many objectives of the MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel November 21, 2012 at 20:58

Now that the Net has reached (almost) maturity, Feminist Censorship does not matter anymore. Who can censor what now? The printed copy? Hardly anymore.

But with the Net, the amount of freedom of speech reaches its apex.

The majority of men (the ones we want to extend the message to) will rather take their news and spend their time on the net.

TeeVee (the one and only one stoopid toobe) is for women now.
Teevee caters to women and only to women: what do men care about TV anymore? (other than watching hockey).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
shiva1008 November 22, 2012 at 02:02

Roosh’ proclamation that the MRM “hasn’t done anything” was silly. That’s like saying an insurgency of 100,000 in a country of 300 million, with no outside political support “hasn’t done anything.” Realistically assessing the situation, what did he expect us to have done? Not only are we small in number, but no one even wants to be associated with us. It’s like being associated with commies in the 1950s. If anything, the MRM’s progress has been surprisingly rapid, in light of all these obstacles.

Then again, Roosh has a tendency to state things in a sensational manner to garner page views.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
"The One" November 22, 2012 at 02:05

The MRM is gaining traction. Roosh remains irrelevant to the MRM.

Being famous and being right are two different things. Roosh is a vapid niche celeb. He has no claim to the glory of the MRM.

I am confident that I have had greater sexual gratification from women than Roosh will ever have.

But that is not the point. Suppose a father went to Afghanistan and had his junk blasted off by an IED? He’s still a father when he gets home, even though “getting laid” no longer matters to him.

The MRM serves his interests, protecting his rights of custody to his children. Roosh or Roissy “sport-fucking a ten” is irrelevant to him. MRM is about men’s most basic civil rights.

Roosh and Roissy might as well be talking about growing tulips. Except that they are also a nuisance, seeking to demoralize the MRM for their own commercial gain at our expense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cooterbee November 22, 2012 at 03:37

The MRM won’t amount to anything unless and until it recognizes it’s own strengths and weaknesses and it aligns it’s goals with those of everyday men.

As it stands now, the MRM is populated by losers. Lost economically, lost academically, lost in family court or in the mating game, a combination… no matter… most have lost at something. Worse yet: most look outside themselves for solutions to their personal problems. Maybe if the government was smaller; maybe if family court officials weren’t so stupid; maybe if billionaires got a tax cut — all conditions outside themselves. Winners don’t passively wait for circumstances to change or tilt at windmills they are powerless to effect. They beat the odds and overcome or exploit circumstances. Sounds like a harsh indictment for MRAs but it really is not. The vast majority of men of all stripes lack the qualities of true greatness. It should come as no surprise that MRAs (being a subset of men in general) are not cut out for conceiving and executing extensive changes in the world.

Much is made of the observation that men created and built the entire world around us. True enough but misleading. Dynamic men of vision and capability led the efforts while the rest of us just hauled the bricks. The typical man’s contribution to civilization is vanishingly small. The kind of men capable of achieving the things we seem to need to progress are to be counted among our most bitter enemies.

None of this is to suggest that the MRM is valueless or futile. The MRM has much to offer. It merely has to shift the emphasis from the wider political and socioeconomic environment to the well being of the individual. No, not a renewed effort toward libertarian political bullshit but touting practical tools and strategies that improve individual lives. For now the bulk of the effort appears to be directed toward forcing Congress to make some tattooed crack whore marry us, permit us to slave away in some Dickensian nightmare and let us call our dad a Cultural Marxist. Wow, what a deal!

If the MRM were to focus on individual skill and adaptability, however, it’s a whole new ballgame. Spread the word about new ways that an individual man can improve his own lot, by himself, and more men will look into those things and prosper. When it becomes apparent that nearly all of the men who prosper and avoid the worst ordeals in life are all mgtow, political action and social persuasion won’t be needed anymore. People will note the examples in their own lives and follow suit. Soon the real movers and shakers in the world will join us voluntarily. They will finally have incentive… influencing affluent consumers and accessing a previously unexploited power base.

Offer a man concrete facts about neoteny or abstract arguments about national fiscal policy and you don’t offer him much but offer him a better future that is within his immediate grasp then he just might take it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
numnut November 22, 2012 at 03:56

The courts are providing sufficient education on their own.
The media can censor,shame,lie,and inflate,but they cannot stop you from walking away.
Hence all the “where have all the good men gone?” Articles.

Where did they go?
Someplace safe,someplace far away from your hating ass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hugh G. Rection November 22, 2012 at 08:35

I’m a young guy and I gotta agree, the MRM doesn’t have a lot to offer me, in fact engaging in it might hinder me from getting laid. And to be honest, all that needs to change for life to be perfect is that society stops expecting me to live my life for the benefit of women and children, and this is more a problem of individual men (even or especially MRAs). I’m still getting the stinkeye if I’m saying that I’m not married and don’t want children or cohabitation or shit like that.

Changes in marriage law don’t help me, I won’t get married. And even if they change the law, they can always change it back. Remember Marriage 1.0? Marriage was a sweet deal for women, feminists killed it.
Changes in custody/child support don’t help me (maybe if I get unlucky) because I don’t have / want children. For all intents and purposes it would be her children anyways. Father is soon to be marked as outdated in the dictionary.

Really the older Guys bear the brunt of feminism because they still subscribed to the old ways. You go out, get a good job, get a wife and family and the lifestyle that comes with that to support. And now you are a slave to two masters, your employer and your wife. And you’re still not getting laid as often as you want to. And then they screwed you with no fault divorce, frivolous alimony and outrageous child support. Why would I want to go back to that?

All I want is reliable birth control for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Noble Dragon November 22, 2012 at 10:01

Dear Ethical,

Thank you for your lengthy reply to my comment. I appreciate your insightful and thoughtful comments.

As I reflect on what you wrote, I find myself pondering the chain of logic. I believe your argument is as follows:
1) Most men are not aware of men’s rights issues, at least not consciously. And you presume that:
a. Men generally think they can handle their issues with women on their own
b. Ignorance of men’s rights issues will lead to societal collapse.
2) Men’s ignorance of men’s rights issues is a direct result of feminist censorship. And you presume that:
a. Increasing men’s awareness of men’s rights issues is necessary to overcome systemic misandry
3) Men having input into the public discourse is necessary to prevent or remediate the adverse feminist impact on men and society.
a. There is no natural self-correction mechanism for feminist censorship

You then provide the case example of feminist destruction of the black family (through its destruction of black fathers), and black society’s spiraling into collapse.

I hope I have captured your argument accurately. Please indicate if I have erred. I am in general agreement with the items 1, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3a, but not items 2a and 3.

I, too, believe that most men are not *consciously* aware of men’s rights issues. If you ask the average man on the street about gender issues, equal rights, men’s rights, discrimination against men, etc., I am sure he would have trouble articulating his awareness of such ideas. But, I think that most men are aware of the double standards of feminism at least subconsciously if not consciously; I don’t think they are clueless about it. I think most men just downplay, or try to ignore the daily barbs, biases, and nuisances of feminism for the most part; they just want to get by and get along. If pressed for an opinion, the majority of men will either say they just don’t care because feminism is not a sufficient source of suffering to them personally, or they will actively voice support for feminism because they are white knights or manginas. Men who will actually denounce feminism (men who are intrinsically men’s rights activists at heart) are in the minority.

In my personal experience, when I have carefully laid out rational arguments to male friends, family members, and colleagues, the ones who didn’t care to begin with still don’t care, the defenders of feminism continue to defend feminism, and those who were naturally sympathetic to men’s rights issues would listen but that just left me preaching to the choir. Over the years, I have tried every tactic I could think of to evoke interest in the minds of the uninterested, and convert the white knights and manginas – rational argument, data and evidence, emotion and psychological manipulation. I tried all of these tactics and more, in one-on-one situations, as well as letters to the editors, public debates, etc. One thing I have learned in all of this is that simply “getting the message out” to ordinary men results in little to no apparent change – it doesn’t seem to suddenly cause a man who is ignorant of men’s rights issues to care any more about it than he did before, and it certainly does not change the opinions of white knights and manginas. Even when it does change some people’s perceptions, it doesn’t suddenly motivate them to take action or live their lives in a radically different way. My observation is that most people believe what they want to believe, filter reality through their biases, and are generally impervious to anything that attempts to challenge their internal status quo. They are remarkably stubborn in their refusal to take the red pill, even when it would seem to be to their benefit to do so.

A couple of example dynamics are useful to help us think through how people respond. One great example is the one you brought up – the destruction of fatherhood in the black community. Another is America’s ongoing war of terror in the Middle East.

Black men have been profoundly victimized by feminism. Yet their responses have not succeeded in restoring black fatherhood. It would be incorrect to say they have not responded at all. They have, but it has not been effective in restoring fatherhood. What has been the response of black men to the feminization of their culture? One aspect of their response has been polygyny and serial monogamy, obtaining sexual satisfaction from multiple women, having children with multiple women, playing a quasi father-like role to the children of their sisters, etc. Another aspect has been rap music, with much of it characterized by disdain toward women (what feminists like to denounce as “misogynistic”). There are other responses as well, but you get the picture. None of it has in any way ameliorated the marginalization of fathers in their culture. So, you are absolutely correct in your observation that feminism has no self-correction mechanism (at least in the short term). Any self-correction is likely to be catastrophic – the parasite killing the host, followed by the arising of a new organism from the remains of the old (the rising of the phoenix from the ashes of its prior death).

What can we learn from the lesson of the black community? What tune is the canary singing? One lesson is that individual men reacting in isolation to men’s collective marginalization by just making the best of their own situation may be satisfactory for the individual man, and indeed may be the most rational response to the overwhelming power of the social forces, however it does not inevitably cause the positive resolution of those destructive societal influences – it does not lead to self-correction. To translate this to the arena of men’s rights, MGTOW may be a rational and desirable response (and even one that benefits individual men), but there is nothing about it that *necessitates* the downfall of the corrupt system. That is, men’s enlightened self-interest practiced on the individual scale may not change the system. Another lesson here is that the parasite won’t self-regulate; it will continue feeding on the host until it dies – again, no self correction.

What about America’s war of terror in the Middle East? It generally does not enjoy popular support; indeed the vast majority of Americans would like to see the military just up and declare the war won and bring the troops back. This sentiment has been there for years, it is not new. That said, there is no doubt that a large minority of Americans actually do support the war. Their belief is often captured by the idea that it’s better to fight the enemy there than fight the enemy here. Still, polls show that the majority of Americans want an end to the war. Nevertheless, the administrations (Bush, Obama, etc.) keep on extending American imperial might abroad, and continue making war on various Middle Eastern populations. Yet there are no significant protests, no significant or massive antiwar movement as there was during the Vietnam war. What is going on here? I think one difference between now and the Vietnam era is that there is no draft. Those men who are dying or being maimed *chose* to join the military – they were not conscripted. So there is not the same sense of personal victimization and attendant outrage. A second factor is that a much smaller number of American men are being killed or maimed each year than in the Vietnam days. Thirdly, the cost of the current war is largely funded by currency devaluation (quantitative easing, etc.), interest rate manipulation, etc., and so the direct and obvious connection between people’s decreasing standard of living and the cost of the war is not apparent to the average person. Another factor, which supports your view, is that the media today are censoring any accurate depiction of the horrors of war (such as showing footage of American soldiers being killed, or IEDs destroying men’s genitals, or the innocent civilians in the Middle East being bombed, etc.). Instead the media are promulgating the imperial narrative of the power elite. The media depict the victims of American imperialism as brutal terrorists, and otherwise whitewash the horrors of war.

What lessons can we learn from this example? One is that if people don’t feel the direct personal effects of bad policy, they are less motivated to do anything about it. Another is that people will attend to or ignore what they want to bolster their biases and opinions; rather than think and question their beliefs; they filter reality through their perceptual biases to see what they want and justify their pre-existing values. I was astounded by the reaction (or non-reaction, rather) among liberals to Obama’s warmongering, murder of innocents, drone bombings, and repeals of civil liberties. Liberals screamed bloody murder when Bush did such things. Yet the average liberal now either ignores it, excuses it, or justifies it since it is their guy doing it. Indeed, the average liberal seems to buy into the media propaganda narrative (eg: Obama is a pacifist, thinking deeply before being forced to make hard decisions, following “just war” practices, etc.). The average liberal sucks up the message of the mainstream media without question. While it is true that messages that challenge these ideas (eg: Ron Paul’s message of peace and liberty) are consistently and viciously censored, even when the message gets through, a lot of people I talked to (both liberals and conservatives) seem to just parrot back what they hear from the media. The called Ron Paul a crazy old man, said he had no chance to win, etc. Even when the message does get out, people may not listen; they hear what they want to hear.

So, I while I do agree that media messages do influence people, I am not so sure that there is an inexorable, linear cause-and-effect type relationship between getting ideas out into the public consciousness and seeing positive change. If there were, then all we’d have to do is get our message out there consistently and to a large audience, and presto things would get fixed. Back in the 1980-s, the Coalition of Free Men, Inc. (subsequently the National Coalition of Free Men, and now called the National Coalition For Men) was successful in getting MRAs onto popular daytime television, like the Phil Donahue show, etc. Playboy had a regular MRA column by Asa Baber – talk about widespread exposure and target audiences! None of this caused any kind of nationwide “aha” experiences, though.

But, even if we could convince the majority of people of the truth or value of men’s rights, I don’t think that would put an end to the evil family court system, male genital mutilation, disparate outcomes in the injustice system, etc., etc.

Sometimes I wonder whether or not public perception and media messaging is a byproduct of change, rather than the driver of change.

In any event, I think there is a precondition for getting our message out and for overcoming feminist censorship. And that precondition is control of the reins of power. Feminists are able to influence public perception through propaganda and control of all mainstream media only because those in power will it to be so. Without the support of the power elite, feminism would not enjoy the support of state and private institutions, and would not be able to censor men’s rights voices. It is the fact that feminism is profoundly intertwined with the structures of power that the feminist message controls the gender dialectic.

I believe that if we really want to see change, we must first acquire sufficient control over state and private power mechanisms, before we can co-opt the feminist hegemony of mainstream public discourse. Even if 99% of men didn’t care about feminism, if only 1% of men were MRAs who could infiltrate government, academia, media, etc., and rise to positions of power, then we would be able to wrest control of the dialect away from feminists. In other words, I think that overcoming feminist censorship of the mainstream media will be a byproduct of our rise to power, rather than the cause. And that rise to power does not depend on first convincing the majority of men, or society in general, of the righteousness of our views.

But how to achieve such a takeover of the power structures? That is the question – one for which I have no answer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster November 22, 2012 at 11:10

Female homogeneity, and the way it shapes public opinion and secures political majorities, is too important to be ignored.

And Team Woman’s biggest supporters are Fathers of Daughters, Leaders of Corporations, Entertainers in Hollwood, Politicians in Washington and Professors in Academia. Woman is disadvantaged vis a vis Man, she’s the underdog. She’s the Palestinians, he’s the Jewish State. She must stay united against the common enemy, and that enemy is MEN. Individual men who dare criticize Her will not be permitted to speak, and if they do SHOUT THEM DOWN. Criticize Susan Rice? You’re obviously a Sexist (and maybe even a Racist). Say abortion is bad? You’re against women having access to health care. Against Paycheck Fairness? You’re a misogynist pig.

When it comes to identity politics, women are the #1 dominant majority group profiting from it. The young, hispanics, blacks, gays, unions, seniors, the military – – all have one very broad overlapping commonality – TEAM WOMAN. And Team Woman votes for stuff that benefits Team Woman, with no regard for the tedious unintended consequences that linger somewhere in the future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 22, 2012 at 11:30

PUA and the MRM old men with bitch issues are the same guy. We are the leadership here. especially a commenter on the spearhead. They are just one niche of the MRM. Infact the Manginas and white knights play a role also. As more young men become PUA or just MGTOW (in various forms) the manginas and whiteknights are going to get the tab.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 22, 2012 at 12:11

PUA and MRA’s (old men with bitch issues ) are the same men at different stages in life. The MRA’s are the leadership here. The PUA are just a niche of the MRM we,re the only ones as spearhead commenters that need to understand that. If they in an effort to give themselves a psychological booste bad mouth the MRA’s so what. As anMRA I fully encourage them to man the cock carousel and be as addictive as possible. Any woman the rides the carousel needs as much dick as possible to hypergame 25 years of fertility and physical appearance out of the slut. And most importantly and I mean this with all my heart I want that bitch to always have an alpha there to shoot for so she won’t settle for a good man as defined by the manospere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
TFH November 22, 2012 at 12:25


TFH’s Misandry Bubble should be read by every man, and disseminated widely.

Thanks, man!

Yes… we are just 7 years away from 2020, aka the pop of the Misandry Bubble. It won’t be clean or pretty, but feminism will have imploded culturally and economically (even if not legally).

I will say that awareness has risen since the start of 2011, due to the activism of Paul Elam and others. My own URLs @ Urinals campaign has exposed red-pill ideas to tens of thousands of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer November 22, 2012 at 12:36

More disturbing is how jaded we have become.

Why just yesterday this hit the news with narry a peep from the so-called “MRM”:


Though I’m not sure what Michael Jackson has to do with the Patraeus scandal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam November 22, 2012 at 14:10

“As an MRA I fully encourage them to man the cock carousel ..”
LOL greyghost I’m now plagued by a mental image of the PUA Brigade as those quad-mount 40mm Bofors ack-ack guns they had on WWII carriers, all twisting about and pumping away manfully, defending our vessel against buzzing squadrons of hypergamic suicide blondes.
General quarters. All hands man your battle stations!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH November 22, 2012 at 14:21


In reality the MRM has been successful in lobbying for shared parenting legislation or a presumption of joint custody in a number of US states as well as in other jurisdictions worldwide such as Australia and the U.K.

Which states, specifically?

It is important to advertise our successes. Both to inspire further activism and scare our enemies.

Roosh might be wrong to overlook this success, but that also shows that these successes are not being announced at all, if even the small Androsphere has many prominent people who do not know about them.

I mean, imagine the writing of feminists and manginas if Roissy or The Spearhead one day simply stated that the following states now have joint custody. BAM.. the momentum from that would be tangible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
TFH November 22, 2012 at 14:24

would require the capital of a billionaire.

Sadly all the nerdy billionaires have been co-opted.

Not all.

Peter Thiel is pretty savvy about red-pill issues. He happens to be gay. But nonetheless he openly talks about the fraud that feminism is. He also funds a lot of his pet causes, so he is the place to start.

His Paypal co-founder, Elon Musk, has 5 sons, and managed to get divorced in California without losing money, so he is savvy about the rules.

Those two would be the place to start. Both have wealth in the $2B range, and are younger than 42.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 22, 2012 at 14:24

El Bastardo

To Roosh, Roissy, and the others; I don’t blame you. Yet still I remain.


I’m 52. If I were 22, I would pal up with Roosh in a heartbeat.

“The One”

Roosh or Roissy “sport-fucking a ten” is irrelevant to [the MRM] … [it]‘s about men’s most basic civil rights.


PUA['s] and MRA’s (old men with bitch issues ) are the same men at different stages in life.

IMHO Roosh/Roissy and the MRM both contribute valuable knowledge. Having had entire countries of outraged women put up the media equivalent of wanted posters warning women of his arrival, Roosh is definitely the bigger outlaw, but according to the SPLC the MRM is full of outlaws too.

Roosh/Roissy and the MRM both think feminism is running us off the cliff of economic and social collapse. My take is that we in the MRM think we might be able to educate people enough to pull the breaks and stop the train. Roosh/Roissy feel the end is inevitable. Might as well learn strong player kung-fu and crush all the vaj on the train till it hits the ground below.

If I was younger I’d read Roosh/Roissy more earnestly; they seem to break things down to a science. But I’d still be part of the MRM because having children and giving them the benefits of a father at the head of a family was always my calling. I don’t accept having that option taken away from my sons by laws that now make marriage so emasculating and dangerous that it’s quickly becoming the preserve of only the idiotic and the uninformed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" November 22, 2012 at 14:45

cooterbee writes: “The MRM won’t amount to anything unless and until it recognizes it’s own strengths and weaknesses and it aligns it’s goals with those of everyday men.”

The MRM has immeasurable value to each man. The MRM is made of everyday men.

cooterbee writes: “As it stands now, the MRM is populated by losers.”

cooterbee is a Feminist loser and thankfully, not a part of the MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 November 22, 2012 at 15:29

The vicious attack on the MRM is not based on ignorance. No, it is based on determined and dedicated ignorance.

Einstein allegedly said something like, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and expecting different results”.

So, what do MRM critics think the MRM should be doing? Apparently, lobbying for law changes. Trying to get publicity for their cause. Trying to gain public sympathy for the cause.

All the things the MRM was doing in the 70′s and 80′s.

We made some gains on custody issues, and the feminists shifted to child support issues, generating some bogus doctoral theses to justify increased payments, and raised support payments out of sight. Then, they shifted over to DV issues. Then, to false sex charges as a way of life.

We did have effective lobbyists. [sarcasm]All the misandrists had was a majority of female votes, just as they have today.[/sarcasm] So, no matter how effective the MRM is in publicity, and lobbying, they lose. And we knew this decades ago.

So, what you expect them to do is the same thing that never worked yet. And, you criticize them?

The problem is, most of you don’t know those things were tried, because the MSM never covered them. The information is available if you look, but you don’t look. One standard argument is, “You guys were losers who didn’t accomplish anything, so we don’t care what you did.” And, thus, repeat the same failed plan. This is referred to in some circles, sarcastically, as deja vu all over again…

Why have these tactics not worked? To gain concessions from your opponents, you must have something they want. With women controlling our society, including its vote and its purse strings, men have not over most of the 40+ years of feminism had anything women wanted, in exchange for what men want.

Since the marriage strike started, probably in the mid-90′s, women have been hurting as men walk away from commitment. As each year passes, more women realize there really is a major marriage strike, and they are getting desperate. In a phrase, we have taken away from them something they want. Except they think they can still stop us, and we will return to a destructive marriage system, they would be begging for mercy.

Let me show you what men have done, one at a time, privately in the restrooms and on fishing trips, without MSM support or a major single organization.

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
2010 34.2 Unverified estimate from Pew

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
ce9999 November 22, 2012 at 15:31

Great article. Really excellent. If anyone ever puts together a “Men’s Rights 101″ course, this article should definitely be on the syllabus.

Now, if you’ll pardon me, I need to go hunt down this “Niagara Falls Reporter” newspaper, which sounds very promising.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 22, 2012 at 16:42

Gentleman, we have already won.
By giving loud mouth Gender-raunch enough rope, they will always hang themselves, as pride always comes before the fall, and pride parades are at an all time high.
There are bigger forces at play here than most understand, as the wheat is being separated from the chaff as we speak.
“Equality feminism” of 30 years ago was a sustainable construct that had some longevity, but todays “Gender-feminism” that specifically targets the hetero-gender, is a construction that have some loose framing members.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 22, 2012 at 16:51

The history books will write about how “perverted” American law enforcement had become, and will use the example of the explosion of false rape accusations for such trivial reasons as “She didn’t feel like paying her cab fare”, as an example.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
jay November 22, 2012 at 17:47


Peter thiel is a shady character I don’t know what his motives are but he is on the steering committee of the bilderberg group. A gathering of the power elite to steer the world:


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
"The One" November 22, 2012 at 17:55

cooterbee: Please try not to be a Feminist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran November 22, 2012 at 18:10


Elon Musk is a bit obsessed with green issues (the new Tesla looks good, though) and is a metaphorical and literal space cadet so I’m guessing he’s heavily Pro-Dem and Pro male-bashing consensus. Plus he was in-hock to Obama-Messiah for half a billion over Tesla and probably wants to tap that source again. Why risk your own money when Barry O wants to give you freebies? You have to stay on side with the Kool aid, though.

Peter Thiel is more promising (although a little low-key – I’m not too sure he would want to charge into battle). His does have the magic shield of Gay which forces Feminazi trolls back under the bridge (pro tem).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 22, 2012 at 18:53

Hugh G. Rection

I’m a young guy and I gotta agree, the MRM doesn’t have a lot to offer me, in fact engaging in it might hinder me from getting laid.

@Hugh G. Rection
Something must have brought you to The Spearhead. What was it?

@Noble Dragon:
In your comment you summarized my points quite accurately and then disagreed that increasing men’s awareness of men’s rights issues is necessary to overcome systemic misandry, and disagreed that men having input into the public discourse on gender issues is what’s necessary to prevent or remediate the adverse feminist impact on men and society. You raised a lot of points to think about but I’ll try to answer briefly.

“men who will actually denounce feminism are in the minority” … “getting the message out” doesn’t seem to change men’s minds”.

Given the minority of men directly affected I think men’s lack of attention in the past is just reflective of men putting a low assessment on the risk. Men are risk takers. Telling a man he could break his neck bungy jumping won’t necessarily stop him from doing it unless the risks are prohibitive. Young men especially have evolved to take risks, perhaps because there’s a reproductive advantage in believing they have a chance of winning the resources they need to get women. But that’s not to say an awareness of the risks of marriage and of false accusations in sexual relations isn’t growing. I believe it’s growing steadily.

“Most people … are remarkably stubborn in their refusal to take the red pill”

Men don’t admire fearfulness in themselves or others. My take is that men are partly saying “No horror stories are going to make me afraid. But if you keep going on about these horror stories Mr. MRA then you must be afraid”. We do drone on when we’d be more effective if for example we mixed in some humor. But men who’ve suffered serious injustice can’t hold their heads up high after allowing someone to get away with (legally) sodomizing them. No matter whether we’ve fought like hell and done everything in our power to prevent it, our evolutionary monkey brain says “it’s an affront to your manhood to allow yourselves to be violated like that”. We can’t move on till we get some payback, till we prove some point, and that makes us go on tiresomely about the same topic instead of adjusting our message till it gets through. I’d really like to write a screenplay about an international PUA’s life so I could spread the message about misandry humorously in the backstory … LOL … if only I had the gift of humor. We’ll see how that goes.

“Black men have been profoundly victimized by feminism. Yet their responses have not succeeded in restoring black fatherhood”.

I think men of all stripes want to preserve their manhood, want to control their own choices in life, want to take charge of their own fate. Manhood doesn’t necessarily equate to fatherhood for all. Even if it does at first consider the “training of a lion”. A lion in a circus ring is never tame. His roar says “if you come inside my personal space I will kill you”. The trick is shrinking his personal space smaller and smaller around him until you have him jumping up and down on his hind legs in a pink tutu to the amusement of children. In the same way men gradually accept having their kids taken away and being financially crippled by unjust support payments. Like the lion he shrinks what he will defend until he will defend nothing. Otherwise courts all over the country would burn and abusive and corrupt judges would be hauled out and executed in the streets.

“individual men reacting in isolation to men’s collective marginalization by just making the best of their own situation may be satisfactory for the individual man, and indeed may be the most rational response to the overwhelming power of the social forces, however it does not inevitably cause the positive resolution of those destructive societal influences”

Who knows? The collapse of the African-American community will almost certainly spread across demographics and America may collapse too just like the Soviet Union. Whatever the law may say, enforcement will be another thing. And with American woman being trafficked around the world like their Russian sisters, I wonder whether they would be so quick to ditch a good husband and run to the family court.

“Feminists are able to influence public perception through propaganda and control of all mainstream media only because those in power will it to be so”.

You might be right. But I would argue that feminists have all that influence because societies will naturally cater more to groups that act with one voice (like women) … unless there is a religous orthodoxy or some other force dictating otherwise (economic collapse?). I don’t know whether it’s due to collapse but feminism seems to be a dirty word in Russia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd November 22, 2012 at 18:53

Awesome posts by tfh anon reader & anon 70 …

Anon 70 could write mrm 101 with one hand & his hot Mexican wife one the other … mghow & expat & activist for many years to boot …

We really need to start putting the best & most hard hitting posts on places like YouTube for a wider audience

Btw for all you haters I’ve checked the stats

We already have MRM YouTube channels with over 3 million views

Video skribble leads with 3 million views

While Barbarossa & GWW neck & neck at 1.5 million views each
All you clueless morons who think the MRM isnt making an impact think again

Then there’s the hundreds of growing smaller YouTube mra channels poppy up like crazy

From my research on YouTube mrm is growing if not exploding

The stats prove we’re growing at an exponential rate

The new year is going to be a HUGE year for the MRM … Enough with the strolls & back stabbing …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd November 22, 2012 at 18:55

Gddmn smartphone autocorrect !!! Ignore the spelling lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 22, 2012 at 18:55

Anonymous age 70
The MRM and MRA’s are deverse and need to be. feminism has already destroyed the black people because it was wrongly seen as a symptom of racism. So you have a united front against racism and in the meantime feminism is eating ythe black people alive. We need activist looking to change laws, we need PUA and players for reasons stated above, we need MGTOW types,the grass eaters are good for the MRM also. Women will change things with their vote by action or most likely by in action. One thing all men need to know and have as a basis for any MRA action is this No woman will concern her self with the well being of any one other than herself (abortion) unless it is out of wicked selfishness. You can be logical with stats out the ass on human suffering from feminism and that bitch’s solution will be to get the government to stop collecting the data or to shut you up. DO NOT doubt that. We still need the activist but the real fight is guerilla warfare at the intimate level. The trenches are the men engaged the PUA’s and players the blue pill beta men (victims) that marry and men that chose to go to college. You all can fill in those missed. All men and boys are targets. Just some are easier to see than others.
More thought and effort need to be on guerrilla tactics and ways to bring suffering and pain to woman that make feminist choices (don’t get your boxers in a bunch on that we’re talking social change and not a shooting war.) I consider guys like dalrock and MRA chistian Bloggers the cultural leaders after the collapse that we need to help along on our terms. We need to work on those christian blogs and get some red pill in there big time. Bitches need to be taught how to behave in their own selfish interest. don’t want to behave bitch? well there is the cock carousel with the PUA and players over there to fuck away your last years of fertility. Involuntary/voluntary childless spinsterhood by any means neccesary for as many women as possible is the goal of the MRM. A whole series of articles can be written on that subject of techniques of making a childless spinster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 22, 2012 at 19:00

As if on que this is an idea of what I had in mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cooterbee November 22, 2012 at 19:12

@Hugh G Rection
“I’m a young guy and I gotta agree, the MRM doesn’t have a lot to offer me, in fact engaging in it might hinder me from getting laid. And to be honest, all that needs to change for life to be perfect is that society stops expecting me to live my life for the benefit of women and children,…All I want is reliable birth control for men.”

Quite… and you’ll get reliable birth control too, because younger guys like you create the market demand and when that happens a supply appears.

As to the MRM having anything to offer you; well, it may not be relevant to you yet but the time will come when people your age dominate the movement. The old reactionary cranks who clamor for a scriptural marriage to the town pump will be winnowed out and the MRM can be of some real use for men in the future. Sounds like you are doing your part — decoupling your life from women and children as best you can. Keep shining the light, little brother.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 22, 2012 at 19:35


Otherwise courts all over the country would burn and abusive and corrupt judges would be hauled out and executed in the streets.

So that I don’t have police at my door.

Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented in the above comment are merely speculation about the actions and motivations of men who have been victims of court injustice and do not constitute an endorsement of violence, or anti-government activity in any form.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
universe November 22, 2012 at 21:42

Lot of good ground covered in the essay, Ethical.
You have pieced together a number of factors toward a cohesiveness. Like most things in the world everything is a work in progress. And, besides, we all lend and build points of awareness for others.

I’ll add briefly on the game/lobby dichotomy (of which was analyzed quite well by Keyster, btw) and do not wish to revisit any assumed animosity between the mra and p/u crowd. From what I’m about to write it would be pointless. Peace, and live and let live.

I’ve read very little of Roosh. No offence to him or others but there’s only so much reading time in one day. I wish his endeavours well, however. Not about to stand in the way of his version of happiness. And wishing the same for all the individualistic bulls in the men’s pen – all of you on this board, and others.
A commenter above mentioned that all areas of the men’s spectrum can contribute to the demise of authoritarianism that confronts us all. There’s a nugget of ore in that. And I’m going with it.

Back to game versus/or political lobby. I’m going to look for the bridge between the two. That bridge might be thus – the micro insights gained from the ‘game’ community might be useful in or for the macro political lobby.
That’s it. No earth moving revelation. Just an observation. Time will bear a result.
Since I occasionary hearken to this perspective perhaps then it is I who should build the case for it. But, as mentioned everything is a work in progress. And have no answer just yet. Other than backbone.

Second to last, perhaps the best method for being part of the social lobby fabric is to just do something. The longest continuous recent influence working with what currently exists inside the social/political arena, imo, is and has been Fathers and Families. After F&F, avfm.com is making creative headway on yet another front. No offense to others, individually or groupwise, I’m not aware of who have contributed greatly to a just cause.
Many, including mostly meself, are merely commentators to events that have occured. That, yet in itself, however, sends a consistent message to policy makers who likely and occasionally do read men’s boards for opinions, gauging public awareness and discontent.
The aforementioned commentator status is not meant to belittle anyone who has done micro activism. All small activism – postering, talking to others, venting, writing blogs, etc. – contributes something in ways not seen before in the numbers we have today.

Lastly, I had put this out on another thread, another day past:

– “Success will
naturally come
when the necessary
conditions are
fulfilled; there is
no need for strong
– Selected from the article, “Where water flows, a channel will form”,
from the link below.


I’m not suggesting passivity but moreso suggesting that our combined activities are creating a condition to be met. We are doing it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam November 23, 2012 at 05:37

Urgh Bilderbergers again. Skimmed that list and if this is our omnipotent shadowy elite, then things are worse than I thought.
Truly “the Mafia of the mediocre”.

I want proper supervillain or alien overlords, with deathrays and stuff, or even the real damn Mafia, or evil scientific geniuses, not these shambling fatheaded burgomeisters.
It’s just a calculated insult, that quality of “elite”, like the slow, fat kid at school sitting on a victim’s face. I am disappoint.

I can’t imagine what fiendish plan for world domination they have, given their current general level of capability, unless it’s for them and their ubermensch progeny to end up on their own in the woods, in rags, sitting on a log and cooking rats on a stick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster November 23, 2012 at 09:04

In a phrase, we have taken away from them something they want. Except they think they can still stop us, and we will return to a destructive marriage system, they would be begging for mercy.

Woman’s priority is SECURITY and SAFETY. As evidenced by the last election, she is successfully shifting her dependence on individual men to Big Daddy Government. She doesn’t care about marriage anymore, (because it’s a patriarchal concept). Single women, young women, black women, hispanic women, gay women…voted for Obama en masse. They want Free Healthcare, they do not want be burdened with a baby, they want govt enforced equal pay to men…regardless of competence, skill level or hours worked. They want an expanded safety net and they want/think rich white men will pay for it.

As far as PUA vs. MRA – – the PUA serves to deconstruct the feminine, before the MRA can deconstruct the feminist. One must happen before the other on the path of a young man’s enlightenment. You need to understand woman before you can understand women. It’s a process.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Ethical November 23, 2012 at 09:31

Glupak said:

how is it possible that women, as the weaker sex, so completely took over society, politics, the judicial system, and the main stream media?

Insult one woman, insult the sisterhood.

The same logic applies to why politicians put so much focus on women’s issues … it’s quite simply a LOT more efficient than addressing men’s issues, because there is no such thing. Apart from a small intersecting set, we all care about different things. I used to wonder why no politician would cater to the male vote. It seems so obvious now: you CAN’T. There is no such thing as the male vote.

@Glupak: A deep point your comment caused me to think a lot about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel November 23, 2012 at 10:31

Anonymous age 70
2010 34.2 Unverified estimate from Pew

2010 34.9 National Marriage Project, The State of our Unions 2011 page 61

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 23, 2012 at 10:59

Keyster you nailed it with your last and that safety and security is what we need to undermine as a movement. The money isn’t going to be there to take care of them all. And what well happen is the government will take care of enough to keep the vote and give them the impression they are being taken care as has been done to the black community.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster November 23, 2012 at 11:35

And what well happen is the government will take care of enough to keep the vote and give them the impression they are being taken care as has been done to the black community.

Ironically when the money runs out; welfare, food stamps, government services jobs cut en masse, no unemployment checks – – it will be the black communities in East Compton, Southside Chicago, Harlem/Brooklyn and Detroit that open the gates of hell in the streets. There is nothing Bourgeoisie caucasians are more fearful of than angry rioting inner-city negroes with nothing to lose….makes OWS in Oakland look like a Dead concert.

California has a debt of $60 Billion dollars with a deficit of $16 Billion, and a governor and population that just voted for higher taxes for the rich to bail out the Teachers Union penison fund. (Heaven forbid teachers should riot!) Several cities have gone into bankruptcy. All the little messages leading up the inevitable unsustainability of a Socialist State reveal themselves a little at a time.

Detroit is also interesting to watch as they teeter on the brink of financial collapse.

Individual men will protect their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters from the marauding bans of savages. Single women in urban areas and surrounding suburbs will have to fend for themselves.

You see the economy can’t magically turn around if the government keeps spending money it doesn’t have, while it keeps raising taxes on businesses and citizens just to squeak by another year. It’s a self-perpetuating downward spiral leading to a Greece like situation, and women without men, will be the most adversely effected.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
marco c November 23, 2012 at 15:29

It is not that men are making slow progress towards solutions. You were
handed a solution by PAN. He even video recorded it to prove that it
worked. He created it in 18 months. He proved it three years ago. A man
can not do much more than video record a court meeting to prove that his
solution works. Some people here ask him to provide even more proof than a
video recording. But they never mention what that more proof might be.

The more correct sentence is “we seem to be making such slow progress in
adopting the solution that was generously gifted to us”.

That men refuse to adopt a solution that was given to you is your problem.
Perhaps if me were more honest and accurate in their assessment of what
they are really doing you might make more progress.

I did some translating for PAN this week. I know exactly what he is
telling the court staff in Germany. I wish I could be there to see the
looks on their faces when they read what I translated for PAN!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
oddsock November 23, 2012 at 15:33

Here you go Keyster This video may interest you ? The Guy basically says you are fecked unless you get rid of Obama.

Thomas Sowell ” We’re Lost”

An Election Epilogue.


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd November 23, 2012 at 16:46

Meh regular conservative men can’t stand men’s rights almost as much as they can’t stand up to women …

Fact is most men don’t know how to form brotherhoods which is why they don’t know how to support mens rights

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American November 23, 2012 at 17:36

Rmaxd is correct, to think the MRA movement is petering out is silly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jay November 23, 2012 at 19:27

@Tam the Bam

Yep those mediocre imbeciles are in charge of the west you gotta admit inbred and incapable of rule. Its thanks to their ancestors that they got to their position of power now they have degenerated:



Of course with the link that is provided before also provides other linkage to info about the bilderberg group.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 24, 2012 at 08:46

Check out the comments to this article. This is where our leadership is needed.
An easy way around the censor

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster November 24, 2012 at 12:47

The abject idiocy of intitutionalized feminism on display:


The economy is bad because the population is shrinking.
The population is shrinking because women are working and not getting married and having children (keeping pace with the death rate).
So the solution is even more women need to be working, to make the economy grow.

It like – -
The economy is shrinking.
So tax revenue for the govt is down.
We must increase taxes to make up for the shortfall.
The economy is shrinking because of higher taxes.
So tax revenue for the govt is down.
We must increase taxes to make up for the shortfall.
The economy is shrinking because of higher taxes.
Etc. and so on…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bollocks! November 24, 2012 at 20:40

“Our approach is not to ban, but to offer a civil remedy to people who can prove they were harmed – rather than empowering the police and putting people in jail, which doesn’t do any good anyway. Pornographers keep their businesses going in jail.”

This sounds very reasonable and its a position I support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
oddsock November 25, 2012 at 03:44

Here you go Keyster have a listen to this. Its those damn cultural marxists again.

Fiscal Cliff An Artificial Crisis



Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
American November 25, 2012 at 06:46

The white gender, gender-raunch community that dominate most American universities dont talk about the black matriarchal underclass, because then they would have to discuss the un-educated white matriarchal underclass also.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bob November 25, 2012 at 16:42

«Democracy 2.0 is long overdue.»
Realy? What we call ‘Democracy’ is what gived power to feminism. Since women are the majority, and because they play only for Team Women and absolutly don’t care for men. Democracy in any version or flavor will fail to deliver basic human rigth to men 100 times in 100 try. Monarchy gived us Habeas corpus, democracy stripped it from us…

As far I can see monarchy served us better… :|
Monarchy 2.0 is long overdue!
God save the King!

About the assumptions we learned to beleave in…
They made revolutions for those contradictory fictions of absolute Equality and Freedom, killing by thousand all those not equal enough or using freedom of speech in a not whanted way. But the result what not so equal and free. So in the quest of the fiction of Equality they made the communist revolutions , killing by thousand all those not equal enough or using freedom of speech in an unwanted way. But the nirvana of the fiction stilling unreachable, so they started the feminist revolution to make us more equals… there we are.

Apparently revolutions can pruduce only bad things in exponentialy growing scale.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Peter South November 26, 2012 at 08:02

Game is ultimately a dead end. Eventually you will run out of exotic destinations for “easy” women and you’re doing the same things every other guy does. Once again you are back to who is taller, richer, etc.

Then you realize it’s only working for a small percentage of men. Further, you realize that these game bloggers and gurus are not actually getting laid themselves, only talking about it.

Look at the women these game gurus end up marrying, trashy, plain faced women.

They either make a ton of money selling boot camps and buy their way in (lifestyle game) or they go to other countries where they leverage their status.

I got laid for free and i only paid 30k in plane tickets!

Sooner or later guys will realize that woman you marry in a foreign country can still get to you for child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous November 26, 2012 at 11:28

The problem is that our elites no longer believe in free speech. The old elites had a deep ideological commitment to free speech and civil liberties. Today’s elites believe that dissent is “hate” and/or “treason” and therefore needs to be suppressed. They see due process as an obstacle to the success of prosecutions. They see people who invoke their right to remain silent as implicitly admitting their guilt.

The good news is that large portions of our society still believe in these fundamental rights and they are potentially our allies, if we can only prove to them the feminist contempt for free speech and intolerance of any opposing view. If any discussion forum is run by somebody who is committed to the ideal of free speech, we can get the feminists banned by getting them to expose their intolerance.

It is understandable that many men choose to chase women instead of standing up for what is right, but they need to realize that they are the problem. If we are apathetic and don’t speak our minds and don’t show up to vote on election day, we give up what little ability we have to change things and basically surrender the world to the other side. There’s no point in “getting laid” when that means a significant risk of getting screwed over by institutionalized misandry.

By the way, only simple minds believe in conspiracies. There are no conspiracies. People are acting according to what they believe. The reason why the bad people win is because they show up while those of us on the good side don’t show up. If you don’t show up, you won’t win and things will only get much worse. If you do show up, there is no guarantee that you will win, but the fight is well worth it, given how much just speaking out against feminism sends the feminists into an uncontrollable rage. If you annoy them, that is itself a victory. Although they don’t believe in free speech, they don’t yet have the legal right to suppress your speech. They can target your employment or expel you from a college, but they can’t actually send the police after you because you are exercising your fundamental natural right to dissent (at least in the US, where they haven’t “interpreted” all meaning out of the 1st Amendment yet). Let them be the ones to engage in violence. That will just expose their true nature, get them free accommodations in the local jail and cost them support from neutral observers (if you defend yourself, they’ll probably paint you as the aggressor and get away with it).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
migu November 27, 2012 at 02:39

Everone shows up to the feast at the hotel California. They just can’t seem to kill the beast. Have fun in your futile fight. I’ll live my life and enjoy it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Human-Stupidity.com November 27, 2012 at 16:49

Great article. Very sad, but very interesting description of biases.

Women always favor women. And men usually favor women too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric December 2, 2012 at 20:10

The MRM is essentially fighting as an insurgency.
I don’t presume to have all thee answers, but look at successful historical insurgencies for basic guidelines.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ethical December 4, 2012 at 12:12

Human-Stupidity.com said:

Women always favor women. And men usually favor women too.

LOL … that sums up the ENTIRE article right there. I knew there was a reason for my nagging suspicion that it didn’t have to be so long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: