Apr 272013
 

Here is a picture from an anti-Wells Fargo protest at Macalester college:

wellsfargoprotestWhat is missing from this picture?  Men.  The only men in it are the man at the desk who is working there and not part of the protest and some kid who looks like he actually there to see a professor or something like that (and possibly not a part of the protest).  He’s also not screaming like the rest of the women so that makes it more likely he really isn’t part of the protest.

Where are the men?  As men are expected to work, they don’t have time for pointless and meaningless protests like this.  Many men aren’t there because they decided not to go to college after realizing its an anti-male cesspool where protests like these double as protests against men.  (When these girls protest Wells Fargo, they only see the executives, the apex of Wells Fargo, which they imagine to be all men.)  Some of these men may be working to repair damage from superstorm Sandy, a job women aren’t doing.  Men who are going to college major in useful areas of study that require real work like STEM.  Those men are in class or studying since they actually have to work for their grades unlike the girls above who are probably majoring in feminist basket weaving where they will get an automatic A for having a vagina.

Why are the men missing from this picture?  Because they have to work.  Because they don’t have a vagina and thus don’t get free stuff.

 

  82 Responses to “Where Are The Men?”

  1. They still call these places colleges?

    They used to call them convents.

  2. One thing I think is tragic too is the way that history isn’t classed as a science degree by universities, but an arts degree. One of the most valuable tools we have is the ability to learn from our past, and especially when you get into archaeology, you have to be a jack of all trades – working with everything from carbon dating to dopler radar.

    Sadly this is part of the relativist imperative which has manifested itself in universities – everything has gone from scientifically pursuing an every expanding collective body of knowledge to a position of “there are no absolute truths”. I’m not sure which disease is a more fitting analogy to it – the Ebola virus or Cancer.

    • The abolition of science can be used to attack bothersome branches like women’s studies. Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend can be become very useful to attack your enemies.

  3. men are too busy moving the world. these women, meanwhile, contribute to global warming by opening their face cunts and letting all the hot air out of their heads.

    • Maybe those places are decompression centres, so that they don’t go “Catherine Kieu Becker” on the man they’re married to (whom they don’t want, as he was the fallback position from Mr. Alpha).
      Personally, I feel that if a woman amputates a man’s penis,
      he should have first go at doing a bit of female infibulation.
      After all, men and women are equal, so if she dismembers him, he should be allowed to do the same.
      In the same vein, where are the long sentences in jail for false rape accusers?

      • “Personally, I feel that if a woman amputates a man’s penis,
        he should have first go at doing a bit of female infibulation.
        After all, men and women are equal, so if she dismembers him, he should be allowed to do the same.
        In the same vein, where are the long sentences in jail for false rape accusers?”

        Weren’t you also just supporting a position which denied male victims of abuse compassion, empathy and support on here?

        I mean here’s a crazy thought – how about as well as seeking justice against the “Catherine Kieu Beckerss” of the world, actually acknowledging that the abuse they inflict on their partners in no way, shape or form makes them less of a man – that it simply makes then human beings. How about acknowledging that they deserve compassion and however long they need to come to terms with what happened. How about acknowledging that their recovery is in their time and on their terms. How about acknowledging that any vulnerabilities they might happen to show make them in no way, shape or form any less of a man, and instead make them a human being.

        I find it ironic that you would bring that up case up on a blog site where the owner and several posters apparently think that the response the poor man received from his entire country (fits of laughter) was acceptable, by either supporting the stance taken by bloggers who have no issue whatsoever with openly mocking male abuse sufferers or accusing those on the side of having compassion and support for male abuse sufferers of being “garden variety trolls” and hating “masculine” traits.

        How is that any different to a nation laughing over a penis amputation because a man wanted a divorce, people making jokes about a guy’s manhood and looking for every reason under the sun to blame him for some kind of failure in being a “real man”?

        But apparently me saying this stance is; according to slwerner is me engaging in misandry and violently opposing masculine traits in men; according to PMAFT, me “being a garden variety troll” isn’t it?

      • Uh what?
        You assume I think what she did was funny.
        No, but I’d laugh if the husband got a chance to do to her what she did to him.
        I’m a big fan of equality. Hence every action of equality, makes me laugh with joy.
        That includes, someone who hurts someone else … getting hurt by their victim.

        • My bad sorry, I missed the sarcasm in your other post at the time in response to the “emo crybaby” response by slwerner. That said, my criticism of others mentioned in that reply is completely valid.

          However your response here gets to the heart of the issue and why huge swaths of the manosphere are no friend to the most marginalised men in society.

          The problem is that the notion of revenge and anger in these situations is deemed “acceptable”, but the notion of a man refusing to cross that line, to become as bad as her in a vindictive sense, to admit to being a survivor, to want genuine healing and a society which facilitates that, apparently automatically brings your masculinity into question and makes mockery perfectly acceptable – despite the fact that VAWA and radical feminist laws like it thrive on the culture of shame and silence in society where male survivors are concerned.

          Honestly, if a battered man crossed over the line and wound up killing his abuser, I wouldn’t be laughing and I wouldn’t be cheering at all. I’d be sadly sighing and lamenting the fact that his abuser had gotten the ultimate victory over him by destroying his very humanity and compassion. Furthermore, the most likely outcome would be him subject him to either the death penalty or a life imprisonment filled with daily beatings and rapes as the other inmates decided to “teach the woman killer a lesson” every single day for the rest of his life. Maybe it’s just me and maybe it’s personal experience talking, but I see no victory in that scenario for a battered man.

        • I’d be sadly sighing and lamenting the fact that his abuser had gotten the ultimate victory over him by destroying his very humanity and compassion.
          You have a point.
          But remember what happened when no sanctions were enacted against Crystal Mangum.
          Later, she murdered a man that she had a relationship with.
          Imagine how that tragedy could have been avoided … IF SHE HAD BEEN JAILED.
          So, there was plenty of human goodwill towards her.
          That got a man killed. Mmm, feelsgoodman.

        • You’re conflating justice with revenge though. In your defense though, so does the vast bulk of the system, ironically resulting in the very situation you bring up through the dogmatic adherence to the Duluth model.

          The problem is that the moment prior abuse is discovered, the system gives a wrist-slap rather than going with a rehabilitation program that explicitly addresses those issues during incarceration.

          SAVE’s approach to domestic violence and the approach advocated for by the likes of Erin Pizzey is where we need to head – we need to recognise the causes for violence and response with an intervention that works at a fundamental level in the offender. What we need are less “concrete cell” solutions with abuse, and more “padded cell ones”. In terms of the infrastructure, I’m talking quite literally, where you convert prison wings to psychiatric prison wings where need be and use them for more than just suicide watches.

          There’s a massive difference between the justice system ACTUALLY working and a sufferer taking things into their own hands and killing their abuser.

          Forgetting about where that lands a man in a practical sense; even if those consequences don’t manifest for the abuse sufferer, such an outcome just results in more thing, and a pretty fundamental thing at that, that is broken in that survivor due to abuse and needs to be mended.

        • I’d like to know, would you tell a person who is a victim of a false rape accusation, that their accuser does not deserve to go to jail?
          P.S. I’m still waiting for a woman to be falsely accused of rape. Then there will be real equality.

        • “I’d like to know, would you tell a person who is a victim of a false rape accusation, that their accuser does not deserve to go to jail?”

          To give you the benefit of the doubt, are you asking to play devil’s advocate or are you guilty of a misandrist form of conflation I’ve noticed for some time now from even some sections of the MRM?

          To answer your question, of course false rape allegations should be investigated, prosecuted and where proven, result in a conviction which reflects the fact that a false accusation is a form of conspiracy to commit multiple counts of rape and GBH by proxy.

          Of course the system working there too would have to account for a lack of evidence to convict in a legitimate rape case vs false accusation which could be proven as such. Bear in mind here that there are also three categories of wrongful conviction here.

          The first category are actual false rape allegations – these include situations such as a woman who fully consents but regrets it in the morning and someone who claims consensual sex was rape to save face because they’d cheated on a partner.

          The second categories however fall into the category of issues with due process; legitimate cases of rape where a conviction either did, or would have occurred due to mistaken identity – these include cases of legitimately believed attempted sexual assault [eg a guy sees a semi naked, unconscious woman in a potential pack rape situation, gets her out of there, puts her clothes back on, she wakes up and reacts as though said rescuer is actually trying to rape her] and mistaken identity where the accused is confused with the rapist. In these cases, the fault lies with a lack of due process by the system itself and accountability must fall squarely there.

          In both cases, the falsely convicted/accused should be entitled to compensation (from the accuser in blatant false rape accusation cases; from the state when false accusations/convictions have occurred due to failures in due process) and a public apology.

          The same standards would of course have to apply to both male and female rape survivors. Oh wait, that would involve taking men being raped seriously enough that we actually criminalise female-on-male rape and large sections of the manosphere and MRM have proven they are blatantly opposed to that.

          “P.S. I’m still waiting for a woman to be falsely accused of rape. Then there will be real equality.”

          Tell that to male victims of sexual violence at that hands of women which isn’t even recognised under the law. Of course that would require expanding the definition of rape to include male rape victims of female rapists. This in turn is something which large sections of the manosphere and MRM are opposed to out of some paranoid conflation that recognising male rape victims will open the floodgates to false rape allegations.

          Not only is this directly borrowed from the playbook of Duluth model adhering feminists in terms of their refusal to recognise female-on-male domestic violence, but such a stance actually enables feminism and is utterly self-defeating.

          In taking such a stance, people are actually perpetuating the notion that rape is something which only men do (which fuels feminist tropes that prison rape is “something which men do to each other”), which fuels feminist “rape culture” propaganda. This in turn fuels the feminist notion that women are perpetual victims and in turn, backs up the rationale behind the current state of play with false rape accusations. After all if women are always the victim, how could they possibly engage in false rape allegations as such actions are never the actions of a genuine victim? That very rationale is the eventuality of such an approach.

          Yet those same large sections of the manosphere and MRM which have those blinders on, actually act in such a manner which perpetuates, rather than combats, the very situation they are opposed to.

        • To give you the benefit of the doubt, are you asking to play devil’s advocate or are you guilty of a misandrist form of conflation I’ve noticed for some time now from even some sections of the MRM?
          Hey, I’m just interested in giving women the equality they want.
          50% combat deaths, unemployment, false accusations, alimony.
          Men weren’t asked for their opinion about being sole breadwinners.
          So women shouldn’t be asked their opinion about taking on the down sides of being equal to men.
          Anything other than that is tokenism, and women are equal to men, so they must have the downsides too.

          That’s why I’m waiting for a woman to be falsely accused of rape.
          It might be a learning experience.

        • Or alternately, we could work towards shattering ALL aspects of gynocentrism – meaning both female infantalisation through female accountability as you bring up, and male disposability through combating male dehumanisation by demanding a redress to not only feminist perpetuated injustice against men, but injustices against men that have been there long before feminism came onto the scene.

          However that requires an introspective question – is someone genuinely interested in improving the status of men in society by fighting gynocentrism or merely interested in fighting feminism? After all, removing gynocentrism will also remove feminism, however simply removing feminism will never remove gynocentrism.

        • PUAKiller said it very succintly:
          Women always need some stupid shit to be angry about. Better to be an object of desirability, than an object of disposability (like men are). That’s why some women hate feminism. They know they have it good the way things are and don’t want to fuck it up.

        • It’s also why tradcons are even bigger lemmings than male feminists (although not by much). Granted male feminists are lemmings of the utterly self depricating kind, but tradcons are the kind of gullible lemmings who buy into the glorification of male disposability with the same gullible eagerness of a rich eskimo that spends every last cent of their life savings on ice.

  4. why do any of you exist?

  5. Women who are a 7 or higher in looks are never seen in participating in such activities.

    It is all about attention-whoring for uggos.

    • Seduce the uggos by suggesting a willingness to impregnate her. Leftist leaders have to resort to rape because they don’t want pregnancies. When she has the child, abduct it, and raise it according to your own values. Muslim men do this all the time, and Muslim men are irresistable because of this. It is called patrilinearity.

      • I’m guessing you were joking then right? Because seriously, what you said there is but a gender reversal away from textbook radfem dogma.

      • @oogenhand:
        Consider that those “uggos” have had more mileage and STDs on them than the pretty girls, since they have to work harder to attract alpha male attention, therefore have to give away sex with much greater frequency + associate sex with alphas(who are definitely going to leave them as it’s bad for his image) as a blessing and do their best to cockblock average guys or use them.
        The children may inherit some STDs.
        What kind of cruel parent attempts the birth of a syphilitic child?

        Uggos want the same thing beautiful women want: Sex and a kid with alphas, and the betas to pay for it.

  6. Men have not merely created 100% of civilization.

    Men have created over 150% of civilization, as they have to undo the damage to civilization that women immediately do when they are given too much power.

    Men have created a lot more than the 100% net civilization that we have.

  7. Men spend their whole lives working so that women can spend theirs eating and fucking.

    • Actually, average men spend their whole lives working … so that they can choose which woman to fuck with.
      The alpha guys can be homeless child-killing bestialists, and women attracted to them, by other womens’ attraction to them …
      will make excuses for how the alpha guy needs to be paid for by the beta guy,
      and because of abuse at the hands of the alpha, the beta must not ask for reciprocation for the resources he has provided to her.

      It’s a clever scam, the woman gets to have sex with the guy she wants … while getting the guy she DOESN’T want, to pay the bills.

      Another reason to tell alphas and most women to pound sand when they tell average men to “man up”.

      • One of the most counter-intuitive but necessary things a man must do is disengage from regular sexual activity. Sex for men has always been our Orwellian soma. Sexual prowess has always been perceived as both a reward for being disposable and yet another means by which to make us feel insecure and emasculated the moment we fail to adhere to the paradigm of male disposability – the drug that kept us in line in the same way that alcohol was copiously rationed to the first convicts to set foot in Australia.

        The only time this ceases to apply is when a man has divorced his sexual identity from traditional masculine gender expectations. Otherwise his sexuality will continue to remain a trap by which he can be forced back into existing within the paradigm of disposable masculinity.

        • Traditional masculine gender expectations were fine, we just need to bring back the feminine gender expectations as well (no more killing babies just so women can get off, no forcing men to work until the day they die so that women can “follow their hearts”, etc) Also it’s mostly the betas and incels that are treated as disposable. What you’re thinking is traditional is some woman-centric definition invented by red state ballbusters, not the real deal.

        • Traditional masculine gender expectaions have been and continue to be, nothing short of male slavery. When men are mocked for being the victims of domestic violence and rape, it is due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          When men burn out through depression and attrition in the race to the top and are deemed as “failures” to be emasculate, it is due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          When homeless men are met with callousness by society and regarded as the lowest of the low, it is due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          When men have traditionally been mocked for decide to look after their health and pay attention to possible danger signs of serious illnes rather than “manning up” and ignoring them, it is due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          When underage boys were mocked with white feathers for refusing the be cannon fodder, it was due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          When an underage boy is raped by a female child sex predator and it is not only viewed as a right of passage, but the boy is expected to pay child support the moment the rape results in a pregnancy and birth, it is due to practices of enforcing traditional masculine gender roles.

          These are just a few countless examples of many.

          If you support traditional masculine gender roles, then you are no friend to men.

          Any man who supports this system and is ultimately viewed as being nothing more than a walking atm, human shield and penis on legs and faces injustice because of it in the form of every single misandrist piece of feminist legislation out there, is getting exactly what he wanted and what he supported.

        • Oh and anon, if you actually had a sound understanding of the current state of play, you’d know that the gender paradigm we’re in now is exactly the same gender paradigm we’ve always been in.

  8. Andrew Richards – ”One of the most counter-intuitive but necessary things a man must do is disengage from regular sexual activity. Sex for men has always been our Orwellian soma. Sexual prowess has always been perceived as both a reward for being disposable and yet another means by which to make us feel insecure and emasculated the moment we fail to adhere to the paradigm of male disposability”

    I though your over-the-top preoccupation with men-as-victims-of-masculinity would fade away, but I gotta hand it to you. You’re not only hanging in there, now your doubling-down.

    Men having sex=male disposability has to be perhaps the most inane things you posted yet.

    Sure, there’s a kernel of truth to a man’s sexual desires being used to manipulate him; but if you bother to stop yapping long enough to read a bit around the MAndrosphere, you’d soon discover that is that one of the biggest messages that is being put out there is how men can avoid being taken advantage of (in fact, the reverse is often the case – showing men how to take advantage of the nature of women – in which sex becomes the spoils of female disposability (pump-n-dump)).

    The radical gender-feminists loudly decry male sexuality and sexual desire as oppressive to women – now you’re going to try to tell us that is actually oppressive to men – the feminists were right, just for the wrong reason, eh?

    What next? Are we men oppressed by having to stand to pee at urinals? Cause, ya know, there are some feminists who claim that men standing to piss is a manifestation of our female-oppressing natures. Why, it’s almost as ridiculous as your notion that the word “mangina” fosters male disposability. It’s laughable really. Both that men standing whilst pissing oppresses women, and that a word makes men disposable. Perhaps momentarily humorous, but really just pathetic after a short time of laughter.

    I don’t know a kind way to tell you this, but you are so far on-base on this stuff that a lot of guys are treating you like a joke, poking fun at you on their blogs.

    And, while I do have sympathy for you as a former victim, I cannot get behind the identity you wish to assume – that of “Victim” – first and foremost.
    Let me try using a parallel to demonstrate how it comes off to others.

    Now, almost everyone knows at least one women who’s going through life “once-victimized, always a victim”. Is there anything more annoying than a woman who plays her I’m a (former) rape victim card to try to shut down a conversation, or uses it as her excuse for non-stop misandry? Not to take anything away from the fear and physical torment a victim of a violent stranger rape would likely experience, but if she lived, did not get pregnant nor contract a disease, it’s over. In fact, it seems to me that most women who play the “rape victim” card aren’t actually struggling with the mental anguish and nightmares in the aftermath, but simply are looking for attention and/or advantage in playing that card [and, I don’t think this is unique to rape victims, whatever the criminal offense they’ve suffered, they can parlay it to their advantage].

    I actually know a woman who was raped at knife-point, threatened with death, and who has a scar on her neck where her rapist sliced her. But, I’m one of very few people who knows this. To most, she’s a very confident, successful attorney, who enjoys the company of men (as in, she likes guys – perhaps more than she likes other women).
    See, the thing is, she refuses to identify herself, or to allow others to identify her as a victim. She may be extremely cautious to avoid ever being in such a vulnerable situation (which is only prudent), but she does not wish to have one instance, no matter how terrifying, rule her life. She refuses to let the actions of one man dictate her feeling towards all men. She’s not a “survivor”, she’s and “over-comer”, who’s been able to rise above having once been a victim.

    I very much admire her for this strength of character.

    But, on the other hand, she has raised the bar in terms of my expectations for others to likewise over-come rather than wallow in self-pity and fear, or revel in the windfall of expressed “victimhood”.

    As men, we should learn how to avoid being victimized, to over-come adversity, and how to enjoy our natural masculinity – including having copious sex on our terms. Your call to reject traditional genetic masculinity is tantamount to calling for us to stop being men. It won’t sell. I the idea of refusing to be manly because it might deprive women of some utility isn’t going to have much, if any, appeal to men who are already reading in the MAndrosphere.

    Maybe you should try ManBoobz for your anti-masculinity message.

    • At this point, Andrew Richards is indistinguishable from a garden variety troll with his “men having sex=male disposablity” statement.

      • First off, way to go with that prima facie there. If you’d bothered to read, you’d have realised that the issue was a man extricating his sexuality and sexual idenity from male disposability as opposed to entering into a life of perpetual celebacy. But hey, why let what was actually said get in the way of a good argument right?

        Secondly Congratulations for outing yourself as a supporter of the very foundations of feminsm. According to your argument, every single pro male gender academic, such as Tosh, Dudink and Hagemann, and the contributors to “New Male Studies are indistinguishable from a garden variety troll with his “men having sex=male disposablity” statement as are anyone else who prescribes to their views on male disposability. After all, my stance on men’s issues is completely in line with Tosh’s and Dudink’s arguments.

        The fact is that the only reason someone would be genuinely interested in shutting down a deeply insightful argument on how male disposability is perpetuated, is if they truly wished for male disposability to perpetually continue and in turn, female infantalisation, regardless of what they say otherwise.

        If you have no interest in perpetuating either then why shut down a deep examination of male disposability — no matter how uncomfortable it might make people?

        Sure you can dismiss this by bringing up how long you’ve been doing this for. However considering the stance you’ve taken, all it would prove would be the old saying of “for every juvenile idiot, there’s a geriatric one”.

    • Slwerner, your response is precisely why the vast bulk of the manosphere are ultimately feminist enablers and perpetual slaves to women despite the delusional rhetoric they continuously feed themselves. Of course I have no doubt that the spineless feminist enablers mocking me will simply disregard this as TL;DNR because they’re too gutless to face up to the cold hard truth. Of course nothing says “keyboard courage” like a circular firing squad of misandry infested blog posts that ultimately enable feminist dogma.

      What you have failed to grasp is that what I am saying is mirrored by academics who do actually care about the plight of men in society – I’m talking about men like John Tosh and Stefan Dudink – men who have taken the battle to feminists in academia and those who have started up and contributed to the new academic journal “New Male Studies”. But apparently according to you, anyone daring to look too deeply at why and how men are oppressed by the system is on par with veiled feminists like manboobz and is a garden variety troll.

      What you and the other feminist enablers out there fail to grasp the fact the bleeding obvious – namely that a man is being a man when he’s being himself, regardless of how “masculine” or “feminine” those traits might be perceived as by society.

      I notice that some of the mockers bring up Sun Tsu, yet the great man himself would be the first to say that a man is at his best when he embraces all of himself to be the best he can be (no matter how “masculine” or “feminine” those aspects of himself might be). Feminists, tradcons and the manosphere all reject this in favour of a man being lesser- of repressing parts of himself so that he will conform to whatever mould is convenient for them.

      What you and the other feminist enablers in the vast bulk of the manosphere fail to grasp is that they’re not promoting any kind of authentic masculinity at all- what you’re promoting is perpetual male slavery. Are you really that naive and stupid that you think stoicism actually exists in society for the benefit of men?

      Here’s a reality check for you and them. Stoicism is instilled in men for one reason and one reason alone – to dehumanise men and disconnect them from their emotions so they wont consider their needs but instead unquestioningly submit to financial slavery to women and being perpetually expendable for them. It’s there so men will just “suck it up” and focus entirely on the needs of women – even if it costs them their lives. To support stoicism is to support the facilitation of the very female infantalisation that lies at the heart of the foundation of feminism.

      And yes, sex is both the carrot and the drug which keeps men in that system. We’re taught from an early age that a man or a boy must want sex all the time and if he doesn’t then he’s either gay or there’s something wrong with him.

      Furthermore, we’re taught that the reward for embodying male disposability by being the best provider, protector and the most stoic, is always laid out as a string of sexual conquests, while conversely a lack of sexual conquests is regarded as a source of primal failure by a man and a failure to live up to those ideals. What happened to Australian men in the 1940s when American soldiers were the “bigger better deal” and despite the fact that the vast bulk of Australian men had signed up and were being the protector and provider, is classic evidence of this.

      The fact is that sex is the ultimate social control used to instill and enforce male disposability (as the classic phrase “God’s Police” in reference to women demonstrates) and until a man can remove his sexuality from that socialised control, then it will always be a weakness to be exploited by the system in turning him into a perpetual slave.

      Furthermore game and the “pump n dump” approach might put men in the driver’s seat, but it’s the driver’s seat of a vehicle where a man’s sexuality is completely devalued and completely within the traditional paradigm of male sexuality being used to enforce male disposability. By all means men should be in the driver’s seat, however it should be in a vehicle, figuratively speaking where choosing to abstain from sex is just as valid an option for a man as choosing to engage in it. When you get to the point where male sexual activity is conditional rather than automatically assumed, and only when you reach that point, does male sexuality become a source of freedom for men rather than a source of perpetual enslavement.

      Comparing that to some deranged example of the utterly fraudulent farce that is “patriarchal theory” (which is pushed because the average woman out there lacks the courage to admit that it’s their privilege is what the entire system exists to facilitate), is at best a complete prima facie, if not a complete strawman on your part.

      Of course, this is why male survivors of rape and domestic violence survivors are such an anathema to society. The fact is that recognising our existence requires viewing men as human beings who can be vulnerable and viewing male sexuality as something which is individual, conditional and deeply personal. Such a view would require viewing men as human beings who matter because they are people. The fact is that a society which only values men in terms of their usefulness as perpetual slaves to female infantalisation through conditioning them to deny these very aspects of themselves, simply cannot have that happen.

      You talk about the mockery I’m copping, but here’s what you and the other feminist enablers out there can’t see because you’re too busy being perpetual obedient little slaves to female infantalisation – when you mock and suppress male victims, you contribute to the notion that male victims of women do not exist. In doing so you contribute to the feminist myth that abuse is something which women only experience at the hands of men and in turn that “only men are abusers; only women are victims”.

      Yes your friend is the ideal paragon of recovery, but she’s also a women and therefore living in a society which treats her with a level of compassion, empathy and support which men in her position can only dream of.

      What you and so many others out there fail to grasp is the harm I am almost certainly inviting onto myself by openly identifying as a male survivor. If I were merely thinking of myself, it would be so much easier to remain silent, quiet, like so many other abused men out there – hiding away in humiliation and shame, healing if we’re damn lucky, subsisting if we’re moderately lucky and taking our own lives if we’re not so lucky. However if we want society to change for the better so that we live in a society where male survivors can speak up and get the tools, compassion and support they need to heal and thrive, that means putting ourselves out there and risking the mockery that I’ve incurred – enduring all the woundings and mockery which comes with it.

      The fact is that that true healing for male survivors can only come when we we’re able to to heal using tools which allow us to help ourselves in an environment which facilitates that by being patient and empathetic. This can only happen when we live in a society which is willing to both recognise there is a problem and actually adddress it. However such a notion appears to be as much of an anathema to you and the vast bulk of the manosphere as it is to manboobz and every other radfem out there.

      But then who cares about the issues which men face in society – all that matters to you and your gynocentric ilk is keeping your psychological slave collar of machismo intact.

      It’s ironic – all the guys who go on with the macho act pretend they’re confident within themselves and brave. Yet their blatantly threatened response to this issue demonstrates an utterly fragile sense of self – that of a scared little child who completely lacks the courage to admit that what they are suffering from is an incredibly severe case of Stockholm Syndrome – much less break free of it.

      Conversely, I publicly identify as a victim and a survivor for one reason and one reason alone – so that by speaking out, it can encourage others to speak out, until we get too a point where society is forced to recognise there is a problem and actually do something about it. At that point we go from male survivors suffering in silence and shame and possibly resorting to suicide, to male survivors who heal and go on to thrive.

      My position is far from “woe is me” – it’s a rallying cry of “it happened to me, I exist, I’m one of many – get over it, get on board and be part of the solution or get the hell out of our way”.

      If that earns me mockery, then so be it. If that earns me ridicule and contempt, then so be it. However if it encourages just one other abused man out there to feel like he’s not alone and that the shame for what he endured falls squarely at the feet of his abuser and the effect ideally ripples outwards, then I regret nothing.

      • Andrew Richards wrote:
        If that earns me mockery, then so be it. If that earns me ridicule and contempt, then so be it. However if it encourages just one other abused man out there to feel like he’s not alone and that the shame for what he endured falls squarely at the feet of his abuser and the effect ideally ripples outwards, then I regret nothing.

        You have earned mockery. One reason is that you’re too damn long-winded. Try and condense your screeds.

        One of the most counter-intuitive but necessary things a man must do is disengage from regular sexual activity. Sex for men has always been our Orwellian soma.

        Thanks, but I like Fifth Horseman’s idea of 3D interactive VR porn better. Instead of abstaining, make sexual gratification a dirt-cheap commodity. As a result, women lose most of their sexual leverage over men. Problem solved.

        • “You have earned mockery.”

          On the contrary, mockery has happened here for the same reason that mockery always happens when someone deviates too far from “accepted wisdom” with deep insights which demand fundamental social shifts. People get threatened, they lack the ability to fully grasp those insights and so they resort to mockery in the hopes of making those insights go away. They might as well be pissing in the wind

          “One reason is that you’re too damn long-winded. Try and condense your screeds.”

          Except that you and others clearly don’t want conciseness, you want brevity and with complex issues, the two are polar opposites.

          Dealing with men’s issues requires far more than knee-jerking against feminist issues – it requires a deep examination of everything and putting everything on the table, regardless of how much it has been glorified or molifid by one element of society or another.

          Heck even properly dealing with feminist claims in a way that genuinely benefits men involves not only dismissing the feminist position, but finding that needle of truth in the haystack of their propaganda and extracting it.

          Sure people can be brief and use catch-cries- heck it’s textbook feminist behaviour. However mere brevity and soundbites will never properly examine social issues, nor will they affect profound social change for the benfit of men.

          “Thanks, but I like Fifth Horseman’s idea of 3D interactive VR porn better. Instead of abstaining, make sexual gratification a dirt-cheap commodity. As a result, women lose most of their sexual leverage over men. Problem solved.”

          Or alternatively, how about we create a situation where where are masters of our sexuality rather than our sexuality and sexual urges being masters of us. Personally I’d rather take the slave collar off completely than simply learn to love with it remaining on me until the day I die.

        • Andrew Richards wrote:
          On the contrary, mockery has happened here for the same reason that mockery always happens when someone deviates too far from “accepted wisdom” with deep insights which demand fundamental social shifts.

          Deep insights? You truly are a legend in your own mind.

          Except that you and others clearly don’t want conciseness, you want brevity and with complex issues, the two are polar opposites.

          I’m fine with complex issues. But using three words when one will do is a whole different ball game. I’ll repeat – cut down on the size of your postings, even if it means you have to rewrite them. They are much too long for most people to want to read.

          On VR porn vs abstinence:
          Or alternatively, how about we create a situation where where are masters of our sexuality rather than our sexuality and sexual urges being masters of us.

          Because the idea of humping that 10-foot-tall blue chick in Avatar is a lot more fun than ‘mastering my sex drive’.

        • “Deep insights? You truly are a legend in your own mind. ”

          This coming from a man who sees all but observes and comprehends nothing beyond the superficial.

          “I’m fine with complex issues. But using three words when one will do is a whole different ball game. I’ll repeat – cut down on the size of your postings, even if it means you have to rewrite them. They are much too long for most people to want to read.”

          You’re confusing brevity with collective stockholm syndrome. The TL;DNR argument has become an excuse these days by people looking for a reason to dismiss someone’s argument when they cannot refute its logic..

          The issue here isn’t the length of my posts, it’s that they turn traditional masculinity on its head and that scares the everliving crap out of alot of men. In a world where men are told that they should only be proud of themselves based on their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess and where women tell men they should be ashamed of themselves for having a y chromosome; most men are too busy looking for the safety of Option A to realise that the entire game is so badly rigged against men that the only option is to redefine the rules- right down to what masculinity is. Yet that is precisely what I’m arguing for and that approach is too profound for their comfort zones and stockholm syndrome.

          “Because the idea of humping that 10-foot-tall blue chick in Avatar is a lot more fun than ‘mastering my sex drive’.”

          So living in a paradigm where you are merely a disposable slave is fine for you as long as you’re having fun? Personally I prefer freedom.

        • This coming from a man who sees all but observes and comprehends nothing beyond the superficial.

          Your claiming you know what I think and comprehend simply reinforces the impression that you’re a legend in your own mind. You will only alienate people with that kind of arrogance.

          But by all means, continue to be a gasbag and produce gaseous posts in order to get the last word. Or at least until the blog owner has had enough of you and drops the banhammer. ‘Nuff said.

          So living in a paradigm where you are merely a disposable slave is fine for you as long as you’re having fun?

          How do disposable slaves have that kind of fun? And doing that doesn’t preclude other hobbies or activities.
          Sex (in whatever form) is an enjoyable part of life, but just a part.

          Personally I prefer freedom.

          Your idea of freedom sounds a lot like admiring the shape of your own navel. If that’s what floats your boat, have a blast. But it won’t win a lot of converts to your cause.

        • “Your claiming you know what I think and comprehend simply reinforces the impression that you’re a legend in your own mind. You will only alienate people with that kind of arrogance.

          But by all means, continue to be a gasbag and produce gaseous posts in order to get the last word. Or at least until the blog owner has had enough of you and drops the banhammer. ‘Nuff said.”

          I’d ask how your ego and sense of gender identity are going, but judging by how amped up your fight or flight mechanism is coming across in your responses, the answer would be “barely holding together”.

          I never said I had all the answers, nor do I believe I do. However I also know that I am way into the curve, and will be until it becomes the norm and someone else comes along with an even deeper understanding than mine. That is the nature of the development of a collective body of knowledge.

          “Your idea of freedom sounds a lot like admiring the shape of your own navel. If that’s what floats your boat, have a blast. But it won’t win a lot of converts to your cause.”

          Really, brutal honesty and embracing all of yourself to be the best version of yourself you can be- no matter how hard and counter-intuitive it might be, is narcissistic navel gazing to you? Wow.

          Enjoy your slavery, convict.

  9. @ Andrew Richards:

    So much BS, so little time…

    A couple of refutations anyway:

    ” Of course nothing says “keyboard courage” like a circular firing squad of misandry infested blog posts that ultimately enable feminist dogma.”
    Just because you can type something doesn’t make it so, nor does it make you somehow more courageous than anyone else who can type words. You claim that I, and others, post comments infested with misandry, well, I call BULL SHIT, and defy you to show such misandry and present a rational argument as to why such a statement might be misandric. Likewise, please explain how any such comments could possibly enable feminist dogma.

    And, as far as making your arguments, do try to bear in mind that most of us in the MAndrosphere are not a bunch of Emo crybabies. Mean words don’t threaten us, and we sneer at the very idea that they can hurt you. They’re nothing but fucking words. They can only hurt you, make you disposable, or enable empty dogma if you chose to let them do so. So, make the case which isn’t all about your feeeeelings.

    AR – ” Are you really that naive and stupid that you think stoicism actually exists in society for the benefit of men?”

    Here, I call STRAWMAN. You are the only fool who’s said word one about Stoicism. I’m certainly not a stoic, and I cannot think of any regulars of the MAndrosphere who strike me as being so either. Here again, you’ll need to give examples of this supposed stoicism you claim of us.

    • do try to bear in mind that most of us in the MAndrosphere are not a bunch of Emo crybabies.
      Look at how far that attitude got women. A feminist movement, free money from men, false rape accusations, imputed paternity, alimony, child custody, abortion on demand.

      Recognising productive strategies to lobby for public opinion that are used by those opposed to your views, is what shrewd leadership is about.

      On the other hand, if there was a leadership of men, it gives Big Gubmint someone easy to find and attack.

    • “And, as far as making your arguments, do try to bear in mind that most of us in the MAndrosphere are not a bunch of Emo crybabies. Mean words don’t threaten us, and we sneer at the very idea that they can hurt you.”

      You mean because in most cases, men have generally been brutally disconnected from their emotional selves by about age 8? You honestly believe that being connected to your emotions as a man is a weakness rather than a strength? Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised. A great example of this type of thinking is in another thread on here – the “conquering” Dr Illusion: a man who’s idea of kicking ass is letting alcoholism rule him and who “conquers” bottles of booze all the time. Ironic that the same guys who quote this also quote Sun Tsu .

      On another topic, it’s always highly telling that the most stoic guys always turn out to be the most emotional drunks – because you know, stoicism has nothing to do with social conditioning and everything to do with biology. Not.

      “Here, I call STRAWMAN. You are the only fool who’s said word one about Stoicism. I’m certainly not a stoic, and I cannot think of any regulars of the MAndrosphere who strike me as being so either. ”

      If it walks like a dog, looks like a dog, barks and wags it’s tail, it’s a dog- you don’t need it to come out and identify what it is.

      Likewise you don’t have to come out and say you’re a stoic for it to be spotted a mile off, regardless of how doubly ignorant you are about your own worldview.

      You want examples, here are 2 in the last few posts of yours. First off, there’s How about your opposition to men standing up and being counted as survivors so that we can get support and compassion for male victims of abuse. You dismiss the fact that a man cannot move on from what has happened to him, until he is in a place where he can come to terms with what has happened to him. Instead you viscerally reject advocating for a society where men can take that first step and are compassionately encouraged to take that first step. You argue for the status quo of survivors keeping it to themselves, “sucking it up”, “manning up” and repressing it is textbook stoicism. If you want to argue otherwise, look at who on this issue you’ve sided with – people who publicly mock other men for admitting to have been abused.

      Likewise advocating for male self-ambiphilia, to draw on the term you raise in the following post, you claim I am somehow opposed to men bearing masculine traits, when in fact my issue is with men being forced to unnaturally embody any “masculine” traits which may fall outside of their authentic nature. Such a strawman argument isn’t just stocisim, it’s militant stocism.

      Honestly, if you were a woman, with the type of dogmatic gender ideologue approach you’ve been taking, I’d have expected some shrieks of “patriarchy” and “rape culture” from you by now.

  10. Andrew Richards – ”…misandry infested blog posts…”

    Having had time for further reflection, it seems to me that one of the communication difficulties you seem to be causing stems from the fact that you are flippantly using terms which you simply do not understand.

    Perhaps a little book learnin’ is in order.

    The term “misandry” refers to the hatred of or revulsion towards the expression of masculinity. From the Greek “mis” (mis/miso/misia), for hatred, and “andro” for male/masculine, the attributes of man “Andros”which serve to specifically differentiate those attributes from the feminine “gyn/gyne/gynae/gyno” ones associated with women “gune/gunaik”.

    The term “misandry” is not the direct antonym of “misogyny”, the hatred of women/feminine, since it is possible for to have either irrespective of the existence of the other. It has been utilized only relatively recently by the MRM/MAndrosphere so as to counter-balance the nearly ubiquitous misuse of the term “misogyny” for anything which is even the slightest bit less than completely edifying and adulating of women. If disagreeing with a woman, even on a sound objective basis, is “misogyny”; then, surely, the openly expressed hatred of men, and the desire to kill them (just for being male) merits the use of the term “misandry”.

    Just to be sure not to overlook the seemingly obvious, “androphilia” is the love/admiration of the masculine attributes, and “gynephilia” is the comparable love/admiration of the feminine ones. To address the love/admiration of both types of attributes, the Greeks used the term “ambiphilia”. Thus, technically speaking, if any of us comes out against such simultaneous embracing both ones masculine and feminine attributes, we are engaging in “misambry” and being “misambious”.

    For your part, it is you who has been “misandric”, openly stating your distaste for masculinity and calling for men to eschew their natural genetic-based traits (including their andro/testosterone modulated sex-drives). Like the male-hating gender-feminists, you see natural masculinity as a bad thing. The only difference is that while they claim it oppresses women, you claim it oppresses men to be manly. Perhaps, in that way – by being in agreement with them vis-à-vis your shared “misandry” – it is actually you who is best abetting the feminists.

    • I’m completely aware of what the term misandry means, however by your own admission you clearly fail to understand it. The fact is that the semantically accurate definition of misogyny is a hatred or bigotry against women specifically on the grounds of them being women; the semantically accurate definition of misandry is a hatred or bigotry against men specifically on the grounds of them being men. Regardless of how it has been utilised, that its meaning, going right back the the classical Greek period from where it originates.

      Of course the irony of some doubly ignorant feminist enabler accusing me of misandry here would be hillarious if it weren’t so utterly depraved.

      I am advocating for men to be themselves without fear of society judging them for who they are and valuing them as human beings, regardless of how “masculine” or “feminine” the sum total of their authentic character traits are, just as I always have. Furthermore, at no point have I said that men should be ashamed of any “masculine” traits they might authentically have – however that is the operative term, authentically. You however are arguing for men to only be valued when they live up to your utterly misandrist and ridiculous notions of stoicism. Misandry is still misandry regardless of whether it is driven by androphilia or gynephilia.

      The notion that male disposability and the stoicism used to condition men into that role is entirely some naturally occurring biological state, as as absurd and ludicrous as if I told you that Elvis was alive and sitting right next to me or that I just looked out a window and saw a flock of pigs flying past.

      Ultimately it is you who are advocating for male stocism (in all but name) in an utterly dogmatic manner and as such it is you who are abetting male disposability and in turn, feminism.

  11. There you go with the insipid claim that the MRM/Mandrosphere is largely based on Stoicism.

    That simply demonstrated your ignorance of the MAndrosphere, which is comprised of men who are anything but stoics – it is men who absolutely DO NOT accept the denigration of men lightly nor dispassionately. The MAndrosphere is mostly anti-stoic.

    Maybe it’s yet another term you write without actually understanding it.

    And, it’s nothing but your strawman. No one else has ever made anything which would even seem to be an appeal to Stoicism (as demonstrated by you abject FAILURE to give example as requested). If no one take the position, then you claiming they have is what makes it a “strawman”. Please look that up as well. Your demonstrable ignorance of terms is extremely tedious (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ – hint: it’s the first one at the upper left-hand corner).

    • “There you go with the insipid claim that the MRM/Mandrosphere is largely based on Stoicism. ”

      I hate to burst your fragile little bubble, but just because a truth is inconvenient or uncomfortable in no way makes it insipid.

      There is an old saying “there are none so blind as those who refuse to see”.

      You see what feminism has done, see the misandry which it perpetuates. Yet you are blind to how traditionalism facilitates it.

      You see the way men are reduced to walking ATMs through family courts, the way men traditionally white knight. Yet you are blind to the fact that traditionally men have only ever been valued in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess. You further fail to grasp that such a state is achieved in men by brutally divorcing them from their emotions and sense of self from a young age and into a state of perpetual stoicism.

      You fail to see that in taking such an approach, with such claims as “And, as far as making your arguments, do try to bear in mind that most of us in the MAndrosphere are not a bunch of Emo crybabies.”; you are in fact advocating for the psychological conditioning which makes men disposable to begin with, therefore facilitating female infantalisation in turn and as a result, perpetuating the very foundations of feminism.

      You telling anyone they need an education, let alone someone with a deep understanding of the state of play regarding the status of men in society, is highly ironic.

      • Andrew Richards wrote:
        You fail to see that in taking such an approach, with such claims as “And, as far as making your arguments, do try to bear in mind that most of us in the MAndrosphere are not a bunch of Emo crybabies.”; you are in fact advocating for the psychological conditioning which makes men disposable to begin with,

        Blame most of that on evolution, not “social conditioning”. It’s shaped men into creatures that are gifted in protecting, providing, and problem solving. I think a men’s movement should be capitalizing on men’s strengths but directed for their own benefit.

        Sorry, but becoming an Emo crybaby isn’t going to appeal to most men.

        • “Blame most of that on evolution, not “social conditioning”. It’s shaped men into creatures that are gifted in protecting, providing, and problem solving. ”

          Complete and utter BS. Here’s what you’re oblivious to. “Traditional masculinity is stoic in anture and based in a lage part on the British “stiff upper lip” and one other factor I’ll get too shortly. Like all of Anglo-Saxan masculinity, it is basedon chivalry, the knight’s code. The knight’s code is a tradition which goes right back to the Equestrian order of Roman society. Roman society had a very radical notion of masculinity, “vis” which was brutally stoic, deeply violent and which was determined to get a booy laid as soon as he could get an erection.

          Bear in mind that this was a system of masculinity which was arguably designed to turn every single man in society into a potential soldier in the legions to fuel and sustain Rome’s favorite past-time – war.

          If you look at every dehumanising aspect of “masculinity”, both in our attitude to male survivors of violence, male survivors of sexual assault, feminist claims of “rape culture”, 12 year old boys paying pedophiles child support, primary aggressor laws, and so the list goes on; you will find those very attitudes blatantly present in Roman society and its value of “vis”- which through the tradiition of the Roman knights became the foundations of Anglo-Saxan notions of masculinity.

          “I think a men’s movement should be capitalizing on men’s strengths but directed for their own benefit.”

          That can only come about when a man embraces all of himself without ridicule – no matter how “masculine” or “feminine” those aspects of himself might be.

          “Sorry, but becoming an Emo crybaby isn’t going to appeal to most men.”

          And it is precisely this type of attitude – that somehow embracing all of ourselves means rejecting the naturally occuring masculine – which is why feminism and misandry continue to flourish to this very day.

        • Andrew Richards wrote:
          Complete and utter BS.

          How do you know? Your citing of the British stiff upper lip, code of chivalry, and the Roman martial tradition doesn’t impress me. War has been part of the human condition well before civilization began. Or are you going to tell me that men of the ancient past were a bunch of lotus-eating flower children?

          “I think a men’s movement should be capitalizing on men’s strengths but directed for their own benefit.”

          That can only come about when a man embraces all of himself without ridicule – no matter how “masculine” or “feminine” those aspects of himself might be.

          I think David Thomas, author of “Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men” summed it up best when he said he the right to wear a dress wasn’t something most men would want to man the barricades for. It seems to me you want men as a group to embrace a feminine side to themselves that doesn’t exist for most of them.

          “Sorry, but becoming an Emo crybaby isn’t going to appeal to most men.”

          And it is precisely this type of attitude – that somehow embracing all of ourselves means rejecting the naturally occuring masculine – which is why feminism and misandry continue to flourish to this very day.

          I’m a realist. Your program of trying to out-do women in playing the victim card just isn’t going to work. Those who have had decades of experience with men’s issues such as Zed the Zenpriest are in agreement with this conclusion.

          What will work is a man coldly and calculatedly working in his own best interest, either alone or with other men.

        • “How do you know?”

          I’ve studied Ancient Rome quite alot at a tertiary level. The fact is that anyone studying ancient Roman history and examining the way “vis” manifests itself in Roman society can spot parallels a mile off.

          One quick example of my point – I challenge anyone here to look at the Roman attitude to homosexuality, right down to its nuances and tell me you don’t see a parallel between it and feminist dogma and the social stigma face by male sexual violence and child sexual violence victims. If you can’t see it, you’re blind.

          “Your citing of the British stiff upper lip, code of chivalry, and the Roman martial tradition doesn’t impress me. War has been part of the human condition well before civilization began. Or are you going to tell me that men of the ancient past were a bunch of lotus-eating flower children?”

          You see much, but comprehend nothing. What you fail to grasp, what’s right in front of you but you’re utterly blind to, is that “masculinity” has nothing do do with what a man is, and everything to do with what a society needs a man to be to him him for its own ends. It has nothing to do with self-actualisation and everything too do with utility.

          In a martial society, that means men being subjected to a perpetual boot camp in one regard or another from an early age, which even when it’s needed is at best tragic. The problem is that that paradigm of masculinity never left us, it just continued on in different forms and became so quietly assumed and accepted that it became the norm in non-martial societies. It was bad enough when it was needed for the sake of survivalism – but now it’s just depravedly anachronistic. Oh and before you try and claim that the threat is no different today, I’d challenge you to look up the word “luxuria” and see what it actually refers to in Roman society.

          “I think David Thomas, author of “Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men” summed it up best when he said he the right to wear a dress wasn’t something most men would want to man the barricades for.”

          That type of prima facie is precisely the problem. There is a vast difference between being a transvestite and being able to exhibit vulnerability and being traumatised when it is entirely reasonable.

          “It seems to me you want men as a group to embrace a feminine side to themselves that doesn’t exist for most of them. ”

          It doesn’t exist, or it was repressed in them by society from an early age? Then again, this is coming from someone so brainweashed by the system that they believe “masculinity” as it is definted by traditional society is entirely biologically driven.

          The fact is that a man who naturally possesses solely “masculine” traits is at best a rarity, and most likely a myth. The fact is that none of us are clones; all of us are unique. The fact is that we all possess different natures, meaning different compositions and levels of masculine and feminine traits. If we stopped trying to get men to “man up” all the time, and just allowed them to be themselves, society would be forced to accept that.

          “I’m a realist.”

          You’re a fatalist actually.

          “Your program of trying to out-do women in playing the victim card just isn’t going to work. Those who have had decades of experience with men’s issues such as Zed the Zenpriest are in agreement with this conclusion.”

          This type of textbook absolutism is classic example of feminist enabling. Yes feminists want to make women perpetual victims of everything, and yes that is a ridiculous position to take. It’s as equally a ridiculous position to take as to deny that men are victims of anything.

          Here’s a great example of what I’m talking about. A guy goes to a bar, gets drunk late at night – drunk enough that he’s not as sharp as he should be, but not drunk enough that he’s lost his faculties. He’s made the choice to get drunk and is responsible for his decision there, up until that point. Feminists would argue if it was a woman, that he shouldn’t be accountable for that – so your logic is flawed.

          However let’s take it further with 2 scenarios to demonstrate how your position is also one of feminist enabling.

          In scenario A, said drunk guy gets behind the wheel of a car, winds up wrapping himself around a set of traffic lights and killing himself due to his own drunk driving. Scenario A was entirely of his doing.

          In scenario B however, he either lives a short distance from the bar, or has the presence of mind not to drive and can’t get a cab, so he walks home, minding his own business. However on the way, he gets dragged into an alley by a violent gang – let’s say, made up of half a dozen violent women – where he’s mugged, sexually assaulted, stabbed multiple times and left to die there.

          While he might have been intoxicated, in scenario B, the guy is definitely a victim of crime and whatever trauma he has endured needs to be recognised and treated with compassion and patience.

          However by taking that approach, I’m somehow trying to outdo feminists in the victim stakes according to you?

          The reality is that your position is one of blanket victim blaming. Certainly men should never seek infantalisation, however your position is one which seeks to reject male victimhood altogether. In doing so you perpetuate the notion that men cannot be victims – the very foundation of feminist arguments that violence is a gendered issue. It is this particular argument which fuels feminist tropes like “all men are predators” and “only women are victims; only men are perpetrators” and fuel the sexism of legislation like VAWA. The position you’re taking gives feminism its legs and will continue to do so.

          “What will work is a man coldly and calculatedly working in his own best interest, either alone or with other men.”

          And it is this self-centred approach, rather than any sense of brotherhood that makes the issues of any man facing injustice our issues, which will doom the manosphere to abject failure on any and all deep and profound issues.

      • I’ve studied Ancient Rome quite alot at a tertiary level. The fact is that anyone studying ancient Roman history and examining the way “vis” manifests itself in Roman society can spot parallels a mile off.

        There’s no reason to believe they’re any more than parallels. The Yanomamo of the Amazon and New Guinea highlanders are both extremely warlike. Yet they have never had contact. Are you going to say one caused the other? No, they’re just two examples of the human animal exposed to similar circumstances.

        BTW, the modern British have absolutely no shared cultural memory of Roman occupation. So your contention that the Roman culture led to the stiff upper lip is more than slightly suspect.

        And it is this self-centred approach,

        Selfishness is a necessary part of life. It doesn’t require a man to be cruel or neglectful of others as you seem to imply. And nothing precludes MGTOW from forming ‘bands of brothers’ who will stick their necks out for others in times of need.

        • “There’s no reason to believe they’re any more than parallels. The Yanomamo of the Amazon and New Guinea highlanders are both extremely warlike. Yet they have never had contact. Are you going to say one caused the other? No, they’re just two examples of the human animal exposed to similar circumstances. ”

          Except that in this case the Romans not only had contact with the British, but at least 2 centuries of rule over them. Your arguemnt here is a complete strawman and sheer baseeless historical revisionism.

          “BTW, the modern British have absolutely no shared cultural memory of Roman occupation. So your contention that the Roman culture led to the stiff upper lip is more than slightly suspect. ”

          You’ve failed to see the wood for the trees here. One of the big issues that history is grappling with as a field now, and has been for the past few decades, is how to deal with disparate naratives that change with class. You also need to bear in mind the oral traditions that later were written down as opposed to written firsthand accounts at the time. You also need to consider that different classes of people had different experiences.

          Furthermore define cultural memory. Sure there are conscious beliefs that can be defined as culutral memory and even on that score you fail abyssmally as the common consensus amongst historians was that King Arthur for example, was in fact Roman.

          However you then have what could be classed as subliminal cultural memory – traditions and institutions which originate from a cultural exchange, but where the memory of that origin is itself lost. The orders of Knights and the spread of Christianity, are just 2 examples of this. They’re also, much like the Greek Orthodox Church, traditions whose origins have been co-opted by nationalism.

          The fact is that the knight’s traditions are a link by which Roman brutal masculine values continued through to the present day in different forms.

          “Selfishness is a necessary part of life. It doesn’t require a man to be cruel or neglectful of others as you seem to imply. And nothing precludes MGTOW from forming ‘bands of brothers’ who will stick their necks out for others in times of need.”

          And yet you and others here have demonstrated that my assessment in this context if spot on considering your latent attitudes to those men at their most vulnerable in society. Why, because you, like so many others, are too shit-scared of being “less than nothing” (which btw couldn’t be further from the truth) if you actually had to discard your predefined role and model of disposable masculinity that society has given you.

        • Except that in this case the Romans not only had contact with the British, but at least 2 centuries of rule over them. Your arguemnt here is a complete strawman and sheer baseeless historical revisionism.

          I noticed you gloss over my other example of the parallels between the Yanomamo people and New Guinea highlanders. Whenever the homely facts are inconvenient, I guess it’s just better to ignore them, right?

          The Wikipedia article I checked shows they were there quite a bit longer – the Roman civilian administration wasn’t expelled by the locals until the 5th century A.D. Yet the modern British have just about zero traditions and practices that can be traced from that era. If what I’m saying isn’t true, why don’t you name some counter-examples for me.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_governors_of_Britain

          Cultures and societies have limited memories of the ancient past. The presence of writing may delay matters but hardly eliminates forgetting. Strawman my ass.

          Furthermore define cultural memory.

          Stuff like holidays, stories, legends, heroes, and traditions that are important to a people. For example, the British have the Legend of Robin Hood, Chaucer’s Canturbury Tales, and remember quite well the Battle of Agincourt where longbowmen delivered a stunning defeat to the French. There’s also the concept of English Common Law. All of them are undeniably British, and trace back to times well after the Romans left Britain.

          If the Romans had anywhere near the cultural influence of the examples I just gave, the British woul be celebrating the time the Romans were expelled like it was Independence Day. They would also have shared memories of notable figures such as Oliver Cromwell and Isaac Newton. This we don’t see. My conclusion is that as a people they have little, if any cultural memory of the Roman occupation.

          And yet you and others here have demonstrated that my assessment in this context if spot on considering your latent attitudes to those men at their most vulnerable in society.

          Blah blah blah blah. No one is listening to you, and no one gives a shit about you. I’m done here – you can have the dubious pleasure of having the last word.

        • “I noticed you gloss over my other example of the parallels between the Yanomamo people and New Guinea highlanders. Whenever the homely facts are inconvenient, I guess it’s just better to ignore them, right?”

          Complete obfuscation on your part. I actually said it was irrelevant, because unlike your example, Rome had had contact with British and had ruled over it for centuries.

          “The Wikipedia article I checked shows they were there quite a bit longer – the Roman civilian administration wasn’t expelled by the locals until the 5th century A.D. Yet the modern British have just about zero traditions and practices that can be traced from that era. If what I’m saying isn’t true, why don’t you name some counter-examples for me. ”

          Actually it may even have been as high as 8 centuries when you fet into the debate over when the Saxons arrived and the nature of their arrival. You were presenting me with an absolute negative and I was providing a conservative rebuttal – hence why I said AT LEAST 2 centuries.

          “Cultures and societies have limited memories of the ancient past. The presence of writing may delay matters but hardly eliminates forgetting. Strawman my ass. ”

          When you engage in the obfuscation of claiming that a lack of specific memories pertaining to events negates the presence of tradtions which are established historical fact and some of which still exist today, then yes, it’s a complete strawman on your part.

          “Stuff like holidays, stories, legends, heroes, and traditions that are important to a people. For example, the British have the Legend of Robin Hood, Chaucer’s Canturbury Tales, and remember quite well the Battle of Agincourt where longbowmen delivered a stunning defeat to the French. There’s also the concept of English Common Law. All of them are undeniably British, and trace back to times well after the Romans left Britain. ”

          And which exist alongside the tradition of the knights, which existed in Britain for over a millenia, the Arthurian legends and Christianity – all of which can be traced back to Roman traditions. Furthermore, the first of these has profoundly affected western attitudes to masculinity and how masculinity enshrined and manifested itself in the later traditions you bring up, from the romanticised fanasies of “the knights code” and fairy tales, to the ugly realities of chivalry which made the average knight more akin to a street gang thug than a gentleman, as a friend of mine put it.

          “Blah blah blah blah. No one is listening to you, and no one gives a shit about you. I’m done here – you can have the dubious pleasure of having the last word.”

          The typical response of a man which has no argument – a complete ad hominem finish. You’re right, when you have to resort to an ad hominem in a failing attempt to hide the fact that you have no valid counter-argument, then yes, you’re definitely done responding to me.

  12. @PMAFT

    Your new troll andrew richards needs work …

    I suggest you contact ebay for a refund for your new troll … its obviously defective … lol

    Seriously men wanting to sleep with hot tight young chicks, doesnt make him disposable …

    Its the women who use him as a walking wallet & a wage slave

    Its society who use him as slave labour & disposable corpses, where even the extreme rates of men committing suicide, doesnt even make a dent in the health budget for retarded bitches …

    How the fuck can men make themselves disposable … except out of ignorance

    Its only when you have a government & a society who makes trillions of profits, who deliberately designs a society & the media to make the average male disposable

    The only answer to a communal, community wide artificial system, to make men disposable, is to avoid participating in it

    As society is communal, it requires voluntaryism, to make men disposable, all men have to do is avoid volunteering to become a wage slave, or avoid marrying a stayathome parasite slut

    Work in your own best interests, screw the state & then take all your knowledge & expertise & wealth & ex-pat, once you’ve made your money, leave the country

    Which is what the MGTOW movement is all about & PUA & game & the manosphere

    It’s all about rebuilding men, & telling them the blatant truth, about a violent society & its REAL agenda for hard working men

    Remember the survelllance camera’s & police state arent there for the women …

    Its to ensure men dont try to stop their disposable state

    Men HAVE to DISMANTLE the welfare state, avoid becoming a part of it

    Liberalism & welfare bullshit, which is all feminism is, its welfare for ugly sluts & whores, who cant bag a decent man

    Liberalism & welfare & feminism are ALL forms of enslavement to government

    Turning men into a victimised class, will only enslave men to government

    Which is WHY feminism is such a shithole, feminism IS enslaved to government handouts

    Feminists dont have to compete for their ideologies, precisely because government gives them handouts in the billions

    Feminists dont have to give a crap about men, precisely because government gives them handouts in the billions

    Feminists dont have to market or tailor their message to men, ie 50% of the population, precisely because government gives them handouts in the billions

    Along with the millions of batshit women, who live off men as parasites …

    Ex-pat & starve the bitches of your hard earned blood …

    • Wow, complete obfuscation and strawman arguments from a man whose kneejerk response is precisely how feminist dogma has become so thoroughly entrenched.

      You claim too despise feminism and yet at the same time, you defend the very form of masculinity which exists for the sole purpose of facilitating female infantalisation –

      You claim “Seriously men wanting to sleep with hot tight young chicks, doesnt make him disposable …

      Its the women who use him as a walking wallet & a wage slave”

      Yet this demonstrating the intellectual equivalent of a quadraplegic hippo attempting synchronised swimming, as the first part of this statement is the very vulnerability which allows for the second part of this statement to occur so successfully.

      As for the rest of your statement, with its unhinged paranoia of recognising male vulnerability somehow magically turning men into a perpetually infantalised class; it is attitudes like that which are precisely the reason that you and the rest of the game community are every bit as culpable in the death of Earl Silverman as the likes of Manbbobz, Rebecca Watson and the Canadian Office for the Status of Women.

      Your entire “industry” is just as much a pack of misandry driven parasites as the feminist movement is.

      The sole reason you and the rest of the PUA community defend the status quo and perpetuate the notion that rejecting the predefined model of disposability would be a fate worse than death and make men “less than nothing” is because it harms your hip pocket.

      The PUA community has always been a wolf in sheep’s clothing where the status of men is concerned – existing and profiting from the insecurities of men who you parasites gleefully exploit with overpriced books and boot camps while happily putting men a broken condom away from a life of child support from a one night stand.

      The fact is that you and your misandry driven ilk cannot bear the thought of that changing and men rejecting that paradigm, because the moment they do, then there goes hundreds of dollars of revenue per person.

      Stop pretending you care about men when all you care about is your hip pocket.

      • Seriously Andrew, you sound burnt out …

        I suggest you take a break from arguing with people & get back to being an activist

  13. Btw I was going to comment the following, before realising Andrew is basically burnt out

    TAKE A BREAK ANDREW, you need it …

    Anyway, my post

    You seriously dont know shit about men

    We dont need a nation of single fathers on welfare …

    Which is where you’re bullshit is heading …

    Men want to RAISE FAMILIES, men DONT WANT WELFARE or government handouts

    Men DONT WANT sympathy from society

    Men WANT to be able to earn a living

    Is sympathy from society going to allow men to repeal misandrist laws? NO

    Which is why …

    Men NEED to fight women in the courts, & REVERSE the male hate & the inhumane laws

    Turning men into a victim class, will only turn men into a statistic for government welfare

    We have to avoid emulating single women at all costs …

    Avoid government dependancy at all costs

    We want to LIBERATE MEN from society, THAT is the whole point of the MRA & the manosphere

    The WHOLE POINT of the MGTOW movement, is to liberate men from a male hating society

    • If anyone needs to take a break and get some perspective here, it’s you. Your entire response has been nothing but a reductio ad ridiculum.

      For starters let’s deal with the complete and utter strawman regarding the correlation between sympathy for men and law reform. Our whole legal system is based around the notion of justice, just as it has been going right back to Plato himself. The fact is that the key driving force for legislative change, is a perceived sense of injustice. Unless society cares about injustice against men, then they will have nothing but indifference when it comes to legislative reform. Ergo, society having not only sympathy, but empathy and compassion for men is crucial to the success of legislative reform.

      Yet you apparently want to push for legislative change which invariably requires popular support, by fighting against having a society which would be sympathetic to such change and therefore supportive of it? Only 2 words come to mind here: epic fail.

      However let’s get back to your reducto ad ridiculum. My argument, as a male survivor of DV and sexual violence, and therefore speaking from firsthand experience, is that battered men need compassion, understanding, support and patience so that they have the tools they need to heal, recover, rebuild their lives and thrive. My stance, shared by others speaking for battered men, is one of giving men the tools they need so they can recover and can thrive in society – including professionally.

      Yet your response to advocating for a system which actually PROPERLY got men back on their feet and thriving in society is one of:

      “You seriously dont know shit about men

      We dont need a nation of single fathers on welfare …

      Which is where you’re bullshit is heading …

      Men want to RAISE FAMILIES, men DONT WANT WELFARE or government handouts

      Men DONT WANT sympathy from society

      Men WANT to be able to earn a living”

      So apparently, even though I have repeatedly advocated for a society conducive to men getting back on their feet rather than committing suicide or burning out, even though I am speaking from a position of intimate knowledge of this situation and a position backed up by experts on domestic and sexual violence, apparently I’m advocating for men staying in a perpetual victim state and have no clue what I’m talking about on a subject I have over 2 decades of firsthand experience with.

      What would you rather, us suffering in shame and silence and it ultimately destroying us? Or perhaps you’d prefer we were like Earl Silverman and committing suicide as a last resort because feminists are busy treating us like liars, perpetual predators and urban myths on one hand and being publicly mocked, ridiculed and emasculated by Duluth model feminist enablers like yourself (when you rail against the notion of recognising male victims of abuse and giving them the support they need, that is blatant Duluth model enabling)?

      Because that’s what we have now, and closet tradcons like you are just as culpable in its rise and continued perpetuation as radical feminists are.

      Then again, what can you expect when feminists are only interested in pushing “patriarchal theory” and the vast bulk of the manosphere, including you apparently, are more interested in enforcing classical misandry to reinforce your own infinitely fragile senses of masculinty than you are in a society which genuinely treats men like human beings instead of disposable slaves.

      If you were aiming for an own goal here, then guess what? You kicked one so hard that the ball burned through the net.

      You talk about having some perspective and taking a break, yet the person in dire need of perspective here is you. Heck, the fact that you identify as a PUA, a group which not only reinforces disposable masculinity in all but action, but financially exploits men who feel out of place and are insecure, speaks volumes here.

      Heck your entire visceral anti-feminist knee jerking here is a classic example of what was discussed in this blog post: http://www.antifeministtech.info/2013/04/tradcons-let-feminists-define-their-reality/

      “We have to avoid emulating single women at all costs …”

      And this is what catches you out as being a closet tradcon rather than even remotely a genuine MRA. A genuine MRA, would, and does, stop and deeply consider the merits of each situation as it pertains to men.

      If something is genuinely going to be of benefit to men, then it is the ideal course of action, regardless of whether it bears similarities to feminist tactics.

      Heck every single bit of feminism is based on half truths anyway so you’re inevitably going to find some parallels between feminism’s FACADE and what may be required from a men’s rights perspective on some issues. Provided the intent is to advance the recognition in society of men and boys as human beings, such ultimately trivial concerns are irrelevant.

      If your interests are militantly in opposing every single minute aspect of feminism with no consideration of intent, regardless of how it will have a negative impact on the plight of men’s issues, then you you are anything but an MRA.

      • lol your bullshit rhetoric on men becoming feminists with penises is insane

        FACT : Men want to avoid welfare, because men dont need welfare

        FACT: Men want opportunities to work, government handouts & victim status will actually cause most companies to hire less men

        In the exact same way feminist handouts & victim status causes most companies to hire less men, because of all the regulations & red-tape they have to goto to grovel before feminists

        Men WANT TO ABOLISH government regulations & red-tape, so they can work & support their families

        Welfare for men & government handouts, goes against the interests of most men

        Men dont want affirmative action for men, men want to be the best man for the job

        The fact you dont even understand the basic wants & needs of MRA’s & MGTOW, PROVES you dont know jack shit about the movements

        In short you’re a retard

        NONE of your replies make any sense, & you dont even understand the basic issues of the MRA movement

        In short, you behave & talk like a mangina or even worse a feminist

        • “”NONE of your replies make any sense,”

          Correction, they don’t make sense TO YOU, which is what happens when you refuse to take the red pill.

          “& you dont even understand the basic issues of the MRA movement”

          On the contrary, you’ve proven that the person who is clueless about the MRM is you.

          The fundamental concern with the MRM is advancing a society where men are treated with compassion, justice and humanity and where misandry never gets a free pass on any level of society.

          You’ve proven you have no interest in that. In fact, you have argued repeatedly here for a society where only women are seen as victims and only men are seen as abusers, where the notion of compassion for men is viscerally and militantly rejected and where giving men the tools they need to rehabilitate is met with militant rejection.

          As such, you are a feminist enabler.

          In wanting a system based on that system, you want the very gynocentrism that perpetuates the very misandrist gynocracy we live in today.

          Such an ideological worldview is the foundation of all the gender-based injustices of the family courts.

          Such a foundation is why children as young as 12 are court ordered to pay child support to feminists.

          Such a foundation is why VAWA has existed in the form it does and why primary aggressor laws exist.

          Such a foundation is why men account for 95% of workplace fatalities and noone cares.

          Such a foundation is why false rape accusations are given a free pass.

          Such a foundation is why female- on-male envelopment-based-rape is not legally recognised in the legal systems of any country which I am aware of.

          Such a foundation is why men who disclose being victims of domestic violence to police are more likely to be laughed at than be believed.

          Such a foundation is why men are arbitrarily arrested by police on domestic violence callouts under “primary aggressor laws” – even when they are the victim and their female partners are abusing them.

          Such a foundation is why there is currently a boy’s crisis in education that system and male tertiary enrollment levels have steadily declined in the recent decades.

          Such a foundation is why homeless men are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty and treated with absolute contempt by society.

          Such a foundation is why men commit suicide at 3-5 times that of women.

          Such an ideological foundation is why quotas exist in male-dominated fields, but female dominated fields are exempt from them.

          Such a foundation is why sexism against men in general is given such a free pass by society.

          Before you try and claim otherwise, what you have militantly argued for is a society which refuses to view men as possible victims – which equates to a society where only women are seen as victims and men are only seen as perpetrators. Under such an ideological foundation, injustice against men is deemed an impossibility – the very core argument of “patriarchal theory”.

          The fact that you would resort to such paranoia-based propaganda and outlandishly and baseless claims, that giving an abused or destitute man the support he needs to get back on his feet and thrive in society, somehow results in him being a perpetual victim and perpetually trapped on welfare (when in fact such a system would produce the complete opposite outcome), proves this point in spades.

          “In short you’re a retard”

          As this was meant as an insult and I actually have a learning disability (in fact you’d be surprised how common the combination of gifted individual with a learning disability is), you have engaged in hate speech here. It will be interesting to see whether the comment policy here condones a descent into blatant hate speech.

          “In short, you behave & talk like a mangina”

          Here I really have to thank you for proving my point in spades about how “mangina” has become as much of a baseless shaming tool for tradcons as “misogynist” has for feminists.

          Oh and btw, you betray yourself as a tradcon when you say the following:

          “Men WANT TO ABOLISH government regulations & red-tape, so they can work & support their families”

          Correction, DISPOSABLE MEN want to live under the paradigm of men only having value in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess.

          Zeta males (which I am), MRAs, and especially MGTOWs however, don’t want a bar of that traditional role in marriage. Heck, MGTOWs don’t even believe marriage is safe with the right paradigm and right women and want to avoid the institution altogether.

          And you claim I have no idea about the MRM or MGTOW. Irony much?

          Congratulations, you’ve given yourself up to the MRM and MGTOW movements as a excellent living example of the difference between a tradcon “anti-feminist” and an actual MRA.

          “or even worse a feminist”

          It’s ironic, you pretend you’re an MRA, but in your arguments, you have proven yourself to be just as culpable in the death of Earl Silverman as the Canadian Office for the Status of Women – as well as an enabler of feminism by militantly arguing in support of its ideological foundations.

          Stop pretending you care about men when all you really care about is your fragile, tissue thin sense of masculinity and you are clearly driven by the paranoid delusion that if you reject your predefined role and model of masculinity, you will somehow be “less than nothing”. Your own arguments here demonstrate that in spades.

  14. Andrew Richards is basically what a mangina looks like trying to co-opt the MRA …

    Fuck you & your vagina monolgues

    • Right so let me get this straight. I prove that your entire argument promotes male disposability, is based around glorifying the disposable male, and millitantly opposes justice and compassion for men by going after gynocentrism – making paranoid, baseless and delusional claims that taking such an approach will reduce men to a perpetual victim and welfare class.

      Yet when confronted with this, you double down on tradconism by suggesting that advocating for what leading MRAs such as Typhonblue are advocating for, somehow makes me guilty of coopting the MRA and of “vagina monologues”, even though my entire stance is blatantly anti-gynocentric and puts me at the more forward thinking end of the MRM?

      I honestly can’t tell whether you’re a sock puppet account for a feminist disinfo agent or just that millitant and dogmatic of a tradcon.

      Either way, you have abyssmally failed here.

    • goddamn typo’s … thats monologues …

  15. AR – “The fundamental concern with the MRM is advancing a society where men are treated with compassion, justice and humanity and where misandry never gets a free pass on any level of society.”

    I don’t think anyone is actually arguing with you about these issues, but rather with what you believe men must transform themselves into in response to the various injustice we face – asexual and effeminate anti-masculine males.
    The vast majority of men will never be willing to do this, because it is NOT authentic. Contrary to your incessant bleating, authentic masculinity is biologically driven, having been formed by selective pressures over the many millennia. Most men are hard-wired to be masculine men in the same manner as men have exhibited for thousands of years of recorded history. Men, most all men, deep-down want to be real authentic masculine men – not simpering whining male bitches.

    Yes, authenic masculinity can be used to manipulate a man into providing serves to women of which they (individually) may be undeserving. But, rather than throw the bay out with the bath-water, as it were, the answer is definitely NOT to require men to changes themselves into something they were never meant to be, but rather to teach them how to avoid being manipulated and haw to live out their authentic masculinity on their own terms.

    And, frankly, why is it that MEN must change, as you contend. Just WTF is wrong with being a real man with a real sex-drive, and the biological hard-wiring to procreate. There is nothing wrong with men being men. I will never accept your view that there is something fundamentally wrong with authentic masculine men. It is NOT men and masculinity which are in error and in need of being “reprogrammed” so as to eliminate out true selves (complete with our authentic masculinity).

    Yes, there have always been some males who have been asexual (or homosexual) and/or effeminate. But, they have been the (statistical) outliners – not some suppressed norm. Men don’t need to be liberated from our masculinity, we need to redevelop it to it’s natural full potential.

    After all, it is our natural masculine “don’t tread on me” natures which are what will keep us from becoming doormats, just as it served our ancestors. I don’t know how you’ve become so disconnected from the world around you that you’ve come to imagine young men and boys are being conditioned to be masculine. The reality is that authentic, natural, biologically determined masculinity is being beaten out of boys. It is boys who are now routinely expected to act more like the girls – or be punished. Young men are taught to suppress their sexual natures (which is the true way in which they will be manipulated as men, being taught that they can only enjoy sex as a result of first serving women).

    Let me be blunt with you Andrew. YOU ARE NOT AN IDEAL ROLE MODLE FOR ALL MEN! YOU ARE NOT THE PREFECTION OF SOME “NEW MALE” THAT MEN WILL WANT TO EMMULATE AND FOLLOW! YOU ARE NOT “THE ANSWER”. Get over yourself already.

    We men must embrace our authentic biologically hard-wired masculinity, and learn to control it lest we be controlled. We have no need to eschew our masculinity, certainly no more than we have no collective desire to do so.

    Yes, men are currently disadvantaged by society, and are often treated as disposable for the good of society/the female imperative. But, it was actually our masculinity that lead our forefathers to build society (back when masculinity was appropriately valued), and it will only be through the realization of our masculinity that we will be able to reclaim out rightful place. Men who GTOW aren’t doing so because they cannot handle women, and are prone to manipulation, but because they have found a way to embrace and control their masculinity to the point that they refuse to be manipulated.

    And, just as it is right for any man to freely chose not to allow manipulative women into his life, there is no dishonor to a men who chose to take advantage of female nature to manipulate women into sex (controlling them, and treating them as disposable, frankly). And, furthermore, there is nothing wrong with any man who choses to take a woman, to make a family, and to have children – he just needs to do so on HIS terms. Men must be allowed to have choice to live out our lives as we chose for ourselves.

    WE FUCKIN’ DON”T NEED THE LIKES OF YOU TELLING US TO STOP BEING AUTHENTIC MEN. MASCULINITY MUST NEVER BE MADE DISPOSABLE! It is what we are – what we were meant to be. Our masculinity is NOT the problem. None of the issue you cite is solely do to men expressing their natural masculinity, nor can they be solved by men suppressing their natures so as to be more like you.

    You do what you like, and we’ll do as we please.

    • This is the point with people like Andrew twat, they have no idea how infected with feminism their views & idea’s are …

      Even when they claim to support men, they still attack men

      Also just like a typical mangina, all Andrew Richards does is throw around terms like tradcon … lol gynocentrism & other bullshit he hasnt got a clue about …

      Reading Andrew Richards makes me vomit …

      He talks like a limp wristed feminist who ran out of tampons & views gay porn & shoves dildo’s up his ass for a living … like a good male feminist

      • Yes I imagine reading my posts does make you vomit, just like seeing “the desert of the real” made Neo vomit in the first Matrix movie. At least Neo the capacity to face reality though. Your actions here are far more reminiscent of Cypher though.

        Throw out accusations of feminist sympathies all you like, however as I have demonstrated, it is you who are a staunch supporter of gynocentrism.

    • Slwerner, the problem is that you cannot see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

      You ay that masculinity must never be disposable, yet at the same time you argue that disposable masculinity in its entirety is genetically hardwired.

      The fact is that masculinity has as much to do with biology as it has to do with environmental factors.

      “Masculine” and “feminine” traits have never been about what is biological, but rather what society has needed men to be. If we’re going to determine what is authentically male, then we need to separate out which parts of masculinity are constructed by social engineering and which parts are intrinsically biological. Considering that premise acknowledges that there are biological differences, then how on earth does that even remotely promote androgyny in men.

      You ask what is wrong with men being “real men” and having active sex drives. The problem with that is when you start talking about “real men” what is implied is disposable masculinity.

      By all means if a man accepts and embraces all of himself, both the “masculine” and “feminine” parts of himself in a way that allows him to be the best he can be, then I agree that’s the ideal. Likewise a man having a healthy sex drive in that situation is perfectly fine too.

      However if a man is embracing the “masculine” but ashamed of the inner feminine, and is embracing the disposable model of male sexuality, then that is highly problematic and far from taking the red pill; said men are trapped by, and connected to the system still and viscerally rail against it because they are trapped by the lie that if they reject traditional [disposable] masculinity, they somehow are “less than nothing”.

      What you say is hardwired is the notion of men only having value in society based on their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess. The fact is that men have vastly more value than this, despite your notion that this limited valuing of men as human beings is “the norm”.

      You’re right that men who bucked the trend were the outsiders – because most men were and still are, socially policed into conformity with socially accepted masculinity.

      Under that model, men are always perpetual slaves to women and a broken condom away from a lifetime of abuse at the hands of the family law courts. Yet you ask what the problem with that is.

      Yet you fail to grasp that what you advocate for is not authentic masculinity out of double ignorance or that advocating for such a model of masculinity is exactly what perpetuates feminist doctrine.

      You say you want men to be great, but you support a version of the system which throws men who have been wounded and broken on the scrapheap – treating them with equal callous contempt as feminists.

      Why, because feminism claims to want androgyny but really wants docile disposable males? Do I even have to point out the sheer fallacy there.

      The fact is that the only way feminism will be defeated is if we recognise male vulnerablity as a society and take injustice against men seriously.

      You talk about my disconnect, but ironically, out of the two of us, I am the one who is accutely aware of the problem of gynocentrism and how it affects men.

  16. AR – ”…you argue you argue that disposable masculinity in its entirety is genetically hardwired

    There is no such thing as ”disposable masculinity”, you just made it up to fit your point of view. A man doesn’t even have to be the least bit masculine for society to treat him as disposable. Personally, the men who I have seen arguing the strongest in support of those things which actually treat men as disposable commodities have been the least masculine of men. They seem as motivate by their jealousy over what masculine men had that they did not, than for any other stated reason as to why men ought to be sacrificed (in whatever way). Masculinity is not the direct cause of men being made disposable. You fail to see anything other than what you want to believe. Society and The State will chew-up and destroy any man, masculine or not, as it serves some imagined “higher purpose”. Being effeminate and asexual is no guarantee against be made disposable (granted, it might ensure that no individual women directly benefits from you). Being a victim of crime, being drafted into military service, being repressed by anti-male laws, and even being hit with a “bachelor tax” (an idea being bandied about) effect all men irrespective of their personal masculinity or lack thereof. You’ve FAILED repeatedly to prove that male disposability depends on men acting like men.

    AR – “Masculine” and “feminine” traits have never been about what is biological, but rather what society has needed men to be”

    Then, you agree with the feminists that gender is a social construct.
    AR – ”we need to separate out which parts of masculinity are constructed by social engineering”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. The problem isn’t masculinity being constructed into young men and boys, it’s that key elements of masculinity are being selectively discouraged, and the guys end up repressing their true natures. Thus, the drive to protect and provide are allowed to remain, but the drive to be sexual is considered bad. When their natural sexuality has been repressed, it leads to situations in which it simply comes out in the most inappropriate of ways – leading to the furtherance of this male disposability under the line of argumentation that men are just sexual beasts. If young men were allowed to embrace their natural sexual natures, and to be proud of who they are – rather than made to feel ashamed for it – they could be taught haw to express it more appropriately.

    AR – ”What you say is hardwired is the notion of men only having value in society based on their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess.”

    You’re nothing but a bald-faced liar, Andrew. I have never claimed any such thing. Men have value irrespective of what they may or may not provide for society. As long as they do no real harm to others, I have no argument with what ever any man might chose for his life.

    And, what is it that is actually bad about masculinity? Why is sexual prowess a bad thing? Is that just a matter of your personal jealousy, Andrew? I’m damned proud of my sexual prowess. It’s never made me disposable (my wife often tells me she cannot imagine life without me – including sexually). And, I’m sure as hell not going to dispose of it because some nobody from nowhere who pretends he is the new WAY, TRUTH, & LIGHT of the MRM says that I should.

    The only way I’ll be disposable is if I chose to do so. If wit came down to me trading my life for that of my wife or children, I’m entirely willing. No one will be “making me” do it. It would be my choice to do so.

    If some guys wish to pursue sexual conquests with any number of willing(ly manipulated) women – more power to them. If you wish to eschew sex with women – more power to you. Live your life on your terms – not anyone else’s.

    I hope that you live as you chose, but, please quit lying about my intentions. And stop arguing that all men need to repress their natures and become like you.

    • I’ve failed in no way, shape or form. You however have merely chosen to double down on tradcon double ignorance.

      You claim that there is no such thing as disposable masculinity, however in doing so you effectively deny the existence of male disposability.

      The fact is that disposable masculinity is the form of masculinity which idealises the disposabble male. The disposable man is valued by soociety solely on the grounds of providing for women, protecting women and on the basis of their sexual prowess, the snare by which they are trapped into that role. And how do you get a man to be disposable, you disconnect him from anything within himself which society deems “feminine” whilst glorifying male disposability. The fact is that stoicism is disposable masculinity.

      Yes society under this gender paradigm will constantly attempt to make men dispposable, however it is far harder (infact almost impossible) to get a Zeta man to go along with it compared to a disposeable man (ie a man who embodies disposable masculinity). Furthermore the less Zeta men there are around, the less such disposability and misandry will be fully challenged and people’s eyes opened to the injustices heaped upon men.

      Furthermore you claim that such a masculinity is not the cause of male disposability, however the real cause, gynocentrism would very quickly die out if male disposability ceased to exist and in existing, sustain it.

      The irony that you and others are guilty of here is that you rail against the notion of male vulnerabily, however injustice against men cannot be recognised until male vulnerability to injustice is recognised.

      Now you claim you have never said that such a masculinity is hardwired, yet you have repeatedly argued that such a mascuilinty (ie being a “real man”) is entirely the result of biological evolution.

      The irony is that in taking such a stance, you confuse slavery for liberation, false pride for dehumanisation and social engineering for authenticity.

      What I am advocating for, what I have always advocated for is for men to retain every authentic “masculine” trait they have, whilst also embracing all of themselves, no matter how “feminine” this parts of themselves might be- embracing ALL of themselves shamelessly and disarm the ability for their sexuality to be a snare to be used against them. After all, when self-mastery happens, self-actualisation occurs. In no way have I advocated for the “repression” of male traist in men at any point.

      You mistake learning the rules of the game but continuing to play it with freedom. However true freedom only comes when we refuse to play the game altogether.

    • One other glaring flaw in your ideology I have noticed is that you fallaciously approach men’s issues from the baseless notion that men weren’t victims to gynocentrism before feminism came along.

      The fact is that in terms of disposability, the only difference between the way men were treated before feminism came along and after it came along, is that pre-feminism, we had smoke blown up our asses; post feminism we had scorn heaped upon us.

      However in both situations, which operate under the same paradigm of gynocentrism, men got an equally shitty deal in terms of being treated as objects of utility, rather than human beings.

  17. AR – “I’ve failed in no way, shape or form. “

    Since a man can be disposed of without being masculine, masculinity is NOT the key to male disposability. FAIL!

    AR – “You claim that there is no such thing as disposable masculinity, however in doing so you effectively deny the existence of male disposability.”

    BS! I’ve done no such thing. I fully acknowledge that society sees men as disposable, and in fact, fully disposes of some men. I simply argue the obvious – that a man’s masculinity isn’t what makes him disposable. You are just a liar.

    AR – “The fact is that disposable masculinity blah, blah blah….”

    Damned, you sound more and more like a woman. Sorry, just sayin’

    AR – “Now you claim you have never said that such a masculinity is hardwired”

    Wait. You liar. I’ve repeatedly stated that I believe masculinity to be hard-wired. Not once have I ever claimed to have not said so. Show me one example, you liar.

    AR “yet you have repeatedly argued that such a masculinity (ie being a “real man”) is entirely the result of biological evolution.”

    You’re not just a liar – you’re a moron. What is commonly referred to as “hard-wired” is precisely meant to refer to as that which has as the result of biological evolution. There is no internal conflict to what I’ve stated. And, for the record, I never said it was entirely biological – just primarily so. But, i suppose you’ll just tell more of your lies to try to cover your painfully obvious tracks

    AR – “The irony is that in taking such a stance, you confuse slavery for liberation, false pride for dehumanisation and social engineering for authenticity.”

    Wrong on all counts. The masculine suppress you call for would make men slaves – if you change out of fear, it is the opposite of liberation. Refusing to change is not false pride, it is real pride. Asking men to suppress their masculine natures would be an example of social engineering. I reject your attempt to redefine the meaning of terms. That’s what the feminists have done so often. You seem to be suggesting that eh way to beat feminist is to act more like them. Good luck with that.

    AR – “What I am advocating for, what I have always advocated for is for men to retain every authentic “masculine” trait they have, whilst also embracing all of themselves, no matter how “feminine” this parts of themselves might be- embracing ALL of themselves shamelessly and disarm the ability for their sexuality to be a snare to be used against them. After all, when self-mastery happens, self-actualisation occurs. In no way have I advocated for the “repression” of male traist in men at any point.”

    If so, then why do you advocate against men being sexual? It is a very real part of most men’s masculine identity. For many, it is of paramount importance. Yet, you suggest that if men would but force themselves to become asexual, male disposability would cease.

    You might wish to Google “William Mcaffrey” (and “Biurny Peguero”). He didn’t have sex with her, but it didn’t save him from being accused tried and sentence to prison for a rape that never could have occurred (since there was no sex). Simply refusing to participate does not guarantee protection for men.

    Men must learn how to better protect themselves. Even if one choses to never drive a car due to the risks involved; he might still get run over by someone else driving a car. Some risks are worth the reward. For those of us who enjoy sex, and who are good at it, it can be very rewarding. Personally, I’ve been at it 30 years, tens of thousands of times, and have never once been “disposed of” nor felt particularly disposable. Your experience may differ – but it will never negate mine.

    AR – “You mistake learning the rules of the game but continuing to play it with freedom. However true freedom only comes when we refuse to play the game altogether.”

    According to you, and you alone. To me, freedoms is doing things my way – not opting out at the first hint of possible danger. And, really, who else agrees with you?

    Face it, you’re not our salvation. You’re just one person out of billions, with your own personal opinion. I know, because that applies to me also. My opinion is that you’re wrong, and that you’re way isn’t the answer.

    Now, given your track record, you’ll no doubt claim that you’ve proven me wrong. But it’s just your claiming to have done so. You think way too highly of yourself. You’re not infallible, Andrew. You’re only human. You’re no better just because you believe differently (and, of course, wrongly).
    Now, get busy posting your long-winded factually –deficient response that no one else will read.

    • “BS! I’ve done no such thing. I fully acknowledge that society sees men as disposable, and in fact, fully disposes of some men. I simply argue the obvious – that a man’s masculinity isn’t what makes him disposable. You are just a liar.”

      On the contrary, the very model of masculinity you ascribe to is precisely what makes men vulnerable to being disposable and pertpetuates injustice within the system against men. No matter how much you might try and deny it, you promote a model of masculinity which has been socially engineered around the ideal male provider and protector whose sexuality is an Achilles heel.

      Furthermore you fail to recognise how that masculinity, through its visceral denial of male vulnerability, is precisely why feminism has been given a free pass.

      After all if male vulnerability is denied then it is impossible to recognise injustice against men. The later requires the former. It is this model of masculinity which is why misandry and feminism have been given a free pass. More than merely playing it no feminist hands; it forms the ideological foundations of “patriarchal theory” and every single feminist imperative which stems from it

      “Wrong on all counts. The masculine suppress you call for would make men slaves – if you change out of fear, it is the opposite of liberation. Refusing to change is not false pride, it is real pride. Asking men to suppress their masculine natures would be an example of social engineering. I reject your attempt to redefine the meaning of terms. That’s what the feminists have done so often. You seem to be suggesting that eh way to beat feminist is to act more like them. Good luck with that.”

      On the contrary, the only person advocating for men suppressing part of their natures is you. I have continally advocated for men to embrace all of themselves regardless of how it flies in the face of social norms. If you believe that is a form of slavery, then you are severely in denial

      “Men must learn how to better protect themselves. Even if one choses to never drive a car due to the risks involved; he might still get run over by someone else driving a car. Some risks are worth the reward. For those of us who enjoy sex, and who are good at it, it can be very rewarding. Personally, I’ve been at it 30 years, tens of thousands of times, and have never once been “disposed of” nor felt particularly disposable. Your experience may differ – but it will never negate mine.”

      Some people thrive in prisons and well and truly make the best of things. However it makes them no less a prisoner. Likewise you might have “made the best of things” however that doesn’t change the fact that you are very much a slave to the system – regardless of how much you might defend it. Then again, breaking free from the system was always going to be easy for those of us who are younger and not as indoctrinated by it.

      “According to you, and you alone. To me, freedoms is doing things my way – not opting out at the first hint of possible danger. And, really, who else agrees with you? ”

      You mean besides the likes of Typhon Blue, pro-male academics like Tosh and Dudink and contributors to New Male Studies?

      The fact is that you and your ilk will find yourself on just as much the wrong side of history in the end as feminists.

      A new wave of MRAs is starting to surface – men who challenge other men to look for who they are beyond the provider, the protector and their sexual prowess and to value that far more than any role society thrusts on them where their only value lies in their utility and to demand that women value men on the same grounds – as human beings rather than as tools for them to use and discard.

      I am far from the first or only MRA to advocate for this paradigm and I’ll be far from the last. There are a growing number of us who see the problem at its very core and we refuse to support any course of action which perpetuates it – regardless of who proposes it. Contrary too what you might believe, we wont be silenced and we’re not going anywhere.

  18. AR – “One other glaring flaw in your ideology I have noticed is that you fallaciously approach men’s issues from the baseless notion that men weren’t victims to gynocentrism before feminism came along.”

    Okay, Liar, show me where I’ve ever proffered such a contention – in my direct language, not your twisting interpretation of what I’ve said.

    gynocentrism is as old as Eve. I’ve never claimed otherwise. Liar!

    • “Okay, Liar, show me where I’ve ever proffered such a contention – in my direct language, not your twisting interpretation of what I’ve said.

      gynocentrism is as old as Eve. I’ve never claimed otherwise. Liar!”

      And yet here you throw up the old trope that the very form of masculinity which facilitates gynocentrism is somehow a natural state in men which should be strived for. If you weren’t denying the existence of gynocentrism, then in taking such a stance you were actually DEFENDING the oppression of men to facility gynocentrism.

      After all, not only do you defend such a model of masculinity, but you go so far as to engage in apologetics of it to glorify it.

      “I don’t think anyone is actually arguing with you about these issues, but rather with what you believe men must transform themselves into in response to the various injustice we face – asexual and effeminate anti-masculine males.
      The vast majority of men will never be willing to do this, because it is NOT authentic. Contrary to your incessant bleating, authentic masculinity is biologically driven, having been formed by selective pressures over the many millennia. Most men are hard-wired to be masculine men in the same manner as men have exhibited for thousands of years of recorded history. Men, most all men, deep-down want to be real authentic masculine men – not simpering whining male bitches.”

      In other words, never mind how gynocracy manipulated the authentic masculinity that was there; you just fallaciously conflate all of it to a healthy and natural state. Good luck convincing men who have “failed to make the cut” throughout history of that.

  19. AR – ”I am far from the first or only MRA to advocate for this paradigm and I’ll be far from the last. There are a growing number of us who see the problem at its very core and we refuse to support any course of action which perpetuates it – regardless of who proposes it. Contrary too what you might believe, we wont be silenced and we’re not going anywhere.”

    Sure, if you say so.

    You know…

    You could prove me wrong be setting up your own blog (rather than just existing as a parasite on this one) and creating a bunch of sock puppets to voice agreement with everything you say.

    Oh, and BTW, Typhon Blue is married (she mentioned it on one of the podcast she did with Karin (GWW) and John), so it’s highly unlikely that she believes men should become slaves to their fears of potential risks and avoid sex with women.

    • “You could prove me wrong be setting up your own blog (rather than just existing as a parasite on this one) and creating a bunch of sock puppets to voice agreement with everything you say.”

      Alternatively, you could just pick up an issue of New Male Studies or the writings of academics like Gelles, Farrell, Dudink or Tosh, to name a few and discover for yourself that you’re wrong.

      “Oh, and BTW, Typhon Blue is married (she mentioned it on one of the podcast she did with Karin (GWW) and John), so it’s highly unlikely that she believes men should become slaves to their fears of potential risks and avoid sex with women.”

      I never said men should reject their sexuality entirely, but rather they should extricate it from the system so that it cannot ensnare them in a position of disposability. That means more than merely deciding who you will have sex with, but actually recognising how your sexually can be used against you in every regard and becoming master of your own sexuality – rather than gynocentrism being master to it.

      Furthermore, Typhon Blue is one of the few in the movement raising the issue of female-on-male envelopment-based rape. Considering that’s a deep red coloured pill approach to male sexuality, it’s fairly safe to say that she’s against the notion of her husband’s sexuality being a snare to trap him in the disposable role of provider and protector.

  20. lol @ AR’s verbal diarrhea … does this guy even check his word count

    Holy shit … lol

    • And now you’ve taken to responding like a feminist. Your entire argument has been debunked, your entire tradcon, misandry-based position has been exposed (which is the underlying position of every single gamer out there despite the “playing the system” BS they go on with) and so all you have left now are insults. Never let it be said that once you strip away the veneer that tradcons of all varieties and feminists aren’t cut from the same cloth.

  21. Andrew Richards is reptillian liluminati …

    He uses his penis as a freemason handshake to bribe homo’s to write his bullshit mangina posts …

    Stop abusing your penis, before it falls off …

    • So I approach gender issues from a perspective of profound anti-gynocentrism, challenging gynocentric aspects of conventional masculinity (which btw, maintains the 1%ers in their position of power through socialised control) and feminism with equal voracity, and yet I’m a radical feminist and a reptilian illuminati?

      Looks like the gameosphere are just as predisposed towards desperate and baseless insults when their position is exposed, as feminists are. After all the gameosphere/tradcons and feminists are merely different sides of the same coin.

  22. Andrew Richards you have pretty thoroughly dismantled the manosphere on repeated comment sections of this blog. You are among a very small number of men who still bother with these blogs who can legitimately be called an MRA. There are perhaps a dozen.

    Are you a regular anywhere else? Feel free to e-mail me:

    yaboyincanada_gmail.com

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: