Categories
antifeminism discussion of the day homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MRA Uncategorized violence against men/women women are...

Women Are … Part 3: A Voice For Men edition

Britney, don’t you know YOU’RE toxic?

More, uh, questionable wisdom from angry dudes on the nature of women. Today: comments from A Voice For Men. I’ve highlighted some of the nastiest stuff for easy reference.

Women: Deserve to be shot in the face.

Women are the natural enemies of men. No matter what anyone says and how good women claim to be, that is just the truth. This will never stop and men will continue under the tyranny of women. … We are called rapists, abusers, bullies, and even homophobes because we don’t embrace the faggots biologically backward, queer-ass culture. … I am so fucking tired of this shit, that I really wouldn’t mind shooting a bitch dead in the face. … They are evil. ALL OF THEM!!! … This is a gender war, and women, ALL WOMEN! are the enemies, there is no compromising.

(Note: This comment, even with the whole shooting-women-in-the-face bit, got more upvotes than downvotes from A Voice For Men’s peanut gallery, and “redpill” was not taken to task for actually suggesting murder by the site’s owner, Paul Elam. Lots of other crazy stuff in that comment thread.) 

EDITED TO ADD: Elam has now removed this comment, which he says he hadn’t seen before, sayingI am vehemently against violence.” Given that he has posted similarly violent fantasies several times in his own pieces, this is a little difficult to take altogether seriously. (My link is to the version of the page saved on the Internet Archive, which still contains the comment intact.) He claims those other pieces were “satire” and that the violent parts were “taken out of context.” Of course, none of this changes the fact that a comment about “shooting a bitch dead in the face” got more upvotes than downvotes on his site. (Here, by contrast, is a comment that got massive downvotes on his site; you’ll have to click a link there to even make the comment visible.) EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: In this post, I take apart Paul’s claim that he’s being satirical when he talks about violence.

Women are: Toxic, but their vaginas are useful. 

Women are toxic – stay away from them, dont be around them for too long and most importantly when pumping them with man juice wear protection so you dont get infected with child support.

Until women regress back into their maternal/house keeping roles use them for the only thing they have to offer to a straight man – their vaginas.

Women are: Malleable, gullible, stupid, bad, irrational, and ridiculous.

In my opinion women are malleable,gullible and lack vision.The statements they make are ludicrous,they are therefore stupid, driven on by one thing and one thing only-their sexual power. The day someone creates a pill that desexualizes them in our eyes, then that is it. It is over. I don’t for a single second believe that the nature of women has transformed over the ages. Go back in time and the same nonsense will be as visible then as it is now. … women are this way by nature. The good thing is,they have demonstrated, to their everlasting detriment, just how bad, irrational, and ridiculous they really are. Time to stop pandering.

Women are: Crazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, toxic, entitled, and they’ll probably get your penis infected.

[W]omen in this country my age and younger are out of their minds! They have no concept of discipline or responsibility. They can talk with the best of them but their actions paint an entirely different picture. It’s not going to an extreme to want to get away from Western women entirely. They are toxic human beings. It is dangerous physically (many of them have STD’s), economically (look at hulk hogan’s ex and her new yacht the alimoney), religiously (these girls are some of the MOST entitled I have seen), etc.. Even the best of them slip into the entitled mentality far too frequently.

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eoghan
11 years ago

>David, you are misrepresenting those links that I gave you1) Three influential and respected feminist in academia talking about genocide2) Feminists in the media all over the world celebrated Bobbits mutilation, as for your criticizing another blog for lacking objectivity, lol. And FRS pretty much just publishes real stories from the media and comments on them.3) You are misrepresenting the Jezebelle article. The Jezebele journalists lead that celebration of domestic violence and there commentators were too many to be considered loose cannon trolls. You and the other feminists here consistently support segregation and apartheid for abuse victims that don't look a certain way or were abused by someone that looks a certain way, are you loose cannon trolls too or is that opinion typical? How about this"The documentary noted that the shelter had printed excerpts of an extremist American feminist manifesto called Scum, which stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. In it, women are urged to “destroy the male sex” and seize the chance made possible by science of giving birth only to females. The spectacle of militant feminism reaching into Sweden’s official institutions provoked a political scandal in which Wachenfeldt was forced to resign from her job at the shelter". http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&expIds=17259,17291,27557,27743&xhr=t&q=feminist+slip+up+on+man+tax&cp=27&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=47cf2069a0cfc2aAs for the whole premise of this post on your blog, here is full conversation about redpill and the monority of poster like him on AVRMhttp://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/28/another-reminder-on-comments/#comments

Eoghan
11 years ago

>You see David, even now you are minimizing, excusing and explaining away calls for genocide, mutilation and abuse of people that look a certain way by people that look another way and maintaining that its much worse when lesser things are said by members of the incorrect group about the correct. You might not realise it, but this, just like supporting segregation and apartheid for abuse victims and protection for abusers based on their genetic code, is extreme bigotry and history will record it such.

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>@ahunt, you don't understand statistics much do you? I bet if you look up corrupt building contractors, almost all will be men. Does that show that women contractors are automatically better and more moral than the men? No, it doesn't. The vast majority of contractors are men, so it follows that the vast majority of bad ones are also men. I suspect (though I am just using this as an analogy) that women contractors commit corruption at similar rates. The same goes for primary caretakers of children. If a certain percent of primary caretakers abuse, and men and women caretakers abuse at the same rate, women are still going to make up the vast majority, because this is a form of work that is heavily woman dominated, like contracting is heavily male dominated.

DarkSideCat
11 years ago

>Oh, also wanted to point out that by 'abuse' I am referring to generalized child abuse, including 'abondonment' and 'neglect', because males make up the bulk of perpetrators in sexual abuse cases. It is obvious when talking about neglect and abandonment that the primary caretakers will be the ones doing it, because the non-caretakers are pretty much considered exempt from these charges.

Eoghan
11 years ago

>DarkSideCat4% of abuse is sexual, with most of it (85%) being done by men but female on child sexual abuse is viewed as still largely in the closet and protected by various myths, political constructs and systemic problems. The experts think we might be looking at the tip of the ice berg and the number of victims of female child sex abusers coming forward is on an upward curve, we need to allow them to exist and that can only happen when we stop telling them that child sex abuse only comes for men. As for physical, neglect, emotional, and psychological abuse its mother doing the bulk of it.Anyway, the point is that under the current regime, there are certain forces stopping us from treating dysfunction at its source, by source I mean the main care giver. We are expected to use magical thinking and pretend that the source is an unseen hand, something political, some inherent evil or patriarchy when the actual source of it is right there in the main care giver, who is usually female and so a protected abuser under the feminist construct.Once this magical thinking is not dominating the system and the funding, we will be able to go in and treat abuse and dysfunction in a holistic and much more effective way.

Eoghan
11 years ago

>Also DarkSideCatI dont buy the protecting, apologizing, minimizing and deflecting of female child abuse that feminists tend to use, "oh but thats because women spend more time with children", using male lead sexual abuse to deflect or categorizing female abuse as abandonment and neglect while leaving out the emotional, psychological and physical abuse. There are also the deaths, which are also female lead.To hell with protecting and apologizing for child abuse on the basis of genetic code.

Pam
Pam
11 years ago

>"I dont buy the protecting, apologizing, minimizing and deflecting of female child abuse that feminists tend to use, "oh but thats because women spend more time with children" "So, does that mean that men make up the majority of corrupt building contractors because they are less moral?"To hell with protecting and apologizing for child abuse on the basis of genetic code."I agree! And I also say to hell with the designation of primary caregiver and the designation of "head of the household" authority based on genetic code.

ahunt
11 years ago

>Hmmmm….Been doing some checking. In 2007, child murder stats indicate an even split between fathers and mothers murdering their children. What I'd like to know is whether and how stepparents figured into these statistics, and I'm not having much luck on google. Any help?

Eoghan
11 years ago

>" agree! And I also say to hell with the designation of primary caregiver and the designation of "head of the household" authority based on genetic code"And to hell with exploiting abuse victims for use as political ammunition.And we started doing away the with designated care giver and head of the house hold as soon as reliable birth control, the surplus of female friendly jobs and the dual income family were installed. Today, its mainly personal choice that designates the roles.

Eoghan
11 years ago

>ahunt, you are incredulous because of prejudice.must be an anomaly, also feminism wants child death by women to be seen as something other than what it is, is PPD.Anyway here are plenty of sources for you."US Department of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Children & FamiliesLinks to HHS/ACF reports, from 2000 through 2008:200820072006200520042003200220012000http://thenononsenseman.com/femme-fishbowl/child-abuse/

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>ahunt, here are some DOJ numbers on child murder:Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 — * 31% were killed by fathers * 29% were killed by mothers * 23% were killed by male acquaintances * 7% were killed by other relatives * 3% were killed by strangersOf those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm

Eoghan
11 years ago

>ahunthere is a break down of the figures from 2001 – 2006http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.phpThe DHHS data shows that of children abused by one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.6% were abused by their mothers, whereas only 29.4% were abused by their fathers.And of children who died at the hands of one parent between 2001 and 2006, 70.8% were killed by their mothers, whereas only 29.2% were killed by their fathers.Furthermore, contrary to media portrayals that leave the viewer with the impression that only girls are ever harmed, boys constituted fully 60% of child fatalities. (Table 4-3, p. 71, Child Maltreatment 2006, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf, reports that 675 boys died in 2006 as compared to 454 girls).The pervasive media bias cannot help but influence judges. Thus the newspapers, TV shows, and movies that promote this bias must bear a significant part of the responsibility for child abuse and deaths of children at the hands of violent mothers.

ahunt
11 years ago

>"ahunt, you are incredulous because of prejudice."No, I'm incredulous because I struggle with the notion that natural mothers and fathers are killing their children…roughly four times a day here in the US.If the DOJ stats include stepparents/live-ins, the numbers would make more sense to me.

%d bloggers like this: