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 replies on “Women Are … Part 3: A Voice For Men edition”

>That sounds like a mirror of extreme feminist rhetoric.Daivd you didn't highlight the nasty stuff for reference, you are trolling for angry abuse victims so that you can pretend that they are representative if the mens movement when in fact they are a minority that majority doesn't really want.End game I suppose being to undermine legitimate mens, fathers and abuse victims rights

>What David has done here is go on to a thread about abuse populated by marginalized and segregated abuse victims, skipped over the bulk of the sane commentary and singled out a few wackos.David, given your vendetta against the rights of people of a certain persuasion and contempt for the rights of certain abuse victims, are you really any better than the people behind these quotes you cherry pick?

>I was clicking on the link in David's article and this is what I see on the screen today during my lunchtime:, copy/paste….We have men going to prison for failing to end penetration quickly enough when consent was allegedly withdrawn mid coitus. A man in Israel went to prison for rape, not because he forced sex, but because he falsely represented himself to be Jewish to the woman he had sex with.We have teen age boys going to prison for having consensual sex with teen age girls. We also have numbers of men arrested and incarcerated because so often nothing more than accusation is needed in order to secure a conviction.What's wrong with this text?

>David Did you actually read the entire thread? This is what happens when things are quoted when you don't know the whole story.I post at AVfM as Tasha. I'm not going to deny that some of what is posted there is crap. Some of it is. I can't defend Redpills post, I wont. But you appear to want to make AVfM look like some slimey little "kill the cunts after you fuck them" site, and it's not. And, what you DON'T know about the goings on there and about some of the posters on the thread you link is that the bulk of that thread was taken up by a poster named Peter Clifford. He ranted, raved, threatened to burn down his house with his mother and sister in it. You then would read other men posting to him to seek help, to not do anything violent, empathizing with him about the abuse he endured but not encouraging his threats. In other threads he goes totally off the rails. He had a go at me the other day and spiraled into such a fucking crazy rage that Paul banned him from posting. In fact, in this VERY THREAD you link, Paul had this to say: Clifford: "I have contemplated burning the house down with my sister and mother in it and making it look like an accident.."Paul Elam "Look, Peter, this is all I am going to put up with here. This is not about theMRM, or what feminists may use against us. And please don’t try to paint it over as satire. If it is satire, you have a responsibility to make that clear.Asperger’s or no, you are crossing a personal line with me to put shit like this on my site. Knock it off. I want you to be welcome here, but you are making it difficult for me to maintain that attitude."Probably linking that would've ruined your flow though huh?

>David"That sounds like a mirror of extreme feminist rhetoric."Sounds more like good old-fashioned misogyny to me."So are you trying to say that it doesn't sound like extreme feminist rhetoric? That bile coming out of an abuse victim, there is no misogyny without about abuse. Thats something that feminists aren't told to or cant put together for themselves and its very simple arithmetic.Women do the bulk of the socializing of children, women do the bulk of the child abuse so women have been socializing the bulk of the dysfunction and future abusers into society for a very long time now.Theres your source of misogyny, logical and plausible.

>"Did you actually read the entire thread? "I did. And yes, people (including Paul) criticized the crazy violent shit that Peter Clifford said. That doesn't change the fact that more people upvoted than downvoted a comment railing against "faggots" and talking about how much the commenter wanted to shoot women — sorry, bitches — in the face. Meanwhile, Elam's solution to domestic violence is "bash a violent bitch month." His solution to rape is to suggest that women who get drunk and make out are "begging for" rape, "damn near demanding it. Oh, and that they're "STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH[es]." And today he suggested he felt no more sympathy for women in general than he does for actual convicted rapists.I don't need to post comments from his site, or indeed post anything at all about his site, to make AVFM look like a hangout for slimy misogynists who love to fantasize about violence against women. Paul does that all by himself, in his own writing.

>A minority of sleazy misogynistic do hang out on mr sites, and feminism is full of sleazy misandrists and misandry, ask any feminist if they think abuse is mainly gendered of you dont believe me, but you happen to approve of misandry, for your own personal reasons and so run a double standard..this being a prime example… it doesnt matter how many times we go over the pro domestic violence jezebelle article and the satirical mirrored response by paul… you keep pretending that I was an actual call for domestic violence in the same vein as the jezebelle article.You misrepresent and take out of context while ignoring everything else, its one trick David, over and over the one same trick.

>why the hell are you so obsessed about upvotes and down votes David? Does it boil down to a popularity contest with you? Is that how you define the morality of a movement? By how many people agree with it? And stop acting like it was some huge margin, I hardly call 13-11 widespread endorsement of gender based genocide.

>hasnt gendercide and calls for violence and mutilation of men been a common theme in feminism? Not long ago a feminist group in sweden lost its support, one of the reasons being their singing a song about dismembering men at a conference, thats a far cry from one or two loose cannons in a comments section.

>David is still bitter about having his ass kicked by Elam in that abortive debate, which is why he loves to repeatedly misrepresent the same articles by Elam like a broken record.

>"why the hell are you so obsessed about upvotes and down votes David?"Because it says something about who the site attracts. Here's a comment that got 24 downvotes (and 9 upvotes) — you'll have to click on a link there to even see it:'s as mild a criticism of the MRA party line that could possibly be imagined, but it gets two dozen downvotes.Meanwhile the comment I quoted — you know, the "shoot bitches in the face" one — gets more upvotes than downvotes.If that doesn't tell you something about Paul's audience, I don't know what does.I notice he's gotten rid of his "feminists and manginas" page. Does he simply ban all feminists nowadays, or does he count on his trusty fans to do the job for him by downvoting all dissenting views until they aren't visible without clicking a special link.

>"Women do the bulk of the socializing of children, women do the bulk of the child abuse so women have been socializing the bulk of the dysfunction and future abusers into society for a very long time now."So I have an amazing idea. Let men do the bulk of socializing children so there will be far fewer abused, dysfunctional, and abusive people in this world.

>"Women do the bulk of the socializing of children, women do the bulk of the child abuse so women have been socializing the bulk of the dysfunction and future abusers into society for a very long time now."Women are also the bulk of today's sexism. It's quite simple to know why. It's because their sexism is against men is a social norm. It's allowed, they get away with it.

>Yes, there are a minority of men who hate women and who claim membership with the Men's Rights Movement. It's curious as to why they feel this irrational rage when feminists pop out of the woodwork and exclaim, "you're just worried about losing your privilege, *SQUACK*!" These men tend to be anything but privileged, but then feminism is almost completely baseless words and little fact.That being said, I'm proud to say that the majority of the Men's Right Movement distances themselves from these bigots.What has big feminism done about feminists who hate heterosexual males? Mainstream feminists often will either rationalize the man-haters as "victims of the global conspiracy (patriarchy)," stand idly by while they rip into all things masculine, or even condone them. Only rarely do mainstream feminists even acknowledge these man-haters are doing something wrong – perhaps many of them secretly loathe the male sexuality but are too cowardly to acknowledge that?Feminists would rather complain about their neighbor's unkempt lawn – real or hallucinated – than fix their own collapsing roof.

>What’s considered as sexism that's coming from men is not sexism when it comes from women.For example, extreme paranoia over men. Feminism is all about thinking the worse of men. Women in general believe most men are potential users, rapists, abusers, paedophiles until proven otherwise.If any man had the same level of paranoia/negativity towards women, the misogyny card would be thrown at him within a split second.Such double standards like this is a prime example why today' western men are the second class citizens

>IR said… Yes, there are a minority of men who hate women and who claim membership with the Men's Rights Movement. Outsider do exist. MRAs cannot control them.I think, these few men who really hate ALL women can be found mainly in USA. Nowhere else the discussion between men and women is so hateful and so mistrusting. – However even these outsiders are talking usually not about hate against ALL women, but about hate against AMERICAN women regardless their race.To hate 'all American women' is not the same as to hate 'all women, worldwide'.Such men from USA were often badly treated by women in the past. Indigent, accused out of fantasy, jail despite being innocent, children taken away from them, all their property taken away…etc. etc.I told several times to DAVID already, that he considers MRAs only as he can see them in USA, and this is for him ALL MRAs, everywhere, worldwide. – Of course he ignores any discussion about MRAs, who are not living in USA and who are not American citizens.In other feminist countries, of course problems with feminism do exist, but discussion is by far less hateful. I have never seen a blog like this one of David outside of USA/UK, which is following MRAs in such a hateful way.David is nitpicking every single word of an angry man who said something to other disappointed or badly cheated men in forums, which were created for men's problems.David is showing up also with deliberate accusations against MRAs, which are totally baseless, like his claim about 'MRAs and their relationship to dolls' and similar nonsense.Instead of trying to intermediate, he is producing even more hate between men and women with his strange 'pro-feminist research'.

>@David"hasnt gendercide and calls for violence and mutilation of men been a common theme in feminism?"No, no it hasn't."how many influential feminists have called for gendercide, abuse and mutilation of men, just these ones? "Though if you think that calling Burk’s piece “satire” changes the face of feminism you’re showing your ignorance. There are other writings by academic feminists calling for the elimination of men and similar absurdities in dead earnest, though at nearly midnight I’m not going to run them down. But as a guy who once edited Catharine MacKinnon, I know a bit about this stuff." threated to mutilate 100 men while feminists in the media celebrate Lorena Bobbitts mutilation of her husband.."National Feminist Association called several news organizations to announce that if Mrs. Bobbitt went to prison for mutilating her husband, 100 innocent American men would be castrated (it is not clear if they really meant "castration," which generally means removal of the testicles, or if they meant they would slice off 100 innocent penises). The organization also staged a large protest outside the U.S. consulate." magazine Jezebel and feminist commentators celebrate domestic violence against men A powerful political group expressing hate in hitlerian proportions and a minority of loose cannon trolls in comments sections are not comparable.

>@David Futrelle:"Elam has now removed this comment, which he says he hadn't seen before, saying 'I 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. He claims those other pieces were 'satire' and that the violent parts were 'taken out of context.'"Two points I want to make:1. Context is easy to prove online.Paul Elam really was writing from a satirical point of view. You can see it right in the articles in question, where he spells it out in black and white. So long as an online article remains in place untouched, there is no better way of verifying the claim that it was "taken out of context" than to actually click and read! The phrase "taken out of context" is often used by people who said something in the presence of a member of the media, and the speaker has no electronic recording of their own words to illustrate to the public what the context really was. In that sense the phrase "taken out of context" indicates that the media has pulled a fast one, using its leverage over the published word to hide the truth. But here in the age of hypertext, it's so easy for the thinking person to really see what the context of a blog post actually was, and that's why there is no such disparity of leverage. So you can understand my disgust, David Futrelle, at your insinuation that Paul Elam is lying about being taken out of context (you wrote "He claims" that his words were taken out of context."). He "claims?" You, David, have provided your viewers with the very means to verify that your credibility in this matter is utterly worthless.2. Stoking a spirit of violence is ultimately harmful."Elam has now removed this comment…saying 'I 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."This is an absolutely valid point in my opinion. There is a spiritual dimension to human perception, and when a writer stokes the spirit of violence in order to make an intellectual point, the reader is conflicted between his feelings and his intellect. Although his intellect should process the disclaimer that satire is clearly in play, in his heart he may still hold on to the violence.To whatever extent MRAs wish to change the law or the culture, we must recognize the reality that legal and cultural change requires social legitimacy. We MRAs can't build social legitimacy in a war against misandry if we expect the public to be conflicted between heart and mind. We need to start getting dead serious about communicating effectively if we want to effect any substantial changes. Stoking a spirit of violence in order to make an intellectual point against it is, in my view, a counterproductive approach which only perpetuates the status quo.

>John, I agree with your second point, but I think your first point is way off base. I guess I do need to do another post on this. Eoghan, so your proof this is "common" in feminism consists of 1) one prominent feminist talking about an imaginary future in which there are no men; she's NOT calling for men to be killed. 2) a group I've never heard of from Equador (your source here is The False Rape society, hardly a bastion of objectivity) and 3) some genuinely obnoxious comments in a Jezebel thread — or, as you might put it, some loose cannon trolls.

>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".,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 AVRM

>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.

>@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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>"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.

>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?

>" 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.

>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 2008:200820072006200520042003200220012000

>ahunthere is a break down of the figures from 2001 – 2006 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,, 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, 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.