I’ve been involved actively in men’s rights since 2002 when I commenced work on a video project which extended to seven years of work to complete. I’ve been an online presence since 2009 when I started this site and have been on Youtube since early 2010.
Why the historical notes? Because I’ve long meant to write something to serve as a preface to the original video series and to support and explain issues and criticisms arising from it. In other words, this is the article where I say why I do this and why I’ve taken the approach that I have. Additionally, it aims to more completely explain the objective than the about section, the about the project page, the youtube description and even the introductory video to the project which only touches on the philosophy behind the work.
This is a long article and so here is a contents page to help navigate. Feel free to skip to the Q & A for the gist of the article if you must, but the whole thing counts as my response to criticism and my own criticism of some of my critics. It’s like the Terms and Conditions of reading this site and watching the films.
The joys of criticism
I’ve come in for a significant amount of criticism and vitriol here and there because of both the documentary and the content of this site. Some of the criticism has been valid, however, most of it has been misplaced because it is so obviously the result of wilful misunderstanding.
The work has been mis-characterised and misrepresented sometimes due to genuine mistakes, but most often, due to deliberate smearing and/or an inability by many to look beyond the first thing that might cause offence.
The root cause of most of the problem here, is my chosen approach in the presentation of the issues of men’s rights. The language is sometimes harsh and the phraseology is sometimes abrasive. It is a strongly presented series of films and this site is the same. This approach stem from the simple fact that the films were never meant to be public in the way they are today. For some reason, I always conceived of the films as being shown to friends and interested people as part of a dialogue, like a normal conversation or debate. I would be there talking about what’s on screen with viewers, clearing up any missteps or misunderstandings along the way.
Instead, the films are public for anybody to see and draw their independent conclusions. But with films on this volatile subject matter, presented in this in-your-face fashion, that’s trouble with a capital T.
Don’t hate the MRA, hate the game
I find it astonishing that many women who watch these films manage to come away feeling offended by the way certain women are described or the manner in which certain salient truths are presented. They tend to take it personally. The responses from women have shown clear over-sensitivity to turns of phrase and the tendency to shoot the messenger before even hearing the message.
The films are about men. If you watch them and become offended, it can only be because you are ignoring what the film is about and are too wrapped up in yourself to see the topic for what it is. If you come away thinking: “You know, in that segment where you talked about the men who committed suicide due to being falsely accused of rape, I was really offended by the way you described the women”, you need to seriously refocus your thinking.
If you want to be offended by these films you certainly will be. If you look for something to upset you, you’ll find it. But what you should be doing is looking at the topic.
If you keep in mind the subject matter of the film, and keep in mind that the film is not about you, then you might understand the purpose of it and both free yourself from needless upset, and free me from your misplaced vitriol: a win-win for me and you! Surely a no-brainer, right?
But alas, no. Generally, women watch, get offended in the first 60 seconds and classify it as ‘hateful’. Sigh.
These films need to be watched with an open mind. Several films need to be watched to even begin to understand the scope of the work. A woman wouldn’t read three pages of Pride and Prejudice for example, and believe she had the measure of the book and could deliver a worthwhile review. Yet that’s exactly what women have a tendency to do with these films.
Men are less sensitive about these things, because their sense of their own psychology is less well developed. Men can watch material demonising them all day long and not react (they watch television after all), but women are far more sensitive to any negativity – real or imagined – and it shows. It’s a deeply selfish phenomenon and I encounter it enough that I now ignore it and accept it as part of the female-condition, which is as prevalent as it’s male equivalent.
As an example, I had one piece of work contact me about the very last sentence of the film on rape. Now this is a 45 minute film and the woman said she was positive about all of it… except the last sentence. She then characterised the whole film as being hateful towards women despite it focusing overwhelmingly on issues to do with men. Now, yes, I suppose that you could watch 45 minutes of a documentary and then take the entirely wrong message from it based on the final few words… but only if you’re an idiot.
If people want to assume the worst about my motives, I can’t stop them. If they want to pretend to themselves that these films are about disparaging women, they can certainly support their misconceptions by wilfully misinterpreting the work. But when they do, it’s time for them to question their own motives.
Within this site and more importantly, within the documentary, I ask that people stack presentation against content. Use your brain. Don’t make the political personal. Take from them what is of value and ignore the rest.
Mystifying
What could lead a person to watch a film about some topic concerning the poor treatment of men and take from it only the perception of what the film says about women?
It’s the sort who have no regard for men or the male experience whatsoever.
For example, I focus on men being killed and injured disproportionately in the military and in the police due to being exposed to more danger and yet receiving the same pay as women who are protected from danger. And the result? Women get offended about the portrayal of women.
The issue – the deaths of men – is irrelevant to this sort. How she feels that women are portrayed is all that matters to her. What she takes from the film is a bad taste in her mouth and the feeling that this film hates women or the filmmaker hates women. The dead men the film focuses on is as nothing to her in the face of her hurt feelings. The lady thinks I’m offensive.
Well, I find women like that offensive. Women so wholly wrapped up in themselves that they are completely incapable of understanding the message because they are too busy getting upset that I was disparaging about certain women here, or did not give women sufficient praise there. It beggars belief that women can do this and not see that whilst they mud-sling and claim that hate lies within the films or this site, they utterly fail to see that this lives only within their own imaginations. The real hate (or at least failure to see the real hate that is under discussion – misandry) lies within them.
The ALL police
If you think I mean all women when I say something, you have to ask yourself if I’m the idiot for implying all women, or if you’re the idiot for thinking I could possibly mean all women.
For example, if I was to say that men are taller than women, what can this mean? Is it possible that this means that all men are taller than all women? Obviously not. I expect people to use their common sense to realise this. You know that I can only mean most men. Even a four-year-old would know that I meant most men.
So why would anyone make the claim that I was saying that all men are taller than all women? Because they choose to see it that way, that’s why.
Similarly, if I say (in context of false allegations of rape) that: we live in the age of the toxic female, what can this mean? Is it sensible to interpret this as all women are toxic? No. The only people who could take it that way are people who want to take the wrong message for their own reasons. They would let the men-are-taller assertion go because they know full well how to interpret it; but they choose not to interpret the toxic female remark in the same way because they are hateful and want to ascribe hatred to me
In the conclusion to the education films – I end by saying that well educated girls will do fine in life and achievement, but that well educated boys might change the world.
Is that disparaging of females? No, it’s reality. The next Google, the next leap in energy technology, the next [insert major scientific achievement here] will be made by men. It’s simply the way it is and the reasons for it are well understood both here and in the science of biology.
We can pretend it’s not true and that a future Susan is just as likely to change the world as a future John, but that would be equivalent to pretending to ourselves that the winner of the coming 2012 Olympic men’s 100m final is just as likely to be a white man as a black man. It could happen, I suppose, and if it does, so what?
But if it comes down to a bet, I know where I’d put my money. And I might actually be disparaging about a white sprinter’s chances. But does this mean that I hate white people? Do I have issues with white sprinters?
In Rape I say that we are living in the age of the toxic female.
Does this mean that all women are toxic? No, it applies to the women under discussion and also to the ease with which any woman can falsely accuse a man. What it says is that in our society, women are encouraged and enabled to be toxic. In the areas of divorce, DV, false rape, sexual harassment and false child abuse allegations, some women take to that encouragement very well.
In Feminism, I say that women are stupid.
This is a contextual assertion that only applies to the specific women under discussion – Feminist women. Let’s go through the boring pre-school level thinking process again, for those folk who wish to claim that I am hateful for saying something like that.
Are all women stupid? No.
Is it even possible for all women to be stupid? No.
Therefore, can that expression apply to all women? No, it can’t.
It is impossible for it to apply to all women, so why ascribe such meaning to those words? And right there, you nail their own prejudices and hateful thinking to the wall.
They would rather believe the impossible rather than extend me the same understanding as they would when discussing anything else. They would rather pick and choose when to take me literally and when to engage their brains just so that they could feel righteously offended or say that I am offensive.
These same women that feel so offended at my work, will happily leaf through hateful article, after hateful article, after hateful article about men, have a laugh about men getting their penises chopped off or being treated like dogs, gloat about boys under-performance when exam results come around, excuse a woman when she is a rapist because she’s a woman, and then smile when men are blamed for the financial crisis. All of that is fine with her. She won’t be making accusations. She won’t be sending any emails in complaint. She won’t cite ‘hate speech’. She won’t react at all.
But how dare I speak disparagingly of any woman ever! That’s hate speech, right?
Q & A
Do you hate women?
Normally, I wouldn’t respond to such a ridiculous question. I mean, would you respond to a question like: Do you hate air? Do you hate the ground? For me, this type of irrational question is mystifying. I mean what kind of malicious idiot would even pose such a question?
However, since I’m the one posing the question on this occasion, I suppose I should answer.
No.
I don’t actually hate anything or anyone except maybe Feminism and possibly traffic wardens. But that’s where it ends. Nothing I’ve done could even suggest hatred of women except in the minds of those predisposed to hatred themselves. People seem very intent on finding what they’re looking for in the films and on this site. And they find it even though it isn’t there.
That said, of course I’m aware of how the use of certain language and broad terms can be misinterpreted even by the fair-minded, but I maintain that in the context of the films and this site, it is abundantly clear that my issue is with Feminism and its adherents, not whole populations and entire sexes.
Good grief, surely this is obvious?
Alright, so you say you don’t hate women, but you clearly have issues with them.
Hold your horses there, Tex. I have issues with women? Once again, this is 99 parts invention to 1 part evidence.
In a way, yes I do have issues with women, the same as I have issues with men, with government, with the media, with charities and perhaps with other entities. But in reality, these issues boil down to a single central problem that runs through all of the rest. It’s about Feminism and Feminist governance. It’s about misandry and male-disposability. It’s about an ideology that is literally killing men and blighting the lives of those men who have the temerity to live and breath. Yes, it is that serious and I have laid out the evidence to prove it and have more on the way.
It’s not directly or only about women, and I don’t advocate or support arguments that it’s a battle of the sexes, or women are the enemy or any unsupportable tripe like that. The actions of most women – the primary and most avid adopters of Feminism – are certainly a part of the problem, but in reality, men are as much of a problem as women. I do have issues with the ideology of Feminism and the various institutions it infects. I don’t have issues with women in and of themselves any more than I have issues with the air I breathe.
But you say that women are toxic! You say it right here on this site!
It is not possible that the behaviour of all women can fall into the descriptions of the toxic women I identify and so it is therefore not possible that I can be referring to all women. To assert that I am saying that all women are toxic is to assert that I am stupid, ignorant, hateful or all three. And I am none of those things.
If I’m breathing air and the air is poisonous, then I say “the air is poisonous”. Of course not every molecule I breathe in contains the substance that is poisonous, but not even a mindless pedant would say: “some of the air I’m breathing is poisonous, not all of it mind, perhaps not even most, just sufficient an amount that the result of breathing it is poisonous to me”. This is fairly obvious. What is also obvious is that the more toxic the substance, the less of it you need in the air around you to make all of the air poisonous.
The women who are toxic create a toxic environment for everyone.
Do you think that women are less than men?
No, I don’t think that women are less than men. That’s idiotic. It’s like saying your upper arm is worth less than your forearm. Men and women complement one another and measures of absolute worth between them are not logical.
You can say that men do certain things better than women and in fact there is a great preponderance of things that men do better than women; but that is not the same as saying that men are worth more except in the strict ability you’re talking about. For example, a man will generally be worth more to an employer in many jobs (most jobs in fact), due to a combination of things discussed at length in the pay gap. But worth in a job does not have any bearing on absolute worth as a human being. It’s only in the malicious minds of idiots and ideologues that anything else could be the case and I reject any such nasty and baseless assertions.
Do you think that women should get back in the kitchen?
Asked and answered. In brief, no, that’s ridiculous and unsupportable. Plus, that’s bad for men and things are already bad enough for them as it is.
Do you want a return to traditional roles?
Asked and answered here and here. In brief, no. That’s virtually always crap for men and sometimes crap for women as well.
Why are you so disparaging about women?
Remember, these films are not about women. What’s really going on is acknowledgement of men.
I have highlighted the accomplishments of men relative to women in certain areas of endeavour and discussed the differences in male and female abilities at length. The question is, does this mean I’m being needlessly harsh to women?
There are a hundred-and-one ways I could have approached this business and I chose angles of attack that are bound to cause upset in some people and may even lead some to question my motives.
The reason I chose to put things in the way I have can probably be traced back to the inception of the project. I remember the moment I decided to actively do something about misandry. It was when I became so incensed at the volume of lies about men in a documentary on domestic violence (DV) on Channel 4, that it put me off my dinner.
In the show, men were little more than caricatures of human beings. They were abuser objects and nasty pieces of work that were held to be representative of most men. It was also asserted that any man could be violent to their loved ones like this. Now there’s the real hate speech, broadcast to millions, that people might dare to accuse me of. But it wouldn’t occur to them to even notice it because the targets are men and it’s on national TV. So that makes it OK, right?
On commencing full research into DV and the larger scope of misandry, a pattern emerged that put men down on every occasion and boosted women on every occasion. This came from everywhere and was highly consistent. Men were pitted against women in every field and every area you could imagine; from cooking, to working, to driving, to dress sense, to eating habits, to hygiene, to even waking up in the morning. Women were brilliant and men were losers.
But my research led me to completely different conclusions. Men were not worse than women at x, y and z. They were not losers, nor were they obsolete, dying out, useless, criminals and less intelligent than women.
The reality is that men have never wished to be pitted head-to-head with women and be in competition with them. It makes no sense and is an artificial state of being. It is a small subset of women that have created this rivalry, aided and abetted by a small group of men, but with the eager support of a multitude of enthusiastic women and an equal multitude of bemused men.
The fact is that when men are artificially put in competition against women, men win virtually every time. There’s is no other way it could be and so what happens is that the results are fudged and skewed and ignored and misrepresented to present the false image of female superiority. In the work place, on the sports field, on the stage, in words, pictures, art or science, in music in philosophy in the creative fields – in virtually all areas of working life where men and women can be measured against one another, men come out on top.
But here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.
The issue – the real issue – is that this simply doesn’t matter. Or at least it shouldn’t. Men and women were never meant to be in competition with each other. The results when they do compete are meaningless and disruptive except to people who seem to have no idea of how the human race got where it is today. People who have no real idea of men and women and what they want from each other and so choose to impose a hate-riven ideology instead. People who, unfortunately, are in great control of all of our lives.
The films and this site are focused on tackling misandry. Any disparagement of some or all women is not the purpose or even a significant part of the work. Women do come in for some criticism and the truth is not dressed up or softened for the sake of women’s sensibilities. The films are about men and for men, and they tell the truth. The real truth. Not the politically correct truth. Not the Oprah truth. Not the BBC truth. Not the advertisers’ truth. Not the manufactured truth. Not the invented truth.
If you watch them as a woman, and if you read this site as a woman, don’t be so shocked that it’s not the usual BBC fare telling you that women can do anything men can do. And do it better. And do it in heels.
You have an entire article here on Toxic women. Only a man who seriously hates women could write something like that!
Oh really? It so happens that the toxic women article is the second most read post on this site, behind one on false allegations. The reason it’s so often landed on is that it presents a stark viewpoint on the issues with women who are toxic in the general population, but who are never regarded or described as such.
Once again, it’s a matter of approach and I took a very hard line with the presentation of certain real-world issues. It is a partly satirical and deliberately extreme view of genuine problems with the behaviour of a great many women in our society. Ask a man who’s been through divorce; ask a father who’s ex-wife prevents him seeing his children; ask an employer sued for spurious sexual harassment; ask a man who finds out 10 years down the road that his kid isn’t actually his; ask a man who’s girlfriend ‘accidentally’ gets pregnant; ask a man falsely accused of domestic violence; ask men who have spent time in prison because they had consensual sex with a woman who then decided to cry rape.
However, to be absolutely clear, and much to the disappointment of those malicious individuals who think that the article refers to all women, it does not.
You are married, so why do you speak out against marriage? Are you a hypocrite?
Asked and answered. Marriage suits me because my wife and I are unusual cats. But marriage in general is dead and women killed it, encouraged by Feminists of course. Every woman that smiles as she nails her ex-husbands ass to the wall on divorce and thinks she’s won something wouldn’t smile so broadly if she could see the target she has allowed to be drawn on her own ass.
Any woman who embraces the legal system against her erstwhile husband and thinks the system is her ally, is sadly deluded and can’t see how she weakens herself and the future of her children. The government is no friend or ally to anyone except itself. Men instinctively know this, women instinctively don’t.
You say that women are stupid? How is that not misogynistic?
Once again, I’m talking about some women. Certain women. The women at issue. The women I’m talking about. How many different ways can I put it when it’s so obvious in the context of the film anyway?
The women I’m talking about are Feminist women. Any woman who calls herself a Feminist and/or supports Feminism I regard as a stupid woman. This is irrespective of any kind of qualification like equalist Feminist, equity Feminist, orphan-loving Feminist, not-like-those-other-Feminists Feminist etc. This is not misogyny, it’s merely an appropriate description. Incidentally, the same applies to male Feminists of course.
How do you feel about being thought of or labelled as a misogynist?
Intellectually, I know it isn’t true and that most sensible people will know it’s not true and I can dismiss such accusations.
However, on the other hand, it is still a horrible smear and a label that it completely misplaced, completely unwarranted and completely unfair.
So, in response to the online accusations I might come across, I reject them utterly. They are the empty allegations of the simple-minded bigot and I have to let these go and just ignore them.
However, in response to any such accusation in my personal life, I don’t see any way that I could accept it in the same way. There is no ignoring it and no brushing it off.
For anyone who knows me to dare to call me such a thing, or to treat me as a hateful person, is a person I regard as beneath contempt. For me, who has spent years crafting and presenting my thoughts in a very complex area of human relations, it would count as one of the worst insults I can conceive of. It could only be the result of an ignorant, knee-jerk mentality and I don’t need people like that around me.
Anyone that came at me with this would be treated like the piece of work they are. I would reject any such accusation and would have to reject them as well, regardless of consequences.
Will you be producing more of the same in future?
Yes and no. Future work will be markedly different because I am a different person to the one of several years ago and my understanding of the issues has changed. The Truth, Lies and the War on Men project has served a purpose in the current time. Future work, however, will probably be quite different.
A rude awakening
To sum up, in our society, women are wholly unfamiliar with being described in anything other than glowing terms. At the same time women are also unfamiliar with men being described in anything other than negative terms.
Elsewhere, men are rapists and abusers and paedophiles and controlling and harassers and stalkers and all round mean individuals. In contrast women are great, women are strong, women are wise, women are special and women are oppressed. When women do wrong it’s probably the fault of a man. If they kill a man he deserved it. If they murder their babies, she’s a wonderful mother with a tragic psychological problem. Hell, women are so virtuous, even when they are convicted criminals we don’t think they should go to prison.
So, I can fully sympathise with the adverse reactions of women coming to these films and this site and encountering genuine descriptions of male and female behaviour: it’s a form of culture shock.
These Cosmo chicks swim in mainstream media sycophancy towards women and the wholesale demonization of men. Yet here, men are the builders, the architects, the engineers, the scientists, the street sweepers, the electricians, the sportsmen and the writers and so I do understand how all this may be too much to compute.
Positivity about men which they probably haven’t encountered before + negativity about women where deserved, which they most definitely haven’t encountered before = shock, anger and denial.
To you I say, ask yourself why you find the material so uncomfortable. Ask yourself why you feel it is hateful or unfair towards women,and perhaps even toward you.
Now imagine this discomfort or anger you feel, due to one youtube channel and one website (that is but a blip in the world) multiplied by a million. Imagine it wasn’t just one or two or a dozen websites that spoke negatively about women where deserved, but literally millions of sites speaking negatively, even when not deserved. And this same hatred played out in the media, in Hollywood films, from the president and prime ministers of nations, from charities, from businesses, from the UN and from the school system in which you were educated.
That’s what it is to be male under Feminist governance, yet you expect me to give you the time of day because your feelings are hurt by the language used in my films?
Why I do this
What led me to commence this work which has taken so much time and effort to produce? What motivates me to continue with more and better work going forwards? Where does the energy come from when there is so much else in life to be getting on with?
I do it because there is little else that I regard as more important to me, my son, and my family. I know what lies in store for my boy in our institutions and I’m thankful that my knowledge means that I can hopefully spare him the worst of it. When he’s treated to government presentations that demonise him, or made to walk a mile in her shoes, or made to pledge he will do his best not to follow his bestial male nature and rape women, when even as a 5 year old boy, the school system – which has little interest in his education anyway – will try and convince him he’s a born abuser etc, etc
When these things occur as they will in some form or other, I will do what I can to ameliorate it and explain why it’s happening. I will try my best to help him understand why so many women (and some men) collude in it, rationalise it and excuse it and even attack me for having the temerity to point it out and not just suck it up.
I’m trying to find a way forward for me and mine, just as every man tries to do.
Related
As a side note, it so happens that Paul Elam at a voice for men has written a similar article regarding the issue of meritless attacks against MRA’s and the chosen tactics of the MRM.
MWM,
Thank you for an excellent and balanced presentation of issues facing men. I wondered for years why so much of my culture did not add up when I stumbled onto your website and found it a revelation.
If you would indulge me a moment, please look at this recent post, and my contribution to it:
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/culture/blogs/all-men-are-liars/ididnotreport-20120314-1uz9f.html?rand=2863220
Did I attack anyone personally? Was I harsh or lacking compassion toward women placed in harm’s way?
I’s be interested in what other men had to say regarding this site.
Kind regards,
Spike.
My goodness. It seems that Twitter is to female victimhood, as petrol is to fire.
Public, unaccountable, non-rebuttable, anonymous hate-speech, smearing all men and wrapped up in unproven allegations of some kind of assault or harassment. This is Feminist heaven and female porn rolled into one.
Once again, we have, a technology created by men used in the unending and ever intensifying assault on manhood. Print media, TV, phone and Internet: men have been fantastic at enabling such malicious behaviour to spread and flourish. I wonder what we’ll think of next?
This is it, isn’t it? Feminists are perverts. And feminism is a perversion of reality.
What we are fighting against is that perverted reality.
My presence of mind has been better today than most days, since my experiences of the last decade reduced it to a fraction of what is was. I say this because various limitations have developed which make reading much over a paragraph an unsuccessful experience. So as suggested in the introduction, I went to the Q&A’s and started noticing that I could take in and process significantly more than I usually do. Eventually, I ended up managing to read about 70% of the whole article which surprised and pleased me a great deal. I’ve responded in this post, but I have also failed to express much digestible meaning and my frustration is not having the mental qualities I once had, to do a more helpful job of it.
There is much in this article, which elaborates how a reasonable appraisal isn’t forthcoming by what I believe are the majority of people in society, even though that majority might possibly be a minority of people who look at this website like MRA’s.
We live in a deeply misandric culture, were feminist (the great majority) women and men emotionally receive the content here as some sort of moral blasphemy. You say you are mystified, and a number of other feelings which indicate a belief that logic, reason and evidence are something that should prevail over human nature.
From what I’ve seen of history where an immorally applied ideology prevails, logic, reason and evidence make very little impact in its perpetrators other than to offend them by triggering personal and cultural insecurities.
Imagine going back in a time machine to old Alabama 200 years ago, imagine you are white and motivated by the racism you see to denounce slavery. Despite being a wicked slaver society, the perpetrators and their extended society were deeply religious. Applying your logical and reasoned arguments through the reference of Christian virtues would make very good bases to destroy the reasons to maintain slavery and continue being as racist as those people were.
Or maybe you could go through political logic and concepts of national identity. Americans have been considered to be ritually patriotic and at only a few short decades after their declaration of independence in old Alabama, I am sure they had an even deeper affinity to being American and what they felt it stood for.
Try reading to them the words that they believe they hold with such reverence in your logical and powerfully reasoned argument: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’.
I mean they proclaim that this is what they so strongly relate to, and will be loyal to and defend the principle of.
All the logic and evidence dose have some effect, but over a very long time going into generations. You could feel mystified why it doesn’t convince the individuals there on the bases of the argument alone. You can find it idiotic that actually they respond with hostility and condemnation with references like ‘nigger lover’ to label you as the one who is immoral and unbalanced by their standards.
But at the end of the day, progress seems to have been made more by emotio-cultural phenomena and not simply logic, reason and evidence.
Now, I’m beginning to feel like a shit, because I know I can’t convey what’s in my head.
I don’t think the schools of thought we presume to understand human nature with are that valid, so if I say we are trying to convince a sub-sentient species with logic, reason and evidence, it wouldn’t mean much. I know you have some respect of subjects like psychology, but I feel that perspective of our emotional function is somewhat tangential to reality. It’s like beholding astrology when the reality is astronomy or following alchemy instead of chemistry.
Returning to our issue with our misandric society being mystifyingly averse to logic, reason and evidence, in my mind and personal language, it all helps, but the motives to respect those arguments will come from emotio-cultural factors being triggered – not common sense, because we are simply not that sentient.
It’s a pity that I can’t convey anything more helpful and meaningful than this; if I tried it would involve a vast vocabulary of neologisms, and a much better presence of mind and function than I have these days. My personal meaning of the words like emotion and sentience are quite different to the norm, although I can say that my use of the word cultural is close to what formal schools of thought call societal.
I admire and respect your work, as I believe you know, and eventually I expect it will be valued by wider society if not in our lifetimes. We are only Sapien after all, and the dynamics of that is a bit too much for our sub-sentient egos.
Apart from all the above, I do look forward to see in which direction your new work develops.
Much appreciated. You are more eloquent than you imagine although I do know that this is a fraction of your thoughts on the whole issue.
We’ll be talking more about things via email and in person as we have already.
Further, I agree that logic is not the answer to the gravest of these problems and that we are more animal than we generally admit. Misandry is about feelings and not facts. Feminists and other misandrists work their art on our heartstrings and not our grey matter.
I don’t think the solution lies in logic. I think it’s about playing the same game better than them, and it’s about doing an end run around processes and institutions that will never be fair. Jury nullification comes to mind as an example of this.
It’s good to read you found value in my words. However I don’t mean to reduce the worth of logic and evidence in efforts to repel feminism in the minds of the wider public. It’s just that I believe that process would require a combination of logic, evidence and emotio-cultural events.
These events could happen in any way at any time, but mostly they are potential events that are not seized and utilised. Let me illustrate a past event hypothetically. In recent years there was a noticeable cultural micro-trauma in the infamous Baby P incident. It galvanised the nation into strong communal revulsion. The nation was left to think that it was all due to procedural failings, but knowledgeable MRA’s would have a different take on it I’m sure.
What if Angry Harry got really angry and produced a specialised web production describing the whole sequence of events with full analysis and evidence. Feminism in education, feminism in social workers, then not just the misandry of feminism, but also the entitlement complex of feminist social workers who don’t work, believe that they are wonderful humanitarians whilst incompetent to scrutinise baby P’s guardians because of their attitudes to mothers, as well as the attitudes to never needing to apply initiative and work ethic then make excuses with that feminist entitlement complex. Not to mention the public being so disturbed that they gave the NSPCC its biggest fundraising occurrence ever, and explains how that adds fuel to the feminist fire, and that we’re all culturally part of it. All the relevant factors relating to baby P and feminism, I’m sure he’s able to think and express so many of them. All nicely put together into a mentally ergonomic website, and distributed to many outlets.
Then being so angry, he goes and Shoots dead, Sharon Shoesmith, the head of that councils child services dpt after she publicly said, ‘I see no reason why anybody should lose their job’. That would be the precise event that causes a cultural watershed.
Of course I’m not advocating this, but merely pointing out a powerful emotio-cultural event hypothetically in the past. He could equally do the specialised website and conduct a fatal hunger strike over it. Or with lesser impact he could just promote the website by scaling her council building F4J style.
The responses to these hypothetical events are purely speculative as to how effective they would be, but they show a combined use of logic, evidence and emotion-cultural events. They do not need to be harmful ones. One thing is for certain, there was a great depth of feeling about baby P nationwide across all groups. That’s an awful lot of emotional and cultural pressure, which never got utilised, except to add more layers to the feminist employment racket.
As MRA’s we are trying to build a metaphorical bridge between the land of prejudice and bigotry, to the land of respect and knowledge, for the vast bulk of the population to cross. The bridge cannot be made by mortar alone (the logic and evidence) it needs bricks too (the emotion-cultural stimuli). Nor can the bridge be made by bricks alone.
Those few MRA’s in society have been disturbed enough in their psyche to have spent a part of their lives climbing down and up the gorge separating the two lands. The bulk of the populating won’t do that, because they are deludedly comfortable with the land of prejudice and bigotry, whilst knowing something vague is not right. But if a bridge was constructed they would walk through on mass to a better land, because they can see the bridge.
Bricks and mortar – logic+evidence and emotion-cultural triggers, one doesn’t help much without the other.
Anyway, I shall not pursue this speculation further here because it is too off topic for your ‘why…’ article; and perhaps a little crazy.
Mate, you’ve outdone yourself on this one…simply brilliant!
“The women who are toxic create a toxic environment for everyone” This statement is pretty much spot on in today’s society. Great!
Brilliant article MWM! Those toxic women are bad for both genders. They brainwash young women and corrupt their minds. The ‘Q and A’ part was something I liked the most and not to mention I replied the same thing and same way to my ‘self proclaimed’ feminist neighbours who always cringe when they see my missus doing the housework(voluntarily).
P.S:”Marriage suits me because my wife and I are unusual cats”.. Mate, I never knew someone could marry you….very good article can’t help saying -absolyutno bolʹshaya(absolutely great!)
I disagree with the contention that we should play the same game as them (feminists presumably), or any kind of games whatsoever. I am convinced of this.
As far as I’m concerned we should be as objective and logical as humanly possible, as hard as that can be.
I think that getting caught up in the emotional games and wholesale emotionalising that is already so prevalent is playing with fire. In my view that is sinking to the same level and will lessen our credibility in the long run.
The bottom line is that the basic premise of MRAS is logical and objective. We are dealing with facts here so to my mind playing the well worn emotion card is failing to utilise our greatest asset. Consider that people are so emotionally manipulated that there is a palpable sense of growing cynicism about the grinding of axes and the pulling of heart strings. I’m not saying this is good or bad, just an observation anyone is welcome to agree/disagree with.
I know that we are dealing with a primitive aspect of human consciousness and that it is irrational, this is the fundamental barrier we are up against. In the short run playing on the emotional worked very well for movements like feminism, but in the long run it is it’s fundamental weakness. Why would we want to make the same mistake?
I have considerable regard for this site and the work you do but I have to respectfully disagree on this point. If you ask me it is absolutely crucial and worth debating exhaustively. Hopefully not in an egotistical “What would you know” or “What have you done, I’ve done more and have more cred than you” way.
I am keen to see what others have to say on this matter.
“Playing the same game better than them” is not what it probably sounds like. I’m not saying that men play some kind of victimhood card (there isn’t one). I’m suggesting using female victimhood the way everybody else does.
Life is a game of sorts and men have been content to be minor pieces in the game rather than the players. There are now enough men who know better and who might be able to start making some moves of their own.
If you’ve ever come across an old UK show called “Yes, Minister” and it’s successor, “Yes, Prime Minister” you’ll understand what I’m talking about. The show is about one man trying to manipulate another and he succeeds and fails in equal measure. The comedy in the show, is that the man being manipulated rarely if ever knows he’s being controlled. On a macro scale, this is similar to the behaviour of politicians in their use of women, who behave very much like an homogeneous group. That’s why politicians brazenly discuss in the media how they intend to capture the “female vote”.
There is no hiding this game, no subterfuge or any disguise – women are told brazenly that they are being targeted with goodies to get them to vote a certain way. And politicians compete with each other over who can offer the most to women at the expense of men.
There is no such targeting of men because men don’t exist as a group, they are individuals with no sense of themselves or their own needs. They are politically unimportant and therefore, not part of the game.
The point, is that women are content to be used in this way, content to be like a ball in a game. The men that understand the game need to find a way to control the ball better than the current lot. Just as in the comedies I mentioned. But of course, the first step is in recognising that it’s all a game to begin with.
You cannot use logic to get someone to stop believing something they believe in spite of logic. That would be illogical.
That’s a valid point. It is not, however, my intention to convince anyone to stop believing something. That is totally beside the point.
The basic premise of the men’s movement IS basically logical in terms of being consistent with the principle of equality. It’s just helpful to remember this fact so as to avoid getting caught up in the mind games the politically correct play.
I know from personal experience how futile it is to attempt to reason with indocrinated minds. It is not a case of using logic to stop someone believing something they believe in spite of logic. It is a case of something being basically logical in a way that femenism generally isn’t.
Basically some people will never listen to reason but some will, so reason with them instead. That’s a bit more succinct.
MWM, I suppose it’s not too surprising that you actually need to remind some of your critics how to pay attention and listen with an article like this. They are malicious liars, corrupt manipulators, and scornful crybabies. But on an optimistic view of your criticism, maybe it’s a sign that your videos leave your opponents with nothing to say, so that they must resort to ignorance to at least whine about something.
I’ll opine on one more thing, and I think you’ve actually touched on this a bit in your videos (maybe subtly), which is that the feminists, manginas, toxic people, etc. are only small parts of the problem. I think the much bigger threat and source of the problem is your government. The feminists may have demanded all sorts of things, but wasn’t it your government who gave in to them and forced the costs on everybody else? It might help to scrutinize government in your future works, which I already know I’ll enjoy (as usual).
Are you referring to me as one of these “critics” or have I got the wrong impression?
I thought you were making a general observation but I’m concerned that you’re specifically referring to my comment. If that is the case then you have got the wrong end of the stick, if not then I have got it wrong.
I would appreciate it if you could explain who exactly you are describing here because I am definitely paying attention and listening. If that wasn’t the case I wouldn’t engage in a discussion. It was a constructive criticism derived from a misinterpretation which has now been explained to me.
Keevo, I don’t mean you. I mean the bad critics MWM mentioned in this article, like the ones who really ought to know better than to take every statement MWM says 100% literally. MWM points out that some of his critics can’t even understand that when he says “all women” in his videos, he doesn’t mean that literally. He means feminists and misandrists, the hateful ones up to no good. MWM also mentions that some of the criticism he receives is irrelevant or petty relative to the subject matter in his videos. In the paragraph titled “Mystifying,” MWM notes that some people are offended at his portrayal of women in the video about men and women in the military. A big point in that video is that men are always the ones sent to fight and die while women are protected from combat, and yet women receive the same pay and benefits as if they are not.
Just to be clear, Brian, I don’t think I ever say all women (or all men, for that matter). I say women or men and this is often deliberately misinterpreted as meaning all.
Yes, that’s the point I mean and that’s the kind of “bad criticism” I mean. If someone says “Women are X” or “Men are Y,” one should know that the speaker may not be referring to literally all women or all men on earth. Now, it’s been awhile since I’ve watched your videos, so I don’t remember everything in every video, but in case there is some point in one of your videos where a viewer can honestly misunderstand the way you phrased something, then ok, fair criticism, but easily fixed. Honest mistakes can happen.
Hope I’ve cleared up all the confusion for you and Keevo.
Not being sent into combat is framed as a form of discrimination, as “excluded from combat”, as if that represents some terrible fate. Being sent into combat is depicted as a form of preferential treatment.
That is the level of absurdity we are up against, it’s astounding how words can be manipulated and people just accept it.
In Australia there is a lesbian femenist politician called Penny Wong who raised the matter on a left-leaning VERY femenist chat show called Q+A. She confronted this poor hapless bloke and demanded his opinion on women in combat. He looked like a rabbit in the headlights and gave a stock standard response about what a great step forward it is. You could see the fear in his eyes and hear the desperation to respond correctly.
Also, thanks for explaining who you were actually referring to as critics. I over reacted and was needlessly defensive.
“Women give birth to babies.”
“Liar! You woman hating bigot, I’m infertile/don’t want to have babies.”
Weather people believe in natural selection or God’s creation makes no difference except to create partisan rhetoric which overlooks some of the most obvious observations of human nature and history.
In simplified general terms, men advance themselves by applying an aptitude to manipulate the tangible world, whilst women advance themselves by applying an aptitude to manipulate the emotional world.
Until recent decades, this was generally conducted under mutual co-dependence to the benefit of all. The recent wealth and material development of societies has provided alternatives to mutual co-dependence. Now the ability of women to manipulate the emotional world is not bound by mutual co-dependence and men are being emotionally manipulated and exploited as a culture, not just because women can, but because men won’t see that they are instinctively pre-disposed to being emotionally manipulated.
Generally, men characteristically apply a greater emotional privilege to women, which all culture and history demonstrates, yet we find it difficult or even offensive to consider we are sub-sentient and not governed by our intellect. I believe it is quite evident from the irrational verbal/text exchanges we encounter and take intellectual offence of. Our intellect or IQ intelligence, to me, is more a figment of culture rather than an indication of capability. Our pride in resisting that notion is what leaves us vulnerable to emotional manipulation and women actually become more capable by applying the pragmatic realities of what it is to be Sapien. Much of the article and comments displays our frustration over the failings of seeing ourselves as fully sentient. Rationality has little value and effect over our natural instincts as applied to the emotional realities of how we function. Blinded by the inflated value of our intellects, we could easily see this as a game, rather than the function of sapiens.
The concept of mangina is our natural state, and progress might be more forthcoming if the cultural freaks that are MRA’s, better understand that the problems of feminism arrive out of the natural characteristics of both genders. When addressing the communicational atrocities of feminists head on, and expecting IQ intelligence to prevail, we are merely seeing the trees of the forest.
I see what you say here and agree overall, although I’d need to think about the precise analysis you give here.
I think that Feminism rides on the back of natural or evolved (maybe not quite the same thing) behaviours. It is weaponised-chivalry and controlling men in this way seems as easy as taking candy from a baby.
Read this:
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2012/01/24/mental-trauma-takes-huge-toll-in-afghan-war.html
Every person must know the ‘behind the scenes’ trauma of men who remain silent and whose voices cannot be heard by western feminists. Western feminists say women in afghanistan fear to go out of their homes fearing rape… well when men venture out to earn money for their families, they fear wether they will return and see their loved ones or not.
Ah, the never ending catch phrases thrown at us by women. One of the reasons I’ve liked you more than most writers is your ability to phrase effectively & come up with original thoughts on the myriad of problems Feminism creates.
These one line, short snappy retorts like “not all women are like that” by women need snappy short retorts back. I developed some myself. An infantile, 9-year old level line like “not all women are like that” needs an appropriate response like you would give to a child.
I’ve actually said this in response: “Ah, if only the world were that simple. Here in the big people, adult world, life is much more complicated than that.”
Or (of course said to a woman in response): “Oh, I see.. so you’ve dated women?” Or: “Awesome! How would you be able to tell? You certainly can’t tell just because she says so.”
I’ve also said in response to “you hate women” or more specially, why do you hate women?” I will say, “I only have a strong distaste for western women, and this is because I’ve started to lose any desire for them because of their caustic nature. Now that I no longer see them as sex objects, I only judge them on their character, which makes me want to completely avoid them.”
I’ve thought about it a lot and in way women are in fact asking a legitimate question when they ask me why I ‘hate’ women.
What they are really asking is, “why do you no longer completely overlook all of our thousands of character and personality flaws and our infinite stupidity and become our lap dog?”
That’s because I’ve lost desire because of that very caustic nature and see them just as people (think of just how much you would tolerate a man who acted like western women and how you would react to him) and now I see there is nothing of value at all.
This is off topic and I apologise, but I have noticed a disturbing trend with several pro-men websites. Namely I have been blocked by my mobile internet provider (three) from accessing this and several other sites, and have had to access manwomanmyth and others via a different browser. It would be interesting if any others here have had the same issues, and does this represent some sort of deliberate censorship of the MRM?
There is an unwritten cencorship in the mass media of men’s issues, the men’s movement and anything critical of feminism. I got banned from the Guardian discussion board once for commenting that large numbers of women lie about being raped.
I have since re-joined under a different user name. But of late, I have had numerous comments deleted for reasons like expressing opinion that women and men do not have the same intellectual capacities (which is actually demonstrable fact). I have been threatened with a ban under this newer name.
In short, they’re totalitarian.
But mobile phone operators? This is crazy. Maybe you ought to tell us who they are so we can avoid using them!
Well, my mobile provider is Three (UK), but only when using the phone’s default browser. I can get around the block by using another browser though so it’s no big deal really. It’s the principal, and that they feel they have a right to decide what I can and can’t access.
Oh, and further to my first comment, radfemhub remains accessable. So a radical feminist website, some of whos authors have called for the extermination of men worldwide, is deemed allowable, yet a site such as this, which is a sensible, well-reasoned rebuttal of feminism is beyond the pale. Strange huh..?
I haven’t experienced anything like that, but I live in Australia. However, I think if one investigated this a little, they would probably find that the management of that provider, would indeed have connections with (no pun intended) if not actually be esteemed members of the gynocracy, thus could easily invoke the censorship you suspect.
You should try to access with another provider(s) and my bet is that it will work OK. (quickest way is just go to various public wi-fi hotspots anmd find some that are not hosted by Three).
The only other possibility and this does occur from time to time, is that you’ve visited an MRA site which has been maliciously attacked (by the feminista) and a trojan script has been embedded on the main page of that site.
When you click a certain link the tojan is copied into your PC and all the MRA sites that are defined in the trojan’s code are blocked. I would advise (if you haven’t already done so) make sure your antivirus / antimalware program is up to date and perform a thorough scan of your computer to start with.
I use ESET Smart Security and it detected instantaneously: a trojan at my favourite site: theantifeminist.com only a week ago. My system wasn’t affected, but theantifeminist wasn’t aware that the trojan had been planted on his site until I informed him and sent the log from my ESET SS to him!
The trojan was indeed one of the types that monitors your browsing habits and also blocks selected websites.
I actually use a smartphone for my web browsing rather than broadband, so would the same principle apply for me? Like I said I can still access this and other blocked sites via other browsers, but I prefer the phone’s standard browser, and having to use others makes things more difficult.
I’d never encountered any problems until today, and that’s why I wondered if my difficulties represent some change in three mobile’s policy.
As to your suggestions re trojans, would that apply with a mobile, and would clearing ny browser’s cache, cookies etc make a difference? I’d rather not do that if I can avoid it; I don’t fancy retrieving passwords all afternoon before then…
I’m not too sure. The easiest way to find out world be to try accessing the sites that appear to be blocked on your smartphone with another smartphone. However, you could only do that if you know someone who has a smartphone the same as yours?
Can your smartphone access wi-fi? I am quite sure you can enable it to access the Internet via a WAP if one is present and this normally overrides or bypasses the internet connection via the 3G or $G mobile network. In your case: Three network.
Depending on your phone, you would need to go to the settings menu and enable its wi-fi connection. I would imagine it would be off (or disabled) by default.
If you can switch it on and go to a public WAP, generally speaking: shopping malls and other public places like airports have them and they’re ‘open’ access points – meaning a passphrase is not required, you simply select the free wi-fi connection from your wireless networks menu and connect to it. Once connected, you will be able to browse the Internet, access your e-mail via that connection, not through Three’s 3G or 4G mobile phone network.
If you can access the blocked sites when connected to a wi-fi service, then it would mean for sure that Three mobile have indeed censored (blocked access to) those sites.
I cannot see any point in clearing your browser cache either, if the problem was related to that you would experience problems with all other sites, not just some MRA sites.
I would dare say (although cannot be sure) your smartphone would definitely have a wi-fi facility, and it would normally be switched off (default setting = disabled or Off).
Thanks for your help Alan, I will try that a.s.a.p.
@mananon: In social networking site facebook there already exists a ‘Protest against ManWomanMyth’ page. MRM censorship is totally not acceptable. Maybe it depends on your country, if your nation has institutionalised feminism then blocking of this site has more chances.
If Facebook agreed to block specific sites requested by users it would damage their reputation, and pretty severely. They need to be open to everyone. They wouldn’t block MWM. Feminists who think they can influence them are living in the clouds.
But it might be idea for MWM to join Facebook or Twitter to promote his vids. Either would be a good channel for wider exposure.
I joined Twitter a few weeks ago to help Tom Martin out against a number of juvenile-minded feminists and manholes expressing glee at his losing his case against the LSE. I now have 3 D.J.’s following me (whom I am also following myself). I had an exchange with two feminists, one running a rape crisis centre and another a Labour MP.
I would encourage any of our men to join. Feminism is an intellectual scam that the wider public are ignorant of. We need to expose it.
May do Twitter soon, but FB unlikely.
Yeah join! I’ll for one be following you.
Here’s me:
https://twitter.com/#!/BrusselsLout
(See my exchange with professional bitch Stella Creasy.)
Here’s Tom:
https://twitter.com/#!/Sexismbusters
Here’s Rich:
https://twitter.com/#!/RichZubaty
Here’s Paul:
https://twitter.com/#!/AVoiceForMen
Angry Harry’s on there but he’s not too active. There are many MRAs to follow.
I’m now on Twitter. Just need to do some work on the theme to put in links etc.
Well, albeit laboriously, said, MWM.
Next time just refer them to section x.xx part y.yy of The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics and go fuck themselves.
Cheers
manwomanmyth, have you seen this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PbYZ1l8kPOI#!
it’s an actual newsbroadcast that talks about male victims of domestic violence. While it is not perfect, (some people interviewed seem really ignorant), it was surreal to see some of the information seen in your videos (like women are just as likely to commit DV) in an actual mainstream newsbroadcast. Is this a sign of change?
Thanks for the link. Here’s my comment on the video:
This is interesting, but not truly significant. I’ve seen this angle on TV as far back as 2004. All the usual lies are still present, and so the addition of some truth is insufficient to alter the prevailing narrative.
The ugly truth is that with DV, the mindset of women and men – particularly men – is virtually insurmountable. The only thing that exceeds the lengths to which women will go to excuse and enable female violence, are the lengths to which MEN will go to excuse and enable it.
another sad video here that shows both women and men speaking out against creation of Men’s Centers in a university despite Women’s Centers already existing in a university. Personally I don’t need a Men’s Center but that’s not the point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fiMg8N79Us&fb_source=message
everyone must take a look at this disgusting, bigoted article.
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/12-things-women-better-men-211900096.html
All good stuff & a great website. My comment is this: We men should resist getting bogged down into lengthy defenses of our positions & motives. Briefly explain where you are coming from, then say & do what you need to do. Manginas and feminists love to debate & invalidate; the more long-winded we get in stating our reasons & objectives, the more Vietnamish (quagmire) the battle becomes.
Debate & Invalidate is a highly effective tool feminists & man-hating women and man-hating men use to over-dialogue you to death. Its exasperating and a waste of time. Beware of the invalidators. Thanks.
Remember that the tactics they use often don’t hold up to scrutiny, it’s generally smoke and mirrors. Heavy handed emotionalising, personalising, manipulation and evasiveness form predictable patterns.
Once you observe these tricks it invalidates the invalidators. Crude little games.
They tend to obscure the point with hyperbole, then hypocritically accuse YOU of “trying to shut down the dialogue”. Actually I see your point, it’s pretty futile isn’t it?
Dead right C.. I have seen so many promising MRA’s yap themselves to oblivion repeating the same stuff over and over to every feminist, or other person of little significance.. They waste their time doing this..
They even do it with each other.. That is, MRA’s yap each other to death and end up in a state of “analysis paralysis”.. Often they just don’t do what they agree is a good idea, because they spend all their time talking, being destracted, and ultimately getting nowhere..
Harry,
I wrote a post, hit ‘post comment’ and it went poof and vanished. ??
I am glad you have set this site up, and also like the way that things are written. I know from my own site that it is often quite difficult writing about something when what you really want to do is to strangle the person responsible for that anger whilst at the same time remaining calm and coherent in order to convey the essence of the message.
Best wishes,
Elizabeth M Marsh
http://bollockstochildabuse.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/thou-shalt-not-bear-false-witness.html