A feminist conception of violence

Yesterday, readers of a voice for men met the face of feminism in Sweden. Cute, bubbly girls who have spontaneous orgasms while pretending to murder a man, execution style, then licking the bullet wounds on his head. Prior to seeing the video from the spiritual inheritors of Valerie Solanas – I thought such abyssal, malevolent and psychopathic madness existed only in fiction. The gaudy and flamboyant evil displayed in the staged fantasy of these young women is hard to fathom outside the context of particularly violent comic books.

The concluding message, “Do Your Part”, translates to: “we’re not kidding, but we haven’t quite worked up to isolating and murdering men for real, yet.”

On the video version of the article on Swedish feminist murder enthusiasts, I’ve already been accused of being sexist, of having no sense of humour, and of being violent. I intend to discuss the topic of psychological projection in greater detail soon.

But this returns us to violence, and the feminist concept of it. This needs clarification, the now normal concept of violence between women and men is that women can and should employ violence against men for any reason, and at any extreme, up to and including murder. The accepted idea is that men, if they’re “real men,” should not only take it, they should continue to uphold the male half of the social contract which is to protect women and provide for them. The female side of this once included something like “..and women shouldn’t punch, kick, stab, bludgeon, shoot and otherwise mutilate, injure and murder men.” Something like that, but that was burned to the ground by half a century of feminist agitprop.

Amber Portwood on MTV’s “teen mom” slapped and punched Gary Shirley, a man twice her size. Gary stood there and took it. Commentary on the youtube video of this abuse called him a “real man” for passively absorbing the beating. This is the male side of the social contract – protect women – still upheld by men while women indulge freely in male-targeted violence.

Sharon Osborne and a daytime studio audience, as well as a majority of the home audience cheering and jeering over Catherine Becker’s severing of her husband’s penis and her destruction of the severed organ in a garbage disposal. The female audiences response to this was laughter. Osborne, pressured after a letter writing campaign from men couldn’t stop her giggling for even the 3 minutes it took to read her phony apology. “I’m so sorry, ha ha ha.”

The former Lawyer and Simon and Schuster published author Pamela O’Shaughnessy who blogs as Vliet Tiptree, and who posted a public manifesto calling for a campaign of male targeting eugenics. A former lawyer, arguing for the same thing pursued by Joseph Mengele.

The Feminist activist and writer Eve Ensler whose own poorly planned article on the Huffington post simultaneously chastises men for an alleged failure to protect women, while she bangs her bongo drum of victimhood – naming wars where men are routinely targeted for rape, and pretending rape is a female only problem. This same author who in her own play, declares the rape of a child a good rape.
The word depraved fails utterly to describe Ensler’s ethical position.

The ongoing exhortation to men to protect women – while remaining silent and passive to attack against men betrays profound cognitive failure in feminist ideology. That’s a charitable view. The alternative is that this is wilful and conscious from the bright lights of violence-wrapped-in-humanism.

Another author named Rebecca Carter published a plan to exterminate men. Naming her piece of female supremacist hatred “Proposition 777.” She classified this execrable incitement to class hatred as humor.

`Oh, you silly men, I was just kidding – why can’t you take a joke and see how funny your proposed extermination is.’  The article has since been taken offline. Classification as humour wasn’t quite enough to provide plausible deniability. A copy of the piece is located here.

The concept of violence as it appears to be understood by women in a feminized society is that women are uniquely permitted to indulge in assault, mutilation, and murder as long as the target is male. This is the practical norm – even while feminist ideologues claim that women are the universal victims of violence. The forced eugenics enthusiast Pam O’Shaughnessy encapsulated this in her statement:

“Our Sharp, Clean Boundary/Definition of Oppression that begins and ends with Women.”

This is a clear attempt to morally justify any act of male-targeting aggression, brutality or damage. If you can define oppression by who it targets, then anything is excusable, up to and including the murder of children or men.


Meanwhile – men, the traditional protectors of women and children – are expected to keep on keeping on. Never mind that the feminist-mainstream narrative is normalizing your murder, gentlemen. Continue protecting and providing. In fact, men, you must keep protecting women while those same women are advocating your deaths.

I’ll assume readers of this article are not so demented that this incongruence needs to be explained.

The shocking stupidity of this position is further demonstrated by the puerile scribblings of feminist bloggers attempting to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement. According to a public statement made on the site occupypatriarchy.org : the article “Statement On The Right To Safely Occupy” simultaneously condemns men for participating in the universal oppression of women and LGBT identified people, and in the same article, demands protection and the right to “safely occupy.”

Straight white men are bad, and oppressing women and LGBTs, right?

I’m confident that plenty of non-heterosexed identified individuals will take umbrage at the implied inclusion in this childish nonsense, but just in case anybody is confused about who’s actually the major recipient of violent victimization in the real world. Heres a graph from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.


Down with the patriarchs. Also, protect us, you bad patriarchs!

How can adults function in the world while exhibiting this level of disconnect from reality? The simple answer is that adults can’t. Children on the other hand, can, and do.

Western society, through a 50 year program of indoctrination has produced at least 2 generations of women with the developed personal accountability of children, but the sense of entitlement of royalty or poorly raised teenagers. However, this is more than just a generation of overgrown spoiled children. The cultivated climate of class-victimhood, feeding on itself in a feedback loop for five decades is manifesting a perception of men as less than human; unworthy of human rights, and suitable objects of scorn, exploitation, mutilation and murder.

If this culture of hate were cultivated in psychologically mature minds, it would provide a fertile climate for class or ethnic warfare. However, this manufactured entitlement and rage is rooted in social immaturity, a childish frame of reference in which the spoiled teenager attacks the parent, while always knowing they’re safe from harm because the parent they attack will always protect them.

The general failure of female accountability, cultivated in Western society is one of the principal forces behind projects like Register-Her.com. Individuals were listed who committed child rape, or muder, or who carelessly levelled false allegations of rape for the relatively trivial gains of advantage in divorce. Those were placed on the registry by Paul and myself to provide a non-violent mechanism for accountability in the face of ongoing failure by the courts.

The willful and organized promotion of hatred is major in this ongoing cultural failure, which is why corrupt public officials and bigots are also listed.

The ideology driving escalated male apartheid has always promoted and relied on indirect violence. The outsourcing of direct force to state funded enforcers as well as conformist men, still buying into their allowed role as dispenser, as well as recipient of violence on behalf of the preferred sex. Unfortunately, the culture of female unaccountability and exemption from consequence has escalated. This manifests as an increasing number of women advocating murder, mass murder, and in growing numbers, directly engaging in male targeted violence and murder. This all developing in the climate of female exemption from consequence.

Crystal Dawn MacKenzie was the Canadian woman who after stabbing her husband was acquitted in late 2010. She walked free even after her defence attorney admitted during the trial that she had options besides murdering her husband.

Kasey Anthony is the mother who after evidentiary determination that she’d murdered her child so she’d have more time for partying, was treated a victim by western media.

Men’s rights activists are clearly not the only people noting this tradition of female exemption. While childish in their developed accountability and emotional maturity – women are certainly capable of rational calculation. This is manifest in an increasing number of female advocates of murder and mass murder of men. Like poorly socialized children who’ve not yet learned to see the people around them as humans – a small but noticeable segment of women and girls have learned they are not accountable, and indulge in a type of infantile tyranny. Kill all men, abort male babies, or even kill them after they are born –  women’s empowerment taken to the absurd and homicidal extreme of the claimed power of extermination of males.

For members of the human race who, due to possession of a Y chromosome, find themselves identified as appropriate targets for murder, this posses a logical problem. Western courts have already demonstrated that male-targeting violence, including murder is permissible. This is not a question of whether the war against men becomes a shooting war, or however described, a war in which combatants are killed. Men dying on the job, or at the hands of state-enforcers, or white knights, or in any situation where their deaths are hidden behind their job titles proves the earnest brutality of our hatred towards men. The only question is at what point in the escalation of the killing of men, they begin to fight back with more than words.

It is neither practical, nor ethical to passively tolerate attack, or violence, or murder. For the self-declared advocates of murder and male extermination – from whom the intention to kill is amply demonstrated, the only ethical response can be self defense, which is the prevailing reason why this culture must embrace the agenda of the MRM, which is to prevent further violence from happening.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: