Not A Safe Space

Do Men Have a Right To Be Angry With Women?

The “Men Going Their Own Way” Movement Logo

There’s a growing Men’s Right movement in America. A lot of men are angry over what they view as the misandry in our society.

Their issue:  feminism is screwing men over.

They have a point.

Feminists demanding equality—which sounded like a good idea—caused a cultural revolution that changed the roles of men and women.

Unfortunately, feminism has made it so women are not treated as equals. Women are now superior to men, treated with privilege.

Paradoxically, in the feminist world women can supposedly do anything a man can, yet they sure need lots of help doing it. Standards were lowered so women can qualify for all types of jobs ranging from firefighter to fighter pilot. Women get a pass now when it comes to all sorts of things.

Men, on the other hand, are viewed as aggressive, harassing, potential rapists, who can’t possibly be trusted to parent children.

1) The feminist view on domestic violence is that women are blameless victims of brutal men. (I  blogged about this here.)

2)  To the feminists, when a woman dresses in a mini-skirt with clear heels, gets drunk and ends up raped, it isn’t her fault. However, women should act responsibly and not put themselves in compromising situations. Should women be able to stumble around drunk with the expectation of not getting raped? Sure, in a perfect world.

[For clarification, I am not condoning rape or saying women deserve to be raped if they dress a certain way. I am advocating taking responsibility for one’s own safety.]

3) In order to get custody of his children, a man has the burden of both proving the mother is “unfit” and proving he is worthy. All she has to do is show up to court. Her worthiness as a good mother is assumed. The default assumption for the man is that he is unfit to parent his own children.

But then our society has always screwed men over.

Traditionally, men have been viewed as expendable, their efforts and lives taken for granted. Years ago, if people were killed in an accident, the media used the phrase “innocent women and children” to report the deaths, as if the men who died were of no consequence.

These are goat heads on a dinner table

The military has been predominately male and soldiers are seen as cannon fodder. They have no value; their lives are viewed as meaningless. For years men were conscribed to go to godforsaken places and die for some political agenda. This attitude prevails today. Our soldiers can die building some road in Afghanistan for a bunch of ignorant, goats-head-eating desert dwellers and that’s viewed as a perfectly acceptable trade-off.



When was the last time you saw a female garbage collector or coal miner?

Feminism is supposedly about equality and this notion that women can do anything men can, but wait….men are the ones working at unpleasant and dangerous tasks, such as high voltage wire work, logging, garbage collection, building steel frameworks for skyscrapers, coal mining. Why don’t women work at these types of jobs? Because they don’t have to.

Oh, I’m sure there are two or three women out there doing these jobs.

A woman has many work options and all are respectable:

1) She can work full-time

2) She can work part-time

3) She can be a stay-at-home mom

4) She can be a welfare Queen

The respectable options for a man:

1) He has to work full-time

Maureen Dowd looking pleased with herself ’cause she doesn’t need a man. She’s going to jump on that oil rig in the sweltering Texas sun and get her own oil for her Mercedes SLR.

In 2006, feminist Maureen Dowd wrote a book called Are Men Necessary?

“There’s….evidence the Y chromosome will go out of business…,” Dowd said on American Morning. “So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around?”

My questions for Maureen are: Do you even change your own tires? Who do you think engineers, builds and maintains our infrastructure, our entire way of life? Who is going to run into the burning buildings to save all those innocent women and children? Uhm, yeah, that would be men. 

Can you imagine the outrage if a man wrote a book called Are Women Necessary? And then was quoted saying, “With the advent of robots and artificial wombs, the XX chromosome will go out of business. So now that men don’t need women to clean, cook and have sex with, the question is will we keep them around?” The author would have to go into hiding.

And if all that weren’t enough to garner men’s ire, there’s the feminist leader’s statements:

“A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” — Gloria Steinem

This is Andrea Dworkin. She had a poster up in her apartment that said, “DEAD MEN DON’T RAPE”

“Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.”  — Andrea Dworkin, Leader of the Women’s Movement Against Pornography

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”  — Valerie Solano, Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) Manifesto.

A lot of feminists focus on rape, as if all men are drooling beasts ready to pounce and rip our panties off. Newsflash ladies:  Men don’t want to have sex with us that badly. 

Taking all this into consideration, I’m surprised men aren’t angrier.

For a the discussion on how men do all the dirty, dangerous jobs go here.



Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

160 Responses »

  1. Feminism has ruined our society. Women have not embraced the role the God gave them. They’ve spit on it. And they’ve in turn spit on God. That’s why they’re falling into hell at a rate far greater than men. So my message is learn how to follow God’s will or face the consequences. I don’t give a crap about feminism anymore. Look at europe. That’s coming here. See if women can defend themselves from that without us

    • The liberal feminists do tend to support and apologize for Islam. I have no idea why since they would be the first to be lashed to death.

      I agree that liberal women need to wake up and appreciate men, because it is the non-liberal men who will save them from being raped and stoned.

  2. “Why don’t women work at these types of jobs? Because they don’t have to.” Yet we hear that women becomes strippers or prostitutes because they have no other options. There are other options, just are just even lower on the totem pole then being a stripper or prostitute.

    • I know plent of female doctors, lawyers, fitness coaches, teachers, pharmacists, store managers, loan processers, etc.

      • What do everyone of those jobs you listed have in common?

        They take place in climate controlled indoors. Women aren’t busting their asses in the roasting heat on an oil drill or in frigid cold fixing a railroad track in Alaska. Women aren’t working in coal mines, on cell phone towers, on high rises, on septic tanks, or on commercial fishing boats, etc. Women don’t do the dangerous, deadly jobs like men do that keep our society functioning properly. Which was the point of this whole discussion.

        • So…Men are angry about that?

          • I don’t know if men are angry about that, but I’m sure they would appreciate a little gratitude. This “women can do anything a man can” bullshit needs to be shelved as women DON’T do what men do.

            • Women don’t do everything men do, and men don’t do everything women do. I totally appreciate the things that men do whether I can or cannot or choose not to do it. I come from a standpoint where I would like to be appreciated for what I have to contribute as a woman and human being. I should not be valued less and what I don’t appreciate is when people are blind to the fact that there have been many men that are most definitely unappreciative and devalue the entire role of womanhood. Besides, I’m not even complaining that men make more money. I have many male acquaintances who complain that they don’t get paid enough for their hard physical labor. I don’t envy them, but at the end of the day the are happy people and don’t expect to be rich. They really don’t make too much more than I do and as a matter of fact if business was as good as it was 10 years ago I’d be making way more than them. I believe that all people should be properly equipped for the job they do. I don’t believe a woman should be a firewoman, unless she can pass the same test that is required for men to pass. I think that’s fair enough, but anyone who does an equal job should get equal pay. An insurance broker should get paid based on skills and experience with no regard to gender. I know females in executive positions who make double than men who work dangerous jobs. So I just don’t understand why women would complain in the first place when there are SO MANY other jobs they can do that aren’t dangerous and still make killer money. I don’t know ANY females that are complaining about this which is the premise for me not understanding why this blog needed to be written.

  3. JOR, are you for real?

    “every man who is really upset that they’re not allowed to rape women”

    Like whom exactly?

    “I note to the side that when MRAs minimize rape or validate rapists”

    Like, where?

    Links please.

  4. Stopped reading at 2:

    “For clarification, I am not condoning rape or saying women deserve to be raped if they dress a certain way . . . ”

    Yes. Yes, you are. If you really must straight-up lie, please at least do so in a way that doesn’t insult the reader’s intelligence.

    Look, I’m not a feminist ally and I think feminism carries a lot of toxic baggage. But every man who is really upset that they’re not allowed to rape women who wear mini-skirts and high heels or get drunk any more deserves to have their skull smashed by a feminist, and then dumped in the ocean as shark food.

    I note to the side that when MRAs minimize rape or validate rapists in this way by insisting that there should be mitigating factors (“she was drunk!” or “she was a slut!” etc.), they are throwing countless men who have been raped by women under the bus, since it is the very work feminists* have done to redefine rape as any kind of non-consensual sex, removing so-called mitigating factors from the laws and from cultural awareness, that has made it possible to identify these wounded men and give them a voice.

    *Many feminists have resisted expanding the scope to include rape-by-envelopment (i.e. forcing a man to penetrate), because they didn’t want to face the statistical consequences (if the definition of rape is expanded to include forced envelopment of a man’s penis, it turns out men are raped almost as often as women are, and mostly by women). This would be an actual legitimate thing to criticize feminists for, but it would involve abandoning your rape apologism. I wonder which you are more attached to.

    • You seem to have missed her point.

      What she’s saying is that people are obligated to take actions to reduce the likelihood that they become victims of crime, and that if they choose to behave irresponsibly and take unnecessary risks that contribute to them being victimised, then they hold partial culpability in allowing the events to take place.

      Why is it that only in rape cases are the actions of the victims that contributed to the crime completely absolved or ignored? In every other crime, the actions of the victims are considered. Someone who wanders around in dark alleys flashing hundreds of dollar bills is far more likely to be robbed than someone who doesn’t. The mouthy teen who attacks a gangster is far more likely to be beaten up by that gangster than the banker who avoids confrontations with gangsters.

      The point is, everyone holds some responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves. Sometimes it’s incredibly minute, such as not having a motion activated light on their porch and they get burgled. Other times it’s overtly obvious, such as the drunkard who hits on everyone (s)he sees.

      Asserting that people have culpability in their victimisation isn’t absolving the perpetrator of his/her wrong doing, nor is it ‘apologetics’, rape or otherwise. It is simply showcasing how people have agency and control over their situations.

      All this “don’t blame the victim” nonsense that you’re obviously subscribing to does only one thing. It teaches us that we have no control over any of the situations we find ourselves, that there is nothing we can do to prevent us from becoming a victim, that we have no power over our own destiny. Teaching people that they are powerless in the face of crime does nothing but instil a sense of fear in people, and reduce them from agents in their own destiny to simple objects to which things occur.

      For someone who claims not to be a “feminist” or a “feminist ally”, you sure seem to have bought into their bullshit when it comes to rape. Think critically for a moment and simply ask yourself, why is a female victim of rape any different than any other victim of any other crime. Why are female victims of rape any more special or worthy of defence than male victims of rape? Why are they special, and why are they deserving of extra protection not afforded to other members of society or victims of other crimes?

    • I agree with your last point – how many women have forced their partner to have sex, have taken advantage of someone drunk (how many guys have woken up next to someone they would NEVER have had sex with if they were sober … but they don’t get to cry rape about it?) or have abused someone much younger than them? There seem to be a lot of female teachers and friends of mothers in the press these days “raping” boys and either getting away with it or getting lenient sentences and treatment in comparison (understanding rather than condemnation for example, and, of course, there are exceptions to this with a few women getting real sentences depending on the state).

      Carolina is saying nothing about “deserving”. What she is talking about is being aware of how certain clothing and behaviour can have an effect on others- especially if those others happen to be drunk or dangerous or both.

      If both parties are drunk the man is still treated as being responsible while the woman is not. It’s typical of a system which often infantilizes women saying they can’t be held accountable for choices and actions. Look at the preponderance issue in US universities which can get a male student kicked out and labelled for life just based on an accusation.

    • JOR, we tell children on a regular basis not to talk to strangers. Yet telling a woman not to get so drunk as to be unable to fend off a sleezy lecher is somehow unfair to her? Are you seriously suggesting that a 3 year old child is more capable of taking responsibility for their own safety than a grown woman? And it’s the MRA’s who are sexist?

      “I note to the side that when MRAs minimize rape or validate rapists”

      No MRA in my experience has ever validated a rapist. What we have said is (and I’m paraphrasing) “you can be responsible for your own safety, like we expect of children and ourselves), so stop telling men they need to change or suffer increasing levels of restriction or oppression (yes. Suggesting a reversal of the presumption of innocent until proven guilty for cases where a man (but not women) is accused of rape, is seeking to oppress) for your personal protection, and start protecting yourself”. Saying “there’s nothing you could have done, you’re a victim” when there actually was some things they could have done is irresponsible. It’s not nice, especially immediately after the attack, but to deny the truth, and to allow the person to continue acting in the exact same manner… that’s wrong. Last I checked, if a man left his BMW running with the door open while he stopped inside a store in the middle of a shaddy neighborhood, he wouldn’t get a “there was nothing you could do”, he’d be told “what the H3(( is wrong with you? Are you stupid?”

    • No, JOR, what I’m saying is that women need to take responsibility for their own actions and safety.

      As to how a woman dresses: If a woman walks around dressed like a hoochie mama she is WANTING to attract attention. She just only wants to attract attention from “decent” guys, but that’s not how it works. She needs to realize she is going to attract EVERYONE, this to include rapists.

      I’m not saying dress like a nun, but I am saying woman need to stop acting naive when they go out. Young women can go too far. Paris Hilton used to wear lingerie out, bra, thong and garter belt. She used to dress so provocatively she left nothing for the hookers to wear.

      Women need to realize that if they dress provocatively then allow themselves to get compromised by getting intoxicated with drugs/alcohol they are risking sexual assault.

      • Not to mention that those that get intoxicated with drugs.alcohol also sometimes get horny. Yes men sometimes get piss drunk and regret sex too, but they do not call it rape.

      • Even if a woman walked around naked and it provoked a rapist, a rapist is still a rapist and ALL rapists deserve to be PUNISHED!! A woman should take precautions for her OWN safety, but a rapist is sick in the mind and will find a reason to rape someone. There are men that get raped too you know. Is it partially their fault as well? Maybe we can start blaming children too for secretly looking too sexually appealing to pedophiles. There we go. Now we can be rest assured that a rapist can use dominant force on any woman he wants because everyone is partially to blame for their own rape. That would only be fair right? No matter who is being raped or who is doing the raping, the rapist is 100% at fault for his/her own sociopathic behavior. A rapist is going to find a way to tape no matter what because a rapist is already mentally predisposed to do so.

        • I never said rapists aren’t responsible for their own actions, but if a woman is going to walk around half naked and drugged out of her mind, she is INVITING trouble. And she is PARTLY responsible for whatever happens to her. She put herself in that position. That’s reality.

          The same would be true if a man walked around a gang neighborhood dripping in gold and diamonds. He should expect to get mugged or shot. We don’t live in a perfect world where you can walk around wearing whatever you wish.

          The children analogy you used is way off. Children don’t make a decision to go around provocatively dressed in an attempt to seek attention.

          Grown women, on the other hand, have total control over what they wear, where they go and if they under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Women need to take charge of their own safety.

          • No one has to be provocatively dressed in order to be raped, therefore my analogy with children stands as valid. This is an article about men being angry with women, remember? The section about rape shouldn’t even be included in this article then because it is a non issue when it comes to men being angry. Sounds more like men are angry for women reporting rape.

    • Am I victim blaming if I tell someone to lock their car, or lock their house? Am I victim blaming to tell someone to put passwords on their personal information? Am I victim blaming to tell someone not to walk around dangerous places alone. Am I victim blaming when I tell a man that if he gets involved with a crazy woman he is more likely to be falsely accused?

      • You make excellent points. That is exactly the way to look at it.

      • When we tell people not to kill, are we calling everyone murderers? When we tell people not to steal are we calling everyone thieves? When your accountant tells you to show all of your income, is he accusing you of tax evasion?

        • We must teach women not to cheat – women can stop cheating. Does this sound to you as misogyny, or as a fair statement, and why? thanks

          • Sure, sounds logical to me. Why would I say that’s misogyny?? Men and women, ALL people should be made aware that cheating is wrong and always strive toward respect and loyalty.

            • “Men and women, ALL people should be made aware that cheating is wrong and always strive toward respect and loyalty.”

              I agree with you, but that was not my statement. My statement is “women can stop cheating” which means women are to blame for all cheating – as a mirror to “men can stop rape” which means men are to blame for anything rape.

              • Everyone is responsible and should be held accountable for their own bad behavior.

                • Seems to me you keep changing the wording… perhaps in order to avoid acknowledging the double standard constantly pushed on men.

                  • Can you logically state this because this comment makes absolutely no sense at all?

                    • He’s trying to make a point, by using very accusatory language, language that is often used in campaigns to hold men responsible for this or that. Language that very clearly puts the onus on women, and women alone. It’s not a position he holds, and he made that clear, but he wanted to get your feedback on it. You then claimed to have no problem with the assertion, as you proceeded to changed the wording of what he had said, in such a way as to remove the offending portion which he was attempting to make a point about. He asserted that “We must teach WOMEN (not people) not to cheat – WOMEN (not people) can stop cheating”. You said that was logical and dismissed the misogyny of it as you proceeded to remove the women specific portion and turn it into a generalized people comment. But he didn’t ask you about a assertion talking about people, he asked you about an assertion specifically targeting, and blaming, women. He clarified his position and you again proceeded to reword it BACK to people and argue from that perspective.

                      So one is left to wonder why you can’t or won’t acknowledge the original assertion that specifically labels women (not people) as the ones who can stop cheating? After all, the campaigns against men use the very specific gendered wording and blame, so ether it IS offensive and sexist to do so, and you should acknowledge such, or else you don’t have a problem, and should be able to accept the assertion made as it was originally worded. You’re attempts to skirt down the middle by rewording the assertion to remove the gendered element reeks of dishonesty. And it’s what I choose to call out.

                    • I know what he was saying and it was implying that I’m possibly ok with misandrist statements. I didn’t remove anything. I chose to answer in a way that shows I’m neither for misogyny or misandry.

                    • ” I didn’t remove anything. I chose to answer in a way that shows I’m neither for misogyny or misandry.”

                      What you did was try to head him off. But in doing so, you failed to actually answer the question posed to you. You managed to claim you saw nothing wrong with an assertion, while simultaneously refusing to agree with it by rewording it to something you could agree with. It’s dishonest and manipulative. It’s claiming there is nothing wrong with something you very clearly know has something wrong with it (or you wouldn’t be calling it misogyny or mmisandry). The fact you seem unwilling to say you would have a problem with the assertion “We must teach WOMEN (not people) not to cheat – WOMEN (not people) can stop cheating”, even asserting it is entirely logical, but also pretend that changing the word women to say “people” doesn’t change the meaning of the assertion shows an ideological bent.

                      I won’t respond to this post again, as I’ve said all I have to say.

                    • If I had to go to the mirror and wipe off the white powder under my nose, I wouldn’t have the time to write back either. Damn you got your panties in a bunch LMAO.

                    • “Damn you got your panties in a bunch LMAO.”

                      What a cop out.

                      You come in here flinging shit at Carolina and the subject matter, others then correctly point out the flaws in your rhetoric, and you claim others got their panties in a bunch for breaking down your argument and forcing you to address your position honestly.

                      You should unbunch your panties first.

                    • Hello M3! It’s been a long time. Nice to “see” you. I’ve missed you.

                    • Missed you too luv. I’m glad to see this post still has the will to pull the trolls in from time to time.

                      Real life has sidetracked my ability to devote any time to blogging. I hope one day in the future i can return and share some new musings. Until then, i just lurk and comment from time to time.

                      You be good now ya hear 😉

                    • ….and there was no intelligence in that persons rhetoric either. It only made me wanna quote Rick James, “Cocaine is a hell of a drug!” LMMFAO!!!

                    • Also, dishonesty being flung my way does not deserve honesty in return.

                • Whoa. That’s not what you said in an earlier comment.

                  Paraphrasing, you said that women are not responsible for finding themselves in situations where they make themselves vulnerable to being raped. Further, you equated a rape victim who pranced around half naked and drunk with an innocent child being raped. (Hint: one of these should be held accountable for their own actions leading to a bad thing happening to them, the other not.)

  5. We ARE angry….we just get our revenge in more subtle ways now….

  6. “Taking all this into consideration, I’m surprised men aren’t angrier.”

    We’re not allowed to be. If we stand up for ourselves we’re called bitter misogynists that want to put women back in the kitchen. If we dare to criticize feminism we’re accused of opposing equality because they have decided feminism and equality are synonyms. If we dare to stand firm, to hold our positions and not back down we’re called abusive. Feminists have a racket going on based highly on emotional reasoning.

  7. I’m so glad to see another woman recognising and spreading the word about how men are viewed, devalued, and mistreated in our society. Too often when I try to express these same ideas, they are immediately dismissed simply because I’m male. It’s a sad state of affairs when man cannot even express dissatisfaction on his own behalf, that his complaints only have merit if a woman shares them.

    And then,to see people smear the MRM with false claims of racism, or to believe the nonsense of the SPLC…it’s sad because in many people’s minds, men are already racism, hateful, raging, violent oppressors, and it’s much easier to confirm one’s bias than to show it as false.

    Thank you.

  8. Excellent stuff. Very concise points. Love the bit about Maureen Dowd and whether she considered who changes her tires and maintains our infrastructure.

    • It’s interesting to me that Maureen has never considered for a moment who is behind all the sanitation, car repair, construction, bridge building, road repair, electricity, oil drilling, cattle butchering, and everything else that gives us modern life, and it sure isn’t women.

  9. A fan of Warren Farrel, I see. It’s polite to credit your quotes.

    As for men being necessary – if all the men were raptured, the electricity grid would go down within hours. Oh sure – there are female electrical engineers. But not enough of them. Turn off the electricity in your home at the power box to get an idea of what comes next (hint: you will need to empty your refigerator). All of the meat at the supermarket will start to rot.

    Next day, your toilet will no longer flush, and you will have to shit in a bucket. Oh sure, there are female sanitation engineers, but not enough of them.

    Within a day or two, there would be no gas left at the gas station. And hardly anyone would be left who knows how to make more (petroleum engineers).

    Within another day, there would be no food of any kind in the cities.

    If all the women were raptured, well – life would go on. Except the clothing stores would all have to close and the malls would become ghost towns. Men with loving wives and good homes would be griefstricken. Men without them would feel a combination of sadness and relief.

    • Wow, you bring up an interesting question. How long would each gender survive without the other?

      I think if women were to disappear, most men would survive until they all died of old age. Most things would go on as usual. I don’t know how long women would survive without men. Not long.

      • Women would figure it out because women are intelligent. You should have more faith in yourself Carolina.

        • A LOT of women would die while they figured it all out. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about skillsets. For all the complaining about women in the top tears of government, there is an even greater shortage of women in infrastructure… certainly not enough to keep things running. The fact you think being smart will keep the crops growing, keep the oil pumping, keep the food traveling to the major metropolis’, keep the power running, Keep the riots quelled, says a lot about just how much you take for granted.

          • Intelligence aside, you’d be surprised what anyone can do when they go into survival mode.

            • Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Women are not mechanically inclined, do not have the skill set to build houses, repair vehicles, build skyscrapers, etc. Nor do we have the physical strength.

            • Individually, yes… But part of that would involve anarchy, chaos, a survival of the fittest mentality. Women would be looting, they would be fighting over food as the crops in the fields all die off without being tended to/harvested, because there wouldn’t be enough women farming these fields, and certainly not for the benefit of anyone else. As the fields stop producing food, the store shelves would stop being filled, and food would become scare. Eventually women would be able to gather and train more female farmers, presuming women didn’t just go all out for themselves and government fell apart, but that would take months to gather up and find enough volunteers willing to work hard manual labour for not very much pay, jut cause it needed to be done. Then there is the matter of training these volunteers, who will do that? The women who are currently working tirelessly to keep their fields alive? Meanwhile, the fuel reserves would be dwindling at a rapid pace, the hydro plants would be shutting down due to insufficient personnel (hopefully none of the nuclear plants would melt down without being tended too), and the clean water hydro plants in many cities would fail. Any fires caused in the initial riots (and there would be riots, as people panicked at the loss of men, or reveled in the chaos of a city without sufficient law enforcement. Without women, law enforcement would be minimally impacted, and the army could be called in, without men, there would still be insufficient personal, with police and military combined, to maintain order initially) would find themselves unopposed, as there are too few firewomen to deal with them all, not to mention women’s physical strength means you require more women to handle each hose, meaning the number of women you need for each fire is greater than when men were around, and far less personnel to chose from. Entire cities would be burned to the ground. And all this would be happening while the small handful of women in leadership tried to secure their own power base, or tried to figure out how to lead when they can’t play the victim and have men fix everything, like Clinton does. And this doesn’t even address the impact on the economy, which I, quite honestly, have no idea what would happen to, once men were no longer producing anything for them to sell… The service economy would weather the storm fairly well I suppose, but I’m not sure an economy can stand on services alone

              I do not doubt that eventually, women would figure things out, that a government of some sort would be reestablished, that the infrastructure would be stabilized, be repaired, personal trained and working where needed. But a lot of people would die waiting for that to happen, a lot of damage would result.

              • You’re giving women too much credit. Women would be fucked without men. Period.

                Oh, women could grow food on small farms. Women w/o men wouldn’t have electricity, vehicles would break down, etc. Garbage would pile up. No water pipes would be repaired. Serious injuries and heart problems, brain injuries wouldn’t be fixed because 95% of surgeons are men. It would be a total and complete mess. Like going back to the Dark Ages in a way.

                • The human will to survive is incredibly strong. And there are enough women in those infrastructure fields that further women could theoretically be trained to perform the tasks (assuming those small handful of women survived, and then choose to co-operate). But that would take time, time they don’t have a lot of before shit starts going real bad. The real question is, would women be able to come together, or would they turn on each other in order to survive. And how would women determine who does all those shitty jobs. I suspect they would establish a new kind of hierarchy that would result in the “chosen” class being required to do all the hard, demeaning work and taking responsibility for everything. Of course, that group would be labeled as hero’s and champions and wonderful and great…for a little while anyways. I also suspect many cities would be completely abandoned due to an inability to provide water and electricity.

                  There was a graphic Novel about the concept (sorta). It followed the story of the last man on earth (as well as his last male monkey pet) after a plague killed off all male mammals worldwide overnight. It was actually pretty interesting, and I suspect, not to far off. Amusingly enough, there was a gang of lesbian feminists that, upon discovering he was alive, sought to kill him out of fear he would come to dominate them and drive women against each other.


                  • Human will isn’t enough to overcome the fundamental problem that women just can’t do the things men do that keep a society functioning. Doesn’t matter how much they would want to those things.

                    • So, just to clarify, I think we both agree the shit would hit the fan, cities would burn and/or black out, food would become scarce and tens of millions (at least) of women would die in the first year due to fire, crime, starvation and the elements as infrastructure fails. I think where we (potentially) diverge is on their ability to recover. Where I think (presuming they could work together instead of backstabbing each other for personal gain, dividing up into little cliques), they would eventually gather together, the few who know the skills would train those that don’t in order to rebuild/maintain infrastructure, and eventually they would rebuild… You believe they would degenerate into tribal bands, that government and infrastructure would collapse, and it would be everyone for themselves in small little villages (just to be clear, I acknowledge this as the likely outcome should they fail to meat the presumption mentioned above in brackets.)?

                    • Damn right women deserve credit. Women fuckin rawk!!

                    • wbotb “Women fuckin rawk!!”

                      Get over yourself. Even best case scenario for a sudden world without men would result in tens of millions of women dying, at least a partial collapse of infrastructure and several years to stabilize, with a very real potential to degenerate into small primitive communities. At no point has anything ether Carolina or myself suggested “women rawk!”. My only defense of women to thins point has been an acknowledgement of HUMAN will, not something unique to women.

                      So I’m left wondering, what “credit” do you think ether myself or Carolina gave women to justify “women rawk!”?

                  • Um…no I will not get over myself. False humility is a bunch of crap!

        • Bullshit. Even I couldn’t fix a busted water main gushing water, overhaul an engine, repair a cell phone tower, nor can I do my own logging or commercial fishing or build a sky scraper.

          If all men were to disappear today, women would be seriously fucked. You don’t appear to know at all how the world around you works. This is typical for a woman. Completely oblivious.

          • Just because you can’t figure out how to do certain things, doesn’t mean other women can’t. Markxneil is right about when the will to survive kicks in. What about the woman who was small I stature but lifted up a car to save her baby? She could not lift a car out of the blue in regular everyday life, but at that moment, her baby was in danger. Survival mode kicked in for her.

            • Wow. You are really naive. You actually believe that all these bridges that have been built, the skyscrapers, the roads, the electricity production could be done by women, if only they wanted to do it.

              If women were left alone by men, they would live like people do know in the Sudan. Starving and in huts with no running water.

              • You are really naive to believe that women cannot figure stuff out. Although this stuff were built by men, they didn’t all do it on their own. Somebody trained them and most of them had a blueprint to follow. Back in the 40s when men were at war, women ran shit and ran it well. You just seem to have this agenda to make women look less valuable then men and you seem to think its going to get you favor. Perhaps it will temporarily, but they will devour you in a heartbeat given the chance. You are only fooling yourself by kowtowing to men who want to promote the devaluation of women. I would rather the men in my life respect me for who I am than some cookie cutter personality made to pamper the insecurities of many men. There are so many men who appreciate me for who I am and actually respect me as a person and not someone who merely conforms to a fake personality. Real men want a woman who is true to herself. I refuse to pander just to be part of the “boyz club.”

                • “but they will devour you in a heartbeat given the chance”

                  ” I would rather the men in my life respect me for who I am than some cookie cutter personality made to pamper the insecurities of many men.”

                  This shows a rather negative default assumption of men, a disdain common to most feminists.

                  “Real men want a woman who is true to herself”

                  You don’t get to define what a real man is, especially as you attack men for supposedly wanting a “cookie cutter personality “made” (by who) to pamper their insecurities”. You don’t get to rail against men supposedly trying to define women, and then try to define men. The accusation of “a real man” is nothing more than gender role enforcement based on your gyncentric self interest.

                  • Ahahaha! Look at this one here trying to tell me off lmfao! I have nothing against men in general, but I WILL recognize the difference between real men and insecure men and if you don’t like it that’s just too bad as I have disdain for men who want to oppress women. NAMALT and I know for a fact because I know many, many great men. So to say that I have disdain for men in general is absolutely ridiculous.

                    • “I have nothing against men in general”

                      I would argue your posts suggest otherwise. Your default presumption of men as oppressors (while you’re telling men what is and isn’t a “real man”, because that’s not enforcing oppressive gender roles at all /s… hypocrite) is incredibly hostile.

                      “So to say that I have disdain for men in general is absolutely ridiculous.”

                      Your ability to have found exceptions to the generalizations you hold of men doesn’t negate the generalizations you hold of men.

                  • Hahahaha! Your whole rhetoric is about you convincing yourself that I hate men. You completely ignore the part where I say that I know so many great men, just so you can be convinced of what you want to believe, but what else can I possibly expect from someone who believes women are lesser people.

                  • Arguing with a feminist is like playing chess with a pigeon. You’re making good points, but it’s clear she’s not even remotely interested (or capable) or addressing them.

                • Wrong about WWII. Women did not “run things” as if there were no men left in this country. Most men were still here fixing roads, working in coal mines, butchering cattle, etc. Women HELPED out is all.

                  I have “no agenda” to make women seem less valuable. I call it like I see it. Women simply don’t contribute to a functioning society the way men do. Women don’t have to make themselves “cookie cutters”. I’m not one.

                  • Yes they did run shit. Take a history course.

                    • Women drove trucks, worked on trucks, and sewed parachutes, they didn’t “run” things.

                      Most men did not go off to war, they remained here and still worked in coal mines, logging, building and repairing, etc. and kept the infrastructure running.

                      Don’t lecture me about history when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    • LMHAO! Women worked in shipyards, factories, made explosives, welded, built motors, operated heavy equipment, maintained railroads and took on managerial positions within these lines of work.

                    • So? Women did war related things, like weld airplanes. Women did not take of the actual infrastructure. For instance, during WWII, women didn’t work in coal mines, and without coal there would have been no electricity. (I’m sure you think electricity just appears in the air, but no, a MEN go into a mine and get out the coal.) And nowadays, how many women work at nuclear reactors? Come on, tell me how women dominate in the nuclear reactor field. LOL

                      You can argue all you want, but it doesn’t change the reality that women just simply don’t do, and haven’t done, the jobs that men do that keep a society functioning. Not during WWII and certainly not now.

                    • Women did things that many didn’t believe women can do. If you want to lay back in your ass and be helpless, that’s your choice. You are hopelessly trying to prove a point when I have just proved your point wrong. Women have taken on many dangerous things so what’s one more dangerous thing. Nada. She will simply learn how to do it like she did the other dangerous things that people thought she couldn’t do. I understand your whole blog is about how women are lesser people and men are “da shit” and we should gratefully choke on a hill of cocks that haven’t seen a shower in 5 months, but at least back yourself up with information that makes sense or at least be open minded to some logic based on what is actually going in in the world, rather than what you imagine is going on.

                    • I’ve never said anywhere that “women are lesser people” and men are “da shit”. I mock men for things, just like I do women.

                      You haven’t proved anything I’ve said wrong. Your WWII example was inaccurate. 8% of the total population of America went to war. Women were not left all alone to keep things going.

                    • 8% of the male population which accounts for most of the men that worked in those dangerous jobs.

                    • After that 8% comment, I can’t take you seriously anymore. You’ve crossed the line from a woefully uninformed gender ideologue to a poe.

                    • Wrong again. Average age of American men in WWII was 23. Most American men at any given time during the war were here in America.

                      It’s also insulting to men that you think only 8% are required to keep our society functioning normally.

                      Who do you think is paving our roads, logging, working on oil rigs, repairing cell phone towers, mining the coal, cleaning and repairing the Golden Gate Bridge and every other bridge in the nation, taking out the garbage, cleaning out septic tanks, fixing electrical power lines, working on skyscrapers, working in nuke plants? Because it sure the fuck isn’t women.

                    • Angry Duck you are as informed as an ass monkey. The point is that a significant amount of men were needed to go to war in order to win the war. Carolina, the point is that women did a lot to keep things running and women were needed. They were constantly asking women for their help because they messed men to go to war. You say that you are not devalue women, but you are incredibly he’ll bent on using a hypothetical situation to prove that women need men a d that men don’t need women. The reality is that men and women need each other but that doesn’t seem to suit anyone here. For all humans to survive both sexes need each other, but I get it. For a man to agree with that would make him a beta and he would totally lose his man card. And for you to agree with that Carolina, you could support these wannabe alpha men.

                    • I think we need to end this discussion. We’re just going around and around.

                    • Because we’re playing chess with a pigeon. I’m surprised you had as much patience with her as you did, Carolina.

                    • Yeah ok I’m a pigeon because you lost. Ok Angry Ass Monkey.

                    • “Yeah ok I’m a pigeon because you lost. Ok Angry Ass Monkey”

                      Is that what this is about to you, winning or losing? Are you seriously in a competition here to win the internet? It’s no wonder you kept making such bullshit claims and ignoring what everyone else sad, you didn’t want to “lose”. Grow up

                    • No bullshit claims. Just facts 😀
                      Get over it.

                    • You have never used facts. You just make up things as you go along.

                    • Yes…in the land of imaginary you are absolutely correct. Because in the land of imaginary, during ww2 women only sewed parachutes and drove trucks. It’s ok. I get it. The world of imaginary is not for me.

  10. I am so happy you wrote this and it is so well said. When men talk to me about our roles, I completely understand when they are angry. I try to be a voice of “what the result should be.” I am going to share this for sure!!!

  11. “There’s….evidence the Y chromosome will go out of business…,” Dowd said on American Morning. ”So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around?”

    So to state the underlying assumption, Dowd thinks men’s very existence is at the whim of women, that they have some right to do away with us if they please? So much for human rights, I guess.

    • Good point about human rights. I hadn’t really seen that before in her statement. She does make it seem as if men exist only to serve women.

      And she wonders why she isn’t married…..

    • It is actually, theoretically. Sex selective abortion happens in parts of the world, so I’m wondering what will happen with birth patterns and choice when the gender war actually heats up.

      Up until now it has been completely one sided, with all the (now) old grey haired white knights “yes-dearing” us into this Dystopia. Single mothers seem to be growing a lot of latent thug misogynists.

  12. Danny sent me. Good post, I’m looking forward to more.

  13. Excellent post. Clearly, Danny pointed me here.

    And thanks for proving a other Manosphere point: Hot chicks aren’t feminists, because they don’t need to be.

  14. Andrea Dworkin: One harpoon away from a lifetime supply of clean-burning lamp oil.

  15. Over from Danny’s blog, glad to have caught the link. I think i shall like it here!

    Great post!

    • Thanks. There are advocates for women, children and battered women, but who stands up for men?

      • No one, because men are the ones standing up. For others.

      • Indeed. And i really am glad to take note that there are special women out there who do recognize that something is not right out there in the world. I’m finding more of them online everyday and they give me hope that they can restore some sanity against the grip feminism has over society.

        I always try to make that distinction that my fight is against feminism and not women. Sometimes my words fail in that regard, but always try to keep in my mind NAWALT.

        Thanks for being one of them!

        • I agree.

          you know what my “favorite” part of the current zeitgeist is? The fact that men have to always clarify that their criticism is not meant for all women, it is meant for that subset of women and men that are feminists and feminism =/= women.

          yes, my avatar is an exact likeness

  16. My guess would be that Andrea Dworkin has rape fantasies – because the only way she will ever get some is if some sicko jumped her in a dark alley where he couldn’t see what he was getting.

    Honestly, she sounds mentally ill. She certainly doesn’t speak for me, as a woman. Neither do the other feminist nutjobs.

  17. Carolina,
    So true.

    I had real trouble understanding this MGTOW movement at the beginning. But I think I got there. It is now easy to see why it exists.
    About Ms. Dworkin, if she was raped, then of course that’s horrible…

  18. Great post, Carolina. I don’t think that many people really realize that this is occurring. People wanting to have the same opportunities as others is not the same as bringing others down so that they can have just as much without the same requirements.

    Anyone claiming that there is a huge pay gap nowadays is just misinformed. I highly recommend people read Why Men Earn More:

    I’ve had many women (and some men) be upset that I was reading such a book. Then I ask them if they know that it has a foreword by a former President of the National Organization for Women. The open minded ones are intrigued, the closed minded prejudiced ones are still upset. To this day, statistics regarding pay rates are hugely misinterpreted and misunderstood.

  19. I’m not even gonna get into the depths of this article,especially the quotes from that Femi-Nazi Maureen,or what I’d say Mauron(Moron).

    But as far as this Men’s Rights Movement,my main prob with them is the racial shit they advocate.They’re undercover white supremacists in my views.

    • I don’t know about their racist leanings, but my blog isn’t so much about the men’s rights movement as it is about how men are getting screwed in various ways.

    • There are a few white supremacists posing as MRAs, but obviously thy’re not interested in ALL men’s rights. The respectable sites keep them on the fringes where they belong. Don’t buy the SPLC-esque hype. The whole point of it is to keep you doubting.

    • I know I am a bit late on this, but I find your comment really interesting. I own and manage the most prominent men’s rights website on the internet, and I have been an activist for 25 years. Our writers are from all different walks of life, race, sex, sexual orientation and otherwise.

      As with all movements there are some bad apples on the fringe, but I am very curious to know what groups of men’s activists you have encountered that left you with the impression it was appropriate to paint us all as undercover white supremacists. Please advise, with my thanks in advance.

    • @ social kenny Please provide evidence for this sweeping generalization about the men’s right movement – ie not random insanity and sickness from certain individuals but evidence from all the pages and forums that state that race has anything to do with men’s rights.

      There are all kinds of men’s rights advocates and many differ in their opinions – from those who are happily married to those who are celibate, to those who avoid women to those who are PickUpArtists (is that what your PUA stands for?), religious/atheists, there are traditionalists who want a return to male and female “roles” and those who think marriage today is little more than a scam to enable certain women to take houses, cash and kids.

      I see men and women as people – both capable of incredible and monstrous things. What I want to see is the real “equality” that feminists pretend they want – both sexes to be treated in exactly the same way in regards to, for example, the legal system. I also advocate other changes to the system eg since it is clear that many boys learn differently from girls that education is changed to reflect this instead of all the gloating we hear today that girls are doing so much better without acknowledging the many changes in education we’ve had.

      Dismissing supporters of men’s rights as racists makes you sound like a SouthernPovertyLawCentre supporter – trying to label people as bigots just because they think that men and women should be treated equally.

  20. This is fantastic. I don’t know what the hell happened to Maureen Dowd but something turned her to the dark side hard. Andrea Dworkin is a sick woman. I had friends in college who had to read her “poetry” for a class and we would all read it and shake our heads. Good for you and thank you for writing this. You may be inviting backlash of your own (thank you Susan Faludi).

    Have a good weekend.


  1. dannyfrom504
  2. Need Proof Men are Viewed as Cannon Fodder? Here it is | Staked in the Heart

Leave a Reply to poester99 Cancel reply

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.