In case you haven’t heard, there’s a war on women.
This rhetoric usually refers to a handful of bills in US states which propose limits on access to abortion. Contrary to popular opinion, some people believe abortion should not be as easily and casually used as pre-conception birth control. In a democratic system of government, legislative wrestling over how much or how little unimpeded access to surgical termination of a human embryo is both reasonable and expected.
In response to this, several female legislators, starting with Georgia State Representative Yasmin Neal have tabled legislation to deny men’s access to the pre-conception birth control of vasectomy. The reason stated for this is explicitly totalitarian. According to Neal:

It is patently unfair that men can avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgement over such matters is more valid than the judgement of the general assembly, while women’s ability to decide [over the life of an existing embryo] is constantly up for debate throughout the United States. Women, our bodies, and what we do with it[sic] are always up for debate. This bill has been drafted for all women. Who have the wherewithal to chose. The day has come when men should feel the same pressure and invasion of privacy that women have faced for years. I have introduced this legislation because it is the purpose of the general assembly to insert an invasive state interest of reproductive habits of men in this state, and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.

The false equivalence between birth control prior to fertilization and conception, and the treatment of the termination of a pregnancy – in which a viable human embryo is killed is likely not lost on Yasmin Neal or her supporters. If men were to “feel the same pressure and invasion of privacy that women have faced for years,” men would first have to have reproductive rights – which to date, they do not. What men do have is a legal onus to financially underwrite a woman’s reproductive rights, in which she legally compels a man to abide by whatever decision she makes over reproduction. Debate over male reproductive rights cannot actually occur until men have such rights, and representative Neal knows this.
In fact, it has been gender ideologues who unilaterally deny men access to basic birth control technology women have enjoyed for a half century. A male contraceptive pill has been feasible for at least a decade. According to Dr. Elsimar Coutinho, a Brazilian endocrinologist and a human reproduction scientist, the male pill is widely used in China. However, in an interview on Brazilian TV, Dr Coutinho explains how when seeking approval for a male contraceptive pill based on natural substances extracted from cotton seeds, he was denied permission at the Budapest World Population Congress.
During his interview Coutinho explains:

In Budapest, I went to try to get the support of women. I thought, if women support it. The American feminists were all there, including Betty Freidan. It was her, I started to speak and in some ten minutes, she interrupted. She said: Dr., do you think we’ve fought our whole lives to have in our hands the decision of having children or not? Do you think we’re abdicating that? Men say they’re on the pill, women believe them? Do you know what you are, what you all deserve? To have credibility, swear you’re using pills just to get laid and leave? Leave us with the responsibility and then ‘the pill failed’ ? I was dazzled, because the women stood up screaming NO MALE PILL!!
I was suprised that women wouldn’t support me.

One of the hosts on the Brazilian television show questioned Dr Coutinho, asking “It was the feminists who rejected the male pill?” and Coutinho replied, saying “[At] the international feminist movement in Budapest, World Population Congress, I was the only scientist to talk. The others were politicians. I went to tell our results which were great. We already had more than 1000 men who had taken the pill, no side effects, etc.”
The show’s female presenter interjected: “I don’t get it, she was demanding to her, or to us [women] the decision on procreation?” Dr Coutinho responds by stating the position of the feminist panel members at the Budapest Population Congress, “WE take the pill, when we want to get pregnant, we stop taking it”.
And that is why the in the “free world” there is no male birth control pill. Because, according to politically connected feminists,“WE take the pill, when we want to get pregnant, we stop taking it.”
This also explains the ideology behind denying men access to the pre-conception birth control of vasectomy. As long as women exercising their “rights” over reproduction can also use the power of the state to appropriate money to pay for their own choices from unwilling fathers, then any encumbrance to this totalitarian system will be painted in the hysterical colors of a “war against women.”
If such a war were real, and not the hyperbolic fear mongering of professional liars then State Representative Neal’s openly declared intention to escalate the inequality of rights between men and women would place herself as serious risk. The fact is that men face ongoing legal disenfranchisement, companied with continued state enforcement of the unilateral legal reproductive rights of women including the imprisonment of men unable to finance baby making they have no rights over.
Although debtors prisons were legally abolished more than a century ago, men are still locked up if they find themselves unable to finance a woman’s decision to reproduce. But if we listen to our media, this is a War Against Women.
The Violence Against Women Act is another area of push-back, after 20 years of a law which governs policing and prosecutions based on a totally discredited model of domestic violence. VAWA turned the real problem of violence within romantic relationships in which men and women abuse each other coequally, in a world of legal fiction in which women were universally innocent victims and men were universally guilty aggressors. While male-on-female abuse is real, it is only a small part of the larger problem domestic violence. However VAWA also incentivized frivolous prosecutions by allocating funds to prosecutors for indictments, regardless of convictions. Now, after 20 years of policing by profiling, where cops follow a script of arrest-the-man-no-matter-what rather than doing actual police work, the public is catching on to this scam, and VAWA faces open opposition in it’s re-authorization.
In addition, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, prior to the Easter weekend repealed that state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, a law based on the persistent myth of the wage gap. In reality, women on average do earn less over their lifetimes than men. Gender ideologues who have enjoyed an increasing command of public narrative have always claimed that this meant women and men doing the same job were payed differentially based on sex, but this is now, and always has been a lie. The difference in lifetime income is actually just a byproduct of women’s preferences, on average, for employment which affords greater flexibility, greater access to friends and family than the career paths men generally pursue. The wage gap myth has been so thoroughly and so repeatedly debunked that continued public pretence to it is no longer politically viable. Of course, oppositional commentary characterizes Walker’s action as further evidence of the “war on women.”
Omitted from this “war on women” narrative is the department of education mandate for diminished standards of evidence in male-targeting accusations of sexual misconduct in american universities and colleges. Also omitted is the persistent female favouring affirmative action in access and in higher education, despite 20 years of escalating female favouring imbalance in educational outcomes. Even the feminists have noticed this, but rather than treating it as a problem to be solved, systematic male exclusion from higher education is celebrated by professional bigots like Hannah Rosin.
Also omitted from the war on women is the unofficial policy of the courts to fabricate excuses for female criminals – like Amanda Knox, whose bizarre acquittal reveals in human beings a wholly irrational ability to forgive any behavior from a sexually attractive female, including murder. A google search for “woman kills baby” revealed a lengthy list of women acquitted or given suspended sentences for the killings of their own children. When it comes to the behavior of females, there appears to be no limit on violence, murder, or outrageous conduct. However, we are constantly reminded that there is a war on women. How much repetition will it take to convince all of us?
The Obama health care package is another area in which, rather than being sensibly omitted from the constructed narrative of a “war on women” in the few places where women are expected to pay for coverage – the “war on women” screen rings out again. Strangely, in every area where free coverage is offered for women, no corresponding coverage is listed for men.
Breast cancer screening, yes, prostate cancer screening, no. According to reporting by AVfM contributor Anthony Zarat:

..there are also line items for three breast health treatments, with no matching prostate health coverage.  There is cervical cancer screening, but no provisions for male specific cancers.  There are several line items protecting women from STDs, but no matching money for men.
This is also where mandatory free birth control products and free tubal ligation services for women will be, once the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations are accepted by the president.  That approval process led to the fuss over a “war on birth control.” Nobody talks about the fact that birth control for men, including vasectomy, is not covered, not free, and not mentioned in either the IOM or the USPSTF. Feminists and the liberal left are crying foul because a small number of women will have a small number of their female-only services under Obamacare limited. A few women, some of the time, will be treated like all men are treated, all the time. Outrageous!”

So this is the war on women? That women sometimes are treated as men are treated all the time?
Although it would very likely have a salutary effect on the perception of people whose reality is filtered through the lens of mainstream media, I am not bloody-minded enough to wish for a reversal of the imbalance of legal rights between men and women. I lack the necessary cruelty.
In addition, whoever came up with that marketing for this apparent “war on women” wasn’t trying hard enough to get guys like me on board, but after examining what’s behind this war on women, and in spite of the poorly chosen name, count me in. After reading some of the recent, emotionally overblown and free-from-facts attempts at condemnation of the MRM, it’s evident that many commentators of the gender-ideologue stripe are convinced that the movement seeking equal legal rights and recognition of the humanity of men is rising. Our most vociferous detractors are clearly worried that we are winning. In that concern, they are correct.

I’ve just read another article variously excoriating men and “empowering” women on the topic of exposed female flesh. Cleavage specifically, and it’s power to draw male attention. As this is being written in early Spring, the seasonal spectacle of high cut skirts and low-cut tops will be putting a bit more bounce back in everybody’s step, and social commentators will write predictable criticism of males who just cant keep their eyes to themselves.
I’ll be the first to admit that every spring when horseflesh goes back on display, I enjoy the scenery. I’m biologically wired to not only enjoy it, but also be distracted every time a bit of pink goes jiggling through my peripheral vision. However, there is apparently a bit of a problem. Women who put themselves on display and enjoy the attention of high-income, high-status men are somewhat less than enthused with being ogled by men they regard as low-status, unattractive, or gods-forbid: beta males.
Those guys – men who don’t have what it takes to get a second glance from women – well, those losers are just as likely to leer at bouncy cleavage and short skirts, and sometimes even offer unwanted comment or commentary. In fact, average guys, when told to buzz off and that their attention is unwelcome, sometimes don’t even have the good sense to control themselves in these circumstances. Rude remarks are increasingly common from this sort of creep. It’s almost like low-status males imagine they have a right to look at what’s paraded in front of them, or even a right to speak. How stupid are these guys anyway? Don’t they know to shut their mouths and avert their fucking eyes?
Or maybe, just maybe – there’s another way to understand this problem. It might even be that provocative attire is described using the word “provocative” because such clothing is designed to provoke a response. It might be that male sexual attention, when it is deliberately stimulated by women showing off their secondary sexual characteristics is stimulated in men without regard to the size of their paychecks. It might even be that men whose income or attire doesn’t mark them as high-earning alpha males, that these fucking stupid losers think they’re human beings even if they don’t tick all the boxes on women’s reptile brain wiring and make them wet. It might be that these guys have a different view of themselves and their worth, wholly apart from the primitive hominid programming most women use to discard 90% of men as worthless before they’ve even registered there’s a person in their field of vision.
Holy fuck, these guys might even think they’re human beings worth saying hello to. Can you imagine anything so stupid? In fact, this is going to stretch credulity, but as I was writing this, another possibility crossed my mind. Because it made me laugh, I’ll share it – just for the entertainment value.
It might be that low status men, ones who are socially invisible to women seeking the attention of executives, lawyers and elite athletes – well, it could be that these guys know they are socially invisible – and that attractive women parading their sexual and social power as if it’s an unholstered gun, they know such women regard them as low grade peasant scum. These foolish males might even realize the contempt they’re held in, and it might mean they’re increasingly unwilling to defer to those privileged princesses whose sexual and social power is based not on accomplishment, but just on their sex.
It might even be that as average, low status males, these guys understand that their social value to the women who flaunt their sexual power and potency is based only on what use those women can make of them. It might be that understanding they are seen by females only as under-performing appliances for dispensing money and for female convenience; violence – they’re disinclined to respond to women’s open contempt with anything except unapologetic honesty.
In fact, according to Bettina Arndt, in her article “the Booby Trap” although some claim slutty attire is just to make themselves feel good, the main message sent is about flaunting women’s sexual power. It’s an “UP YOU” gesture of the most provocative kind. The message is unsubtle. look what i’ve got, what you want, and what I’m flaunting in front of you and that you are not even allowed to respond to.
And many men, increasingly aware of their second class status, and faced by undisguised contempt from a sexual class who recognize no limit on their own behavior, these men are uninterested in pretend deference.
So if you’ve got great tits, or a pert, round behind, and you’ve put them on display, of course men are going to stare, princess. You might even get a few comments. Also, the difference between creepy and appreciative in those comments exists almost entirely in your mind, and not in the content of the offered commentary. As a woman, your evaluation of the difference between appreciated compliment from an attractive gentlemen and unwanted creep-behaviour from a loser is based on your subconscious evaluation of social status and wealth. This is the reptile portion of your brain’s instinctive selection – evaluating men as utilities which dispense money, violence on your behalf, and sperm. This is also why low status males are socially invisible to you. Your subconscious has edited them out before you even consider them as individuals worth chatting up. And no, those men should not apologize to you for being attracted, or for saying so. Instead, perhaps you should apologize to them, for presenting for inspection what was not on offer.
Or maybe, and here I’m just making a wild-assed suggestion, when you’re picking your outfit, including that low-neck top that gives guys whiplash and the short skirt that shows off your cute round butt, you should not be so shocked when it results in male eyeballs vectoring in on your advertized cleavage. And when you get a whistle, or a clumsy comment, realize that attention is exactly what you asked for.

The first in the V-leaks series: Uncovering the Feminine Codex.

This series is going to focus on an examination of how women develop and employ power in a feminine way. And by feminine I mean as a manifestation of some combination of feminine biology and socialization.
Just a note to stem off the inevitable charges of misogyny: If you consider this series misogyny, then by extension the entire body of work looking at men’s use and abuse of power—including my own vlog on male power structures called apexuality—is an ocean of misandry sufficient to drown the entire world.
A while back there was a domestic terrorist in Canada who was targeting infrastructure related to gas processing and transportation. He was doing this because he felt this infrastructure was responsible for illness in his family. He was a survivalist and a very religious man.
At some point they interviewed one of his daughters. She explained that she had been taught that “women were weaker than men.” The news obviously included this particular bit in order to vilify her father as a horrible misogynist. But I picked up on a very different dynamic. She expressed this sentiment in the exact same way a young man might arrogantly proclaim his ‘pimp skills.’

Now, why is that?

To explain the origin of her smugly superior attitude let’s dissect the related concept of the surrendered wife. For those not in the know, a surrendered wife is a woman who has decided, usually unilaterally, to abdicate all agency and responsibility in a relationship. She simply responds to whatever her husband does by enduring it without comment and enjoying a god-gasm over being a good Christian at his expense.
An example of a ‘surrendered wife’ is a woman who, when her husband made a wrong turn off a freeway, never informed him of his mistake and let him drive for half a day in the wrong direction.
Getting the picture?

How is this related to female emotional domination, you might ask… that is, if you’re not picking up on it already.

Well, I’ll explain what’s really going on.

Human beings have an extremely strong instinct to take care of creatures that are helpless. We have this instinct because our offspring are the most helpless and dependent in the entire animal kingdom. Our instinct to help the helpless is therefore the most highly developed on Earth.
It is capable of superseding our survival instinct. There are plenty of examples of people (mostly men) sacrificing their lives to save others. Our instinct to take care of the helpless also supersedes our sexual instinct, which explains why paternal caretaking in the human species is so involved and common. Instinctively, human men will focus on taking care of their offspring preferentially over courting further sexual options (there are exceptions to this, of course, but these exceptions prove the rule.)

This protection instinct can be taken a step further in men. Not only do men have it but they are also socialized to see their gender identity revolving around exercising it. The implicit assumption of ‘women and children first’ is that it is men who provide the ‘first’ and if they don’t, they aren’t men.
To coin a phrase, a man’s social body, his positive social or spiritual identity–thus his connection to human society–is made up of his ability and willingness to fulfill the needs of those perceived to be more helpless than himself. So not only do men have an instinct to help the helpless, they also have a strong social compulsion on top of that instinct.
Remember this. The very survival of a man’s social body—his positive spiritual identity–is contingent upon sacrificing for the needs more helpless then himself.

Now let’s take a closer look at how someone can exploit this instinct in an aggressive manner.
Everybody understands that when person A puts a gun to the head of person B and makes demands, that person A is placing enormous pressure on person B to do whatever Person A wants.
What people don’t understand is that Person A can easily point the gun at her own head, and by pointing it at herself put the same or more pressure on person B to do whatever she wants.
In the first scenario Person A is triggering Person B’s survival instinct; in the second she’s triggering his protection instinct. Functionally, both actions are about bringing to bear tremendous coercive pressure on a target by triggering a powerful instinct. The second action has the added benefit of allowing person A to remain ‘a victim’, ‘powerless’ and ‘not harming anyone’ since she’s just threatening herself.

The reality is that she is covertly harming person B through the use of coercive force.
So, while you read the rest of this article, remember that triggering a person’s protection instinct is as coercive a force as triggering their survival instinct. If you need to, every time I refer to a woman triggering a man’s protective instinct by presumptively submissive behavior, imagine, instead, her putting a gun to her own head. Or if that still doesn’t clarify the coercive nature of triggering his protection instinct enough, imagine she’s putting a gun to his head instead. This image is not far fetched, because when a man fails to protect a woman, his social body is in jeopardy, therefore every instance of her triggering his protection instinct is also an instance of her threatening the continued existence of his social body, his positive connection to his community.

When a woman engages in the ‘surrendered’ lifestyle (in any of its forms, including secular ones), she is, in essence, inflating her helplessness in order to parasitize both her mate’s protection instinct and the connection between the survival of his social body and him providing for the helpless. The more helpless she is, the more his instinct is triggered and the more implied threat she is directing towards his social body if he does not provide for her needs.
If she does it right, she can attain a level of apparent helplessness that can supersede even that of an infant. This is because she is in possession of a relatively adult level of agency (even if she isn’t going to allow her husband to benefit from its existence) and is capable of avoiding an infant’s kneejerk communication of discomfort. Thus she can appear even more inert and uncommunicative and thus more completely helpless than an infant.

Think how thrilled new parents would be to not only have to deal with the all-consuming needs of a newborn, but to have a newborn that had absolutely no way of communicating those needs. The child is completely silent  and unable even to cry.  This sounds, on the surface, like it might be a relief not to have a fussy child but take a moment to imagine how much worse it is to be a new parent gripped with the endless fear of not knowing if they’re doing anything right or wrong or not enough or too much.
Not only does the surrendered wife want her husband to find her needs as all encompassing as those of a new born baby, she encourages a terrifying level of uncertainty in him that he’s actually fulfilling them.
It’s sort of like her not only putting that gun to his head, but not even explaining the actions she wants him to take to avoid having his brains blown out.

This leaves no room in the relationship—and I use the word loosely—for the man’s needs and vulnerabilities. Just ask any parent of a three-month year old child how parenting an infant has affected their sense of self and being able to take care of their own needs. In fact in the ‘surrendered wife’ model because the infant is man’s presumptive partner, not only is there no time to address his needs but there exists no other adult in the relationship to address his needs. (And just a note, addressing your male partner’s needs is not synonymous with giving him fifteen minutes of uninspired ‘godly’ sex every two months. I know this will come as a shock but each man, being human, has his own unique tapestry of fears, insecurities, things that make him sad, you know, vulnerabilties.)

Since this isn’t a relationship of emotional equals—it’s a relationship of mistress and emotional slave–a woman has to look elsewhere to get her adult emotional needs met. That’s why all people recommending the surrendered wife model insist that a surrendered wife have female friends.
The surrendered wife, on the other hand, is likely her husband’s primary or only emotional relationship, his only real connection to humanity. Likely this assists in the process of hijacking his agency like a body-snatching alien pod since he has no other outlet for getting his emotional needs met. Or even an outside perspective on what’s happening to him.

Another clue to the real nature of the surrendered wife phenomena is how often women engaging in it talk about it achieving their aim of getting their husbands to do exactly what they want them to.
As a very intelligent MRA noted, a women’s limitations are a man’s obligations. The more helpless a surrendered wife is, the more he has to revolve his life around sacrificing for her. Until there is no autonomous life left in him.
The end result of this is emotional emeshment is that he becomes no more than a vehicle of her needs. In that context telling her that she must ‘obey’ her husband becomes a sort of farce. There is no autonomous being to obey.

It’s also interesting how people evangelizing the ‘surrendered wife’ model seem to assume that a woman emotionally dominating her partner—either through overt verbal abuse or through invasion-of-the-body-snatchers style emotional emeshment—is just a given. Either you’re an abusive harridan or an all-consuming waif.
But there exists a third possibility that is opposite to both: a mutually respectful adult relationship in which a woman is grateful for her husband’s strengths and respectful of his vulnerabilities.
We often misunderstand the nature of the ‘surrendered wife’ model as somehow beneficial to men because we are locked into seeing dominance on male terms. We think that the dominant partner in a relationship is the one making all the decisions, when in fact the dominant partner is the one those decisions are being made for. The partner who’s in the driver’s seat, so to speak, is the one whose needs have been prioritized over the others’. And the one who’s needs have been prioritized is always the one who has co-opted the other’s protective instinct. The one who is seen as the weaker party. That’s also the partner who’s deriving the primary benefit from having the relationship.
Conversely when a wife respects her husband’s vulnerabilities, by definition she will take the lead when he is vulnerable. But it’s his needs that are the driving force behind the decisions she makes while in the lead.

This is why the husbands of surrendered wives are the subordinate partners in the relationship. Their wives never take the lead, thus they never take the lead in making decisions driven by their husband’s vulnerabilities. In every equal relationship each partner gets some ‘me’, in the surrendered wife relationship there is only she.
This is how you end up with a woman who will let her husband turn off the wrong exit on a freeway and say nothing while he humiliates himself by driving for hours the wrong way. She would rather see him suffer than expose her own agency and risk lessening her own power over him. Alternatively she doesn’t even see him as an autonomous person; his mistakes are just a disaster, like a flood or a tornado, that she endures in order to rack up her god-points.
Now not all surrendered wives are going to take this toxic dynamic to the extreme of complete emotional domination of their husbands. What I’m saying is that this dynamic provides no protection for the man from a wife who will.

Particularly in a Christian community where the husband is held strictly liable for all of his wife’s behavior. ‘Why are you complaining? Isn’t your wife’s godly supplication to you sufficient?’
And men are particularly vulnerable because they don’t pick up on the subtle cues that indicate a woman is practicing this sort of psychological aggression against them. When a man ‘surrenders’ it’s the end of his power; whereas when a woman ‘surrenders’ it’s just the beginning of hers.
Further you can see this dynamic in a lot of secular, non religious relationships as well. The harridan wife is just a subset of the surrendered wife, except like a fussy infant she’s more vocal about her requirements. And you see the same coercive dynamic in some political ideologies: Make yourself look like a victim to appeal to men’s instinct to protect you. It’s just the ‘surrendered’ wife lifestyle distills the dynamic to it’s clearest essence.
And no, I’m not saying it’s impossible for a male partner to exploit his female partner by triggering her protective instincts, I just don’t see an entire subculture dedicated to it or ubiquitous cultural expectations supporting it.

So in conclusion, why was the daughter of the survivalist telling the viewer that she was taught that ‘women are weak’ with such a palpable air of smug self-satisfaction?
Let me translate her words from female dominance language to dominance language men are more likely to recognize. ‘Weakness is my pimp hand, yo. And you boy-bitches better fall in line, because my pimp hand be strong.’

How often have you heard feminists give out the false notion that a woman or girl has been mistreated just because she is female? How often have you heard feminists claim that a man or boy has been praised or chosen for leadership positions just because he is male? If you regularly listen to what feminists say, or read what feminists write, chances are you have probably heard that a lot. But how exactly do feminists and other gynocentrics define this treatment? What factors take place for treatment to be considered gender-based? This has already partially explored this in the AVfM article “the inflated definition of misogyny“, but this article will go into further detail.
The basic idea is that feminists define anything negative that happens to a woman or girl as “gender-based” discrimination, and anything greatly positive that happens to a man or boy as a “gender-based” result of the patriarchy.

	Male	Female
Positive Situation	Gender-based privilege	She earned it
Negative Situation	He deserved it	Gender-based discrimination

False claims of gender-based discrimination against women and girls, and gender-based privilege for men and boys, are an important part of feminism’s lifeblood. These claims are what the feminist theories of the patriarchy, female oppression and male privilege stem from. In this article, a few common examples of what feminists consider gender-based treatment will be debunked. Remember, these are just examples.

Violence
Perhaps one of the most exaggerated form of so-called “discrimination” is violence. There are many attempts by feminists to stop violence against women, but not violence against men. It should be noted that men are much more likely to suffer physical violence than women. Boys are taught from a young age that they should never hit girls, even in self-defense. The media frequently shows violence against men and boys being portrayed as not only acceptable, but funny, but when a more minor version of this happens to a woman once the feminists have a shitfit. [1] It could be said that much more violence occurs against men because they are men than violence against women because they are women.
Even though men are far more likely to suffer physical violence, feminists still insist that women receive extra protection from such forms of violence, and continuously blame the minority of physical violence that is inflicted against females on discrimination. This is not because females generally have less physical strength, it is because they are female.
When it comes to violence, the term “gender-based” simply means against a woman or girl even if her gender has nothing to do with why the violence was done.

Work and Hiring
Take a look at how feminists react when a man is chosen for a job over a woman. Feminists will often blame this on discrimination, even if the man is more qualified for the job. Also take a look at how feminists react when a high-rank or even decent-rank job is male dominated. They claim that this is due to discrimination. If someone were to ask: “why are there so few male hairdressers?” how would you answer? Surely most of you would answer by stating that it is because fewer men apply for those jobs. Well the same should be said about women in male-dominated jobs: it is because fewer women apply for those jobs. Feminists don’t get that, though.
Exclusion
If a group or club consists of mostly men or all men, many feminists will blame this on discrimination. It could easily be that fewer women decided to join the group or club, or that fewer met the requirements to join, but feminists will still blame it on discrimination. It is possible for a group or club to openly rule itself as “women only” but when a group or club appears to only allow men in the eyes of feminists, well, that’s a whole different story.

Authority
If a female boss or leader, be it at a job, school or even a group or club, is not respected or obeyed, especially if the people she is in charge of are male, feminists will often blame it on discrimination. There are a variety of other reasons this may be happening. It could be that the people she is in charge of don’t like her management style, or are just disobedient in general, but regardless of whether it is her fault or not, there are possible reasons other than gender discrimination.

Family Treatment
If a boy in a family is treated better than a girl, many feminists will blame this on discrimination. Actually, in many households, it is actually girls who are given preferential treatment over boys. If a girl is treated worse than a boy, there are plenty of other reasons, good or stupid, that are not based on her gender. It could be that the boy has earned the treatment more (in the family’s opinion) or that the family favors older or younger children. All families work differently, but treating boys better than girls is certainly not the norm.
References
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101762/Controversial-PETA-ad-claims-going-vegan-make-good-bed-youll-INJURE-girlfriend.html

One of the cornerstones of conventional domestic violence dogma is that the victim is never, ever, responsible for violence perpetrated against them.  Rather perpetrators must accept responsibility and be held accountable for their violence.  Statements along these lines are enshrined in the White Ribbon Campaign and Australia’s “Time for Action” Plan to reduce violence against women and their children.

A White Ribbon Campaign fact sheet states:

Myth 4 Some people deserve to be beaten by provoking the violence. Fact : Responsibility for violence must rest solely with the abuser.[1]

As a young intern during one of my first night sifts in the casualty department (ER) I received notification that a young man was being brought in by ambulance after being punched in the head outside one of the local nightclubs. He was said to be unconscious but stable, however on arrival he was in complete cardio respiratory arrest and after almost an hour of vigorous resuscitation attempts could not be revived. Post mortem examination subsequently showed that he had suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a single blow to the head. The story from bystanders was that another male had walked up behind him and punched him once in the back of the head; there was no apparent provocation.

I learned several lessons that night including, the potential for a single well placed blow to be fatal, the dangers of alcohol fuelled violence on the nightclub strip – and never trust the paramedics radio alert to be accurate. In those days most of the brawling was male on male.  But trends in more recent times show mixed violence and female on female violence becoming more common.
In 2010 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released a paper “Female Offending: Has their been an increase” [2] found that

Using police person of interest (POI) data, this brief considers trends in offending by females and juvenile females over the 10 years to June 2009. Over this period, the number of females proceeded against by police increased by 15 per cent, whereas the number of male offenders remained stable.
They also noted a much greater rise in the rate of female juvenile offenders 1/3-increase verses a 1/10 increase for male juvenile offenders.

There are thousands of video clips on Youtube showing drunken violent women to which I recently added this one: http://youtu.be/7qq8Z3L6UwE It’s a recording from a popular Australian evening show called A Current Affair.
Three young women, two of them mothers of young children, were recorded on a mobile phone drunk, violent and out of control outside a nightclub after closing time.  The general community attitude to this was one of disgust at their behavior. However the girls wanted to “give their side of the story,” and appeared on national television to tell us  “they were provoked by a group of drunken men.”

One of the girls explains “I remember crossing the road, and some guy yelled out you’re a fat s(Beeped out – presumably “slut”), and then I walked over and started yelling at him and stuff, and I think that’s when it started, all the troubles.”
It’s not quite clear what she means by “and stuff” but presumably it means a physical element added to “yelling at him.”  Suffice it to say she could have simply walked away rather than crossing a road to confront a group of men and start a fight.
The girls claim “They hit us, they spat on us, they called us names.”  Yet whilst there is lots of shouting and name calling to be heard during the video there is no sign of any male hitting any of the girls, only their relentless aggressive attacks.  Despite being dragged away by security these girls continued to run back into the fray on the attack.
One even walked up behind a male who was facing away from her and posing no threat and viciously wacked him on the back of the head with her high heeled shoe.  That scene sent a shiver down my spine and reminding me of the case I encountered as an intern. She said in the interview that perhaps he did not deserve a heel in the head but “he did deserve a punch in the head.”
When quizzed by the interviewer if this was indicative of their usual behavior the girls admitted, “We’ve been in fights but nothing like this,” so this was not their first involvement in violence.  Further the girls admitted to consuming a large amount of alcohol, and feeling “very angry.”

We just wanted to hurt someone because they were hurting us.

When asked if they were sorry for their behavior all agreed they were “embarrassed” but it would appear that they were more embarrassed about being recorded and exposed then by their actual violence, which they claim their victims deserved.  “I’m not sorry, I’m not sorry to those guys, I’m sorry to my family but not to the guys.”
One of the girls has no hesitation in stating for the camera “No guy should hit a girl, I think it’s disgusting,” yet their recorded behavior show they clearly believe it is ok for women to be violent toward men.
One of the girls offered this gem “what if their mothers saw them behaving like that towards girls?” which had me bemused. Surely she meant what if their fathers saw them behaving like this toward girls?  But then it hit me; apparently single motherhood and fatherlessness are now common enough to considered the norm.

I don’t like being judged as a mother. They don’t know the full story about everything, like we were provoked and they wont know till they watch this.

If this is the view of young mothers it does not bode well for the chances of our current generation of children to become civil, non-violent members of society.
Another recent trend of concern is that of mothers encouraging their daughters to fight in the schoolyard or similar circumstances.  There have been several well-publicized cases in Australia and the US including this one where the mother was charged with child abuse. http://youtu.be/G9chmFG50E4

So what is the message from all this?  Abusers must always be accountable for their violence except if the abuser is a woman and they were provoked to violence by a man.  There is an increasing trend for women to be physically violent and encourage such violence in their offspring, a trend that can only worsen, as the mother headed household becomes a social norm.
US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan commented in the mid sixties  “A community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.”
We should add to this that girls who lack the guiding influences of a father and who are encouraged by mothers (who don’t seem to understand all violence is wrong) are adding to that chaos.

[1]http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/uploads/media/Fact%20Sheet%2010%20Ten%20Common%20Myths%20and%20Misconceptions%202009.pdf
[2] http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB46.pdf/$file/BB46.pdf

The ever so common feminist mantra in our misandric society is “men bad, women good.” To put it another way: men are inherently bad by nature, and women are inherently good by nature. If a man or boy ever displays a positive trait, or if a woman or girl ever displays a negative trait, it’s then identified as a social construct. In the mind of a feminist, and someone who believes feminism, women are the embodiment of everything good about the human species, and men are the embodiment of everything bad.

	Male	Female
Positive Trait	Learned	Innate
Negative Trait	Innate	Learned

Feminists switch between believing that all human behaviour is socially constructed, and believing that there is innate human behaviour, depending on whether the belief will support the “men bad, women good” mantra. They deny that there may be any innate positivity in males, or any innate negativity in females, by psychologically projecting any negative female traits onto males, and any positive male traits onto females. This way, they can continue to take down males.
How traits become male traits
Whenever someone who possesses male genitalia (that is quite literally the one and only requirement, a male personality isn’t even needed) displays a negative trait – it is a male trait. When someone with that same genitalia gets angry, it is “male aggression.” When a male does something stupid, it is because males are stupid.
This does not just apply to traits that are actually associated with maleness. The trait does not even have to actually be masculine for it to be seen as a typical male trait. As long as it is negative, and the person is male, it is a male trait. Even if it is equally likely to be displayed by females, it is still viewed as male behaviour. In fact, it could even be a typical female trait that is rarely displayed by a male, and feminists and other gynocentrics will still view it as a male trait, simply because it is something they don’t like.
The negative trait, whether it is typical male behaviour or not, gets attributed to the male gender. Even if it is only one person who has displayed it.
Of course, it is a common mistake for someone to attribute traits to someone’s gender, age, race, religion or other group, even if it is not a typical trait of that group, and this is a mistake that most people, regardless of their own gender, age, race, religion or other group, make. However, feminists and other gynocentrics not only go overboard with shaming the male gender in any way possible, but they even institutionalized their beliefs as the norm that men are bad and women are good.
Phrases such as “men are stupid”, “boys will be boys”, “*sigh* boys”, “all men are jerks” and many others can be used for any purpose, as long as the person they are used on has male genitalia.
Another thing worth mentioning is how male-on-male conflict is viewed in regards to gender. In a negative situation where both the perpetrator and the victim are male, it is often that both are blamed, even if the victim does everything he possibly can to avoid the situation. If a male so much as explains a lie that’s been told about him by another male, he is accused of retaliating, as a result of his maleness of course. The term “boys fighting” can be used even if only one boy is actually doing any fighting, though a male being a victim of male-on-male violence can be viewed as violent.
What they say about females who display negative traits
When a woman or girl displays a negative trait, unlike a man or boy, it is viewed as a social construct. For example, if a female ever perpetrates any kind of violence, it is always because a man wound her up (even if it is something stupid like not getting her the right gift, it is still the man’s fault.) Some feminists even blindly blame negative traits displayed by females on patriarchal discrimination. Negative traits displayed by females can also be portrayed positively. For example, when a female attacks a male, even for a stupid reason, it is sometimes considered perfectly acceptable, and in our society where everyone has been poisoned with misandric views, it is assumed that the male deserved it.
When a male and female are in an argument, the female is usually the one believed by default. Why? Because according to feminists, females are never wrong, only males are. If the female is reacting negatively, it must have been because the male did something very bad, whereas if a male is reacting negatively, it’s his nature. Some feminists even consider any male who dares say no to a female to be a misogynistic woman-hater.
Some people make jokes about how women and girls who do show negative traits or do stupid things are acting “like men/boys.” This label can be applied whether the behaviour is masculine, neutral, or feminine. It just has to be negative to be seen as a male trait.
In situations where both the perpetrator and victim are female, unlike where both are male (which was mentioned above,) it is seen as a social construct and that both parties have suffered problems in their life. Many feminists try to label this as a result of the so-called patriarchy. Generally, neither are really “blamed” for the situation.
So, an outline on who is by default blamed for problems…

• Male problem: It is a result of his male stupidity.
• Female problem: It is a result of the patriarchy oppressing her.
• Male-on-male conflict: Both are to blame.
• Male-on-female conflict: The male is to blame.
• Female-on-male conflict: The male is to blame.
• Female-on-female conflict: It’s a social construct forced by the patriarchy.

So remember, the feminist mentality is that there are no positive male traits or negative female traits, and anything that contradicts the “men good, women bad” mantra is a social construct. That, folks, is how feminists define gender traits. Anyone who dares to question it will be labelled a misogynist by feminists.