The ideology behind male apartheid promotes and relies on indirect violence. Outsourced to state funded enforcers and men, following a role of dispenser and recipient of violence. Sadly, female unaccountability has escalated. Some women now advocate or directly commit male targeted violence

Maschalismos · 2011-11-22T05:09:44+00:00

Excellent article.

2011-11-22T13:08:33+00:00

The accepted idea is that men, if they’re “real men,” should not only take it, they should continue to uphold the male half of the social contract which is to protect women and provide for them.

I was just having a discussion on this topic a couple of days ago. I'd like to repeat what I said there:

I object to the idea that men should be obligated to protect women in general. That it is his role in society, and he isn't a real man if he doesn't. The reason I think this idea must be rejected is because it is one of the primary ways that men are exploited and manipulated by both feminism and social conservatism. Feminists play the damsel in distress, demand special privileges and protections, and the social conservatives run to assist them. That is how we get VAWA, which only provides protection against domestic violence for women, and for the most part does not even acknowledge that DV against men exists. That is how we get ruthless child support enforcement policies that put indigent fathers in debtors prison for non-payment. That is how we get federal women's health programs that provide a huge number of women's health funding, programs and offices and none for men. This is how we get restraining orders that allow a woman to evict a man from his own home because she says she is "afraid of what he might do".

In short, I think the male instinct for protection is our weakness and it is being used against us. Men need to realize that and learn to suppress this instinct for all women except for possibly a special few if they hope to get equal treatment in society.

johntheother · 2011-11-22T04:39:23+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Comments