This just makes us seem to be the misogynists they paint us to be. Uncool.

Doggone it! Why are comments always closed by the time I get there? She cherry picks comments, and then only the parts that support her sexist, misandrist view.

Classic narrow slitty,bitter ,sly looking eyes, short hair ,mannish looking always always hate men . Has she never felt like hitting someone - her girl friend -has she hit her girl friend?Does she know of dykes who do? You bet she does but why explore a complex issue like dv when it can be easily exploited for political ends -and sexual motives?

deceptively named antimisandry.com

How is it deceptive?

I'm sure she understands what misandry, and therefore in turn what antimisandry means.

I'm sure through her ideologically corrupted filter she's paranoically inferring we are a collective of misogynists who merely adopt a guise of purporting to support antimisandry to cover our real misogynistic intentions.

She'd like to genuinely believe that, because that would discount any requirement to delve or inquire further down the antimisandry.com path. It's the easiest option isn't it?

For the average feminist, soundly debating the issues are never required, when you can just lazily stick labels marked sexism, chauvinism and misogyny on anything that disagrees with your flawed world view. No need to engage the deeper regions of the cerebral cortex, nor embrace any essence of morality when you can just screech these few simplistic tried and tested 'emotional cluster bomb' phrases - garnished with a few variations that never ventures beyond the stale predictability of tasteless feminist offerings.

I noticed in her piece she mentioned domestic violence. I won't focus on the abundance of empirical evidence which "overwhelmingly" shows women to be almost equally violent, iniate the majority of violence, are the perpertrators of the predominance of physical abuse against the elderly (elder abuse) and are the biggest physical abusers and murderers of children. Yes, all of these constitute 'domestic violence.'

Why are women only technically victims of domestic violence in law and social conscience? Why aren't children as the most vulnerable in our society recognized victims of domestic violence? Is it not violence? Is it not in a domestic setting? Ergo, domestic violence. The exclusion of children (aside from men) is the clearest example of a nefarious ideology usurping the rights of (dare I say it) "men and children." Think about it.

Yet an increasingly disturbed Julie Bindel in her blog nauseously exclaimed:

"Male violence towards women and children - yes, male - is pandemic. We must force them to change - to stop raping, killing and abusing us."

Lumping women in with children regarding domestic violence is akin to supposing that the fox (women) is as much in need of protection within the same enclosure as the hens (children) she seeks to maim and kill.

Want to talk about rape? Then we have a moral duty to talk about false rape allegations also. In 2005/6 in the UK, rape convictions accounted for just over 5%. Some 336 convicted rapists in a population of some 56 million. And feminists will convince you rape is an epidemic sweeping the communities! One could argue some men escaped justice? Some men were wrongly convicted? Consider also how a plethora of incentives now exist for women to claim rape, entwined with a responsibility free opt out clause if proven to be lying. It's a win win situation for such conniving women. Risk free! So why not play such a beneficial game?

Ok, back to domestic violence.

No, I'd like to ask her (Cath Elliot) why the lesbian community "mostly" ignores the fact that the highest prevalence of DV actually occurs amongst those women (radical feminists) who are the most vocal about mens domestic violence, yet remain silent en masse regarding something practically all have witnessed, experienced or inflicted upon other women.

Why the decades of mass silence?

It's as if feminists are so fanatically enveloped and fixated in their hatred of men, and a need to maintain a very lucrative victim culture, those women who are victims of domestic violence within the lesbian community are effectively sacrificed to maintain the illusion of females not being violent.

Heck, if you have a empirical body of evidence which shows lesbian couples to be the predominant violent group per capita, you don't have any males to blame (although fems still desperately try to establish any absurd link to blame a man/men). This destroys the perceived propagandized DV construct which dictates only men are violent, and women only so in self-defense.

It then requires people to look beyond what they have been fed, and realize they have been taken for a fool. Despite a persons political allegiance or subscription to political correctness, people despise being lied to.

The more we can make the lies of feminists transparent regarding not just domestic violence, but just about every subject they have poisoned, the more people will be turned off by their hateful ruinous agenda and contribute to it's "inevitable" demise.

Quote from Celtic Druid

How is it deceptive?

I'm sure she understands what misandry, and therefore in turn what antimisandry means.

I'm sure through her ideologically corrupted filter she's paranoically inferring we are a collective of misogynists who merely adopt a guise of purporting to support antimisandry to cover our real misogynistic intentions.

For the average feminist soundly debating the issues are never required, when you can just lazily stick labels marked sexism, chauvinist and misogyny on anything that disagrees with your flawed world view.

I noticed in her piece she mentioned domestic violence. I won't focus on the abundance of empirical evidence which shows women to be almost equally violent, iniate most violence, are the perpertrators of the predominance of physical abuse against the elderly (elder abuse) and are the biggest physical abusers and murderers of children. Yes, all of these constitute 'domestic violence.'

No, I'd like to ask her why the lesbian community "mostly" ignores the fact that the highest prevalence of DV actually occurs amongst those women (radical feminists) who are the most vocal about mens domestic violence, yet remain silent en masse regarding something practically all have witnessned, experienced or inflicted upon other women.

Why the decades of mass silence?

She calls Antimisandry.com a deceptive title because her own title is deceptive. She projects her own psychological guilt at telling a bold type lie day after day. Her column she callse "Speaking truth..." and she knows that she speaks hate and lies. So she publishes another lie and calls Antimisandry.com "deceptive."

Blessings

Bob

It's a "strawman" argument: set up an exaggerated version of your enemy which can then easily be torn apart.

Balanced reporting? I don't think so.

Women in the blogosphere have found their voice and, whether men like it or not, we are here to stay

The same could be said about men, except that it's far more recently that men have been allowed speak their minds on "gender issues". Feminist-informed political correctness has prevented men speaking their minds.

Furthermore, reversing the content of ther statement, there are many women/feminists who do not welcome the chorus of anti-feminist speech that is beginning to appear online and would love to see us shut up. Preferably by the brute force of Socalist laws - just as feminists control men in other areas. Indeed, I recall some laws being discussed that would put anti-feminism (and elements of anti-womanism that necessarily go along with that) in the league of "hate speech". The truth becomes heresy - just as it did in the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the SCUM Manifesto and other "radical" () feminist dumps of the female psyche go unscrutinised.

I imagine, like most feminists, Ms. Elliots treshold for dissenting opinions is very small. I don't think she'll be examining her own tolerance for men's voices any time soon. No, it's only her opinion that matters. Still, interesting that she popped over to the Antimisandry.com forums in the first place.

The final comment made by "ColouredLady" was very concise and contained the bulk of MRA arguments (i.e. common sense, as opposed to dogma):

"men have the power and women don't"

As SaraB pointed out in her excellent post(s), anyone who has seen family court knows the above statement is complete nonsense. (Perhaps SaraB & I should form a club of women who think men are first and foremost human beings with human rights, rather than just undifferentiated enemies by virtue of their gender. The word "stereotyping" is an understatement.)
Consider in addition:


1. In some developed countries, more than half of the domestic retail spending is done by women. That's power.
2. In some developed countries, more than half the wealth is owned by women. (Men die earlier & widows inherit, etc)
3. Many studies have shown DV against men commonplace but rarely prosecuted. In other words, women can get away with violence against men more easily than the reverse. That's power.
4. Men's health is worse (die earlier), but society is more concerned about women's health. (E.g., in USA rsrch spending on breast cancer is several timesa spending on prostate cancer.) That's power.
5. While no longer a rigid rule, most women still seek to "marry up" while few men do. That's power.
6. In situations of disagreement or divorce, false accusations of dv, child molestation, and so on are commonplace - a "going nuclear" tool women can use but men can't. That's power.


In summary, I think one could make a good argument that "women have the power and men don't".

Short haired dyke feminist. Oh, what a fucking rarity they are eh?

notice that is was "colored lady" and not "blondie" buffie" or "tiffany" who made that point
many women of color are much more reasonable than upper class white women

Quote from trailer park tony montana

notice that is was "colored lady" and not "blondie" buffie" or "tiffany" who made that point
many women of color are much more reasonable than upper class white women

maybe, but I think that's changing (for the worse)

You know you're doing something good when the lesbian sows start squeeling about you. Keep hiting them where it hurts.


Blessings

Bob

A free advert for antimisandry in the Guardian? Never!!!

Quote from Dr David Banner

A free advert for antimisandry in the Guardian? Never!!!

We'll have to see what washes up on our shores as a consequence DB. Nevertheless, it's deliciously ironic.

Hope you are keeping well bro.

And so it begins.

Battle lines are being drawn, reputations staked and opening salvos exchanged.

"This is great! We must really be onto something if they're trying to kill us!"
- Zaphod Beeblebrox, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Episode 2 by Douglas Adams

Quote from KellyMac

Doggone it! Why are comments always closed by the time I get there? She cherry picks comments, and then only the parts that support her sexist, misandrist view.

This thread is from last year 2007 end of November.
However the comments are very interesting to read...

Some of them are either marked as deleted or edited by moderators, and I think many were even never published, but what is still left over shows clearly that many posters do not agree with this woman and her protective view of Julie Bindel, who is a well-known men-hating feminist.

It is good to know, that 'antimisandry.com' made it up to the news... not long time ago, this website would be belittled with a 'big feminist smile' - however it seems, feminists are getting worried, even complaining, that too many men are writing down their opinion about women using the internet.

Congratulation, Anti-Misandry-com, keep up the good work!