Numerical Morality

Posted by
Numerical Morality

Is it okay to classify the victims of a crime or a tragedy by one of their natural identities and then ignore them or deny their victimization based on the justification (fact-based or just plain made-up) that the other people possessing that natural identity face that kind of crime or trgedy less frequently? And if you believe this is alright, do you still hold this same view when the opposite class that you're currently supporting is the one that is on the receiving end of the bullet, or does it then start to seem like discrimination? (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

What is 'numerical morality'? This is a special kind of belief in the (supposedly) "moral" values that does not remain constant at all times and for all the people; rather it only kicks in when the person to which it is being applied to under a particular condition belongs to a specific class of people who, as a class, face that condition either above or below a particular percentage value (let's call this number the "morality threshold"). For instance, consider a male person being raped or beaten by a female person. Suppose the statistics of crime (whether based on truth or just on the bigoted redefinitions of the crime to exclude certain class of criminals) in the city, state, or country where the crime happened show that the number of male victims of rape or violence by the female perpetrators (say, 45%) is less than the number of female victims of the same crime committed by the male perpetrators (say, 55%). Then, if you're a person holding a belief in numerical 'morality' with a morality threshold value of 50%, then you'll believe that it's perfectly okay to ignore the mentioned male victim of that crime (or in general all male victims of that crime perpetrated by the females), because 45% is less than 50% (or because 55% is, yet still, more than 50%).

Is numerical morality objective in a moral sense or is it inherently bigoted? Numerical "morality" is really no morality at all. It's a concept taught by the leaders or proponents of a bigoted ideology or worldview to their blind-followers who lack self-thinking. To see why it is not natural, suppose you're walking past a street and chance upon a cop beating up a civilian for no good reason or with excessive brutality (that does happen, frequently). In your ordinary moral sense (which automatically come up when you've never been indoctrinated into believing otherwise), you'll immediately come to the conclusion that what's happening before your eyes is wrong, regardless of the natural identity of the cop or the civilian. If you're logical as well, you'll label this as wrong even if you happen to know the civilian and that civilian is one of your enemies or strong opponent at some viewpoint (something similar to, "I disagree with your opinion but I'll fight till death for your right to express it"). If, on the other hand, right after seeing what's happening in front of your eyes, your first thought of labeling it wrong or right is to start looking for a particular kind of natural identity of the civilian being beaten up and then comparing it with a particular percentage value, then that is not natural because you need those numbers to justify your moral position (even the sources of which can be questionable and prejudiced), and to justify why you took only a specific kind of natural identity (or a set thereof) into account, you need to have been enrolled into a school of that particular thought. In other words, for taking that kind of stance, you must have been indoctrinated by the bigots holding a particular view that justifies any and all harassment against a particular class of human beings. Clearly, this view is inherently bigoted.

Are people holding a view of numerical morality hypocrites too? Sometimes they're not, most often they are. If you're a person holding the view of numerical morality, how do you determine whether you're a hypocrite as well? Here's a test. Reconsider the above example of the male victim of a crime where you determine that it's alright to ignore him because 45% is less than 50%. Now, consider another scenario, that of a war on a border where the soldiers are fighting and dying for your country. There are female soldiers and there are male soldiers. Historically, almost 100% (e.g., 99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties, and similar numbers for other countries and for all the times) of the war casualties and deaths have been the male soldiers. In our example too, suppose the situation is typical and most of the people being injured are male. Since the male casualty rate is so much higher (well above your moral threshold), according to you, it must be perfectly fine to ignore the injured female soldiers altogether and care only for the male ones. If it is so, you have a sense of numerical morality (whose moral compass keep looking at the statistics and reverses itself as soon as the numbers cross the moral threshold) but you're not a hypocrite (that's the only good thing about you w.r.t. this subject). If, however, this time you change your stance and start looking for other, supposedly "deeper", rationalizations for that stance (most probably a result of your indoctrination and of blind faith in your bigoted overlords), well, you're a hypocrite.

What problems does a numerical morality create? None as long as it's just those people's viewpoint and type of thinking, and doesn't impact others. For example, you can be a teacher who is against a particular religion but as long as you do not discriminate against your students based on their religious background, it's no problem. After all, you have the freedom of having your own views. However, the numerical morality creates all kinds of problems when it gets written into the law, because then the people can no longer be treated as equals, and are classified and accordingly treated based on their particular natural identities.

I don't want to be someone with a numerical morality. What should I do? Start thinking with your own brain rather than following the bigots. Identifying those bigots that are indoctrinating you is a good starting point.


End of the document.

Is It Men or Women Who are Oppressed

Posted by
Is It Men or Women Who are Oppressed

There are many a feminist who scoff at the notion that the MRA's paint men as an oppressed class. This is a simple and short attempt at looking into what's probably going inside these feminists' minds. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

What feminists say. One of the core belief of the ideology of feminism is that men, as the members of the "oppressor" class, cannot be oppressed by definition, no matter what is done to them. And women, as being the victims of a system called "the patriarchy", are by definition victims, no matter what they do. The feminists follow and adhere to these principles, as these are the life-blood of their belief system. Therefore, the feminists view anything bad happening to the men, however severe, as insignificant. Similarly, they neglect anything bad done by the women, no matter how severe. As such, when they deny the problems faced by the men or the wrongdoings performed by the women, they're merely uttering what they've been taught to utter like a prayer.

How can a feminist do that? Well, this is a question for the normal human beings like you and me, with a normally functioning brain. Normal human beings are capable of using their brains to look at something and of coming to their own conclusions. This is what sets us apart from the bots or machines, which merely take instructions and mindlessly follow them step by step. Feminists, on the other hand, have damaged (or, perhaps more accurately, feminism-poisoned) brains, which make them incapable of thinking with their own minds. They're indoctrinated bots, whose mere function is to carry out the instructions that have been fed into their brains. As such, they're insensitive and non-thinking creatures (like all other machines are), and such people are perfect at making repeated ready-made statements they've learned (just like a software showing messages like "Are you sure?", "OK", "Cancel", etc). Because that's all they're capable of. (Have you ever seen a feminist come up with some productive invention? Being the "pinnacle of women's empowerment", you'd think at least one of them must have created something useful to the world? Well, no. Which proves that their minds are full of... feminism.)

Why would a feminist do that? Being incapable of any rational or logical thinking, full of hatred and jealousy toward the male sex, and indoctrinated with the simple-minded 'theories' like the Patriarchy, it's natural that the feminists can neither do something productive to earn their livelihood (which is problematic as described ahead), nor can they suck up to a capable man for that (which is okay as that doesn't create a problem for anyone else). Like anyone else, feminists need and like money. But as they're incapable of earning it for themselves, what do they do? Simple. What does a thief do? What does a mugger do? What does a corrupt politician do? Well, these people use dishonest means to get their hands at the other people's hard-earned money. Some of these people (like the thieves) are recognized as bad, both socially and legally. Some others (like many a corrupt politician) are recognized as dishonest by the society but not legally (in fact, they create our laws). In any case, most of these people are either incapable of doing something productive, or are too lazy to pursue the hardships that they'd have to face by following a path of honesty, or are not satisfied with the little money that the honest path may bring them. So they choose the 'shady' path, which is quick and easy, albeit maybe with some legal risks for some of these 'professions' (but totally risk-free, and actually rewarding, for some others). This becomes easier if you already have that sort of company (someone growing up in a bad neighborhood is more likely to become a 'bad' person).

Now, connect the dots and you can easily see that the feminists have 'devised' a means (known as the professional 'victimhood') to get their hands at other people's money (their 'cause' is always funded from the taxpayers' - that is to say, mostly men's - money). Short version: Paint a class of people (in case of feminists, it's all women) as the victims of another class of people (in case of feminists, it's all men), to be living under danger and oppression all the time, and then demand money and resources to be allocated for them (the feminists) so that they can 'correct' this 'problem' by distributing a part of it to the supposed 'victims'. To not be recognized as bad socially or legally, they need to invent some theories (in case of feminists, it's 'patriarchy', 'rape culture', 'wage gap', and others) and use immense propaganda to shove these theories down everyone's throat. Anyone questioning these 'theories' is shamed by being labeled as 'misogynist' etc. Slowly, as these theories become mainstream and hence the thuggery invented by these dishonest lazy people (that is, feminism) becomes the status quo, to which anyone daring to question is then forcefully silenced. And in such a system, then, the feminists have a constant stream of money flowing toward them for just existing. Like in the case of the inventor of a pyramid scheme, only the initialization takes some effort, and then it's all automatic. All you need is maintain the status quo, that is, the impression that the picture painted and the promises made during the initial phase are still just as true (or even more so).

Ideally, this should question the relevance of these thugs when they've been gobbling the public money for so long and are still claiming the presence of the same (or even higher) level of oppression as was in the beginning. However, mostly it does not - Because for one, the feminist tactics are underhanded (laws and policies being passed without approval from all poilitical parties, use of shaming language to force anyone questioning the constitutionality of the feminist decisions to comply, and censorship to silence the dissent from the less powerful ones - that is the general public). And secondly, the sources of information and knowledge for the public (like the media, and the education system) are either forced by the State to be operated according the feminist rules, or they have to appoint feminists as their policy advisors after the whining of 'victimhood' and discrimination from the feminists. (If you think this is too far fetched, just look at how Facebook and Twitter had to bow to the feminist pressure recently. Facebook now often blocks you from posting anything that questions the lies told by the feminists. The European Union is considering making it illegal to question feminism.) Therefore, the feminist propaganda goes unchecked, and is believed by the common people as they have no popular source that questions or disproves it.

Enter the MRM and things started to change, much like what happens when you switch on a torch in a basement full of cockroaches. The claims made by the MRM are based on what's actually happening, and not on some sort of 'theory' that categorises people as good and bad based upon their natural identity. The truth about the men's actual condition become clear when fair-minded people with a functioning and thinking brain consider the claims made by the MRM- Much like what happens when the tactics of a corrupt politician get exposed. The realization that even men are human beings, have feelings, and can have problems just like women, is poison to the theory of Patriarchy, and the whole base of feminism shakes and crumbles when this theory gets challenged. If the feminist theory gets a wide-enough criticism as being a hateful propaganda that paints a group of people in a negative light for existing in their natural identity, the house of cards that the feminist thugs have constructed with great care would start to fall. Which means the feminists would be out of job; and not only that but will be exposed for the hateful scum they are for all to see and disgust. You can easily see how urgent it is for the feminists to stop this from happening, especially as they continue to pour more and more of their wickedness and male-hatred into the law and extract more and more of public money through the government coercion of the common men. The more crimes you commit, the more serious the consequences if you're caught, the more disgust people would have for you when you get exposed, and therefore, the more severe are your attempts at maintaining your mask that hides your crimes. That is why the feminists try their best to discredit anyone showing any concern for any man who has been a victim of either the feminism (i.e., the Kangaroo Courts, Title IX, Affirmative Action, etc) or of any woman in general (e.g., false rape accusation, female-perpetrated DV or other kinds of physical violence including murder, workplace sexual harassment, etc).

So, are men the victims now? Are women no longer the victims? If, on your own or after reading through the above, you think this question is redundant and ridiculous, congratulations. You're a normal human being having a functioning brain capable of thinking. If, on the other hand, you think this is a legitimate question, then seriously, are you a feminist? You think a particular group of people have the sole ownership of 'victimhood' and all members of that group have to be victims by definition? And that people from outside that group cannot be victims? Well, go get a functioning brain (and a life). Femtard.


End of the document.

International Men's Day (IMD)

Posted by
International Men's Day (IMD)

The 19th November of every year is supposed to be the International Men's Day (IMD), and a reminder to the people that men are good. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

Introduction. The International Men's Day (IMD), which falls on the 19th November of every year, is important in that, it aims at changing the negative stereotypes about the men and masculinity that are so prevalent in the society today. Men and boys in almost all countries face problems just for being born as members of the male sex, and their problems are largely ignored by the society as well as the governments. People have a kind of thinking that if a male person is facing difficulties, he must have deserved it, even when the problem is systematic and codified in the law. The IMD reminds people of the men's positive contributions to the society and to their families and friends.

Aims of the IMD. The International Men's Day is based on the following 6 egalitarian pillars:

  1. To promote positive male role models; not just movie stars and sports men but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives.
  2. To celebrate men's positive contributions to society, community, family, marriage, childcare, and to the environment.
  3. To focus on men's health and well-being; social, emotional, physical, and spiritual.
  4. To highlight discrimination against males; in areas of social services, social attitudes and expectations, and law.
  5. To improve gender relations and promote gender equality.
  6. To create a safer, better world; where people can be safe and grow to reach their full potential.

What can I do? This page lists some great ideas. In general, anything that promotes a positive image of men and masculinity, or challenges a negative stereotype about men and masculinity, or helps men and boys achieve better health and education (these are some of the areas in which they're falling behind) and equal rights, is a worthy undertaking and a great contribution toward achieving the IMD's goals.


End of the document.

Stop Violence Against Men (SVAM) - Beginning

Posted by
Stop Violence Against Men (SVAM) - Beginning

Today, 2013/09/01, is the beginning of a new campaign - Stop Violence Against Men (SVAM). The first day of every month is supposed to be a SVAM Day, and a reminder to the people that violence against men is just as wrong as against anybody else. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

Introduction. The Stop Violence Against Men (SVAM) Day, which is the first day of every month, is important in that, while men make up the vast majority of victims of violence, nobody cares about reducing this violence and no money is spent by the government to do anything to reduce it, whereas billions of dollars across the world are poured annually into campaigns to try to reduce the amount of violence against women. In other words, whereas women have the matriarchy (the government) to care about every single one of their issues, men have only themselves (in fact the feminist governance is not even neutral or indifferent toward the men - it's extremely anti-male).

Reason for the SVAM. The double standards of the government controlled bodies is apparent from this simple example (which is representative of the general pattern): The KFC Hotshot Bite ad (which depicts and promotes violence against men) was approved but the CougarLife ad (which depicts far lower level of violence against women, that too at the hands of another woman), or the Slap Hillary game (which depicts violence against only a cartoon of one woman) was banned / not approved.

However, when some fair-minded people objected to it and raised awareness about this gross inequality, the KFC had to take down the misandric ad, which was a win for the men's rights (but, of course, without any government support). It is, therefore, necessary that, in the wake of the government indifference, people who believe in equality act on their own to bring awareness about reducing the violence against men. Unapologetically. There are bigots who will be opposed to the very idea, or try to mock it, or co-opt it by trying to make it more inclusive (by including women). These hypocrite thugs can be ignored or mocked in return, as they typically never object to the similar campaigns that seek to end violence against women.

What can I do? To achieve its goal, the campaign must have an enormous effect. Everyone needs to put a little effort and the sum total becomes a large impact. Add to that impact every month, so more and more people will become aware and give a thought about the violence facing the ignored gender. An added benefit is sorting of hypocrites: Since no reasonable person can object to the idea of reducing violence against anyone (against even men), anyone protesting to the campaign or opposing it would immediately out itself as the bigot, and an idiotic one at that. In short, it is not a campaign that can be effectively opposed. To promote it, please mention the campaign in your tweets, Facebook status updates, on your blog, in your comments, and elsewhere. Raise a few heads. Make a little change. That's all. Every month, more and more people are going to hear about Stop Violence Against Men Day. And that is huge.


End of the document.

Fiona - The Feminist by Lana Voreskova

Posted by
Fiona - The Feminist by Lana Voreskova

In the presented series of stories by Lana Voreskova, Fiona is a character representing what is considered a typical feminist woman - An angry, illogical person who thinks of everything in terms of men's evil, women's victimhood, and patriarchal oppression. She blames the males even for her own choices. Enjoy the humorous read.
(Note though that unfortunately, Fiona is not at all an exaggeration - Feminists really are like that.)


End of the document.

Fake Men's Sites and Resources

Posted by
Fake Men's Sites and Resources

Here are some websites and other resources that pretend to be for men but are actually either feminist websites (designed to make men feel guilty and turn them into manginas) or paint masculinity and/or male sexuality in a negative light. More items will be added as they're spotted/uncovered. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary.)

  • A Men's Project (AMP). A gynocentric and feminist site that assumes masculinity is bad and needs to be whipped out of males to make them serve females better. Like training dogs to make them good dogs for their owners. It does not focus on men's issues or the systematic discrimination going on against men in the laws and policies. It just treats them as servants for the females. It claims to be against gender roles but still forces the female gender roles on the males (that is, males must stay at home and care for the children). It believes that matriarchy is the new norm and the new men and boys need to adapt themselves to it.
  • Emerge. This is a feminist site that considers all men to be abusive and violent, and all women to be perfectly innocent angels. Men are urged to join the site and learn how they can be better dogs for the women while ignoring any female-to-male violence or abuse, and to make donations for the feminist causes on the Father's Day, etc. The group also organizes training for the men teaching them how to be better (unpaid) bodyguards for the women.
  • Man Boobz (old link). A site run by the infamous quote-miner and uber mangina David Futrelle. Pretends to care about the men's issues but actually just propagates feminism, that too mainly by desperate attempts like quote-mining the manosphere writers (even commenters are not spared). Read about it here.
  • Manhood Academy. Teaches men how to be socially dominant and have great relationship with women (Game theory). It's anti-feminist but doesn't do much in the way of addressing the issues men face. Basically, its primary aim seems to be selling its course material to the men. Some of the MRA's believe it's not a men's rights site, some others have different views. For a clearer understanding, visit the Manhood Academy site yourself and decide for yourself.
  • Men Care. This is a website from UN Women (this very fact means that it's a feminist site, meant to serve its purpose of using men and boys as tools for women's empowerment). The basic stereotype displayed on the site is that, without men engaging in servitude of the women, they're all violent child-beaters who care for nobody. It tells men to always pay respect to women (and not all people) just for being women (while there's no mention of reciprocal respect from any woman to the men, nor can such be found on any other feminist site - from the UN or otherwise; in fact, hating men is considered an honorable act under feminism). Read about it here.
  • Men's Rights Activism. This sarcastically named website criticizes the MRM and promotes feminism.
  • Men's Studies. This is men's only in its name. In reality, it's all about women, their 'issues' (men are the problem), and teaching about how to become a mangina.
  • MVP (Mentors in Violence Prevention). This teaches men that women have the problem and men are the problem, and that the "women's issues" (such as rape, battery, and sexual harassment) are men's responsibility. They provide training for the men to become better dogs for the women, and for the women to infantilize them. (The stated goals on the site on their face value may not look so negative but the devil is in the details.)
  • NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism) is a feminist site (so sexism to them means sexism against females only). This site is all about how all men oppress and objectify all women, and all the time its male and female members ask men (yes, all the men) to apologize to any woman whom they've chosen from anywhere as the latest victim of sexism. In other words, it's simply looking for reasons to belittle and shame (all) men, and masculinity in general.
  • The Gentlemen's Club (TGC). This is a self-described "safe haven" for the male students of the Kennesaw State University (KSU), where men are treated as defective human beings who need to be "fixed". No socialization is allowed to these men outside the club. The founders of the club also treat the MRM sites as "militant". The proceedings of the group are hideous and creepy; it declines the outsiders to record its meetings, but demands the members to consent to monitor their inter-member communications.
  • The Good Men Project (short form: TGMP or GMP). This is a feminist site that assumes that men are inherently faulty/bad and their masculinity and sexuality needs to be redefined according to the feminist principles/standards. Any criticism of feminism is not allowed on the site. Women (and not men) are the main readership group of this laughably irrelevant site, which ridicules and shames men just for being men and tells them that they're inferior to the women. The male writers of this site do not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of even their own sons to prove their faithfulness, utility, and worth to the ideological cause of their slavemasters (feminists). Read about it here.

End of the document.

Uneasy Males by Edward L Gambill (Full Book)

Posted by
Uneasy Males by Edward L Gambill (Full Book)
Note from Robert St Estephe: I've got good news to share. I've come across a superb - yet virtually unknown - book, written by a professional historian, which traces in detail the complex development of the "men's movement" (a category which includes the men's rights movement) in the United States from 1970 to 2000. The author, Edward L Gambill, was professor of history at St Cloud State University, St Cloud, Minnesota. He wrote the book after retirement and passed away at the age of 77 in 2010, five years after its publication.

I'm going to cut to the chase: If you are a serious Men's Human Rights activist or advocate, you need this book. (Full review.)

Uneasy Males is a self-published book, even though the book is written by a professional scholar, with a full biography, containing rare documentation, and bearing a nuanced analysis of the subject it covered. That's because, predictably, the book was not picked up by any publisher.


End of the document.

Short Stories by Dr F (Ian Williams)

Posted by
Short Stories by Dr F (Ian Williams)

Ian Williams (screen name: Dr F) is one great artist and author from Australia who enjoys watching the ideology of feminism die. He adores these times when he sees it begin to lose traction, and for him, the atrophying of that muscle is proof positive that word is getting out questioning its answers. Short stories from his forthcoming book Kidscapes have also appeared on AVfM.
Here are links to some of his stories. Mark the level of perfection and the literary mastery in his work, enhanced by bits of spontaneous humor throughout the text and the deep meaning hidden behind and conveyed through the everyday observations of the human behavior.


End of the document.

The Fraud of Feminism by E Belfort Bax (Full Book)

Posted by
The Fraud of Feminism by E Belfort Bax (Full Book)
Note from AVfM honcho Paul Elam: AVfM is pleased to present one of the seminal works of Men's Human Rights literature on its 100th anniversary of publication...

It is a fascinating piece of work. Perhaps most remarkable about it is that as you read, you will not find yourself so much transformed back to a different age with different modes of thought. But rather you will read observations and conclusions that will, word by word and line by line, be largely indistinguishable from what you would see today from any critical thinker when offering a candid review of the essence of feminism. You will see repeated references to the same shaming tactics, lies, distortions, revisions of history, use of proxy violence, and methods of manipulating the blue pill masses we continually find ourselves discussing today.

The Fraud of Feminism, by E Belfort Bax was first published in 1913. Let us hope the next hundred years see more progress than we did in the first, and let us never say that E Belfort Bax didn't warn us.

The 1913 book "The Fraud of Feminism" by E Belfort Bax is in public domain in the US because it was published before 1923/01/01. It's available on WikiSource. It's also available for download in various formats (Daisy, DJVU, ePub, Kindle's mobi, PDF, and plain-text). Here are links to all the chapters of the book. (See also archive of other writings of Bax.)


End of the document.

Prone to Violence by Erin Pizzey (Full Book)

Posted by
Prone to Violence by Erin Pizzey (Full Book)
Note from AVfM Editor Dean Esmay: We are pleased to have obtained permission to reprint Erin Pizzey's classic book, Prone to Violence, first published in 1982. This book is a must-read on the subject of domestic violence, and is what people from the former Soviet Union would call "samizdat", as the book was subjected to concerted campaigns to make it unavailable for publication or distribution in the UK or United States. Over 30 years ago, gender ideologues were already trying to hide the truth - that men and women are equally prone to violence. Although parts of this book are dated, what's most shocking is how fresh and timely most of it still is: Little has changed in the last 30 years, except that the vast majority of peer reviewed scientific research done since its publication has only bolstered all of Erin's most salient points. When it comes to domestic violence, women and men are about as violent as each other, just in somewhat different ways, and its primary victims are children.

... If you have ever been involved in an abusive relationship with a woman (or man for that matter), you owe it to yourself to read this book. And if you know someone who is, or has been, in such a relationship, you owe it to them to get them to read it.

The 1982 suppressed blockbuster book "Prone to Violence" by Erin Pizzey was so upsetting to the feminists that it resulted in death threats to the author, targeted thefts of the book from the bookstores, and more! Here are links to all the chapters of the book. (Links to the remaining chapters will be added as those chapters are published.)


End of the document.
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)