The MRA was positing the entirely credible suggestion that western women have become so infested with man-hating, gynocentric entitlement that men would do well to avoid them - no sperm, no genetic future.

RadFemHub is advocating mass genocide, leaving the minimal percentage of men required to live in slave camps to fulfil the nasty jobs that overlordettes deem beneath them.

MRAs are merely suggesting the witholding money and sperm from western women until they can cut a better deal. Radfems are suggesting concentration camps, massacre and bloodshed. There is a vast gulf of difference between these two positions, as well you know.

MRAs would long to have an honest discussion with feminists, but we are always met with this kind of willful obfuscating of the issues. Men are talking back, and feminists can only respond with their usual grab bag of schoolgirl antics - lies, arrogance and snark. If that's all you've got, then I suggest that now would be a good time to panic. It won't hold back the changing tide for long.

Gay men like men, support men, identify as men, because we are men. More and more of us are supporting our straight brothers demanding to know why male pain is dismissed with the kind of ridicule so apparent in these articles. Do the men in your lives know how much you despise them? I hope that none of them ever need to rely on you for anything. May God have mercy on your sons.

"No, avoiceformen is against "social conservatism and traditional roles" - but veers totally off course by blaming feminists/women for their continuation, whilst simultaneously also blaming feminism for destroying families/the middle classes/the role of the father (a traditional role)."

No, there is no contradiction here - if you would stop and do a bit of thinking. The contradiction here is largely in your own mind. Ally Fogg comes perilously near to admitting as much - only he doesn't seem to realize what he has almost said.

In Mary Wollstonecraft's VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, she talks about how important it is to come to terms with the traditional belief that women have an excess of "sensibility" in relation to men, but not enough capacity for "rational thought" (which is why there's no point in giving women the same educational opportunities as men). Of course, Wollstonecraft doesn't like this and argues against this traditional belief about what is the proper province of a woman versus the proper province of a man. It all comes down to the issue of "sensibility."

To quote from the Wikipedia's entry:

"In the 18th century, sensibility was a physical phenomenon that came to be attached to a specific set of moral beliefs. Physicians and anatomists believed that the more sensitive people's nerves, the more emotionally affected they would be by their surroundings. Since women were thought to have keener nerves than men, it was also believed that women were more emotional than men.[10] The emotional excess associated with sensibility also theoretically produced an ethic of compassion: those with sensibility could easily sympathize with people in pain. Thus historians have credited the discourse of sensibility and those who promoted it with the increased humanitarian efforts, such as the movement to abolish the slave trade.[11] But sensibility also paralyzed those who had too much of it; as scholar G. J. Barker-Benfield explains, "an innate refinement of nerves was also identifiable with greater suffering, with weakness, and a susceptibility to disorder"."

Now, obviously modern feminists would agree with Wollstonecraft about the importance of educating women, giving them access to all the same books and educational subjects as men. Who would seriously argue against that? However, the problem that's arisen is that mainstream victim feminists, who are now ubiquitous in society, and are given platforms in all the major media outlets as well as government, talk out of both sides of their mouth on every issue.

On the one hand, they insist that women can do all the same things a man can - but then, when a woman commits a crime, they're quick to support pseudo-scientific nonsense like the Battered Wife Syndrome - which, translated into Wollstonecraft's terminology, means they're REALLY saying - wait for it - women (the poor dears!) DO suffer from an excess of "sensibility" after all! On the one hand they blame and vilify men, on the other hand they're all too willing to resort to age-old stereotypes about the "sensibility" of women, that renders them unable to be held to certain standards of conduct that men are always expected to adhere to.

We know for a fact that men and women batter and abuse each other at about equal rates - yet there is no Battered Husband Syndrome - only a Battered Wife Syndrome which derives its influence in the courtroom PRECISELY from the fact that it resorts to age-old "traditional" beliefs about women - the very SAME beliefs Mary Wollstonecraft considered restricting, reductive, overly simplistic, and even at times pathological. ONLY a resort to reductive "traditionalism" and sexual stereotyping could have led so many self-proclaimed feminists to support and defend the loathsome likes of the psychopathic Lorena Bobbitt or Mrs. Ahluwalia who cold-blooded plotted her husband's murder by researching how to create a napalm-like substance, waited till he was asleep, then doused him with the substance and lit him on fire. He burned to death in total agony, the woman resorted to the Battered Wife ploy, and got off with only a couple years behind bars. Then Cherie Blair gave her a medal - for bravery! For exposing the "truth" about domestic violence and "fighting back"! Can you imagine any man being lauded as a hero for deliberately burning his wife to death, gloating over it, justifying it? Even though the stats are CLEAR: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A TWO-WAY STREET.

In other words, victim feminists are hypocrites: they DO resort to perpetuating "traditional" beliefs about the sexes WHEN IT ADVANTAGES WOMEN - it's only when "traditional" beliefs DISADVANTAGE women that they cry foul. They are wildly inconsistent in the beliefs they espouse.

So, no, there is no inaccuracy in claiming that modern feminists often tend to perpetrate "social conservatism" - for that's EXACTLY what they do! Only they do it selectively, whenever such a strategy would work to their advantage. And the proof of this is that much of what they claim is essential to the nature of Man in contrast to the nature of Woman would've been anathema to a genuinely worthy thinker and writer like Mary Wollstonecraft, whose brand of feminism, 200 years ago, made a great deal of sense, but which has little in common with the poisonously anti-male and wholly irrational brand of feminism peddled throughout the mainstream media and governments today.