Retributive Violence Against Women Who Oppose MRA’s is Feminist’s Fault

John Hambling, of A Voice for Men, has told women what to expect, more violence from men. This comes right on the heels of a report of a female Queen’s Uni student being attacked by an MRA for opposing them.

I began predicting that in a culture where the law protected one demographic, but did not govern that group, and where it governed another demographic, without protecting that demographic, a society would adapt. The members of a social caste governed but not protected by law, would begin to seek redress of grievance through other means, such as the use of retributive violence.

Now someone please tell me that AVFM writers doesn’t advocate nor endorse violence. They endlessly

hemblingrapeonthebrain

John Hambling from A Voice For Men

talk about patrolling their commenters for violence and yet post it themselves. It makes me wonder what they consider ‘violence.’ If I’m reading this correctly he seems to be saying that police are governing men but not protecting them. WTH?

Why are women going to be killed? Hambling says that’s what women and feminists really want.

I have made what some might call the hyperbolic claim that gender ideologues (read feminists) advocating the erasure of due process actively want women to be killed.

This is how A Voice for Men and the rest of the Manosphere justify violence against women. Yep, we secretly want men to kill us and therefore the MRA’s will do it. This is why Danielle D’Etremont was attacked by an MRA. There’s nothing left to try and hide, not that they did a good job of hiding it to begin with.

Grievances will be redressed by retributive violence.

That’s how MRA’s are going to solve their problems. Killing and harming women. John is hiding his violent rhetoric behind a ‘theory’ he has had for the last 6 years which in effect tells everyone ‘I told you so.’

Here’s what he has to say about the recent assault by an MRA of Danielle D’Etremont:

If Danielle d’Entremont was actually assaulted, it was almost certainly somebody with a history of her antagonism and abuse, and straightforward intolerant bigotry by d’Entremont driving their assault.

She asked for it. No matter how much Hambling tries to rhetorically trick the reader into thinking he doesn’t endorse violence, he spends more time telling us that it’s going to happen and if it does, the woman provoked it. You know who he thinks is going to violate women? Manginas aka Blue Pillers aka not MRA’s even though he’s the MRA calling for violence as is his AVFM counterparts.

This, by the way, is what feminists want, because it will give urgency and apparent vindication to the feminist threat narrative. That women are a class of perpetual victims. Thus, enabling and allowing greater violence and more violent eradication of basic human rights in service of the “protection” of women. And that will make the problem worse still. Lots of men will be injured and killed as well, obviously, but who cares about that? Men have always been, and will always be the majority of the population weathering society’s violence.

Notice how Hambling doesn’t mention what women need protection from. He took that idea from Warren Farrell, who doesn’t tell us why women need protection nor from who. Could it be other men? MRA’s clearly want to enact violence on women. Next time an MRA bleats that AVFM doesn’t support violence I’ll link people to this.

If you’d like to read some great analysis of the misogynist leader of the MRM that is Warren Farrell then check out this link. It includes quotes from his book ‘The Myth of Male Power.’ The analysis is spot on.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “Retributive Violence Against Women Who Oppose MRA’s is Feminist’s Fault

  1. The old “they brought it on themselves” argument. Can they please stop pretending they’re a “human rights” group? We’ve passed cognitive dissonance and moved into outright insanity ages ago with these folks.

    (P.S. I hope you don’t mind the message I sent you. It seemed like a good idea at the time but I don’t know right now.)

  2. Some people are really really threatened by women sharing space which by the way was never exclusively a man’s space.
    MRM is the most abusive movement that happened in recent times. Sad part is men out there who actually need rights will never benefit from MRM. Good part is feminism will help them 🙂 Coz’ we are egalitarians and not misandrists 🙂

  3. are you serious! no one supports what happened to this woman from the men’s rights movement. but all feminists seem to support canadian law changing to allow women murder their husbands!

    What is all this bull about male tears! this article is saying men’s rights people are hard assholes who condone violence, then if someone says something says something vaguely sitting something approaching looking for sympathy… or even talking about a suffering males endure that feminists support or don’t care about it’s “cry me a river” or talk of “drinking his tears”.

    You do know this is a major part of why people hate feminists, why hypocrisy and no ability to back up a point, are all feminist traits! ?

    You actually have a group, just to bitch about men’s right groups! that is pathetic, and why would anyone bother reading it? except to study the insanity that is feminism and increasingly seem more than that, a part of the female mind. Everything here, as with feminism, has no mystery on what it will say, all men are bad and all women are victims.

    Every time. Does that never strike you as a bit messed up?

    • Explain to me the inferior female mind you’re so fond of telling us all about. I suspect some evopsych Farrellesque bullshit will magically appear soon.
      Male tears. I’m drinking them.

  4. p.s. saying something, from a societal and historical stand, will end in violence, does not condone violence. Apply that same logic to find violence in feminism… you don’t have to “kill all men” says it pretty directly… but you can use equally convoluted logic to say that is not a threat of violence.

    That is a double standard used to achieve a result. But it doesn’t receive that result with people who can see it, which should be most people, but not the indoctrinated.

  5. Pingback: Rivers of Blood Part One | Mancheeze

  6. Pingback: The Response to the Santa Barbara Massacre Demonstrates Men’s Degree of Culpability in Culturally Entrenched Male Violence Against Women and Girls | The Wise Woman Speaks

  7. Pingback: Patriarchy Pervades all Spaces | The Unstated Assumption

  8. Pingback: Patriarchy Pervades all Spaces | On Power

  9. Pingback: CBC Radio Interview Exposes CAFE’s Justin Trottier’s Dishonesty | Mancheeze

Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s