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

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.