The End of Women

While feminists have long talked about ending female dependancy on men by taking over men’s roles and using IVF to reproduce, have these feminists unwittingly sown the seeds of their own sex’s destruction?

Eliminating Men

Feminist perspectives on men have generally been that men are superfluous, not only that, but if men weren’t around so many of the world’s problems such as war, greed and hunger just wouldn’t exist.  Even though every female leader in history has gone to war (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Elizabeth I, Catherine the great and many others) or committed atrocities (Queen “Bloody” Mary, Catherine de Medici).  But facts are irrelevent, what matters is how it feels.  It doesn’t matter that men are committing suicide in ever increasing numbers, more women feel like committing suicide.  It doesn’t matter that men are getting murdered and assaulted three times more often then women are, women don’t feel safe.  It doesn’t matter that men are sicker than women in every measure of health and wellbeing, women don’t feel like they’re doing better.  It doesn’t matter that men have always given the sweat from their brows and the blood from their veins to protect and provide for women, women don’t feel loved.  If one could summarise the feminist movement in one six word sentence it would be, “feminists feel that women are oppressed.”

The website,, presents what appears to be facts about girls being better than boys, but also that boys are inherently oppressive and destructive.  The stated goal of this website is to correct an imbalance in expectant fathers (but not mothers) wanting a boy rather than a girl because this supposed sexism might harm girl’s self-esteem.  Apart from the fact there is no evidence that girls suffer from lower self-esteem than boys, apart from the fact that there are no reliable statistics about what expectant fathers want their child to be, apart from the fact that expectant mothers might also want a daughter twice as much as a son, apart from the fact that replacing ‘girl’ with ‘white’ and ‘boy’ with ‘black’ reveals this is hate speech, apart from the fact that this isn’t a serious problem, however which way you look at it, apart from all this: the “facts” and testimonies on the website are all fiction.  Yes.  Just because it feels right is justification for spreading hateful propaganda of boys and men through negative stereotypes of boys and positive stereotypes for girls.  A girl’s sense of self-esteem isn’t likely to be hurt by her father hoping for a boy, the typical girl is tough enough to weather that kind of psychological insult without injury, however, a whole website tearing boys apart and telling them they aren’t as valuable as girls will damage a boy.

Promotes negative stereotypes of boys for a "good" cause. Substitute "white" for "girl" and "black" for "boy" to see the hate clearly

It begs the question, do feminists really want to eliminate men?  Here are some quotes from famous and prominent feminists about men.  Not simply bad men, but men in general:

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
— Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
— Andrea Dworkin

“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
— Catherine MacKinnon

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”
— Sally Miller Gearhart

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”
–Mary Daly

“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”
— Marilyn French

“Parthenogenesis* as a viable reproductive reality; in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man.”
— Andrea Dworkin

* Parthenogenesis is reproduction without males.

The Challenge For Women

These feminists are very clear, the goal is to eliminate men or at least reduce their numbers so that they’re firmly under female domination.  This shouldn’t be too hard for women to do, since the bulk of the reproductive apparatus is located in their bodies.  Since women control their own bodies and their bodies contain most of the reproductive apparatus, women essentially control the means of reproduction in society.  With free and easily accessible abortion women can simply choose to abort male fetuses and produce an over supply of women.  If they wanted to.  So far women on mass have chosen not to eliminate men even though it is within their power already to do so.

Thanks to IVF women could harvest the sperm from a few men to supply the world’s women with the sperm they needed.  Although synthetic sperm would be a massive technological undertaking, packing a few men into battery changes and breeding them for their sperm is straight forward and all that would be required.

However, reproducing was never going to be the problem for the women.  The problem for the women was going to be the technical, mechanical, scientific and surgical skills of men who would make this possible and to make life at all possible.  Men have always been the protectors and providers for women.  From protecting them from lions, tigers and bears a million years ago, to protecting them from spiders, mice and cockroaches today.  From providing them with food and shelter to providing them with money, food, shelter and billions of useless items.  It is no wonder that the Greek word for mother, “mater”, is the same word we get “material” and consequently “materialism” from.  With three quarters of shops dedicated to selling things to women, it’s a no-brainer to see who the materialistic sex is.  If men have a problem with women, it’s not because they objectify them, it’s because they worship them.

Hence feminism has driven women into the workforce, even into the armed forces, police and fire brigade, in the hopes that the women can replace men for their protective and providing role.  If women can pull this off, then eliminating men is on the cards.

Eliminating Women

It might look, at least if you’re a feminist, if the situation is dire for men.  Women are like the Queen ant in a nest with the men slavish workers for her every need: feeding, protecting and providing for her.  Without her, the workers are nothing.  However, without the workers (men), the Queen is also dead.  It is not a parasitic relationship at all: it is a mutualistic relationship of equal but differently skilled members of the same community.  That’s right folks: men + women = a community.

However, men are increasingly feeling unsatisfied with women: High divorce rates, double standards in the judicial system and unrealistic restrictions on the male sex drive: men are increasingly looking for ways to live without having to deal with needy vain materialistic feminist women with entitlement complexes.  So let’s meet the sex robot:

Sex robots will become more sophisticated over time and will be programmed to meet men’s every need, physically and emotionally.  Sure, women will laugh and shame men for having sex with a machine, but those women don’t matter to men anymore because the men are getting sex and care from a machine: they no longer need female approval anymore.  So complain all you like, the men don’t care.

With their sexual needs met, the men now need to worry about reproduction.  I’ll leave you to google “artificial wombs” so you can see for yourself.  The artificial womb, is already almost a reality, so is growing human ovaries in test tubes.  Artifical sperm is not even close.  Even if all the women in the world dropped dead today, there would still be enough time to perfect the artifical womb and continue a society populated solely by men and robotic women.

The male dependency on women for reproduction will end soon.

Who is Most Likely to Succeed?

The women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them.  The real question now is, will men, once the artifical womb is perfected, want to keep women around?  If women treat them with appreciation and respect, I think men will chose biological love over machine love any day.   However, if this climate of misandry and feminist double standards continues to grow it will only be a matter of time before men, using their natural talents for invention, will replace women.  The bottom line is that men don’t need women’s help to replace women, but the women still need men’s help to replace men.

The really important question is: when will we outgrow this pathetic infantile battle of the sexes?  This hateful bitching from feminists with their fantasies of patriarchy, male privilege and systemic gendered violence against women must stop.  This psychological cold war against boys and men must be challenged and opposed at every turn.  Men need women as much as women need men.  Telling women they don’t need men is a recipe for social disaster.   No man was ever told he didn’t need women.  Let men be men, stop trying to control them, otherwise you’ll just give men a reason to replace women and the fact is, feminists know full well that men are smart and determined enough to pull it off successfully.

Further Reading

Feminism: A Tale Full of Sound and Fury (

A Voice for Men

The Spearhead

Man Woman Myth

Anti Misandry

Angry Harry

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Beliefs, Morals, Gender issues, Health, Medicine, Science, Technology

Author:Jason Sutherland

Resist the temptation to assume that you're always right or wrong. Never succumb to thinking you're so insignificant to trust your own thoughts and feelings. Always be responsible and listen carefully to others before passing judgement. Don't trust governments bearing stolen goods.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

53 Comments on “The End of Women”

  1. Saint Just
    February 5, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    There’s a lot going on in that article and maybe too many issues at once.
    On eliminating men…
    Sometimes I wonder what hurt or backstory is behind such hate fuelled rage at an entire group of the population. Maybe the next time a tall person keys my car, I’ll call for a vendetta on all tall people.
    On needing men…
    I think you’re missing that people ‘need’ to ‘want’ stuff. I don’t need stereo. But I want one. I don’t need a holiday, car, ice cream, DVD’s but I want them.
    People probably don’t need relationships, but will always want them. They’re fun, hurtful, exhilarating, scaring, exciting, dull – and that’s probably just on a Monday.
    In a world of 999,999 men and 1 woman on a desert island, I would crawl through a tunnel of broken vinegar bottles in a hepatitis factory to get to the petrol station to fill my car to get to the ticket office for the next boat. And I reckon a few women would do the same.

    • February 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

      The article is response to feminist claims that men are unnecessary. It takes the same rethoric they used and turns it straight back at them. The whole point is to point out how ridiculous it all is.

      Children need to want things, growing up is about letting go of that self-centred megalomaniacal control freak inside every child and becoming an adult.

      I actually could not back head nor tail of what you wrote afterwards regarding the deserted island with a 1,000,000 people on it.

      • Saint Just
        February 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm #

        On second read, it was ambiguous. The 999,999 men are on the mainland. The 1 women is on the island.

        • February 5, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

          Ok, I get that’s she’s a woman, and that’s great. But when you stand back and look at the situation aren’t there more important things in life than being the first to screw her? That woman would probably be the most powerful and least powerful person in the world at the same time. The whole world would revolve around her but everything she said or did would cause bloodshed and misery. This highlights that until men seize control of their reproductive urges, which porn helps them to do this, then they will be slaves to women and their own instincts to worship and protect them.

          Someone very wisely pointed out to me this morning that the frustration feminists feel towards men is the same frustration that men feel towards women they are dependent on emotionally. Part of human nature is resenting dependency on other people. This starts around the teenage years when children stop being content with being looked after and start getting frustrated with their parents because they’re still dependent on them. The problem is that the feminists can’t see that the men are suffering too, so they conclude that men are happy and that they must be the reason why women feel unhappy. Why feminists can’t see men’s pain, well that’s the million dollar question.

        • Kathy
          May 15, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

          Like Smurfette.

    • mensvoices
      February 6, 2012 at 8:54 am #

      On needing/wanting men.

      Actually, every society that has progressed beyond living in grass huts and figuring out that you can’t eat rocks has been built, and for as long as it exists, is maintained, by men.

      A lot of people don’t actually realize this. The entire physical infrastructure of the world we inhabit is maintained entirely by the power of men – either men’s physical strength or their technical genius in manipulating nature.

      Just look out over any city of your choice and you will see buildings designed, put there and maintained by men, with running water and electricity available throughout thanks to an immensely complex system of underground pipes and wires – all designed, put there and maintained by men. And so on for everything you see.

      Do women ‘need’ men? Not on a personal level, no, because they can get everything they need from the state – necessary for their survival, in a lot of cases, since they abandoned marriage. They switched to the ultimate alpha male, Big Husband Government.

      And how does Big Husband Government provide to his harem of welfare queens? Where do his resources come from?

      Right – from taxing the private sector. Which employs mostly men.

      I think it’s more the case that a lot of women need, but don’t want, men. It is difficult to see how women, collectively, would survive without men, collectively. The opposite is not true.

      • February 6, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

        But if there’s no women, who’d be having the babies and nursing them? I know a lot of women,particularly feminists, would get pissed with me saying that. I’m sure they would say some bullshit about me objectifying women and reducing their value purely to economic terms. But tantrums aside, that’s the cold hard reality of life right there.

        My personally opinion is that there is no need for animousity between the sexes, it’s just plain stupid. But if the feminists (or masculinists for that matter) are going to foment distrust, disunity and animosity between men and women where it isn’t needed or wanted; then they need to have a good look at those IQ bell curves because men produce 4 tunes more super geniuses than women do.

    • asdfasdf
      October 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

      Yet you probably won’t even approach one in real life, instead expecting them to approach you and then complaining that he did it wrong.

  2. February 5, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Your argument would carry more weight if the feminists you cherry picked quotes from weren;t a bunch of retrograde nutjobs (Solanas) or extremists (McKinnon). Using them as an example of today’s feminism is nonsense. Your average Cosmo-loving princess feminist has never heard of Dworkin and would be horrified by her in any case. Also, how do women eliminate men en masse? Screening for the sex of the child is illegal even in the third world, in theory, and what fetuses are aborted are generally female and at the behest of the mothers scared of not producing sons. That’s in a global sense. I get the feeling you’re arguing mostly about first world women here.
    Fair point on the hope it’s a girl website however. Crock of shit.

    • February 5, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

      I think you’ll find Solanas and McKinnon are alive and well in many Gender Studies courses around the world. Which is a pity, I believe gender studies could be a very valuable contribution to human knowledge if it weren’t institutionalised misandry. Also, spend some time on any feminist blog and it won’t be long before you discover that man hate is what most feminists actually write about because they just don’t have the statistics or research to back up any of their claims about men, violence and history. Sites like aren’t unusual. Here’s some more:

      I do mostly refer to first world women, but there are growing men’s movements around the world, particularly in India. Considering the majority of my audience are first worlders I think that’s entirely appropriate.

      • k8
        June 4, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

        Let’s be fair; women actually have reasons to complain in India. They get married off regularly before puberty and they have no rights if their husbands are nasty and violent towards them. It also seems to be scarily common to get raped randomly in public by large groups of men.

        • June 4, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

          My Indian friends beg to differ. The situation is quite different and more complicated there.

        • Amfortas
          June 4, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

          Racism and misandry. Want to go for a trifecta?

    • mensvoices
      February 6, 2012 at 7:21 am #

      My previous post hasn’t gone through.

      So again, abridged version.


      See A Voice for Men series on Australia by Kyle Lovett. These people are creating gender legislation in Australia. Dworkin and Solanas etc. pale to the retrograde nutjob feminists of today. And these are the powerful feminists, not a lunatic fringe. Earnest college feminists might not be genocidal but they have no power.

      • February 6, 2012 at 7:53 am #

        Wow… Those bitches be crazy…

        “gyn exam turned into a lecture about how I must tell my “boyfriend” about my HPV “condition” lest said boyfriend be “infected”.”

        It was line after line of all men say and do is wrong: death to all men. I can’t believe that bitch has a boyfriend but she’s willing to endanger him and potentially other women by not warning him about her HPV infection. Thanks for the links.

        • gwallan
          February 6, 2012 at 6:58 pm #


          I’m a board member within CASA, the rape crisis network in Victoria. That network is unique globally as a statewide service which is inclusive of all victims and is doing groundbreaking work as a consequence. That inclusive nature and, possibly, the network itself is under threat because of federal Labor. If they have their way boys and men will be totally locked out which is already the case through most of Australia. My dream of spreading CASA’s approach beyond Victoria is in tatters.

          I would add that CASA became inclusive about ten years ago ONLY because of the extraordinary efforts of a number of individuals within the network and in spite of feminist and state Labor government interference.

          • February 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

            When Julia Gillard said she was going to fund the school chaplaincy program and expand it. I knew then, whatever the outcome of the election, we were screwed. She hasn’t got a scrupple in her body. She’d sell out anyone and everyone for power. She’s not a leader, she’s a puppet master.

            • gwallan
              February 6, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

              I should point out that my active association with the ALP goes back to the sixties. My family has a lengthy history within the party and has produced MPs and senior union and Trades Hall officials. I’ve developed a deep sense of betrayal only over the past few of years largely because I began to realise the depths of their sexism.

              However I’ve supported Gillard to the point of prefering her when they originally elected Rudd as leader. Rudd’s a carbon copy of the bastard who went before him. Gillard didn’t lose me until she denounced Assange.

              Of the women in federal Labor Gillard is probably the least feminist. She didn’t come through the Emily’s list mentoring like most of the others. Her background is union and industrial law rather than the womens’ movement. She’s the type of women who’d rather have a beer with the blokes than a w(h)ine with the girls.

              As for Labor the betrayal of their origins and heartland is almost complete. They had a hundred year celebration recently. I looked at an exhibit of old photos and all you could see were the massed faces of working class family men. Today’s Labor doesn’t view men as a part of the family or the community.

              • February 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

                Lol… Thatcher said her greatest achievement was forcing the Labor party to reinvent itself. By moving manufacturing job overseas, lowering trade barriers (FREE TRADE!) and opening immigration to cheap foreign labour. The conservative elites out played the Labor party, their only comeback was to marry feminism.

                The words ‘nationalism’, ‘discipline’ and ‘man’ are all taboo now. So long as the great mass of people associate them with ‘racism’, ‘oppression’ and ‘rapist’ voting is only going to be a formality. One can’t even sit in the pub these days and play “devil’s advocate” without ones mates shutting one down for thought crime. They couldn’t control us at the polling boths, so they moved into our communities, homes and relationships. Until free man can think and speak again, he ain’t free.

  3. Amfortas
    February 5, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    ‘Mater’ comes from the Latin for Mother, not from Greek. ‘Material’ comes from the Old French, ‘materiel’, stuff made. The roots of the words are different.

    Your arguement is sound without making such errors. The tone was overblown just a little. Your writing is good but if you are to take a place in the Men’s Rights Movement, it is best to find a solid place, with rational, truthful and balanced messages. You seem to be well on your way, Sir. Good to hear you speaking out.

    • February 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

      Oh dear, did I fall for a folk etymology. You’re right it is Latin, not Greek. However, it does say mater –> material in Wikitionary (, but your version does have more logic to it.

      I’ve got a series of articles lined up for 2012 on men’s issues. I’ll be taking them one at time, however, the amount of effort needed to research and write these articles means that the easier ones, like this one, which is more a novelty piece because it brings attention to the issue come out at the top of the pile more often.

      • Amfortas
        February 5, 2012 at 9:51 pm #


        I still give a solid 8/10

        • February 5, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

          Thanks 🙂

          I just found a forum full of people praising one of my articles. Feeling pretty special right now.

  4. Amfortas
    February 5, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    Hel, in response, McKinnon is a professor of law and therefore not simply a nutjob but a very influential one who has ‘educated (agitpropped) two generations of young professional women.

  5. February 6, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    That alien baby womb sculpture looks awfully loving and cuddly.

    • February 6, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

      Something I wanted to say, but I didn’t want to over complicate the article. Artificial wombs are not likely to be healthy for human babies unless they take into account the fetus’ needs for touch, auditory and other sensory needs while in utero. The baby’s nervous system is unlikely to develop normally if these factors aren’t managed.

      • Omega
        February 6, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

        Artificial wombs (Ectogenesis), growth of embryos in an external flask: to lift the danger, risk of natural pregnancy, provide healthier offspring, correct genetic errors, and “improve” offspring will become the preferred and default method of human reproduction in the future.

        It is the successor to the old, risky and sometimes dangerous natural pregnancy. Of course some people will still do natural pregnancy, but their offspring will thus be significantly inferior and basic compared ectogenesis-born babies.

        The facilities that provide ectogenesis services will become as normal as medical clinics are today.

        • February 6, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

          Man… I know what you’re saying makes excellent logical sense. But I still want nothing more than to find an honourable woman to build a family and grow old together with. What worries me is that the poison of feminism has probably destroyed so many decent women by normalising pathological behaviour in women and pathologising normal behaviour in men.

          • Andrew B
            February 6, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

            Artificial Wombs: This is a whoooole topic unto itself!

          • February 6, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

            “probably destroyed so many decent women” – ah, but not the majority of. 🙂

  6. February 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm # — what a shockingly offensive website. Maybe someone should report it to the ISP.

    • February 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      It’s just one of hundreds such websites. A few minutes on FB will reveal plenty of man-bashing pages on FB. Women bashing is not ok online, but the fact is men are so desensitised to the use of violence both physically and psychologically against them they often just pretend that they don’t care.

  7. February 6, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    Ok, so a few corrections for your article…

    Not all female leaders have gone to war / committed atrocities; here are a few names…

    Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar / Burma), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia), Julia Gillard (Australia), Helen Clark (NZ), Corazon Aquino (Philippines), Sirimavo Bandaranaike (Ceylon / Sri Lanka), Angela Merkel (Germany), Agathe Uwilingiyimana (Rwanda), Yingluck Shinawatra (Thailand) – now while none of them are perfect, they are politicians after all, they are not in the league of the ones you have mentioned…

    Also, you did not mention the disclaimer on the HIAG website that mentions this, – This site isn’t completely real… [t]he stats aren’t real. The submissions aren’t real…’

    “feminists feel that women are oppressed.” – Actually in many (most?) places around the world women are oppressed! They are treated differently, taken advantage of, exploited, trafficked, abused, raped, paid less and given less opportunities simply because they are women. Any basic level of research and knowledge of the world would show this.

    ‘…free and easily accessible abortion women can simply choose to abort male fetuses and produce an over supply of women. If they wanted to.’ – as if it is that easy, just like changing a shirt at Target? Abortion is not always free and easily accessible, nor is it something you just do, it is an extremely emotional, painful and risky ordeal for women to go through…

    ‘Women are like the Queen ant in a nest with the men slavish workers for her every need: feeding, protecting and providing for her…’ – absolute crap, I think you will find almost the world over the reverse is true…

    Finally, you seem to be very passionate about men’s issues, which is great, however you should not need to tear down another cause to build yours up. So I suggest instead of blaming sex robots, artificial wombs and some crazy feminists for the ills of men, find the real culprit and attack whatever that is.

    • Amfortas
      February 6, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

      Gillard and Merkle have Australians and Germans in combat right now, and Clarke, when she was the PM of NZ had spec. forces troops in action too. Benazir Bhutto was in a cold war with India for the entire time she was in power. Suu Kyi isn;’t even a PM.

      OK, they are ‘not in the league’ but that is just a matter of degree not kind.

    • gwallan
      February 6, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

      Also, you did not mention the disclaimer on the HIAG website that mentions this, – This site isn’t completely real… [t]he stats aren’t real. The submissions aren’t real…’

      Which, of course, makes it worse. They make up stories and statistics to denigrate the most helpless among us and are absolutely shameless about it. A little like feminists in fact.

      They are treated differently, taken advantage of, exploited, trafficked, abused, raped, paid less and given less opportunities simply because they are women.

      Expand your reading…

      You may want to learn a bit about international labour laws also. The Australian government can, under ILO laws, subject men to the equivalent of slavery. Women are protected. The majority of trafficking and forced labour in the world involves male subjects. Look up “blood diamonds” while you’re about it.

    • February 6, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

      Most of the leaders you mentioned are very happy to send men to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. Aung San Suu Kyi hasn’t had access to any reall military or political power yet so she’s not relevent. Despite the propaganda feminists spread about women leaders being less aggressive and dominating than men, I read a recent study that found men and women are no different as leaders in their style whatsoever. This study was hoping to find this illusive “feminine” factor in women’s leadership but found just as many female hard-arsed bosses as team-building consensus seeking male bosses. Their study concluded the nature of the work being undertaken decided the type of boss. A woman in the contruction industry will make the same kind of boss as a man in the construction industry, a women in politics will make the same kind of leader as a man in politics, a woman in the office will make the same kind of leader as a man in the office, but the construction, political and office bosses will act very differently to each other.

      Also, you did not mention the disclaimer on the HIAG website that mentions this, – This site isn’t completely real… [t]he stats aren’t real. The submissions aren’t real…’

      About 6 other people have already “pointed” this out to me, however, if you read my article carefully you’ll notice I put “facts” in parenthesis and said it was all made up. How do I know this? Because I read the disclaimer on the website the first time I looked at it. The fact that they deliberately made up the “facts” was precisely the point of my criticism.

      Actually in many (most?) places around the world women are oppressed!

      In most places around the world men are even more oppressed than the women. Don’t compare women in the first world to women in the 3rd world without comparing the men too. That’s a classic comparison failure right there. Even in muslim countries, you’ll find those men are oppressed so damn hard you might actually prefer to be a muslim woman than a muslim man. Just think of this statistic: ~50% of Afghan boys are raped by older men before the age of 10. It make female circumcision seem like a safer option. You just don’t hear about the suffering of men in 3rd world countries for two reason: male suffering doesn’t matter nearly as much as female suffering and the feminist doctrine that all suffering is caused directly or indirectly by men has been ingrained in your thinking since you were a child.

      • gwallan
        February 6, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

        male suffering doesn’t matter nearly as much as female suffering

        Staying with Adam Jones this article is relevant here…

        Effacing the Male

        Jones uses the Kosovo War to demonstrate how western media and institutions minimise and hide male suffering.

        The latest example was just before Christmas when an oil rig capsized north of Russia. I sought out as much coverage as I could without finding a single reference to those killed as being male. They were corpses, “the lost”, “the drowned”, workers, riggers, bodies, employees. Never simply men. Totally stripped of any humanity.

        • February 6, 2012 at 11:47 pm #

          Wow… it’s uncanny reading about stuff like that now. I mean, things that happened back when I thought men were the dominant sex. I knew all of the details, I just never put them together at the time. I lacked a theoretical framework to link them together. We humans are only just barely conscious of our existence.

          • mensvoices
            February 7, 2012 at 12:01 am #

            Indeed, men have always suffered worse than women.



            ‘Misandry’ is a word dating back to at least 1888, although it has never ‘caught on’ like ‘misogyny.’ Today, we are gaining greater understanding of the hatred of men and its effects. Here’s a feminist point of view, cited in the linked article:

            “Sorry, Anti-Feminists: There’s No Such Thing as Misandry; its a modern, made-up word that makes you look stupid. and its misogynist as f**k. so stop using it.”

            Get that? Pointing out discrimination against men, or hatred against men, is “misogynist as f**k.” And she commands us to stop using it on this basis. Because we’re supposed to care about misogyny, while ignoring hatred directed against ourselves.

            It’s worth being reminded, from time to time, of the sick filth these people spew.

  8. February 8, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    All feminism means is that we are equal.

    Philosophies about this “word” “means” differ.

    Equality means equalibrium — for BOTH sexes.

    Equality– Should-(ideal)- be beneficial for all.

    • gwallan
      February 8, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

      So how do you think modern feminism is doing after fifty years or so?

      Given where it seemed to be in the seventies it’s gone backwards in terms of real self actualisation for women. “Hear me roar” is dead and buried. Pity. The only bit that was left over was the bit about nothing less than equality for women and nothing more than equality for men.

    • February 14, 2012 at 10:45 am #

      “All feminism means is that we are equal.”

      Equal? Who is equal? In what way? Are women equal in men’s ability to play sport? Then why are they separated in sporting events? Are men equal to women in their ability to bare children? How are men and women equal?

      “Philosophies about this “word” “means” differ.”

      The philosophy of feminism? All the philosophies I’ve read on feminism are about man hating. If you’re going to say “Not All Feminists Are Like That” (NAFALT) then why don’t we look at the impact of feminism: misandry in the media, men having no reproductive rights, false rape epidemic, laws that abolish the family by making divorce attractive, male suicide rates soaring, male depression rate soaring, economic weakening because women in the workforce refuse to do dangerous or difficult jobs so they need to be moved offshore. Hypergamy going out of control and a generation of women who feel entitled to men’s labours purely because they have a vagina.

      “Equality means equalibrium — for BOTH sexes.”

      I have no idea what this means. Does it sound nice to you? Because it doesn’t make sense to me.

      “Equality– Should-(ideal)- be beneficial for all.”

      To treat unequal things equally is the most unfair thing you could do.


      To treat unequal things equally is the most unfair thing you could do.

      Equality sounds nice, but if everyone treated you like an equal you’d screaming murder in just one day.

  9. NM
    April 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    I find the whole ideology behind this article to be absolutely repulsive. Artificial wombs, getting rid of the male species, the quotes from feminists… If this is where humanity is going then I am immensely grateful I will not be around to witness such atrocities! How can any woman or man find this acceptable?!?

    • April 25, 2012 at 11:39 am #

      There are four cards that women generally play in life, whether they are aware they are doing this or not: the pussy card, the good looks card, the victim card and the uterus card. If women don’t stop playing the victim card then in a world post artificial wombs and sex robots that’s the only card they will be left holding and the future doesn’t look bright for women after that. If women want to survive the 21st century without being selected out into extinction they need to learn to play some of these cards: the initiative card, the self-respect card, the survivor card, the selfish-altruism card and the sacrifice card, which coincidentally all these things are called “manly traits” by traditionalists.

      Nothing scares a feminist more than these facts. So in a sense their desire to kill all men is an act of self-preservation, but a pointless one because women have yet to prove that they have the technical skill to survive without men.

      • NM
        April 27, 2012 at 4:44 am #

        “There are four cards that women generally play in life, whether they are aware they are doing this or not: the pussy card, the good looks card, the victim card and the uterus card.”
        ^ these women are the minority.

        Most of the women I know take initiative, have self-respect are “survivors”, etcetera… And also have great respect for men as well.
        I also don’t see how these are “manly traits”- to me they are common sense traits.

        • April 27, 2012 at 9:21 am #

          Without these cards, why would men even talk to women? Why would we have love? Why would we have romance? Why would we have sexual relationships?

          Hence why I said, “whether they are aware they are doing this or not.”

          I can’t find this quote from a woman from pre world war 2 but she said something along the lines of, “Men and women can’t be equal. Until men can have babies they will never be equal to women, and I don’t see anyone trying to fix this problem that men have.”

          Women still don’t fight wars, work in coal-mines and other glass cellar jobs because women are too valuable because of their ability to produce babies. Men are biologically disposable because a handful of men can fertilise every fertile woman. It all comes back down to women having these cards dealt to them from birth and whether they realise it or not, these are very powerful cards to hold. They keep women safe.

          Try having a relationship with another woman and seeing how far you can push her compared to a man. That would be a fair contest and I think you’ll find it’s easier to handle a man than a woman in that situation.

          Those cards I call manly qualities are called manly qualities because when a man acts “like a man” he has those qualities and it meant he had a chance at passing on his genes, it meant he could be equal to a woman. He may not be able to create within his body, but he could with his hands. That was his traditional contribution.

          If a woman manifests all the ‘manly’ qualities as well as her natural womanly ones then that woman would be superior to any man on the planet. Her personal capital would be too valuable for any man to match. However, women often don’t try to self-actualise like this. Men more often do because they need to to survive, but as for women it is optional, if they can get by fine with the pussy pass, why work harder?

          That said, I’d love to live where you are seriously. Women around here just don’t respect men. A lot of is men’s fault, allowing themselves to be treated like that, but it’s so bad that for me to just speak up for myself and my dignity I’m taking the risk of “intimidating” a woman. I’m supposed to cop female abuse and not complain.

  10. Bios
    April 22, 2012 at 2:55 am #

    “think you’ll find Solanas and McKinnon are alive and well in many Gender Studies courses around the world”

    Jason, this is ultimately the problem. The standard response to criticisms of feminism(i.e There are many different kinds of feminism, you have to be specific etc) is completely irrelevant at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. What matters is influence, and the simple fact is that only a small group of feminist ideas have been shaping the cultural agenda for the last 35 years. Just because there are a few level headed women that call themselves feminist that seem genuinely concerned about the plight of men does not mean the radicals are not controlling the show.

    What concerns me the most is the way that feminist ideas have corrupted our education system. A friend of mine is studying to be a teacher right now in Melbourne and told me an ‘interesting’ story just recently. There was a female student in his class that said she pays more attention to girls than boys on her teaching rounds because she assumes girls are smarter. Guess what happened to the brave man in the class that told her she was acting unethically? He was silenced, of course, and the matter was never raised again. Now imagine if the situation was reversed what the outcome would have been? I wonder how the class would have reacted then?

    And people honestly sit around wondering why men are falling behind in school.

    • April 25, 2012 at 11:49 am #

      I work with kids and I’m surrounded by women who have no clue how boy psychology works. They’ll tell naughty boys that their actions have hurt her feelings and then get shocked when the boy does it to them again. Almost every man instinctively knows that telling a boy you hurt his feelings is a display of weakness and he won’t respect it. So what happens? These women complain about how evil boys are because they aren’t like girls. What I do in these situations is explain why we don’t do what the naughty boy did and then explain the consequences he will suffer if he does it again and vola! he stops his bad behaviour.

      Now ask yourself, if women don’t understand boys in that situation above, then is it any surprise that single mothers are raising thugs instead of honourable men?

      Feminists think women have the monopoly when it comes to child raising skills but they only know half of it. Boys need men and I could rant for hours about this, but clearly you and I are on the same page here.

  11. no madam
    June 16, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    You sound like someone who has looked for love among “hotties”. Look for androgynous people to be around, regardless of your sex or theirs. Then you will stop attracting low quality humans.


  1. Australia The End of Women - February 5, 2012

    […] who buy into misandry and the idea of the disposable male: don't fuck with the hand that feeds you. The End of Women | Intentious Please help this to spread across the interwebs by posting links to it whether you can. […]

  2. 6th Feb 2012 « Men's Voices - February 7, 2012

    […] the radical feminist agenda to eliminate all men, and concludes that, on balance, it would be more feasible for men to wipe out all women. Not that anyone actually wants this, of course, but it’s worth considering the likely outcome […]

  3. The Nobility in Slut Shaming | Intentious - March 18, 2012

    […] The End of Women […]

  4. The Nobility in Slut Shaming | Radio Liberty Earth - September 21, 2012

    […] The End of Women […]

Leave a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: