Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am An Mra

News just in;

"Yes avfm ( a voice for men) is strongly opposed to marriage because the institution of marriage is nothing more than slavery for men. The same can be said for.having children. Father a child in this gynocentric feminist culture is about as smart as playing ba<x>seball with a live grenade. Marriage is worse. Most MRAs who aren't already married vow to never do so. This is why MRAs and MGTOWs are so close. We share that same philosophy."

This kind of puerile crap is exactly why the MRA is a hate group. It attacks fathers and marriage. What exactly does it stand for in a positive way, I wonder?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
bluelady1021
JB wrote: "By creating a PSA that is directed solely at men that tells them to never hit a woman (even in self defence) he is saying the following:Women aren't equal to men. Women deserve special protection from violence even when they are the aggressor. This is misogyny because it reinforces the idea that women are week and shouldn't be held accountable for their actions."

my response to this dumb comment: This is not misogyny it is reality. Most women aren't equal to men in terms of their physical strength. Most women are weaker. Do some research. The fact that you and your wife are equally as strong as one another, or she is stronger than you is not the norm. The fact that you are a weakling and your wife is a hulk doesn't mean that is the case with everyone or the majority.

I will write again what I have written before, and maybe this time you will understand it and stop making such dumb comments. It is well known that because most men are physically stronger than women, and are built in a way that makes them better than women when it comes to boxing, fisticuffs, cage fighting, and other things involving physical strength and altercations, it is understood that when a man hits a woman there is a far greater chance that the woman will sustain a far more serious injury than a man will when he is hit by a woman. As a result men are instructed not to hit women, and if they get into a physical altercation with a woman who is attempting to strike them, to defend themselves the men should try to hold the women's arms, hands, legs or whatever, and do whatever they can to restrain her from striking them instead of just punching her, choking her, etc. and as a result seriously injuring her in some way, and/or causing her to become unconscious, which most men can do much more easily than women can.

Self-defense does not involve punching, choking, kicking, etc. someone and trying to seriously injure or kill them unless that is absolutely the only way to stop them from seriously injuring or killing you. Self-defense involves doing whatever you can to stop the physical altercation from occurring/continuing in the mildest and least serious, and least physically damaging way.

As I have mentioned before, if someone does something far more extreme to someone who is attempting to hit them or who has hit them, but has stopped, they will be arrested for assault. If they try to claim that the serious injury they caused was merely done out of self-defense, but they do not have any obvious somewhat severe injuries themselves, often it will not be considered to be true, and as a result they will be arrested and charged with assault, and won't be acquitted ba<x>sed on self-defense if they are prosecuted. This is true for both men and women, but it happens far more often with men because of what I explained above.

JB wrote: "Did you know that when a woman gets someone else to kill her husband it isn't counted as DV in the statistics."

my response: Did you know that the same is true with men? If a man gets someone else to kill his wife it isn't counted as DV in the statistics. For both men and women it is just considered first degree murder.
bluelady1021
He should also recognize that it is misogyny to refer to a man as a "mangina" because it implies that having a vagina is far worse than having a penis, and having a vagina (aka being a woman) is much more awful than being a man because women are viewed on a lower level. Its also misogynistic to call people pussy's and cunts for the same reason as stated above. Your your trying to insult them by claiming they are the equivalent of the sex organs that women have. Its equally as bad to call people dicks or pricks, but I have never heard a woman refer to a woman who loves and admires men a womanenis. That would be just as silly as calling men who love and admire women manginas.
bluelady1021
Particularly a name that implies that having a vagina always make you a lower level person than someone who has a penis.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
Exactly the point I tried to make. By calling a male feminist a "mangina" the insult is meant to show that people with vaginas are lesser humans than males. It's very specific, and can only be taken to mean being female is a bad thing.