The Top 7 Things I Learned From a Week's Worth of Comments at A Voice for Men

I have a confession to make: I don’t always read the comments on posts by Men’s Rights Activists.

I realize this might come as a shock to some of you. I mean, one of the main, er, critiques I get from MRAs is that I “cherry pick” comments from MRAs to make them look bad — never mind that it is the comments that make them look bad, not me. But the embarrassing fact is that I often don’t read the comments at all.

In my defense, I have a hard enough time making it through the posts themselves. Life is short, and MRAs are long-winded. And by the time I get to the end of a lot of MRA posts, I’ve pretty much lost my patience with their nonsense. The last thing I want to do at that moment is to read the fawning word-vomit of a bunch of irritating fucks whose comments are likely to be as bad or possibly even worse than the original post.

So today I decided to do a sort of penance for my sins — and to actually read through a week’s worth of comments on A Voice for Men to see what I could learn about the world, and (perhaps more to the point) about the sort of people who actually enjoy reading posts on that terrible site.

I tried my best to do this little experiment as scientifically as possible. But I cheated a little. I didn’t read the comments to every post. And I didn’t read every comment on the posts that I did look at. I mean, what the hell. There’s a limit to my masochism. Seriously, you try reading a week’s worth of this shit in one sitting.

Anyway, here are the Top 7 Insights I’ve learned from a week’s worth of comments at AVFM. In choosing the following, I stuck with comments that were either upvoted or unchallenged by the site’s regulars, or both.

1) Feminists literally want women to be able to kill men with no repercussions.

In the comments to an allegedly humorous post about the female “rationalization hamster,” Angelo sets us straight about the real agenda of feminists and their mangina allies:

2) Most young females are vile pigs.

This one, from a post about Men’s Rights Edmonton’s harassment of noble human rights activism towards that city’s Slut Walk, is pretty self-explanatory. Take it away, jbantifem:

3) It is “female nature” to falsely accuse men of rape. In another comment on that  female “rationalization hamster” post, TheMaskAndRose praises AVFM for running articles addressing the important issue of women being dirty lying you know whats.

4) Women are “vipers” with credit cards

In the comments of a post meditating on the notion of privilege (or something, I didn’t read it), l jess warns men not to get involved with women at all. Because of that viper thing.

5) Don’t marry women because they’re selfish narcissists who won’t let you have a model train set

In the comments to a novella-length post detailing one man’s legal battles with his ex, John Durant reveals that his mother wouldn’t let him have a model train set. And he shares the lesson he took from this childhood tragedy: Avoid women at all costs.

6) Attractive women have no need nor desire for feminism. Or maybe they do? After praising the  looks of an antifeminist YouTuber, Sway draws the only possible conclusion from this evidence. Or is it the only possible conclusion? I’m not sure what to believe.

7) Women have too many feelings to be engineers

In yet another comment on that “rationalization hamster post,” Roby 83 compares women — inherently emotional and opinionated — with men — more adept in “objective reasoning.”

There is perhaps a teensy bit of irony in the fact that Roby 83 has chosen to post this comment on A Voice for Men, a site run by, and overflowing with, men who think that their tantrums are rational arguments.

And I think that’s my cue to end this little experiment.