Are Men Defeating Themselves With Labels?

Or is Norton now holding the leash?

Norton ban list image 1

Norton—yeah, the technology company that makes the crappy antivirus programs—has decided to block a list of men’s rights websites which they have labeled “hate sites.” When the list of sites newly blocked by Norton was published, the first reactions I saw comprised elaborate justifications and defenses focused on the term “hate site.” I countered that with my comment: “I understand that we have to fight—maybe I’m looking forward to it—but please let’s not bow down, justifying and explaining ourselves to these political correctness, capitalistic, conformist drones.” I followed it with a call to avoid Norton products. I now think that I was also drifting from the point and focusing too much on reactions to the label.

The issue should be neither the definition of a “hate site” nor whether the websites on the list are, in fact, hate sites. We are fooling ourselves with too much concern for following politically acceptable labels and avoiding giving offense. The issue behind the Norton site blockage is neither the classification of the sites nor whether they offend anyone. The central issue really relates to social control through censorship, ultimately a question of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Twain censor double image1

Most courteous, civilized, reasonably sober people naturally try to avoid giving offense, under normal circumstances. However, we have reached a point in society where some previously disadvantaged groups, notably feminists, use the concepts of “offense” and “oppression” to gain social, economic and political power. Their tools are social aggression and censorship. Another commenter on the same forum remarked that the real mistake Norton is making is allowing themselves to be partisan between groups of people of strongly differing opinions by offering, what is effectively, a “morality judgement service”. Morality judgment is essentially what censorship in our society does, using labeling as one of its weapons. The result is power for the judges who can then tell us what we can or cannot say, how we can or cannot live, what we are allowed to think.


That kind of power is something we give up voluntarily through intimidation and learned shame. Feminists rant, and men hang their heads and apologize. A generation of men, raised by single mothers, has been taught to feel shame and guilt because of what they have been told about the way their grandfathers supposedly treated their grandmothers. Considering historical concerns of imbalances in employment and compensation, that may sound like a gross simplification, but that conclusion is the blue pill talking.

govt  cen reality

No one doubts, for instance, that racism exists in the United States. Discrimination also exists against immigrants, fat people, bald people, old people, homosexuals, the disabled and others. Nevertheless, social oppression today is not the same as it was in my father’s time. The social status of some groups, relative to each other, have actually reversed, despite continued ranting by the supposed disadvantaged group. Middle-class women now earn more than middle-class men. More women enroll in college and graduate. High school girls (pardon me, young women) outperform boys in reading and writing. The only statistic in which men now strongly lead is in the suicide rate. Still, we must, at all costs, avoid giving verbal offense to anyone, most of all to women.

Everyone knows the hateful, derogatory words that groups use in order to shame, silence, denigrate or otherwise control people of other groups, including sexist words like: creep, pig and misogynist. Everybody seems to be part of a group that somebody else doesn’t like. By historical United States racial classifications, I am African American. I am also a heterosexual man, so, somehow, the politically correct power structure has put me in the position of oppressed and oppressor. How schizophrenic is that? Evidently, that is life, and not the point here.


The point should no longer be the word, the classification, the rant, the possible offence. The point should be the use of power as it applies to our basic, human rights—everyone’s rights. The comedian Lenny Bruce (1925-1966) said, “Take away the right to say fuck, and you take away the right to say fuck the government.” Now, judging by United States laws and court system, women seem to run the government and social structure of the country. Mike Buchanan says in Feminism, The Ugly Truth: “Any man prepared to comment objectively about women—even about a small group of women such as feminists—is automatically and immediately branded a sexist or a misogynist, often both. Once denounced as a sexist or a misogynist, a man must be reviled or avoided.” Does that sound like “the land of the free” or more like Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel and critique against Puritanism and conformity, The Scarlet Letter?


We men are restricted now, not only in lifestyle but in speech. Feminists have convinced us to give up rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. How? In many ways, we silence ourselves, but Norton is helping out. In blocking websites, Norton has used the tools of political correctness and avoidance of giving offense to move censorship to the level of open and official corporate policy. Free speech is already a distant memory on United States universities. How long before speech restrictions return to government, as in the days of Lenny Bruce’s imprisonment?

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the way that they disseminate information, news, commercial advertisements and public opinion, it seems that contemporary websites constitute a media of the press, despite Puritanistic ranting against porn. Feminists and other political correctness oppressors, hiding behind Norton, are trying to restrict those basic constitutional freedoms.


The UK newspaper Daily Mail refers to what we have here as “political correctness gone mad.” Norton’s block list, restricting what it has labeled (or been told to label) as “hate sites” may seem like a small step now, but it could be the step that makes political correctness dangerous for us all.

Read More: The Manosphere Is Approaching A Tipping Point

19 thoughts on “Are Men Defeating Themselves With Labels?”

    1. That’s from Voltaire. It was relevant in the 18th century and still relevant today.
      You are subject to the 5 “P”s to control you. Punishment is one of the basic Five P’s used to systematically control the unconscious masses Philosophy, Psychology, Politics and Propaganda are the other four.
      Labels are a component of all 5.

  1. The more you take, the more you are given. If you create an expectation that you should get something or be allowed to do something then people will accept and allow it. Feminists have successfully done this and now are being given even more by white knights. Know how some people get away with saying whatever they want to whoever they want and instead of suffering consequences they get thanked for it? Be that person. Take take take, never give.

  2. A few months back I made a comment on a you tube vid about men in power being lorded over by women . Some how, that statement implies that I hate women, have issues, and is hurt by some woman in the past LOL. And that was today on a 3 month old video. A throwaway comment that was actually a backhanded compliment but it challenged the victim mentality power structure that women need to keep harping on.
    You would think “bitches ain’t shit” is more of a direct indication of hatred. But of course,
    Men are all pigs,dogs,rapists big stinkin meanies all day every day 24/7.
    And yet the west is going to shit and men are expected to come to the rescue. But we are never allowed to vocally address the actual problem.

    1. Your problem: phraseology
      If you had said “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks,” you’d be a rap star; not a small-dicked misogynist with mommy issues.
      Learn how to deal with strong independent hoes. As we might say on Zero Hedge, learn to rhyme, bitchez!
      Seriously, many of the leftoids who scream “Misogyny!” are huge fans of the modern West’s original misogynists — rappers.

      1. Your problem:
        Much of what you said is not in any way relevant to my comment.
        “If you had said “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks,” you’d be a rap star; not a small-dicked misogynist with mommy issues”
        Was this directed at me? Troll harder. Have you secrectly seen my dick? And if fucking women like you hate them is misogyny, and they love me for it, why is that bad?
        “Bitches ain’t shit” is not exclusive to just that song. It was a popular phrase outside of mainstream long before that in the 80’s. This song came out in 92′.
        “Learn how to deal with strong independent hoes. As we might say on Zero Hedge, learn to rhyme, bitchez!”
        Wtf are you talking about?
        “Seriously, many of the leftoids who scream “Misogyny!” are huge fans of the modern West’s original misogynists — rappers.”
        Probably the only thing that makes sense from what you said. People tossing around misogynist have never experienced true hatred. Comments and criticism is a 2 way street between men and women.

  3. Meh. I’ve always been a fan of giving the other side as much rope as they want. The answer is in the other post. Let them have the soapbox, when it breaks they won’t be able to fix it.

    1. Just make sure you don’t help fix it for them. Even if it literally means hundreds of millions of completely innocent children starve to death right under your nose, and you could avert it all by relenting and handing over even one single penny.
      While that may sound callous (at least to those publicly indoctrinated over the past hundred years), if you give an in inch even when faced with that choice, the only result will be that the scumbags will realize all they have to do is round up a few hundred million kids, withhold their food until they are suitably starving, parade them in front of you, and…….. you’re back to where you started; a hapless slave talking big about all the things he’s gonna do to free himself, except those things that actually have a shot at actually doing that.

  4. No one is violating anybody’s right to free speech. You are free to say what you want, and others are free to think you are an asshole. Free speech sites not mean no consequences. The men’s rights guys have some valid points, but their little cabal suffers from an extreme lack of self perception and utter incompetence when it comes to branding and messaging. Often the loudest, most shrill voices dominate, and it becomes the idiot show with the most hardcore MRAs and feminists talking nonsense at each other.
    My advice, which I won’t even charge for, is to jettison the controversial things, tell the extremists to shut the fuck up, and focus on things which most people will agree on, like paternity law, female on male violence, etc. It’s better to get half of what you want than nothing.

    1. You miss the point. Saying you’re against feminism is similar in effect to saying you understand pedophiles. It’s not downright illegal you will be effectively shunned in every social settings should you say it. No one will risk social exclusion by talking red pill talk.

      1. The *duh* don’t be for or against feminism. Say you don’t agree with some of the things that feminists advocate. Be for equal treatment under the law. Be against unfair paternity laws. Be against unfair child custody and sentencing practices. Many times, how you say something makes all the difference.

    2. If you’ve got privileged media access, you’re the one deciding what is and is not controversial and extremist.
      The only guys currently making real trouble from the outside for the progressive oppression machine, are Taliban and likemindeds. Which are then, tah-dah, labeled extremists.

      1. Media is a profit driven industry, and like every other profit driven industry, the elites are the elites because they excel at delivering the consumer a product that they want. What is and isn’t extreme and controversial is not delivered by edict from the top down, it is a reflection of the general social and cultural climate.
        You completely lose me when you start talking in complimentary terms about the Taliban, as you would with 99.9% of the african public. Nobody is going to listen to anything you say after you start talking like that. It is exactly what I mean when I say utter lack of self perception and incompetent messaging and branding.

    3. “Focus on what most people agree on” might sound good in theory, but this is where they will get you with “guilt by association”. The shoe mustn’t fit, but they can call you “rape apologist”, “sexist”, “deadbeat”, “wife beater” and the like all day through the megaphone and no one will openly listen to your ideas because you’ll have that label anyways.
      I think the label MRA or Maskulist or things like that are the first mistake, and many MRA seem to employ the same strategies that feminists do, the victim mentality, the angry ranting etc.. This doesn’t work for men. A man who is a victim is more likely to receive scorn or ridicule than sympathy, especially if his suffering is at the hands or for the benefit of a woman.
      I’d call myself equal rights activist first and foremost. And I think the far better strategy is to educate men and instead of trying to engage the feminists or the left in debate (which you are sure to lose) is to just keep ridiculing them and attack them on their record.
      Also, Tom Leykis probably did more for men than all MRA combined.

  5. America is doing a better job at being soviet Russia, what with the mass censorship.
    In Soviet America, women are the master gender, and whites are the slaves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *