...Just don't suggest that "Misandry" is actually, you know, a thing.
http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/heads-men-win-tails-women-lose/Direct quotes:
"men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it"
The comments are even better:
Refusing to birth any new male children seems like a much more sensible start. Overpopulation and the resource scarcity that goes along with overpopulation beget more violence, not less, no matter how much reformist activating takes place. I therefore think that population reduction, and specifically a reduction in new male births, is a better path forward.
If every woman on earth refused to birth any new men from this point forward, male violence would actually completely end within 100 years. Can any type of reformist activating hope to be as effective within the same time period?
***
I had the same idea eons ago, except that I thought about giving the boys away to male caretakers on their first birthdays. I also thought of an extremely controversial idea to try and prevent adult males from being larger and stronger than adult females, based on something I read about the nutrition of the first year of a child’s life being determinative of whether or not that child would reach maximum size and strength. Based on that, I thought of reducing the total caloric intake of the male child (and increasing that of the female) during year one, to much outrage, so I panned the idea. My idea was that we could reduce or eliminate the physical discrepancy between adult males and females and at the same time reduce the level of women’s attachment to their male offspring by a) their realization of the necessity of the caloric reduction and b) the early relinquishment of the boys, at age 1.
***
well thats interesting isnt it — dont starve them, just dont let them reach their full potential.
***
That doesn’t mean there can’t be more women than men. That would likely improve things quite a bit. The question is what to do with them that keeps them from inflicting themselves on us.
The parts about deliberately under-feeding (but not "starving", oh no) male babies -along with "reducing any attachment to them" was particularly barf-worthy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Transparency and Sunlight are the worst enemy of the repeat disruptor, disingenuous game-player, and troll.
One, the bloggers over at radfem hub- with which the FCM blog is intimately affiliated, are a very small, insular group. Members, in particular one of the members commenting in the comment thread linked above, have repeatedly admitted in their own blog to a particular obsession with trolling DU, repeatedly coming back under a series of usernames, despite being banned "so many times" for things like transphobic bigotry. Which, again, is a theme over at radfem hub, the affiliated FCM blog, etc.
Upon returning, that same repeat disruptor has been repeatedly protected and defended by several members of this site, even after those members have been informed of their identity and after they have made additional bigoted comments. This, again, is all part of the record.
The FCM blog, along with the comments in the OP, was linked to on DU. It wasn't just the comments, but the post itself that contained seriously objectionable material. It was locked after the material was pointed out, however the history around the blog and its affiliates has been well known, as they were a source of MAJOR disruption, explored in detail in meta. It is also worth n the offending comments were not some random outlier- instead, they were echoed and commented upon ("interesting"
by the blogger in question. And nowhere in that comment thread, nor in the prior discussions on the "idea", did ANYONE go "holy fuck, that's some sick shit, what are you thinking, barf!" --- but, rather, there was some sad grousing that such "important proposals" couldn't be discussed because they were considered by the less-enlightened to be "controversial", sigh.
-Continued-
because these games, around repeat disruptors, zombies, sock puppets and yes, the ever-popular "shared account" where a password is passed around like a note in the back of the class... 
....they've been going on for a long time, on DU. They were known about on DU2. One good thing about the experiment which was meta, was that it allowed some very good documentation on these things to be done out in the open.
(In keeping with the idea that DU members are here to be "educated", right?)
So the radfem hub community is, maybe, 10 people tops. One or two of whom has repeatedly admitted to an obsession with trolling DU. The views and statements of the radfem hub bloggers, including the FCM blogger, are likewise well known. Again, to pretend that the extreme stuff in the comments of that one post are an outlier, are ridiculous- especially when at the top of her page right now there is an anti-trans post, and one of her favorite topics to rail on is the idea that women can't possibly ever enjoy intercourse with males, and any feelings women may have for men are merely a result of "trauma bonding".
To argue that any of this material belongs on DU, ever, is ridiculous- especially since, like I said, the history around this group is well known, as they were behind several very large meta threads last year. Likewise, given the fact that very few people pay attention to this group outside themselves, it's a little disingenuous to imagine that it's falling from the sky as "important internet Feminist commentary". If people think it's a coincidence that the material shows up repeatedly just like the repeat disruptors do, I have a bridge to sell them.
And if people are flailing all over themselves- again- to pretend that things like exposing blog posts where zombies and socks brag about repeatedly disrupting DU is somehow "overzealous troll hunting" like a dog with a bone... right, give me a break.
Or maybe ask why that is. 
The dog part might be right.
from what I've seen, in your links and elsewhere. Hostile takeover in the works. 
Misandry's not a real, you know.. Thing, because it's not recognized by most spellcheck programs...
