Dismantling the Men’s Rights Movement

David Futrelle dug deep into the Men’s Rights Movement, looking for some kind of activism. Here’s what he found.

When I started my blog Man Boobz around six months ago, I intended to mostly discuss the issues motivating those in the Men’s Rights Movement, and to highlight some of the sillier misogynist emanations from men’s rights activists (MRAs). But the more I delved into the movement online, the more convinced I became that, for most of those involved in it, the movement isn’t really about the issues at all—rather, it’s an excuse to vent male rage and spew misogyny online.

To borrow a phrase from computer programmers: misogyny isn’t a bug in the Men’s Rights Movement; it’s a feature.

Men’s rights activists aren’t much like any other activists I’ve ever run across. For one thing, for supposed activists they are almost completely inactive. Sure, they complain endlessly about things they see as terrible injustices against men. They just don’t do anything about them. While some of those who consider themselves fathers’ rights activists—a slightly different breed from your garden-variety MRAs—try to influence laws and legislatures, MRAs do little more than cultivate their resentments.

MRAs complain about (and dramatically overstate the number of) false rape accusations, but instead of mounting media campaigns or protests or anything else that would involve trying to bring this issue to a wider world, the overwhelming majority of MRAs seem content to use the issue as an excuse to rant about lying bitches online. MRAs, meanwhile, are quick to raise the issue prison rape (which mostly affects men) whenever rape is being discussed, but generally only to score rhetorical points; very few MRAs seem to even be aware there is an established national organization, Just Detention, devoted to fighting prison rape.

♦◊♦

Similarly, MRAs complain that there are virtually no domestic violence shelters specifically designed for male victims, but unlike the feminists and other activists who fought for years to get the woman-centered shelters we have today, MRAs seem content to gripe that feminists haven’t given them shelters, too. The closest thing we’ve seen to an actual activist campaign from MRAs on this issue was when Glenn Sacks, a fathers’ rights activist, called on his supporters to besiege the biggest donors to one domestic-violence shelter serving mostly women—they had run an ad Sacks didn’t like—in an attempt to get them to stop donating to the shelter. That’s right: instead of trying to raise money to build domestic-violence shelters for men, Sacks’ fans instead tried to take money away from a shelter for women.

MRAs are as sensitive to signs of oppression as the princess from “The Princess and the Pea.”

At its heart, men’s rights activism doesn’t really seem to be about activism at all. What the movement has turned into is a strange parody of “victim feminism,” an endless search for proof that men (despite earning more than women, heading up the overwhelming majority of companies and governments in the world, getting all the best movie roles, never having to wear heels, and so on and so on and so on) are in fact second-class citizens.

MRAs are as sensitive to signs of oppression as the princess from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea,” who was able to detect the presence of a pea under 20 mattresses. No sign of “oppression” is too trivial to whine about; these are people who think that whenever a woman “gets away with” calling a man a “creep”—apparently the worst insult in the world, far worse than “slut” or “bitch” or other insults directed at women that I cannot repeat here—it is a sign that women “sit on a pedestal of privilege.”

Others see themselves as besieged by women … dressing slutty. One would-be patriarch complained on a forum promoting patriarchy that “dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men’s sexuality.” By “suppressing male urges” he essentially means not having sex with any man who lusts after her. Meanwhile, his idea of “dressing provocatively” includes wearing blue jeans, “because a tight pair of jeans will accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. High heels meet the same conflict as tight jeans, while they may not show extra skin, they accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. “Even uncovered hair is bad,” as “raw, long hair can excite men.”

♦◊♦

Next: A vacation from empathy

 

Pages: 1 2 3

About David Futrelle

David Futrelle, the blogger behind Man Boobz, is a freelance writer living in Chicago. His writings have appeared in a variety of publications ranging from The Nation and The New York Times to Money magazine.

Comments

  1. Thank for writing this article. I think men do have legitimate issues, & it would be nice if someone was actually fighting for those issues. But you are right, MRA’s & MGTOW seems to be a place for men to vent about how “terrible” women are. I’m not saying women are perfect, but focus on the issues, not the hate. When men want to start dealing with real issues, I’ll be there to lend support, but I won’t have anything to do with perpetuating hate.

  2. Saga Riihinen says:

    Great post! It’s definitely a shame that MRA’s are taking attention away from legitimate men’s issues. I regularly have MRA thrown in my face. I can’t understand how blind they are to what feminists are doing. Well, I guess I should only be speaking of “my feminists”. In the feminists spaces where I hang out, prison rape jokes and the like get called out pretty damn fast. And we regularly dicsuss such things as boys being mistreated in primary schools because of gender, male circumcision and how we need equality with parental rights. I don’t see any of these things as men being in any way against me. I want to be on the same side, I want *equality*.

    I love that the Good Men Project feels the same way and that you’ve created a platform for the non-violent, non-misogynist men’s voices to be heard.

  3. David Futrelle is my hero.

  4. Don’t you know by now? You’re feeding the trolls. So long as the focus is on the nastiest parts of the MRM, it will only get worse. There are some legitimate issues that they bring up, but it’s the misogynists festering their movement from within that gets them any attention or relevance.

    There are people out there who seem desperate to find some violent act — any violent act — that can be attributed to the MRM even if it takes enhancing the truth a little bit. There are websites devoted to seeking out the worst among MRAs to publicize their vile bigotry. There are readers all over just itching to read that next juicy article about all the terrible things the MRM is doing because if the other is bad then the self must be good.

    If any of you opposed the things in this article, you’d stop writing about it. You’d seek out the rational, fair, moderate, egalitarian voices in the MRM no matter how small and insignificant those voices are and give them exposure. You’d find the ones arguing and debating against the promoters of violence and sexism to say that they stand for something worth considering, and not their bigoted debate partners. You’d seek out however few are willing from within that movement to work in conjunction and mutual respect with feminists and promote their ideas.

    Then the trolls would get bored and wander away. I know the argumentative styles I see among the trolls. I’ve seen before the exact patterns of reasoning, language, and rhetoric that they use. They’re the exact same socially marginalized misfits who clung to atheism not too long ago, donned fedoras, and sought to establish their own identity and vent their own angst in that way. And when those trolls are no longer fed through the MRM, they will migrate to some new social group, cling on to it, and use it for the validation and outlet they crave. And when they do, they should be chased from there as well.

    This article points out a problem. But there comes a point where only pointing out problems makes them worse.

  5. daniel sebold says:

    The real men’s movement is a movement of men living in quiet desperation. The male gender role looks more rigidly defined than it has ever been: we wear the long calf length shorts, the long calf length swimming attire so that we don’t harass the poor oppressed feminists with our naked thighs. Why bother having sex on a one way street? So stay single. Continue the marriage strike. Hey, but what can I say? If oafs are in fashion, then so be it. They give women an excellent target for bashing.

    Whatever happened to Dwight Stones high jumping in those orange micro shorts like what you see on that seventies Youtube video, or Mark Spitz in his Speedoes? Male athletes cover up more and more while women athletes wear less and less. Hey, if this is the sex role women want for men, then no problem. I am sure this will all work out in a generation or two– when men wake up and see that there isn’t much difference between western males and Saudi women.

  6. thekelliko70 says:

    I read through this and I wish it had had some kind of trigger warning. I was sent here by a post on Facebook and had no idea what I was getting into. I knew MRA’s were bad, sad and rather pitiful and I still feel that way, maybe even a bit more. But their level of hate brought back memories that still haunt me even though I generally have way back in my mind. I lived through a domestically violent relationship in which basically torture was literally involved. I was nearly strangled to death by my boyfriend and my room mates boyfriend on separate occasions. I was stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I have been raped three times in my life, at 11, 18, and 19 while wearing jeans so nothing provocative. The last one choked me unconscious and sliced me up with little cuts all over my body and I had to stab him to get away. These men all appeared “nice” at one point (except the guy at 11, he was a stranger and beat me savagely and I am pretty sure he thought he had killed me) My husband is a nice guy. A REAL nice guy not a fake one. He respects women no matter what they look like or do for a living. He is not a misogynistic pig. A sad little man who thinks women hate him for whatever he thinks they hate him for. Maybe they should look at what they are really like and see if they are just assholes.

    • “I knew MRA’s were bad, sad and rather pitiful and I still feel that way, maybe even a bit more. But their level of hate brought back memories that still haunt me even though I generally have way back in my mind”

      This comment is as pathetic as a male rape victim blaming feminism and saying feminists are bad. Seriously, get over yourself and stop painting entire groups with broad strokes.

    • thekelliko70 says:
      August 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm …MRA’s were bad, sad and rather pitiful

      Reading your story I ask myself what this has to do with the Men’s Rights Movement.
      Maybe you can explain?

  7. courage the cowardly dog says:

    MRAs complain about (and dramatically overstate the number of) false rape accusations, but instead of mounting media campaigns or protests or anything else that would involve trying to bring this issue to a wider world, the overwhelming majority of MRAs seem content to use the issue as an excuse to rant about lying bitches online.

    I represented a client who was falsely accused and convicted of rape. He spent 12 years in jail before being cleared on DNA evidence. His accuser didn’t spend so much as a day in jail. She was immune from civil liability because the state was the party who brought the criminal charge. I would love for you to tell him the number of false rape accusations is dramatically overstated because even if it was just one, and it is more than just one, and someone loses their liberty because of a travesty of justice is done. There is an adage in the law, better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent man lose his liberty. Because of vindictive women, mistaken identity, misinterpreted intent and consent, jealously and downright cruelty, men have lost their liberty because of false accusation. You dismiss that as if it were inconsequential. It is only inconsequential if it not your liberty that is lost. BTW, I have waged a campaign on behalf of my client, whose identity I cannot disclose, and successful won benefits for him that he deserved. His life is still disturbed and he suffers and will continue to suffer, most likely, for the remainder of his life. His accuser, nothing.

  8. Strong pathetic White-Knighting by David Futrelle here. Apparently one isn’t a movement if a movement isn’t strong enough to protest publically, I guess.

    Keep in mind that all movements go underground, especially in persecuted groups.

    Men are a persecuted group, and men aware of problems and moving for change, even more so.

    We are aware that speaking out will cause misandrists to try and ruin our lives for trying to get equal treatment.

    Call it misogyny if you like, but hatred is not targetted at the entire female gender, rather it is directed against those who unfairly oppress others. This not only includes women, but also men like yourself.

    Keep strawmanning away tho bro.

  9. As a guy that loves women, i hate all this gender wars between MRA’s and feminists. Thats why i never claimed myself MRA ( yes, i think many of MRA’s are bunch of angry pathetic misogynists its ridiculous ) or even feminist. I love peace, all this hates and rants are ridiculous and fucking annoying.

    Thats why i love to read GMP’s article about how to raising boys and other articles about men’s feeling and vulnerability (Sadly those kinds of articles are such a rarity ). Men emotions are not all about rage and violence, we have sadness too, joy, love, we can cry too. Why MRA’s movements are not about how men need to step up to tell others about their feelings, their sadness, its okay to cry, instead of blaming women and feminists? About why we need to tell other men to stop mocking other guys “gay” , “faggots”, “pussies” when they cry and show their feelings? All those problems in men society are created by men itself, not women.

  10. Transhuman says:

    If Futrelle had dug a little deeper he’d have found college campus activism, political lobbying, counselling for men, legal assistance during divorce, even community projects run by men who have retired and want to provide free training for young people. There are MRA’s who research and publish concerning proposed laws in their country so other men are informed of how it will affect them if it passed into law.

    Seems pretty active for an “inactive” group.

  11. Wait, what?!

    Mods, isn’t this a negative generalization of a movement? I thought we JUST covered how this type of writing wouldn’t be allowed (for feminism) an yet here it is! You all are such hypocrites…

    David brings up a good point about not enough actual activism taking place. But that hardly invalidates the movement for men’s rights. Don’t belittle men, dude. Far from agreeing wih you and toeing the line, we will fucking hate you for it.

    Because remember, hate bounces, Mr. Boobz.

  12. Jesse M. says:
    April 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    …abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth…

    ———
    How can you compare pregnancy with a kidney disease?
    To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.

    It sounds somehow that pregnancy is a form of illness requires surgery.

  13. Agree completely with this article.

    Their intention seems to be to throw a collective temper tantrum in quite a childish attempt to change things, but the harsh reality of life is that no one really cares if you get married or not, or swear off women. You can do that if that’s what you want to do, but I suspect most men in MGTOW really do want an intimate relationship, they have just convinced themselves they don’t want one (or are trying to) to prevent themselves from experiencing the inevitable pain and heartache that comes with them. Excuse me for being blunt, but that’s hardly ‘manly’ behavior anyway and may indicate just one of the reasons why they can’t get a woman in the first place.

    I suspect, and hope, that this movement will not gain much steam. I have a profound distaste for tyrannical philosophies, of which MGTOW seems highly suspect. Thankfully, the vast vast majority of men (myself included) are going to continue to have or try to have relationships of various kinds with women for the duration of humanity’s sojourn in time.

    • @John

      Like it or not, the Men’s Rights Movement so far is disproportionally strongly growing and this for good reason obviously.

      The argument that people – there are also female men’s rights advocates – who are considering that men and boys also should have rights, are unable or unfit for an intimate relationship is baseless and insulting. How can you say something like that?

      About myself, I am married since over 35 years and have 2 daughters. Never divorced – and what about you?

      About David Futrelle and his chaotic website, as far as I can see, he left the GoodMenProject and never came back.

  14. At first after reading a number of Mr. Futurelle’s posts I was convinced he was actually a woman. His writing was so FEMININE. Virtually ANY activist movement that generates a fair amount of support is motivated by real issues. Men generally try to argue by logically de constructing arguments of the opposition. It’s rare to find a male activist who isn’t able to at least comprehend the issues of the opposing side. Mr. Futurelle’s posts by contrast were either completely disingenuous or blinded by emotion. There isn’t ONE single serious argument in his posts. It’s completely contrary to all my long years of life experience that Man Boobz was the writing of a man. Then I read his bio and the “aha”! moment came. You see he’s a “freelance writer” ( a euphemism for failed writer). It dawned on me that he INTENTIONALLY acts the fool because the flood of outrage and indignation he gets feeds his craving for someone, ANYONE to read his work. I applaud him for that because he’s gained an audience. But don’t take him seriously.

    • Mocking the the author of being your perception that his writing is ‘feminine’.

      And here, in a nutshell, is what is so transparently wrong with the mensrights movement: the thinly veiled hatred of women, to the point where your first reaction to criticism is to accuse opponents of being like women.

      • @Diver

        What a nonsense talk – the Men’s Rights Movement does not hate women, and I consider myself as MRA, I am married since over 35 years, 2 daughters already adults and 1 fostergirl. My mother in law was sharing our rooms for over 20 years until she died. And now, the only argument against the MRAs is to claim, they hate women?

        MRAs are against feminism, not against women…

        • *MRAs are against women’s rights, not against women…

          because we have to have sex with SOMEONE, and we obviously can’t be gay…that’d be too feminine.

          • Transhuman says:

            *MRAs are against women’s rights, not against women…

            because we have to have sex with SOMEONE, and we obviously can’t be gay…that’d be too feminine.

            There are gay men in the MRM, misandric laws only consider a person’s sex, not their gender.

          • Wendy, I think he means anti-male feminist inspired laws and policy, not anti-woman’s rights. Basically raise women up to equality is fine, but don’t actually cause harm to men in the process. And I don’t mean men losing privilege but things like gendered laws on domestic violence where men miss out on protection quite a bit (which commenters regularly discuss here).

    • Maya Lovelace says:

      “At first after reading a number of Mr. Futurelle’s posts I was convinced he was actually a woman. His writing was so FEMININE.”

      Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.. That’s pretty misogynistic.

      “Virtually ANY activist movement that generates a fair amount of support is motivated by real issues.”

      Corrupt evangelicals who build megachurches generate a fair amount of support. Propaganda from all political parties generates a fair amount of support. Hate movements like the Nazi Party and the KKK generated a fair amount of support. Popularity is a very low standard for truth.

      “Men generally try to argue by logically de constructing arguments of the opposition. It’s rare to find a male activist who isn’t able to at least comprehend the issues of the opposing side.”

      You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women. More misogyny.

      “Mr. Futurelle’s posts by contrast were either completely disingenuous or blinded by emotion. There isn’t ONE single serious argument in his posts.”

      Whatever happened to your masterful manly ability to deconstruct arguments of the opposing side? Why don’t you take one of his articles and actually deconstruct it? Surely you can do this simple task. You assert a lot but you don’t back anything up.

      “It’s completely contrary to all my long years of life experience that Man Boobz was the writing of a man.”

      For someone with long years of life experience you have a very superficial, simplistic, and indoctrinated understanding of what human beings are like. You put people in black and white boxes. MAN == logical, intelligent, rational WOMAN == emotional, dishonest

      I’m a woman yet I’m logically deconstructing your post, sentence by sentence.

      “Then I read his bio and the “aha”! moment came. You see he’s a “freelance writer” ( a euphemism for failed writer). It dawned on me that he INTENTIONALLY acts the fool because the flood of outrage and indignation he gets feeds his craving for someone, ANYONE to read his work.”

      For someone who claims to be able to think logically, able de-construct arguments, and comprehend arguments on the opposing side, you’re “critique” of Futrelle is nothing more than a barrage of fatuous personal attacks. Your entire post basically says Futrelle sucks as a person because he is “feminine” and because he is a freelance writer.

      “I applaud him for that because he’s gained an audience. But don’t take him seriously.”

      But by your double standard the MRM is “motivated by real issues” because it generates a fair amount of support. But now Futrelle is not to be taken seriously?

      • “Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.. That’s pretty misogynistic.”

        So glad you know that most MRA’s view women as one dimensional, which is funny since a common argument I see of feminists is they don’t like to be generalized against yet you feel free to generalize towards MRA’s? Maybe try say many, quite a few, or many I have seen without stating it as most since the others are more personal observations and don’t imply the majority in the statement.

        “You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women. More misogyny. ”

        Agreed. Women aren’t always illogical, nor men always logical, anyone can lack logic or use emotion-based responses….but then there is still logic in emotion-based responses, it’s just not always helpful. The emotion-based response of empathy for instance which gives us things like welfare, charity, etc have good logic in ensuring a better life for more people, even though there is also logic in killing off the weak to make a superior human race. Logic can be used to justify evil and good, logic isn’t the end all/be all of intelligence and people need to keep this in mind.

      • You aren’t logically deconstructing this person’s arguments. You are simply sifting through them sentence by sentence and interjecting your objections and groundless accusations.

        Example 1)

        “Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.”

        Strawman argument) at no point in Ethical’s post did he state that being feminine is bad or that it is bad to a “feminine” writing style. You could argue that this is why you use the term imply, but that would swiftly be defeated by complete lack of supporting text in the OP post and by the principle of charity.
        Bare assertion) if you want to argue that most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures you will need to make an argument rather then merely assert this as fact
        Non-sequitar) Even if most MRAs did see women as you presume they do, this would not necessitate nor even logically lead to the conclusion that most women are bad

        Example 2)
        “You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women”

        Strawman argument) Do you know what the word generally means? It doesn’t mean all day, in every instance. The OP’s use of the term ‘generally’ precludes his argument from applying to all men automatically.
        Strawman argument) At no point does the author ever state nor imply that women are automatically disingenuous and emotional. If you want to claim that the OP has then you’ll have to make an argument.

        Also the “more misogyny” and the “that’s pretty mysogynistic” comments are examples of poisoning the well.

        I could go on but you get my point.

        So sure you may very well be a woman, but you aren’t logically deconstructing the OP’s arguments. Rather you appear to be speaking from a position of indignation, preconceived notions about the OP, loose association and shaming tactics.

    • yes. Feminism is bad, amirite? Its not like date rape is harmful or anything, girls will heal, and the guy gets satisfaction, amirite? Women are sexy, but they humiliate men by not giving any, which is a war crime, or something of the like. Hmm. I see some logical fallacies. Do you?

      • Some parts of feminism is bad, other parts good. Raising awareness on sexual assault is good, ignoring the massive amount of male victims of sexual assault is bad. Too many see feminism as either fully good, or fully bad, not enough seem to realize there is good and bad in it and as a whole it’s probably ok but needs far more work.

  15. This site is a facade. says:

    Young men are beginning to question why they HAVE to give women rights and respect if all it means is that they get belittled, scorned, accused and disadvantaged. After all, men are stronger, faster, tougher. Why should the strong be made to yield to the weak? I think a lot of young men are changing their minds. If enough young, Western men become fed up with the continual insolence of Western women they may decide that actually, things were better for them when they were allowed to put their foot down and get nasty.

    The feminist contingent who run this site may laugh at such a notion now, but the changes that have already occurred in the West – and those yet to come – are not going to be in the best interests of the feminist movement or women in general, and I think they know it. Why else would they set up a site like this in an attempt to try and subtly invalidate and undermine the fledgling Men’s Rights Movement?Feminists are uncomfortable about the growing dissonant hum in the air.

    • just passing says:

      The fact that men wonder whether they have to GIVE rights shows that men feel that rights are THEIRS to GIVE.

      Show me a man who doesn’t talk in a way that clearly show they KNOW they have POWER and they are the ones who can GIVE and TAKE it away.

      • Come to Australia, women have plenty of power here. Hell in the U.S women are the majority of voters, so really women have more power than men.

        • That relies on the patently false logic that US politics reflect the will of the voters, rather than the will of a smaller oligarchical class. It also relies on the false logic that women are a unified voting bloc prioritizing their own well-being.

          • wellokaythen says:

            But, then, if we can’t even expect women themselves to act politically in their own best interests, then what hope is there that men will act in women’s best interests? It seems presumptuous for a man to say what male behavior is in women’s interest, when women themselves are unable to reach a consensus about it.

            If it’s inaccurate to suggest that women today act in their own best interest, then what point is there in trying to keep men conscious of where anyone’s best interests lay?

          • Yet you project the same flawed idea of a unified MALE conspiracy onto YOUR opponents.

  16. Jess says:
    January 3, 2012 at 5:02 am
    Exactly what rights do you not have? All I ever hear from this group gets summed up to the right to rape women.

    Sounds like feminist hatespeech to me.
    This is really a stupid argument against the Men’s Rights Movement.

  17. I’ve been reading MRAs blogs since 2009 and I know women that read and comment on them too and David is right : there is no activism among MRAs, there’s only whining and trolling. In fact, Glenn Sacks had to shutdown the comment section of his blog a few years ago because it was flooded of insanities by MRAs. As an example, a few years ago, in soc.men, there’s a guy that complained that the comment he posted on Glenn Sacks blog had been removed because he said in it that women should not have the right to vote. Another guy told him that if people start thinking that Glenn Sacks want to remove the right to vote for women, he will look like a complete moron and nobody will take him seriously. And most comments were like that, so it’s no wonder Glenn Sacks had to shutdown the comment section of his blog.

  18. David Futrelle does nothing more than malign and denigrate the MM as it’s is what he does. He introduces lies and misinformation as all feminists do and have done right from the beginning. False information and strawman arguments is the bread and butter of the feminist movement and generating anti-male sentiment, male hate and spreading vitriol against the MM just indicates that it is becoming something to be feared and to be controlled. Too late.
    Also Congratulation on David Futrelle’s Mangina Award, I know he deserves it and has poisoned a lot of people in order to achieve it.

    MODERATOR’S NOTE: This comment is in violation of our moderation policy because it was seen as an attack on the author or other commenter. This is a warning. Further comments that are in violation will be removed. See complete commenting guidelines here.

  19. No comment on any of the other stuff since i don’t know much about it, but has it occurred to you that blue jeans guy is a troll? An obvious one? And you still fell for it. For shame. How long have you been on the internet?

  20. Far from ‘digging deep’, Futrelle lurked at one or two sites without ever posting (hadn’t the guts to say anything directly), cherry-picked and edited comments, put them on his blog and said ‘This is the men’s right’s movement’.

  21. “Dismantling the Men’s Rights Movement”

    Too much big words coming from a so little “man”.

    I’m waiting for you at my door, to see how you’re going to “dismantle the men’s rights movement”.

    Won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen though… too much distance between your braggadocio and what you can materially do.

    -An Italian Men’s Rights Activist, Celebrating 8 years of activism.

    (And I’m 29 years old. About other 50-60 years of activism left, and I’m waking up more and more young men every day who will continue the AntiFeminist tradition…)

  22. they are very active in bribery – of judges in family courts, especially regarding cases of child abuse (them vs. child) and when they don’t want to pay child support, or make the woman who’s never had a job pay child support to them. You’re right about the rage, though.

  23. It’s hilarious when feminists contradict themselves. They seem to do this constantly. David writes “…. the feminists and other activists who fought for years to get the woman-centered shelters we have today….”

    Here I thought feminists stood for equality. Well shiver me timbers. I never would have guessed that they only supported women. How can you be for equality when you only support 51% of the population?

    They (feminists) also love to argue with themselves. They tell you what mras are arguing and then they proceed to debate themselves. Easy to attack their opponent when they aren’t actually attacking their opponent.

    David also seems to hate MGTOW. I wonder why? Maybe because the poor helpless pathetic females aren’t getting thins handed to them on a silver platter from these men? No meals? Gifts? Drinks? Etc. It must suck for women when they :gasp: actually have to buy things for themselves with their own money. Oh the horror. Not to mention no guy telling them how awesome little princesses they are to stroke their female egos.

    So feminists think MRA’s and anti-feminists are a joke? Why attack it then? Why have whole websites devoted to “making fun of them” if they are a joke? Seems to me you attack an opponent. So they do. They know how formidable MRA’s and anti-feminists have become. They know the movement is getting stronger and growing. As usual the feminists show their true selves by running chicken shit like the cowards they are. They can’t stand the fact that they no longer run unopposed so they lash out.

    This is like the terminator movies. Man created machine and the machine fought man. Feminists created their own enemies and now those forces are fighting back. This will not end soon and it won’t be pretty either.

    • “This is like the terminator movies. Man created machine and the machine fought man. Feminists created their own enemies and now those forces are fighting back. This will not end soon and it won’t be pretty either.”

      This is why so many MRAs come across as angry creeps, because you guys so often act like living mirrors of caricatures of man-hating feminists (of which there are some, but most feminists aren’t like this in my experience)–all you ever seem to talk about is your hatred of feminism, your fantasies about how you’re going to turn the tables on them and give ’em a taste of their own medicine, etc. etc. If you actually just focused on creating positive change on specific issues that do especially harm men (prison rape, child custody etc.) you’d be doing something admirable, but mostly it comes across as an ideology of vitriolic resentment (kind of like much of modern “conservatism” with its constant railing against the nefarious plans of “liberal elites”)

      • Jesse, I’m guessing you’re a feminist but do you like being lumped in with radfems who advocate aborting male children, have big forum discussions about it? Want to reduce the worlds population of men and speak other misandrist garbage? Who love the Scum manifesto like it’s a bible?

        “Because you guys”, do you mean all mra’s, some mra’s, are you lumping the mra’s who question statistics with the ones that hate women?

        “If you actually just focused on creating positive change on specific issues that do especially harm men (prison rape, child custody etc.) ”
        I’m not an MRA, but I’ve tried to do this and had SOME feminists bite my head off for it, except the issue was rape and domestic violence. They treated it like it was so rare it wasn’t worth mentioning yet I posted stats that proved it was significant, varying from 20% to parity, and even argued it doesn’t matter how many suffer each side, EVERYONE needs support. But not many seem to have listened, people want to think of those issues as very gendered when both genders suffer so badly from them. I personally resent the lack of good will on both sides, the failure for whatever reason that they can’t work together. I resent that recent stats showed male rape, even by females, absolutely rose like crazy in numbers yet it was reported with heavy bias and didn’t even mention the vital part, even by feminists who call out equality, equalittyy. I resent the few feminists who are misandrist, I resent the few mra’s who are misogynous, they’re a stain on their cause, they aren’t for equality that’s for sure.

        • Jesse, I’m guessing you’re a feminist but do you like being lumped in with radfems who advocate aborting male children, have big forum discussions about it?

          I’m a feminist in the sense of believing in equality but I don’t buy into all the things that get included in contemporary american feminism, especially when they get into critiques of the media. But in any case I think you could search through vast numbers of comments on mainstream feminist sites (jezebel, feminista) without ever finding any expressing that sort of extreme man-hating view, whereas finding woman-hating (or more specifically “feminist”-hating) comments is not that hard on mainstream MRA sites.

          “Because you guys”, do you mean all mra’s, some mra’s, are you lumping the mra’s who question statistics with the ones that hate women?

          No, just the ones who have a constant axe to grind against feminism, which is a lot of them I find. Just look at most of the MRA defenders in the comments on this post, for example.

          I’m not an MRA, but I’ve tried to do this and had SOME feminists bite my head off for it, except the issue was rape and domestic violence. They treated it like it was so rare it wasn’t worth mentioning yet I posted stats that proved it was significant, varying from 20% to parity, and even argued it doesn’t matter how many suffer each side, EVERYONE needs support.

          Domestic violence probably happens frequently against men, but I wonder what the ratio of male rape to female rape would be if one didn’t include prison populations–if most male rape happens in prison, to some degree it makes sense to treat it as a separate issue from rape in the wider society, just as the rape of children is generally seen as a somewhat separate issue from the rape of adults–this kind of partitioning makes sense because the strategies needed to combat one would probably be fairly different from the strategies needed to combat another. Anyway, I agree that no one should “bite your head off” for bringing this stuff up, although you need to be careful not to bring it up in a manner that might come across as confrontational or like you’re trying to score debating points (for example, “you guys are just concerned with domestic abuse against women, but it happens to men too!”) In your experience, do you think the author of this article is wrong to say that there is not nearly enough involvement among MRAs with specific organizations that actually try to *do* something about issues like prison rape?

          • Yes, Jesse, but the reality is that for the last forty years the “women’s movement” has very successfully manipulated the mass media and our judicial system to constantly regardless all women as hopeless victims, and all men as monsters. Perhaps that might — just might — account for the rage so many guys feel with regards to “feminism.” Think about it, how many men lose access to their children, often due to bogus claims by women that their spouses are sexual predators, how many men break their backs being good providers only to lose everything in divorce court to a wife who barely worked her whole life? How many men send child support checks to an ex-wife who then spends it all on herself? I have a friend whose wife — eventually diagnosed as being mentally ill — accused him of raping their children and battering her, and the ENTIRE community of lovey-dovey, hippie-dippie, college-educated granola-eaters believed HER sight unseen, and helped her abscond against a court order with the kids. And why? For no other reason than in this liberal college town, everyone assumes that a woman can do no wrong, while men are always suspect. She was eventually found out in another state by the FBI, arrested, diagnosed as being mentally ill, but then given a light, in-house sentence. Why? Because she got herself knocked-up along the way. Now, isn’t that convenient. But go on about horrible “male privilege”.

            • I’m sorry for what happened to your friend. Still, I’d need more evidence to think it was justified to blame this type of thing on feminism–there are plenty of sociopaths out there who will lie in court and smear people’s reputations to get what they want, men and women alike. For example, are cases like this significantly more common in liberal areas where feminism is popular than in conservative areas where it isn’t? I think there’s a general trend in our culture to see women as more sympathetic and likely to be victims, especially when it comes to child-rearing, so I’m not sure this would be a lot less likely in a community where few would identify as “feminists”. Probably cases like this are more common today than they would have been in say the 1950s, but then in the 1950s there was a lot less awareness of child abuse too, so a liar would be less likely to tell stories about it in order to get custody, not to mention the general fact that divorces and custody battles were a lot less common back then.

              In general if you want to make a case that this stuff is pervasive and that feminism is a large part of the reason, as a math/science geek I’d want to see some real statistics on these issues. Just asking rhetorical questions like “how many men break their backs being good providers only to lose everything in divorce court to a wife who barely worked her whole life?” is not helping to convince me since I have no idea what the quantitative answer would actually look like.

          • I think MRA’s can do a lot more, I believe Glenn Sacks does quite a bit of work and various fathers groups try to get their issues addressed, I’ve seen the anti-misandry websites trying to raise awareness of that issue. I see quite a few of the bad mra’s seem to be in a backlash mode, feeling betrayed by feminism even to the point they are bitter and they are angry. I guess it can be quite daunting to see the bad feminists, and it does appear the bad ones might have a lot of power if the recent avoiceformen article on the “The Plan” for Australia in domestic violence against women. “The Plan” from what I’ve heard of it is heavily gendered to the point it’s probably harmful to men, it seems like a drastic overreach but I need to see more written about it to be 100% sure.

            I truly hope to see a lot of feminists and mra’s get together, draw up what’s bad in the world and each tackle the issues or join together for certain ones/or all of them. Abuse can be prevented if we actually stopped the generational abuse, how many of those abusive husbands were abused by their mother or father? We need to acknowledge female abusers and not put SO MUCH weight on male responsibility, share it out where it’s needed. Need to remove bias in rape definition so the many male rape victims actually get a chance to be helped properly and supported instead of dishonest use of stats artificially inflating the percentage of women raped to men. Read the CDC report, last 12 months section, remember many people view “forced to penetrate as rape” however the cdc report doesn’t list that under rape. This is used to show women are raped far more than men, when there is no need to be so dodgy with the stats. Why does one group need to appear bigger in number? you don’t end rape and abuse by only tackling 1 gender because the other gender is still gonna suffer and the cycle of abuse can go…Male abused, male more likely to abuse someone, that can be male or female. Reduce all abuse, it’s in everyone’s best interests.

            As far as I can tell most male rape is actually by females in the way of coersion and other methods to force a man to penetrate her. But it’s a heavily understudied area, since most rape stats for the west consider only the act of penetrating someone else as rape and that by it’s very definition is heavily weighted in favour of a male attacker. This is why I HATE comparisons of male and female rape, rape itself is heavily biased towards disproportionally raising male attacker vs female attacker, and female victim vs male victim percentages.

          • Jesse M: You said: “I wonder what the ratio of male rape to female rape would be if one didn’t include prison populations–if most male rape happens in prison, to some degree it makes sense to treat it as a separate issue from rape in the wider society,”

            The NISVS 2010 Report from CDC did not have any institutionalized respondents, which means that prison inmated were not asked. If you look at the “Last 12 months” prevalency numbers and you accept the premise that “being made to penetrate someone else” (exact definition on p.17 in NISVS 2010) you will see that 1.1% women reported rape while 1.1% of men reported being made to penetrate someone else (tables on p.18-19).

            The NISVS 2010 Report can be read here: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

            Would you disagree that if rape prevention programs levelled at youth in a believable and sincere manner devoted just as much time to talk about men’s right and ability to withhold consent and have that respected as they do for women would be a good thing? My argument is that such an approach reflects the findings in the NISVS report as well as other studies and that men are sorely needing to be told that their right to not have sex if they don’t want to is just as valued and respected as women’s.

            Another study which reflects this is a study on Male Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Care published in Pediatrics (the official journal of American Academy of Pediatrics) on page 5-6 in the PDF which can be found here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/11/22/peds.2011-2384.full.pdf+html

            the majority (82%) of males 12 to 19 years of age reported feeling pressured by friends to have sex. Among sexually experienced males 15 to 19 years of age, more than half (55%) wished that they had waited longer before having sex for the first time,68 and more than one-third (38%) of men 18 to 24 years of age reported that they really did not want sex to happen the first time that it did or had mixed feelings about it. Approximately 1 in 12 men (7.6%), particularly those whose first sexual intercourse was at younger than 15 years and non-Hispanic black men, reported that they had actually been coerced to have sex by a female (5.8%) or male (2%).

            Clearly men need to learn that they are free to consent or not and women need to learn that coercing someone into sex is not acceptable.

            Note also that on page 6 this result on dating violence is reported:

            Overall, the prevalence of experiencing dating violence was higher among male (11.0%) than female
            (8.8%) 9th- and 12th-grade students.

            Both these findings go against popular beliefs and against beliefs held by many who currently are in a position to influence much of the prevention efforts. These beliefs needs to be challenged with this findings which now are surfacing because someone finally thought what if we asked men about their experiences rather than just ask women and postulate a low prevalency of male victims.

            • ‘If you look at the “Last 12 months” prevalency numbers and you accept the premise that “being made to penetrate someone else” (exact definition on p.17 in NISVS 2010) you will see that 1.1% women reported rape while 1.1% of men reported being made to penetrate someone else (tables on p.18-19).’

              I wonder about these “12 month” figures–it seems strange that 1.1% of men would say this had happened in the last 12 months, but only 4.8% would say it happened in their entire lifetime, whereas for women 1.1% say they have been raped in the last 12 months, but 18.3% say it has happened in their lifetime. It would be useful to do some more detailed survey about this phenomenon of forced penetration, for example it might be that a lot of men wouldn’t have actually considered such events “rape” or even traumatic, just something like their partner pulling their dick into them when they weren’t really in the mood, and that the reason the “last 12 months” figure seems so disproportionate compared to the lifetime figure is that such events don’t really stick out in memory.

              • Could be men are forcing themselves to bury it more but you run the risk of minimizing the severity of it with talk like that, there could be women who were raped too who didn’t view it as bad but I’d say most men n women really hated it and it affected them in some way. I’m very curious as to why there is such a disparity, maybe women have better long term memory? I can’t recall a lot of my bullying and assaults, only glimpses here n there. I know something happened, I can sometimes remember some of the incidents but recalling it at will is quite hard. Could be men bury their pain more? It’s probably hard enough getting the gender that is trained to be courageous and never admit weakness to actually open up and admit their traumas and insecurities.

                Definitely needs more study though from an unbiased standpoint.

                • I notice now that for all the male figures the lifetime figure seems oddly low compared to the 12-month figure–for “unwanted sexual contact” it’s 2.3 vs. 11.7 (so the lifetime figure is less than 5.1 times larger), for “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences” it’s 2.7 vs. 12.8 (a little more than 4.7 times larger), for “sexual coersion” it’s 1.5 vs. 6.0 (4 times larger), all of which are comparable to the “made to penetrate” figures of 1.1 and 4.8 (a little under 4.4 times larger). Unfortunately the survey didn’t include 12 month figures for forced penetration, it would be helpful to know if the ratio was similar or different (such incidents might be harder to forget). Anyway this suggests a higher rate of putting these incidents out of mind long after they occur, whether it’s because they weren’t so traumatic or because men are more likely to repress them as you suggest. I definitely don’t want to dismiss the possibility they are commonly genuine traumas for the men, I think more research needs to be done on the issue.

      • Why no, they’re simply saying ‘karma’s a bitch’.

  24. Thank you so much for this article. It has explained a lot of things I see on here, relating to MRAs, which I couldn’t entirely put my finger on/articulate but have FELT them.

    I swear some of these threads, especially feminist topics overtaken by the MRAs make me feel like I have walked into a FUN HOUSE, with all these giant mirrors all around me – and everywhere I look, things are distorted and laughing back at me! They make women feel and look like crazy fools! I pity these angry men.

    • wilma says:
      January 3, 2012 at 12:06 pm
      …feminist topics overtaken by the MRAs make me feel like I have walked into a FUN HOUSE
      ————————-

      MRAs do not ‘overtake feminist topics’ within the GMP.

      MRAs, simply said, write their comments in those threads exactly in the same way as the feminists do.
      You will have to learn as a feminist, that many people, not only MRAs do not agree with you.

      Of course you will find comments against feminism written by MRAs and published by the GMP, like it or not, but what is wrong with this?

      The GMP is not supposed to operate as a ‘feminist-only’ website, it is supposed to be a website for men, and this includes comments from MRAs.

      Nobody will restrict you as a feminist to post your opinion but please accept the fact, that other who do not agree with you will also post their opinion.

      This article is directly against the Men’s Rights Movement – what replies do you expect from men, who were badly treated by women in their past?

    • Not all MRA’s are like this, the author basically wrote a piece on a few and generalized badly that most are like this. The same tactic used by those BAD Mra’s the author hates, on feminism.

      IF the gmp was a feminist site I would not be here because from experience with trying to get anything I say valued and respected in the feminist-areas is like walking on eggshells and having to parrot only the popular feminist ideals, never EVER mention male suffering, join in blind following of women suffer and we can’t talk about the men. I haven’t seen any feminist site that allows for both genders to talk freely like this one does, if you know of any let me know and I’ll gladly say otherwise. But from everything I’ve seen, men are not welcome in feminist areas if they are genuinely interested in the issues that affect men.

      Feminism itself is for women’s issues of equality, masculism is for mens issues and this isn’t even really a masculist site, it’s simply a site for men and has a wide variety of topics.

      It’s sad to say the above but it’s what I feel, I don’t feel safe with feminists being the only people in charge of anti-rape and anti-abuse campaigning, I and others have already shot holes through the popular rape culture article going atm where the author ignores vital stats and tries to treat a human issue as mainly a woman’s issue when the stats she uses proves otherwise. I don’t like bias, I don’t like having half the debate, we need feminism + masculism/MRA to work together to fix the world.

      And the reason some of the feminist topics get taken over by mra’s is because the articles are full of bias, misandry, generalizations that are harmful, dishonest usage of statistics and downright antagonism. I’d expect feminists to do the same on articles by MRA’s doing the same thing, hell I’d probably do it if I can spot the problems.

      What’s sad is this author obviously dislikes sexism, generalizations of feminists but will gladly do it to the MRA’s. “the movement isn’t really about the issues at all—rather, it’s an excuse to vent male rage and spew misogyny online.” Haven’t you heard of the various calls of feminism being about female superiority, or angry women, or women spreading misandry?

      His first paragraph makes him look like a complete hypocrit and a bigot, something he advocates against. How do some people not see this?

  25. “…getting all the best movie roles…”

    You don’t have to be Molly Haskell to find THAT assertion ridiculous. The film industry is dominated by its principle demographic, adolescent males, and it shows accordingly in the films that Hollywood makes, whereby guys are free to be considerably less-than-matinee idols in their looks (Jason Segel, Seth Rogen when he was still fat) in romantic comedies, while their female partners must remain young, slim, and pretty.

    For the record, the independent scene isn’t that much better.

    • Spose you’ve never seen an action movie in the last 30 years where bodies with more muscle than most men can really get without a fulltime gym career and probably some roids….This added in with the recent finding in the uk that men are actually slightly more anxious of their body image than women, you’re argument doesn’t appear to have much weight. Did you also ignore how STUPID those guys are in romcom’s? They’re portrayed as bafoons, losers, lazy in many cases. You can take hollywood and make arguments for each gender that are treated bad.

  26. The MRA movement seems to resemble a 21st century version of Spanky and Alfalfa’s “He-man club”.

  27. Davids pretty upset that men are talking about re-gaining our rights under the Bill of Rights.

    We’ve been under the high heel for too long, enough is enough.

    MRM is the radical idea men are human beings.

    I do hope David finds himself at the hands of the unjust family court some day.
    Then he might get-a-clue.

    He’s a second class citizen,and he likes it that way.

    The problem comes when he thinks he can speak for anyone else.

  28. Davids pretty upset that men are talking about re-gaining our rights under the Bill of Rights.

    We’ve been under the high heel for too long, enough is enough.

    MRM is the radical idea men are human beings.

    I do hope David finds himself at the hands of the unjust family court some day.
    Then he might get-a-clue.

    He’s a second class citizen,and he likes it that way.

    The problem comes when he thinks he can speak for anyone else.
    douchbag

    • Exactly what rights do you not have? All I ever hear from this group gets summed up to the right to rape women. A bunch of men crying because women are starting to realize that they don’t owe men sex and don’t have to take being raped. That is a right you will never get back because sex with another individual is a privilege that they grant you and never a right.

      You still have the upper hand so quit whining..

      • Well, Jess — whomever she, he, or it is — pretty much confirms that feminists are angry lunatics.

      • How does conscription relate to raping women? You’re making the mistake many who hate feminism make, they here the bad and assume the worst of a group. There are bad AND good in both sides….

      • Jess, in America!? Women have had to ‘take being raped’? In what era in America was it in which rape was allowed, and socially sanctioned?

        Link to even one MRA site on which the men are crying about not being able to rape women any more.

      • Still no proof from Jess about men screaming to “get back” the “right to rape women”…still waiting!

  29. What a completely one sided and wonderfully misandrous filled article written by a wonderfully self-loathing femi-sexist & ignorant jerk that is a huge part of the problem. I will not applaud anything written here by this man that erroneously makes excuses for the ass load of male hate that steams out of feminists’ mouths, then mistakenly claims that men who are against this stupidity are somehow misogynists. Get this, David: Being against ignorance & gender hate by a group of misandry loving bullies has NOTHING to do with misogyny. They specifically point out this faction of women, not all women. Just look at the ignorance in these commens(perilsofdivorcepauline & a division by zer0, yes, we’re looking at your complete bias & sexism) To act as if there are no areas of our society(legal. Social) where men are treated as second class citizens is sheer ignorance & rooted in not only brain washing, but absolute blind stupidity! The fact that people such as you refuse to acknowledge it shows a major bias & bigotry. Unacceptable! Absolutely unacceptable. Whether you like it or not, Femi-sexist, misandry lovers, there is justification for Men’s Rights & it’s not going to go away. The days of viewing sexism as a one way street are over & thank men it is. The people on this site want to believe that women are always right, women should never be questioned when it’s with issues with a man/men, mothersvshould have more rights than fathers – and this is al in the name of some busted & cracked delusion that equal rights is only the female’s perception of them & that misandry is okay, all the while claiming that men who are against being degraded are somehow misogynists. David Futrelle, seriously get a brain!

  30. This site go go further if it kept the loonie females off it.

  31. I can’t believe what whiny princess-men have come under their rocks to comment even here. The so called men’s-right’s movement is a complete joke. It’s just jerks and losers with a massive sense of entitlement who are ticked off by equal right for women. It’s very sad to see such throwback stuff in this time still.

    • Adept, it’s funny. Essentially, your descriptions read like you are talking about feminists. Just swap out the male for female words, and MRM with feminism. As usual, all people hear and read about are personalized feminist attacks on men and boys rather than reasons backed up with real facts and numbers to state your political views. No wonder feminism is less and less acceptable to normal people.

      Most MRAs are fine with equality for both sexes (be careful what you wish for) and that includes equality for us too. Ironic, that long term feminism will benefit men more. We are going through our own self-actualization questioning phase. Guess what? More and more of us don’t want to be pigeon-holed to being provider, protectors, and chivalrous gentlemen. We’re seeing that society, government, and women use us and need us more than we do them.

      All the happiness surveys indicate women are less happy than ever. One out of three women are on anti-depressants. Have you perchance taken your happy pill today?

    • @adept

      If the MRM is only a complete joke, why does it disturb you so much?

      For sure the MRM is a growing power, I have never seen so many websites for men as now.

      I don’t think, you must be a loser or jerk if you are a man asking for your rights.
      Why should men have only obligations but no rights?

      • Yohan,

        Well said. The growing men’s awareness movements whether semi-organized around a site or simply occurring inside individual men’s heads and hearts is an unstoppable force. I like it that there is not a central organization or stated ideology. Just like the Marriage Strike that is growing, men are reaching decisions and taking actions on their own about how to live in western modern misandrist society. Men do not even need to be aware of the MRM or what an MRA means. I’m on the marriage strike and ghosting. I do nothing to support women, society, and government. I spread the word to all my friends about what I know about misandry and feminism.

  32. Dismantling the Men’s Rights Movement
    This is an old article from March 2011.

    I am happy to see, that exactly the opposite happened.

    The Men’s Rights Movement was getting stronger in 2011…..even here within the GoodMenProject.

    Happy New Year 2012!

    • DavidByron says:

      IDK, I guess there’s been a (left wing) men’s rights movement for about 50 years? I get the impression the right wing guys were a little later.

      When was “Men Freeing Men” (Baumli) first published?

  33. All I can say that it is extremly said to see so many that have lost their masculinity and I say this as a gay person .I see gay men that have been robbed of their very selves and mimic others and do not see or now the facts of hwo many men are living with mom and pop 1 out of every 4 men between the ages of 25-and 35 are living with their moms and dad.I thought we had a extreme hooker problem in America to the age I was 31 I then realized its based on many I thought some people where genuine took me away to wake it like most men .

    The majortiy of those in prison are men the majority of the homeless are men .

    Over 65 percent of African women are single but this percentage of women mostly have one child from one man from my studies I am finding that it just isnt possible that their is a shortage of black men .From what i read and from statistics and years of research I feel that those in charge of our census are not doing their job .

    I feel great sorry for men that support feminism look at my own people like J-lo she just divorced her husband is sleeping around with some kid that like 23 while here kids are with pop.I say that their is only one good thing for feminist a big hole and a celelbration .

    • J-Lo isn’t a feminist. And it’s nice to hear that you celebrate the death of women.

      • K, Robert said “only one good thing for feminist a big hole and a celebration”. Stop twisting things and insulting real women by associating them with feminism. Feminism is a very misogynistic movement.

  34. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Now can someone please explain to me how this website can publish this piece, while simultaneously publishing this piece: http://goodmenproject.com/conflict/raise-your-voice-lose-your-child/

    As a survivor of domestic violence, and as someone who sees misogyny and false information being spread my MRAs, why would a website like The Good Men Project give these folks a voice? I’m hoping it’s mere ignorance and not that they actually share this group’s views.

    • The reason that both articles can exist simultaneously is because this site strives to allow all sides and viewpoints to have a voice. You may take offense to the article you refer to, but that is what spurs conversation and (idealistically) change.

      This article, in my opinion, brings up good points. It points out deficiencies in radical men’s rights activists that rightfully so, should be questioned. I don’t believe that these viewpoints should be superimposed on to all MRA’s, and that is what I find incorrect. Overall it was a good read that helps to narrow down the ‘good’ oppositional arguments from the ‘bad.’

    • You and many men are survivors of domestic violence. According to the CDC, from 50-70% of one-way DV attacks are started by the female against the male.

  35. Just a Man says:

    I’m not an “MRA” (I find the idea stupid), but I get it. They’re angry and bitter because the feminist movement makes them feel angry and bitter. I mean, come on, there’s people who believe all-men-are-rapists and anyone who picks up a women at a bar is a criminal. They want to lower the freakin’ burden of proof for sex crimes. How do you respond to that? David Futrelle starts a blog on goodmenproject.com and writes about how terrible he is. I don’t think that’s the right response.

    • “Feminists believe that all-men-are-rapists” is a strawman argument. This is in no way a mainstream feminist opinion. You’re making things up. Also, the two feminists that such an assertion has been (wrongly) credited to (MacKinnon and Dworkin) are controversial figures in the feminist movement. Nobody would call them mainstream or claim they speak for all feminists.

      So you’re not an MRA but you have false impressions of what feminism is. I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose or out of ignorance, but it misses the point of the debate and is harmful to the conversation.

      • “there’s people who believe all-men-are-rapists and anyone who picks up a women at a bar is a criminal.”

        There’s people does not mean all feminists. It does not translate at all to:
        “Feminists believe that all-men-are-rapists”

        The funny thing is you’re the one who using a strawman. Do you know what that means? It means misinterpreting or misconstruing something the other person said, then attacking that as if it was their actual argument. Which is exactly what you did, and absolutely nothing like what he did, even if we looked at what you thought he said.

        I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose or out of ignorance, but it misses the point of the debate and is harmful to the conversation.

        • There’s people who believe the moon landing was faked. Get out of here with your alarmism.

          • http://www.glennsacks.com/dart/dart-1.jpg

            The deep-seated sexism of feminism is all around you. If you can’t see it, then take your hands off your eyes.

            • How is that ad sexist? I think perhaps you’re missing its point, it’s not saying “because he’s a male he’s a future wife-beater”, it’s using shock value to drive home the message that domestic abuse between parents can have really bad effects on children, specifically making them more likely to abuse as adults. The intent is that the viewer is supposed to feel sad that an innocent-looking kid would get twisted in that way by adult violence, not that the viewer should fear little boys. It’s basically a more dead-serious version of the “when I grow up” ads from monster.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myG8hq1Mk00

        • It’s not a strawman to say “Just a man” was linking “feminism” to the idea that all-men-are-rapists. After all, “Just a man” said:

          “They’re angry and bitter because the feminist movement makes them feel angry and bitter. I mean, come on, there’s people who believe all-men-are-rapists and anyone who picks up a women at a bar is a criminal.”

          Do you think there was no link intended between the first sentence here and the second? “Feminists believe all men are rapists” is a reasonable summary of what “Just a man” was saying, providing you understand that “feminists” does not mean *all* feminists, just some non-negligible fraction of them (whereas in reality I’m sure the fraction is quite negligible, so trashing feminism by pointing out that “some” believe this is a bit like trashing environmentalists because there are some tiny number of them who are actively hoping the human race goes extinct).

      • “Feminists believe that all-men-are-rapists” is a strawman argument.
        I thought the same thing….until I experienced first hand feminsts defending the notion that its okay to assume that all men are either rapists or rapists that just haven’t struck yet.

        This is in no way a mainstream feminist opinion.
        And did I mention that this happened on Feministe?

        Does this sentiment represent the entire movement? Of course not. But to act like this opnion does not exist (or try really hard to get people to pretend it doesn’t exist) is just foul. Especially on a post from a guy that makes his bread and butter on cherry picking the worst MRAs and passing them off as the entire movement.

        • Until I hear “Feminist” and particularly Feminist who are “card carrying” members of N.O.W. publicly dissavow the rantings of Dworkin and all the other extremist on the N.O.W. “suggested reading list” I refuse to believe the so called “moderate” Feminist when they say “Well, she doese’nt speak for me”. It’s kind of like me joining the KKK and telling you on the side “Listen, I really don’t have a problem with Blacks and Jews” as I’m standing there in my white sheet watching the cross burning. If you identify with an orginazation you identify with there positions .

          • Kirsten (in MT) says:

            Plenty of feminists do disavow such nonsense- Google individualist feminists, conservative feminists, and libertarian feminists, for example. If you don’t know about such feminists from now on, it’s only because you don’t want to acknowledge them.

    • Xicano2nd says:

      “They’re angry and bitter because the feminist movement makes them feel angry and bitter. ”

      WTF! If you believe that you are juvenile in development. We allow ourselves to become angry! What world are you on. Oh, thats’s right, you are a women hater!

  36. Jessica Metaneira says:

    I’ve interacted with my fair share of MRAs and I have to say 99% of the ‘misandry’ they complain about is simply that they no longer get unearned privileges or that they no longer get to control women.

    You want to fight some real misandry, guys? Support Just Detention for example. Or start some sort of social movement to combat the social conditioning that tells young males they’re never allowed to be emotional, sad, tired, or vulnerable and must daily prove their masculinity by doing things that are destructive to themselves and others.

    • And who programs them to never be emotional, sad, tired or vulnerable? Women, from their mothers onward. “Man up!” “Suck it up!” Sound famliar?

      • MorgainePendragon says:

        “And who programs them to never be emotional, sad, tired or vulnerable? Women, from their mothers onward.”

        What, they don’t have FATHERS? Brothers, uncles, grandfathers, male friends, neighbours, male teachers, church leaders, etc, etc, etc.

        YES, they DO.

        “Man up!” “Suck it up!” Sound famliar[sic]?”

        Yep, from MEN. Not from women.

        My mother or female relatives NEVER chastised my brother for wanting to play with dolls and/or for dressing his teddy bear up in his own clothes (because my father wouldn’t let him have a doll).

        Many, MANY men (not all, certainly, but many) shame boys and men for being “girly”, “pussies”, “manginas” etc, as we can see right here on this forum.

        If boys don’t have any men in their lives, whose fault is that? WHERE are their fathers and other male relatives?

        • ““Man up!” “Suck it up!” Sound famliar[sic]?”

          Yep, from MEN. Not from women.”
          I’m glad your experience didn’t have women chastising boys by the females for that behaviour but I can assure you it does happen for some BY females. It happens by both men and women, at least in my experiences in Australia, and recently I’ve heard quite a bit of the man up, suck it up from women who were talking about men in a manner that trivialized their pain. I’ve also heard it recently from men trying doing the same. I’ve even heard quite a few times girls use “pussy”, “coward”, and other terms to insult them.

          “If boys don’t have any men in their lives, whose fault is that? WHERE are their fathers and other male relatives?”
          Sometimes the fathers leave, sometimes the mother takes them away to another area for whatever reason and it becomes very difficult to visit, sometimes they die, sometimes they goto prison, sometimes they have no other relatives who are male due to one child family for the father and mother or migration and countless other variables. Who’s fault? depends on situation.

          Who programs our kids? Everyone does, mother, father, media, culture, friends, family, strangers, the sum of all those experiences. This mothers vs fathers debate is tiring, do you both just want to fight and blame the other’s gender or would you both like to try talk and understand it without generalizing heavily?

          • MorgainePendragon says:

            My comment was in response to the quote (which I did quote in my comment):

            “And who programs them to never be emotional, sad, tired or vulnerable? Women, from their mothers onward.”

            I am not arguing that women DON’T influence their children (male and female– mothers are often guilty of berating their female children for not being “ladylike”, etc– although again, in my experience it was more men) but that women and men have EQUAL responsibility to the messages that boy children get.

            As far as what people say to grown adults, well– of course, it doesn’t excuse any bullying behaviour (which is what this is, ultimately), but was addressing the influence of parental figures on boys and their self-image).

            As I think I’ve mentioned before, however, I lived for quite a while in Australia and I vividly remember coming home from a rugby game and hearing a woman (I assumed mother) telling her little boy that the Cronella Sharks “play like girls”. Of course it was meant as sarcasm– and it’s possible that the inherent sexism wouldn’t register on adults, because it’s so patently ridiculous, as anyone who watches rugby (Sharks included) would know. But it DOES register on children that being a girl is inherently less valuable– that to play “like a girl” is an insult.

            So I don’t mean to argue that it doesn’t happen, just that both genders are responsible for socialising children.

            • Yeah Australia has a macho culture pretty bad. “Eat cement and harden up” is one of the popular memes. There’s sexism towards the girls in implying they are weak and sexism against the boys in failing to live up to the standard of manliness, a multi-sexist hit I guess? It’d be nice for people to recognize both and work out ways to remove the negativity although pointing out sexism towards men usually ends up with accusations of derailment, when a persons intention might simply be to add extra weight to the worry so more people take notice.

              Gender roles are a real pain in the….

    • Jessica,

      I’m an MRA lifer and I could care less about controlling women as you say. I am happy the so-called patriarchy is crumbling. Men under patriarchy had it terrible. You can go fight and die in America’s wars for me; thank you very much. Many MRAs want little or nothing to do with being married or in a relationship fulfilling those outdated roles of provider, protector, and chivalrous fool.

      Why don’t you go start some social movement helping females to be more realistic and less emotional and stop doing things others have to rescue them from once they are in neck deep?

  37. William W. Delaney III says:

    So what you are saying is that people who don’t really have any pressing or urgent problem (MRA) tend to be hopelessly ineffectual (Like the MRA), and people who actually do have a pressing or urgent problem (Father’s rights people), occasionally manage to get something done (like the father’s rights people).

    Okay, where is the issue? Are we supposed to be upset because a handful of daddies cared enough about their spawn to go to court for them, or would you rather the MRA do more to get their idiotic agenda put into action thereby reversing about a century of progress on women’s rights? The way I see it, the system is working just fine if people who actually deserve justice are getting it and juvenile idiots end up barking into the wind.

  38. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” – Mahatma Gandhi

    GMP is phase II of feminism vs mrm; with some men like Futrelle trying to shame other men into acquiescence. Good luck with that.

    • What does “winning” mean to MRA’s? I’ve spent quite a bit of time on MRA sites, (unfortunately), and honestly I can’t figure it out what utopia would look like to MRA’s. All women required to stay home with the kids? Make divorce illegal? Or make marriage illegal? Replace all American women with docile foreign born wives? Abolish all civil rights laws? Require women wear burkas?

      • Utopia is different for each individual MRA. Most MRAs I know (not all) are fine with the Women’s Movement (not feminism). Many MRAs, myself included, have no interest in marrying or dating a woman any longer even though we are still heterosexual. A lot of us have simply grown to dislike and distrust women (not hate). Some MRAs like foreign women. Others don’t. Abolish Civil Rights? Absurd, we want it equally for all to include ourselves. Some obese and foul mouthed women would look fine in a burkha.

        Obviously, you have Not spent quality time on MRA sites if you had to ask those absurd questions.

  39. Well done, you’ve managed to find examples of foul mouthed, complaining, haters on the internet.
    ***clap, clap, clap***
    I can do that too. Let’s look at the words of women held up as feminist martyrs and icons shall we.
    Andrea Dworken: Author
    “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.”
    Mary Daly – Professor, Boston College
    “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.”
    Barbra Jordan – Former Congresswoman
    “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man
    structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable
    of it.”
    Cathrine Comins – Asst. Dean, Vassar College
    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience”
    Sally Miller Gearhart – Author
    “The proportion of men must be reduced to, and maintained at, approximately 10% of
    the human race.”
    There are many more, but you get the idea. These people are not the inarticulate morons you reference in MRA’s, but well educated, outspoken, individuals advocating supremacy, genocide, violence and the destruction of lives through fraud.
    Finding radicals in any group is easy, what you’ve done is to hold them up as the reality, and published their opinions as being the same as those held by real MRA’s and FRA’s.
    It’s like me saying all feminist are man hating lesbians, and using Andrea Dworkin as my proof.

    Also…If there’s no activism in the Mens Rights Movement, who were all those folks that rallied for an apology from the ladies of “The Talk”?
    You just keep on standing in front of that Mission Completed banner, I’m sure you and your misinformation will be happy there.

  40. I have in fact written articles critical of radical feminists like Dworkin and other anti-porn feminists. Here’s a piece of mine from the LA Times

    I notice that article is just a critique of Dworkin and not the entire feminist movement, yet you have no problem picking out individual blog posts and holding them up as examples of the whole MRM. Somehow I doubt you’d think about doing the same w/ feminism!

    More problems with your article – you write, “For one thing, for supposed activists they are almost completely inactive. Sure, they complain endlessly about things they see as terrible injustices against men. They just don’t do anything about them.”, then 2 paragraphs later you give an example of their activism you disagree with!

    Further, you say: “MRAs, meanwhile, are quick to raise the issue prison rape (which mostly affects men) whenever rape is being discussed, but generally only to score rhetorical points; very few MRAs seem to even be aware there is an established national organization, Just Detention, devoted to fighting prison rape.”

    Excuse me but what the hell is the point? Because JDI exists MRA should shut up about prison rape? Nevermind the fact that prison rape is an epidemic, whether JDI exists or not.

  41. Notice how a lot of this is

    “a forum poster said X”. “A blogger said X”

    If you really want to play that stupid game we can find extremists and idiots on any side of any issue.

    • That’s pretty much the point of the article. This “activism” only exists as posts on blogs and forums, and doesn’t really try to achieve anything in the real world.

  42. Seriously most of these complaints (misogyny amongst individuals), oversensitivity, insane leaps of logic, inactivity) can and have been said about feminists time after time. It’s just as accurate there.

  43. Step 1. Find Extremists
    Step 2. Pretend Extremists represent the entire group
    Step 3. Proclaim “I can’t find any moderates so they must not exist”
    Step 4. ???
    Step 5. Profit.

    • Arielle says:

      Kind of like what MRAs do when talking about women/feminism, right, Slothy?

      • You just generalized an entire movement base the actions of the few individuals you have come in contact with.

        Your comment should be deleted by the mods, it’s violates the rules here.

    • It is true isn’t it? In my experience the MR movement is dripping with misogyny with a side helping of misandry as well.

  44. I have had the exact same experience with the MRA and MGTOW. The movement seems to be less about doing something about injustice and more about complaining about women and all the evils that they apparently create around them. I have tried to find the most reasonable of the MRA’s and Paul Elam is about the best they have to offer. Most of these men have decided that women are all sluts unless they are virgins. So by that logic any woman that would have sex with them would be a slut so they “go their own way” to avoid the “skanks and sluts.” Leaving them lonely and even more bitter. Many of the “contributors” to the Spearhead and InMaleFide as well as the other “men’s” blogs are painfully misogynistic and offer a sounding board to the rest of the disaffected Men that so despise the “typical American Woman (AW).” It’s quite estounding to read through the blogs and see the blantant hatred for women many of these men posess. However the upside is that most of the men that buy into the MRA and MGTOW drivel, won’t be getting close enough to women to pass on their genetics, which is likely a good thing.

    Cheers,

    Mr. Alighieri

  45. Great summary, thank you.

  46. Patrick Grady says:

    Read this link. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=14053 Then re-read this post and the comments by the author.

    • Those guys are actually doing something and getting results. Thanks Patrick

    • I think perhaps the name “Fathers and Families” says it all – shouldn’t the title be “Fathers, Mothers and Families” or “Mothers, Fathers and Families.”

      If you want help getting to equal parenting, I recommend Marc Vachon’s book – Equally Shared Parenting.

  47. @Natasha: “Mr Futrelle, is a professional writer, if he is honest with his assertion that he does not get paid for his free time activities, then essentially he likes using propaganda to kick other men (and boys) while they are down, because it gives him pleasure.”

    David is pointing out attitudes some men hold that are misguided and unhealthy for themselves as well as women.

    But the typical response is that he’s just against “men.” Yet another tacit admission that what’s bad about men is somehow essential, even good, about them. (Echo of the flap over the “this baby will grow up to be a rapist” TV ad.)

    Is anybody ever going to own up to that?

    MRA is not just misogyny, it’s flaming, latent misandry too.

  48. Peter C. (UK). says:

    @David Futrelle lead article
    “MRAs are as sensitive to signs of oppression as the princess from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea,” who was able to detect the presence of a pea under 20 mattresses. No sign of “oppression” is too trivial to whine about;”

    The myopic hypocrisy of this ridiculous statement beggars belief. I am British, living in a society in which female judges speaking on behalf of feminist groups and law enforcement agencies are urging the law to be changed to include raised voices and disagreement as ‘violence’ against women.

    There are a thousand and one further examples of such feminist paranoia throughout Europe and North America. Shame on you. You are a brainwashed, blinded fool David Futrelle and people like yourself will eventually be widely seen for what you are.

    • Britain (and Australia), unfortunately , acts as a cautionary tale for us in North America. We are but a few short years away from the state of inequality that you find yourselves in right now.

  49. The commenting scripts on this website are FUBAR!
    Doesn’t this glitchy behavior drive you regulars crazy?

    • Poester99 says:

      It jerky, but it eventually works, just need to give it 30 seconds or so, and then reopen the reply window.

      Mr Futrelle, is a professional writer, if he is honest with his assertion that he does not get paid for his free time activities, then essentially he likes using propaganda to kick other men (and boys) while they are down, because it gives him pleasure.

      Like the particular angry MRA’s that he continues to quote excessively as representative of the whole movement for equal rights, he probably has a psychological wound in his past. If he doesn’t, well, that would speak for itself as well..

      • This bit:

        “Mr Futrelle, is a professional writer, if he is honest with his assertion that he does not get paid for his free time activities, then essentially he likes using propaganda to kick other men (and boys) while they are down, because it gives him pleasure.”

        Is as probably close to the heart of the matter as anyone will get I think.

        This comment pasted from WORD due to GMPM’s practice of auto refreshing to inflate the appearance of advertising impressions.

  50. FYI – You’re witnessing EXACTLY how Mr. Futrelle operates with regard to shaming and dismissing the Men’s Rights Movement. He cherry picks choice little quotes for blog comments and that’s when he doesn’t take statements out of context from well reasoned articles. He then holds these little tidbits up for all to see as examples of how looney MRA’s must be.

    It’s a classic tactic of feminists, that you won’t see MRA’s trade in, which is why we exist in the first place; to expose the lies that have been repeated enough to become truths in society’s collective conscience.

    If we weren’t starting to make enough noise to matter, gathering support from more men everyday, Mr. Futrelle would be ignoring us…wouldn’t he?

    • Arielle says:

      Sort of like how MRAs cherry-pick feminist quotes, eh, Keyster?

      It’s so ironic how people like you scoff at feminists for critiquing the men’s rights movement, yet apparently the MRM is allowed to call feminists names like “feminazi” and use radicals such as Dworkin to represent feminism. There aren’t many radical feminists you’ll bump into these days, but I have searched far and wide for MRAs that aren’t misogynistic and have been unsuccessful. I read lots of MRA comments, and most just blame women/feminism for every problem men have. Oh, and let’s not forget the constant barrage of commentary regarding the generalizations applied to girls and women, such as “all women are sluts” or “all women are just out to get a man’s wallet.”

      And you wonder why we feminists are reluctant to support MRAs…

      • slideforlife says:

        please understand that an indictment of feminism is not necessarily misogynistic. attacking feminism is not necessarily attacking women. it is attacking theory. there is a huge difference. if you manage to view MRAs with this in mind, you’ll have no trouble finding that virtually none of them are misogynistic.

  51. Dave Futrelle is sorely in need of work, and, to that end, he has decided to front for Amanda Marcotte and her crew.

    He sets himself up as an authority on the Men’s Movement, based on a presumed infiltration of it, an “insider’s” perspective if you will. He is a bluff artist, a poseur and a shill.

    Like this article, Futrelle cherry-picks a snippet or a facet of something and proceeds to egocentrically
    lift it out of context and blow it out of proportion. He knows virtually nothing of the current activism going
    on in the Men’s Movement.

    He is xenophobic towards the MRM and a jingoistic journalist in his coverage of it. Futrelle uses libelous accusations and lampooning to get his message across and should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a softball.

  52. See, now we know this was never a serious attempt to take an honest look at MRAs. As the workers in Wisconsin put it “Shame. Shame. Shame”

    • No Porky, shame on you. The union workers in Wisconsin, and really in any state, because we are going to start seeing more states go toe to toe with their unions; would rather trample over the greater majority then make a few small concessions for the smaller minority they represent. Unions made sense in the 1930s when workers needed protection and benefits were given as compensation for lower wages. But with increased wages AND benefits, and the added protection that make union workers the only group that hasn’t had to face lay-offs and have been the narrow minority that’s still received yearly salary increases while the rest of us probably haven’t, the unions and the people who the unions represent that aren’t willing to contribute more to their own quality of life and expect it to remain on the backs of the taxpayers who have faced lay-off, cut back hours and wages is just plain irresponsible and is going to be the demise of the American economy. So shame on you and the Winconsin workers who rather see the entire state government go under for what best personally benefits them.

      • The unions workers are getting the same treatment as feminists and it will soon end, much to their chagrin.

        Men are tired of working their fingers to the bone to support a fascist movement which only has the goal to destroy them.

  53. On Barbarossaaaa’s article that you criticized, that was posted at AVFM.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/03/a-message-for-white-knights/

    I posted this comment:

    “I would at least phone the police or offer first aid, but I wouldn’t put my personal safety at risk for a stranger.”

    It got 34 thumbs up and 3 thumbs down. Maybe those 3 thumbs down were willing to risk their personal safety, but not certainly not many agreed with just ignoring a rape and walking away.

    On Reddit WTF, which is not MRA, the same sentiment about personal safety was also the majority of popular opinion.

  54. You aren’t one for witty nicknames, eh? That really isn’t a snappy insult. Try David “Quotemine” Futrelle instead. Works a hell of a lot better.

  55. Nice guys finish last(Denis)

    I think you miss the fact that not all guys are running the same race.

  56. Fuck! I’m a heterosexual dude, and I have long hair! I had no idea that I was turning other guys gay; in fact, experience had convinced me that heterosexual chicks dug it! I have unknowingly contributed to the oppression of men!

  57. Wellokaythen says:

    Futrelle’s description of the more extreme views reminds me how absurdly relative the “nice guy” label can be. Some of the men who constantly refer to themselves as nice guys are really not all that nice. Some of them think they’re nice compared to the worst of the worst. Or they set the bar incredibly low, like “hey, I’ve never hit a woman (who didn’t deserve it). I’m not like those really abusive guys.” It comes across like some kind of justification – “I stopped restraining myself, because deep down she wanted me to be an asshole.”

  58. I have in fact written articles critical of radical feminists like Dworkin and other anti-porn feminists. Here’s a piece of mine from the LA Times:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-16/books/bk-38664_1_andrea-dworkin

  59. First thing: Dave, great article, great website, keep being awesome!

    First thing addendum: The Good Men Project is fantastic, and I’m glad they’ve shown articles from both sides of the divide.

    Second thing: I just want to give a little signal boost to the idea that feminism isn’t the problem, sexism is the problem, and it cuts both ways.

    Third thing: Women, as a group, are not evil. Men, as a group, are not evil. Men and women are just damn people, and at the end of the day, we’re all just doing our best to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t think we’ll ever be able to reconcile the extremes of MRM and feminism, but the middle ground is wide and if we stop looking for enemies, we might find ourselves friends.

  60. Great piece, there wasn’t anything I didn’t agree with. Thank you for writing it.

    I’ve been on some websites that clearly had a heavy MRM feel to it because I truly wanted to learn about men. But many of the comments are just heartbreaking and scary. To know there is that level of hate and contempt directed to anyone is insane.

    I do think men have certain mens’ right issues that should be a cohabitation with men AND women working together. To not make it seem like every man that likes children is going to be a molester. Or the fact that men aren’t graduating from college like they use to. Or the fact that there are laws that are biased to women when it comes to custody and child support. Or that we should promote men and young boys to speak out if they have been abused or raped. There are tons of issues that we should talk about concerning issues men face.

    My issues lies with, as David said, the need to tear women down in the process. Isn’t this the same thing MRM men have complained about concerning feminism? The need for fringe Feminism followers to tear men down in the process? Why in turn would men who wanted to fight the exact prejudice they felt, turn to this same exact kind of method?

    I saw a few men comment on the incident David brought up concerning “Bash A Violent Bitch” month and how it was meant as a retributive parady from a similar movement of women making fun of male abuse. But still, what man really believes that a successful way to fight bigotry and ignorance is with more bigotry and ignorance? How exactly is that going to accomplish their end result? How many men truly believe that most women laugh about men being abused? Good women. Women that are your mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives or daughters? Because I have no doubt there are women out there that do think it’s funny to make fun of male abuse. But these are not the women Men Rights advocates should care to change or talk to because these type of women aren’t going to change. Just like men that mock or make fun of female abuse aren’t going to change.

    The women you should want to encourage to care about the Men’s Right Movement are the women who wouldn’t laugh at male abuse, the women in a man’s life or the women outside of it that are reasonable, caring and loving. And there are many out there. And there will be many more if men can talk about these issues in a positive aware way that doesn’t take down women in the process. But, if the Men’s Right Movement continues on with it’s clear venom toward anything female, they are going to turn away the EXACT women who they should instead be winning over. Because any sane woman isn’t going to stick around to hear the tribulations a man faces if he is calling her a bitch and and has a “she deserves it” mentality.

    At the end of the day men and women need each other. Not just to fight our own individual battles but to fight the other’s battles too. Because nothing os going to be accomplished by pitting the sexes against each other. And it seems that a lot of the Men’s Right Movement is about degrading women in the process. And it’s that exact same mentality that men who believe in the movement complained about when it came to Feminism.

    • Appleblossom says:

      Oh no, men certainly were talking back to women struggling to get their rights respect and their views heard.

      ‘All women are fundamentally savage, and the suffragist movement is simply an outbreak of emotional insanity.’ Max Baff, 1910 (Professor of Psychology)

      ‘Antifeminine Girls…included all the girls in the sample who said they did not want to marry. These girls showed psychological deviance and signs of severe pathology.’
      Douvain and Adelson, 1975.

      ‘In today’s world it is the women and not the men who are doing all the seducing…daughters of Eve who sashay their way through God’s world with their mini-skirts, low-cut and see-through blouses and tight-tight pants…’
      Judge Emerson Pereia, 1975.

      ‘It is well known that women in particular….are liable to be untruthful and invent stories.’
      Judge Sutcliffe, 1976.

      ‘Women are sex objects whether they like it or not.’
      Judge Archie Simonson, 1977.

      I have plenty more.

      Men have been bashing women for centuries-we just finally said ‘enough’ and enough women joined in to start putting the breaks on it. That is why when you talk about how oppressed men are, feminists look at you funny.

      • typhonblue says:

        @ Appleblossom,

        You assert that men have ‘oppressed women throughout the centuries’.

        Now here’s my question. Why should men care?

        Seriously. If men have intentionally oppressed women throughout the centuries then their logical answer to you pointing it out is: ‘Yep, that was the goal.’

        You are trying to shame men by saying men intentionally ‘oppressed women for centuries’. The only problem is that men who intentionally oppress women don’t care. Because it’s intentional.

        So you’re accusing men of something that, if they actually did, they would celebrate, not feel ashamed of.

        See the problem?

        If men oppressed women intentionally, they wouldn’t feel ashamed of it, they would feel justified and vindicated when women point it out. The reason why you can shame men pointing out the ‘oppression of women’ is because men do feel it’s wrong. Therefore men do not now, and likely never did, oppress women intentionally.

        It’s like this. The only time calling someone selfish works to shame them is when the person in question isn’t selfish. It’s a lie that plays upon the very emotional pressures it asserts don’t exist.

        Your whole construct is a lie to play upon the very emotional pressures on men you say don’t exist.

        You say men oppress women intentionally(are selfish) yet if men were doing what you say(were selfish) they would say, ‘yeah, so what?’ But because you, at a fundamental level, know that men actually do care very much about any suffering women endure(are not selfish), you can use a lie about men’s intentional oppression(selfishness) to make them feel ashamed.

        The fact that this feminist tactic is effective at shaming men is proof that it reflects a complete fabrication about men’s actual natures.

        It is, in fact, slander.

        • Appleblossom says:

          You are saying that not only are men oppressing women on purpose-they do not care when they are told so.

          And then claim it is slander when I point out that for centuries men have done this that you yourself admit they do.

          Your comments make no sense-on one hand “men oppress women. They could care less they do.” On the other “men do not oppress women, they get upset when they find out that women are oppressed. To say they do not is to be shaming and using slander.”

          If men did not oppress women and had not done so for centuries-why were women legally barred from education? Why are women now legally barred from being in combat (in the US)? Why were women’s earnings subject to her husband’s control? Why were women not allowed to have property in their name (Salic Law)? And why did men fight women (as well as the men who agreed they were stupid laws) who tried to stop these laws?

          Why were such statements as I quoted even said?

          • No that is not what he was saying. Don’t pretend to misread what he wrote just so you can label him a misogynist. That sort of tactic will definitely not on MRAs anymore. I know it’s worked for a long time for your kind but those days are coming to an end rapidly.

            • Er, no. She didn’t misquote or misunderstand him at all.

              Typhon said: “You are trying to shame men by saying men intentionally ‘oppressed women for centuries’. ”

              I don’t believe she was trying to shame anyone, she merely pointed out quotes and instances in history when men intentionally oppressed women. If you feel ashamed, Typhon, then that is your own affair, and not something that Appleblossom imposed on you.

              She did not label anyone a misogynist, Adi. You did that.

              • typhonblue says:

                “If you feel ashamed, Typhon, then that is your own affair, and not something that Appleblossom imposed on you.”

                Um. Why should I feel ashamed? I’m not a man. In fact it’s probably because I’m not a man that I’m able to point out this dynamic.

                Also, you’re not grasping what I’m trying to say.

                The fact that Apple is using the ‘intentional oppression of women by men’ to shame men indicates that the ‘intentional oppression of women by men’ was hardly intentional.

                If it was, men wouldn’t be shamed by having it pointed out.

                Whether or not it’s actually shaming is irrelevant to me for many reasons. The fact that it can be used to shame is what’s relevant.

                As I illustrated in my example, calling someone selfish to shame them only works if the person in question is not selfish to begin with.

                Saying that men ‘intentionally oppress women’ doesn’t shame men unless they never were ‘intentionally oppressing women’ to begin with.

                • “Whether or not it’s actually shaming is irrelevant to me for many reasons. The fact that it can be used to shame is what’s relevant.”

                  If it can be used to shame, then it is actually shaming. Tautology is tautologic!

                  You are assuming that Appleblossom is trying to shame people, specifically men. I am assuming that she is trying to show proof for her argument, which is that (waaaay up the thread here) historically speaking, it is men who have oppressed women.

                  Now a moment for apologies:
                  Appleblossom, I’m sorry for hijacking your argument thread.
                  Typhon, I apologize for referring to you as “him” in my post.

                  • typhonblue says:

                    “If it can be used to shame, then it is actually shaming. Tautology is tautologic!”

                    If a gun is used to shoot then it’s actually shooting!

                    “You are assuming that Appleblossom is trying to shame people, specifically men. I am assuming that she is trying to show proof for her argument, which is that (waaaay up the thread here) historically speaking, it is men who have oppressed women.”

                    And I’m saying the fact that the statement ‘men have oppressed women’ can be used to shame or, if you prefer, motivate men, is proof that said oppression was never intentional. It was never men’s intent to cause women harm.

                    And if said oppression was never intentional, then likely what we view as oppression was the result of those men’s, misguided or otherwise, desire to take care of women in the context of their times.

                    After all the male role prior to this day and age involved a lot of physical hardship and sacrifice, up to and including death to preserve the lives of the ‘inferiors’ they were ‘oppressing.’

                    But this part is omitted in feminist framing of history. The fact that the male role was to be expendable for his nation, king, religion and, in the last two millennia, his woman.

                    Because feminist theory won’t accept the traditional role of man as expendable into it’s hallowed halls, it will only ever have half the picture.

            • typhonblue says:

              She. I’m female.

            • Poester99 says:

              She

          • He tried explain logic to you. Typhonblue, don’t do this, feminists have a name for logic, facts, and rigorous proof — they call it manspaining.

            Just put things in terms that they can understand:

            Feminists are evil monsters who are waging a war against boys. MRM are the last hope for boys to avoid feminist annihilation.

            Dare me to prove this, Appleblossom. Please. Dare me.

            • typhonblue says:

              I’m a woman.

              • Funny how people keep choosing to ignore that, hey?

                • Poester99 says:

                  Intesting dynamic going on here, some of the feminists are actively pretending to be men (using androngynous short names). Do they think that it gives their argument more force?

                  That seems oddly and ironically sexist to me.

                  You, of course, are using a pseudonym with no gender connotation.

            • “Feminists are evil monsters who are waging a war against boys.”

              Please provide a link to the feminist website that says Boys are the Enemy. Do not post a screed. Give me the actual link.

              • MRM members are not permitted to post links on The Good Men Project. I will show you how to find the information that you need, but I cannot hand-feed it to you.

                1) Go to the web site Alexa and find the two highest traffic feminist sites, and the two highest traffic MRM sites. If you want, you can just believe me: feministe and feministing are the largest feminist hate sites, and the spearhead and a voice for men are the two largest volume men’s rights sites.

                2) Go to each of these four sites and search for the word “Ritalin” in the search box provided. Tally results. Report back here.

                It is neither difficult nor time consuming. I have posted these instructions MANY times. Find out about the feminist war against boys, and find out about the valiant efforts of the MRM to save boys from feminist hatred.

                Feminists are an evil hate group that are attempting to take both the freedom and the lives of all boys, no exceptions. MRM are the last hope to avoid this holocaust.

                • You say “MRM members are not permitted to post links on The Good Men Project. ” I posted links to wikipedia above, and my comment had to go into moderation, which is acceptable and in line with a commenting policy that requires links be screened. My links were screened, and my comment was posted.

                  I actually saw your instructions for looking at Ritalin on Feministe and Feministing, and went to those sites and searched their archives for “Ritalin.” On Feministe there were a grand total of three posts that mention Ritalin at all: 2 referring to pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions on religious grounds, 1 referring to a poster’s own ADD and her need to take Ritalin. Feministing has a single post mentioning Ritalin, and it is about a school that confiscated a girl’s birth control.

                  Here. I will post the links to my searches, and you can run them again yourself:
                  http://www.feministe.us/blog/?s=Ritalin
                  http://feministing.com/?s=Ritalin&post_type=post&searchsubmit=Search

                  I fail to see any mention of hatred for boys, or a program to get boys to take Ritalin. Can you please provide some actual evidence?

              • Not buying it says:

                Radfem.com

                That is one of the many that consider boys as evil to be cured or better yet eradicated.

            • Appleblossom says:

              Then prove it. Prove it by showing where women/feminists are actively aborting male children for the fact that they are male.
              Prove it by showing where women/feminists are starting wars and excluding women from acting in those wars.

              Prove it by showing where women/feminists are restricting and/or removing male access to health care (and no, breast cancer research is not good enough-why? It dwarfs all other cancers in terms of funding, including female cancers like ovarian and cervical.)

              Prove it by posting the actual policies that say boys are not allowed to attend school. Prove it by posting the actual polices that say boys are not allowed into colleges.

              Prove it by showing that women/feminists are doing anything to actively oppose boys.

              • See above. I tire of providing the same instructions repeatedly. You will not follow directions anyway, it is a waste of time.

              • They may not be aborting boys but given the choice will select girls!

                http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

                 “In the ’90s, when Ericsson looked into the numbers for the two dozen or so clinics that use his process, he discovered, to his surprise, that couples were requesting more girls than boys, a gap that has persisted, even though Ericsson advertises the method as more effective for producing boys. In some clinics, Ericsson has said, the ratio is now as high as 2 to 1.”

                Girls vs Boys in school:

                http://drpfconsults.com/surprising-facts-about-how-boys-are-treated-in-school/

                Men’s Health:

                It’s a well-known fact that women, on average, outlive men by six years. Between 15 and 44, men’s mortality rates are more than twice as high as women’s. These shortfalls are noted in “Healthy People 2010,” a report issued this year by the Surgeon General and the US Department of Health and Human Services outlining a health care agenda. But Edward Bartlett, senior policy advisor of a group called Men’s Health America, points out that no action has been taken to address such concerns. There are no men’s health committees or task forces; the HHS has an Office of Women’s Health but no Office of Men’s Health.

                The reason for this neglect, Bartlett said at the press conference, is the belief that gender equity requires more attention to women’s health concerns. A decade ago, claims that women had been shortchanged by a male-dominated medical establishment caused an outcry from activists and legislators. As it happens, these allegations were little more than a politically driven myth.

          • typhonblue says:

            @ Apple:

            “You are saying that not only are men oppressing women on purpose-they do not care when they are told so.”

            Nope. In fact I said the opposite.

            I said that if men ‘intentionally oppressed women’ as you said they did, then men wouldn’t have cared when it was pointed out that ‘women were oppressed’. As it stands a large enough majority of men(or powerful men) did care and changed it.

            “And then claim it is slander when I point out that for centuries men have done this that you yourself admit they do.”

            Read it again. I never admitted that men ‘intentionally oppress women’ in fact I was making an argument against such an interpretation now and historically.

            “If men did not oppress women and had not done so for centuries-why were women legally barred from education? Why are women now legally barred from being in combat (in the US)? Why were women’s earnings subject to her husband’s control? Why were women not allowed to have property in their name (Salic Law)? And why did men fight women (as well as the men who agreed they were stupid laws) who tried to stop these laws?

            “Why were such statements as I quoted even said?”

            Because men are big ol’ meanie pants who intentionally oppressed women!

            • Appleblossom says:

              What other conclusion can a person come to upon looking at the entire list of efforts by men to marginalize and restrict women?

              Oh and that change that men did? It was after constant, steady and relentless organizing and protesting by women. It was not because men woke up one day and said “hey! Let us stop restricting rights from women and give the little darlin’s the same rights we have.”

              • typhonblue says:

                “What other conclusion can a person come to upon looking at the entire list of efforts by men to marginalize and restrict women?”

                Indeed.

                There is no other conclusion to come to. None at all.

                • Appleblossom says:

                  Glad you see my point.

                  • OK, so what? Who is oppressing you and controlling your finances? Is it even possible? Have we reached equality yet or are you looking for retribution for a sin that was not even committed against you?

                  • Her point was to vomit some more anti-male hatred.

                    Every thread is the same. MRM say anti-feminist things. Feminists reply with anti-male hate. See the problem? Their hatred of us is what we are fighting about. But they try to paint out mission as hatred of WOMEN, when in fact what MRM oppose is FEMINISM. Feminism hurts women almost as much as it does men.

            • Appleblossom says:

              To answer your point up thread about how we should not be ignoring that men, out a misguided effort to protect us, would go off and get themselves harmed doing so.

              Generally wars were not started because a woman was in danger. Generally men who had to protect his little woman was doing so because of another male.

              • typhonblue says:

                You won’t take any responsibility. None.

                >Generally wars were not started because a woman was in danger.

                Wars are started because societies are in danger, which include women. Or societies want resources, which include resources that women benefit from.

                In World War One suffragettes handed out white feathers to men who weren’t soldiers.

                In Nordic societies women were often instigators of revenge and blood feuds. In Ireland, mothers are responsible for instilling hate against protestants in their children. Women leaders have just as bloody a track record as men in war.

                Women play their part in creating and sustaining conflict. Don’t kid yourself.

                • “Wars are started because societies are in danger, which include women (and men, Sid). Or societies want resources, which include resources that women (and men, Sid) benefit from.”

                  That supports Appleblossom’s point, which is that GENERALLY wars aren’t about the ladies. You can come up with some, sure, but GENERALLY wars aren’t about ladies at all.

                  At no time did Appleblossom say “No wars were ever started by women” or “Women can’t hate or oppress.” In individual instances, sure.

                  As far as women leaders having as bloody a track record, well, sure. When they’re able to get into positions of power and are put at the head of a military, why wouldn’t they be as militarily effective as a man? That getting to power, though, is the tricky part. There’s a great list at wikipedia of all known female rulers, including small title holders. It’s here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_rulers_and_title_holders

                  You know what’s longer than that? The list of all the rulers in CHINA ALONE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_monarchs

                  Factor in, oh, the rest of the world’s monarchs for all of recorded history, and I’m going to say that historically, men are GENERALLY in charge and GENERALLY the ones who instigate wars.

              • “Generally men who had to protect his little woman was doing so because of another male.”

                Yep. It was all mens’ fault. That is what you’re saying isn’t it?

                This is the problem with feminists. You have such a narrow minded view of the world. Everything that happens is somehow a gender issue and men are responsible for it (unless it’s good of course).

                The reality is, that wars were a logical consequence of cultures competing for resources and land. Those cultures that didn’t wage war, were conquered or destroyed by those that did. Women benefited from expansive aggression as much as anyone else did (and they also suffered if they lost). Men didn’t go to war FOR women but they also didn’t go to war BECAUSE of other men. It was just a necessary evil for all cultures that wanted to survive. The only reason women didn’t actively participate in the fighting was because they didn’t have to. They had men to do the dirty work for them.

                • “Those who cannot wield a sword can still die on them.” Not going to war doesn’t prevent you from dying in one, and women are as likely to die defending their homes (or getting bombed) as men are.

                  And you are actually supporting Appleblossom’s point that most wars are not about women or men at all, but about other issues. Good work!

                  • Talk about twisting people’s opinions around!

                    Appleblossom clearly stated that war was a male issue and it is precisely because I DON’T support that view, that I replied in disagreement.

                  • Oh, and Hilary Clinton would take it even further. She reckons that women are the “real” victims of war because they have their sons and husbands blown to shreds on the battlefield!

                    The fact that a prominent politician can say something like that without getting ridiculed/scrutinized for it, just proves how privileged women are and how oppressed men are by comparison.

                  • @Adi

                    I don’t see the quote where Appleblossom said that “war was a male issue.” Twisting indeed.

                    Hillary Clinton gave that speech at a first lady’s conference in 1998, before she was a senator or running for president. http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html It’s about half-way down the page, and lists victimizations beyond losing their husbands and sons, though not listing the loss of life, which is, I agree, the worst thing.

                    It was perhaps glib for her to call women the primary victims (not “the REAL victims” per your paraphrase), because primary means “first”, but women are still victims of war. No one wants to send their loved ones to possibly die. Do you know any mother or father who wouldn’t trade places with their child, if that child – whatever age – was about to die?

                    War is the oppressor here, not women.

                  • @Sid,
                    Correction, it was YOU who said that and whom I was disagreeing with not Appleblossom. You must have realized that, so why not say so? For the record, here’s the remark I’m talking about:
                    “men are GENERALLY in charge and GENERALLY the ones who instigate wars.”
                    It seems you just want to squabble around rather than get to the truth.

                    Typical things like correcting me on things like “primary victims” and not “real victims” further illustrate your bias. Primary does not just mean first. It means first in IMPORTANCE. And even if it did only mean “first” that would still be a blatant lie to suggest that men dying in the field is a loss that somehow comes to them after their loved one’s learning about it. Even to a feminist, that must be obvious. Not to mention that it demeans fathers losing their sons, brothers losing their brothers etc. All only about women. One big undeserved racket.

                    The reason I call Clinton’s statement a sign of oppression, and I don’t care where she said it and to whom, is because despite being so unbelievably cynical and outright demeaning of male lives, she could still say it without protest and little if any disagreement. THAT is what proves that the oppression of men is real. But no doubt, you’ll find some way to deny it or reinterpret it to mean something else or simply not acknowledge the meaning. Well, I’m not here to change your mind. If you’re set on having women being the exclusive victims, so be it. But don’t expect anyone to believe you arrived there through objective reasoning. At least be honest and admit that you’re heavily biased and guided by other motivations than the pursuit of truth.

                  • @Adi

                    I found and referenced the source of a speech that you misquoted. You seem angry that I corrected you.

                    I agree that war is oppressing to men as well as women. War is awful to all people. Neither gender has exclusive rights to dying in war.

                    You said, “If you’re set on having women being the exclusive victims, so be it.” Can you quote me where I have said that?

                • Appleblossom says:

                  The Crusades were not started out of a desire for resources. In fact a great deal of the wars in Europe started from the “my god is better than your god” problem we still have today.

                  Al Qaeda did not start their war on the US because of lack of resources-they did it because they want us to do things their way. All of the wars that Israel has been involved in have zero to do with resources with a possible exception of the War of Independence of 1948.

                  A lot of kings just warred because that is what a king did. WWII was fought over multiple things and few of them had to do with the economic consequences of the poorly written Treaty of Versailles.

                  Your claims that war is basically about resources fails in light of all the wars started over things that have nothing to do with resources.

                  • @ Sid
                    You didn’t correct me, you just said there wasn’t such a quote which was an outright lie since it was you yourself who made that statement that I obviously intended to quote. But instead of coming out and admitting it, you’re just trying to make me look like I’m twisting things. I didn’t misquote or twist anything – I just quoted the wrong person and that was clearly a genuine mistake. Given the messy flood of nested comments we have, I do not feel that I need to be ashamed of making such a mistake. We’ve cleared that now but you still want to dwell on it. I suppose you think that’s your best bet on trying to “win” this debate. It certainly shows you have no interest in really getting to the truth. Just quarreling – nothing else.

                    “You said, “If you’re set on having women being the exclusive victims, so be it.” Can you quote me where I have said that?”

                    Another attempt to brand or label me with something. That was clearly not a quote from you but a hypothetical interpretation of your intentions. In a simple form, I made a statement of the form:
                    If P(A) is true, then C is true

                    You want to make it look as if I said:
                    P(A) is true

                    Those sort of fallacies are a feminist favourite. Nonetheless, given what I’ve read of you, I think it is not unfair to assume you have a strong bias towards towards viewing women as victims and men as perpetrators. Quotes like the one we discussed show that.

                    So I take it you don’t agree that Clinton’s statement and the lack of scrutiny that followed, are a clear sign of oppression of men?

                    I have an idea:
                    I’ll happily retract from the notion that men are oppressed and leave the MRA if the following incident occurs:
                    A male US politician who is well known by everyone, either a senator or soon to become one makes the following public statement and not only gets away with it but receives effectively no criticism or disagreement and certainly no political consequences. Here’s what he must say:

                    “Men have always been the primary victims of female-on-male rape. It is they who have to worry about their wives and daughters.”

                    We can change the details of the wording if you want as long as the overall message remains the same.

                    If that happens, then I’ll concede that there is no male oppression in the US. But everyone reading this, knows that that would never happen. It simply couldn’t happen and THAT is why the oppression of men is a sad reality – made all the more severe by the fact that most people don’t even recognize it.

                  • @Adi

                    Interesting. I have not branded or labeled you with anything. There’s nothing to win.

                    You say above “you just said there wasn’t such a quote which was an outright lie since it was you yourself who made that statement that I obviously intended to quote” and yet you cannot quote where I allegedly lied.

                    You also say “But instead of coming out and admitting it, you’re just trying to make me look like I’m twisting things.” I’m not trying to make you look like anything. I’m just quoting what you have already stated.

                    Men can indeed be oppressed, so you don’t have to concede anything on that account. I simply observe that oppression is not the exclusive province of either gender.

                  • You don’t believe WWII was fought over resources?!?!?!? Lebensraum and Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere are two topics you need to brush up on. WOW

    • Appleblossom says:

      So you do not believe it was systematic or do you not believe it existed or now exists?

      There was widespread oppression of women that is very much obvious in the historical record from first hand sources (the actual laws passed by men and the actual words written by men.) The fact that women had to fight for decades to get rid of it should be something that is not swept under the rug.

      Nor are men oppressed in any where near the level that women were (and outside the Western world, still are. Western women have achieved most of the easy goals-right to own property, keep wages, not get fired for getting pregnant etc…) Where male oppression exists, it is not generally feminists who are doing it but other men. Which is why the MRM really does little to help the cause because you drive the very people who might be willing to help you away by the way they refer to women. Taking “Bash a Bitch Month…” IF a bunch of women (feminist or the Phyllis Schlafly types) are saying things like “beat up men” the response should not be “beat up women” but “How about you women do a stop the violence against men month.”

      • Poester99 says:

        To simplify (for the simple around here):

        Hitting someone that is hitting you is self defense.
        Hitting someone that is not hitting you is assault.

        See the difference now?

  61. Careful, providing factual quotes is against TGMP commenting policy.

  62. The pigs are starting to squeal.

  63. This article is just a hatchet job of miscellaneous quotes from men who are very hurt and marginalized from society. Feminism doesn’t offer sympathy or understanding to these men, only condemnation for extreme expressions of anger, but no validation or understanding of the deep hurt and anger at a society that considers men to be disposable.

    Average men are talking about their feelings, anger is one of them and men aren’t sucking it up anymore. Unfortunately, this type of ignorance of that anger and its source only feeds it. Futrelle is futile and should address the issues, rather than the expressions of anger of some men (who may or may not be mra and most often are not leaders)

    I wonder if TGMP would accept a submission on the ugly history of feminism? It would be too easy to quote from feminist bloggers about how they regale in their empowerment by using violence against men. Maybe some citations from prominent feminist leaders calling for male genocide and female superiority and personal accounts of feminist hatred from Erin Pizzey, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy and Murray Straus.

  64. I read the comments expecting MRAs to come out of the woodwork to reinforce exactly what Futrelle stated in his article, and was not disappointed!

  65. What kind of “men” site writes so many articles attacking men’s movement. Are you sure this site is not meant for women??? This line just makes me want to throw up:

    “dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men’s sexuality.” By “suppressing male urges” he essentially means not having sex with any man who lusts after her.

    No man, the suppression comes when a man lust after her and is told wanting to have sex with a woman wearing close to nothing is wrong. If a woman wearing a slut outfit ends up not being a slut then she becomes as ridiculous as a man who is not a clown, wearing clown make up in his day to day activities and expecting people not to laugh at him. The fact that the writer doesn’t get even that simple point makes me question if it’s really a man writing these things at all

    • “…What kind of “men” site writes so many articles attacking men’s movement…”

      Bingo! We have a winner.

    • “This line just makes me want to throw up”

      I believe that having feminists speaking in the same forum as MRM is strategically very beneficial to the MRM. In vacuum, the voice of the MRM sounds extreme. It is precisely the counterpoint to feminist hate that makes the hard line of the MRM reasonable. We are not here for a pleasant conversation over tea, we are here to defend men and boys from extermination. The feminists help reinforce this message.

      Let the hate mongers speak. Their words are our best weapons.

    • No one says it’s wrong for men to want to have sex with women who “dress like sluts.” The wrong part is if a man confuses his desire to have sex with his right to have said sex, where no such right exists.

  66. Jay Hammers says:

    http://www.saveservices.org/ – Putting an end to all domestic violence, and they do it without demonizing ALL men (misandry) or claiming that ALL women are victims (misogyny), which is what the vast majority of domestic violence organizations and women’s shelters do.

  67. Jay Hammers says:

    “MRAs complain about (and dramatically overstate the number of) false rape accusations, but instead of mounting media campaigns or protests or anything else that would involve trying to bring this issue to a wider world, the overwhelming majority of MRAs seem content to use the issue as an excuse to rant about lying bitches online.”

    Oh really?

    Episode 3 of A Voice for Men Radio will feature T.J. Ward, an expert investigator who has appeared on Larry King, to discuss the case of Vladek Filler, a Maine man being prosecuted by Mary Kellet, whose quest for rape convictions has been billed as “The modern day witch trials for fathers and men.”

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/10/must-read-avfm-radio-next-tuesday/

    Not to mention SAVE services.

    I have already contributed money to both organizations.

    Give me a couple months, buddy, and I’ll be contributing my time as well.

    • SAVE Services is a sham. It’s just an extension of the MRM with their faulty statistics and false statements in their reports.

      • NFVLRC.org has lots of experts.

        I would really like to see a public debate on DV.

        If Henry Belanger can convince Kimmel to come out of hiding from the safety of his academic environment, then I’m quite sure I could like up Dutton.

        Kimmel v. Dutton

        Let’s do it Henry.

        • Appleblossom says:

          They have a lot of experts but not much in the way of easily findable statistics.

          • Go to their research section, read it all:

            http://www.nfvlrc.org/latestResearch.htm

            • Appleblossom says:

              I did, I would have to wade through a lot of information to get to what I want.

              It is called talking points-they should learn to do it.

              • It’s not talking points, you can tons of pdfs of DV research submitted to peer reviewed journals.

                Try this one:

                Graham-Kevan, Archer – Using Johnson’s domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample

                Tests of Johnson’s typology of relationship aggression have so far been restricted to composite data from women reporting on their own and their partner’s behaviors. Such samples have included sampling techniques believed to result in bias towards reports of male violence towards women. This study assessed whether the typology would be found in a sample of 1350 respondents unselected for partner violence. Measures of physical aggression and its escalation, injuries, and control, were obtained from both victims and perpetrators. Replicating previous methods it was found that a simple two-cluster solution failed to create the distinct categories found previously. A three-cluster solution was found to improve the discriminatory ability. Partner reports were found to produce a clearer typological profile than self-reports.

                http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/Graham_Kevan.ArcherJohnsonstudy.pdf

                • Um… read what the study measures…

                  Being rude.
                  Being mean to pets.
                  Trying to make someone do something they don’t want to do.
                  Using nasty looks.
                  Making it difficult to work or study.
                  Refusing to share money.
                  Damaging property.
                  Show up one another in public.
                  Tell other one they are going mad.

                  So to jerry rig the results they had to expand the list of behaviors to such an incredible breadth it no longer resembles what most people consider to be domestic violence.

          • Reports from the WHO (Archer, 2006) also make it clear than in many countries around the world, particularly where women have little political or socioeconomic power, women represent the much larger share of IPV victims. However, the most reliable population of surveys indicate that in Western industrialized democracies such as the United States and Canada, where they enjoy higher status, women engage in physical aggression at rates comparable to men (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990) and are as likely or more likely to be the initiators (DeMaris, 1992; Morse, 1995; Dutton et al., 1999; Straus, 1993; Williams & Frieze, 2005).

            Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy

            Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumption that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)

            Sorry for providing some facts, I know it is against GMP comment policy.

            • What experts???

              • These experts:

                •John Archer, PhD
                University of Central Lancashire

                •Deborah Capaldi, PhD
                Oregon Social Learning Center

                •Michelle Carney, PhD
                University of Georgia

                •Philip Cook
                Victim Advocate, Tualatin, OR

                •Carol Crabsen, LCSW
                Valley Oasis Shelter,
                Lancaster, CA

                •Patrick Davies, PhD
                University of Rochester

                •Lt. Richard L. Davis
                Quincy College

                •Donald Dutton, PhD
                University of British Columbia

                •Miriam Ehrensaft, PhD
                Columbia University

                •Richard Felson, PhD
                Pennsylvania State University

                •Nicola Graham-Kevan, PhD
                University of Central Lancashire

                •John Hamel, LCSW
                Batterer Intervention
                San Rafael, CA

                •Lonnie Hazlewood, MSHP, LCDC
                Batterer Intervention
                Austin, TX

                •Denise Hines, PhD
                University of New Hampshire
                Clark University

                •Jeniffer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, PhD
                University of South Alabama

                •R.L. McNeely, PhD, JD
                Unversity of Wisconsin

                •Tonia Nicholls, PhD
                BC Mental Health
                and Addiction Services

                •Patricia Overberg, MSW
                Central Coast Crisis Center
                Salinas, CA

                •Sandra Stith, PhD
                Kansas State University

      • You’re a liar Chris, and I hope you wind up in the family court system.
        NO JUSTICE NO PEACE.

        We’re on to hate mongers like you.
        Men are going to have equal rights under the law,there is nothing you can do to stop the truth from coming forth.

        4 mo years of VAWA misandrist lawz are gonna bring a lot more men to our cause.

        You cannot keep persecuting men with the court system and have them NOT wake up.

        Your genocidal zealotry is your own counter agent.

    • Poester99 says:

      I’ve hear about this Mary Kellet person. I wonder if the people of Maine will ever open their eyes to her bigotry.

  68. Anyone who reads the-spearhead, a voice for men, and the other sites he references can see plain as day that what he says is on there is definitely there in spades. It’s weird how you deny what is there in black and white for all to see.

  69. In as much as there is differences that are often accented by vitriol and anger and hatred. For me personally I reside in locations that directly reflect my experience. My impression generally is that an individuals social experience of sexism is experienced and expressed in varying degrees and seeks affirmation of that experience. Rarely do we observe or respect the fact that economic stratification is a contributor to the prevalence and persistence of that experience. As such people may and do modify their ideological template to address their particular experience and seek appropriate affirmation. The blinders that accompany these templates of empathy are well represented by their various expressions. Parallel to an economic stratification, we have now assembled a legal and political stratification that in turn expresses sexism in varying degrees based on your location within that structure. And we compete to establish that are very own position is the most shocking and debilitating.

    For this reason, the articles presented on any website blog are significant only to the degree that the reader will identify with the content and evolve somehow from their current position. They seek affirmation to move on. Arguing about who is right is superfluous, redundant, pointless. Much like to me this entire look at the” MRM ” at this location. It may garner a read, or a few hours of attention, or a few years. Ultimately people will reside in the niche where they find context, meaning and affirmation to evolve.

    I have found personally and unfortunately that feminism is not that place for me. It simply demands that I accept my own significant experience as last and least. Feminism in my eyes has fabricated a false dichotomy of villains, assembled a meager ideology to battle those villains and homogenized the individuals experience to conscript efforts against invisible villains that cannot and will not ever be defeated. Many adherents to it have simply turned away from the ideological slavery that it offers and requires and have resumed living their own lives. They now know that their is no savior and that their turn for salvation is last or never. It promotes a “take a number” view and practice. Those advocating it’s purposes actually believe that their number will be served soon. It is a pyramid scheme financially and frenetically. IMO

    • You, Sir, are awesome.
      I rarely find anything on these sites that teaches me anything but in your comment I just have. Thank you for sharing that very interesting point regarding personal experience.

      • You will rarely find anything useful at this site.

        • And yet Denis just can’t get enough of it.

        • Denis, keep in mind that feminists will hate no matter what we do. By confining their hatred to web-sites where children do not visit. we accomplish two valuable things:
          1) Men will recognize the hatred in the feminist message, and join the MRM
          2) Children will be spared the feminist hatred

          Keep them talking, and confine their hatred to places like this. It serves a purpose. At least, they are not humiliating and dehumanizing a 6 year old boy.

          • You’re right about this AntZ. Surely the worst thing about feminism is it’s effect on boys. I would be curious to know how many suicides could have been avoided if our ancestors had been a little more sober about women’s liberation and women in general for that matter.

            • Poester99 says:

              Men and especially young men commit suicide roughly 4x more often than women. Maybe some more feminist shaming and degradation can fix that, NOT.

              Men just don’t support each other, they will typically support a woman first.

  70. Furthermore, his own blog often contains fairly misandric comments by posters, but he routinely dismisses them as “just joking”. Funning, when two commenter’s in the UK lost their jobs because feminists didn’t like them “just joking”.

    Overall though, the MRM has given misandric feminists a scapegoat. they are able to express their hatred of men, by attributing it to MRA’s so as not to appear bigoted. David simply feeds this hostility, and feigns ignorance of it’s effects.

  71. Ah…David Furtelle…digs, insults, and emasculating shaming language at its finest.

    GMP, you picked a fine representative of male feminism to speak on the evils of the MRM. Just when I thought that there was hope for this website….you go and allow him and Marcotte to come here and try to further shame men into not standing up for themselves in a society that has steadily become more and more hostile to masculine values.

    I could refute your article piece by piece, but what would be the point? It’s a three page diatribe consisting of character attacks, denial, misattributions, and shaming language. The least you could do is say something original. Just like the feminist movement, the MRM consists of a myriad of individuals who have different motives; not all of them benign.

    History has proven that the feminism movement had benign origins, but the facts of the day have demonstrated that there are more than a few things that they are currently getting wrong in regards to how men are being treated in the courts and the purview of law enforcement. But rather than acknowledge or even logically debate those injustices which are central to nearly all members of the MRM, you choose instead to make cheap digs and try to paint the entire movement as a bunch of spoiled and whiny woman haters.

    On second thought…keep doing what you do, David. There is no profit in the kind of intellectual dishonesty that you and your colleagues like Amanda Marcotte promote and “it will all come out in the wash,” as they say.

    • Sadly there is a lot of profit in such stuff. That’s why frauds like Hugo Schwyzer spend so much effort on it. Probably that’s the only reason. It’s a bit like the wight loss industry – don’t care about success or truth, just selling something that everyone wants to buy and persuading them that they need to buy it.

      That’s why all these feminists don’t rely on facts – because they basically don’t have any. It’s just a big advertising campaign that rests on persuasive speeches and sympathy mongering. And just like that, it hates any contradicting truths.

  72. Maybe I’m a moderate, I don’t know, but I see some extremism from two sides here. At the heart of a lot of this debate is the issue of anger. What I read a lot in this GMP issue is a pointless circular debate about anger:

    On one simplistic side: anger is totally justified, because anyone who feels offended must be heard and must get his/her way. To ignore or criticize the anger is to commit the worst kind of oppression imaginable. Anger against injustice is righteous and how dare you question it.

    On the other simplistic side: anger is just misguided, self-caused venting, and if someone is angry that just shows how irrational, immature, and hateful that person is. The only way things change is with calm, reasoned debate or by appealing to the nobility of the human spirit.

    At the risk of sounding namby-pamby (darn that gender thing!), I suggest maybe some of the anger is justified and some of it isn’t. Some of the more strident forms of feminism are off-base. Some of the more strident forms of anti-misandry are off-base. Sometimes righteous anger can be constructive. Sometimes it’s not.

    I’m a little disappointed that much of the MRA rhetoric falls into the same category as a lot of annoying present-day American discourse: the subjectivity game. I feel oppressed, so therefore something must be wrong with the entire system, make some new laws to protect me at any cost, but never fail to pay attention to me and my needs. My pain is the pain of millions who have gone before me, going back thousands of years to the beginnings of ______ (take your pick: agriculture, complex societies, monotheism, Judaeo-Christian values, whatever) and we must right the wrongs of centuries whether present-day people are guilty or not.

    I’ve had “social justice” fatigue for a few decades now, and a lot of the MRA sounds like more of the same. Bad timing.

    • Though I disagree with some of what you say, I really really like what you say nonetheless.

    • There is a lot of anger driving the men’s rights movement, however, that is true of any social movement. I think the issue is people giving into their anger and projecting it onto others, and whether their complaints and frustrations are taken seriously.

      I think the latter causes most of the anger one sees online. I am not a men’s rights activist, but I have been shouted down by feminists for mentioning issues like sexual and physical violence against males. While I am rather thick-skinned, it is frustrating to constantly have to defend the legitimacy of addressing violence against males. It is much worse when I write or speak about my childhood experiences of abuse. Feminists have viciously attacked for just for mentioning what I went through. Sometimes it takes a lot to keep my anger in check.

      Granted, I do not think all men’s rights activists are angry just over how feminists have treated them. I think quite a few of them simply project their anger from their experiences onto feminists or women in general as a way to vent, and because the internet has no immediate reaction there is nothing to prompt them to dial it back. I also think quite a few of those men do hate women and feminists and simply cannot wait to let others know.

      However, it is unfair to take the actions of the latter group of men and treat them as representative of the entire men’s movement without qualifying it, which is what Futrelle, Marcotte, and Schwyzer tend to do. Nothing occurs in a vacuum, so it is rather dishonest to act as if angry men’s rights activists act out of abject misogyny.

  73. atheist says:

    I call this the MGTOW Paradox: they hate women, but women still give them boners.

    Sounds like a recipe for pure evil to me. Tolkien described the Ringwraiths as “desring and hating” living people’s flesh.

  74. I have a question:
    Given that men are still expected to sacrifice their lives for women when the circumstances require it, do you not think that is the ultimate sexist oppression? I mean, even if you add up all the discrimination against women including the fake examples and ignore all other forms of male oppression, how does ANYTHING compare to self sacrifice?

    How can anyone think that women are the oppressed sex in light of such a ruthless example of the oppression of men?

    And it makes not difference that those circumstances are rare. Every man grows up knowing that this would be expected of him should they arise. The message to men and boys is that their lives are of less value and should be given up for the lives of women if necessary.

    As a man, I can assure you, I would happily take every kind of discrimination that women in western countries supposedly face, if it means I could get rid of the demand for self sacrifice.

    • atheist says:

      Adi: Could you give a real-world example of how men are expected to sacrifice their lives for women? This expectation has never been communicated to me.

      • Hudson River crash.

        • atheist says:

          In the Hudson River Crash, a pilot heroically managed to land an airplane in the Hudson River. While his action was daring and saved people’s lives, how does this show that men are expected to sacrifice their lives for women? This particular man saved both women and men.

          • I suppose you don’t want to answer my questions but just argue with me, right? I can already sniff the scent of intellectual dishonesty in your response. Well I will put SOME effort into this, in the hope that my impression of your intellectual honesty is wrong, and that you will actually answer my questions rather than just question them.

            So here goes:
            The Hudson river crash is an example because the policy of women and children first was implemented as is still standard practice in such situations. I have no problem with children first for that matter (only said that in anticipation of the usual name calling I get when challenging political correctness).

            I have to go now so I won’t get to read the response until tomorrow.

            • How about men and women convicted of the same crime?

              Men are, on average, punished with sentences that are 3 times as long as women, when convicted of the same crime.

              Why? Protecting men from women’s violence does not matter. But protecting women from men’s violence is a national priority.

              Even when the crimes are the same.

            • atheist says:

              Oh, you mean the whole “women and children first” thing in an emergency. OK, you have a point with that. Still, it seems rather minor, as it is very very rare that a situation is both deadly yet at the same time orgainzed, in that way. Boats and planes that sink in water is really the only one I can think of.

              • The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimate that they will spend $4,446,000,000 in 2009 for female-specific cancers (breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and “women’s health”) and $299,000,000 for men’s cancer (prostate cancer), which is a ratio of almost 15:1 in favor of women (see chart below). For spending in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Programs, the gap is even greater: they will spend $218 million on female-specific cancers (breast, cervical, ovarian and gynecologic cancer) and $13.245 million on prostate cancer, which is a ratio of 16.5 to 1 in favor of women (see chart below).

                This in spite of the fact that both female and male specific cancers kill about 200,000 people per year. Same number of cases, 15x more money for women. Women first. One of thousands of examples, the sum of which is men live 8 years less than women.

                • Appleblossom says:

                  All cancers get screwed over in funding when you compare them to Breast Cancer research.

                  Lung Cancer is the worst cancer and yet it gets next to no funding. So using Breast Cancer (which has boobies! and men like boobies!) as an example is kind of disingenuous but hey, why let that stop ya?!

                  • Appleblossom says:

                    Actually yes-all cancers (including the ones affecting women outside of breasts) get a great deal less in funding then breast cancer does.

                    Cervical and ovarian cancers are two cancers that affect women only and their rates are much much lower.

                  • OK, so you’re bitter because you believe that more $$$ is spent on breast cancer than prostate cancer. Whatever floats your boat.

                    • I misunderstood your point Appleblossom, until the third read.

                    • I don’t really see the reasoning behind being upset breast cancer has more awareness than others, but you have to admit if prostate cancer got more funding than breast cancer some feminists would be all over that and how sexist it is. Maybe the biggest issue with MRAs is they’re way too similar to feminists. Barring some exceptions on each side they mostly both seem to do a lot of whining and little else.

                    • Appleblossom says:

                      I know more money is spent on breast cancer then any other cancer.

                      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding Breast cancer blows every other kind away.

                      http://www.everydayhealth.com/cancer/cancer-research-where-funding-goes.aspx Same with private spending.

                      I cannot only view it as “boobies!”
                      Of course that is because I am a frequent visitor to Cracked.com and they really seem to like tatas there.

                    • Poester99 says:

                      Okay Wild Rebel, give me your home address and I’ll picket your picket fence and toilet paper the front of your house. Active enough for you?

                      (joking)

                      It’s women’s effectiveness at whining (as you put it) that got us into the unbalanced mess in the first place. So how do you figure it can fixed? Should we try to “strong and silent” our and our son’s rights back?

                    • Poster99, just remember it was you who equated the whiners to women, not me.

                    • Poester99 says:

                      whining=activism

                      for the intentionally obtuse

                      not naming names, mind you 8)

                • @ AntzZ,
                  please try to stay on topic. I’m talking specifically about self sacrifice.

                  @atheist,
                  it may seem minor to you but, trust me, it’s not. The fact that it happens at all (largely without criticism from feminists incidentally), is a message in itself. That message alone dwarfs any kind discrimination or oppression of women that you might find in western society.

                  It’s also quite telling that so few people answer this. It seems that feminists like to quietly forget about that little elephant in the living room. Guess it’s not convenient to their agenda (that women are the exclusive victims of sexual discrimination).

      • How many female police and fire-fighters died rescuing victims from the World Trade Center on 9/11?

        It’s almost always men who die trying to rescue someone from drowning.

        The rescuers in the recent NZ earthquake who risked their lives? Men

        What’s the ratio of male/female COMBAT causalities?

        Who goes to investigate the bump in the night? The man or the woman?

        Open your eyes.

        • Appleblossom says:

          In the US women are legally barred from combat. And feminist groups protested women being excluded from the draft selective service reinstatement.

          That is a bad example to use.

          • Some men are legally obliged to partake in combat.

            Look at police in action, the men take most of the bullets.

            If women want to get in harms way they could try coal mining, ocean fishing or forestry

            • Right because male coal miners are really going to take kindly to that. Show me the majority of male coal miners, fishermen, or lumberjacks who are actively trying to recruit women. Heck, show me one who isn’t outright hostile to the idea…

              • Adam,
                I have run a small metalworking machine shop for 27 years, in that time I have NEVER received an application from a woman for other than administrative positions. School careers advisors tell men that girls don’t want to do these jobs. Observing school girls I see no evidence that they want to get involved in mechanical trades. I would really have like to have had female applicants, but none were forthcoming. Coal mines, forestry etc, don’t have to seek women, and quite frankly why would they? You show me where individual women have been unjustly discriminated against in these industries.

                I see articles every day demanding quotas for women in board rooms and politics. It would be a simple matter to demand the same in other industries. Feminists don’t want the humiliation of women refusing to work there.

                To work in physical hands-on jobs women need to wear male (read practical) clothing – they are not prepared to do this. Most women are not prepared to damage their finger nails, let alone their hands. Try working as a welder yourself or work in a foundry.

                Feminists only want women (read other women) to do dirty dangerous jobs when they are high status and high profile. The argument women are excluded from combat is purely a debating tactic.

    • The MRM cannot, must not, will not focus on oppression of MEN. Our first action must be to protect young BOYS from the feminist war of hate. We have had our chance, we have lived our lives, we do not matter.

      Let women continue to commodify children into currency to be spent for the improvement of the mother’s life. Men must sand up against the tyranny of feminist hate and PROTECT BOYS FROM FEMINIST VIOLENCE.

      Ritalin poisoning, the anti-father campaign, and anti-boy dehumanization propaganda efforts must be stopped. If the MRM does not protect boys, nobody will The feminist toadies will do NOTHING. We must act, there is very little time. That is why the MRM Dow Chemical campaign was so important. Drug companies stand to loose billions and they know it. Keeping this issue alive IS activism.

      DON’T LET PEOPLE FORGET THAT FEMINISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RITALIN HOLOCAUST. When the dying starts, feminists will have nowhere left to hide. Their dark evil will be known by all.

      • Amnesia says:

        STOP DEMONIZING PEOPLE THAT TAKE ADHD MEDICATION!

        • So … you think I am demonizing the young boys who are forced to take Ritalin, because feminists don’t like boy behaviour?

          You don’t think I am trying to PROTECT boys from the feminist hate war?

          When all else fails, and feminists are confronted with the damage done by their hate, they think they can just jump into the comfortable female role of victim.

          Not this time. You did it. You cannot run away from it. You decided to hate masculinity. You decided that even in young boys, masculinity was “dirty”. You decided to change masculinity by removing fathers from their children’s lives and pumping them full of Ritalin. You made these decisions. MRM are the only ones trying to PROTECT children from feminist abuse.

          Not the other way around.

        • Objections to the heavy usage of ADD/ADHD medications in your children is not about demonizing the victims but being skeptical of policies and money making opportunities that may not be serving young boys and their families well. Even the most benign and commonplace OTC meds are not without side effects and possible complications ans the same holds true with stimulants and psychotropic drugs being used on the very young. A young child’s body and brain development is radically different from an adult and we must tread carefully with introducing possibly harmful substances into their young bodies.

          There are also other factors that may be contributing to education failing young boys and their supposed behavioral problems in schools. Boys and girls learn differently and possess different strengths/weakness in aptitudes as a rule, and this is unfortunately a reality that the public schools do not address in a largely one-size-fits-all method. The increased focus on academics at very young ages, the advent of all day kindergarten, and earlier standardized testing have left many schools scrambling to increase instruction time, often slashing recess and physical education in the process. An outlet for physical energy is of the utmost importance for all small children but especially little boys.

          This is obviously a simplistic view of the many reasons parents object to ADD/ADHD medications and become skeptics of the public education system but hopefully it demonstrates thoughtful consideration of these issues are anything but demonizing people who take Ritalin and similar medications or who have had to overcome the many various learning disabilities that exist.

    • women sacrifice their lives to give birth to men.

      • Really?

        My Mum just had her seventieth birthday. She looked very well for a dead woman.

      • Poester99 says:

        *Very* infrequently now, and almost completely due to male driven medical innovation.

        • Only for privileged upper middle class women. Mostly white women.

          Women in lower ranks and in developing nations still are at high risk of death.

  75. I wonder why these MRA folks keep commenting on this article. They don’t seem to be doing much for their movement.
    I suggest that, rather than constantly whining about Futrelle’s articles and blogs, they attempt to change their movement in such a way that it is, in fact, a reasonable, balanced and ‘sane’ group, such as attempting to work with anti-rape and domestic violence movements, rather than degrading all female victims and survivors.
    However, they seem to be more content with harassing Futrelle. Perhaps this is why the MRM is so degraded, hm?

    • atheist says:

      Men’s Rights Activists, do something positive? Are you out of your mind?

      • Saving 1.8 million boys per year from enforced drug addiction according to the feminist destruction of boys doctrine sounds pretty “positive” to me.

        • Wait, do you actually think that feminists are trying to get young boys addicted to drugs? Are you serious?

          • Appleblossom says:

            Here is the reason he thinks that:

            If something affects boys in a manner that he perceives as negative, and women had anything to do with it…such as being in existence…it means that feminists are trying to destroy young boys in whatever way du jour.

          • Think it? I know it. I have posted numerous times on this very board, instructions for you to GO TO THE TWO LEADING FEMINIST WEB SITES AND TYPE “RITALIN” INTO THE SEARCH BOX. Feministe and feministing. Then, go to the leading MRM site, “The Spearhead” and do the same thing.

            Find out FROM THE FEMINISTS what their plans are for the annihilation of all boys using drug addiction.

            • Appleblossom says:

              You know, we could just abort the fetuses before they even are born if we wanted to destroy boys.

              But since we are not doing that, your little conspiracy theory falls flat.

              • Women AREaborting 1 in every 3 fetuses before they are born. Keep one, keep one, kill one.

                Ancient Romans were considered barbaric for killing 1 out of every 10 individuals in certain situatinos. That is where the word “decimate” comes from. I guess we need to invent a new, even more barbaric term for what feminists do. How does “tertiate” sound? Or maybe we should just call it murder.

            • Searched femininisting for ritalin got VA teen suspended for two weeks because of birth-control pill. on feministe got Can We Quarantine the Christianists?, And By “Pro-Life” We Actually Mean, “Go Die Of An Infection You Slut”, and Argh in which the writer says she had and “add” moment not a single article advocating to drug boys. So this is the kind of thing that gets respect on mra sites? If something is bad, blame on feminism, no proof required. Interesting.

    • Poester99 says:

      There’s nothing to change, we’re a thousand armies-of-one, and we’re everywhere.
      Many are still afraid to speak out and tell their story, but that will change.

      That’s why we have such a big tent (brown, gay, black, white etc). Makes us hard to squash with the big proverbial media and legal sledgehammers funded by the deep-pocketed feminist establishment.

  76. Natalie says:

    Thank you for such an insightful article, David! The world needs more level-headed men like you.

  77. Great article! Thanks for the exploration on this topic!

    My two cents: Feminism attempts to combat Patriarchy for ALL involved. Sure there are a breeds of women that, too, “go their own way” and ignore men completely, but most feminism strives for that balance. My biggest issue around this idea of “Men’s Rights” is that it’s useless. We’re back to where we started with the two distinct groups: Feminists and MRA-ists (?). Feminism deals with it all! We are concerned with the welfare of women as it pertains to our relationships with men (and other females). Without Partiarchy, as it was originally designed, there would be no need for Feminism. Feminism is equality, Patriarchy is segregation not fairness to men; to have both groups is going right back too the way things were when no one was happy (except white, older men). Guys today would still find something to complain about even if they had the rights to hit us if we spoke up.

    I read the post on this site a while back about not marrying and to me reading this article really hit home. The Don’t-Get-Married article claimed it was not bashing women, but it used women in most, if not all it’s examples as to why we are over-privleged twits (to be nice) and need to stfu about things being unfair. It was just one big rant and bitchfest. It had good points, but they were few and far between. I have had experience with the court system and men being assumed to be the bad guys. I know that it’s not perfect, but humoring us because we’re females and we would be better parents, or whatever, is not feminism either.

    This was a well-rounded article, filled with descriptions of the problem(s) and their solution(s). It was a good look at a common issue.

    Finally, these MRAs are entitled to their opinions, or delusions, really. I just hope for the sake of all involved, I never date any of them. Ever.

    • lol wut?

      This article was an insult to the fair and reasonable MRAs that do exist.

      • This article is a hate-filled insult to the dignity of all men and boys.

        It legitimises feminist sponsored anti-boy violence by schools. It legitimises feminist sponsored anti-male violence by law enforcement and family courts.

        • Yeah, that’s why I highlighted the issue of prison rape. That’s why ended the piece by saying that “Male victims of domestic violence really do deserve shelters and sympathy.”

          Clearly that is a devious way to encourage anti-male violence.

          • Yea feminists love to talk about male victims of dv in the comment section of YT and various other websites. When was the last time you heard NOW or AAUW or any feminst org speak out about the need to help male victims of dv or prison rape?

            Yup you love to claim to be “equality fighers” but have yet to prove that through action.

            Case in point david is when the largest feminist org in America posted an “action alert” against the proposed shared parenting bill in Michigan.

            Google “NOW action alert shared parenting” if you dont believe me.

            Yup equality fighers rit der.

          • David Futrelle, your support for the feminist war against boys is the only thing that you will be remembered for.

            Inform yourself, for your own sake. The rate of stroke among the entire cohort of adolescent and young adult males has increased by 50%, even though only 10-20% of them were forced to take Ritalin. This suggests that the increase among Ritalin users must be 250% to 500% (in order to account for the observed population increase). The evidence from prolonged methamphetamine use suggests that the increase in the rate of stroke will be both irreversible and life-long. When these 20-something year olds reach YOUR age, they will be dropping like flies. As many as HALF of them can be expected to eventually die because of the feminist war of hate THAT YOU SUPPORT. When this happens, do you think that anything else that you have ever done will matter?

        • Dude, you talk a lot of random shiz without being able to back up a single bit of it.

          I’m getting bored now. Keep talking, but I’ve stopped listening.

          • Actually Sam, if your commenting about Antz, It is understandable, He is a member of
            “A Voice For Men” and has articulated his views and experiences quite well to those of us who know him. Although you are unlikely to understand his position many of us here do and respect him for it.

          • “I’m getting bored now.”

            And commeting here at the same time? That’s some multi-tasking right there. Does your lover mind your lack of focus?

      • The ones that took their ideas from…I dunno…Feminism?

      • The fair and reasonable MRA’s get downvoted on the-spearhead and a voice for men, so don’t post often or give up posting. The “I hate women” posts get upvoted.

    • Poester99 says:

      Poor choice of name for a movement that is fighting for equal rights.

      If I called myself a Masculinist, would “equal” rights be the first thing that popped into your head?

      Feminism is women’s advocacy, that funny thing is that so is patriarchy, patriarchy condescendingly pats women on the head mind you, but it’s always women and children first in the lifeboats, the men with their “superior” status get go down with the ship and die.

      Thanks for the little bit “shaming” language, par for the course standard feminist debating tactic.
      In response, I’m sure any man with a shred of self-respect wouldn’t date you either.

      • How often do ships sink?

        • Several times a year if you include the whole world, you’d be surprised how many people still die at sea, on rivers and lakes.

          • How many women around the world die in childbirth?

            I’d venture to stay it blows your ‘woe is me… in the rare even that I will be on a sinking ship I will feel pressured into a moral stance that makes me prioritize those who are physically weaker.’

            Give me a friggin’ break.

  78. Yep. This is an accurate description of what Men’s Rights Movement websites look like. Just hatred towards women and a bunch of whining.

    • Yes and your precious feminist websites are all about equality arent they?

      Feel free to google:
      “husbands and fathers are useless hunks of flesh” oh and be sure to read the comments that follow.

      Yup equality fighing feminsits right there.

  79. The number one action item for MRM is protection young boys from feminist hatred.

    The number one expression for how we are doing this is fighting against the Ritalin Armageddon.

    Ritalin is an addictive psychotropic drug that increases the lifetime risk of stroke by 5000%. It is one of the most dangerous and deadly drugs known. The feminist campaign of anti-boy hatred has succeeded in drafting our government and our school system as foot soldiers in their war on boys. Massive doses of Ritalin are being pumped into 5 million boys who cannot be coerced into acting like girls. The drugs are destroying both their spirits and their arterial walls. Millions will die of stroke as a result.

    Fighting against this genocide of boys is what we are doing in the MRM. What are you doing, Mr. Futrelle?

    • Que? Dude, this is not genocide, this is the way America is. I work with senior citizens; they are ALL jacked up on meds. Medications are a parents’ responsibility, not feminists. This is a casual oversimplification, a bit of a red herring and most certainly is a slippery slope.

      • Schools REQUIRE boys to be doped on Ritalin in order to attend. Many parents fight against this feminist hate, but few succeed.

        Elderly patients voluntarily taking dangerous medications in order to cure deadly diseases is VERY DIFFERENT from children being forced to take dangerous medications because feminists don’t like the way boys act.

        • Proof?

        • What schools REQUIRE boys to take ridalin to attend?

        • “Proof” … “What schools REQUIRE boys to take ridalin to attend?”

          Every school in the United States requires children who are diagnosed with ADHD to take Ritalin in order to attend. Furthermore, to the ONLY disease that school nurses are authorized to diagnose is ADHD in children. To address this liberal madness and protect our children from feminist hate, the Republican congress passed the Child Medication Safety Act in 2004:

          “(A) IN GENERAL- The State educational agency shall prohibit State and local educational agency personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation under subsection (a) or (c) of section 614, or receiving services under this title.”

          But, under DIRECT PRESSURE FROM FEMINIST HATE GROUPS, democrats amended it into meaning nothing:

          “RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to create a Federal prohibition against teachers and other school personnel consulting or sharing classroom-based observations with parents or guardians regarding a student’s academic and functional performance, or behavior in the classroom or school, or regarding the need for evaluation for special education or related services under paragraph (3).”

          So, schools cannot require Ritalin, but they can harass parents and accuse parents of neglect or child abuse if they fail to dope their children. Feminist anti boy hatred is so strong that they have no problem killing children in order to change them into girls. It is the modern equivalent of Mengele’s experiments to transform Jews into Arians.

          ENOUGH PROOF FOR YOU? Want the papers showing that Ritalin causes a life-long and irreversible increase in the risk of stroke? Want the papers showing that Ritalin has the same biological activity as methamphetamine? Want the papers showing that the rate of stroke for boys, but NOT girls, has already increased by 50% — and is still growing?

          • By the way, the critical part of the Democrat amendment that preserves the right of feminists to continue to FORCE boys to take Ritalin in order to change them into girls is ” … regarding the need for evaluation for special education or related services under paragraph (3).”

            Note the word NEED for evaluation, key feminist poison that means parents are not advised, but mandated, to have their children evaluated for the use of the drug. In practice, this is the same as mandating the use of the drug itself, since the school nurse does the evaluation.

            Feminism kills. It is hate that kills.

          • This is an issue our friends are facing with their young son right now, the friends I mentioned recently on AVfM. Their little boy is only in kindergarten and the school is already attempting to have him labeled ADD and placed on Ritalin. He’s a very bright boy and is likely acting out because he is bored. The fact that students receive precious little recess time is not helping either. Their options at this point are to fight the school or walk away and try private school or homeschooling.

            The homeschooling community is quickly becoming a haven for parents and children facing ridiculous school policies of all kinds, including the nearly forced medication of young children.

          • Antz is totally off base. I have a son in school and his teacher thought maybe he was showing signs of ADHD and recommended I get him tested. I didn’t and the teacher never spoke to me about it again. So here’s my son, years later, still going to school not tested and no body is forcing me to. Perhaps I should inform the school I’m not being properly harassed by them.

            • They have the POWER to force your son to take mind-altering drugs. That does not mean they will always do so. In all likelihood, other forms of coercion were successful, you son began to tow the feminist line, and so drug re-programing was no longer necessary.

    • And the CEO of Ritalin … David Vasella… a MAN.

      • *CEO of Ritalin-maker… Novartis.

      • The fact that a man is president of the company that sells the feminist anti-boy poison makes it all OK. Feminists are not to blame, because there is a man somewhere who has something to do with some part of something.

        Feminism is hate, a hate that kills children.

    • Amnesia says:

      This is just painful. So much concentrated ignorance in just a few paragraphs, where to begin.

      First, Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD. It is not one of the most dangerous and deadly drugs, not even close. I’ve never even heard of any studies on possible correlations between strokes and Ritalin, and as someone diagnosed with ADHD and taking medication myself, I try to be up-to-date on that sort of news. That 5000% figure has BS written all over it.

      Second, if ADHD medication is destroying someone’s spirits, then they’re on the wrong medication. Ritalin is not a zombie drug.

      Third, girls take Ritalin, too. People are just more likely to recognize the symptoms of ADHD in boys, thus the boys are more likely to get the diagnosis and help for their problems.

      In short, you’re blaming feminism for a crisis that you made up. After this, I hope you don’t expect us to take you seriously.

      • Actually, I only expect you to admit that feminism is the driving force behind the effort to pump Ritalin into boys. And a few girls, as you say.

        I am glad that you rationalize your support for pumping Ritalin into boys, since this might make you more likely to admit that you personally, and feminism institutionally, supported the mass addiction of our children to this drug.

        If I am wrong about the dangers of Ritalin, I will look like an idiot. I will take that risk.

        If you are wrong, you, and all the feminists like you, will look responsible for a genocidal holocaust.

        Since I am a scientist who both knows and works with this dangerous drug, I am pretty happy with my odds. Are you?

        • What percentage of boys in our schools are on ritalin? You want us to believe ALL boys, but that would be a lie.

          • Demographics: While use of Ritalin has declined in recent years, prescription patterns involving similar drugs have soared, primarily due to growing demand within the United States. In 2005, 1.9 million U.S. prescriptions were written for Ritalin, while prescriptions for Adderall-XR and Concerta totalled 8.7 million and 8.2 million, respectively. During that same year, use of methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine figured into 7,873 U.S. emergency-room visits.

        • Amnesia says:

          Odds are pretty high that you’re a liar, a troll, or both.

          And people like you touting the dangers of a drug that’s no more dangerous than most OTC meds are just making it even more difficult for those of us that use those drugs to function in our day to day lives.

          Oh, and if feminism really had the sort of institutional power you claim it does, birth control would be covered by all insurances.

        • Went to the Now website and searched ritalin and adhd, not a single article on it, also googled ritalin, adhd and feminism, should it be odd the only sites that came up are mra sites? For having a huge conspiracy to put boys on ritalin I sure am having a hard time finding a feminist site recommending putting all boys on it.

          • Try feministe or feministing. Like I said MANY TIMES before. You went to the NOW, which is an institution, not a think tank. NOW implements policy that is conceived in other feminist covens of hate.

            “… also googled ritalin, adhd and feminism, should it be odd the only sites that came up are mra sites?”

            For once, you are correct. The only group of people on this planet that are currently protecting children from forced addiction to mind altering drugs is the MRM.

            Let me say that again. Like YOU observed in your own search: THE ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM MIND ALTERING DRUGS IS THE MRM

  80. Well, David is writing for a living. He gets paid for his crap.

    The Good Men Project is a feminist publication. So he writes whatever feminists want to read.

    I cannot really blame him for that. People like David and other male feminists are frequently rather out of money.

    MRAs are different within their organization. We PAY for our websites out of our own wallet. We write our own stories out of our own experience with women. We do not have sponsors. We go our own way.

    • “… The Good Men Project is a feminist publication. So he writes whatever feminists want to read …”

      The Good Men Project is very mainstream. Their cross-section of views are very similar to an average social cross-section of views.

      Feminists have almost completely subjugated Western culture and society. That is why this publication is so “feminist” — because this world is so “feminist”

    • The GMP was started by a guy and like most magazines, requires advertising to sustain its revenue. You’re quite the proof of this guys article that is for sure. Thanks for over-sharing.

      • The two leading MRM sites, “The Spearhead” and “A Voice For Men”, operate on donations, not advertising. Unlike feminism, men’s rights does not enjoy billions of dollars in tax-payer financing. Unlike feminists we do not pave the road to our freedom with YOUR money. We pave it with our money.

        • *Sigh*…That’s because guys still earn more than women and have plenty of cash to throw around for futile attempts at regaining some semblance of societal masculinity. It’s not your fault. And in the capitalist system, money changes hand quite frequently, so just think, the company you work for could have sponsored projects dedicated to helping women in bad domestic situations, etc.

          • Women spend three times as much money as men do. So I guess women have more spending money than men. Because they have their money and our money. According to feminist theory, men are beasts of burden, an all male work should be controlled by, and for the benefit of, women.

            • Appleblossom says:

              If women are spending more money then men are on the family needs, why are men refusing to get involved?

              • Appleblossom says:

                Your comments make little sense.

                Women who spend on the family may be spending more then men but how is that spending more on themselves? Because they are allowed to have part of the stuff purchased for the family?

                Or are you trying to claim that since single women spend money, that means they are somehow wrong?

    • Yohan, I do not get paid to write my blog. I don’t even have ads. I started selling shirts, etc, but that money will go to charity.

      I will receive a small amount of money for writing this piece on the Good Man Project.

      I make my living writing for other publications, on other topics.

  81. David Futrelle:
    What they all seem to share, though, is a desire to talk shit about women endlessly on Internet forums. On the perversely misnamed NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, a popular members-only hangout, there are 4,207 topics and 36,033 replies in the subforum devoted to “Tales of Bad Girls & Attention Whores”
    —–

    Thank you, David for visiting our forum by signing up with a fake-ID – It’s not necessary however to use a fake-ID as MRAs are not into banning and deleting comments from people who do not agree with us – we are no feminists. Why do you not sign up with your real name?

    Thank you for reading through our subforum about ‘Bad girls…’ – It’s our collection of news-clips from the daily press about criminal women. Threads in the ‘Bad girls…’ section contain reports about real crimes, quite everything from child mistreatment done by females, female pedophiles, female thugs…

    Any crime you can image you can find there – women are not always the victims…

    Thanks for your report and for supporting the MRM.

    • MRAs are not into banning and deleting comments from people who do not agree with us(Yohan)

      Maybe not on your site, but on avoiceformen.com my posts(when not liked) were made to be somewhat invisible.

      • This site deletes about 50% of all my comments.

      • “Maybe not on your site, but on avoiceformen.com my posts(when not liked) were made to be somewhat invisible”

        Invisible? Overexagerate much alls you have to do is click “read comment” and you can see the comment you typed.

        Far from being “invisible”.

    • Poester99 says:

      I heard a rumor that David Futrelle gave a donation in support of Paul Elam’s a voice for men Radio program, is this true?

  82. edit: that was supposed to read “Elam has a VALID point.”

  83. First of all, the Elam “Bash a Violent Bitch” month seems to be talking about fighting back when a woman hits a man. Not that I’m advocating for wife-beating here, but it is pretty hypocritical that guys can end up in handcuffs at the drop of a hat when it comes to domestic abuse, but the same is not true for women. And if women want equal treatment, then they should think first about choosing to become physically violent towards men. In that respect, I believe Elam has a violent point (albeit one made with a little too much hyperbole for my liking).

    But the main problem I have with this piece is it focuses entirely on the lunatic fringe. No matter what organization you examine, you will find crazy people. Look at that TV show Whale Wars. The captain helped start Greenpeace, but he was too crazy so he got booted. Now they want to stop whaling, but they go about it in illegal and awful ways. A good cause hijacked by nutcases. And as the MRA readily points out, there are a variety of radical feminists out there who surely don’t speak for the rational ones.

    My point is you can’t judge a whole group by the 1% of people who make everyone look bad. Every group has them.

  84. Two thumbs down as this article was shallow and biased. This website itself really is a joke and has more to do with being a propaganda mouthpiece for Ms. Magazine than some new format for men.

    • Completely agree. Just look at the way the topic was introduced by goodmen and it’s easy to see the bias. Making fun of men’s activists is the name of the game. Just look at the descriptions, MRAs and Mythopoetic males are joked about while there seems to be little joking about the male feminists. This web site is not offering a level playing field and is indeed reminiscent of feminism’s habit of only telling half the story.

    • Don’t let that stop you from using their platform to propagate the message. They are, after all, hoping to discredit our movement…a fact I was pretty aware of from the beginning.

      yes, this is a Feminist website (with a majority of viewers being young women). Yes, this is hostile territory. No, there hasn’t been a single writer who has said “You know, these guys have some good points”.

      But there are lurkers, and there may be men looking for answers that came here by mistake.

      It’s our job to make sure they hear what they’ve been kept in the dark about for decades.

      It is, after all, patently obvious none of these ideologues are interested in substantive change for men…they merely want to convince us to accept our role as third class citizens.

      And the more men that see what a fraud this whole feminism thing is, the better. Even here.

  85. Glenn Sacks and Fathers and Families have responded to David Futrelle’s accusations that we were trying to “take money away from a shelter for women” with our 2008 Campaign Protesting Father-Bashing Domestic Violence Ads.

    I am posting the response here, and it is available on Fathers and Families’ website at: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=13669.

    Kristin Castner
    Fathers and Families

    The post states:

    “In a recent piece on the subject of men’s activism, journalist David Futrelle strongly criticizes our highly-publicized October 2008 Campaign Protesting Father-Bashing Domestic Violence Ads. The ads, which depicted a smiling little boy as a future wife-beater and stereotype black men as wife-killers, are pictured above. Futrelle writes:

    Glenn Sacks…called on his supporters to besiege the biggest donors to one domestic-violence shelter serving mostly women—they had run an ad Sacks didn’t like—in an attempt to get them to stop donating to the shelter. That’s right: instead of trying to raise money to build domestic-violence shelters for men, Sacks’ fans instead tried to take money away from a shelter for women.

    There are numerous problems with Futrelle’s statement above:

    1) During our campaign, which was done in concert with Fathers and Families, we never “called on supporters to besiege the biggest donors to one domestic-violence shelter serving mostly women.”

    Our campaign, which generated 10,000 calls, letters, and faxes, had three phases or Action Alerts. The first one was a request to call officials of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) which ran the bus ads. The second asked our supporters to contact Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and the Dallas City Council. The third was targeted at the media. These are still on our DART Campaign page here, if Futrelle would like to see them.

    At no time did we ask our general supporters to contact either The Family Place’s contributors or The Family Place itself.

    2) We did orchestrate efforts by 25 specific activists to call over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads. All of these activists were women who found the ads offensive. We never asked DART’s supporters to withdraw any contributions–we asked them to contact the leader of The Family Place and let her know they were offended by the ads.

    Most contributors said they sympathized with us, and many told us they thought the ads and the subsequent protest/controversy were an embarrassment to The Family Place. Many told us they had or would contact The Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink with their concerns.

    Several of The Family Place’s financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season. I don’t say this with pleasure–I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding. Still, with a $9 million budget for 2008, I doubt our efforts had a significant financial impact on The Family Place, and that was never our intent.

    3) The ads weren’t simply “an ad Sacks didn’t like” as Futrelle says, they were blatantly unfair and sexist and should be condemned by Futrelle and any other fair-minded person. During the campaign we compiled an impressive endorsers list, which included some of the world’s leading authorities on domestic violence, as well as many other experts, media figures, and prominent citizens. This list is here.

    Among our campaign’s achievements were:

    1) Widespread, positive media coverage which allowed us to educate the public on domestic violence and child abuse. Coverage included CNN, The Associated Press, FOX, CBS, hundreds of radio stations throughout the country, and many newspapers. This was particularly remarkable considering we launched the Campaign just seven days before the presidential election.

    2) To its credit, The Family Place, the prominent Dallas-area domestic violence service provider which placed the controversial ads on DART buses, backed away from the gender exclusivity which was previously prominent in their public materials. They changed several areas of their website to specifically include male victims, and issued a statement that “We are not a male-bashing organization. Our services support all victims—male and female, children and adults.” We publicly commended them for this.

    All blog posts and updates on the DART campaign can be seen here. To comment on Futrelle’s piece, please click here.

    In Futrelle’s defense, there is some truth to one of the statements he makes, writing:

    [Men’s activists] complain that there are virtually no domestic violence shelters specifically designed for male victims, but unlike the feminists and other activists who fought for years to get the woman-centered shelters we have today, MRAs seem content to gripe that feminists haven’t given them shelters, too.

    This isn’t literally true–there are many activists who have worked very hard to get funding for programs for men, and it has been a long, uphill struggle for them, in part because men are far more likely to give money to help women than they are to help other men.

    That being said, I do believe (and have previously stated) that men’s activists do not give proper respect and credit to the domestic violence activists’ hard and effective work in building up a wide network of services for female domestic violence victims. Contrary to what critics sometimes claim, much of this funding is not governmental, but instead corporate and from private contributors, many of whom, ironically, are men.

    During our campaign there were people who criticized The Family Place Executive Director Paige Flink for her high ($170,000 range) salary. Actually, Flink, despite her unfortunate moral blind-spot when it comes to men, has been a hardworking and effective organization builder and fundraiser. As such, she probably deserves her salary.”

    • Fathers and Families said: “We did orchestrate efforts by 25 specific activists to call over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads”

      That would indeed be what I was referring to when I said that Sacks “called on his supporters to besiege the biggest donors to one domestic-violence shelter serving mostly women.”

      Here’s an interview with Flink, from The Family Place:

      http://amptoons.com/blog/2008/12/04/domestic-violence-shelter-targeted-by-anti-feminists-some-of-the-vile-language-and-verbal-abuse-we-took-on-the-phone-was-horrific/

      According to her,

      “There was one of my board members who received 25 calls from the same woman. …
      Some of the vile language and verbal abuse we took on the phone was horrific. The kinds of things they said to our staff about what they’re going to do to them was awful. I’ve had some “you’re going to go to hell, you’re a fat lesbian luring women into those shelters so you can prey on them.” “

      • David, neither you nor I have any idea whether Paige Flink’s claims above are true. However, you persist in your tactic of quoting a handful of (alleged) idiots and then pretending that this is representative of our movement, while dismissing the very legitimate grievances and issues we have.

        During our campaign we conducted ourselves professionally and respectfully. The concerned women who contacted The Family Place’s contributors on our behalf were uniformly polite and sincere, and were often received very well.

        As for associating Fathers and Families with the disgusting anti-gay slur you quote above, Fathers and Families has in fact defended gay and lesbian parents’ child custody rights on numerous occasions in the media, legislatures, and in legal challenges.

        Together with you in the love of our children,
        Glenn Sacks, MA
        National Executive Director,
        Fathers and Families

        • No, i do not know if Flink’s claims are true. That’s why I wrote “according to her” when I quoted her.

          I also don’t know if your claims that “The concerned women who contacted The Family Place’s contributors on our behalf were uniformly polite and sincere, and were often received very well” are true.

          How exactly do you know this? Have you listened to tapes of the calls? Did you yourself speak to the contributors who were called, and ask them? Or are you taking the word of those who called?

          What I do know — and what I can provide actual evidence for — is that in a similar recent case, in which MRAs and others protested against a similar PSA by an anti-sexual-violence group, the protests were anything but polite; indeed, one commenter on The Spearhead suggested that the man responsible for the ads deserved to be killed, and his comment drew dozens of upvotes from Spearhead readers:

          http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/06/abuse-charlatan-gears-up-for-super-bowl-with-abuse-bingo-rapist-babies-ad/#comment-69495

          So I am inclined to be skeptical of your claims, and more inclined to believe Flink.

          • David, Allow me to understand–judged by what some idiot I’ve never heard of wrote on some website we’ve never been affiliated with about an ad I’ve never heard of, I and Fathers and Families are culpable?

            Together with you in the love of our children,
            Glenn Sacks, MA
            National Executive Director,
            Fathers and Families

            • Why does the Father’s Rights activists advocate for violent men? I know Sacks calls young Jennifer a liar, but personally, I believe her and her brother over him.

              http://americanchildrenunderground.blogspot.com/

              It’s common to hear men with violent histories in batterer’s intervention groups and in courts claim to be associated with Father’s Rights or Men’s Rights groups. So common that Lundy Bancroft and others who work in the criminal justice field have begun referring to these activists as the “Abuser’s Lobby”. Why no discrimination in who you represent? And why attack a young college student when she comes out to tell her side of the story rather than just admit you were wrong about the guy you represented?

              • It’s a common tactic to attack the character, rather then the actual argument, of those who have a strong case against you.

                This guy got called all kinds of names simply for asking the question why is there a ministry for the status of women, and not one for men, on a political party discussion page on facebook. There was no reason for it and his points were never even addressed, just his character attacked.

                http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=60266912006&topic=14674

            • What I am saying is that in my experience I have not run across many MRAs online who make their points politely or respectfully. Indeed, in the case I mentioned — in which MRAs and others reacted to a very similar ad — I don’t think I saw a single polite or respectful comment from an MRA on the issue.

              On the contrary, on The Spearhead and on many other sites associated with the MRM online, I saw dozens if not hundreds of very angry posts, some of them of a threatening nature. (Look through the rest of the comments in the thread I linked to if you do not believe me.) The target of this wrath also says he got death treats. Given what I saw online, I am inclined to believe him.

              I suppose it is possible that all of those who called A Family Place were indeed polite and respectful. Flink says they weren’t; you say they were. You have not provided any evidence that they were, nor has Flink provided any evidence that her account is accurate. But it’s impossible that both her account and your account could both be true, so I have to judge the situation based on my own experience with men’s rights activists. That experience leads me to be skeptical of your account.

              You may honestly believe that those who called were polite, based on what you heard from the callers; I simply doubt that what they told you was true.

              I don’t believe you are a hateful person. But I do think it would behoove you to speak out about some of the hate in the MR movement, which I have amply documented on my web site.

              • David writes “I don’t believe you are a hateful person. But I do think it would behoove you to speak out about some of the hate in the MR movement, which I have amply documented on my web site.”

                David–Thanks for the suggestion, but I’ve actually been doing that for almost a decade. In fact, 9 years ago I wrote “Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men’s Movement” (4/2/02) (see http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm) and have expressed similar sentiments on countless occasions since. I wouldn’t vouch word for word for anything I wrote so long ago, but the general idea was correct. I’ve also often gone out of my way to commend our political opponents when they do something positive.

                That being said, I’ve seen no evidence that what appears on feminist sites is any better than some of the trash that is on men’s activist sites. There’s a lot of sexism and nastiness, and rarely do I see feminists confront it. Speaking personally, there are people who take it upon themselves to write absolutely insane things about me on the web. The radicals on both sides are bad. Your advice for me is good, but I suggest that you heed it as well.

              • Lemme see…a guy comes out with an ad that shows a little baby boy, and then proceeds to paint him as an abusive rapist type….gee, why would we get mad at that? Why would we look at it as an attack on men and boys?

                Gee, I dunno…we’re so unreasonable.

                What I laugh at, is that Glenn really hasn’t had much to do with the blogging end of the Mens Movement for over a year…he’s out there “doing something” rather than ‘bitching” like the rest of us. The truly ironic thing is, Glenn thinks I, and guys like me, are reactionary assholes. Or something to that effect. Yet you ninnies keep lumping him in with the “misogynistic MRM”.

                Glenn is EASILY the most moderate voice in the Mens Movement, followed by Pelle in my estimation. Frankly, the guy deserves to get more respect than you guys give him.

              • Seems to me you are taking a post made by some nobody on a website, and trying to equate it as representative of Mr. Sacks professionalism.

                “I don’t think I saw a single polite or respectful comment from an MRA on the issue.”

                You’re no better David. Posters on your website are routinely offensive and belligerent. I have had to endure numerous uncalled for attacks, simply for defending the causes of the men’s rights movement, and not once have you spoken up against one of your posters attacks, or suggested that addressing my points rather then attacking may be a more effective way of proving me wrong. Your simply running a smear campaign on the MRA, and one must wonder what motivates a feminist such as yourself to do such a thing?

              • I am confused. Your article’s premise is that there is no activism in MRA’s, yet you now bemoan activist telephone calls to A Family Place? Which is it David? Are MRA’s activists or not? Can’t have it both ways, sweet cheeks.

                • The callers could have been doing something constructive, like raising money for a shelter for men. Instead, they were trying to take money away from a shelter for women. That’s activism, but it’s not activism that helps any abuse victim, male or female.

                  • There’s already lots of money for DV services. Feminists just need to learn how to share and not discriminate.

                  • David–As previously explained, the callers were not “trying to take money away from a shelter for women”–they were protesting an offensive, anti-father, anti-child advertisement which you yourself should publicly condemn.

                    As for your advice, we appreciate it, but Fathers and Families has actually done many things that are “constructive.” To learn more, see our Accomplishments page at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=1196

                    • You were having people call donors. How is this not an attempt to disrupt the shelter’s fund raising?

                      You can say you were simply trying to pressure these donors to complain to the shelter about the ads, but the primary sway donors have over the shelter is the possibility that they will stop donating to the shelter. The pressure you were trying to exert on the shelter was based on threatening its future finances.

                    • @Putrelle

                      When a “shelter” uses its funding for things that are not germane to running a shelter it’s fraudulently dishonest to claim that peoples complaints were interrupting a “shelter’s” funding.

                      If I run a homeless shelter that also creates political campaign ads if, and when, people complain to my donors, I can’t, in good faith, say the people complaining are seeking to cut funding to the homeless.

              • Poester99 says:

                Having a significant portion of the men angry, especially if most have a good reason to be, is very unhealthy for any society. Well any social groups, but especially young men, as they tend to be preferred foot soldiers in revolutions.

                Why do some people feel it’s good and just paint all these men as fools and idiots, instead of honestly trying to see if what they are saying about their experiences has any merit?

                • It could be because so many of them, at least in the blogosphere, speak of very little but anger. If there are any with positive ideas or proposals that involve more than backlash and redress, they’re getting drowned out.

                  Whatever the goals of the movement may be, its public face is snarktastic, histrionic, and downright mean. All that does is get a certain kind of man’s rocks off – one who would be better off down at the gym, punching the bag.

          • Hard to imagine men’s and father’s righters as “uniformly polite and sincere” when protesting anything to do with women. I imagine they conducted themselves exactly as they do online. Nasty, nasty, nasty. Josh Jasper got death threats.

            http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=311352

            http://www.freep.com/article/20110209/ENT03/110209012/TV-ad-sparks-death-threats

            Cause that’s just how the men’s rights and father’s rights activists roll.

  86. It’s as if David Futrelle didn’t read the “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement.” David spends his time quoting the most radical and simple minded representations of MRA’s. He fails to acknowledge the fact that feminists take the MRM very seriously. The gnashing of teeth by main stream feminists when the Male Studies initiative (http://www.malestudies.org/) got up and running was incredible. As mentioned in the Meet the Men’s Rights Movement piece, MRA’s have had much success in areas of family law. Furthermore, MRA’s have changed the narrative in the slandering feminist concept of “Rape Culture.” Take a look at David. A good analogy is like a prison guard. Prisoners are forced to live in a prison. Prison guards live there by choice. David goes to the most radical MRA sights and spends his days there. Now that, my friends, is kind of creepy.

  87. @Henry Belanger,

    Would you allow article submissions that are a total hatchet job on the feminist movement? I don’t think so.

    This is crap.

    • Exactly!

    • Henry P. Belanger says:

      Denis,

      A well-sourced piece filled with actual quotes, in context, and actual rational thought that didn’t chase its own tail? Sure.

      How do you feel this is a hit piece? please explain.

      • It’s already been shown that his take on Paul Elam’s “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” was in fact taken out of context.

        • …and Henry tells somebody to review the comment policy when they quote Paul Elam to add context.

          What a total joke.

        • I provided the link to Elam’s piece in my post, and again, at least once, here in the comments. I urge everyone to go read it.

          Interestingly, those who’ve complained that I was taking the quotes out of context have cited only the intro to the piece, talking about a post on Jezebel (that I also found offensive); they haven’t actually dealt with what I found offensive about Elam’s post: his elaborate fantasy of violence against female abusers.

          • Paul Elam did not write a fantasy of violence, that’s what was happening at Jezebel.

            Paul Elam wrote a satire of these misandrists, kinda like what you do about misogynists. You’re both fighting the same war against a few hateful ideologues, but from different sides.

      • I could easily do the same type of hit piece by quoting prominent feminists academics and leaders, without sinking to David’s level, but you would never publish it.

      • I could also do a hit piece on the feminist scum on TGMP blogs, does that reflect on TGMP?

  88. Unfortuntely what gets missed because of certain individuals(not all) is that there are inequities in our judicial systems. In regards to reproductive rights, custody, support/compensation it is clearly not favourable for men. I found out this morning what some of these MRA sites are all about and its not about helping men. It really is directed more at complaining rather than discussion. It may be true that in some cases the squeaky wheel gets the grease but in this case it should be thrown in the trash.

  89. For the most part, I agree with this piece. I have not seen a website devoted to MRAs that wasn’t sexist in some manner, misogynistic in some manner, what have you. I’ve met more feminists devoted to equal rights for both sexes than I’ve met men right’s activists devoted to men’s rights. Most I’ve met in person and on-line are devoted to one upping females, getting revenge, rather than striving for complete equality with both sexes. Most MRAs I know and have seen on-line wish we could go back to the glory days where women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and men were breadwinners. I definitely don’t deny that men have problems. Of course it’s obvious they have problems. But what MRAs attempt to do is play the victim card and play the whole who-has-it-worse game. They spam feminist sites, crying ‘what about the menz?’ completely ignoring the fact that both sexes have their fair share of sexism to deal with. They also throw up female advantage and belittle accomplishments we’ve made. They claim women are earning more degrees because colleges are giving them out like toilet paper, women are ruining the educational system (women have always dominated grade school education! Really?), women are ruining the economy, feminism is the reason for the recession, feminism is the reason for men’s misery due to losing their breadwinner positions, just blame, blame, blame, whine, whine, whine. Until I see one MRA who can talk about men’s issues without blaming feminism (or women), MRAs will always be extremists to me. No doubt women aren’t at fault for some of it, put playing the blame game does not help your positions. If MRAs want to make any headway with their activism and be heard, they need to learn how to take a more egalitarian stance, and I haven’t seen that. There’s one article on The Good Men Project listing ten reasons for male activism (or whatever) and it was the most unbiased thing I have read in favor of men’s rights. And because it didn’t bash females or feminism, I took every point seriously. If MRAs want people to take them seriously, then stop bashing.

    • Patrick Grady says:

      I suggest you read Pelle Billing’s article just below this one on the front page. There are many thoughtful intelligent MRA’s……it’s just not nearly as easy to discredit them. Just about everything you have said about MRA’s is also true about contributors on feminist sites. I know….I use to consider myself a feminist until I waded into the feminist echo chamber. There are men and women on both sides that lash out because of their personal circumstances.

      • I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but Pele Billing is perhaps the most moderate and civil MRA with any influence online. John Diaz of Misandry Review would be another. If there are others as thoughtful as either of them — I haven’t found any — I would like to see links to their sites.

        I would also like to see either or both of them make a real effort to challenge the rampant misogyny of the MR movement.

        • Heh. I don’t think we’ll be seeing John Dias challenging the misogyny in the MRM. He is well-spoken, uses big words, and is measured in his responses, but his messages are just the same. I’ve never seen him stand up to any them. But I’ve seen him defend them.

          • It is the job of MRM to stand up for MEN and BOYS, not women. Women have the other 8 billion robots on the planet standing up for them.

          • Well, yeah, “moderate” is not really the best word to describe Dias, who is after all a proponent of patriarchy. (This is not rhetoric on my part; he describes himself plainly as such.) But unlike virtually everyone else I’ve encountered in the MRM, he does at least argue in good faith.

        • Actually, the misogyny (what little of it there is) in the Mens Movement is largely driven by the same psychological mechanisms that cause abused women, for example, to fear, mistrust, and hate men.

          Another thing to consider:

          You yourself say there is precious little awareness of the Mens Movement, that there are no ‘leaders’, not even an ideology…

          Yet you blame us for the misogyny of our newest members?

          How exactly can we be responsible for that, since we’re invisible outside a few forums?

          No David, what you are seeing as a rise of misogyny in the Mens Movement is nothing more than a rise in the MEMBERSHIP of the mens movement. Nearly all of us were angry, frustrated, etc, when we started out. Complacency is the result of a moribund movement. What you see as misogyny, I see as fiery bellies.

          And you know what? You Feminist types are the BEST membership drive we could ask for.

          • And there you have what the feminist answer should be to accusations of misandry, “That’s just fiery bellies”.

            • Honesty is something feminists can’t seem to understand, let alone emulate. Misogyny is something feminists see literally everywhere.

              There is no pleasing you.

              So we stopped trying.

              Sucks eh?

              • I thought you were being honest? You were never trying. That’s OK though because feminists don’t and shouldn’t be trying to please you either. We can all be happy with our fiery bellies.

        • typhonblue says:

          Misogyny isn’t recognizing that women can be evil.

          Misogyny is putting women into a box. That box can be labeled ‘victim’, ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’. It doesn’t matter.

          Almost all feminists like to put women in the victim box; conservatives like to put women in the ‘morally superior/physically inferior’ box; some MRA wackjobs put them in the ‘inferior box’.

          But, to be honest, the MRAs who don’t, the ones who recognize that women can be evil without putting them in the evil box or dismissing it as ‘but less evil then men’, are just about the least misogynist people on the planet.

          Far less misogynist then manhood101 wackjobs, chivalrous conservatives and feminists.

          Who all want women in a box.

        • You’re already addressing misogyny in the MRM, but you just don’t give a sh’t about the issues faciing men.

        • Patrick Grady says:

          Do you feel the same way about the rampant misandry in the feminist echo chamber ? Do you publish that misandry ? Do you hold leaders of the feminist movement accountable for that misandry ? If you dont believe Glenn Sacks is a moderate, civil MRA your just not listening. It’s clear your goal is to discredit a movement….in which you state, you actually agree with some of their issues. So why the focus on the negative and not the positive aspects ?

          • What “rampant misandry?”

            Find me feminist message boards that have 36,033 posts talking about “bad boys and attention whores.”

            Find me feminist bloggers who argue that men should be denied the right to vote.

            Find me feminist message boards where someone gets upvotes when they suggest that a woman who saved a man’s life was equivalent to a Jew helping a Nazi.

            Find me a feminist who posts a blog post suggesting that an attack on a male war reporter is his fault, because he’s such a slut, and besides, men shouldn’t even be allowed to cover events in foreign lands.

            Seriously, if you think the tiny amount of misandry one can find on feminist sites is in any way comparable to the misogyny that is omnipresent on almost all MRA sites, you either haven’t looked at many feminist sites, or you are simply deluded. That Jezebel piece Elam referred to in the article of his I quoted? Yes, that post was filled with misandry, comparable to the misogyny I see every day on MRA/MGTOW sites. It was a terrible article. It should never have been published.

            The difference? Jezebel ran ONE piece like that, many years ago, and MRAs are still talking about it. Why? Because it’s pretty much the only example of misandry on that level from a mainstream feminist site they have. There are comparable misogynist articles on MRA sites pretty much every single day.

        • You spend your time policing MRM sites for ‘misogyny’?…?

          Really?

          Whatever blows your hair back, I guess…

          • Poester99 says:

            David Futrelle called me out on his blog for insinuating that all this is somehow a paid gig for him and that he is building up a large karmic debt.

            That he is paid is the most logical explanation. Most people don’t have that much time and resources to actively oppress and denigrate a social group unless they are paid do so.

            Hopefully someday he will see the error of ways and renounce Misandry, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Yes. I agree. And as a MRA, I’ll stop bashing feminism when feminists stop bashing the MRM. Which of course, will never happen. Let’s do an experiment. Let’s type in “male studies feminist” into google (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=male+studies+feminist) and see what feminsts have to say about the new proposed discipline. You, my friend, are a hypocrit. If you fail to recognize women’s advantages in western societies, you are either misinformed (by purposefully misleading feminist advocacy research and propoganda) or you are dishonest.

    • thehermit says:

      “But what MRAs attempt to do is play the victim card and play the whole who-has-it-worse game.”

      God, it is weirdo to read it from a feminist.

  90. Patrick Grady says:

    What MRA’s are actually successful ? Fatherandfamilies is far and away the most successful organization that defends men’s rights. But what input did you get from that site ? None ? It’s pretty clear from this article you had already made up your mind on the subject before you did any investigation. Have you ever gone to any of the feminist sites and pulled individual inflammatory comments and published them ?….I know for a fact you would find the same type of comments….because I’ve seen them. Next time you should just allow Amanda Marcotte to do the hit piece….she can do it in her sleep.

    • David Futrelle can only cherry-pick one off anonymous comments on blogs and try to discredit based on that. Whenever he enters into a serious debate, he’s dead in the water. His entire argument against the mountain of domestic violence research is that “Men are physically stronger;therefore abuse of men doesn’t matter” before he ran with his tail between his legs.

      It’s safe to say that this clown can’t write anything intellectually honest.

      • Serious research is indicating that women are at least as violent as men.
        It’s not only about USA, but about EU as well.

        Abuse of men is however not politically correct, articles written by David or Hugo and by other male feminists cannot be taken seriously – they are biased and anti-male at its finest.

      • I’ve dealt with the “cherry picking” claim in another comment.

        As for the rest, I would say that’s a pretty gross misrepresentation of my debate with Elam. You can read my contributions to that debate, and find links to Elam’s portion of it, here:

        http://www.manboobz.com/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.html

        For the record, I did in fact respond to Elam’s final post in the debate, and pointed out that the major point he tried to make in that post was in fact based on a complete misunderstanding of the research he was quoting. Elam never offered a substantive response to my final post, and when I tried to post a link to it on his site, he deleted it.

        http://www.manboobz.com/2010/10/paul-elams-big-mistake-on-domestic.html

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/25/a-debate-on-domestic-violence/#comment-5643

        Sorry to keep posting links, but I’m not sure how else to respond to these sorts of misrepresentations.

        • That’s because your entire ‘argument’ relied upon the acceptance of some pretty unsubstantiated premises, and wholesale acceptance of Feminist ideology as truth…neither of which are a given. ie, you failed miserably at convincing anyone but your own fellow feminists.

          • If you simply reject the majority of the research on the subject of domestic violence, including massive govt. surveys, without actually looking at these studies or their methodologies, because some of the people involved in this research identify themselves as feminists, it is impossible to have a real debate.

            Ironically, as I pointed out, some of the researchers Elam relied upon also consider themselves feminists. But their results were more to Elam’s liking so he coveniently ignored this.

            He also ignored the fact that many of the points I was making were supported by the very researchers he was citing.

            It was one of the most bizarre “debates”I’ve ever been in.

            • The majority of research only studies violence against women and patriarchal theories of dominance. It is a result of feminist dominance in academia and funding.

              There are only about 300 studies including both genders with a non-ideological slant.

            • Darwin was also a lone voice in a sea of ideological theories.

    • Henry P. Belanger says:

      Glenn Sacks and Ron Franklin will be contributing to this package.

      Others from the movement — Dr Tara, etc — declined.

      • Because they think your site is trashy feminist propaganda.

      • Patrick Grady says:

        I suspect you meant Robert Franklin ?

      • I didn’t decline to participate in this package; I just didn’t submit anything.

        My first priority is to my audience and to bring them new content at least 2x/week. It takes me a day to a day and a half to write and article; more if it’s a heavily researched piece. I also solely moderate my website comments, moderate the Shrink4Men Forum, run a small coaching practice and have a 25-hour a week job.

        Mr Belanger does not pay for content. Basically, he requested that I work for free for the benefit of his publication. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr Belanger does not work for free. I sometimes write original content for other publications and organizations that I want to support. I considered writing something for this MRM series, but I had to attend to my responsibilities that keep a roof over my head, my partner, my clients and my employer first.

        I may submit work at some point, if GMP is willing to pay for my work—even a nominal fee. I worked at several start-ups and understand limited budgets, but content has a value, my time has a value, and Mr Belanger’s time has a value.

  91. Hit piece? Form David futrelle?

    Nah, say it isn’t so….

  92. Charlie says:

    Futrelle does what he claims that MRAs do. He cherry picks some of the worst quotes, takes other quotes out of context, and ignores activists who have been very effective in challenging attitudes and changing laws. Basically a hack job. It’s pretty much a misandrist article.

    • Yeah, it’s sort of hard to do that with the Men’s Rights movement because there actually aren’t any celebrated or influential MRAs yet. I’m not really saying this as an insult; it’s a simple fact; the MR movement has made little headway in mainstream culture. Warren Farrell is perhaps the most — possibly the only — MRA who has gotten much attention from the mainstream culture, but he’s far more moderate than the typical MRAs one can find online today.. Within the world of Men’s Rights activism, many of the people I quote (Elam, for example) and the sites I draw from (The Spearhead), for example), are “celebrated and influential.”

      Also, those lists of quotes that MRAs tend to pass around online tend to focus on a relative handful of radical feminists (Andrea Dworkin in particular), and more than a few of the quotes are impossible to track down or simply made up:

      http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/factchecking-list-of-hateful-quotes.html

      • “but he’s far more moderate than the typical MRAs one can find online today”

        He’s far more moderate then the MRA’s you seek out on the internet. Big difference. Your job is to sift through for misogyny. Makes me wonder how open you are to actually seeing the more moderate, as they do nothing for your website. When all you look for is the hate, that’s all you’ll ever see.

        “a relative handful of radical feminists (Andrea Dworkin in particular)”

        As I’ve noted before, the reason for that is because those relative handful became very prominent, and they did so because they had support from many many others. One does not become a 10 time published author without people wanting to buy your books. As such, those handfuls of radical feminist (but they are feminists still, which blows away peoples “feminists are about equality” argument. just an aside) represent themselves, as well as the thousands upon thousands of supporters. This makes them very relevant, and far more representative of some feminist’s views then some nobody with a computer posting an angry comment on a website open to any nobody with a computer.

    • Charlie, misogyny is rampant in the MR and MGTOW movements online. Take any random discussion thread on The Spearhead and you can find countless comments that are frankly misogynistic, most of them with numerous (often dozens of) upvotes from other readers there. The only cherry picking I do is to find quotes that are actually sort of entertainingly misogynistic. If I did nothing but post misogynistic quotes from MRA/MGTOW message boards I would have to make dozens of posts a day just to keep up.

      If you think that the MRAs and the MRA sites I write about aren’t representative of the Men’s Rights movement — despite being some of the most widely trafficked and linked to sites in the “manosphere” — what sites should I be looking at instead?

      The only MR forum I know in which misogyny is sometimes challenged is the MR subreddit on REddit, and that’s in part because many of those who read it are not MRAs.

      • Sigh…

        Oddly enough I was actually agreeing to a point, until this tripe:

        “The only MR forum I know in which misogyny is sometimes challenged is the MR subreddit on REddit, and that’s in part because many of those who read it are not MRAs.”

        Which is flat out bullshit.

        • Really? I’ve started reading the MRA blogs and forums outside of Reddit relatively recently and I’m yet to see a MRA criticize or seriously try and refute what appears to be institutionalized misogyny and at times delusional paranoia within the movement.

          The most I’ve seen is a fairly hardcore MRA guy make the suggestion in the comments section of a Spearhead article that the constant spouting of violent, crazy or overtly misogynistic rhetoric was *strategically* a bad idea (not that the bigotry in itself was abhorrent or should be addressed) in that it can be used by the MRM’s perceived enemies to discredit the movement.

          Ironically, he was downvoted to hell and a called traitor, with one poster threatening that he would not be forgotten about and in the future would be treated like a nazi-sympathizer after WWII.

          But if you can link me to any examples of MRAs seriously trying to address the ingrained misogyny I’d really like to see it, it might begin to turn around the depressingly pessimistic view I have of the movement and it’s future.

          • 1. The feminist movement does monitor itself for misandry.

            2. Even if it didn’t, why wouldn’t the men’s rights movement want to be better? Misogyny does not help the movement, in fact it hurts it.

            • Your #1 is complete bullshit. The reason you don’t see the misandry is because you’re a woman. You don’t se it because IT ISN’T BEING AIMED AT YOU It’s basically like a white person not being able to see racism.

          • This sort of thing is ROUTINELY addressed. It’s a consequence of having a large influx of new members…freshly pissed off at Family Court and somesuch.

            But hey, if it bothers you, don’t go there. It’s not like you feminists matter anyway.

      • You are no better David. I have called you on several examples of misandry in your comments section, and you simply brush them off as “jokes”.

  93. Natasha says:

    Fantastic….one thing tho —

    David IS “a tabloid style feature about strange and sexist women”

  94. “Prominent MRA Paul Elam’s response to Domestic Violence Awareness Month last October was to, er, humorously proclaim October to be “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” and to fantasize about “beating the living shit” out of any woman who physically abuses men in any way. Elam has also famously declared that because he sees rape laws as being unfair to men, if he were “called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.””

    WAIT what? & this guy has been allowed to use a blog called “Good” Men Project as a forum on multiple occasions? What the hell?

    • Henry P. Belanger says:

      Also, please review our commenting policy.

    • Yeah, I’m misleading people by … quoting what Elam actually said.

      If anyone wants to see the quote in context, here’s Elam’s piece, complete with graphics of battered women, one with the caption: “Maybe she DID have it coming.”

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/22/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

      I talk more about Elam’s post and the issue of “satire” here:

      http://www.manboobz.com/2010/11/paul-elam-youre-no-jonathan-swift.html

      • typhonblue says:

        And this is the article he’s satirizing:

        “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have:

        “One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.” (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.”

        Note that Paul isn’t actually advocating violence in response to this and also note that these women are gleefully describing acts of abuse that they have engaged in.

        What jezebel did was several orders of magnitude worse then Paul’s response. They are lionizing domestic abuse.

        • Wow, that’s just vile. One of the saddest parts is the breast cancer joke. Men *can* get breast cancer. It’s very rare and that’s why often diagnosed at a late stage. But knowing this is probably too much to ask from a hip feminist writer.

    • typhonblue says:

      Also, the vote ‘not guilty’ is based on the fact that due process has been eroded for the crime of rape. Essentially rape has been made it’s own special category of crime with it’s own special rules for the admission of evidence, all of which make any particular rape prosecution suspect.

    • Did you read the article?

  95. The false rape accusation is another problem that Amanda Marcotte’s solution of “more feminism” would work for. Destroy rape culture & everybody wins.

    • From the no. 1 online delineation of rape culture at Shakesville:

      “Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (“I’ll make you my bitch”). Rape culture is making rape a ubiquitous part of male-exclusive bonding. Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.”

      From a source on Enthusiastic consent:

      “The enthusiastic consent model makes the person who initiates physical contact responsible, regardless of gender, for fighting against the culture of victim blaming. Under this model, the person initiating contact is required to take account of and not exploit a relationship, the other person’s intoxicated state, or the power of peer pressure or social conditioning. No matter what the type of contact, the initiating party must get genuine consent. It is not acceptable to touch another person who has not given affirmative permission, no matter how harmless it seems to the one doing the touching.

      Read more at Suite101: Using Enthusiastic Consent to Fight Rape Culture: Defining Sexual Assault Broadly and Avoiding Victim Blaming”

      Oh yes sir, feminists don’t care about male rape?

      • Read your own study, I just did:

        There is some support for this feminist theory of sexual coercion. For example, adherence to traditional sex roles is related to the perpetration of sexual abuse by men (e.g., Koss, Leonard, Beezley, & Oros, 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). People with more masculine identities are more likely to coerce sex, whereas those with more feminine identities are more likely to be the victims of sexual coercion in ro- mantic relationships (Poppen & Segal, 1988). Furthermore, Sanday (1981) found in her study of tribal societies that in tribes where women were not allowed to participate in posi- tions of power and their contributions to society were deemed as insignificant, the incidence of rape was high. However, in societies in which women were viewed as equal and there was essentially an equal balance of power and an apprecia- tion of the contributions of women, rape was non-existent. One purpose of the current study was, therefore, to investi- gate whether rates of sexual coercion against women varied among different sites around the world according to the status of women at each site.

        Also, the study says:

        Men:
        “Table 1 presents descriptive information concerning the per- centage of men who sustained forced sex, verbal sexual co- ercion, and a history of CSA. Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion.” (p 412)

        Women:
        “2.3% of the [female] sample overall reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion.” (p 414)

        Notice the difference between those two measures? Overall history of sexual coercion (men) vs. sexual coercion with most recent partner (women).

        The data are weighted to draw the conclusion.

        Again, I am not surprised that so many men report sexual victimisation; feminist theory asserts that male rapes are ignored because of patriarchal culture. Observe, the Curvature, a popular feminist blog:

        “When a Man is the Victim: A Second Study in Rape Apology”

        Conversely, in cases where a man is the victim of a woman’s violence, rape apologism is strongly rooted in the denial that women’s actions can count as violence at all — and especially that their actions can count as sexual violence against men, who are routinely construed as incapable of being victims.

      • I like how switchingtoglide noted only one statistic in her post, coming directly from Shakesville, one of the most popular feminist blogs: that 1 in 33 men are sexually assaulted…

        Then Eogan accuses her of “abusing statistics” and then lists statistics that feminists are “hiding”… the first being that “3% of men reported forced sex.”

        Sigh.

        • Men:
          “Table 1 presents descriptive information concerning the per- centage of men who sustained forced sex, verbal sexual co- ercion, and a history of CSA. Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion.” (p 412)

          Women:
          “2.3% of the [female] sample overall reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion.” (p 414)

          What you and others are missing about this statistic is that 3% of men reported forced sex that occurred at any point in their LIFETIME. Whereas 2.3 % of women reported forced sex from their CURRENT OR MOST RECENT romantic partner.

          • typhonblue says:

            Wow, this is the worst misrepresentation of that study yet.

            3% is how many men report forced sex in their previous relationship as well. Read the study. The authors did not ask *anyone* about sexual abuse sustained throughout their lifetime.

          • I think you misread my post. My critique was of Eogan, not of switchingtoglide. E cited the same statistic S did, then accused S of “hiding” it.

        • That is what I have been trying to say! How is that hiding anything! The feminist estimate of 1/33 is actually slightly higher than the MRA estimate of 3%!

          • typhonblue says:

            switchtoglide,

            That study is, in fact, the largest and most multi-cultural exploration of sexual violence in relationships yet undertaken.

            Other studies that use it’s methodology find similar rates of sexual violence.

          • You both don’t seem to see the obvious issue, which has been outlined twice by me and once by someone else; READ:

            Men:
            “Table 1 presents descriptive information concerning the per- centage of men who sustained forced sex, verbal sexual co- ercion, and a history of CSA. Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion.” (p 412)

            Women:
            “2.3% of the [female] sample overall reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion.” (p 414)

            Notice the difference between those two measures? Overall history of sexual coercion (men) vs. sexual coercion with most recent partner (women).

            The data are weighted to draw the conclusion.

            The study does not measure women over the course of a lifetime, but measures men over a lifetime.

          • typhonblue says:

            switchintoglide,

            Read the study again.

            Here is a quote from the study in their limitations section:

            “Finally, the measure of adult sexual victimization in the current study may not have captured all the sexual victimization experiences of the participants. For example, participants reported only sexual victimization experiences in the past year of their current or most recent romantic relationship, and therefore, any prior sexual victimization experiences would not have been captured.”

            All participants, male and female, were reporting only sexual victimization experiences in the past year of their current or most recent romantic relationship.

            I’m hoping you’re just confused and not perpetuating misinformation.

    • YES!! Agreed! Thank you!

  96. It’s a strategy to write your posts with Yahoo Replies. When we buy backlinks study your posts, you will definately get free backlinks for your website.

  97. “never having to wear heels?” “the best movie roles?”
    — I almost choked on my coffee laughing on that one. Are you suggesting that heels are something women must or are forced to endure? Some of the highest paid in Hollywood are female. This is silly.

    A tiny percentage of alpha males run government and corporations. What about most alphas, betas, and omegas? Do you really think that <1% of alphas care about other men? Get real.

    Men earn more? Look at the different types of jobs men and women do, the hours worked, the time off to raise kids, etc. BTW, in 48/50 urban areas women earn more. Women over age 51 control most of the nations private wealth. Young women earn more than men. Be honest about the numbers.

  98. Men do not earn more in general than women, and the ones who do, are doing especially dirty, dangerous, heavy work women often refuse. Everything from construction to combat…

    If an employer pays you more for your work it is surely not because you are a man and not a woman.

    If men are so expensive and women are working for such a cheap salary, most employers would accept only females applicants to save up to 20 percent of salaries for the same work done.

    It also should be noticed that men often transfer money earned out of their work for their families, to their women and children. Often to their ex-wives in form of alimony and child-support.

    Women are able to enjoy a much larger sortiment of various goods in department stores, and despite they are so poor, they are buying much more for themselves related to fashion/shoes industry, jewelry and similar items than men. Many products are designed for women only, and if the woman is so poor and nevertheless can buy that and the man is so rich, from where is the money coming from?

  99. Time off to raise kids is not time off. Raising children is a full time job. You don’t put in 40 hours a week and then sit around watching football. You’re there all day, all night, constantly working. If you don’t consider raising children to be a job (one that doesn’t pay btw) you need a reality check.

  100. There is so much generalization and failed logic going on here, it’s making me dizzy.

  101. Jon Fritch says:

    I just don’t understand why men’s rights activists don’t see that most of the problems that they complain about are mens’ faults.

    Yohan, why do you think it is that only men are often seen doing heavy labor or combat? Because men made it that way. Women had nothing to do with that unbalance. It’s been men that tell themselves and others that men are the stronger sex, so men should have the rougher jobs – women should stay in the kitchen. Women usually aren’t encouraged by anyone to take rougher jobs. They have been told for decades that they are genetically weaker, that they can’t accomplish the same things men can. And do you not think that some men generally make the heavy work environment more uncomfortable for women? These guys have probably been brought up with that attitude that only men can do this rough job. They’ve never seen it any other way, and they probably aren’t open to change.

    Damaging attitudes about men almost always come from men. Boys are expected to suppress their emotions in order to be real men, to be men of their own houses one day. That’s a patriarchal attitude if I’ve ever heard one. Men won’t accept as much variety and specificity when it comes to the products that they want to purchase. Men have told themselves that they always need to keep their needs simple and basic – anything fru-fru would be feminine. If men made it okay for other men to care about the way they look and feel more, then certainly men would be offered as wide a selection of goods. But no, men usually mock their male peers for embracing that stuff. We need to stop forcing these attitudes upon ourselves, and feminism is how.

  102. @Jess

    Women do have a choice – no woman is forced to give birth and to raise children.

    If a woman prefers to work 40 hours instead of a family with children, it’s up to her.

    What’s your problem?

  103. Then don’t have them…

  104. A job were you get to run around in your slippers and build gingerbread houses with the kids. Oh yes, we know that dinner is cooking and the washing machine is cleaning. Time then for yet another phone call to one of your many gal pals to continue complaining how much easier men have it.

  105. MorgainePendragon says:

    But men don’t have to make that choice. A man can have both.

    Why should ONLY women be penalised for having children?

  106. GeoffOfOZ says:

    Possibly. Looking at the situaiton regarding the uproar over contracepton and access to it at the moment in the States?

    Could we not agree that
    a) there are structures in place in society
    b) these structures, historically (pre-1960 back to say the Pharaohs of Egypt), were designed by men
    c) thus we do assume that these structures are designed to help people like those who designed the laws (including men, as well as rich, socially connected, etc.) or at the very least not to harm their position
    d) if you fall outside of the narrow confines of “good” the laws were designed for, you will experience varying degrees of hardship depending on how far you fall outside of “good”.

    So this takes into account men, women, sissy men, butch girls, bookish guys that would prefer to talk politics than go to a bar, a girl that would prefer to watch football and yell at the tv for 2 hours than go through an elaborate beauty routine, etc.?

    If we do accept the premise of my argument, that the powerful serves to maintain or extend their own power, regardless of the group with the power, could we then not accept that to remedy this the people must attack inequitable laws rather than fighting for supremacy?

  107. Why shouldn’t men have the right to opt out of fatherhood if their sex buddy/girlfriend/wife gets pregnant? Women can do what they want; abort, give birth, raise the kid, go back to work and use day care, etc. Women are now more of a hassle than they are worth and having a relationship with a woman is actually very very dangerous.

  108. wellokaythen says:

    Men and women are also penalized for NOT having children. People with children get income tax benefits that childless/childfree people do not. That is, in effect, a tax penalty for not having children.

  109. “Why shouldn’t men have the right to opt out of fatherhood if their sex buddy/girlfriend/wife gets pregnant?”

    Perhaps because of the biological fact that the fetus grows in the woman’s body? If humans were like seahorses and the fetuses incubated in the male’s bodies, then in that case the men would get to decide whether to keep or abort. A society where others had the right to impose a surgical procedure on your body against your will would be a pretty awful one, no? If you want to complain about the injustice that this right-to-refuse-surgery has the side effect of leaving the decision about whether to keep the child entirely in the hands of the woman, it’s nature you should complain to for making reproductive biology work in such a sexist way (or God, if you’re a creationist).

    And speaking of biology, a man does have one surefire way of avoiding fatherhood if he plans in advance, namely getting a vasectomy.

  110. If a man doesn’t want to be a father then HE should always use birth control, whether the woman says she does or not. If he doesn’t he could become someone’s Daddy.

  111. Damn, Aharon! I agreed with your point about the heels earlier, but your statement about women being “more of a hassle than they are worth” is unnecessarily insulting. There’s just no reason to talk like that.

  112. Good luck getting a vasectomy if you’re under 30, and haven’t had kids. Everything I’ve heard on it makes it quite difficult to get.

  113. Do you advocate sterilization for women who don’t want to become mothers?

  114. Abortion has nothing to do with a father’s inability to opt out of parenthood. We live in a society with adoptions and safe haven laws. In other words, a woman still has the choice to opt out even after there is a living breathing baby right there. Why don’t men have these same abilities?

    Equal responsibilities and unequal rights

  115. stupid.

  116. Equalizer says:

    @Jesse M: Your merely side stepping the issue here by saying it grows in a womans body, your basically saying sense women have all the rights to a child they can do whatever they want and men shouldn’t complain about it. Tell me whats the difference between killing it and having it then giving it to loving father after its born? The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth. You act like a man has no right to the child simply because it has nothing to do with him which is blatantly false.

  117. He’s not talking about the father demanding an abortion. He’s talkIng about legal paternal surrender. The equivalent of giving a child up for adoption, something a woman is allowed to do but a man isn’t.

  118. The reason why doctors balk at performing or referring one to vasectomy if one is young and childless is that is shouldn’t be considered a reversible procedures. If it’s more than three years since the vasectomy a reversal procedures only have a 51% pregnancy rate*. And it declines even more as time go by.

    *Belker AM, et al. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. Journal of Urology 1991; 145(3):505-11.

  119. I think that’s a larger surgery and thus riskier, but if I’m wrong about that–or in a hypothetical world where the health risk was as low as a vasectomy–then sure, why not?

  120. “Abortion has nothing to do with a father’s inability to opt out of parenthood. We live in a society with adoptions and safe haven laws. In other words, a woman still has the choice to opt out even after there is a living breathing baby right there. Why don’t men have these same abilities?

    Equal responsibilities and unequal rights”

    Well, you’re talking about a situation where the baby is actually born and the mother is raising it, and the father is free to “opt out” of any actual parenting responsibilities but usually has to pay some form of child support. So, let’s think about what would happen in this situation with the genders reversed. If the mother wanted to have the baby but then opt out of parenthood, but the biological father wanted to raise the baby (and could provide a good home environment), wouldn’t the courts be more likely to grant custody to the father than to have the child given up for adoption against the father’s wishes? In a case like this I don’t necessarily think the mother would be able to completely opt out any more than the father can opt out in a case where the mother wants to raise the baby…the mother might well have to pay some form of child support if the father was raising the baby, at least if she was making decent money. This sort of situation (mother bringing child to term but not wanting to raise it, father wanting to raise it) probably doesn’t happen that often, but to show there is are “unequal rights” you’d have to demonstrate that even when it does, the mother is always free to avoid paying any form of child support.

  121. I can answer your entire comment with two words: Safe. Haven.

    As long as a woman is able to dump her kid at any hospital or police station without even notifying the father it’s happened, then I will continue to claim that women have more rights than responsibilities.

    But further: A quick google search shows a number of cases where the woman has given a child up for adoption out of state (usualy Utah) without the father’s notice or consent, and thanks to long delays of the judicial system the child is ultimately left with the adoptive parents because those same delays (usually years long) have left the baby in the care of the adoptive parents so the courts rule that staying there is in “the child’s best interest.”

    Also, while the percentage of women who pay child support is smaller than that of men, the likelyhood of those women being “deadbeat” is greater than in men.

  122. Your merely side stepping the issue here by saying it grows in a womans body

    I’m not side-stepping the issue, I’m saying that fact is essential to the issue.

    your basically saying sense women have all the rights to a child they can do whatever they want and men shouldn’t complain about it. Tell me whats the difference between killing it and having it then giving it to loving father after its born?

    Months of potentially fairly intense physical discomfort and greater risk of serious permanent harm. Do you believe it’s right to subject people to long periods of avoidable physical discomfort against their will? For example if some person had a kidney disease and the only way to keep them alive until a donor could be found would be to connect their bloodstream to the bloodstream of a person with healthy kidneys, do you think it would be moral to force a healthy person to be connected in this way for several months against their will?

    The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth.

    If you define “dangerous” in terms of statistical risks, abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth, see for example http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/248/2/188.abstract

    You act like a man has no right to the child simply because it has nothing to do with him which is blatantly false.

    I never said “it has nothing to do with him”, and I also wouldn’t say he “has no right to the child” if it’s born. But I don’t think the man’s involvement in creating the pregnancy should trump the basic right of anyone not to be forced to experience bodily discomfort that could be avoided with a simple procedure.

  123. Jesse M. says:
    April 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    …abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth…

    ———
    How can you compare pregnancy with a kidney disease?
    To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.

    It sounds somehow that pregnancy is a form of illness requires surgery.

  124. Jesse M. says:

    “To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.”

    I was responding to Equalizer’s comment “The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth”, which was pretty clearly talking about how “dangerous” it is to “the woman”, not to the fetus. And I didn’t compare abortion to a kidney disease, is your reading comprehension really that poor? I compared it to a hypothetical situation where adult person #1 (supposed to be analogous to the fetus) is attached to the body of another adult #2 (analogous to the mother, with the “attachment” analogous to pregnancy) and is dependent on remaining attached to them for survival. An abortion opponent should like this analogy, because it grants the “personhood” of the fetus by comparing them to a sentient adult…in reality I don’t think the fetus can be considered a “person” before it develops some form of consciousness, which based on the development of the brain probably doesn’t happen until around the end of the second trimester (because until then, most of the synapses that are needed for brain cells to communicate with each other haven’t formed, so no coherent brain activity can occur–see the articles at http://web.archive.org/web/20000823035839/http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20110707061912/http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm for some info on this). But I’m saying even in this hypothetical situation, where I would grant personhood to person #1, person #2’s right to control over their body should give them the right to sever the attachment (equivalent to terminating the pregnancy), even though this would kill person #1.

Trackbacks

  1. […] of “MRA”, and there is also a strange sub-movement of jilted dudes calling themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). These are men who have decided that there is no benefit to entering into relationships […]

  2. […] with MRAs, feel free to read several different takes from The Good Men Project: here and here and […]

  3. […] fire for their icky rape apologism, agrees that Men’s Rights is bullshit. David Futrelle wrote: “the more I delved into the movement online, the more convinced I became that, for most of […]

  4. […] views are also held by MRAs, a group whose name (Men’s Rights Activists) is an utter misnomer. They’ve been officially recognized as a dangerous hate group with many members who advocate […]

  5. […] And then there is the “Men’s Rights Movement.” I’m not going to call them activists because they don’t appear to actually do much other than complain. […]

  6. […] We are not against the concept of men’s rights, we are against the “men’s rights movement” — if it can even be called that. […]

  7. […] also debunks Parental Alienation Syndrome, a controversial diagnosis exploited by the Men’s Rights Movement to invalidate mothers’ claims of abuse by the father. Chesler maintains that men as well as […]

  8. […] have been dismissed by some as self-proclaimed ‘activists’ whose activism engages in nothing more than angrily ranting […]

  9. […] register or sign in to remove these advertisements. To men's rights activists: Where's the activism? In response to a point made by an MRA, a feminist made a fairly predictable response: […]

  10. […] of them, no surprises here, actually popped up in the wake of the post on so-called Men’s Rights Activists and the ones specifically dealing with rape […]

  11. Sites We Like…

    […]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[…]…

  12. […] also debunks Parental Alienation Syndrome, a controversial diagnosis exploited by the Men’s Rights Movement to invalidate mothers’ claims of abuse by the father. Chesler maintains that men as well as […]

  13. […] Quoth David Futrelle At its heart, men’s rights activism doesn’t really seem to be about activism at all. What the movement has turned into is a strange parody of “victim feminism,” an endless search for proof that men (despite earning more than women, heading up the overwhelming majority of companies and governments in the world, getting all the best movie roles, never having to wear heels, and so on and so on and so on) are in fact second-class citizens. […]

  14. […] It isn’t a good topic. It isn’t dangerous, unless by “dangerous” one means “dangerous to logic.” It isn’t relevant. It’s totally overdone. And nobody cares outside of a fringe group of guys looking for excuses to hate women. […]

  15. […] second charge, leveled by David Futrelle, is that men’s rights groups don’t actually do anything but complain. It seems that this […]

Speak Your Mind

*