Meet the Men’s Rights Movement

Who are men’s rights activists, and what do they want?

The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a growing and disproportionately vocal group that believes Western culture and its institutions are contemptuous of men. Men and boys, they argue, are systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against by feminists and their allies. Once dismissed as the looniest and fringiest of the lunatic fringe, men’s rights groups have “gone mainstream” (Salon) and become “frighteningly effective” (Slate), influencing family law and domestic violence legislation, and imposing their views on our national conversations around gender and a host of other social issues.

Today and over the next week, the Good Men Project Magazine will be taking an in-depth look at this controversial movement. Despite the attention they’ve drawn and their relentless effort to make their voices heard, their ideas have yet to receive a thorough and fair hearing by mainstream media. That is, until now.

We’ve invited leading voices in the movement, as well as its outspoken critics, to help us better understand what men’s rights activists believe, why they believe it, and whether we should take their claims seriously.

Men’s rights activists (MRAs) can be easy to dismiss as crackpot extremists. Perhaps best known for descending like outraged locusts on the comments section of your favorite online magazine, newspaper, or blog, bewildering readers with esoteric epithets like “mangina” and “white knight,” they tend not to make a favorable first impression. But if you have the curiosity and thick skin to engage these guys, you’ll find that beneath the hysterical, dogmatic rhetoric lie some valid complaints.

It’s impossible to have a complete discussion of masculinity in the 21st century without acknowledging the men’s rights point of view.

So strap in and leave your delicate sensibilities at the door—it’s time to meet the Men’s Rights Movement.

♦◊♦

Men’s rights and other men’s movements have been kicking around since the 1970s. Many sprung up in response—some sympathetic, some hostile—to second-wave feminism. Like feminists, these movements have taken various forms in the pursuit of various, often contradictory goals.

Broadly speaking, they fall into three categories:

  • The weekend-warrior, drum-circle, pass-around-this-wooden-phallus-and-talk-about-your-dad movement, popularized by poet and author Robert Bly. Known as the mythopoetic men’s movement, these groups tend to focus inward, on interpersonal issues around their own manhood.
  • The pro-feminist Men’s Studies guys, who like to question and re-imagine standards of masculinity and gender roles. Their conclusions have often led them to take political positions, but their focus is primarily intellectual and academic.
  • And the men’s and fathers’ rights activists, who believe that men have been oppressed since, well, a really long time ago. They focus on political, legislative, and cultural reformation, from the unjust family court system to entrenched media bias. It’s these guys—the MRAs—who are making the most noise these days. (The “A” in MRA can also stand for “advocate,” depending on which MRA you talk to.)

According to movement leader Paul Elam, whose website, AVoiceforMen.com, is among the most popular online MRA hangouts, the MRM is largely comprised of “men who have been screwed over by a corrupt and oppressive family court system—and those [who] don’t want to be.” Thus anger and frustration—at the courts, at their ex-wives and women in general, at pervasive injustice—tend to be the animating emotions behind the MRM. The down economy, which by all accounts has hit men hardest, continues to boost MRA recruitment and sympathy.

Dan Moore, the publisher of Menz magazine, has been active in the movement for nearly 20 years. He’s “bullish” on the immediate prospects of social change. “I think it will be less than a decade before these issues are resolved. And yes, that’s largely because of this recession,” he said. “But honestly, I think we’re changing the world.”

♦◊♦

MRAs are well known for their tactical assaults on the comments sections of offending feminist and “misandric” (man-hating) blogs and websites. “If you write about them, it’s like feeding a stray cat tuna fish,” a feminist blogger warned me as I was soliciting stories for this package. “Except more like if you feed 100 cats tuna fish—they just show up and hang out and mewl and will completely swarm the place.”

That warning came too late. MRAs haven’t had many nice things to say about the Good Men Project Magazine since our launch last June. Here’s a representative appraisal:

I believe this site, and the viewpoints expressed within it, are toxic, and EXTREMELY harmful to boys and men. And I find the cynical attempt to paint yourselves as helpful in any way to be most disgusting of all. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Toxic, cynical, disgusting, and shameful. Actually, that’s one of the nicer ones. (A healthy percentage of the comments we get from MRAs aren’t fit to reprint here.) When we started getting comments and emails like this one, we were surprised. We were aware of the existence of men’s and fathers’ rights groups, but we had no idea how angry they were, and we certainly didn’t expect to be targeted as feminist “mangina” conspirators, bent on destroying the lives of men and boys everywhere.

♦◊♦

Initially, I wrote these people off as insane. It was difficult for me to imagine how anyone could believe they were systematically oppressed by women. Put off by second-wave feminism? OK, I get that. Fed up with political correctness? Though this strikes me as very 1994, I know and love men who still feel that way, so sure, I get that too. But under the thumb of the Great Feminist Oppressors? That’s just hard to take seriously.

But to understand MRAs, their fury, and their almost pathological certainty, you have to understand their definition of the word feminism. MRAs believe Western culture is feminist culture, and that culture, whatever you call it, is oppressive toward men. Thus a feminist is anyone they don’t agree with, regardless of gender. And that’s pretty much everyone.

Last week, when Paul Elam launched his A Voice for Men Radio podcast, he put it this way:

Let’s be clear—this show is not and never will be about the hateful bashing of women, and to be clearer, we’re going to often speak harshly of men … [But] our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of female narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of women that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity. Is this all women? No, of course not.

Not all women are semi-human, just most—and even if you don’t identify as female, you still may be complicit in maintaining the status quo.

MRAs commenting on this site and elsewhere around the Internet interpret the most radical feminists as speaking for women and governments the world over. No one, for example, takes Valerie Solanis, author of the satirical SCUM Manifesto, quite as seriously—with the possible exception of Andy Warhol, for a split second, in 1968—as men’s rights activists.

They see everything through the lens of a zero-sum gender war. Everywhere, men get a raw deal at the hands of women. Anywhere women have made advances, it’s at the expense of men. In their complaints, across gendered lines, about the draft, civil service, sentencing, and suicide disparities, they appear to ignore salient issues of class and race. To be sure, it’s more powerful men, not feminists, who are the ones sending men off to war and prison.

But for MRAs, everything comes back to their definition of feminists: anyone who supports or tolerates the oppressive culture we live in; thus, powerful men are covered by this definition. They’ve set up a tautological circle from which there is no exit—only progressively deeper certainty.

♦◊♦

It would be easy to write these guys off as nuts and not give them a second thought—if they weren’t so damned persistent. As hard as it is to imagine a Vast Feminist Conspiracy, it’s equally hard to see how anyone could be so invested, so irrepressible, if they didn’t have some skin in the game. Like that blogger told me, these guys hang around. There must be some basis for their tenacity.

There can be little doubt that at least some of these guys have been victims—of physically or psychologically abusive women, the family court system, or other painful circumstances. It’s therefore understandable why they don’t see the benefits of being in the “patriarchy.”

Removed from the hysterical rhetoric, MRAs have some valid complaints. Several movement-affiliated organizations—some more legitimate than others—fight for the rights of male victims of discrimination. Glenn Sacks’ Fathers & Families, a lobbying, PR, and advocacy group that has influenced family law policy around the country, is one. Another is RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), a nonprofit group that argues that domestic violence is perpetrated equally by men and women.

Fathers & Families, like many men’s and fathers’ rights groups, want men to be recognized as good parents who are equally capable of raising children. They want the courts and society to acknowledge that men can be caring and nurturing dads, and that assuming traditionally female roles is not only not creepy, weird, and emasculating, but can be respectable and, yes, even desirable.

Society seems to resist this acknowledgment, if not by word then by deed.

Consider, for example, this post from The New York Times’ Motherlode blog from December, in which Nicole Sprinkle described how, in looking for childcare for her 3-year-old daughter, she found a friendly, well-spoken applicant from her neighborhood who was studying to be a paramedic. His mother owned a local daycare center. He had worked as a summer camp counselor at the preschool her daughter attended, and “got rave reviews from his supervisor there.”

But he was a man, and that was just too dangerous:

I told him frankly that I liked him best of all and yet still wasn’t sure I could make the leap of letting a man watch my daughter: one who might have to help her wipe, clean her up in case of an accident, who would be alone with her every day for several hours.

I also told him that I felt really awful about having to feel this way, and that it was such a shame that society forced us to discriminate against kind, competent men as caregivers for our kids.

Of course, society didn’t force her to discriminate—she made the choice to discriminate. But it illustrates the point: it’s not just that men are refusing to adjust to new roles, as Hanna Rosin argued in her now-famous “End of Men” article in The Atlantic. When it comes to survival, or the survival of their children, men and women will scramble to adapt. It’s society and its institutions that lag behind.

There are plenty of guys out there who would like to see gender roles not simply reversed—a prospect that has Hanna Rosin twirling with glee and MRAs blitzed on rage-ahol—but obliterated altogether.

♦◊♦

In a recent column for The Wall Street Journal, Lenore Skenazy detailed the very real “Eek! A Male!” phenomenon: “almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep,” she wrote. “Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.”

In this culture, men who choose to work among (or even just near) kids are suspect. Among the handful anecdotes she presents as evidence: an Iowa daycare worker who isn’t allowed in the room when diapers are being changed and a guy who sent kids running and screaming when he rolled down his window to ask for directions.

Then there’s Timothy Murray, the Massachusetts Lt. Governor, who, while pulling two small children from a burning minivan, narrowly escaped the wrath of their grandmother. She thought he might be a kidnapper. “I was gonna smack him,” she told a local TV station. “I yelled, ‘Get away from my car!’”

MRAs rightly point to this as a troubling phenomenon. But is feminism, as many MRAs suggest, really the prime mover behind it? I suspect we’ll have the chance to debate this question in the comments section, below.

♦◊♦

For “The End of Men,” Rosin interviewed a divorced dad named Darrell—he’d lost his job laying sheet metal, fallen behind on his child-support payments, and was attending a fathering class in order to avoid jail time. Despite getting trucking and bar tending licenses, he couldn’t find work, and lost his house and car. He described sitting at a bus stop, watching his wife drive past. “‘[She] looked me right in the eye,’ he recalled, ‘and just drove on by.'”

Darrell, like so many other casualties of this recession, must feel blindsided by circumstance. And as Hanna Rosin will tell you, he’s representative of a growing number of American men.

We have to expect that there will lots more disaffected, disillusioned guys out there in the years to come, struggling to understand how they fit in to a changing world—which means we can expect interest in men’s issues to grow.

The Good Men Project Magazine is in a unique position to help guys grapple with their evolving roles and what many men see as conflicting and even impossible societal expectations. Our mission has always been to challenge men to think deeply about themselves and their place in the world, and that’s the goal this week.

Starting today, we’ll be featuring articles by leading MRAs about what they see as the central goals and concerns of the movement. MRA Blogger Zeta Male presents the results of a poll he conducted to determine the Top 10 Goals of the Men’s Rights Movement. Paul Elam from A Voice for Men breaks down the critical MRA notion of misandry.

We’ve invited some frequent MRA critics to offer measured criticism. Regular GMPM columnist Hugo Schwyzer—whom Menz magazine publisher Dan Moore calls “the Darth Vader of men’s issues”—argues that MRAs misdiagnose both the sources of, and the solutions to, common MRA complaints. Double X blogger Amanda Marcotte argues that what these guys need is more feminism.

Rounding out the list is our own Tom Matlack, who has endured stints as an MRA punching bag. He explores “Adultery’s Double Standard.”

Later in the week we’ll feature stories by Swedish MRA Pelle Billing, men’s rights lawyer and GMPM contributor David Pisarra, men’s studies professor Kaelin Alexander, and journalist and Man Boobz editor David Futrelle.

Dan Moore will fill you in on the State of the Movement, explaining, among other things, what MRAs have to say about feminists, and why they’re determined to “go their own way.”

We’re looking forward to some spirited, good-faith debate. We encourage everyone to comment, but please keep the discussion respectful and on topic. Please consult our commenting policy, here.

About Henry P. Belanger

Henry P. Belanger is a writer, reporter, and an editor-at-large at the Good Men Project. Contact him via email.

Comments

  1. Let’s just lay out the issues. I really like to know what the male feminists are doing about it?

    Men in every civilized country have the right to claim:

    1. That paternity be routinely established using DNA testing.
    2. That an established paternity automatically enable the same rights and responsibilities as an established maternity.
    3. That the default arrangement after a separation be joint legal and physical custody of any children; only to be changed if the parents voluntarily decide to do so, or if one of the parties be determined unfit to be a parent by a court of law.
    4. That women’s shelters receive no government grants unless they are transformed into human shelters, where all victims of domestic violence can get the help they need (women, men, children).
    5. That all human shelters be run professionally, under the same strict standards as those of other social services.
    6. That the military be staffed by people who apply voluntarily, and who receive a fair and reasonable compensation for the risks they assume.
    7. That conscription be used only for extreme reasons of national safety, and that such a measure be gender neutral.
    8. That the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” be upheld at all times, including allegations of rape or sexual harassment.
    9. That gender research be as free from ideology as any other academic field.
    10. That male expendability be recognized as a major gender issue.
    11. That boys be allowed to be proud of their coming manhood.
    12. That schools recognize the needs of boys and the learning styles of boys, so as to give them a fair chance of performing well.
    13. That men’s groups be given the same legal and practical opportunities as women’s groups to obtain funding.
    14. That male sexuality be portrayed in a positive and encouraging manner.
    15. That male circumcision only be legal for adults who voluntarily choose this kind of surgery.
    16. That prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape and other forms of assault.
    17. That meritocracy be the governing principle in the labor market, and that all forms of affirmative action and gender quotas disappear.
    18. That misandry be opposed just as vehemently as misogyny.
    19. That all legislation discriminating against men be made gender neutral or removed.
    20. That the historical sacrifice of the male gender role be recognized to the same extent as the historical sacrifice of the female gender role.

    • From pelle billing, btw.

    • SallyStrange says:

      1. Unobjectionable, but expensive and not necessary in all cases
      2. This is not already the case? Evidence please.
      3. Agreed.
      4. Problematic. Gender segregation of domestic abuse shelters happens for a couple reasons. First, MRA propaganda aside, the raw number of women seeking to flee abuse is simply higher than the number of men seeking to flee abuse. Women do also abuse men, but they do it at a much lower rate than the other way around. The other main reason for gender segregation is to keep the abuser from claiming to be a victim and entering the shelter under this pretext, only to continue abusing his partner. Of course, gender segregation creates a separate class of problems, for instance, where to send transgendered people who are the victims of DA. Evidence that MRAs care about the problems of trans men and women? Slim to none. Perhaps in the future DA shelters will not be separated by gender. It’s something we should work towards. But for now, I must disagree.
      5. Uncontroversial; is there evidence that this is a problem on a large scale?
      6. Agreed – but need evidence that this is not already the case.
      7. Conscription should be gender neutral, but only if service is gender neutral; IOW, women should be allowed to serve in combat positions.
      8. Agreed – but need evidence that this is not already the case.
      9. Agreed. Suggested solutions? How about: more feminism!
      10. “Male expendability”? As in, men go to war and get dangerous jobs? Agreed! Let’s allow women to serve in combat positions and remove gender-based barriers to dangerous jobs. Then men and women can be expendable to the upper classes in equal proportions.
      11. Agreed.
      12. Agreed.
      13. Evidence that this is not the case? But agreed.
      14. Agreed—of course, this will also require that we start TEACHING male sexuality in a different way.
      15. Agreed.
      16. Agreed.
      17. Disagree. Affirmative action still has a role to play in leveling the playing field that has been so severely tilted for centuries. Although, currently cis white straight women are most likely to benefit from affirmative action programs; these programs should perhaps be revamped to ensure better inclusion of other, more marginalized groups.
      18. Agreed, and who does that best? Feminists, the ones who resist the idea that men are incapable of controlling their sexuality. Feminists, who insist that men should be free to be nurturing or dominating, assertive or shy, sensitive or strong, however it may strike them, and that this doesn’t make them any more or less of a man, whichever the case may be. Feminists, who say that men should be regarded as capable parents who can nurture children as well as any human being. Feminists, who argue for a more equitable distribution of work outside and inside the home between the genders.
      19. Unaware of any legislation mandating discrimination against men. Pretty sure that would be unconstitutional. No need for new legislation, just bring a 14th amendment lawsuit.
      20. Agreed! Although, I’m pretty sure you think this means more attention will be paid to men’s “historical sacrifices”. In reality, it’s going to mean more attention paid to women’s historical sacrifices.

      • You’re a feminist ideologue who, so far, has not admitted women do one single thing wrong, or that feminism has gotten one single thing wrong. You refuse to admit that MRAs have ANYTHING of value to say, and reject out of hand any ‘rights issues’ men may have as inferior to the concerns of women.

        Again, typical feminist.

        • That is an extremely poor and reactionary interpretation of SallyStrange’s post.

          • Oh? Ok, let’s take this:

            “19. Unaware of any legislation mandating discrimination against men. Pretty sure that would be unconstitutional. No need for new legislation, just bring a 14th amendment lawsuit.”

            To be fair, I live in Canada, not the US, but what do we have right here in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15????

            EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs.

            15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

            (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

            Hmm, it’s illegal to discriminate in Canada, it seems…EXCEPT against white males! Written right there into the Canadian Constitution.

            And they ‘get around’ this by saying it’s not discrimination against white males, it’s “helping everyone else”. Honest to God.

            I’m more than sure there are plenty of U.S. examples for you to be ‘concerned’ about, but don’t give me that crap about Feminist ideology and sexism not being the “law of the land”.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Please. Affirmative action is not equivalent to discrimination against white men. It’s a system of preferences designed to compensate for the preferences already given to white men. Call me when you catch up to the civil rights movement.

            • Many people conflate equal opportinity with equal results and equal outcome.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Yeah–those people are the imaginary people in the heads of people who oppose Affirmative Action. Rational people realize that “equal outcome” is an impossible straw man invented by people intent on preserving the status quo.

            • As you can guess from my name, I am not a white man, not even a westerner, but I agree 100% that equal opportunity is a fuzzy guide line that sounds like it is not equal outcome, but if it is not equal outcome, you get sued. Just look at walmart.
              So the only way any employer can interprete AA is to ensure Equality of Outcomes. FYI, there are quotas for women as “minorities” elsewhere all around the world. Funny thing is – that goes to show that women cannot compete in the market place against men and need special preferences.

              I fully expect an argument about how Quotas are “sometimes necessary” and are “not really discrimation”… so bring it on.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Affirmative action and quotas are two different things. I think quotas may be helpful in some cases, and affirmative action is generally a good thing. It does not, contrary to the myths propagated by those people I mentioned above, the ones who are intent on preserving the status quo, lead to unqualified people attaining positions for which they are unprepared.

              As far as Wal-Mart goes, there was discrimination occurring there. The gender disparity in management positions was just one of the pieces of evidence for that discrimination. If the percentage of women in management positions was exactly the same as the percentage of women in menial labor positions, then there would be no evidence of discrimination, regardless of whether the gender balance in management positions was 50-50 or something else.

            • How about quotas for family court outcomes? Or is that different?

            • I agree there is discrimination. If you look at the number of military deaths, a disturbingly disproportionate number is male. Similarly, if you look at the number deaths in industrial accidents, they are again, disproportionately male. Heck, if you look at the total number of victims of all violent crime, again, they are all males. We want some action plan from Sally for leveling the playing field :(

            • So more military, industrial, violent crime deaths are male. And close to half of domestic violence is against men. Far more suicide deaths are male. Fewer males graduate college or get higher degrees and far more males lost jobs in the economic downturn than women. If the roles were reversed it would be OpEd and Oprah outrage 24 hours a day. Men, we are on our own.

            • Alphabeta Supe says:

              Perhaps not in theory, but certainly in practice. Why is it that some women think shaming a man will drive her point home? It very often reveals the covert nature of the problem. Thankfully, this sort of childish tactic is as transparent as it is expected..

          • Jay Hammers says:

            Could people please stop using the word “reactionary”? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used properly, and those who do attempt to use it when targeting MRAs are dead wrong – men’s rights is all about making positive change toward a more fair society, whereas feminism is all about advancing women’s privileges and entitlements even further at the expense of men while maintaining the privileged and protected status women have always had.

          • Fannie you are wrong. Factory’s reply is an accurate and fair response. SallyStrange’s post was just more feminist misinformation propaganda.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Factory’s reply was not at all accurate. Therefore, it was not fair, either. If you disagree with me, at least do so honestly. Factory did not, as I detailed in my reply to him.

            • Sally

              I did disagree with you honestly. I stated that your post was just more feminist misinformation propaganda. You reply was amusing.

            • SallyStrange says:

              No you didn’t, Factory. I detailed why your characterization of me was factually false. I note that you are incapable of offering facts as to why you insist on calling me an ideologue who can’t criticize feminism. I take your continued failure to response to my critique with anything of any substance as a concession that your argument lacks substance. Nice talking with you, better luck next time.

            • Alrighty then, you asked for it.

              “Please. Affirmative action is not equivalent to discrimination against white men. It’s a system of preferences designed to compensate for the preferences already given to white men. Call me when you catch up to the civil rights movement.”

              This is identical to the bullshit I referred to earlier…the line that it’s not discrimination against white men, it’s help for literally EVERYONE ELSE. So tell me, if I fed ‘everyone’ nothing, but gave everyone but white women food to ‘make up for past injustices’…would the white women starve?

              They would? And you can understand that? Well then, your ‘inability’ to see my point is pretty much exposed as a sexist man-hater thinking she’s obtained some plausible deniability when denying official sexism against men.

              And why would you do that?

              Oh yeah, because you ‘really care about men’…just like every other feminist.

            • Exactly

            • Alphabeta Supe says:

              Disagree with you Sally.

              Factory responded honestly to your attitude more than your comments. The insinuation and mockery in them is unmistakeable. Every point you attempted to make after your purposes became evident was moot. Is moot. Notice how no-one’s considering them to any depth? Factory was absolutely correct in pulling you up for this. Smarminess and sleaziness are not substitutes for emphatic rebuttal.

            • SallyStrange says:

              First of all, the mockery you detect exists only in your imagination. If I wanted to mock Factory, believe me, it would have been a great deal more harsh than that.

              Second, if Factory can respond only to attitude and can’t deal with substance then he’s hardly an interesting or worthy interlocutor. Respond to attitude if you like, but if you can’t address the substance of my response then I’m going to assume that YOU are the one whose argument is lacking substance. My tone was mostly civil, with a few gently sarcastic comments. If you or Factory have such thin skin that you can’t handle a bit of sarcasm then you should probably refrain from commenting on the rough-and-tumble interwebs.

            • There is no substance to your response. It’s boilerplate feminist drivel that doesn’t even stand on it’s own…it requires acceptance of feminist ideology to even APPEAR fair…

              It’s sexism and racism, and nothing else. The fact that it’s against your favoured scapegoat doesn’t make it any less real, or you any less of a bigot.

            • Alphabeta Supe says:

              @Sally

              OK, you’ve established that you’re Supergirl. Now, it would be peachy if you could learn how to use your powers for good instead of evil.

              If there’s any woman left in the Anglosphere who knows how to do that let her come forward and make her case against the MRM.

        • Let’s begin an intelligent conversation and stop the blame game. I was the first woman executive in the Men’s Movement in Canada, very proud of it and loved my time working with the guys. I think, this Movement is vitally important for the advancement of Society, Men, Women and Children in legal, financial, health and many other arenas.
          The angry men you describe were not part of the group I worked with in Vancouver, BC.
          I was the editor for the their Magazine called The Talking Stick, that phallus you point to in the drumming circle. The largest hurdle our Movement had to jump was getting MEN to understand and realize the need for the work these groups do. Most men I talk to don’t even know about a Men’s Movement and when I talk about it they normally say, “What do we need a Movement for?”
          These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.

          • “These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.”

            Meh, you’re just bitter your tree-hugging new-agey bullshit didn’t catch on with men. Lemme ask you this, it might help you figure out the best approach.

            Who sells more CD’s, Yanni, or Eminem?

            • Ouch, I’ve never heard of Helyn, it must be a very small group that has never made any impact.

            • Just wait, someone is going to come here and show Yanni sells more CDs or something….

              That’d be embarrassing…

            • And Eminem sends a positive message how?

            • It’s not about sending a positive message. It’s about letting people know the time for treating men as disposable beasts of burden is over. There will be a political cost attached to that now. Including on you feminist types.

          • “These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.”

            Helyn and the Talking Sticks? (eyes rolling here) You are wrong.

            MRA recognize how feminists have worked with the alpha males in government to empower and enrich women at the expense of men. Feminist driven laws (fully supported by government) have done tremendous damage to society and males in particular. Feminism is convenient tool of government to use in dividing and conquering its citizens to expand the powers of government and reducing the liberty of the people. Feminism has been a key player in the ongoing male bashing behavior and anti-male school system that is hurting boys, putting innocent men into prison on false-rape claims, the terrible discrimination men face in the Family Courts when going through divorce, and the lack of serious consequences for women who lie about rape and domestic violence cases.
            Feminism has been a big proponent for single motherhood with the resulting harm brought to the children. I could go on and on. Yeah, we see feminism for the harm it has done.

          • Alphabeta Supe says:

            These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.

            Helyn,

            Why do you point to vaguely similar outliers and call them evidence of a primary corellation? The executive director of any organisation ought to recognise the drawing of such conclusions as foolish.

        • SallyStrange says:

          This particular post had nothing to do with the personal faults or failings of any individual woman or man.

          My other posts–here on this site, posted today!–have addressed mistakes, errors, and bigotry on the part of feminists, both contemporary and historical. So your characterization of me as an “ideologue” who won’t admit that feminists have faults is false.

          Also, if I don’t find anything of value in the MRA arguments, why is it that I agree with several of the points listed by the OP?

          Ladies and gentlemen, the MRA disconnect with reality, Exhibit X, Y, and Z.

          • Sally is trolling…

            • Looks like. =(

            • SallyStrange says:

              This is the opposite of trolling. Note that my post contains several factual assertions for which I can offer evidence. Furthermore, I’m not deliberately trying to rile anyone up but am making every attempt to argue honestly, in good faith.

              I think this word “troll” means something different than you think it does.

        • So you are upset about people dismissively typecasting the Men’s Rights movement and your first response is to label someone as a “typical feminist” ??

          Go ahead and google “hypocrisy” for me, would you?

          Name calling and tossing around generalizations is not the way to start a healthy discourse about any topic.

          • Honestly, I’m not upset that much at all about being ‘typecast’…since I know from many years of experience that it’s not the tone, but the subject that is objected to. I have been ‘respectful’ and I have been ‘measured’ and all that time, we were ignored.

            Now we’re pissed off, and we’re growing by thousands every month, and getting airplay.

            I encourage that stuff, and I have chosen to own the ‘misogynist’ label you guys keep trying to stick on me. There’s no pleasing a feminist ideologue, so I don’t even try. In fact, the only thing a feminist is good for, is to illustrate the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the movement.

            As for dismissive attitudes, what bothers me is the attitude towards the issues presented, not the presenters of the info. Casually waving away the lives and struggles of millions of men as ‘irrelevant’ because it doesn’t jive with what you learned in College is the hallmark of a truly twisted individual. And that’s all I see you feminists doing. Ever. For years.

            And yes, I have asked for proof otherwise. It’s never been forthcoming.

            Feminists are not our market. Manginas and White Knights are not our market. Complacent men are not our market.

            Angry, pissed off, fed up, and motivated men? THAT is our market.

            All feminists have to do, is make sure there aren’t enough of those angry pissed off men to make a movement on this side. Feminists are the Establishment after all… It should be easy, after all you all ‘really care about men’ and I’m sure you’re doing everything you can to mitigate their pain.

            And if not, then people like me will be there to make sure that pain gets put to good use.

            So really, the fate of the Mens Movement is in your hands Feminists. Are you going to keep recruiting for us, or are you going to learn?

            • Factory speaks the truth. Feminism is the child abusing mother of the MRM and gives birth to new MRA’s on a daily basis. Feminist ideologues have talked about a phantom “backlash” for decades, but a real one is coming.

      • Victim of Violence says:

        2. This is not already the case? Evidence please.

        It is not the case. I am a victim of unprovoked aggression on the part of my first wife, including attempted homicide in front of our children. Because I am make — that was explicitly what the cops said — I was thrown out and there was no way to press charges. Therefore she has had no investigation of her crimes and I have been the Designated Perp….. which in my humble opinion is kind of in conflict with a few fundamental principles of justice.

        The family law system in Canada and the US is Kafkaesque towards abused men.

        • SallyStrange says:

          So, this sounds less like a case of lack of equality vis-a-vis parenting rights, but more a lack of equality vis-a-vis domestic abuse law. As I have said several times already, I support the equalization of domestic violence laws. In most states, AFAIK, laws on domestic violence are worded in a gender-neutral fashion, but that doesn’t mean that the enforcement isn’t sexist–that is, cops & members of the judicial system tend to dismiss and devalue the statements of men who say they’ve been abused by their female partners. Changing this will, I believe, mean changing the culture so that men are no longer shamed for expressing weakness and vulnerability. Classic feminist position.

          • wavevector says:

            No, the classic feminist position is to deny that women abuse men, and to manipulate the legal system so that the crime of domestic violence is only a legal liability for men.

            “Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
            However, despite the wealth and diversity of the sociological research and the consistency of the findings, female violence is not recognized within the extensive legal literature on domestic violence. Instead, the literature consistently suggests that
            only men commit domestic violence. Either explicitly, or more often
            implicitly, through the failure to address the subject in any objective
            manner, female violence is denied, defended and minimized.
            How is it that our general legal understanding of domestic violence as defined by the male abuse of women is so squarely contradicted by the empirical reality? Honestly answering this question requires tracing the history of both the theory and practice of domestic
            violence law. Undertaking such an exploration, one quickly finds that
            the “discovery” of domestic violence is rooted in the essential feminist
            tenet that society is controlled by an all-encompassing patriarchal
            structure.

            This fundamental feminist understanding of domestic
            violence has far-reaching implications. By dismissing the possibility
            of female violence, the framework of legal programs and social norms
            is narrowly shaped to respond only to the male abuse of women. Female batterers cannot be recognized. Male victims cannot be treated.
            If we are to truly address the phenomenon of domestic violence, the
            legal response to domestic violence and the biases which underlie it
            must be challenged. ”

            http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

          • The problem with DV is that police, social workers are trained in feminist patriarchal theory of DV, as well as dominant agressor gender profiling.

            There is no denying that feminists have full credit for discriminating against male victims of DV.

          • ” As I have said several times already, I support the equalization of domestic violence laws. ”
            Have you done anything to make that happen?

            • Victim of Violence says:

              I’ll bet she won’t be in favour of redressing past injustices, such as mine; thereby guaranteeing safe passage of the cycle of domestic abuse to the next generation without the pesky interventions of the loving father.

      • “The other main reason for gender segregation is to keep the abuser from claiming to be a victim and entering the shelter under this pretext, only to continue abusing his partner.”

        I’m fascinated how that would work:

        Staff: Gather round everyone. I’d like you all to meet our newest resident, Henry.

        Jane: Hey, that’s the man I’m here to get away from!

        Staff: Oh. So you know each other! Great. How about we put you in adjacent rooms since you’ll have so much to talk about.

        • There already is violence, drugs and prostitutes in women’s shelters and they get ejected if their caught.

          Keeping all men out is blaming all men and creating an atmosphere of fear and instituting staff bias.

          What’s next, shelter’s for victims of racial violence?

      • Your answer to 10 is very … “interesting”… You speak about “letting women” which as I understand means “let them if they wish”. Men during WWII were not “let” to go to fire hell… They were conscripted and sent there with no any one asked them if they wish so. That will be the only real equality – if females will be conscripted exactly like males (with no asking them do they wish to conscripted) and sent to same dangerous places as males. Giving females some additional privileges and enabling 2-3 females to conscript (if they wish so) while millions males are conscripted forcefully will not create any equality. It is ridiculing of idea of equality…

    • Susannah says:

      Those are all things that need to happen sooner rather than later, and will benefit everybody. Let’s make them happen.

    • I was hoping for an answer from the “Male” feminists, since GMPM is attempting to influence other men.

      What’s up guys, don’t you care about your own gender?

      • Patrick says:

        Okay. As a man who freely identifies as a feminist, I’d say I agree with most of your list. Sally did a superb job of showing how the nearly all the goals you listed are well-aligned with the goals of most feminists.

        If those are the goals of MRAs, then they’d do much better off teaming up with feminists rather than painting themselves an opposing force.

        It seems, however, that the vast majority of MRAs here and elsewhere, are attacking a strawman version of Andrea Dworkin as the “typical feminist.” See Factor’s reply to Sally’s entirely reasonable post, for instance. This is why it’s difficult to accept that the goals you posted aren’t the whole story. Because if they were, we’d all be on the same side.

        • Alright Patrick, tell me the name of a typical feminist. You?

          You just lied out of your teeth. Feminists claim they are for equality as Sally just did. But facts and actions are totally contrary to them. Heck, feminists cannot have ANY feminist theory without Patriachy.. which is based on hatred towards men.

          You say we should team up with your ilk? No thank you. We can do this on our own.

          • Patrick says:

            “Heck, feminists cannot have ANY feminist theory without Patriachy.. which is based on hatred towards men.”

            Yeah, Patriarchy is based on hatred towards men… Sigh.

            Please point me to where I “lied through my teeth.”

            • I will point you, but you need to get your eyesight back and understand the difference between SAY and DO.

              Yes, Patriarchy is based on hatred of men.. ALL MEN. It is interesting that all you can do is Sigh. Is that all they taught you in Women’s studies..oops, my bad GENDER studies?

            • Patriarchy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

            • What is “patriarchy” if not “male power”?

              Why is male power so bad? Should we be slaves? Should we seek female approval before we so much as move?

              How exactly is male autonomy and agency bad?

              And if “patriarchy” isn’t simply a way of restating “male power”, what exactly is it? Remember, if you can’t say it without jargon, you’re not saying a thing…

            • No, we shouldn’t be slaves. No, we shouldn’t seek the approval of a member of the opposite sex before we so much as move (unless we’re moving in on them).

              There’s nothing wrong with autonomy and personal agency. In fact, I think it’s such a great concept that I think it should be extended to *everyone*. Then it wouldn’t need to be *male* autonomy. It could just be autonomy, period.

              Patriarchy does not mean “male power.” It means “male rule.” And that’s the issue.

            • “Patriarchy does not mean “male power.” It means “male rule.” And that’s the issue.”

              Even as far as semantics go, the difference between the two is paper thin…

              And this assumes the need for this shift in the first place, which, again, I reject as a notion.

            • Folks – reality check – PUH-lease: patriarchy has always put others first, community first, women and children first and that is how patriarchy built civilization/society, not by evil against women and children at all, but by making men expendable while putting women on pedestals.

              That’s patriarchy, self-sacrificing, self sacrificing, sad as that is. maybe it really is time to end the patriarchy so we can finally have equal rights for males:

              http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/14/the-unabridged-mens-movement/

              Women have proven they no longer need the protection and pedestals provided by the selfless patriarchy…

            • @Factory – Just so we’re clear, you are asserting that women should be socially subordinate to men?

              At least, after all this pretense of just wanting to return a pendulum you thing has swung too far back to the middle, you’re clear here that you “reject the notion” that a shift from the social superiority of men is desirable. Thanks for your honesty, at least.

            • @Tom M
              Sounds good. This is what feminists have been struggling for for decades.

            • Yes, Patrick, because only feminists know what Patriachy means. It means whatever YOU feminists want it to be at any point in time.

            • Oh, you’re right. I looked it up in the dictionary, and you were right all along…

              PA*tri*ar*chy (n.) – hatred of all men.

              [rolls eyes]

            • What is asserting that all men have conspired together ( a completely unprovable tenet) for all of history to control all women but hatred of men?

              At the very least,it falls under the category of “whininess” that your side routinely assigns to our side. You claim we blame women for all our problems (false in the extreme, we’ve always said male politicians and lawmakers were complicit in making the radical goals of FEMINISTS,not women,possible, and without such intervention by oftentimes well-meaning men we would not have the situation we have today) and yet you blame “patriarchy”,i.e.,ALL MEN for EVERYONE’S problems, it’s the core belief that connects all your other beliefs.

              You call it “whining” when you imagine (and that’s all it is,your imagination, or you know better and you’re deliberately lying,I haven’t decided which yet) that this is what we are doing, and yet when you do it, you call it “social progress”.

              I call that the very epitome of hypocrisy.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Does hating racism mean hating white people?

            • Patriarchial theories in DV research and extensive application in training of social workers, police and judges affect all men.

            • Does wanting equality mean incessantly campaigning for the convictions of innocent men without any evidence in rape cases? Feminists have done this for years. We want equality!

              Sigh

              roll eyes

              tut

        • Well, the proof is in action and not words and I would be very wary of teaming up with feminists since my experience with them tells me that they are opposed to true equality and don’t care about men at all.

          If feminists ever start becoming true to their words, with matching actions as proof, I will definitely team up with them.

        • typhonblue says:

          As long as feminists will not ceed any real estate on the victim high ground to men, then they cannot work with MRAs.

  2. Don’t miss tonight’s show, it’s going to be awesome:

    Violent Women and Government Lies
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/03/09/violent-women-and-government-lies

    • by Haffley Randall Paul Jacob on his facebook
      DEAD BEAT DAD LAWS ?? what about dead beat mom’s they put dads in jail not caring for their kids,withhold visitations because they dont care for kids, well what about the damn mom’s ? 3 cases welfare fraud she created + 2 years of federal income tax fraud + no care/support for kids,+ gross …medical neglect reported by pediatrician+ psychological/emotional abuse but noone pushes against her they say not worth it.what the hell..only thing they say is i got them go on, well gee so she gets all the thousands an car an i struggle i glad to love care for boys but also bit hurt cause if men did such FORGET IT their fried/grilled by the system,
      i struggle without any car in the country, i was denied assistance for boys, i can barely get to doctors an struggle wit my 700 month workers comp disability to supply for all 3 us and they say jus go on, i am but damn hard.

  3. “Despite the attention they’ve drawn and their relentless effort to make their voices heard, their ideas have yet to receive a thorough and fair hearing by mainstream media. That is, until now.”

    A true statement and a good promise – half fulfilled, Mr. Balanger.

    I do appreciate what you got right with this article, which you took obvious pains to write objectively. But I also feel compelled to address a couple of things you missed the mark on, in my opinion.

    Yes, men’s activists are a vocal group. With the mainstream media failing to give us a fair hearing “until now,” we have had to be. Picture the strident, brassiere burning gender feminists who were at first dismissed by the general population during the 60’s for the appropriate corollary. Or better yet, envision the same from the civil rights movement at the same time. It was a time when antiquated ideas and a few cities went up in flames.

    The fact is that all social movements begin with small, generally ignored groups of people who grow increasingly belligerent until people take notice. Adjectives like “hysterical” are too easy an out, especially with redundant use, for explaining the current phenomena.

    I would also assert that your characterization of the conduct in the comments section is biased and incomplete. For instance, when my piece on marriage ran here, the overwhelming amount of invective and ad hominem attacks were from non MRA critics of the article. You yourself removed some of them.
    Clearly these are issues that evoke strong emotional responses regardless of who is discussing them. It makes no one a crackpot.

    I also point to the fact that one of my articles, critiquing the content of an anti-rape PSA, also just posted this morning with the MRA special. The first comment was one that contained a set of inflated rape statistics and a personal insult directed at me.

    I urge you to consider that the reason your advice to people to maintain thick skins around MRA’s is so valid is because they are entering the proximity of people who are forced, almost every day of their lives, to have their own thick skins.

    We don’t develop callouses from dealing with each other, but from our contact with the public at large. Perhaps it would be better to encourage people to bring an open mind and a tolerant attitude, thus rendering the need for thick skin at least slightly less likely.

    All that being said, I do commend you and the staff at GMPM for having the openness and the courage to put this discussion forward, even if part of the introduction sounds a little like “Meet MRA’s, crazy people who have a few valid points.”

    • Victim of Violence says:

      Thank you, Paul, for a eloquent reply to a really terribly biased article.

    • Wrong…. there have never been Bra buring feminsts. PLEASE get your fact straight.

      http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

      • Victim of Violence says:

        So instead of strident bra-burning feminists we have strident girdle-trashing feminists. Is there any difference at all between the two that makes any practical difference? Not in my view. The fault I see with these people is they sought (and seek) “equality” through reverse discrimination rather than seeking true equality by the removal of discrimination.

      • @Erm You’re right. Burning bras would have been bad for the environment. :-) So, today, Feminists just want to go Topless. I think I had enough of that from National Geographic. Do they hang low? Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow?

        One thing is certain: I the face of dissent, you should keep your shirt on.
        I do. And I’m a guy! 8-{D

  4. Female Feedback says:

    Great summary by Mr. Belanger.

    One item I would question is that “Fathers & Families, like many men’s and fathers’ rights groups, want men to be recognized as good parents who are equally capable of raising children. They want the courts and society to acknowledge that men can be caring and nurturing dads, and that assuming traditionally female roles is not only not creepy, weird, and emasculating, but can be respectable and, yes, even desirable.”

    I think that if Fathers and Families stood for this, this would be great.

    I think it doesn’t stand for this, though, but for a type of isolated-from-women, combative fatherhood, not done in connection with the mother, that often becomes authoritative and/or exploitative (the man makes the child, especially a daughter, into a companion, or competes with the child, especially a son).

    While mothers parenting alone may also be abusive or neglectful, I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.

    Other fathering groups and authors have taken a much better approach. For example, I see no reason that a man who takes the approach John Badalement in “The Modern Dad’s Dilemma,” Marc Vachon in “Equally Shared Parenting,” Stephan Poulter in “Father Factor,” Jeremy Adam Smith in “The Daddy Shift,” Kyle Pruett in “Partnership Parenting” or “FatherNeed,” Joshua Coleman in “The Lazy Husband” and others such as the director of “The Evolution of Dad” documentary cannot get these better situations with their families, including in divorce. Of course, these men tend not to be divorced because they have done the work first.

    But, Glenn Sacks and the MRAs reject this approach and instead try to operate from the outside in a position of all-encompassing hostility to women. They are weak and ineffective at holding other men accountable (except for men who actually like and respect women), and instead blame women.

    • Malnutrition says:

      The only problem with your quoted statement is there are more single dads, and single dads are almost becoming the norm, so it’s not like there’s still a struggle for men to win child custody. The only reason women in the past have received children is because it was once assumed that women were more nurturing, so men had no reason to fight, or they fought less. The court gives child custody to whoever fights the hardest (excluding abusive parents, ect), and women today still fight harder then men because men still have this attitude that the court won’t let them win anyway. However, that does not explain why there are fathers who do win child custody cases: it’s because they fought.

      • Jay Hammers says:

        Men at best win shared custody, if they fight very hard and are lucky enough to not have a false domestic violence or sexual abuse claim thrown at them.

        I know a guy whose wife cheated on him and spent all her time getting drunk and going to bars. She was asking for full custody and knew the judge. Luckily, his lawyer was one of the most ruthless (and expensive) and was able to get a new judge and 50/50 custody. Of course, the guy still has to pay “child” support for some reason.

        This is not an aberration. This is all too normal.

        Claiming that dads have a fair shot in custody battles is extremely ignorant, and claiming they just don’t try hard enough is asinine.

    • Female Feedback says:

      In sum, what they often characterize as “misandry” is a correct assessment that these men are lacking in something they need to function. The cliche of the “fragile male ego” is accurate in the case of men who do not have the ego strength, emotional availability, ability to self-confront, etc. to function in adult relationship with women.

      They are unable to hold abusive men accountable for the same reason. As Terry Real puts it they seek merger into something more powerful than themselves rather than differentiating because they are lacking in these basic aspects of human development – while they ironically bash the very civilization that makes those aspects of development possible for many other people. and could make it possible for them as well.

      • So, why are feminists unable to hold abusive women accountable?

        • Female Feedback says:

          Apparently MRAs also want to eliminate reading.

          You say “why are feminists unable to hold abusive women accountable?”

          I said “While mothers parenting alone may also be abusive or neglectful, I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.”

        • No, you said:

          “They are unable to hold abusive men accountable”

          I think there are a lot of services already to hold abusive men accountable but very little action or interest to hold abusive women accountable.

          • Victim of Violence says:

            Exactly. I can attest to that.

            • Female Feedback says:

              Psychotherapy?

              If a woman actually physically assaults you this is a crime.

              If you imagine it – it is not.

            • Dr. Tara Palmatier is great, she understands what women can be like.

              However, you’re still avoiding the elephant in the room. The fact that police, social workers and judges are trained in disproven patriarchal FEMINIST theories of domestic violence and dominant aggressor gender profiling.

            • While, it is easy to blame feminists and dismiss the feminist movement outright (many do), I think you have the wrong idea about what we are actually about. Police, social workers, and judges are not trained in patriarchal feminist theories; they are trained in the cultural/social construction of hegemonic masculinity and how that affects a man’s ability to be victimized. By requiring men to be the strong, dominating individuals in society (or at least portraying them in the mainstream media as such), the idea that a man can be abused by a woman is devalorized because of, both, the assumed role of man as aggressor and assumed role of woman as victim. What needs to happen is not to disregard the feminist movement, but to work towards changing laws that express gender-bias in any form AND towards changing society’s preconceived notions about masculinity and “real men”, as well as, femininity and “real women”. Only then will the laws that express gender neutrality also be enforced in the same way. Feminism is not the enemy, but the ally.

            • Maybe you should read up on it:

              For over thirty years, the public policy response to the problem of domestic violence has been defined by activists as the socially sanctioned dominance of women by men. This view of patriarchy as the sole cause of domestic violence is the underpinning for a policy/practice paradigm that has dominated the regulatory, legal, and policy discourse of the United States, Canada and other countries (Gelles, 2001; Maiuro, Hagar, Lin, & Olson, 2001; Mills, 2003). It has influenced legal policy including arrest priorities (Sherman et al., 1992), prosecutorial decision making (Ford & Regoli, 1993)and post arrest intervention (Maiuro et al., 2001).

              http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf

            • “instead of ‘treatment because the Duluth model deems assault to be a willful exercise of male privilege, a choice made by men acting in concert with the norms of a sexist society”

              My point is not that there are no biases when it comes to DV. I completely agree that there are. There are biases in both directions that seek to undermine those on each side of the field. What I am saying is that feminists are not the ones to perpetuate these stereotypes and biases, and if there are some that do so, they are not in line with what many feminists believe, or at least what I as a feminist/queer theorist believe. I am saying that these “norms” are the problem that needs to be done away with. The people making these policies are not women, considering women are not the majority in government and even if all the females in Senate and the House were to vote for a piece of legislation it would not pass. There is male collusion at work as well. What we need to do is present a united front against these norms that treat all men as the empowered, dominant aggressors, and all women as the powerless, dominated victims. By erasing gender roles for both sexes and allowing for the definition of characteristics that should be used to define both males and females as being the same, and allowing characteristics necessary for being a human being to become the “norm” rather than a gender, we will remedy many of the problems at hand keeping men disadvantaged in DV cases and child custody battles, as well as the ones keeping women out of powerful positions within many institutions. The same of people of different races, social or economic classes, etc. No one should be expected to act this way or that (violent or non-violent, aggressive or passive, abusive or victimized) because of gender, race, nationality, religion, etc. That is the problem. Not feminism.

              I think the confusion stems from people only being exposed to one or very few types of feminism. There are many out there and they do not believe the same things or approach the feminist movement in the same way. You should read up on queer theory, if you haven’t already. Some good pieces are: “Making it Perfectly Queer” by Lisa Duggan, “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct: A Queer Dilemma” by Joshua Gamson, “The History of Sexuality” by Michel Foucault (kind of the basis upon which the rest lays it’s argument), and “How Many Opposites?: Gendered Sexuality” by Judith Lorber ( a personal favorite of mine). Gender roles and the dichotomized thinking that informs so many people’s lives are what’s really to blame. There are more than two ways to be and your genetics do not determine it for you.

            • Feminist researchers only research violence against women and patriarchal theories are extensive in social policies.

              nfvlrc.org researches violence against men and women.

              Who’s biased?

            • But the vast body of stats and studies show that fathers are the safest and most stabilizing family member, not the most abusive by any stretch. I do agree with one thing feminists claim, though they are supremacists: A parent more likely to abuse their children is likewise more likely to abuse their spouse, and vice versa. Is this why both genuine child abuse studies and stats (not fake feminist ones) show that it is women who initiate and abuse their partners more in dating violence, partner violence and spouse abuse. That sure matches the studies and stats likewise confirming that women murder and abuse their own children considerably more often than fathers do. See, FEMINISTS CAN BE RIGHT!

            • Victim of Violence says:

              “Psychotherapy?

              If a woman actually physically assaults you this is a crime.

              If you imagine it – it is not.”

              (4,4): Have ‘Issues’. This bingo thing is fun.

              So, let me deconstruct your comment.

              I am a male who claims to have faced attempted homicide (and many other crimes) perpetrated by my first wife.

              Since I have not been taken seriously by police, who used a bruise she had on her leg which she got when I PUSHED HER OFF MY NECK FROM HER UNPROVOKED HOMICIDE ATTEMPT as justification for scapegoating me, she concludes *I* must be delusional.

              Because feminists know that no action against a man on behalf of a woman is EVER wrong, because of course all men are rapists/abusers/murders/__________.

              Clearly, any man who objects to this based on someone else’s experience has been misguided; any man who objects based on his own experience is a looney! Why, of course that’s true.

              Because any human being who is abused and then scapegoated for their own suffered abuse will be driven insane. It might take a year; it might take a decade; but they are screwed in any case. And since this is the de facto standard treatment for male IPV victims, the most likely outcome for a man facing an abusive spouse is death — by her hands or by suicide, or by some other effect resulting from the echo-chamber effect of traumatization. I have seen all of these in the past 12 years… to be perfectly honest I do not understand how I am alive today.

          • Female Feedback says:

            Reread my earlier post. Again, reading is important.

            • I imagine you say things like that frequently, in writing and in speech. No doubt becoming increasingly more shrill as time goes on. I, for one, pretty much ignore your comments instinctively at this point.

              It takes a special sort of arrogance to presume to present the feedback of the “Female” and I say that as someone who is speaking for all Hispanics and all Males.

          • Amen! Many fathers and I have surveyed countless divorced fathers and find that fully 3/4 of them had false abuse allegations leveled against them which was/is always coupled with ongoing and very destructive parental alienation child abuse. These are twin crimes of abuse on top of these women already being among the most abusive women. These twin abuse crimes ironically do not show up in ANY abuse stats or studies, on top of all the abuse women and mothers already dominate in (initiate and commit more of than men) according to the lion’s share of real legit stats and studies.

            There’s little to NO accountability for abusive women, but they are however coached, encouraged and rewarded in their abuse of men and children by feminist/manginga(“good” men)-structured govt programs including the “justice” system which is dictated by, you guessed it, supremacist feminists and their mangina chivalrist lapdogs.

      • Gee, and people wonder why MRAs think Feminists are all a bunch of hateful bigots….

      • The GENUINE Man Project says:

        See: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men . You call The Third Reich of feminism ‘civilized’. I beg differ.

        • That’s right – downplaying, marginalizing, maligning men is destroying the family and thus civilization which cannot be built or remain standing in the absence of men and fathers whoa re the primary builders and protectors, not abusers.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Sorry, I misused a word.

      I meant to say “I think it doesn’t stand for this, though, but for a type of isolated-from-women, combative fatherhood, not done in connection with the mother, that often becomes AUTHORITARIAN and/or exploitative (the man makes the child, especially a daughter, into a companion, or competes with the child, especially a son).”

      I have yet to see an MRA post that uses a feeling word. They don’t even say “I’m angry” much talk of other emotions such as sadness, happiness, fear.

      No way, no how would I have a child with a man like that or, if I worked in the judicial or law enforcement system, consider a man (or woman, for that matter) with this inability to be capable of parenting without abuse/neglect.

      • typhonblue says:

        Many mothers use emotional blackmail in order to control their children. Emotional blackmail is as violent as using your fists and weapons on your child.

        Emotional blackmail statements come in the form of:

        ‘Don’t you care about my feelings?’

        Children don’t, in fact, need to center the feelings of their parents; it’s their parents who are responsible for providing children the emotional nurturance they need to grow. Children who are expected to tend to the emotional needs of their parents are just as damaged as children who are expected to tend to the sexual needs of their parents.

        Men, and fathers, have the strong tendency to remove appeals to emotion from dialog and instead rely on facts, logic and reasoning.

        These three things are the foundation of a democratic, civil society. The fact that you find those drawn to dialog using facts, logic and reasoning and not emotional bullying is deeply telling.

        I don’t think a man should have a child with you nor should the judicial or law enforcement consider you capable of parenting without emotional abuse/incest.

    • The FRA groups are against parental alienation, for equal shared parenting, mandatory mediation and unbiased DV services.

      “A child-focused analysis of child custody determination must also include a careful consideration of the issues of child abuse and family violence, which warrants against a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach, even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post-separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody. Although it is clear that shared parental responsibility is contraindicated in cases of established family violence, research shows that inter-parental conflict increases with court-mandated sole physical custody in cases with no previous violence, as fully half of first-time battering occurs after separation. New research evidence makes clear that inter-parental conflict decreases within a shared parental responsibility custody arrangement, as neither parent is threatened by the loss of the children and parental identity. The current framework of primary residential custody in disputed custody cases, contrary to dominant discourse, exposes both parents and children to violence”

      Dr. Edward Kruk, FIRA

  5. I am so happy to see someone doing this…I believe there is some truth in what I’ve read in the MRA literature, and the point is anyway that all of us are in this together. The challenge is how to find a way where are voices are heard and considered. Many thanks for taking this on. I will be avidly following the discussion

    • Marla,

      Thank you for your open minded support. In the past few days there have been several well respected MRA leaders advocating clean up of some of the most egregious language and the over-the-top nasty posts. These tend to drive away most women and many other men as well. Yes, men are angry, but too much whining and contempt is off-putting. I hope you venture into the Manosphere, but of course it is still a male domain and being blunt, crass, and confrontational is the way of men. Men usually don’t get their feelings hurt and don’t care about hurting the feelings of another in a debate.

      “Come in. This is Liberty Hall. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.” –A Bertram Chandler

      • CSPB ~ thanks for the encouragement! It does feel kinda scary in these waters! What I am wondering is why it is so difficult for some to say that everyone has a piece of “right,” instead of so much black and white? It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant…each one defines the elephant by the piece of the elephant they are touching. I think everyone has been hurt by the system, in all the ways (and more) that have been mentioned in here and elsewhere. What I would love is a voice (or voices) that synthesize and acknowledge all these disparate voices.
        I, for one, as a woman would like to acknowledge the ways that I have been unfair to men: I’ve used them, manipulated them, let them do the dirty work among other things. When I look back at my lineage and my conditioning, all I can say is “no wonder.” But as I become aware than I can do something about it. I can ask myself what kind of world do I want to live in and take the time and energy to understand things from the male point of view. Again, we’ve all been hurt. But to continue to stay in our camps, sure that we are “right” and blame the other gender without acknowledging our parts in the whole thing, well, that only serves to perpetuate the very things we are complaining about. It remains the closed system that it is.
        Although written in the 90s, I really liked the book “Gender Wars, Gender Peace” by Kipnis & Herron (also published as “What Men & Women Really Want’). Very even handed.

    • The GENUINE Man Project says:

      Women who have an open mind are really refreshing. Here’s one man who you might enjoy: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men. Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire.

  6. Mellow K says:

    Just a quibble: I don’t equate the mythopoetic or MRA “movements” with Men’s Studies, which you seem to do at the beginning of the article. I am a woman, a feminist, and I teach Men’s Studies, which I consider an essential component to achieving justice, peace and equity in the world.

    Regardless, I love your site and project and am looking forward to reading the articles in this series.

    • Mens Studies = Feminist Male Auxiliary.

      Yay, sounds appealing.

      What gets me is how you people insist that one must accept and agree with Feminism before one can be heard on ‘gender issues’.

      Autocratic rule, in whatever sphere, is still autocratic rule.

    • You’re a woman. What gives you the right to say what masculinity is or isn’t?

  7. Semi-human! Fantastic stuff, there. No women bashing, though, no sir.

    • I’m a bit disappointed that he has adopted the same feminist rhetoric of Michael Kimmel (not-fully-human) and Tom Matlack (neandrethal). However, it doesn’t surprise me that MRA’s are adopting the same tactics that feminist have used for years.

      • SallyStrange says:

        Which feminists, specifically, have specifically alleged that more than half (“most”) men are subhuman, semi-human, or otherwise less than human?

        • Andrea Dworkin. Margaret Atwood. Catherine MacKinnon.

          Mary Daly.

          Actually, pretty much every ‘luminary’ in feminist writing. You guys SAY these people aren’t revered…but then, you study their writing, and believe their ‘theories’ (ie, that ‘men oppressed women’, for example).

          In fact, the whole of feminism is so suffused with male hatred, that if it were removed from the ideology there would literally be next to nothing left.

          • SallyStrange says:

            That’s great, you know the names of a few prominent feminists. Got some direct quotes where they specifically assert that men, or “most” men, or possibly “more than half” of men (going by a generous interpretation of the word “most”) are less than human?

            Pro-tip: Noting that men (as a class) oppress women (as a class) is not the same thing as asserting that men are subhuman.

            • Pro-tip: Noting that men (as a class) oppress women (as a class) is not the same thing as asserting that men are subhuman.

              But trying to attribute the status of the few men that hold power to the entire gender is a pretty unfair generalization.

            • SallyStrange says:

              You’re confusing class with gender. Yes, upper class men hold more power than lower class men. But if you think being a working class man is hard, try being a working class women. Within classes, men typically hold more power than women. It’s not the fault of individual men; we are all caught in this toxic system. It’s easy to see things that way, though. Just like systemic racism still exists despite the fact that the majority of white people are not consciously bigoted towards black people.

            • It’s not the fault of individual men; we are all caught in this toxic system.
              Its not me with the confusion. Its those who tell me that because I’m a man my life is only good. Its those who tell me because I’m a man I don’t know what oppression and sexism is. Its those who tell me because I’m a man I’m the one that needs to take responsibility for the actions of people who I only share gender with. In short feminists.

              Also how is it that some feminists tend to dimiss men’s complaints as just whinning about lost privileges? At one point I really really, REALLY tried to communicate with feminists but after a while it became apparent that in order to be included I had to blindly accept what they said my life was like.

              I’ve been told by feminists that my gender has nothing to do with the fat hatred I’ve dealt with.

              I’ve been told by feminists that while the system does harm men there is no such thing as female against male sexism (and no such thing as female privilege).

              I’ve been told by feminists that I need to put my pains aside and make women the only priority because helping them will trickle down to me.

              I was in the place that some MRAs are in now but I’m working my way out of it, however they’ve hurt me badly and its going to take a whole hell of a lot more than the occasional parroting of “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” (lip service if I ever heard it) to convince me that they as a whole (I’ve seen some individuals that do but they tend to be minority voices among the movement) actually do care about me.

              But for now I’m done with feminism, land of “We won’t do it for you but if you do it yourself you have to do it as a femnists or else it doesn’t count.”

            • Oh I forgot the quantifiers. Its certainly true that not all of feminism is negativity. However there is enough of it (and enough of others who would rather pretend its not there) to turn me off from it.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Its those who tell me that because I’m a man my life is only good.

              Well whoever said that is an idiot. Obviously, the existence of male privilege doesn’t mean that every man lives like a king. Duh.

              Its those who tell me because I’m a man I don’t know what oppression and sexism is.

              I suspect those people were trying to tell you that you don’t know what it’s like TO EXPERIENCE sexism and sexist oppression. Clearly any intelligent person is able to identify oppression and sexism.

              Its those who tell me because I’m a man I’m the one that needs to take responsibility for the actions of people who I only share gender with.

              Uh… what? No, you don’t have to take responsibility for other men’s actions. You have to take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions, including whether to try to mitigate the effects of male privilege, or to continue to reinforce it. Hint: inaction reinforces it.

              I’ve been told by feminists that my gender has nothing to do with the fat hatred I’ve dealt with.

              Fat men get shamed differently than fat women do in this culture, I suppose. It’s my impression that fat men get a TEENY TINY bit more of a pass than fat women do but then I’m neither fat nor male so I’ll defer to your experience.

              I’ve been told by feminists that while the system does harm men there is no such thing as female against male sexism (and no such thing as female privilege).

              Sociological-speak: what they mean is that prejudice against men by women simply doesn’t have the same power to make men’s lives miserable in the way that prejudice against women by men does, thanks to our history and culture, etc., etc. Women get a few perks from being female–custody of children is the main one that springs to mind–but then that “perk” is balanced out by being saddled with a disproportionate amount of child-rearing work, which is unpaid and which damages a person’s ability to advance her career and maximize her earning potential.

              I’ve been told by feminists that I need to put my pains aside and make women the only priority because helping them will trickle down to me.

              Well, as has been pointed out over and over again in these comments, the interests of feminists and the alleged interests of MRAs often coincide. “Trickle down”? No. More like, “We’re all in this together.” Although, “put your pains aside is pretty insensitive. Nobody said feminists, or women, are always sensitive. Are you going to disavow feminism because a feminist hurt your feelings at one point? Really?

              I was in the place that some MRAs are in now but I’m working my way out of it,

              Not sure what this means–bitter because of a personal experience with a woman perhaps?

              however they’ve hurt me badly

              Feminists? Women? MRAs?

              and its going to take a whole hell of a lot more than the occasional parroting of “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” (lip service if I ever heard it)

              It’s not lip service if it’s the fucking truth.

              to convince me that they as a whole (I’ve seen some individuals that do but they tend to be minority voices among the movement) actually do care about me.

              Um… what to say. Look, either you agree with the premise that sexism and patriarchy are damaging to both women and men, or you don’t. If you agree, then a few negative experiences shouldn’t turn you away from the movement, at least not permanently. If you disagree, then you’re just looking for excuses to slam feminism. This is not about your feelings.

            • I suspect those people were trying to tell you that you don’t know what it’s like TO EXPERIENCE sexism and sexist oppression. Clearly any intelligent person is able to identify oppression and sexism.
              And that’s why its wrong. If it were “you don’t know what its like to experience sexism as a woman” I’d fully agree but to tell me there is no such thing as sexism against men is just wrong.

              Uh… what? No, you don’t have to take responsibility for other men’s actions. You have to take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions, including whether to try to mitigate the effects of male privilege, or to continue to reinforce it. Hint: inaction reinforces it.
              I try not to reinforce it but at the same time when people go on and on about how men are responsible (just throwing us all together) it turns me off.

              Fat men get shamed differently than fat women do in this culture, I suppose. It’s my impression that fat men get a TEENY TINY bit more of a pass than fat women do but then I’m neither fat nor male so I’ll defer to your experience.
              Many thanks right here. Even if you don’t know it or experience you at least acknowledge that it happens.

              Sociological-speak: what they mean is that prejudice against men by women simply doesn’t have the same power to make men’s lives miserable in the way that prejudice against women by men does, thanks to our history and culture, etc., etc.
              Now that I (and other men) have managed to start speaking up I’m not so sure about that. I’m ready confront how its gone from “women have it worse” to “it doesn’t harm men”.

              “Trickle down”? No. More like, “We’re all in this together.”
              I’d like to believe that but as long I’m being told that my pains don’t matter as much simply because I’m a man I have a hard time believing so.

              Nobody said feminists, or women, are always sensitive.
              No but feminists like to often comment on how they are the ones helping men, kinda like that peice Marcotte did here recently. I know they are a mixed bag. I just wish they would acknoledge it.

              Are you going to disavow feminism because a feminist hurt your feelings at one point? Really?
              One point my ass. But to answer your question I don’t intend to disavow it. However I’m not going to waste my time trying to join them or win their approval.

              Not sure what this means–bitter because of a personal experience with a woman perhaps?
              As in I think there are people among MRAs that are bitter at feminists (and maybe women too) as a whole becasue of person experiences. For a time I was kinda like some of the more angry ones, cutting at feminsits at every corner and writing them as a bunch of angry man haters. I don’t feel that way about them anymore but the feelings are still enough to be suspicious of them.

              It’s not lip service if it’s the fucking truth.
              Its fucking lip service because they act like that’s all that needs to be said in order to count as being concerned about men. Just like you said above about responsiblity, there’s a big difference between walking and talking. If the best you can do is quote that line then its lip service.

              Look, either you agree with the premise that sexism and patriarchy are damaging to both women and men, or you don’t. If you agree, then a few negative experiences shouldn’t turn you away from the movement, at least not permanently.
              And that’s kinda what I’m talking about. A few weeks ago I was on a feminists blog and someone was trying to defend the notion that its okay for a woman to presume that all men are rapists in waiting. I tried to say that even if that person has had bad experiences with men that does not mean the entire gender is bad. I was attacked for it. I agree that the system at work and the sexism it promotes harms both men and women. But I’m not going to pretend that my life is all sunshine and rainbows just to fit in a movement that supposedly cares about the ways that system harms me. That said I don’t see myself as turning away from them but rather holding a neutral position (which is why I identify as nonfeminist rather than antifeminist) . I see enough good in that movememnt to not turn against them but at the same time I’ve seen and felt enough pain to not embrace it either. I have no problem agreeing with them when our views match (and besides its not like you have to be a feminist in order for your points to be valid right?).

              This is not about your feelings.
              I was rereading that trying to figure out how the hell you came up with me thinking its about my feelings. And then I saw it.

              actually do care about me.
              should have been “actually do care about men.

            • typhonblue says:

              But it is the same as asserting that men are villains and deserve to be punished.

            • Well, I can see how you got that interpretation, but I’ll try to clarify for you. What it actually means is that, historically, the gender of “man” has had control of many of the powerful institutions in the world and maintained that power by excluding women from those institutions. For example, women weren’t allowed to vote until 1920 in the United States, and as recently as 1971 in Switzerland. This oppression is illustrated in the astoundingly low numbers of women who hold positions of power (Senators, Congresswomen, CEOs, etc.). What we seek to do now is address the inequities that have arisen out of that historic oppression to give women an equal chance to gain power within society. Do women have more power now than they used to? Of course. Is the playing field level? Not quite. If you look up the statistics, you’ll find that it has been documented that women do two-thirds of the world’s work, make ten percent of the income, and own one percent of the land.

              I think it is easy to look at feminism in America (especially in regards to white women) and say that they are being privileged in some way because men feel downtrodden with the economy in such bad shape and so many people losing their jobs. However, the bigger picture is lost when only considering your own experiences and disregarding women in third world countries or even minority women in America. Am I saying that white women should be ignored? No. I’m saying that any institutions, laws, or cultural norms of a society that seek to oppress or privilege any group of people is unjust. We must act from both sides in order to meet in the middle. Moving from one side alone will never get the desired results, unless the desired results are inequality.

            • Is that all you know about history? Aren’t you forgetting something? Anything?

              Here is a hint: Have to count for rights & RESPONSIBILITIES.

            • No, that is not all I know about history. I wasn’t listing my knowledge about history. I was simply listing a single example to illustrate my point. I made it one that many know about, so that there was no confusion or disagreement as to whether or not it was actually a valid point. If you have anything else to say regarding my actual point, instead of my lack of examples or assumed ignorance, I would be happy to hear it.

            • Nevermind, I did not read your comment fully enough to understand that you are a feminist. What good is a arguing history going to do with you?

            • typhonblue says:

              “If you look up the statistics, you’ll find that it has been documented that women do two-thirds of the world’s work, make ten percent of the income, and own one percent of the land.”

              Cite? I hear this floating around but what is it based on?

              Anyway, yadda yadda, women are the biggest victims always forever. Ummm… female victimhood, makes gender traditionalists feel all warm and fuzzy.

              Except that, throughout history, men’s role has been to be expendable, to sacrifice their lives for their leaders, their religion and their women. They may have been freer–in some limited circumstances–but that freedom came with the responsibility of being more expendable.

            • SallyStrange says:

              No, it’s really not, although it is easy to see how it could be misinterpreted that way.

              What it is asserting is that men and women have joint responsibility to effect change if we really want to move out of these restrictive gender roles and have a truly egalitarian society.

            • typhonblue says:

              Okay then. I agree.

              I just don’t agree that women are bigger victims then men or less responsible for the status quo.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              I have been reading through all of the posts up to this point and cannot hold back response anymore; if my statements have been addressed later on in the replies, I will try to amend the positioning of this post.

              This “conversation” is the problem with man and women. There is no communication and it tends to be extremely vitriolic, while lacking substance. Sally’s initial post was far more welcoming to the original posters idea’s than I would have been. The vitriol that she has received is unwarrented. Men, if you want to see the problems that we face in this society be remedied, hating women won’t do anything. Women, if you are not receptive to the needs of men in spite of your pains, progress is impossible. Sally, you are not alone, and I can see your vision of gender equality. I share it.

              There is much to respond here, but for the sake of brevity, I will touch on the comments about and towards “White Men.” I am a white man, let this be known. I’m sorry if other white men have been hurt by the current system that looks at us with resentment. But how can you say that it is not warranted? There are generations of people affected by the dominance of white males. Our society today is dominated by White Males. If you respond using Obama as an example, I will ask you to look at the progress/nonprogress he has made as President and then ask you who you think has been influential in disallowing the progress he envisioned.

              While white men are often the problem, systemically, of course white men are victims too. It is pointless to try and identify etiologies in such a complex psycho-social problem. Sally has suggested that we strip gender “roles” from their position of authority over our lives. In my experience, this is the answer. Embrace your masculinity and your identity as a male. But free yourself of the role you feel you must play to be male. Same for women.

            • typhonblue says:

              “Our society today is dominated by White Males. ”

              Um, no.

              I’m a white female and I can tell you, categorically, it is dominated by White Females.

              I, and my sisters, have a magic word to destroy any man I choose and it is R.A.P.E.

              There are lots of other one-way words and phrases I can use to control men as well, fer example:

              not a man, less than a man, real man, good man, creeper, stalker, abuser, harasser, cad, weirdo, sleaze

              The beauty of these words is many-fold. For starters some of them magically call up these wonderful genies in blue to jail whatever unfortunate male has offended me. Others can cause all the bystanders in the vicinity to turn on him and tear him to pieces. Some can just poison his social relationships; others can make him doubt his very identity.

              Sure White Man is in power. But he’s just a puppet being pulled by strings made of words.

              Incidentally, these words work on all men, not just White Men. Including you.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              I would have no reason to feel offended by those words unless I deserved to. If I was called a stalker or a creep, that would upset me because I’d never want to put off a vibe to someone that warranted that term.

              What white female holds a position of superior authority over a white man in America? I’d love to see it, of course, I just don’t know if it is true.

              And I’m sure your statements are not welcomed by some of the strong voices on this blog; are you saying that you falsely claim rape in order to get power over men? I’d assume that is not at all what you would be saying, so please explain

            • typhonblue says:

              Well, Brandon, I attempted to but my reply got censored.

              I’m not about to type out something that long again so here’s the scoop.

              White women dominate their men by playing the victim, that’s the big red button for ‘do what I want’.

              Unfortunately for women in order to play the victim they eventually become the victim.

              Which is a prison in and of itself.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              I agree with that, except, is it domination if the woman becomes the victim?

            • “That’s great, you know the names of a few prominent feminists. Got some direct quotes where they specifically assert that men, or “most” men, or possibly “more than half” of men (going by a generous interpretation of the word “most”) are less than human?”

              “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – Valerie Solanas

              “Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.”-Rose DiManno

              “[W]omen and men are distinct species or races … men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself … in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good.”_ Andrea Dworkin

              “[Men are] freaks of nature… full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals.”-Germaine Greer

              “The male is a biological accident: the ‘y’ (male) gene is an incomplete ‘x’ (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”-Valerie Solanas

              Would you like more? There’s reams of these.

  8. Amanda Marcotte says:

    I think you’re a little too generous about why some of them are so dogged. Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby. While I don’t think all of them have actually raised a hand to a woman, I think it’s important to understand that the dominator mentality is one of doggedness. This is, I think, why people get confused about why women stay in abusive—emotional or physical—relationships. We don’t realize how dogged and determined an abuser can be in breaking the will of the woman he has chosen to dominate. To really get someone to lose her ability to self-advocate, you have to be persistent. MRAs, regardless of their own abuse history, buy into the dominator mentality, and persistence is a major, major component of that. If you don’t get the last word, you lose, right? That’s how I think they tend to think and why they’re so irritating.

    • Amanda…..I’m sure that it’s technically possible to be more inflammatory, more sexist, and more inciting to the hatred of men, but for now……you get the blue ribbon.

    • “Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby”

      Exactly, rather than deal with women’s use of violence and offering sympathy and support for male victims, feminists instead accuse those victims of being “wife beaters”.

    • fear, FEar, FEAr, FEAR!

      The Feminist mantra.

      • Zerrissen says:

        You’re popping up all over the place and none of your comments contribute to the conversation in the slightest. How ever will you deal with that much anger?

        • …and your comment contributes…..zero!

        • None of them contribute in the slightest? Really now, I doubt you could show that at all. You don’t agree with me, sure, but then that’s why we’re here. To expose you to viewpoints you have never considered before.

          And we were invited. Me personally in fact. I even wrote an article. And I’m sure Henry is regretting that right now, to some degree.

          I got an idea for you. Quit with the shaming language (it won’t work, and after a while I’ll feed it back to you so hard you’ll cry for a week), and do some thinking. I know it’s hard, but it’s rewarding. Just…think.

          • Brandon Youngblood says:

            What point are you trying to get across? Do you feel better for writing with such a malicious tone? Women have hurt you; women have hurt me. Have you hurt women? We have all hurt someone, may it have been intentional or not. People hurt people. Many of the posters that are responding to you and those who share your opinions are doing so respectfully. I’d hope you would do the same.

    • Thanks for your words Amynda.
      Everytime you open your mouth, the number of MRAs increase.
      You do a great job in helping us recruit new young men to the MRA cause.

      AntiFeminist Greetings from Italy!

    • Oh, look, here’s Man-Basher Amanda, the one-note pony. Nothing ever changes in her analisi of amny situation involving a man – there is always going to be some way to absolve the woman and blame the man. She has a lot to add to the discussion – she’ll recruit lots and lots of MRAs!

    • Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby.

      It seems unlikely that they deal with MRAs night and day. What is more likely is that they encounter advocates for male victims like me who try to convince them to open their services to male victims in need. However, in nine years of advocating for male victims of sexual violence, only four organizations considered it possible that boys and men could be victims of sexual violence and deserved equal access to existing services. Of those four organizations, none of them actually provided equal access. One provided a 10-week counseling program for half a summer in 2006, which they shut down citing funding problems.

      While I don’t think all of them have actually raised a hand to a woman, I think it’s important to understand that the dominator mentality is one of doggedness.

      If that is the case, then that could easily apply to feminists. Most feminist activists are rather persistent in pushing their agenda, are they not? To equate someone advocating for support services for male victims of domestic violence as abusers and to accuse male victims of being inherent abusers shows the misandry that MRAs claim feminists harbor.

      If you don’t get the last word, you lose, right? That’s how I think they tend to think and why they’re so irritating.

      That has not been my experience with MRAs, although it has been my experience with feminists. One of the major differences is that feminists are given forums with which to do that, such as the Good Men Project Magazine.

    • Victim of Violence says:

      What is your personal experience? Do you in fact have any, or you just spouting uninformed opinion?

    • “By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners. By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming. There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of PV perpetration (Fiebert, 2004). The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.”

      “despite the much lower probability of physical injury resulting from attacks by women, women produce a substantial percentage of all injures and fatalities from partner violence”

      Dr. Murray A. Strauss

      • I was fascinated to read about Fiebert, Archer and Straus, so thanks for citing them.

        However, the methodology behind it all was thoroughly debunked by Kimel here: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf

        • Henry P. Belanger says:

          This is something I would have liked to get in the piece but ended up being too much to take on as an aside. The Domestic Violence stats routinely cited by MRAs — the infamous Fiebert Bibliography — is about 200 studies, done by a relatively small handful of scholars (Straus, eg, accounts for 10% of the Feibert citations), is based on methodology that is deeply flawed at worst and barely relevant at best. The preponderance of scholarship, at a ratio of thousands-to-one, contradicts its findings. Bottom line, it’s shaky ground on which to base so much certainty. That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t care about men who are abused — i’d like to see MRAs move on past arguing for gender symmetry in DV, and focusing on helping abused men, regardless of the proportion vs female victims.

          • i’d like to see MRAs move on past arguing for gender symmetry in DV, and focusing on helping abused men, regardless of the proportion vs female victims.
            I’d like to see that too but its gonna be a long road as long people that seem to have weaved “its something that men do to women” into the very definition of DV.

          • I see, so something where they attempt to quantify both the prevalence, and frequency of Dv, is somehow ‘inferior’ to the Feminist Duluth Model, which proposes that ALL DV is an expression of Patriarchal Power and Control. Literally saying a conspiracy theory is more relevant than attempts to quantify and analyze deeper. Yeah, that’s feminist ‘scholarship’ alright.

            And look, a “we got more studies” argument. Tell you what, give us 30 years, and a tenth of the government funding that went into those studies, and we’ll not only produce mountains of evidence to the contrary, we’ll set up an entire academic discipline while we do it.

            Bottom line, your dependance on public acceptance of feminist shibboleths in order to make your case is your achilles heel. Once Patriarchy Theory is outed for the utter bullshit it is, everything you’ve built upon it’s presuppositions will come tumbling down.

            Choose the foundation of your arguments carefully.

          • I call bullshit henry. I want an official public debate!

            The preponderance of scholars only study violence against women.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              What scholars have you researched? I’d love to share my experiences as a male in gender studies if you are receptive to it.

          • Dutton v. Kimmel

            I can set it up if you can get Kimmel away from the security of his academic environment.

        • J.G. te Molder says:

          Brilliant. Laughabily brilliant. How anyone with a logical mind takes that Kimel bullshit seriously is beyond me.

          It starts with accusing the people who find equal abuse as evil men who want to see women being victimized – any and all claims further should be considered as crap if not outright lies.

          And then the rest of the article, yes, you see, why studies done by feminist organizations who rely on there being much more male on female violence for their funding are accurate is uh… they use the studies of feminist influenced organizations and “criminal reports” that require police officers to arrest the person bigger as the abuser, not the person actually abusing. Feminist studies is right because feminist studies says so, circular reasoning.

          Meanwhile, actually reports on the number DV cases for gender by the actual police and FBI that is not massaged show numbers that are similar if not exactly the same as the studies that show them to be equal between genders.

        • typhonblue says:

          No it wasn’t.

          If it had been ‘throughly debunked’ mainstream researchers in relationship violence would have stopped using the methodology. It was, and remains, the standard in the field.

          In fact the NVAW survey *itself* also used a modified version of the CST2. (National Violence Against Women survey.)

          All the CST and CST2 do is *ask* people about the acts of violence they’ve experienced or have perpetuated.

          The problem is that when you ask people these questions, ‘what violent acts have you been a victim of/perpetrated’ then you find symmetry in violence between men and women in relationships.

          The ‘debunking’ amounts to hand waving– saying things like ‘maybe the people being surveyed are lying!’ or ‘it’s not capturing the context of the violence’ or ‘all female violence(including rape) is in self defence!’

          Again, all the CST and CST2 do is *ask* people about the acts of violence they’ve experienced or have perpetuated.

          It’s about the most transparent methodology ever conceived.

        • Michael Kimmel doesn’t experience or the expertise in comparison to Strauss. Kimmel was easily refuted.

          The CTS and CTS2 are widely used by even feminist researchers. Even the meta-analysis using the Johnson methodology showed gender symmetry.

          Build your own shelters is not a racceptable response from a system that is already awash with government funding and filled with academic bias.

          I call bullshit Henry.

        • Since Kimmel has been thoroughly debunked as a feminist gender ideologue and misandrist, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not buying that he’s debunked anything that promotes a positive stereotype of men or a negative one about women. As far as I’m concerned he’s a feminist entertainer singing the songs that feminists like men to sing. A job he’s paid handsomely for.

        • As an Australian I am familiar with this site.
          First xyonline proports to be about mens issues and is the brain child of one Dr Michael Flood. In truth almost every article is a man bashing exercise blaming men for everthing and excusing women. As to the Dr he has been caught out so many times fudging stats or telling porkies it is a wonder he has any credability left. To cite just one A NSW government report on DV stated 30% of victims were men. As this didn’t fit the feminist “facts” he was asked to comment. He dismissed it as just the result of conflict scale research so it wasn’t valid. Wrong! The figures were taken from NSW police and court records. Yet despite this this man earns a good living as a DV consulant to government and other DV agencies and grants to do DV “research. He knows which side of the bread is buttered. This man really is quite a man hating nasty mangina.

    • @Amanda Marcotte.
      The fact that you practically equate MRA’s with wife beaters, proves why we need a men’s lobby.

      Perhaps you’d be curious to know, that most prominent MRAs are dissident feminists. Not that I’m prominent, but I also came from feminism because I initially believed the claim that feminism stood for equality of the sexes. I grew up and realized that feminism is in itself a highly sexist movement and at best very one-sided (female-centric). Even the word ‘feminism’ couldn’t be more sexist!

      The very men, that feminists claim to want, are the biggest losers of feminist influenced society – the kind, sensitive men who have no interest in dominating or suppressing anyone (like me). If people like me are turning away from feminism and to MRAs then people like you need to ask yourselves WHY!

    • Hey, Amanda, did you stop to think or even see that it is actually the feminist DV folks who continuously use that dogged dominator/abuser mentality?

  9. Nice analysis, Henry. The worst of these guys come out of the woodwork in squadrons for assault on ideas; they see conspiracy behind every rock and tree because they have trouble understanding anything more complicated than a zero-sum game.

    • Can you say anything that isn’t a mish mash of feminist talking points? I got an idea, try backing up what you say…it could be fun, you never know.

    • MRAs specifically deny zero-sum. They believe that children need both a father and a mother. Adding the father back into the lives of children does not detract from children. It is a net gain.

      Also, is it so hard to understand that men get angry when deprived of their children and often forced to financially pay for the follies of the mother of his children?

      Yes, such men may come out of the woodwork to comment and refute ideas that promote this travesty in our society. Other men might consider this to be altruistic, if they can sleep under the same roof as their children, at least once in a while.

      • Victim of Violence says:

        Bull. I don’t see a call for the single-parent domination you claim ANYWHERE. Fathers and Famiiies explicitly states the ideal of shared parenting, and I am not aware of any group with the stance you claim.

        People can understandably get traumatized by being attacked and scapegoated. Please do a bit of reading on PTSD sufferers, and please be informed that PTSD is basically the expected outcome, and try to see the situation from that perspective. It is a bloody nightmare.

        • I don’t debate with self proclaimed victims who entirely miss the point. I am plenty educated on the realities of the world, including Personality Disorders.

  10. Belanger: MRAs haven’t had many nice things to say about the Good Men Project Magazine since our launch last June.

    —–

    Well, for good reason, Mr. Belanger. As you know yourself, the Good Men Project Magazine is strongly feminist orientated, a by-product of Ms. Magazine, and what do you expect MRAs to say about that?

    So far I failed to read anything in this ‘Good Men Project Magazine’, which might be in favor of men and not of women.

    And yes, Mr. Belanger, there are plenty of men who were and are badly treated by women and by the feminist-biased legal system in Western countries.

    Who takes care of those men? Who is willing to listen to them?

    There is not even a forum within this Good Men Project Magazine, where these men can write about their problems.

    • typhonblue says:

      “There is not even a forum within this Good Men Project Magazine, where these men can write about their problems.”

      Why would there be?

      And then feminists wonder why men turn to MRAs instead of feminists.

      Maybe because… oh… they actually allow them to talk about their experiences?

  11. Men(MRA’s) regardless of their own abuse history, buy into the dominator mentality,(Amanda Marcotte)

    Are you insinuating that women arent as mentally strong as men? If a man(MRA) is abused he becomes the dominator mentality but if the women is abused she crumbles? Sorry to burst your bubble but there are many women who adopt the dominator mentality after being abused, they just may not do it physically. Also there are many men who adopt the victim mentality in their relationships. I am a man who is for equality, when do you think we will ALL start practising it?

    • “Are you insinuating that women arent as mentally strong as men? ”

      Of course she is. That’s foundational to her whole worldview. Women are realy just trembling, firightened, dainty little girls in her world, at the absolute mercy of men, who are all vicious brutes. Does it get any more Victorian? She ought to write bodice-rippers for the supermarket – that’s where her talents really lie. She can’t manage to write anything other than fiction anyway.

      • While I can agree that Amanda’s way of expressing her view is a bit confrontational and her views more towards radical than not, I wouldn’t completely dismiss her point; however, I would change the vocabulary used to do so. I would refer to Michel Foucault in trying to express the view in a less confrontational manner. What I think she may mean, or the way I see it, when expressing violence or abuse, at least in the English language, the discourse around what it means to be the violent or abusive one is usually considered masculine and the discourse surrounding what it means to be the abused is usually considered feminine. Victim as a word connotes ideas of femininity in that a victim is shown to be weak, fearful, dominated, in need of protection. One cannot deny that these qualities are typically associated with being feminine. Since masculinity is associated with males and femininity is associated with females, oftentimes men are portrayed as the abuser through language, let alone society’s preconceptions about men’s vulnerability. What needs to happen is not to disregard feminism, as I have stated in previous posts, but instead to change the discourse and not associate aggression with any particular gender and, better yet, not attribute gender roles to the sexes. By doing so, society would be more open and tolerant of male victims instead of this “man-up, stop acting like a girl, take control, don’t be a sissy” view that is so tragically popular now.

        • Then look to your own house before you complain about us. Feminists are usually the worst sort of sexists, and they employ shaming language based on sexist stereotypes like they’re samurai swords.

  12. I’m going to avoid the rehtoric that I see here as I’m trying to stay mostly un-biased in my current work.

    I’m working on a project where I look at dads and their changing role in society. The intention is to highlight the greater involvement of dads with their kids. The fact is that economonic and societal factors have changed how dads approach parenting and we are finding that most dads are there more often and are participating with greater involvement. We’ve been conducting a survey and have over 400 responses but would like to get to 500 by the end of the month. Please come over to the http://TheDADvocateProject.com/Survey participate and let your voice be heard as a dad.

  13. The usual MRA-hating comment from Amanda,

    MRAs are wife-beaters….

    And?

    Let me say, MRAs are nothing else but many ordinary disappointed men, who are sharing their bad experiences they had with women and courts in their past. Why should they be silent? Because they are men or what?

    Men are not always the aggressors, and there is plenty of evidence indicating that women are as violent as men.

  14. Why are MRAs predominantly anti-feminist when you’re supposedly against the same social categories that pit men and women against each other? Aggressive, anti-women sentiments are absolutely and solely destructive; it’s suspicious…what’s your agenda here?

    “The challenge is how to find a way where our voices are heard and considered.” Men are behind the scenes in almost all aspects of cultural production and media! AND there are 448 men in congress compared to 91 women! Whose voices are suppressed again? Maybe I missed something…(or maybe you’re assholes).

    Sexism has a long history. For the majority of the last 10,000 years men have been able to legally kill their wives while women could have been buried from the neck down only a little more than a hundred years ago for going against their husband’s orders! Women just got the right to vote not even a century ago. You think things completely flip-flopped in the last twenty/forty years?! If so, why are women still murdered at the hands of men in FAR greater numbers than the reverse? Why do women still earn less than men for doing the exact same work? Why do women make more in “illegitimate” occupations than “legitimate” ones (ie. sex work)? Why are women constantly subjected to justification of this treatment through any and all major media outlets? It’s almost as if *gasp* women are rewarded for playing the clowns/sluts/degenerates.

    You’re absolutely disgusting for trying to claim “oppression.” You’re as bad as a white person claiming to be oppressed on account of RACE! If you want to blame someone for how you’re treated, blame the MEN who control the media, blame the MEN who control congress, blame the MEN who are responsible for the social order because they’ve, being in power for the last 10,000 years, established it!

    I’m all for men wanting to dismantle the polarized Western gender dynamic that prevents them from expressing emotion or feeling comfortable in nurturing roles. I’m all for men expressing their human concerns. But why do you have to step on toes? Why the aggression that’s so off-putting to women who have been wounded by sexism in very real and dangerous ways, of which there are so many? If you want to express a little sensitivity, PLEASE do it. Then your movement might be seen as something other than an obviously sexist backlash to VERY RECENT baby steps taken by women and men in the direction of social equality.

    • The amount of exaggeration and false facts in this comment is astounding.

      • Exaggerations and “false facts” (nice word choice BTW)? Let’s start with my claim that men are largely in control of media outlets. Take a look at the Academy Awards, the awards that set the bar for what images and stories are considered important. Since 1929, only 4 women have been nominated for an award in category of Best Director (if Best Director doesn’t say “controller of media images I don’t know what does”). Out of those 4 women, only ONE has won, and that was last year. The gender breakup of members of Congress is a fact as well. As for statistics on violence within intimate partnerships, ¾ of victims are female while ¼ are male. And about patriarchy being a near 10,000 year old institution…some scholars point to around 3100 BC as the institution of patriarchal thought. And to bury a woman alive is a very common patriarchal practice that still happens today (I know of instance in particular where a 16 year old Turkish girl was buried alive in 2010, for supposedly talking to a boy). Also exotic dancers make about $50 (avg.)-$400/500K (high earning) a year. Take another traditionally feminine occupation, like teaching. No matter how great or respected of a teacher/professor you are, you probably won’t earn more than $110K.

        THESE are the facts. I’m not trying to obscure anything, just presenting a counterpoint.

        • Your DV facts don’t jive with the CDC. Patriarchy is not on trial here and you have not provided any reasons why patriarchy is bad. One example of proves nothing in general. Market forces determine pay, not what is supposedly deserved. For the most part, in historical patriarchy children lived with both a father and mother. This not deemed very important in our modern society with feminist biased laws.

          The fact that so few women excel in certain areas is not proof of discrimination. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Everyone’s choices are different.

          I have a very simple desire to be a father to my daughters. The Family Court System often discards Constitutional Rights in favor of whatever women allege. Truth has no chance against accusations. Children are deprived of even reasonably “normal” childhood.

        • No let’s justt start with oyur very forst absloultey bullshit claim about men having some kind of right for “10,000 years” to kill their wives and go unpunished. It’s a flagrant lie and the rest of your comment is equally false and all over the map. Erratic as hell – are you capable of any kind of orderly thought?

        • “If you want to blame someone for how you’re treated, blame the MEN who control the media, blame the MEN who control congress, blame the MEN who are responsible for the social order because they’ve, being in power for the last 10,000 years, established it!”

          If you knew anything about the MRM, you’d know that this is EXACTLY what we’re doing
          There are many men in the MRM who hold the men more accountable than the women for our oppression as they are the ones who are deferring to every whim of feminist immaturity to further their own agenda.

          The Majority of the MRM don’t blame “women”, we blame feminists, manginas, white knights and social conservatives for putting pussy on the pedestal.

    • thehermit says:

      Haha, what a hysterical response from a member of the most privileged group ever. Yes, i’m talking about western women.

      Let me quote the feminists: you’re scared to lose your privileges.

      • Female Feedback says:

        Projection – classic problem of the man lacking in self-awareness.

      • typhonblue says:

        “Let me quote the feminists: you’re scared to lose your privileges.”

        Correction.

        They are scared to loose their victimhood. You see, for certain women, being a vulnerable lil’ thing in need of a big strong protector is the source of their femininity.

        Thus by extolling male vulnerability MRAs strike at the very root of their feminine identity.

        The problem is feminismo.

      • “Men’s strength is their weakness, women’s weakness is their strength.”

        Warren Farrell

    • “”Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live
      her life, or to love, or to mother children.
      Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim,
      past, present, and future. Under patriarchy,
      every woman’s daughter is a victim, past,
      present, and future. Under patriarchy, every
      woman’s son is her potential betrayer and
      also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of
      another woman,”

      Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

      “”Patriarchy requires violence or
      the subliminal threat of
      violence in order to maintain
      itself… The most dangerous
      situation for a woman is not an
      unknown man in the street, or
      even the enemy in wartime, but
      a husband or lover in the
      isolation of their home.”

      -Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within:
      A Book of Self-Esteem

      “”AIDS education will not get
      very far until young men are
      taught how not to rape young
      women and how to eroticize
      trust and consent; and until
      young women are supported in
      the way they need to be
      redefining their desires.”

      -Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 168..

      “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily
      have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.
      ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have
      the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

      Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar College – Time
      Magazine June 24, 2001

      “Who cares how men feel or what they do
      or whether they suffer? They have had
      over 2000 years to dominate and made a
      complete hash of it. Now it is our turn.
      My only comment to men is, if you don’t
      like it, bad luck – and if you get in my
      way I’ll run you down.”

      -Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun,
      Melbourne, Australia – 9 February 1996)

      “I find myself increasingly shocked at
      the unthinking and automatic
      rubbishing of men which is now so
      part of our culture that it is hardly
      even noticed.

      The most stupid, ill-educated and
      nasty woman can rubbish the nicest,
      kindest and most intelligent man and
      no one protests …”

      Doris Lessing, 2001

      Feminism is an anti-male hate movement.

      • Patrick says:

        RE: Dworkin quote: While I object to some of what Dworkin says elsewhere, I find nothing objectionable here. Her beef isn’t with men here. It’s with patriarchy those are not the same thing, or at least they shouldn’t be.

        RE: Steinem quote: Yes, it’s phrased provocatively, but again the issue isn’t the husband and the lover so much as it is the way men are socialized. it’s about patriarchy.

        RE: Wolf quote: What’s your objection here? I thought MRAs wanted to help eliminate built-in societal expectations and damaging socialization of men. Isn’t that the same thing she’s advocating here?

        RE: Comins quote: I’m not quite sure of the quote’s context, but it sounds to me that, again, she’s objecting to the toxic, sexist social environment in which we exist. This is supposedly the same toxic environment that MRAs want to eliminate.

        RE: “Liberated Women” quote: Finally, something objectionable… From an anonymous writer in a local paper 15 years ago. Hardly representative of anything except that *any* movement has assholes.

        RE: Lessing quote: Ummm… Isn’t she making the same argument you’re making here? What’s your issue with this?

        • RE: Dwarkin – Supposedly we live in a patriarchy so is simply calling every son a rapist (even though only a small portion of men are rapists).

          RE: Steinem – I’m sorry but the “she’s not talking about men but she’s talking about patriarchy” is a cop out. She is talking about husbands in our current society as being the most dangerous thing for a woman.

          RE: Wolf – The problem is that she is clearly saying that AIDS education would be better off if men would quite raping women (I do agree with the “eroticize trust and consent” part). What a way to dismiss every type of sex that could lead to AIDS except for male against female rape.

          Does anyone know why the posts on this site just spontaneously refresh every 10 minutes or so?

          • Victim of Violence says:

            The page reloads every few minutes to, I suppose, reload all the comments. This could probably be implemented better with JQuery (ARE YOU LISTENING PUBLISHERS?) and another useful change would be widgets that allow posts/threads to be collapsed onscreen. With these large branching discussions it’s almost impossible to follow with this design.

    • Natasha says:

      Alice……you make me ashamed to be a woman

      • Why?

        • The same way white people are ashamed of the KKK?

          • SallyStrange says:

            Allow me to correct your anology; it should be something more like, “The same way black people are ashamed of Louis Farrakhan.” In order to keep the power dynamic straight.

            • typhonblue says:

              Oooh, snap!

              Reclaim that feminismo! Men can’t be bigger victims then women, that’s just wrong. It goes against traditional gender norms.

            • SallyStrange says:

              Uh no. In one case case you have a group of people that was historically treated as subhuman, chattel, property, etc. That’s women, and that’s also African-Americans. In the other case you have a group of people that was empowered to legally own, exploit, and abuse the other group of people. That’s men, and that’s white people.

              I realize that keeping our history in mind may be mentally tiring but it is well worth the effort. Do try to keep up.

            • If we keep history in mind Sally, Blacks may soon have white slaves and women may be able to legally kill their husbands. Wait, it’s already legal for women to kill their husbands. All we have to do is help those black people get their slaves and it will all be put right eh?

            • SallyStrange says:

              Gibberish.

            • Mary Winkler.

              It’s called the pussy pass or the female sentencing discount, and it’s well documented.

            • typhonblue says:

              Prove that women have been bought and sold like slaves in our history. (And don’t use a bill of sale from the folk divorce custom of wife selling. It wasn’t legally recognized and it was consensual.)

              Regardless, even women were slaves, slaves have *value*; the average man in history has no value. Which is worse? Being a valueless pawn or a valuable slave? This is a trick question. There is no way to measure which is worse.

              Men have had more social freedoms–in certain circumstances–but the cost of those social freedoms has been expendability. Men have always been expected to lay down their lives for their leaders, nation, religion and, within the last two millenia, their women.

              The problem with feminism is that it only looks at one side of the equation and completely omits the fact that men are now and have always been treated as far more expendable then women.

              Even if women were seen as a reproductive resource *only* that resource was still valuable and *protected* in a way that men as a whole have never been.

            • That analogy only works of the imbalances of gender were as onesided as the imbalances of race.

              I realize that keeping our history in mind may be mentally tiring but it is well worth the effort. Do try to keep up.
              Its not that tiring even after taking all of history into account rather than just the parts that fit your argument.

            • SallyStrange says:

              That analogy only works of the imbalances of gender were as onesided as the imbalances of race.

              I don’t agree that the imbalance needs to be precisely equal in order for the analogy to work. Allowing that it does though, my critique of the OP’s analogy still stands. Men:women::whites:blacks is still a closer analogy than women:men::whites:blacks.

            • typhonblue says:

              Why is the woman:men/whites:blacks analogy any more applicable then the reverse?

              Men, Blacks:

              die earlier
              disproportionately imprisoned
              disproportionately subject to false rape accusations
              subject to stereotyping as violent and sexually aggressive
              receive longer sentences for the same crimes and circumstances
              less likely to finish high school/receive post secondary education
              more affected by the recent economic downturn
              more likely to be homeless
              vote less
              controls proportionately less of the discretionary spending
              more likely to not see their children

            • typhonblue says:

              Ooops… that should be:

              Why is the women:men/whites:blacks analogy any *less* applicable then the reverse?

            • No they don’t need to be precise but my point is they are so far off that it doesn’t work. Like TB you’re just trying to swoop in and remind us that women are the “real” victims.

            • typhonblue says:

              Danny, re-read what I said.

            • Talking about that more/less you just corrected?

              By what you said I was talking about “Reclaim that feminismo! Men can’t be bigger victims then women, that’s just wrong. It goes against traditional gender norms.”

            • The black man’s plight was much more severe than any white woman’s.

            • And it still is, thanks to supremacist feminism which is an equal opportunity abuser of men of all colors.

            • WHATWHATWHAT!? Feminists LOVE black people. Take this classic feminist take on the status of African-Americans,for example:

              “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” – Margaret Sanger

        • Ubermensch says:

          Don’t feel bad alice, most men here make me feel ashamed to be a man. I guess that is what feminism does to people. It’s a real mind melter.

          • typhonblue says:

            You should be ashamed.

            After all you’re a man, you have to take responsibility for everything because women are incapable. Mostly due to being objects.

            Also, you’re never vulnerable. Only women are vulnerable. Because vulnerable men make you feel icky in your man-bits.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              How can you look yourself in the mirror after this comment? “After all you’re a man, you have to take responsibility for everything because women are incapable. Mostly due to being objects.”

              How do women become objects? Tell me that. And did you really just say that women are incapable?

            • typhonblue says:

              Er… incapable of taking responsibility for their role in shaping society?

              I don’t actually think that, of course. But feminists do.

            • Brandon Youngblood says:

              I agree that extremist feminists may believe that responsibility rests solely upon men to fix societies ills, but I’m not sure how they would appreciate any sense of incapability

          • You have a penis so you are the incarnate of the feminists’ version of the original sin.

            Be ashamed … very ashamed!

    • Why are MRAs predominantly anti-feminist when you’re supposedly against the same social categories that pit men and women against each other?

      I suspect that occurs because many, if not most, feminists are hostile towards men and men’s issues, particularly those raised by MRAs. I am not a MRA, but I have been on the receiving end of feminist hostility when I speak about my childhood abuse or push for services for male victims of sexual violence. I do not know of any mainstream feminists who support prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates or support creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence or support addressing the high rate of suicide among males or support addressing women’s violence against males or support addressing biased sentencing and family court policies that favors women or support changing the education system to help boys who fall behind or fail. Whenever these issues get mentioned, the immediate and constant feminist response is to deny there is a problem and paint those mentioning the problem as misogynists. There simply are not any mainstream feminists who actually oppose the same issues MRAs do.

      It is, of course, much easier to write off the problems males face, and feminists are very keen to do that. That does not mean those issues do not exist. More so, since feminists supposedly support people speaking about issues that were previously kept in the dark, it makes no sense for feminists to be so virulently against men’s rights groups.

      • I am a feminist that supports prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates. I’m a feminist that supports creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence. And I’m a feminist that supports addressing women’s violence against males, along with biased sentencing and court policies and educational institutions, no matter who they favor. There’s a sect of feminist studies called Masculinity Studies that deals specifically with these issues.

        Nice to meet you!

        • Nice to see you posting here Alice. I’ve meet a lot of feminists who fit the description Jacobtk gives so its great to see that they all aren’t like that.

        • Alice, nice to meet you as well. It is unfortunate that more feminists do not share your support for men’s issues. As for “Masculinity Studies” or more correctly “Men’s Studies”, those studies do not address the issues I mentioned. Most of those studies are just extensions of feminist courses and focus primarily on discussing “patriarchy” and “male privilege.” That is not the same as looking at the importance of male bonding in ancient Greece or addressing Western society’s treatment of fathers. That does not happen in Men’s Studies, at least not any associated with feminism.

        • Nice to meet you, too, Alice.

          Let’s team up!

          What organizations do you support that lobby for prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates?

          What organizations do you support that lobby for creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence?

          What organizations do you support that lobby for addressing women’s violence against males, along with biased sentencing and court policies and educational institutions, no matter who they favor?

          Point me at them so I can support them, too.

    • Believing that women, or feminism, are in any way vital to the Mens Movement is your first mistake. We will get what we want. The only question is how much pain will need to be inflicted to get it…

      Women helping will avoid the worst, but the change is coming whether you like it or not.

      • SallyStrange says:

        We will get what we want. The only question is how much pain will need to be inflicted to get it…

        Now this sounds just like a threat. And it supports Amanda Marcotte’s hypothesis that MRAs are really boosters for abusers. Care to retract your threat, or clarify who is going to be the recipient of the pain you anticipate inflicting?

        • I would like to add to Factories statement.

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK

          Check the civil rights violence throughout American history. Factory is not making a threat, he is instructing you on the realities of history that will be repeated until we get the lesson down.

          You can’t “retract” history, but hopefully you can learn from it. The pain he promises is an unavoidable result of the men’s movement failing, not its success.

          • Ubermensch says:

            Well said Paul!

          • I think they just want Factory to hit the Fembot Bingo sooner

          • You’re right Paul, I forget subtlety is lost on these buffoons.

          • SallyStrange says:

            Okay, so who exactly are you revolutionaries going to inflict this pain upon? That part is still not clear. Who precisely is jailing your revolutionaries, siccing the dogs on them, beating them, etc? I presume those would be the same group of people who should expect to experience pain as your revolution advances. Who are these people?

            • Jesus told me there would be days like this.

              OK. I do have busy day but I am feeling charitable so I am going to answer your questions, or at least point you to why you are asking the wrong ones.

              The pain will be, and already is, being inflicted on those that don’t necessarily deserve it. There is a growing number of men who have taken the stance that should they encounter a woman in trouble or even facing eminent harm like robbery or rape, that they will not lift a finger to help them.

              I am one of those men. Should a woman unknown to me be in need of emergency assistance about the only thing I would offer her is what society traditionally offers men.

              “Good luck helping yourself.”

              It is the death of chivalry, and whether you or anyone else here recognizes it, that death will result in pain for women. And part of it is necessary to allow women to enjoy the full benefits of equal treatment. Equal treatment, like it or not, is a hell of a step down for women in western culture.

              Another area women are starting to experience that pain is through the advancement of Game, PUA (look it up) and other strategies that men are developing to exploit hypergamous tendencies and sexual selection programming in women to access them for sex and then toss them to the curb.

              But perhaps the most pain to be inflicted is what you see transpiring right here. Women have been afforded about fifty years now the ability to disseminate and promote all manner of absolute bullshit without being challenged or publicly admonished.

              That is rapidly changing. The days when phony wage gaps, rape and DV stats, male bashing, victim glorification and other lies go unanswered are rapidly ending. You can see it in a lot of places, but you don’t have to look further than the comments of this article to get the picture.

              I hope that isn’t disappointing to you. I imagine you were waiting for talk of mass shootings and the public stoning of feminists. You see, when we talk about pain, we are not talking about the direct infliction of violence in any manner. Save that for your patriarchal illusions.

              What I am talking about is the much more civilized public ridicule for the hateful mentality and canards people like you further every time you speak. Granted, many feminists are so obtuse that they don’t even realize when they have egg on their faces, but that will improve with time as well.

              You see, the men’s movement is increasing in momentum, and significantly so. The numbers of men who are going to eschew the obsequious seeking of female approval and stand up to challenge people like you are growing exponentially.

              I assure you that will be painful.

              But there is more here, and it explains why your questions are so ill informed.
              The men’s movement itself will not be the cause of the more egregious and dangerous forms of pain that you want to saddle us with promoting. The men’s movement is the one thing that will save this culture from that reaction going so far.

              The men that will be burning buildings down and hurting people in the future will not consider themselves MRA’s. They will just be completely disenfranchised men in a bad economy that predicts that 18 million of them will be unemployed and unemployable well into the future.

              Many of these men will be among the millions that have been stripped of family and property by family courts that now represent the biggest roll back of civil rights since Jim Crow.

              And millions more will be the men who have fallen out of a misandric education system and fallen by the wayside in a female dominated work force that Hanna Rosin and other feminists is so keen on gloating about these days.

              These are men that will be living under bridges and in shelters. They will be flipping burgers and mopping floors underneath wall mounted big screens that are still screaming messages at them of all the additional help that society needs to give women, and that help will continue to be delivered right out of the paltry paychecks they are earning, because without government pilfering there is no feminism.

              And at some point they will be pissed beyond your wildest fears.

              Are you following this or is your ideologically fueled cognitive dissonance going balls to the wall?

              By people waking up and realizing that men and boys are in trouble we can avoid a catastrophe in the future that will end your smug condescension toward MRA’s on the quick.

              The MRA is not the problem here. It is the solution to a mounting problem that is no different than those that resulted in the American Revolution and the riots that rocked American cities during the late 60’s.

              And just like then, you won’t be able to fix it with water cannons or bullets. And that will indeed result in unthinkable pain, not from my kind, but by your own selfish, incredibly myopic hand.

              And to your other question, the only reason you don’t see dogs on our leaders (though I have gotten death threats) is because we are early enough in this that there is still “control utility” in shaming men into silence and cooperation.

              Check around Ms. Sally, and you will see that control slipping. And when it finally reaches a critical mass of men who don’t give a rat’s ass about your approval or you opinion, things will get a lot more painful for everyone.

              Alas, you, nor society, will likely practice good sense about this. But you wanted answers, so there they are.

            • Thank you Paul. That was beautiful. (sniff)

            • Something said by another person about another cause in reacting against what is now seen as tyrany is as valid in this context as it was in his.

              “There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society
              with a large segment of people in that society who feel
              that they have no stake in it; who feel that that have
              nothing to lose. People who have stake in their society,
              protect that society, but when they don’t have it,
              they unconsciously want to destroy it.”
              — Martin Luther King Jr.

            • You’ve touched me too, Paul, sniff, sniff, sniff (NO, not in that way!)

              Yes indeed, look up PUA. It’s so true that more men are waking up to the games (manipulation/abuse) women are “entitled” to play, and waking up to the fact that women have sexual needs too, no less intense and thus just as exploitable as men’s. They too wear their sexual desire on their sleeve, but most men don’t realize or see that without PUA and other training since women wear it very differently. Women get their own version of PUA training from their mothers and friends to manipulate men. When men wake up to the fact that women want sex, on their own level even more than men do, then these men tend to stop letting women sexually manipulate and game them. When the sexual playing field actual becomes equal it all blows up for these manipulative women when they are knocked down off their pedestals to an equal game, or are gamed back or just called on their game. Some can dish it out but can’t take it, nor can they take true equality. Most men don’t use this knowledge maliciously as most women do, but to detect honest and equality based women vs manipulative supremacist drama queens (feminists and their followers – most “women”) entitled to use and abuse, from the perch of their pedestals.

        • “Now this sounds just like a threat.”

          Only in your dainty fainty imagination. Patriarchal gender roles much?

          He is obviously talking about broad social change. If that’s a threat to you, that says more about your privilege than it does about any actual personal threat, as you are trying to spin it.

          “And it supports Amanda Marcotte’s hypothesis that MRAs are really boosters for abusers. ”

          Hardly. That’s just another distortion, more spin. Amanda’s bigoted hypothesis that men are really just abusers is her standard-ass go-to default position when she sees something she can’t really refute.

          No, what it supports is Factory’s contention that social change is coming, that chivlary and all its forms – female privilege in family courts, in criminal courts, in the worksite risks, in disproportinate attention to crimes against women, both in the legal system and in the culture, in the form of victim feminism and feminist special pleading, in general – is all coming to an end.

          Equality is coming and everyone had better get ready for it. That means no more pussy pass if you hire someone to kill your husband because you want to trade up, no more free ride in the family courts if you decide to end the marriage – a fair ride, not a free ride wiht the presumption that you should get custody.

          That means reproductive equality – a father can get rid of a fetus or a child as easily as a women, by legal rather than medical means obviously. If you want a child on your own, that’s just how it’s going to be . On. Your. Own. Oh, and that doesn’t mena you get to inflict a childhood of poverty on that child – raise him decently or lose him to adoption.

          That means women’s full participation in all the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs that make civilzed life possible, not just sitting your ass at a desk while the men do the heavy work outside, or whining about seats on the board of directors.

          Oh, and one last thing – mother privilege is over too. No more whining about how hard preganacy and childbirth are. They’re horrible for humans. We all know that. It’s the biggest argument I can think against Intelligent Design. Tough shit – sucks to be human. No problem – right now the planet so does not need any more humans anyway.
          Gte ready, because it’s coming.

          • Actually, Factory supported Amanda’s claim when he spoke out against her.

            Did you not know that disagreeing with a woman is abusive?

        • Alphabeta Supe says:

          Sally, you are inciting people to violence with this comment. Tread carefully.

    • I’m not buying this women are oppressed crap. Women have had it better than men especially in the anglosphere.

  15. Female Feedback wrote: “…I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.”

    Your entire post was essentially ludicrous. Most MRA have no interest in going back to medieval times. That comment of yours alone tells us how ignorant you are about us. Men everywhere are waking up to how women, society, and government have used and abused us. No, we don’t want to go back to medieval times. We want our freedom from women and government. You need us more than we need you. Men are MGTOW — men going their own way — and ghosting from your control. We are no longer content and feel obligated to being the providers and protectors of women, government, and society. One good thing that feminism has done for men is to have awoken the sleeping giant within men.

    You can scream ‘man-up’ all you want. The answer is No, go away. Man out.

    Men, Boycott Chivalry.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Great – please do leave. I have no interest in men like you and other women with jobs aren’t either.

      • That’s priceless. A woman telling a man to leave a men’s site.

        Got some news for you, Female Feedback. It’s not your house. You’re not the lady of the House; you didn’t build it and you didn’t even pay for and you don’t get to tell anyopne to sleep on the couch, or to leave.

        • Female Feedback says:

          I’m not telling him to leave – he said he wanted to leave and seemed to be curious whether anyone would care. I was just confirming for him that I don’t care.

          • Ubermensch says:

            None of us care about your feelings princess.

            • SallyStrange says:

              That’s nice. And yet you’re posting here as if you expect people to give a damn about YOUR feelings. What gives?

            • typhonblue says:

              Er… a lot of Female Feedback’s schtick has been shaming men about not emoting enough for her liking.

    • SallyStrange says:

      Hear hear. Fuck chivalry. I prefer non-gender-specific politeness and decency.

      Also, men who would like to go their own way–please do! Nothing’s stopping you. I’m sure everyone will be happier once you get busy building your manly utopia.

      We are no longer content and feel obligated to being the providers and protectors of women, government, and society.

      Good! Because frankly, you’ve done a terrible job so far of providing and protecting, except when it comes to things that benefit powerful men. Funny, that. Anyway, if we could all try a completely different system, whereby people receive protection based on their actual need for protection, rather than the type of genitalia they possess, as I said before, I think everyone will be a lot happier.

      • “……you’ve done a terrible job so far of providing and protecting, except when it comes to things that benefit powerful men.”

        You’re so spoiled that you don’t even know it. Men providing for women – if women had to grow even a tenth of their own food, what would that do to the obesity stats? The world waited through 10,000 years of midwives and doulas and women died like rats during childbirth, until men came along and took it over. Etc.

        “I prefer non-gender-specific politeness and decency. ”

        Good. Get to it. It’s a two way street. You make the first move for a change, if that doesn’t challenge your gender socialization too much.

        • SallyStrange says:

          You sound just like Pat Robertson talking about black people. “You uppity bastards should be grateful damn it!” It’s just as convincing as his faux outrage.

      • There would be a lot less male violence without chivalry and a lot fewer wars if women were 50% of combat troops. Men are disposable but public opinion would sway rapidly if large numbers of women were killed in battle.

        • I ask you: Who is keeping women from being in the armed forces combat troops? Oh right… the MALE generals… and the MALE congressMEN.

          • Women need their own combat units without any men. Feminists should volunteer first to liberate third world women.

          • I don’t see too many feminists on Capital Hill demanding the privilege of going to war.

          • Hold up I thought it was “patriarchy” that was harming men not individual men? Or does that only come into play when someone starts criticizing feminism?

          • typhonblue says:

            “I ask you: Who is keeping women from being in the armed forces combat troops? Oh right… the MALE generals… and the MALE congressMEN.”

            Jeeze, I wonder why?

            Maybe because male leaders couldn’t give two shits about men? Maybe male politicians aren’t really men at all, they’re a third gender. We could call them… nomen.

            Men, women and nomen. And feminists have this uncomfortable tendency of lumping two completely different groups together, men and nomen. All the while pretending that nomen don’t have a much greater, and lurid, interest in the vulnerabilities of women.

            • Women could not handle the front line what so ever. They panic, their emotions would be way to high.

              When it comes to comms, their voices are too high etc. They cannot physically do the same as a male. They have certain standards of how much they are able to lift etc… and of course the males is a lot higher than a females (upper body strength). Yes I have served in the military… so I know what I am talking about.

              Why cant females just get it through their thick skulls that not every job on this earth is made for women to do… But in saying that too many jobs have been so much easier so that women can do it. But they want equality… what a load of crap. They want standards lowered so that they are able to achieve them… to make jobs a lot more comfortable. Show many women who will work in a NON air con/ centreally heated office, where they have to sit on wooden chairs.. and then I will show you an office full of men.

              Show me the ‘docks’ where everything is manually handled and you may find ‘a’ women..

              Feminists dont want equal equality at all… if they did they would do the jobs how they use to be.

              I fully support the ‘real’ MRA.. but when you get women come onto a ‘Mens’ site and then bitch and complain.. well they should be the ones to leave .. and not the other way around.

              How many men have been shot down in flames if they try to debate on any feminst website forum… and I and many others have seen it.

              I am a daugher, a sister, a mother and a wife… and I will NEVER support feminism.

  16. Alice,

    Thank you for proving one of the many points put forth by MRA about feminists. Your propaganda rant doesn’t have the influence that it did decades ago. After forty-five years of feminism people are increasingly looking behind the illusions and cobwebs spun by your kind and recognizing the ugly truths that are there. The results of the destruction to society by feminism is all around us. Someone once wrote that the best way to handle the absurd claims by a feminist is simply to let her keep ranting on and on and she’ll make a fool out of herself.

    • Please enlighten me as to what’s absurd about my “claims” here.

      & thank YOU for proving one of the many points put forth by ME (because I’m not going to lump all feminists into the same category) about you exploding at people who are just trying to help you. I guess the best way to handle the violent ramblings of an uneducated spoiled brat is to be smarter than him.

      • Alice, why did you resort to calling names? Aharon commented about your actions, but I guess he did call you a feminist. You have a nice day!

      • “thank YOU for proving one of the many points put forth by ME (because I’m not going to lump all feminists into the same category) about you exploding at people who are just trying to help you. I guess the best way to handle the violent ramblings of an uneducated spoiled brat is to be smarter than him.”

        THIS is what a feminist looks like.

  17. Alice: AND there are 448 men in congress compared to 91 women! Whose voices are suppressed again?

    —–

    As far as I know, every US-citizen regardless the gender has the same voting right. 1 person – 1 vote.

    It seems not all women are feminist orientated and they are not voting for female candidates out of various reasons.

    Who says, except the feminists, that a female voter MUST vote for a female candidate?
    How can you blame the MRAs for that?

    About MRAs, we like the idea going our own way. What’s wrong with that?

    • SallyStrange says:

      Who says, except the feminists, that a female voter MUST vote for a female candidate?

      Actually, Republicans said that. During the last presidential election. They seemed genuinely surprised that women didn’t flock to the Republican party in droves, just for the opportunity to vote for a female VP.

      Meanwhile, many feminists fulminated about how stupid Republicans must think women are–just because a person has a vagina, doesn’t mean she promotes the interests of women. I recall hearing, over and over again, that voting for a woman just because she’s a woman is just as sexist as voting against a woman just because she’s a woman.

      But then, I live in reality.

      • Ubermensch says:

        “just because a person has a vagina, doesn’t mean she promotes the interests of women”

        Funny how women only support candidates that look out for women’s own interests. Thanks SallyStrange, you make a fine specimen.

        • SallyStrange says:

          What exactly is the problem with that? Working class people vote for politicians who look out for the interests of working class people. Rich people vote for politicians who look out for them. Union members vote for politicians who look out for union, etc., etc. Why is it so shocking that women should want the politicians they elect to DO THEIR JOB, i.e., look out for the interests of their constituents, roughly half of whom are women?

          Oy… so illogical.

          • Notice that all those groups were “people” whereas women are only 1/2 the people? What would you say to someone voting for a candidate that advances the interests of white people or MEN?

  18. …or intelligent female candidates don’t make it far because sexism is the norm. When (I don’t want to say “most” but) many American people imagine a successful female candidate, they imagine an American female with masculine or masculine-approved characteristics. Take Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, or Michele Bachmann: all attractive anti-feminists who speak on behalf of gun rights!

    & I’m only blaming the MRA “commenters” on here for their brutal attacks on anyone who brings up a counterpoint. It only feeds into negative stereotypes about your movement (ie. violent, deranged, bitter, spoiled).

    • They are more like big fat lies that the propaganda machine tells us over and over again … like the fact that men disagreeing with women is brutal.

  19. alice says:
    March 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    …or intelligent female candidates don’t make it far because sexism is the norm.

    —–

    I would not call a feminist candidate as necessarily to be intelligent. It’s more a candidate who needs a quota. Otherwise she would not be a candidate. Not in politics, not in business…

    This is the problem with feminism, it is not productive, but costs us all a lot of money.

    • I would not qualify the statement “I would not call a feminist candidate as necessarily to be intelligent. It’s more a candidate who needs a quota” as legible. I can’t argue with DUMB. Please refrain from responding to me as I will not answer.

      • Oh no! Princess is upset. You better stop talking Yohan or she might pout and call you a jerk!

        Dumb? You’re about as intelligent and Paris Hilton.

        • SallyStrange says:

          No, Alice is right–Yohan’s statement is pretty unintelligible. Falls into the category of “not even wrong.”

          Perhaps you can explain it better?

          (Also–“as intelligent AS.” I’m sure it’s just a typo, right?)

          • The only empirical way to refute what Yohan said is to remove AA and quotas and let women stand on their merit. That is also an MRM tenet!

  20. Let’s see, mention of the patriarchy, historical oppression, equal outcomes versus equal opportunity, and a few more.

    Let me check my bingo card… yes! BINGO!

    I will take feminism more seriously when feminists acknowledge the privileges of being female.

  21. kryptogal says:

    This point can’t be emphasized enough: “There can be little doubt that at least some of these guys have been victims—of physically or psychologically abusive women, the family court system, or other painful circumstances.”

    In fact, I would change it to say “MOST of these guys…”

    The MRM cannot be adequately analyzed without an understanding of the incredibly deep well of sheer HURT that motivates a lot of the behavior (obsessive posting, anger) that outsiders seem to find peculiar. Put simply, most MRAs have seen the dearest thing in their lives — their families — destroyed against their will, used against them, bartered to extract money, or taken away from them. And all of this has happened with the seeming complicity of society, or, at the very least, with a total lack of empathy. Of course it infuriates them.

    Think about what that must really be like. Imagine that your spouse decides to divorce you against your will, and then successfully fights for full custody so you can barely see your kids, and that on top of all that heartbreak, you’re required by law to send your ex a financially-crippling check each month. Most women know this will never happen to them, and most men think it will never happen to them (and truthfully, it probably won’t — but it could). I can hardly think of anything that would be more painful — literally. Now try to figure out why most people have virtually no empathy for this scenario, unless, perhaps, the unlucky man in question is their son or good friend. I don’t know why there’s so little empathy, except that people just aren’t used to feeling sorry for men.

    Unfortunately, the deep well of hurt also fuels the dark side of the MRM, as outlined above, which is a shame, since most of their stated aims are entirely valid and should be taken seriously.

    Another problem with the MRM, which isn’t discussed here, is that there is a philosophical schism between MRAs who believe in full gender equality (such as Paul Elam, seemingly) and those who believe in fundamental gender differences that support a return to patriarchy as the most desirable system. And in many cases, I’ve seen individuals who aren’t clear which side of this divide they’re on, and argue sometimes for the former and sometimes for the latter (which, incidentally, is the flip-side of the hypocritical privilege-based feminism they often complain of).

    • Victim of Violence says:

      That was the best description of the plight of people like me that I have ever read anywhere. Thank you for writing that.

      The overriding message seems to be, “If you’re not crazy now, you will be eventually, because nobody will ever help.”

    • I’m impressed. You have both a will to understand and empathize with men.

      Yes, there are various factions within the manosphere, not all are MRM.

    • Female Feedback says:

      Interesting and thoughtful explanation, kryptogal.

      I would tend to be more supportive if these men had set up their marriages and families in equal parenting, learned good parenting skills, supported women’s equality.

      But I suspect they saw their careers as more important (or chose women without any earning power) and were unwilling to do unpaid work in their families.

      Also, anger management is something all adults have to learn. When all you do is anger and have no other emotional expression, this is reflective of deeper trauma, like the socialization into a masculinity straightjacket that Hugo described, or abuse/neglect by fathers or mothers (it is very curious how they never mention abuse/neglect by their own fathers).

      • Lovekraft says:

        Armchair psychoanalysis without having done any firsthand research into specific cases is simply bad logic. Denying one’s argument by claiming they have psychological problems to me indicates someone of limited intellectual depth and scope.

        Get out into the world and realize that MRAs are fighting for fairness and equality.

      • Ubermensch says:

        Again, instead of a feminist saying, “damn they’re right!” you have to pass the blame, “there own fault!”

      • (4,4)

      • Victim of Violence says:

        “I would tend to be more supportive if these men had set up their marriages and families in equal parenting, learned good parenting skills, supported women’s equality.

        But I suspect they saw their careers as more important (or chose women without any earning power) and were unwilling to do unpaid work in their families. ”

        There is no need for EVIDENCE or BEHAVIOUR; simply BEING MALE means we get dismissed. Like you just did here.

        WTF makes you think I didn’t work on my family and for my family? I broke myself in two trying to meet the impossible goals of a narcissistic abuser, and all my failures were crushing defeats. I never had a chance to meet the goals, because there were secret tests every day that I never knew about unless I failed them; there was emotional and physical abuse; she had driven off all but one of my friends. And still it was my fault.

        What EXACTLY counts as “sufficient effort” in your books? Or do you consider ultimate failure to be irrefutable evidence of lack of effort in every case (which is why you don’t have to examine individual ones)?

        This jumping-to-assumptions is EXACTLY the blanket that homicidal abusive women can scamper underneath to hide from their crimes forever. Way to go, feminism! Let’s protect the murderers and abusers, as long as they don’t have that nasty Y chromosome.

        • Those are called shit tests. You can learn more about them and how to pass them with flying colours at roissy.wordpress.com

          • typhonblue says:

            What Victim described is called being in a relationship with a narcissistic abuser.

            Men really have this problem with feeling like they’re always in control or always should be. I can guarantee that the average man is not more powerful then the dark and ugly forces motivating an abusive woman.

            The only way to win is not to play. Not to cutesify her demons into ‘shit tests’.

      • This is the face of feminism plain and simple! It is the typical chauvinist catch 22 in which the man is inevitably responsible for the dissolution of his marriage.

        If a man cheats on his wife, he’s a pig and should be taken to the cleaners. If a woman cheats on her husband, he must have been uncaring or abusive and should be taken to the cleaners.

        If it happens to a woman, she’s a victim of the patriarchy but if it happens to a man, he brought it on himself.

        It’s not female privilege, it’s victim-hood, for without it no woman could live with the resultant cognitive dissonance.

    • “Another problem with the MRM, which isn’t discussed here, is that there is a philosophical schism between MRAs who believe in full gender equality (such as Paul Elam, seemingly) and those who believe in fundamental gender differences that support a return to patriarchy as the most desirable system. ”

      Yes, yes, yes. Very good observation, Kryptogal. Very important point.

    • That schism isn’t simply one of the MRM…it’s men in general.

      Chivalry is fighting a losing battle. I can hardly wait till it’s dead.

    • typhonblue says:

      Wow, that was an awesome assessment. Also very accurate to my own observations of the MRM.

  22. Peter C. (UK). says:

    @Female Feedback
    “But Glenn Sacks and the MRAs reject this approach and instead try to operate from the outside in a position of all-encompassing hostility to women. They are weak and ineffective at holding other men accountable (except for men who actually like and respect women), and instead blame women”.

    I don’t know what you have been feeding upon Ms Feedback. But when I look around at the world I have been living in for nearly half a century and I see indignant references being made to:

    “Hostility to women”

    Yes, enter any modern classroom or lecture theater, switch on to any news broadcast, soap, documentary, comedy show, contemporary drama etc. etc. and you really have to be patient and, if a feminist, thick skinned as continuity is frequently interrupted by burka clad personal male foot bathing breaks and all the open, raucous, male back slapping that is constantly taking place. But stay with it. They get there in the end.

    “Holding other men accountable”

    Yes, the ilk of the late Andrea Dworkin, of whom there are still many, are frequently standing before their horrified, well-intentioned, benevolent feminist sisters – like puppies who have just wet the rug – begging to be believed when they say they never meant to be offensive and nasty about half of the human race – many of whom haven’t even been born yet. The weeping of sorrow and shame positively rattles the windows.

    “When attempting to mask their own faults and weaknesses, upholders of tyranny often use the essence of their own evil as a false accusation against those who oppose them”. – Paraphrase from The Philosopher on Dover Beach. Roger Scruton

    Well ‘Female Feedback’ – that is all the feedback from a modern day female I think I need for now. It is just gone 9.00 PM here in the UK. Goodnight.

    • Female Feedback says:

      I’m sorry but your post is unintelligible to me. I did spend time trying to understand it, though. Now you’ve made ME angry that you’ve wasted my time on your gibberish.

      • Lovekraft says:

        Likely because it didn’t fit into your narrow, backwards worldview that men and men alone (and white males to be specific) are always at fault, and that women never do anything wrong.

      • What couldnt you understand. Its written in English and what is stated is very true and accurate.

        Schools are more concerned on how the girls do – accademically rather than both genders.
        They are too feminised with their way of controlling everything. How many schools now have banned playing ‘ball sports’, monkey bars, chasings etc. Oh its so the ‘precious children’ wont get hurt… crap it is… and then they wonder why the next generation of children are becoming over weight…

  23. Lovekraft says:

    Feminism is an evil, materialistic and inherently vacuous philosophy, that feeds of discord and hate, and must expand its influence in order to keep relevant, thus making its agenda ever-destructive.

    Imagine being a male, who has never hit a woman, never fired a woman for her sex etc etc. Was essentially playing by the rules, trying to make it in the world with a fair shake, wanting to get a wife and raise a family. Now imaging being this man who encounters the subtle and overt male-hating from media, academia, Human Resources Depts, just walking in the park and seeing the suspicion, the rejection by moronic shallow ‘girls’.

    Now, add to that the institutional misandry like Affirmative Action, Sexual Harassment laws, the overall arrogance of the feminized woman and ask yourself: do you wonder why our men are ghosting, are striking and, recently, standing up to the raw deal they’ve been given?

    The Spearhead.com, for anyone who wants to know where the battle of ideas is being waged.

    • SallyStrange says:

      Imagine being a white person, who has never burned a cross, never fired a black person for her race etc etc. Was essentially playing by the rules, trying to make it in the world with a fair shake, wanting to get by and be part of a community. Now imaging being this man who encounters the subtle and overt white-hating from media, academia, Human Resources Depts, just walking in the park and seeing the suspicion, the rejection by moronic shallow ‘African-Americans’.

      Now, add to that the institutional anti-white discrimination like Affirmative Action, hate crime laws, the overall arrogance of the uppity blacks and ask yourself: do you wonder why our white people are ghosting, are striking and, recently, standing up to the raw deal they’ve been given?

      Just a thought experiment. Does this sound racist to you? Or does it inspire great pity towards the poor put-upon white man? I think it’s interesting how you can get away with a great many generalizations about women that would sound blatantly racist if the same sort of generalization were made about a racial group. Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a big overlap between MRAs and people who don’t believe in the existence of racism.

      • Lovekraft says:

        There is a meme in internet blogs that propose the idea that Liberals and their leftist allies are the racists, having patronized minorities with free money and preferrential tratement, instead of establishing self-reliance in them.

        There’s another interesting theory that states that leftist project their own racism onto others when it doesn’t warrant it. Similar to the rape hysteria in which feminists likely feel deep down a desire to be raped.

        As for your comment, I will say this: I would be the first to criticize my own race should the situation warrant it. I am not condemning one gender (even though feminists have no qualms about discriminating against men) or one race.

        Having an opinion means some will be offended, but we all know that feminists are the most easily-offended bunch out there.

      • Ubermensch says:

        You keep confusing women with feminism–One a biological sex, the other institutionalized man hate

      • Actually, it does make me feel bad for white people. I’ve owned no slaves and neither have any white people I know. We’ve never disadvantaged anyone. I come from a poor family so my “wealth” was not gained off the backs of slaves.

        Good analogy, but it goes the wrong way for your cause.

      • You’re sexist against men and those with your mentality were the first to kill blacks so stop projecting.

      • “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” – Margaret Sanger

        Feminists love black people so much they angrily tried to get the vote before them,sabotaging their efforts at franchise at every turn. Feminist Margaret Sanger frequently referred to blacks as “undesirables” who should be “sterilized” and founded planned parenthood centers which can be found today in every minority neighborhood that have the aim of making sure that black people don’t reproduce.

  24. Keyster says:

    “Anywhere women have made advances, it’s at the expense of men.”

    Just to clarify; no one believes that in the MRM.
    All else being equal though, women are preferred as candidates for advancement over men.
    For the ill-iniformed hiring and promotion quotas are VERY REAL.

    Woman are not stopped or discriminated against in any way if they prove to be valuable contributors.
    The pressure large employers are under from the EEOC to hire and promote women is staggering.
    Not because they’re better, but because they’re women.

    Why do they need to be a special “protected class” or group, if they’re so empowered and independent?
    Why?

    • I don’t get it, either. It’s like this all over with “minorities.” Quotas are actually illegal, but goals aren’t, so they can disguise these quotas as goals (a loophole, essentially).

    • The worst thing you can do to minorities is treat them like minorities. The worst thing you can do to women is treat them like victims.

    • “Anywhere women have made advances, it’s at the expense of men.”

      Just to clarify; no one believes that in the MRM.

      Maybe you don’t but I do. Look at affirmative action as one example.

  25. “[But] our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of female narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of women that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity” -Paul Elam (quoted from post).

    Women are “for the most part” useless parasites?

    Do MRAs consistenly challenge such rhetoric? Is an MRA movement supposedly represented by such thought really a legitimate other side to feminism?

    Among many feminists, MRAs have a reputation as being a reactionary misogynistic movement that, esentially, is as hateful as they claim feminism to be. It statements like Elam’s that make people think this.

    • If you are STILL listening to feminists we know which side you are on. Stay there, please. We do not need you

      “Do MRAs consistenly challenge such rhetoric?”
      Why should they?

      Maybe this is what you expect MRAs to respond with
      “Oh no! Another feminist that will not join the MRM, due to the “reactionary misogynistic” words of Paul Elam. What a great Loss for the movement! Damn you Paul Elam!”
      Is that it? Or did I go easy on Paul there?

      • (2,1) & (2,3)! Thanks!

      • Why should they, Punkaj? Because women, just like men, deserve to be treated like individuals and possess human dignity.

        “Feminists do it too” only works in six-year-old court. It’s time for some of you boys to grow up.

        • Actually this is exactly how men are treated. So Paul is just balancing the status quo. You get treated exactly like men get treated. Happy?

        • “It’s time for some of you boys to grow up” (3,5)

          • And playing your little game of bingo contributes to the discourse, how?

            Oh, right. “Feminists do it too.”

            LOL. Have fun, kiddo.

    • I think when women use their reproductive hegemony to force men to become parents and thereby exploit them financially for decades they are engaging in a condition equivalent to that of a parasite.

      Do feminists promote equal reproductive rights for men? No. Never have. Never will.

      At every stage of reproduction–from courtship to child care–if men make a mistake there are laws that will punish them civilly and criminally. At every state of reproduction–women are allowed to commit fraud, perjury, domestic violence and abuse and are rewarded for doing so. Women who engage in this behavior are rightly described as narcissistic. Women who do not engage in this behavior but ignore it and therefore accept it are just as culpable.

      Feminism is the belief that women should have equal rights with men–NOT that men should have equal rights with women. If you think this will result in an equal or even equitable society you are deluded and probably a feminist.

      BTW, if you take a look at the revolutions going on in the Middle East you will find they are a direct consequence of western feminist values being imported and enforced on those societies.

      The man who started it was was just a fruit vendor working for 10 bucks a day. One day a corrupt gov’t. official confiscated his scale so SHE could force him to offer her a bribe. When he complain she smacked him in the face. So he bought a can of gasoline, went down to the gov’t. office where she worked, doused himself, and lit a match while screaming “how am I supposed to make a living?” Now that conflagration is spreading across the middle east and I pray to god (if it exists) that it reaches our shores.

      BTW that evil patriarchal male who burned himself work long hours so he could support his mother and put his two SISTERS through college.

      Yet another disposable male sacrificing for women who will be regarded by most women and ALL feminists as a female oppressor in another 20 years.

      • In other words, Belanger isn’t anti-male. He’s just scared of what feminists will do to him if he doesn’t kow tow to whatever brand of lunacy they are selling these days.

    • “Among many feminists, MRAs have a reputation as being a reactionary misogynistic movement that, esentially, is as hateful as they claim feminism to be. It statements like Elam’s that make people think this.”

      Again I ask…so?

      Here’s a hint. It isn’t about YOU princess…

    • “I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop. I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don’t take place anywhere near an ovum. I don’t know that the ecosphere can tolerate it.” Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book #34; The Change– Women, Aging and the Menopause#34; . From a newsreport dated 14/11/91

  26. PatrickG says:

    @ Factory and sundry others: If you really want people to shed their ‘misconception’ of MRAs as bullying, domineering, and cruel people, you really ought to cut back on the threats. Frankly, it makes you look rather pathetic and certainly isn’t going to win you a lot of fans.

    Though, really, I’m tremendously amused at Factory’s threat to “feed it back to you so hard you’ll cry for a week.” Quite the keyboard commando, aren’t you?

    • No thanks for the shaming attempt. (4,3) on Fembot Bingo card.

      • PatrickG says:

        Ah, thanks for the formulaic response without addressing content.

        In all seriousness, however, as a man, I am completely put off by people who gleefully anticipate the coming pain to be inflicted upon human beings (women AND men) when the MRA movement ‘wins’. I honestly can’t separate this from what might actually be the serious and debatable issues at hand.

        You can compartmentalize me neatly into a ‘Fembot Bingo card’, or you can recognize that your aims and goals are being represented in the main by people who I find frankly repellent. Note that this is your problem, not mine, since you’re the ones trying to win support for your cause. Something to think about, perhaps.

        • “In all seriousness, however, as a man, I am completely put off by people who gleefully anticipate the coming pain to be inflicted upon human beings (women AND men) when the MRA movement ‘wins’.”

          But you’ve got it wrong PatrickG. If that happens we would have failed. You’re obviously not paying attention to what is going on in the Middle East. Watch Al Jazeera for coverage that’s closer to the truth (western media does stuff like pick the four women in a crowd of thousands for the cover image). Those are countries that are rebelling against the VERY SAME forces at work in North America and Europe. That is the future we are trying to avoid.

          I know you all think it’s ludicrous, a silly woman-hater’s wet dream, etc. I posit that this is due to your incredible hubris.

          Men are angry, they are poor and desperate, they are marginalized and they are bled dry to pay for it all. This is the ‘pump’ driving our membership as feminist policies that create these circumstances become more and more draconian.

          But hey, we could be full of crap. If that’s the case, then we will dwindle to nothing and go away.

          Has that been your experience so far?

          Or perhaps we are creating all this hatred and anger you’re seeing out there in the real world… But then, aren’t we really just a rudderless mass of disaffected men living in their mothers basement?

          Wow, how do people live in a head that spins like that all the time?

          Anyway, you can listen to us, or not. It doesn’t matter one bit, we’re growing almost faster than we can handle right now (as evidenced by the woman-bashing being in the upswing). If you’re right, you have nothing to worry about and you can go about your smug complacence all you like.

          However, if you’re wrong, and we don’t succeed…well, you know what happens. Just watch the news.

        • Patrick,

          You find them “repellant” but not wrong or lying. Interesting!

          Are you admitting that they are correct?

    • I think about half of MRA’s could make the worst impressions of themselves and not damage the movement.

      For starters men are already regarded universally and predators and scumbags waiting to happen so it’s not like we have a reputation to live up to.

      But mostly, feminists are cranking out disillusioned men by the thousands thanks to the laws they’ve gotten passed for the last 5 decades. When a man loses his children because he was born without a vagina that tends to make him mad. He won’t be turned off by other angry MRA’s. When a man loses his job and the President diverts 40% of the recovery bill to provide job training to women (who actually gained jobs in the recession) that tends to make him mad and he’s not going to care about other MRA’s saying mean things.

      I don’t agree with what every MRA says and I think some of the comments that Elam makes come from emotion rather than good sense. But I also see the powder keg that has gone off in the middle east. A conflagration fueled mostly by men who have been second class citizens for decades and not been allowed to speak at all and I recognize the usefulness of men blowing off steam from time to time.

      Men have a right to be angry. And we have a right to direct that anger at feminism. The notion that men should never be angry at women or blame women or even attack women is yet another power that women have over men. They are their own aristocracy. Above men and never forced to toil and labor under the conditions that the bottom rungs are forced into. This is the genetic predisposition to defer to women–in action.

      We have a right to hold women accountable for their actions. Whether it’s the parasitic values they have developed through feminism or the discriminatory laws they get passed.

      Ah, but I digress. I am a man after all. So I didn’t have far to go.

      • PatrickG says:

        It’s news to me to find that I’m regarded as a predator. Friends and family disagree! In any case, the argument that ‘people think I’m bad, so I might as well be bad’ is not particularly healthy or useful.

        Your fallacy here lies in a strong tendency to generalize from what sounds like personal experience or anecdotes. Nobody is claiming that a man cannot be angry with a woman, or that a woman should not be held responsible for specific wrongdoing. However, I will absolutely claim that a man should not attack a woman, any more than a man should attack a man, or a child.
        In general, I recommend not making specific assertions about general groups. As a man myself, I will say that asserting the right to attack, bully, and dominate any other human being (male or female) is not manly. It’s childish.

        (In other specific comments:

        Source your 40% claim and women gaining jobs during the recession. I believe both claims are false. As they say, link or it didn’t happen.

        Speaking of sourcing, I’ll cheat and tell you to google ‘middle east stoning’, ‘middle east driving laws for women’, ‘middle east women voting’, ‘middle east adultery laws’, and whatever else you feel inclined. You directly imply that what is going on in the Middle East is because men are second-class citizens to women. This is false. Most Middle Eastern men are second-class citizens to OTHER MEN.

        Women being ‘never forced to toil and labor’ is laughable. Millions of women are in the workforce. Millions of women do the vast majority of household work and childcare. Here’s a free link from a quick google. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-28-housework_N.htm)

        • You have to resort to calling JOBS that feminists fought for women to have as FORCED to toil and labor? As one great novelist said, folks like you should get to feel the difference between a job and forced labor on your backs.

        • And the so called Middle east.. you will be refering to Saudi Arabia I gather and that is all due to their ‘Islamic laws’ and nothing else.

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-02-womenwork_N.htm (Women gain as men lose jobs ) to back up the stats.

          And yes most women do the housework, child care…. as they have the choice if they wish to work or not… men dont have that choice.. as most times they are the ones supporting the ‘family’.
          If a man wanted to be a ‘stay at home dad’ and then decided to go back into the work force… they question why he hadnt worked for months/years… and if he stated he was at home he would be laughed at… but if a women said the same thing… she is given praise…. that is WRONG… but hang on feminist want equality… but it aint happening.

    • “@ Factory and sundry others: If you really want people to shed their ‘misconception’ of MRAs as bullying, domineering, and cruel people, you really ought to cut back on the threats. Frankly, it makes you look rather pathetic and certainly isn’t going to win you a lot of fans.”

      Oh look! It’s the tone argument again.

  27. 17. Disagree. Affirmative action still has a role to play in leveling the playing field that has been so severely tilted for centuries. Although, currently cis white straight women are most likely to benefit from affirmative action programs; these programs should perhaps be revamped to ensure better inclusion of other, more marginalized groups.

    Could you provide some evidence that women have been discriminated in the workforce over the last few centuries? Quote some laws that say women couldn’t work. You will find none.

    If we make a comparison of jobs available in 1810 which are still available in 2010 we see that women are uninterested in those jobs despite any alleged restrictions being removed.

    Forestry, fishing, mining, steelwork, transportation, bricklayer, quarry worker, sewer worker, ditch digger, truck driver, shipping, are all dominated by men because women don’t want that kind of work. These jobs make up the kind of jobs that existed in 1810 outside of farm work.

    And before the 1900’s about 90% of the population lived and worked in the agricultural sector. Women were a vital part of that industry. So the notion that women weren’t allowed to work is a lie. They did work but they worked in the jobs that they wanted to work in. Those jobs which were too dangerous or physically demanding were not available to them. Not because they were women but because they either didn’t want those jobs or were incapable of competing in those professions.

    In fact, women were the first recorded protected work class. See Colgate Company hiring practices. When Colgate hired women and children to work in it’s factories they would protect female employment well into adulthood. However, males would be fired at age 21 to encourage them to seek a “family wage” regardless if any such employment was available.

    You are relying on your indoctrination that women weren’t allowed to work and because this is untrue your conclusions and theories also become invalid.

    At every point in history women have had it better than men. More food, more shelter, more protection of violence. More of everything that mattered.

    What society lacked in equality it more than made up for in “equity”.

    The feminist account of history is false. It is false because it assigns a victim status to women in every age and epoch. However, a victim has it worse than someone else. And this is why feminists have NEVER made an honest comparison of men to women.

    An example is that we are told women couldn’t own property or have a checking account if they were married. But what we aren’t told is that they were immune from prosecution for debts and crimes up to and including murder and treason. Their husbands were responsible for those crimes and could be imprisoned and executed for them. Further, no woman could be denied purchase of essentials on her husbands credit. That means that if wifey got mad at her husband she could bury him in debt and he could very well spend the rest of his life in debtors prison. Tell me who had the “power” in that relationship?

    If you want to educate yourself on the truth then research Doctrine of Coverture.

  28. The first paragraph makes the writer’s contempt for MRAs clear, hence i will save myself the trouble of reading further.

    • Good for you, but it goes back and forth. Seems to me, the author tried to be non-contemptuous but slipped repeatedly into contempt for MRAs. I give him a C for trying to be.. hey, at least he tried.

    • It is yet another example of female power over men that any person who might criticize women must first apologize profusely, declared his love and loyalty towards women, and denounce men as scumbags and misogynists.

      The reason being that no man wants to spend a lifetime working and building a name for himself and have it destroyed in an inkling by the accusations of women that he is anti-female. Men after all work hard to earn status so that we may be selected for reproduction by women. It does no good to work hard and then lose it all because you wouldn’t toe the line of politically correct man-hating.

      We’ve seen this play out with politicians and other high ranking officials for decades. Being declared anti-woman by a feminist organization is a career killer.

      The author is just as much a prisoner of female reproductive tyranny as the rest of us.

  29. 18. Agreed, and who does that best? Feminists, the ones who resist the idea that men are incapable of controlling their sexuality. Feminists, who insist that men should be free to be nurturing or dominating, assertive or shy, sensitive or strong, however it may strike them, and that this doesn’t make them any more or less of a man, whichever the case may be. Feminists, who say that men should be regarded as capable parents who can nurture children as well as any human being. Feminists, who argue for a more equitable distribution of work outside and inside the home between the genders.

    Are these the feminists who oppose shared parenting because men are a danger to children despite the fact that women abuse and murder more children than men?

    Are these the feminists who blame all men for rape and declare rape to be a male promoted value despite the fact that 99.9% of men have never raped or ever will rape a woman? Rape is a value promoted by rapists and as we have seen women are capable of rape as well. In fact, the ability of women to get away with rape and the acceptance of this fact by feminists is actually proof that women promote the idea of rape NOT men. Find a man who thinks that raping a woman is OK and I’ll find you a 1000 women who think that women raping men and boys is OK. On TV show “Cougartown” a woman quipped that dating a boy who is under 18 is just desperate. Actually, at their age it is rape.

    Are men able to control their sexuality? How about women? Feminists blame men for objectifying women and yet women run around half dressed finding new ways to sexualize themselves to gain the attention of and power over men. There is a series on YouTube called “Killing us Softly” which makes a connection between advertising and unrealistic female attitudes towards beauty. In fact, the connection they fail to make, which all feminists fail (refuse) to make, is that femininity is powerful and persuasive. Women are genetically programmed to accept other women. Therefore, when feminists lie and portray women as victims other women accept it. Women are also programmed to discriminate against males which makes this even more effective.

    If advertising using female beauty has such an effect on women imagine the effect on men who are not only heterosexual but also genetically programmed to defer to women? This is the reason why the feminists in the “Killing us Softly” series won’t recognize the power of the female. To do so would force them to realize that women have had power over men for centuries.

    As a final note: I have every right to associate the values espoused by Andrea Dworkin, Solanis, and Harriet Harman with feminist values. The reason being is that NO major feminist organization has ever come out and declared those values to be contrary to feminism or describe them for what they are–hate speech. So long as feminists do not denounce hate speech by those calling themselves feminists then by that action they declare their acceptance of that speech as a legitimate feminist value.

    Furthermore, the entire feminist account of history is either false or biased against men. ALL feminists believe in this history and since this history scapegoats all men as the wellspring of female unhappiness then all feminists have adopted an ideology of hatred towards men. It’s as simple as that.

  30. Twisted feminist lies designed to humiliate and dehumanize men have been the social norm for 40 years. How to get to the bottom of this mess …

    Do your OWN experiment. Gather your OWN data. How to find out all that you need to know about the twisted feminist extermination campaign against young boys:

    1) Go to “feministe” or “feministing”, the two largest feminist web sites, and type “Ritalin” into the search box.
    2) Go to “The Spearhead”, the largest MRM movement, and type “Ritalin” into the search box.

    This experiment, that you can do yourself without relying on twisted information from either side, will tell you all that you need to know about the feminist campaign for gender extermination of all men — and about the few, brave men who are resisting this feminist genocide.

  31. Female Feedback says:

    I have re-read the posts by MRAs here and even by Elam or others who say they support equality and are not overt or latent patriarchalists, I see no evidence of emotional expression. There is not even the use of the phrase “I am angry” much less other emotions such as sadness, happiness, fear.

    These are not men who can parent. My heart breaks for their children. To the extent that the legal system protects children from this attitude I am enormously grateful. To the extent that women reject these men for sex I am also enormously grateful. To the extent teachers or bosses have seen this deficiency and prevented their intimidation of other students or co-workers, I am enormously grateful.

    Thank you to the GMP for letting these men speak and show us who they really are – and are not.

    • “I see no evidence of emotional expression.”

      We are discussion facts, not emotions. Confusing facts with emotions is a feminist thing. Not a female thing — a feminist thing. It is part of the feminist dehumanization campaign against boys to portray all males as “devoid of emotions.”

      “These are not men who can parent. My heart breaks for their children.”

      Search the MRM web site “The Spearhead” for the word “Ritalin”, then repeat the same search on the feminist hate sites “Feministing” and/or “Feministe”. The feminist war of extermination against boys is well under way, and the MRM is the only hope that boys have of resisting feminist hatred.

      “To the extent that the legal system protects children from this attitude I am enormously grateful.”

      MRM know that feminists ask for and receive special privileges of many kinds. That feminists see children as a commodity to be used for their advantage is also well known.

    • The legal system puts children into the hands of abusive women.

    • The FRA groups are against parental alienation, for equal shared parenting, mandatory mediation and unbiased DV services. Feminist seem to prefer the status-quo.

      “A child-focused analysis of child custody determination must also include a careful consideration of the issues of child abuse and family violence, which warrants against a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach, even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post-separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody. Although it is clear that shared parental responsibility is contraindicated in cases of established family violence, research shows that inter-parental conflict increases with court-mandated sole physical custody in cases with no previous violence, as fully half of first-time battering occurs after separation. New research evidence makes clear that inter-parental conflict decreases within a shared parental responsibility custody arrangement, as neither parent is threatened by the loss of the children and parental identity. The current framework of primary residential custody in disputed custody cases, contrary to dominant discourse, exposes both parents and children to violence”

      Dr. Edward Kruk, FIRA

    • Are you serious? I have to sob and sniffle as evidence of emotion? lolzzllz!!!!!!

    • Most men learn to keep their feelings in check. They do this not because they are inhuman or defective. They do it because they know that most women do not empathize with men–they judge men. Expressing feelings and heart ache to a feminist merely gives her something to shame you with later. She will point to your abuse by your mother and declare you have mother issues. She will point to repeated betrayals and exploitation by women and declare to everyone that you are just bitter.

      This is contrary to the male response to female emotions. Most likely we will respond sympathetically and try to help. We accept women for their faults and failings. This makes us far more emotionally mature than women.

      After all, who else could look at the last 10,000 years of history and see the perpetually low performance of women in all fields and instead of declare them the most pathetic group in human history love them and respect them and even buy into their victim explanation of all female inadequacies?

      What bothers you “female feedback” is not that men do not express their emotions but instead they make their points with logic and valid examples. No doubt after a lifetime of feminist indoctrination your ability to argue female oppression by men extends only to those talking points drilled into your head ad nausea by schools and peers.

      Being faced with men who won’t bow down to your self-declared victim-hood you are off balance and true to form you lash out at our masculinity like most women do when they want to control men.

      The strength of the MRA is that we don’t give a damn if you think we are mate worthy. Your opinion of us is relevant only to show the contempt and hate that you have for men.

      • How can you honestly believe in ” perpetually low performance of women in all fields”? Women weren’t allowed to do most things. It was in the laws. You can’t have low performance at something you’re not even allowed to do.

        You make zero sense and have zero credibility.

        • Just about every women of working age alive today had the choice to do anything she wants with her life.

        • Show me some of these “laws” that prevented women from working.

          I’ve never seen a law that said a woman couldn’t work. And the only “law” that said a woman couldn’t own property was the Doctrine of Coverture. A rule which a woman could override through a simple prenuptial agreement.

          And while you are at it why don’t you give me a list of all the jobs that women could have actually done from the year 1000 to the year 1800 that would have made them a good living and they could have been competitive at?

          And while you are at it tell me how, without effective birth control, could a woman maintain her profession throughout her life without remaining abstinent the whole time? Was a completely sexless life the price women will willing to pay to have a job?

          There weren’t enough jobs to go around even for men back then. Imagine what would have happened if we added millions of women to the job market? With no welfare system or food stamps, without a McDonalds on every corner what do you think would have happened to those men who couldn’t find work? We’d do what what we are doing now and incarcerate millions of men.

          Even today there aren’t enough jobs for everyone. If you want to see what the long term consequences of feminism couple with millions of jobless men then turn on the new and watch the violence going on in the Middle East.

          Devaluing and marginalizing men for decades like we are doing right now in the states will have consequences. The government can’t support it’s bloated military, pay half a trillion a year incarcerating men, and fund every pet project that feminists think women need just to get along in society when it hamstrings and discards it’s most productive workers. Our government is buckling under the strain of entitlements and military and it cannot educated our children effectively. You think women are going to save us?

    • “These are not men who can parent.”

      And what would you know about parenting? And wh are you to say who cann and cannot parent?
      Your totalitarianism is frighteniong.

      There, is that enough emotion for you? You are frightening and disgusting.

    • this post is as revealing as it is disgusting. it suggests that men are categorically sociopaths for limiting their protest to rational, logical, and reasonable debate, and that, for this crime, they are not fit to participate in their natural right to be a father.

      this mindset reveals the catch 22, manipulative, and two-faced way in which feminists place men in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum.

      should a man raise his voice, or show any righteous indignation, anger, resentment, or other “emotional” opposition, the same feminists that would call him an emotionlessly unfit parent for not doing so, will instead then label him as potentially violent, dangerous, or antisocial and AGAIN raise the cry AND the hammer of the state to achieve the same discriminatory ends in either circumstance – namely, the removal or restriction of his right to be a father.

      I suggest to you, female feedback, that the ability to both use and apply reason and logic are skills far more necessary to being both an adult and an adult capable of good parenting than is the mere presence or lack of emotion. because I do possess these skills, I would never suggest that you should not be allowed to be a mother on the grounds that you do not, even though that is clearly the case. I would suggest, however, that you are probably more in need of a good parent yourself, since your opinions more accurately reflect those of a child than that of a rational and intelligent adult.

      -knowthingman

  32. Wow. I didn’t think it possible for all y’all to add *more* MRA content to the site, but you found a way! This is going to be…very interesting to watch. “We’re looking forward to some spirited, good-faith debate. We encourage everyone to comment, but please keep the discussion respectful and on topic.” Good luck with that. The MRAs commenting on this site haven’t made much of an effort to do so yet, so I’m curious why all y’all think they will now? And will there be any comment moderation? Or does stuff like this qualify as on-topic and respectful: “Meh, you’re just bitter your tree-hugging new-agey bullshit didn’t catch on with men.”–Factory

    • It’s pretty tame compared to the calls for female superiority and male genocide from significant leaders in the feminist movement.

      • Hyperbole alert: Male genocide? Please name one feminist who has called for the total extermination of men. One.

        • Sally Miller Gearhart, Mary Daly, Valerie Solernas and here:

          Are men expendable? After millennia of vigorously hoisting their species to the top of the food chain, is XY now a barrier to additional progress? Has the ball game for “dudes” expired? Will the future be self-reproducing super-women? With males… extinct?

          http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4554

  33. Ubermensch says:

    I do not speak for every member of the men’s movement. That being said, women are almost completely useless when it comes to producing anything of value for society other than children. Don’t blame me, blame evolution. There is a reason that the greatest civilizations in human history are all patriarchal in nature; it is because over million of years of evolutionary forces men were shaped into master’s of nature, whereas women, by reason of these same evolutionary forces, feed of the success of men for the purpose of taking care of children and the domestic sphere. The patriarchal family is the most efficient institution in the world, and is the back bone of any human society. The only reason that women’s tendency to diminish resources rather than contribute to them has not effected, at least to a crippling degree, society to the point of collapse when they entered the work force is because men have become so good at what they do (creating) that women can leech of their successes and defer the loss to the unforeseeable future. Keep in mind, I will be the first to admit that there are many women out there who are more qualified to do certain jobs than me. This is only because I do not specialize in those fields. However, for every woman out in the work force there is a man who can do the job better; in other words women in the work force are redundant. The only job they excel at is baby making.

  34. Wonderfully weak observation Jeff – compare your Factory quote with the absolute anger and viciousness of the poster just above you. Note the venom in her words, that which casts doubt on the love of a parent towards their child. Read it again if you have to, and then one more time just so it sinks in properly. Now rethink your observation.

    To the moderators of this message board: that type of comment is inexcusable.

    • Moderators: Please let that comment be there, I am urging a special exemption here.

      As a supporter of MRM I personally have faced far hostile comments than that. Much purile hatred like that from feminists and their followers needs to be exposed. By comparison, this is comment is pretty tame. I want everyone to see what men who argue for their rights, for the welfare of their children have to hear from women and feminists. I know my conduct has not been sterling here, but it is only after years of facing such hostility and I want people to know what a man goes thru if he dares speak up and against injustice perpetrated by feminist and the silent majority of women.

  35. natalienjackson says:

    By selectively focusing on the two or three questionable post by these men you have missed depth of insight and clarity with which they have communicated their argument. For the sake of he current debate the arguments they have made void of” emotion” has allowed me to follow more easily and leads me to value many of their comments as more objective analysis. As such I will be visiting your site mr elam. In fact two of my female masters level therapy practicum students have proposed we tune in to your radio broadcast for our next seminar meeting. They reported your first show to bha e been a success and all nine of my female students have agreed to deviate from our syllabus for one of the three hours to tune in.

    • Better yet, call. Just make sure you have a thick skin on…

    • Alphabeta Supe says:

      You would be welcome, natalien, but please do recognise that you will be entering one of the few places left in society where men can express their deepest hurts and fears without being shamed or disembowelled by self-righteous feminist ideologues, just for speaking their mind. You will be a target unless you consider carefully who your audience is and what you are doing there. Be sure to consider everything you post carefully before posting them. No-one will protect you if you paint a target on your own back.

    • Welcome Natalie. We look forward to you joining us for Paul’s radio show.

      • Hopefully the female students do learn a lot and honestly listen to what the callers and Paul are saying…
        I know the last show had me in tears with some of the guys stories. And more and more men as well as women are starting to hear of the show… and for all the ‘good reasons as well.

        Also remember that each show has different topics that are discussed. The show has listeners from all around the world… I for instance (and my husband) listen from Australia.

  36. I would love to second what factory said, but I do not think women are ready (would be glad to be wrong about this!) to understand exactly how to communicate with MRAs.

    First, if you are not trusted implicitly as you are generally accustomed to. Don’t take it the wrong way, we have too many feminists females coming over giving us “life-lessons” and save us from “our faults”. Most commentators are weary of that and will make certain that you do not have an anti-male agenda. If you are willing to pass that test by fire, you should call.

    If not, hearing from the side lines is a better idea, until you get an idea of what these men are facing and how they think.

    Again, this is not your typical chivalrous men’s group. You will be forced to rethink men all over again, guaranteed. On the good side you will appreciate and connect with the men in your life and around you much more than you do now, if you are a good person.

    • Also, if you expect MRAs to sing Hallelujah because YOU as a female joined them.. not gonna happen. They welcome all thinking, good willed, reasonable persons. And although they will welcome you, they will not count your joining their side as a “major” acheivement, so please do not expect too much from them in welcome. That is, unless you are next Erin Pizzey or Wendy McElroy or Christina Hoff Summers, which can only be judged over time.

  37. Mob of angry MRA lunatics constantly posting = more pageviews = more advertising dollars. Clever, clever plan Belanger! lol

  38. Jay Hammers says:

    “No one, for example, takes Valerie Solanis, author of the satirical SCUM Manifesto, quite as seriously—with the possible exception of Andy Warhol, for a split second, in 1968—as men’s rights activists.”

    I would love to see the reaction if you said something like this with the genders reversed.

    I guess it’s only funny when a woman tries to kill a man.

    I’m not laughing.

  39. Jay Hammers says:

    “They see everything through the lens of a zero-sum gender war. Everywhere, men get a raw deal at the hands of women. Anywhere women have made advances, it’s at the expense of men.”

    BS.

    It’s a battle between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. MRAs favor equal opportunity for all. Feminists favor equal outcomes, which really just means special privileges for women at the expense of men.

  40. Jay Hammers says:

    “Like that blogger told me, these guys hang around. There must be some basis for their tenacity.”

    One of the greatest injustices of the western world, misandry, oh yes, I can be passionate about fighting THAT.

    Righteous anger, baby. It’s contagious.

  41. Jay Hammers says:

    Okay, there’s a lot of ignorance in this article, so I’ll just lump the rest of my corrections in one reply.

    “It’s therefore understandable why they don’t see the benefits of being in the ‘patriarchy.'”

    I’m not in the patriarchy. I have never been privileged on account of my penis. I have had to earn my way through life. This is more than many woman can say. Is that their fault? Not directly. But policies that give special privileges and entitlements to women and girls at the expense of men and boys are inherently misandric.

    Feminism, instituted by the government and corporations which promote women’s groups, does three key things to favor women over men: 1) focus only on issues affecting women, never men; 2) distort the statistics to make it appear that women are disadvantaged when they are not; 3) act as if giving special privileges to women is “equality” even though this necessary hurts men’s opportunities because they don’t receive any privileges. I know I never did.

    “Removed from the hysterical rhetoric, MRAs have some valid complaints. Several movement-affiliated organizations—some more legitimate than others—fight for the rights of male victims of discrimination. Glenn Sacks’ Fathers & Families, a lobbying, PR, and advocacy group that has influenced family law policy around the country, is one. Another is RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), a nonprofit group that argues that domestic violence is perpetrated equally by men and women.”

    Merely an attempt to divide and conquer. It’s not going to work, chum. Catering to the center isn’t going to get you anywhere. http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/01/29/everyone-in-the-mrm-should-watch-this-video/

    In fact, that’s your whole problem. You’re catering to man-haters in an attempt to draw a crowd and get more money.

    Guess what? Society is bored of misandry. It’s not going to net you a profit. That’s why feminist blogs are dying or dead. They are not new or interesting.

    Don’t think we will forget, buddy. When TGMP fails, don’t think we’ll give you forgiveness for your blatant misandry.

    You won’t receive a cent of my money.

    My time and money goes to the men’s rights movement, and boy do I have a lot of it now that I’ve stopped listening to frauds like you.

    By the way, fix your blog so it doesn’t randomly refresh and delete comments, silly. Remember, this is all about the money for you.

    “There are plenty of guys out there who would like to see gender roles not simply reversed—a prospect that has Hanna Rosin twirling with glee and MRAs blitzed on rage-ahol—but obliterated altogether.”

    Um, you think I wouldn’t love it if gender roles were reversed? I could stay at home and raise the kids while mommy goes off to war? Sounds like a pretty good deal, man.

    “We have to expec that there will lots more of disaffected, disillusioned guys out there in the years to come, struggling to understand how they fit in to a changing world—which means we can expect interest in men’s issues to grow.”

    Well, you blew your chance, bud. Just couldn’t help but take a piss on men’s rights, could you? Don’t think we will let you or any of your readers forget it in the future, pal. You’re done.

    You are simply a tool, soon to be disposed of, for the MRM to gain attention.

    Thanks for the help.

    • Henry’s original analysis of MRAs as crazy seems valid after their attacks on this blog. Its called The GOOD MEN Project and is run by a MAN. Doesn’t sound like misandry to me! They even acknowledge that men can be on the receiving end of sexism too. Following this logic Barak Obama is a Ku Klux icon and people campaigning for gay marriage are homophobic. Is the fact that British crime statistics show that men commit 80% of crime in the UK the result of some vast feminist conspiracy?

      • Nonsense.

        The Good Men Project, whatever this might mean, is under the control of Ms. Magazine. Hardly a place considering men and their needs.

        80 percent of all criminals might be men, but this is not a valid excuse that the remaining 20 percent (= women) are getting away with remarkable ridiculous sentences for their crimes because of their gender.

  42. Jay Hammers says:

    Oops I sent a number of your advertisers the following e-mail:

    Subject: Advertiser defrauding you out of $ per impression

    Hi,

    I noticed the following advertiser is linking to one of your ads with a “cost per impression” link:

    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/

    However, their blog refreshes every couple minutes, seemingly in an attempt to inflate the number of impressions.

    I thought you should know.

    Thank you,

    Jay

  43. Jay Hammers says:

    He said “articles”, not “comments”.

    The “Meet the Men’s Movement” articles linked on the front page are mostly devoid of content and anti-male, while the well-sourced and pro-male articles are hidden from view.

  44. Jay Hammers says:

    Was it necessary for the opening article by Henry to paint men’s rights activists as “hysterical” and spread misinformation? Feminist bullshit in the opening article?

    If TGMP thinks continuing to cater to feminists, white knights, and many women, is going to get the big bucks in the long run, they’re quite mistaken.

    Making the worst, most anti-male articles visible on the front page while hiding the best, most pro-male articles isn’t a good sign either.

    Anyway, thanks for doing this series.

  45. all anyone (this is especially true of feminists) need do to reveal the bias of this article is to replace every instance of the words men, boys, and MRM with the words women, girls, and feminists, respectively. a big part of the problem is that the “mainstream” writers of articles such as these cant even see their own ideological slant. i challenge any feminst to read that article with those substitutions, and tell me that they WOULDNT instantly think it was a “sexist woman bashing” read.

    equality, fairness, and objectivity are easy to spot. this article has NONE of these qualities. if you can see how an article such as this would be dismissive and contemptable if its subject women and feminism, then ask yourself “why cant i see this when the same article is written about men and mens rights?”

  46. Question: do men really buy this magazine?

  47. The women here sure are afraid of getting their privilege checked.
    Men will not be silent any longer while you abuse us in person and via the State thugs.
    We’re here, we drink beer, get used to it.
    No justice, no peace.
    Wendy, you’ve got a big surprise coming to you!

  48. “no quotes policy” = No Facts Policy.

  49. Time to give my little spiel about this whole thing. I have never read such hurtful comments against men and women in my life. Probably the most hurtful comment against women I have ever read is someone who claims he wouldn’t help a woman if she were getting hurt. This has nothing to do with chivalry. This has everything to do with respect for your fellow human being. Don’t even think of her as a woman. Think of her as a human being who needs your help. Don’t even think if she would do the same for you, because that’s selfishness at its finest. You don’t help a person expecting the same in return. You help a person because that person is helpless otherwise. It’s cold, callous, and full of assholery of you to not help a human being that needs it. And don’t even lump women in the same group by claiming all women wouldn’t help a man if he needed it. I’m sure there are women out there who do help, but if I, a skinny, 115 lb girl, came across a guy getting beat up by a guy three times my size, I wouldn’t jump in and stop it because I reasonably can’t. My efforts would be wasted. Not only would the guy get hurt, but I’d get hurt myself, and I’d be of no use to anyone. I’d call the police. That’s how I’d help. And don’t think there aren’t women out there who haven’t called the police to help someone, be it man or woman, because it’s unreasonable to think there aren’t. Helping a man in need doesn’t have to involve stepping in and preventing a fight. Helping a man in need is as simple as calling the police, and I’m pretty sure many women have done it, because I’ve done it before.

    As for everything else, I am completely in favor of equal rights, and sometimes it enrages me about some of the things men are subjected to. I remember in my junior AP Literature class I brought up the problem of men being stereotyped as pedophiles and women on men rape. The class, reasonably, responded with rage to men being stereotyped as pedophiles, but they were in disbelief that a woman could rape a man. Even my touch-feely teacher who is usually so in tune with her emotions was in disbelief. She said this, “I don’t think a man could get raped unless he wanted it in some way. There is no way he couldn’t have fought her of.” My heart tore, and I just wanted to flick off the class right then and there and leave because I was so pissed she said that. The whole class collectively agreed, and while I was trying to point out that it happens, nobody would listen to me. Even today, I still burn with rage and want to strangle that teacher for her ignorant comment.

    I think we need to stop looking at everyone as men and women and start looking at everyone as a human being. I agree men face crap, most certainly, just as women face crap, but not all men experience the same things as other men, just as not all women experience the same things as other women. As a female, I most certainly was not handed anything in my life because of my sex. I’ve had to work hard for things, and I was never handed anything. Granted, I have more privileges than my brother, but I had to work for these. My brother had to pay for car insurance in high school because he totaled his truck. I never had to because I never totaled my car. My brother had to get a job because of his poor grades. I never had to (though I volunteered every weekend for sixteen hours at a horse stables) because I maintained a GPA that let me graduate with honors. I was also writing for the teen section of my newspaper, which I also had to work to get. So to think that all women are handed things is ridiculous and insulting. This assumes that women are only where they are today because they were handed their positions and didn’t have to work for them. I personally don’t know any woman who didn’t have to work hard to get to where she is, yet I know people who were handed things because of connections. My fiance had a fantastic job that paid 20 bucks an hour only because his uncle was a plumber. My fiance didn’t have to to go school to assist his uncle simply because he was his nephew. He doesn’t have that job anymore because he lives with me in Georgia and not Maryland.

    Discrimination sucks, but guess what? Not all men experience the discrimination written all over this site, just as not all women experience the discrimination written all over other site. Individual people experience individual things. Does that mean we shouldn’t do anything about it? Of course not! But to get your underwear in a knot and start hating on each other is not helping anything! Female privilege is hurtful to women just as male privilege is hurtful to men. Men are viewed as disposable when it comes to the draft because they are deemed stronger, but this slights women because it implies women are collectively weak, ignoring that there are capable women out there. Either we get rid of the draft, or we draft women, too. I propose we get rid of the draft, but that might be unrealistic, particularly if we are in a time of war where a need for soldiers is high. Men not being able to show emotions slights men because it means more mental health problems, but it also slights women because it implies that men showing anything deemed feminine is inferior, but if a woman shows masculine traits, that is somehow empowering. What is masculinity and femininity anyway? Certainly not anything biological. Of course, I do realize there are problems that only hurt men, just as there are problems that only hurt women, but to argue who has it worse is ridiculous because by doing this, neither movements are going to get anywhere.

    I propose a humanist movement, because I’ve found it’s almost impossible to talk about men’s problems without also addressing women’s.

    • You can keep your proposal, as nothing you said in here is actually true, I would dissect it line by line, but its not worth it and would be too long.
      “because it implies women are collectively weak, ignoring that there are capable women out there. ” stuff like this shows exactly how ideologically BLIND feminists and unfortunately most women are.

      But here is a compromise.

      Next time, I see a woman in a burning building, or bleeding to death after an accident or caught in flood waters, I will call the police. If I see a woman being raped, I will contact the faculty at the Gender studies department to get the latest definition of rape. Once they explain those to me, I will evaluate the situation, and if it is really a rape, I will call the police. I will never EVER voluntarily put myself in any danger, of even stubbing a toe, to save the life of a woman.

      Is that humanist enough for you?

    • Also, I will always vote to acquit any man charged with any sexual crime or under any law created by feminist or chivalrist intentions – until all such laws are repealed.

      • Brandon Youngblood says:

        Pankaj,

        I agree that Emily did not make the most of her forum and reported counterproductive ideas, but your response is simply uncalled for. Masculinity should not be watching women suffer. Humanity should not be about watching people.

        • “Masculinity should not be watching women suffer”

          LOL! you can define that word whichever way you want, Mr. White Knight.

          It is their doing – they wanted equality and I am in a mood to give it to them.

    • i cant help but think back to an incident in the uk a month ago when a man stepped between a couple when they were fighting to try and stop the man hitting the woman, the good samaritin died when the woman he was trying to protect hit him with the heel of her shoe.

      Yep i really should dive in and help anyone.

    • ” You don’t help a person expecting the same in return. You help a person because that person is helpless otherwise. It’s cold, callous, and full of assholery of you to not help a human being that needs it. And don’t even lump women in the same group by claiming all women wouldn’t help a man if he needed it. I’m sure there are women out there who do help, but if I, a skinny, 115 lb girl, came across a guy getting beat up by a guy three times my size, I wouldn’t jump in and stop it because I reasonably can’t. My efforts would be wasted. Not only would the guy get hurt, but I’d get hurt myself, and I’d be of no use to anyone.”

      Sounds like you need to check your privilege,hun. Your coming dangerously close to making the argument that women are ENTITLED to a man’s help.

  50. If you want to know about the REAL men’s rights movement from one who has been in the movement since its modern beginning (in the 1960s), go to website mensdefense.org.

  51. I’m a bit surprised not to see these similarities being brought mentioned. To me, the Men’s Rights Movement is rather similar to the Counter-Reformation in European history, or the First Ku Klux Klan around the time of Reconstruction after the US Civil War, i.e. it is a reactionary movement attempting to redress what it feels is the loss of natural rights of a justly privileged group. Such groups typically identify themselves as persecuted, as being oppressed by a conspiracy, and as defending true, traditional values. There have even been specifically male movements of this kind before, although I don’t remember the details off-hand: some of the Catholic monastery orders, various groups in pre-revolutionary France, etc.

    • Anon.
      You’ve completely missed the point. I, like most MRAs are not asking for privilege, rather, we are demanding equality. Men and women are different, so defining equality will always be difficult. Men and women have been oppressed for millennia, men got the vote in most countries 100 to 200 years ago, women about 50 to 100 years later, while many countries still have no democracy. The claim of privilege for males and oppression for females is special pleading. Men fought for freedom and later gave it to women. Women owe more to technology than to feminism.

      The most disadvantaged group in the US today are African American men, shortest life span, lowest education, highest incarceration and the list goes on and on. Yet feminist programs disproportionately target them. African American boys are routinely deprived of their fathers and most positive role models. If you read To Kill a Mocking Bird, you will remember the victim was a black man. The MRM is NOT a group of straight white men.

      When you talk about male privilege you are talking about a minority of men, while denying the majority. What has happened is the privileged male has been largely unaffected while the majority of men have had their rights and dignity diminished. Men’s rights is not about going back to anything, the past and traditional values hold little attraction to most MRAs.

      • Women weren’t given anything. We, too, had to fight to earn what we felt was rightfully ours ever since the constitution was written but the men of the upper class wouldn’t give. We may not have had to physically fight, but we had to fight in other ways that people constantly claim were given to us. The vote was not given to us. If we had not mentioned anything about the vote, if we had sat complacent like we did when the vote was first given, we wouldn’t have voting rights.

        • Amber,

          I agree it is entirely possible that if women never asked for the vote, that they never would have got it. However, if men did not fight and die for the vote women certainly would not have got the vote.

          What I resent about feminism is the way it writes history as being men oppressing women. If by men they mean more than one man and if by saying women they also do not exclude men, then they are in a sense correct. It is more correct to say that women and men have been oppressed for millennia by people who were mainly, but not exclusively men.

          How many men died in the war of independence? How many in the Civil war? I WWI? WWII? How many men will die today in Libya? Further, how many more men were maimed and traumatised in these conflicts?

          So why you may well say that women did ask and protest for the vote (along with supportive men), in comparison with the sacrifice that men made for democracy, the sacrifices women made to get the vote were at least an order of magnitude less and only possible due to the previous sacrifices of men.

          • the day that the american goverment says they are stopping men fighting in the military and will not accept men fighting until the 1,5 million women to balance the scales of wars over the last century to make certain that women have truly fought and can claim that they earned the rights they got with the aid of men then in a truly logical manner they cannot compare , during the gulf war men and women both were paid the same and recived the same bonuses yet women didnt have to ( and by that i mean they had a choice ) go into combat zones, yet men who did and who were killed or injured were given comparible pay for doing more…… is that equality , same with so many things. Feminist driven ideology when put under a microscope and when challenged doesnt hold water.

        • Nope, women gained the right to vote by protesting, whinging and whinning. How many people actually in the US do vote when they have the right to????

          The laws of most western countries where governed by religion and it was the ‘Church’ that made the laws and no one voted… it was either do as they said or jail.

          Too many women think that men had the right to vote since the begining of time rather than doing some research on the matter.

          And no women had to ‘fight’ for of the things they have gotten… no instead they have nagged, used emotional blackmail etc etc to get what they have.. but even tho they have the ‘option’ to vote still a lot dont.

    • How do you figure men are privileged? Is being a member of the group that makes 80% of victims of violent crime or most of the imprisoned or homeless a pretty good indicator of privilege where you come from?

      Are there any traditions where women have to get down on one knee and beg to be allowed to work themselves to death for a man in this alternate universe?

      What exact privileges do men have over women ? Do you call being able to be forcibly removed by the state from your own home at a woman’s merest whim, no evidence required, no questions asked, a “privilege”? I’m really interested to see things from your perspective. When you look at China, and you see people being jailed for doing a painting of a butterfly that the government doesn’t like for some reason, do you see freedom of speech there or repression?

      When you see people mocking men here for having the audacity to suggest that their concerns be valued on the same level as a woman’s, do you see a general societal attitude that “Boys rule,girls drool”, or do you see what I see, a bunch of clowns trying desperately to preserve female privileges?

      When was the last time you saw a t-shirt that said “Women are stupid,beat and rape them!”? Surely if this attitude thoroughly saturated our society, as you feminists suggest, we’d see them all over the place. I don’t see any, instead I see t-shirts that say “Boys are stupid,throw rocks at them!”. Our society is saturated with anti-male sentiment, to the point that we needed to make websites of our own just to counter that message. Why do you think we do this,for fun? We do it because we have to. We do it because you have been screaming that all (not some,or most,but all) of us are rapists for 40 years. Privilege,my ass.

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

  52. and there is one simple equation with regards to equality , in the 1920s women lived 1 year more than men , now they live 8 years more than men .

    This in itself is simple enough evidence that shows womens lots have improved , beyond all reason while mens hasnt, and could easily be argued mens lot is worse, suicide rates are up, health is getting worse, inequality in the workplace, more homelessness, no help for male victims of DV, or rape victims.

  53. Just read Elams attack on this site over on his Voice 4 Men page.

    He is one hostile man. He gets into frequent fights with men’s rights advocates and usually ends up labelling them mentally ill. In fact he uses the “mentally ill” tag so often I cant help but wonder if he has suffered a humiliating use of that comment against him? Who knows.

    He’s a brilliant writer and debator, but like the man walking up a snow covered hill he takes three steps forward and slides three steps backward due to his hostility. If he cut that stuff out he would be the champion of the men’s revolution.

    Thats all.

    • He is not hostile at all… he is HONEST, and a lot of people dont like to hear nor read anything that is Honest, is back up by REAL facts.

      He is well respected by all. Listen to his radio show and then see what you think.

      • Sorry I have to disagree with you. He often comes across as NEEDLESSLY hostile. I agree with homesty, which is why I’m pointing out his hostility. I’ve seen him do it many times when it wasnt warented. While I’m being honest I want to say you are full of bull by saying “he is respected by all”. Even he would tell you to F off over false comments like that.

        That said, I’m still a big fan of his, much moreso that a fan of sites like this one. I guess if he didnt have that agro (which goes badly off track) he would also not be passionate. Its that passion that makes him Paul ElaM.

        My message to Paul regarding his attacks on potential if somewhat misguided alies: ‘COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE’.

        Barry

        • I agree with both of you here, Paul is certianly honest but i agree there have been occasions where he has been needlessly hostile (though in some ways its understandable)

  54. Dear Henry,

    I’m surprised to see a true reporter slacking off when it comes to reporting the true other side of the story:

    Will you kindly allow readers see the real mens rights movement (true equality and justice) here:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/13/good-men-project-magazine-ripping-of-readers-and-advertisers/

  55. Hostile hit piece that is. Anything goes for feminist supremacy in sheep’s clothing?

    No quotes policy or no facts policy??? Same thing?

  56. Here’s a link you’ll find interesting:

    http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/abusive-fathers-win-custody-battles-more-often-than-mothers/t.70265549/ (This link includes a plethora of other links within the post.)

    Apparently, father’s rights movements lie just as much as MRAs claim feminists lie. In fact, abusive fathers retain custody of their children in 70% of cases. The lesson I’m taking away from all of this is that neither MRA members nor feminists are to be trusted anymore.

    • Amber, here’s a link that doesn’t ultimately tie back to a 20-year old study based on data older than than from another geological era.

      To the Editors of GMPM:

      In another series of comments, James asked for evidence of adult women getting off light after drugging and then raping underage boys.

      Here is a March, 2011 case from Astoria, OR. Adult woman plies kids, including a 14 year old boy with booze, gets him drunk, has her way with him, and then is sentenced to….. 30 days. Boy is too ashamed to come to the sentencing hearing.

      Question to GMPM editors — are you outraged? will you speak up? will you run a piece?

      Silence = Death.

      http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/local/story/Astoria-woman-pleads-no-contest-to-raping-14-year/sp6cQmcuFESd8N8qpRgapw.cspx

  57. Even women are now standing up against the hypocrisy of feminism as this video proves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g

  58. BeijaFlor says:

    If this fem-apologetic screed had been written by a black man about whites, the term “Uncle Tom” would be appropriate. The fifth-columnists of the Spanish Revolutions, the Quislings of Norway, the Vichy collaborationists of France, could not have excused themselves more eloquently.

    I hope “Uncle Hank” and the Good Boys Project are content licking the boots of their female masters.

  59. I call it the LRM (Losers’ Rights Movement) and it’s run by LRAs (Losers’ Rights Activists). These are men who have failed in life, and they are looking for scapegoats because they can’t POSSIBLY be the cause of their own loserdom. Anyone born with a Y chromosome can never be blamed for anything they do, literally since the beginning of time with Adam and Eve (she FORCED him to bite the apple, remember?)

    Do you think Bill Gates or Paul Allen sit around crying about how they don’t have rights as men? No, they don’t. BECAUSE THEY’RE TOO BUSY BEING SUCESSFUL.

    Men have is SO good, in America and in every other country around the world. The ones who turn out to be failures and blame “feminism” do so because they don’t even know what feminism is. Treating women as equal human beings under the law doesn’t force men to be stupid, violent, terrible husbands, or unemployed. They are the reason for all of those things.

    So, listen up, boys. I know it’s hard being a loser. But I want you to understand one thing very clearly–IT’S YOUR FAULT. Whether your problem is you just can’t get laid (which I’m sure is a main factor for many LRAs), you got divorced (you picked her, and you were in the marriage too), or you got fired (this is a male-caused recession).

    But then again, Congress is only 83% male. In 1905, it was 100%. Men have lost so many rights because of feminism! LOOK IN THE MIRROR, FELLAS. That’s who you should blame for your life.

    • Mateusz says:

      Men have it so good? That’s why men die earlier, have the privilege of making up 70-80% of the homeless, constituting over 90% of workplace fatalities… and so on? Question: Do you consider civil rights activists in the 50s to be loser-rights activists, whining about segregation?

    • This is precisely true of feminists. I know loads of secularly and personally successful, balanced, happy women – none of whom ID as feminists or agree with today’s feminist agenda.

  60. Given that men have been oppressing women since the beginning of time, and that this oppression has been an ingrained part of almost every culture invented, the whole concept of “men’s rights” is an absurdity. Complaining that some women have become vain, manipulative and/or parasitic within this context is a bit like Richie Rich moaning about getting too many paper cuts from all of his money. Giving this “movement” space in your publication, and your abject failure to call out the whole concept of “men’s rights” as just another method of maintaining the status quo (keeping women in their place as the servant/sex class), is highly objectionable.

    • Mateusz says:

      How can you seriously call the push for equality absurd? Females are undeniably privileged in countries like the US, and demand more privilege (if you actually want, you can see the list of ways). The ridiculing of the move for male equality is just an attempt by those in power to hold onto power.

      • Ron Wiley says:

        I hope that there will be equallity among both sexes but the way women are acting now days i think men should stay away. I think that among courts men should be treated equal and should have heir voice heard instead of shelling out. their checkbook to those damm women looking foeasy moneyfor their personal needs.

    • Faul_Sname says:

      Your brain is built to track down antelope, gather nuts and berries while avoiding poison and predators, and navigate a social world composed of 50 to 500 people. In this world, conspiracies could happen. Any unfairness in the distribution of resources probably was due to a decision on the part of the tribe, and by having a tribal discussion you might be able to change their minds. It is a great testament to human ingenuity and adaptabilility that we can function in today’s world. Nonetheless, your instincts will sometimes lead you astray.

      The most important wrong assumption I see, both in the Feminist and MRA communities, is that “Men” and “Women” are coherent groups. They aren’t. Men as a group aren’t oppressing women, because men as a coherent group don’t do anything. Women as a group aren’t creating social rules that help them and harm men, because women as a group are not organized enough to think that far ahead as a society. It is hard to imagine the scale of a worldwide conspiracy of one gender or the other, but let us try for the sake of argument.

      There are approximately 3.5 billion men in the world. If they laid down in one line, light would take about half a minute to pass from one end to the other. The line could stretch to the moon and back, and after that would still be able to wrap around the earth’s equator 150 times. At 5 seconds per phone call, it would take half a millenium to inform the men of the world of a new way to keep women down and “in their place”. All of these calculations also apply to women. With that in mind, let us think of the “Patriarchy: and the “Matriarchy”.

      I’m not saying oppressive customs don’t exist, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to eliminate them. I am saying that it is absurd to talk of one gender conspiring against the other. Most of our sexist customes are basically accidents of history, and the main force opposing feminism is not men but inertia. 7 billion is a huge, inconceivable number, and any change in that population will take time. This change will take longer if hostility and selfishness are presumed as the main thing to overcome.

      Social progressives do not have to change the minds of hundreds of die-hard opponents. They have to make billions of average people think “Hmm. I never realized that.” We tend to focus on Rosa Parks, on Gandhi, on Hitler, and point out those individuals as the cause of social change. They’re not. The Civil Rights Movement occurred over the course of several hundred years, and is still occuring. The 1960s were when the most dramatic and visible changes happened, but the minds of people take longer to change and the customs of society longer still.

      For those of you who don’t want to read a block of text, here is what I’m saying:

      There is no great conspiracy against you, just inertia. As good and powerful as your rage against the injustice feels, it is not going to accomplish nearly as much as calm discussions with people who almost, but don’t quite agree with you. A great change in an individual is not as useful as a tiny change in society.

    • Jaybird says:

      I don’t think the men’s rights movement will ever accomplish its goals. In fact, it may have the exact opposite effect, which comes from a false understanding of a “movement” and how one is started. For instance, the feminist movement has proclaimed, with a loud voice: “WOMEN ARE OPPRESSED!” While this may have advanced feminists’ political goals, it will never advance their social goals, since now everyone knows that it is NORMAL and HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED to oppress women. Now we have men’s activist groups proclaiming: “MEN ARE OPPRESSED!” Will this help men’s social reputation. Of course not! The movement is self-defeating. If you want to help men, then start a movement that proclaims: “Men are doing just fine! Well done, men!”

    • Bastard Son says:

      “Given that men have been oppressing women since the beginning of time…” That is not only not a “given”, it is intellectual hogwash and revisionist history. Both men and women were shoe-horned into specific gender roles out of necessity. The bargain was that society would control the female inclination toward hypergamy and shield her from risk, and would control the male inclination toward laziness and polygamy.

      If it’s oppression at all, it was oppression of everyone, by everyone.

    • Aaron Hughes says:

      You’re right- there does seem to be a strong current of oppression in many of these comments, and commenters. Which is entirely ridiculous- women have obviously been oppressed for hundreds of years in western society, and we’re only now beginning to approach parity between the two sides- and an enormous amount of work remains.

      That said, there are issues on both sides of the fence. As a single example, and perhaps the one I find most galling, a woman has the right(after birth, I have no issue with abortion, though I do feel it should be a group decision) to abandon a child, with no strings attached, and the man can’t do anything about it. Many are the men who have lost the right to raise their child because their wife, or girlfriend, decided to give the child up. On the other end of the spectrum, if a man doesn’t want to raise a child, is no longer in a relationship with the woman, and she chooses to keep the child, the man will often be forced to pay child support on a child the mother should have had no expectation of support for. I understand why the latter happens, but the former is entirely unreasonable, and robs a man of the chance to raise his child. It would not be wrong to say that these laws require additional work- they are better than what existed before them, but a woman being allowed to give up a child without consulting the father is unreasonable.

      Please note, this has nothing to do with abortions. That’s a question of the woman’s body, and it remains up to her. I have no desire to come across as being anti-abortion, so please, do not respond as though I said it were evil.

    • Yawn. Men and women both have always been oppressed by the power structure. The fact is that the current mis-handling of equality based root Feminism has mutated it into one needing to undermine men and replace men for dominance, not strive for equality. It has turned it into a bizzare Faux-minist late term abortion which is divisive, immature and ill-fated. Equality being the goal, the present direction of Faux-minism is an abyssmal FAIL. It’s women have begun to sound like the stereotypes which they claim to be fighting against.

  61. The MRA movement and the feminist movement are two sides of the same anti-opposite sex coin. MRA’s tolerate misogyny in its ranks just as feminists tolerate misandry in its ranks. There is no doubt that those who identify as either one have an anti-opposite sex agenda and potentially personal issues that will limit them in life.

  62. Men’s Rights Movement is not a movement begging any privilege for men, it stands for gender equality. It stands for ending discrimination against men with gender neutral laws for true equality. It stands for honour and dignity of men.

    Since the first day of human civilization, Men are sacrificing their blood to protect women, children and society. It is Men, who are doing back breaking labour to get food for women and children. Against any threat to society and people, it is men who are sacrificing their life on frontiers. It is the Men, who are paying most taxes to the state so that society may function….. But what is society giving to men for such sacrifices?
    Men are committing suicides at much higher rates, False allegations are leveled against men by women, Men do not have any rights in marital laws, fruits of Men’s labour is being usurped through maintenance laws, men have no rights for his children, feminized education causes high percentage of male student dropouts, workplace is being made dangerous through sexual harassment laws, higher taxation on men, gender biased sexual assault laws, reservation against men……. why?
    This community is about Men. Rights & Honour of Men. Struggle against slavery imposed on Men, Discrimination against Men, Violence against Men, Propaganda against Men…….
    It is about dignity of Men.

  63. What is shocking to me that in my 33 years alive on this planet I have never meet one young black man that can rent in his own ghetto .I have meet veterans that have built hud homesbut they cant live in them how freaking sick can we get .I know things will be turning around because our system is falling apart and our men are so displeased with life liivng is becoming a horrible task for millions.

    It seems logical that the only way to create more happiness is be creating a entirely new financial system in which China and other leaders will agree with .The men of the world deserve alot more respect than what systems around the are encouraging I feel we should not allow it if men are forced to be nothing more than a number or forces into there mothers homes it best to end this way of life .It is happening as we speak I just hope more educated people work to end it by any means necessary .

  64. JOSE ISAAC says:

    Sub: DO MEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THEIR SEXUAL URGES

    Respected Sir,

    My name is Jose Isaac and my address is Chackuayil House, Valyakulam, Changanacherry, Kottayam District, Kerala State – 686106 , INDIA. My cell number is 9496123796 and land line is 0481 – 2725167.

    Hypocracy, (ego and public image) prevents an average man from admitting that he is AS attracted to the mere outline of a woman’s sex organs like breasts AS he is to a woman’s exposed sex organs and any other exposed part of her flesh.

    It is only natural for man to have a very irrepressable and vivid imagination in such matters. But hypocracy, social acceptability and ego prevents man from admitting this common tendency.

    Your organisation should urge pharmaceutical companies to discover drugs that can help eliminate human sexual desires. This can be a billiion dollar industry provided such a sex education is imparted at school level onwards and is properly marketed.

    This will save you son from wasting his time dreaming / staring at women. This common practice will destroy his confidence level and make him sentimentally dependend on a woman for his happiness and this is the case with almost 100% of mankind. If this is not the case, then why does man not insit that equal rights to women must go with equal obligations.

    Such a drug will give him a better chance to be successful in life. I am sure that most men could have been in a much better position in life if they had got some assistance to control their sexual passions.

    Once the usage of such a drug becomes widely used, a mans and a male childs happiness would no longer be at the mercy of a woman.

    The truth is that each time you think of a woman and not even muster the courage to ask her for sex, it smothers your confidence level and reduces it to that of a rape victim and you will not be as successful in your life and in your career as you could have been had such a drug been used.

    Controlling such desires is definitely an uphill task for an average male be it a boy child or a man, especially so in todays age of free availability of sexually provoking books, magazines and videos. As a result, holding on to morals in an increasingly difficult task. So men badly need help.

    Please spare your children and others children the ordeal that you have had to go through to be successful in life. Please do not make acheiving success a more ordeous task than it already is.

    With increasing rights to women, many men have now started to feel more insecure than ever before, especially more so in the west. Personally, my heart goes out to the married men of the USA. How much they fear and put up with on a daily basis. Spare your children this torture. AT LEAST GIVE THEM A CHOICE.

    The widespread use of such drugs will also make your daughter feel more safe and secure at all times and with anyone. Is this not what you want? If I had a daugher, I would certainly want her to be safe from all of you including from myself.

    Please don’t let your hypocracy come in the way of your or others childrens happiness and sense of self-contentment and bright future.

    People should understand that when a boy or a man rapes a 3 or a 61 year old child or woman, what actually provoked him is his very low level of confidence resulting from occassional / constant dreaming of OTHER WOMEN sex organs. The women who do this loose nothing. Men who watch these start to loose their self respect and start vieing for her attention. The feeling of being wanted only boosts up her faith in herself. In fact, men now find it a blessing to be able to foot her bill. So much for equal obligations.

    What has she done for them that their parents have not done ??? I personally find this disgusting though I am no exception to this universal practice.

    People will listen to what your organisation says and so please don’t loose this opportunity to make the world a safer place for women and a place worth living for honourable men.

    Thanking you,
    Yours faithfully
    Jose Isaac

  65. There is no mention here of the Men’s Rights movent’s of the 1920s-1940s. For good reason; almost nobody knows about it. There is not a single professor who has written about it. In contrast, if you want to know what any women’s rights activist of the same period had for breakfast any given day you can find three books and 20 articles that will give you every detail. But you can now get some info on pre-1960s Men’s Rights activism at “The Unknown History of MISANDRY.” One aspect of this history that is of special interest is the voices of women of the 1920s-40s who fought against misandry (judges, writers, activists). Another topic worthy of special attention is the public controversy on male chivalry as manifested in juries, a problem that led to judges and prosecutors to lobby for laws permitting women to serve on juries, so that the large number of murderers who male juries refused to convict might find fair judgement by the fair sex.

  66. This series, “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement,” is a useful beginning. But the series needs a few thousand more articles to get beyond the scatching-the-surface stage that it has reached at this point. The article “A Word for Men’s Rights” was published in 1856. The first female judge to publicly condemn legal misandry made her views known in 1921. The first Men’s Rights organization was started in 1926; its strongest supporters were women (mothers of boys). Billions of dollars have been spent on the fabrication of a history of the relations of the sexes from a “social contructionism” point of view — and it is, in many respects, fake history. We need a Good Information Project to reverse the trend. “The Unknown History of MISANDRY” has made a modest effort to make a few documents available.

    • Amy Shaffer says:

      Men walking around Ball State University campus with red painted nails aren’t cross-dressing; they’re taking part in an initiative to stop violence against women. Operation Red Jungle at Ball State University, a campus wide initiative, is geared toward bringing awareness to stopping the violence.
      Emily Sullivan, president of Ball State’s Timmy Global Health, volunteered her time on Tuesday to ask men passing by if they wanted to take the pledge.
      “It’s really great to see people supporting this campaign and I think it’s just a matter of continuing to have events and to encourage other organizations to participate to host and sponsor campaigns similar to this,” the junior said.

      The initiative is funded through a grant the United States Department of Health and Human Services (Office of Women’s Health) awarded to Ball State University to continue research and initiatives similar to this one.
      Dr. Jagdish Khubchandani, an Assistant Professor of Community Health Education, is the head advocate and the project director for the grant and has studied the issue closely.
      “Last semester, [the Office of Women’s Health] sent out this special request that you could apply for special funding to have a campaign on your campus or in your community for this issue,” Khubchandani said.

      Khubchandani has studied the effects of violence against women in his native country of India as well as the United States. He has been a professor at Ball State University since 2010 in the Department of Physiology and Health Science. “We are asking men to show their support for this issue,” Khubchandani said. “There’s typically one gender abusing women, and it’s male.” Khubchandani said that in order to get this issue out into the public light, the community must first bring awareness to those who can put an end to domestic violence — the men. “There’s only one way to prevent it and that is to engage men and promote healthy relationships,” Khubchandani said.
      Violence against women does not have to be physical, he said. Verbal abuse is also classified under this category.

      According to the Muncie, Indiana Police Department website, there were 49 deaths reported in Indiana as a result of domestic violence from July 2008 to June 2009. Within that same time frame, 98,828 calls were made to the Crisis Line to report an act of domestic violence.
      “[Students] should stand up and realize that this is still a prevalent issue on campus and that measures should be taken to try and fix this issue,” Sullivan said.
      Not only are students getting involved, but administrators are also participating in the initiative and taking the pledge against domestic abuse.
      Mayor Dennis Tyler of Muncie, Indiana took a pledge and got his nails painted red. Freshman Andrew Deathe, a volunteer on behalf of Phi Sigma Kappa, wore his red T-shirt in support of the initiative.
      “Everyone understands that there is violence against women that is happening, but whenever things like this happen it really puts it in your mind,” Deathe said.

  67. Bellator Nam Parilitas says:

    I find it disgusting that anyone can say that men are not currently disadvantaged, especially in the United States. When you can not watch television for longer than 10 minutes without seeing some commercial or show that insinuates that men want nothing more than sex, money, alcohol, violence or fast cars. There are advertisements out there that insinuate that inside every man is a rapist waiting to get out.

    You who state that there is no gender bias against men in the United States need to wake up. I went through a divorce a year and a half ago. When preparing for the Child Custody battle my attorney said to me and I quote “Unless you can provide photo or video proof that your ex-wife was smoking meth while screwing a guy on the couch for money while your daughter watched, you have less than a ten percent chance of obtaining custody.”

    Just so you know my ex-wife became a stripper after we separated and has a record of attempting suicide. I have never been arrested for anything and have a very successful career. Still with all of that going against her she was the one who was given custody. You tell me where the equality is in that.

    A good Friend of mine broke up with his ex-girlfriend because she was cheating on him. She comes back 8 months later and tells him that she is pregnant with his child and that he needs to man up. However after an argument over him wanting a paternity test he finally tells her that he will see her in court. The next day he is served at work with a Protective Order. In it she cites that he “Slapped her” “Sexually assaulted her 2 year old daughter” and “Threatened to kill her” and that all of these incidents occurred over 8 months ago but because she had moved out of state it was still applicable.

    Lucky for him he had recorded their conversation a few days prior where she had been at first trying to convince him to just go with it and except paternity without a test. In this recording she was telling him what an amazing man he was and how much she wished things could have worked out. It was not until after he told her that he would take her to court for a paternity test if he had to that she started yelling and screaming at him for not “being a man” and taking responsibility for his child.

    He fought the protective order in a hearing and won. However there is no penalty or consequence for making false accusations like that. Even though she was unable to provide any evidence to substantiate her claims and he had that recording he still ended up losing his job over that incident.

    Tell me where the equality is in that. How is it, a woman can falsely accuse a man of sexually abusing a child and domestic violence and face no consequences? All I want is equality. All I want is to be able to rescue my daughter from a detrimental environment.

  68. I never understood why MRAs don’t consider themselves feminists. Or vice versa. Frankly, the problems that both of these groups address are all a result of the gender binary that exists. By assuming that men and women are inherently different (other than biologically, and even then, there are gray areas) from one another, we encourage sexism on both fronts. e.g. By assuming a woman’s place is at home, we get fathers who unfairly lose child custody battles because mothers are seen as more motherly. Both men and women are entrapped by the binary.

  69. What happened to the spearhead . All I get on my search now is a Health and human service page . Is free speech being destroyed by a cynical government .

  70. Lynn Mason says:

    Hi, everyone. I recently created a petition at change.org asking a clinic in Silverthorne, Colorado to stop performing neonatal circumcision and I was hoping if you would feature the petition on your page.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/silverthorne-clinic-stop-performing-neonatal-circumcision

    My petition has received support from mensactivism.org and it would be great if you could also help me in reaching 1,000 signatures. Please support men’s rights!

    Thank you for reading,
    Lynn Mason

  71. “Who are men’s rights activists, and what do they want?”

    I’ll answer this question for you. They’re a bunch of bitter old assholes who are hellbent on making white American men look as misogynist and shallow as possible. They’re an embarrassment to white men everywhere. White American men should bash these losers until they go away, and white men outside of the US should not embrace their ideology.

    MOD EDIT: Please avoid generalising ideologies

  72. This site seems more for Feminist it does not seem to support Mens Rights and actually seems leary of it so I have to assume that this was perhaps written by a man or a man that is surely getting something from a women . feminism leads to not just decline of man but the destruction of our country. From books on Islam from Christianity to Indian cultures around the globe we see that it is mans duty to be the head of the family . We are watching men being pushed into corners commiting suicuide in record numbers that far exceed the deaths of women. I am not a women hater and the Voice For Men is not the leader of the mens rights movment you truly are not very educated in the Mens Rights Movement . Being known does not make a person a leader of the Mens Rights Movement the movement is scattered it has the potential to be a enormous movement but it is still very unorganized this is just my opinion . I feel to get the ball rolling we have to take our issues to United Nations and advertize which I will be doing to reach millions of men through affordable ads through Newspapers companies. We have alo of work to do When you look into a ghetto and you find that in many cities not even a handful of men can have access to affordable housing thats when you know the problem is serious so serious is this issue that the information can not be released this is just one of our many many many issues. We currently have milllions of responsible men student with degrees in their mid 20s filling up mom and pops house . I am in the process of making more videos showing streets with middle aged men working for the city and state of florida living with mom and dad and not a single women for miles can be found living with mom and pop the problem is serious and it goes against religion,ethics and the consciousness of many men. The best thing for Mens Rights Activist to do is to start pouring millions into the movment utilizing Senuke ,Xrummer and workign with government globally to help counter the assult towards men our oppression can be proven globally without a shadow of a doubt I be willing to beat my life and swear the the BUddhas black hat that men are becoming oppressed and the proof is extremly substantial and in my opinion very overwhelming. Support housing right for Vets and our men that can paint Hud homes but can not live in them lets reward men our Vets and responsible men with jobs and housing to raise the level of awareness about our issues and ensure masculity flourished its to late for me I am gay due to low wages and massive amounts of rejection . I do not want to see more youth die from aids experience prison experience working 2 jobs and seeing uneducated women 18 years popping out kids and getting low cost housing . Its wrong extremly disrespectful towards our men and forces them to be men in the wrogn we currently in America over 65 million men that need housing are not getting it and are living with mom and dad with the skills and the education and the ability to work and be men but we are denying them that right this is just one reason why the Mens Rights Movement will grow because men are feeling so oppressed and finding its not religion or people that are at fault its money that seperatates most of us its unfair laws and gender discrimnation and basis that we have in our minds are correct . I value no women or child more than men becasue their may not be a future the future is no and from what I have seen from our oppressed men we have a serous problem we truly have to help our millions of men to regain their sanity because as this recession gets worse people are going to flip out. It happening every week in America many just do not see it. Peace
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg73RckISpo&feature=plcp

    • Rober, I think you are correct. The Good Men Project and Men’s Studies in academia are journalism directed at males through a feminist lens and Men’s Studies, sex and gender studies program for males within a feminist analytical framework. Thus, we have how feminism operates. It operates as an ideology and analytical framework. Males studies would reject the feminist ideology and framework to let men speak within and from their own masculinity, a masculinity that is good, right and just. We can narrow the good men down. One of them is not this author.

    • Rob,

      It is unfortunate to what our society has become between a man and woman in marriage. All too often the sacrifices that are made go unnoticed. I personally am going through some very tough times – unemployed, educated, forced from my home in July of 2012, paying child support, have custody of my children at a rate of 13 percent per year. The divorce process has been exhausting and especially to my 3 beautiful little girls ages 8 and under. They ask me when I have them if their Daddy will ever come back home. It has been tough…very tough and as I face the enormous amounts of financial obligations that lay in front of me, I can only see that my life is gong to be affected tremendously by the outcome of this divorce.

      As a result of my demise, I am looking to get involved in a movement to fight for the rights of men all over the US as well as internationally. My motivation is not due to anger or resentment, but to become actively involved in a system or to develop a system if not already in place to help men foster a better life out of the mess that is caused from divorce. If there is any information that you can provide, please do so by replying. There is a gap in our society that must be closed.

  73. David Gazarian says:

    How can that woman have the nerve to say that men aren’t oppressed when we’re continually faced with negitive judgements in the case of child custody, divorce and child support? When I got divorced my ex-wife got our house, the car, all the money in our bank account and full custody of our child. How is that right or fair? I got laid off in 2010, and was therefore unemployed, and my ex-wife was awarded $500 a month for child support. State law says that if you are unemployed that they have to base child support off of minimum wage; this somehow missed me entirely. I cannot afford to pay my rent now because I lose 50% of my check every payperiod. I cannot support myself working two jobs!! When I asked for a review from the child support division they denied me a reduction in spite of my lower income. So, that’s equal? I’m oppressing you and I can’t even feed myself. How very ignorant! I haven’t seen my child in 2 years, yet I pay an exorbitant amount to support him. That’s equal? I had to live in a homeless shelter after the divorce! Do that princess. I went from being a business owner in Atlanta to being a vagabond, and now that I’ve gotten myself off of the streets and started to resurrect my life, I am losing 50% of my checks!!!!!!!! That’s fair? I feel mighty damn oppressed. Judges are completely biased and women paint themselves as martyrs. It quite laughable really.

  74. Joseph byrne says:

    The Mra is a group of highly intelligent men who have form an alliance to provide men and young men with an alternative to traditional “man up” gender roles. This is a growing Movement of more then 2 Million men witch have recognized the unfairness in gender role , Such as , slave provider , A prison economy and Hypergamy .
    Simply the MRA is an honest voice in a sea of lies . Young men often make the decision to venture into traditional gender roles uninformed of the future implications of feminist dishonesty and hypergamy .
    Every men life and effort to support the nation is important . We simply can’t have these efforts being toiled away by unjust laws and male dispensability . The cost is becoming to great to all are freedoms .

  75. Hi Henry P. Belanger
    Thank you!

  76. Johnathon Roberts says:

    Equality, and a completely unbiased society, is an absolute impossibility. The human race, simply put, can not agree on everything. Our race is based on conflict. To say that we should all be treated completely equal is rather foolish.

    I understand that many will disagree with me on this thought. I even understand that people will call me an idiot and some neanderthal like imbecile. Simply put, however, completely equal treatment, not only amongst the sexes, but amongst us all, is impossible. Our belief structures are too different. Even our very psychological standpoints are different.

    On all occurrences, we need to look at the individuals involved. This is especially important when it comes to relationships. Relationships, and I know this next part will not be taken well, are NOT about equality. In every stable, viable, long term relationship I have ever seen, there is a distinct dominant partner, and a distinct submissive partner. In these days, those two words (dominant and submissive) have taken on a different meaning than what they really are. Let me explain. I am NOT saying that a stable relationship where one partner can do whatever it wants, and the other is absolutely subservient to the other. That would be lunacy of the highest order. What I mean is that one takes a more active decision making role than the other. I guess what would be clearer to say is that one leads and the other follows. Like in a dance. Both roles are played by men and women. However, society, or, more specifically, American society, doesn’t seem to think that this is right. At some point, we got stuck into the mindset that the man provides and leads, and the woman provides succor and follows. This mindset wormed it’s way into our minds, and the changing of it has had drastic and dangerous effects. The sexes are often viciously opposed to each other, our law system is often very biased one way or the other, and you have the situation as it stands now. It would have been better if we had just, from the beginning, stuck to not defining sex roles, but more mentality roles.

    I have seen many, many dominant women and submissive men, and vice versa. Often times these people find themselves in a relationship together. And, you know what? The relationship works, and WELL. One leads, the other follows. I am not saying that it will always work, because, frankly, people can’t be pigeonholed like that. I am just saying that it seems to work more often than not.

    Anyway, I have rambled on. I will admit, I am a VERY dominant white male. I like to be in control of my life, and get very unsettled if I am not. However, I am also single, and plan to stay that way. I won’t oppress men or women with supposed inequalities.

    If anyone ever does anything with me, I will lead. Not because they are a woman or a man. Simply because that is how I am.

    Bah, listen to me go on! I’ll wrap this up now with this. Be fair, be honest. Don’t settle into tired, cliche roles or mentalities. You want equality? Then just treat everyone on merit.

  77. LeJacquelope here. You can see my website, I’m known for my controversial and confrontational style of men’s rights advocacy. I also have more accusations of misogyny to my name than the average Taleban fighter. I joke about that because, obviously, I think those accusations are hilariously wrong but again, you can see my blog in all its fire breathing glory. My extremist creds will never be in doubt.

    That said, I am appalled that you’d refer to Paul Elam as a “leader” of the movement. It’s not your fault, though. Some people think Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim leader, and most media that talks about MRAs look right to Paul Elam. Sadly.

    A bit about Paul Elam. As editor of “A Voice For Men” he once said that if he was a juror in a rape trial (no doubt involving a male defendant), he would vote to acquit, no matter how strong the evidence was that the defendant was guilty. I don’t even need to go into length about how rabidly insane this is. What I do need to say is that as a Men’s Rights Activist, I’m devastated every time I google his remark to verify I have the right link. The man is a monster. He even once defended compassion fatigue for rape victims: as in saying that it’s okay not to care about women who are victims of rape, because male victims get no sympathy. Again, I don’t think I need to explain why this is outright nutjobbery and a discredit to the men’s rights movement.

    In another incident, a feminist blogger named Jenna said something wrong in her blog and in so doing, pissed off a ton of MRAs. Now I can’t lie and say that there’s no way she’d piss me off when that controversy started, but the death threats she got went way too far. But… wait for it… she blogged again, this time issuing a big apology to men’s rights groups. She said she could understand the MRA point of view. A feminist did this. After being slammed from pillar to post in what even I’d say was a stampede of overreaction. Picture a 50 foot tall woman standing next to a “be the bigger person” billboard and you get what happened here. And then Paul Elam showed up. In a heated (almost entirely heated on his part) argument with Jenna, he finally tells her “I do not care at all for the ‘feelings’ of Jenna” and “What I care about is the feelings of many of the abused, hurt men who count on me to speak up when this sort of thing happens.”

    This isn’t how you respond to a feminist who is waving the white flag. As far as I’m concerned, the Geneva Conventions apply to the Internet, too: when the other side yields, you cease fire. When they concede and reach out to you, you put your guns down and negotiate in good faith, and try to find common ground or otherwise work stuff out. From a purely Machiavellian standpoint you don’t make your side look like a bunch of angry implacable brutes doing the Internet version of what George W Bush (and now Obama) did to the Middle East. When they reach out to you, you reach out to them, make allies, and reduce enemies, and let the radical feminists drive past you off the cliff of extremism, which they often readily do.

    Finally, Paul Elam has a bit of a narcissist streak… people count on him to speak up. This is a problem in all movements… we depend on some hero figure to speak up, when we the masses should be speaking up on our own. When we look to someone to speak up for us, we become a movement of cowards and sheep, this is where cults of personality arise from, and where the flock gets led astray by the weaknesses of their leader. We are an information-based society, we can do the research and stand on our own. For the most part we can collaborate and mobilize without needing a “leader”.

    Also take note of the “A Voice For Men” slogan: “Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry.” Humanism, folks. Humanism is about men’s and women’s rights, not just men. A true humanist speaks up for both genders. A humanist would protest Steubenville as well as Debra LaFave (see more on her below). A humanist would protest girly pushups and reduced performance requirements for women in the military, but would also rage at the military’s refusal to deploy the women who qualified as Navy Seals with no reduced performance requirements, and their refusal to give these women the honor of being Seals. A humanist would protest both the objectification of men and women alike. Needless to say, Paul Elam and his gang are mis-using that word ‘humanist’ in a very big way.

    I thank Paul Elam for one thing: he forced me to rethink my style of men’s rights activism. I don’t see myself ever becomng like Elam, but no one everdoes. The truth is that if you let anger take the wheel too long or often, you wind up losing your mind. Like telling women rape victims that you’re all out of compassion for them and vowing to acquit all men who are accused of rape. Because of Elam I no longer feel bad about the anti-rape marches I’ve attended or supported; instead I also protest for male victims. I protest for both.

    cites:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/
    http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2011/10/apology-to-mens-rights-activists/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAu3ANuLOaM

    Now, for the issue of why we do not like the feminists of today. Here’s an example. When a pedophile named Debra Lafave went on trial, her attorney pleaded that she was too pretty for prison. Did feminists protest this? No. Tiger Woods suffered beatings by his wife. Did feminists protest this? Nope. Instead Saturday Night Live made fun of him. When Catherine Kieu castrated her husband for trying to divorce her, did feminists protest? Nope, instead Sharon Osbourne went nuts making fun of the victim. Feminists stood silent about this.

    When backed int a corner, feminists will blame everything on the Patriarchy – women getting away with crimes is all the fault of sexism against women. Picture a criminal beating you over the head with a nine iron and saying “don’t blame me, blame the Patriarchy!” and you have what’s going on now. Feminists of today don’t hold women responsible for anything they do, not even pedophilia or rape of other women, much less of men. Instead they tell the male victims that if only they’d checked their privilege, this wouldn’t be happening to them. In two words: victim blaming. Oh and when feminists say “stop rape” and men say “but men get raped, too” – feminists go into an absolute rage. As if interjecting male victims of rape somehow derails the discussion. They never stop to think that if interjecting male victims into the discussion derails the discussion, then really, they’re not crusading against rape… they’re using rape to get political points. I bet you never heard about women raping women, have you? Everything you’ve probably ever heard is men are aggressors and women are victims. Male victims get erased. Female perpetrators of rape or domestic violence get erased. Matter of fact, feminists even brag about beating up men, and you can find a cite for that down below.

    Maureen Dowd wrote a book “Are Men Necessary?” in which her answer, predictably, comes out to be ‘no’. Picture a book on the shelves of your bookstore asking “Are Women Necessary?” Ask yourself if that book would remain on the shelves for long.

    Then there’s this. “It’s taboo to admit it, but I wish my unborn baby wasn’t a beastly boy!”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2245681/Its-taboo-admit-I-wish-unborn-baby-wasnt-beastly-boy.html
    Let some man in the Western World say he wishes his kid wasn’t a beastly girl and see how far he gets.

    This is before we even get to the feminist tirade over Jessica Biel taking Justin Timberlake’s last name,
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-duca/jessica-biel-timberlake-a_b_3915843.html

    the rage they openly spew at women who stay home to be mothers
    http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/
    and so on.

    Meanwhile, feminists talk about abandoning gender roles, but when was the last time a feminist ever fantasized about anyone but one of those alpha males?

    This absolute tsunami of feminist hypocrisy is why we fight feminists.

    additional cites:
    Catherine Kieu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrvDhSB7GHk
    Tiger Woods SNL Parody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BVXiHh95Tc
    Jezebel bragging about domestic violence against men: http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have

    Finally, aside from the overractions from some MRAs, there is one thing that Men’s Rights Activists, as a whole, tends to ignore: Traditionalists. Traditionalists – people who believe in traditional gender roles – are our biggest enemy. You might also know them as the family values crowd, Republicans, Conservatives, that sort of mindset.

    Case in point, the recent comments by Kirsten Dunst about traditional gender roles and the casting couch, where she blames the victim and not the perpetrator:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/kirsten-dunst-casting-couch_n_5173919.html

    And there’s traditionalists like Nick Adams, who says men are becoming wusses because we wrestle lattes now instead of crocodiles:
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/foxs-elisabeth-hasselbeck-are-male-wussifying-feminists-a-national-security-problem/

    MRAs tend to ignore this stupidity, but at their own peril.

    Traditionalists were the ones who gave us “Women and Children first!” on the Titanic. They also gave us the Draft, “Be a man and suck it up”, and all of that rot. Traditionalists are the Patriarchy, and they wish to revive the Patriarchy that America worked so hard to kill. With the Patrarichy comes male expendability – and this should be easily obvious to any Men’s Rights Advocate, anywhere, on an instinctual level.

    But since Traditionalists don’t go at us the way feminists do, we ignore them. Again, at our own peril.

    I hope that your website will let me post all of this. It is clear that people need a different look at the Men’s Rights Movement – who we are, and who we should be.

  78. Let us not forget the propaganda and diminution of men in society. Let’s start with the most offensive misandristic and racist ad by Campbell’s Soup Company for V8 with a white woman humiliating and physically abusing a black man. Then we have ads by AT&T and Allstate to humiliate and denigrate men. Few follow the pattern of Subaru in showing men as caring fathers and intelligent human beings. Such disrespect and humiliation of women would not be tolerated.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Henry Balanger's Introduction to the Men's Movement […]

  2. […] that has fascinated me for some time: Men’s rights activists: An introduction — The Good Men Project Magazine. These men feel victimized, they feel exploited, they feel ignored, they feel impotent. And those […]

  3. […] near that of the average woman. It isn’t. Not even close. But the points brought up by the Men’s Rights Activists who seem to be the ubiquitous opposition in Internet feminism are somewhat valid. What MRAs tend to […]

  4. […] artikel är del av ett större tema de har för närvarande om mansfrågor, dvs det som kallas för Men’s Rights Activism i […]

  5. […] on the men’s rights movement. What raised my red flags about the magazine’s decision to address the men’s rights movement was the manner the magazine chose to do it. While it is not unusual for people to give a […]

  6. […] goodmenproject.com claims to be taking an in-depth look at the men's rights movement.  I don't think so.  Far from […]

  7. […] so aptly described by guest writer Lady Gyoo, Henry Belanger’s “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement,” the article used to introduce the men’s rights community to their general readership, was […]

  8. […] so aptly described by guest writer Lady Gyoo, Henry Belanger’s “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement,” the article used to introduce the men’s rights community to their general readership, was […]

  9. […] so aptly described by guest writer Lady Gyoo, Henry Belanger’s “Meet the Men’s Rights Movement,” the article used to introduce the men’s rights community to their general readership, was […]

  10. […] and my life. But I was recently forced to rethink this combination as I followed a debate at the Good Men Project (GMP) between men’s rights activists (MRAs), including fathers’ rights groups, and their […]

  11. […] But I was recently forced to revisit this combination as I followed a recent debate here at the Good Men Project Magazine between men’s rights activists (MRAs), including fathers’ rights groups, and their […]

  12. […] was started. Blog Entry Here Excerpt: The Good Men Project has taken on the daunting task of introducing, unlocking and dismantling the so-called Men’s Rights Movement in a special series of posts […]

  13. […] men’s rights movement has been the subject of more attention in recent years, as male unemployment persists. The concerns it raises are not without merit; the […]

  14. […] and I almost didn’t post because the clip they’ve got has one of these self-identified MRA guys talking for a few minutes beforehand, and while he makes valid points about how no one would […]

  15. Online Article…

    […]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[…]…

  16. […] 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 […]

  17. […] least the “Angry Young Man Psyche.” Both were established by women. The Good Men Project gave this description of MRA philosophy (italics mine, because I take things […]

  18. […] What’s really important to understand is that this really and truly is how some people think w… So no, I don’t find it that mind-blowing to read a book that reinforces these ideas. It’s actually quite predictable. […]

  19. […] unfamiliar with MRAs, feel free to read several different takes from The Good Men Project: here and here and […]

Speak Your Mind

*