Men’s Rights

A little while ago I had a post about when I recognized a tangible example of what it means to be Schrodinger’s Rapist and in the comments I got a couple of sincere remarks about the idea of a men’s right movement. It’s very rare that I get commentary on that subject that does not immediately turn to some of the privileged bullshit that normally accompanies such things, so it was actually pretty exciting.

So I thought about it, and I thought, and I did some research. I will admit that the MRM does have some excellent points in regards to issues that disproportionately harm men. The problem, of course, is that they reflexively ascribe these issues to feminism. And also, many of the issues they have is nothing but ridiculous privilege and the desperate grasping to hold on to it.

I decided to look at the “Facts” page on A Voice for Men. No, I won’t give them the link juice. If you want to see the page it’s under the “Activism” tab. Let’s take a look at some of the facts that they feel need to be addressed. I’ll break them into several categories since many deal with basically the same problem.

Useless Privilege

These are the most common things you will find in the current, organized MRM. These are only problems in the sense that it prevents men from doing whatever they want, whenever they want, consequence free. These are quotes from the page, and my commentary will be either in blue or on the bottom of the section.

- In contrast, women get every veteran’s benefit a man does, yet comprise less than 3% of combat deaths or casualties and a woman makes the cover of Time magazine (person of the year/2003 standing in front of two men.

Oh, no! Somebody call the photo stager and complain that they put a woman standing in front of men on a magazine. I wasn’t, until I saw this, aware how hard it is on men that photo set ups are not prioritized by percentage of combat deaths.

- A woman is the party filing for divorce in about 66% of divorce cases.

And…? I fail to see how this is a problem that needs a movement to address it. What, precisely, do the people at AVfM want to do? Go back to where women weren’t allowed to file for divorce? Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. They then go on to discuss statistics (without citation) of negative consequences of growing up in a “fatherless home,” but even if those statistics were reliable, I’m not sure what MRAs want to do about that. Force couples to stay married?

-30% of those named as fathers who test for paternity find they are not the biological father.

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871xo

I kept the source on this because I wanted to point out that they are using the World Net Daily for a citation. Was Alex Jones not answering his phone? That being said, so what? Less than a third of women who think somebody is the father of their child is wrong. Since they’re so eager to use conspiracy theorists as authorities, perhaps the complaint is that this forces men to give up some of their precious bodily fluids? If the hardest thing you have to deal with is having to give some blood to find out that you’re not responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, I’ll trade you lives.

- There are over 700 Women’s Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching men’s studies from the masculist perspective.

You mean other than every other fucking program in existence? OK, that’s hyperbole, but the reason why Women’s Studies programs were started is because the vast majority of study is about and aimed at men. We read histories written by men from the male perspective. The vast majority of literature we study is written by and about men. This falls under the “Why is there no White History Month?” umbrella.

- The CDC reports that in cases of non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (one directional) that women are more than twice as likely to be the aggressor. The report cites that women comprise 70% of perpetrators, men 29%.

This is here because there is no citation. There is probably no citation because the study that they’re referring to is from 1998 (possibly 1986). It’s difficult to tell because the only places where I can find any reference to the actual study is on other MRA websites and they keep getting the details of where they found this wrong. None link to a study at the CDC website, though I have found several pages they’ve linked to that are entirely unrelated to partner violence. It’s like they wanted a link to look like they have evidence to back up their claims, yet count on nobody clicking on them.

- This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

This is a particular MRA shibboleth, the Martin Fiebert Annotated Bibliography that shows almost three hundred studies that claim to say that women are as aggressive as men. It does not quote any of these studies, just gives analysis, and several of the studies have nothing to do with domestic violence. Several have tiny sample sizes, several don’t study the incidences of female aggression in domestic violence and instead talk about how to deal with it psychologically, and several even have in the summary that the perception of female aggression in these cases is distorted by, to quote one of them, “prevailing patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence.”

Also, that’s a very specific sounding number, 286. Almost make it sound like that’s a lot. That’s what’s called Misleading Vividness. If only there weren’t 563,000 papers that said otherwise, at least that I could find through a Google Scholar search in less than a second. Bad science all around, therefore useless.

- Boys are facing a significantly harder time in early education than girls

Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/boys/factsheets/ed/index.shtml

Yet girls, from primary education through college still benefit from many more special programs designed to help them gain “equality” with males.

Strangely, if you follow the link, you’ll see that while this is true, none of the reasons listed has anything to do with the boys being male. This is what’s called Affirming the Consequent and MRAs are very fond of it. Basically, because men and boys suffer disproportionately in certain areas, it’s because they’re men and boys, and all other possible factors are ignored.

- While men make more money than women on average, women control and spend vastly more money than men.

Yes, because in a patriarchal society, men are the breadwinners and women run the house. This can be fixed by getting more women into the workplace if they want to be there and getting rid of the idea that stay at home husbands are necessarily an awful thing.

Overall comments: These are just some of the examples given. They are usually either misrepresentations of actual facts or they are whining about how unfair it is that women are recognized in such a way that it’s not clear that men are the ones in charge. This does not need a men’s rights movement, it needs a good dose of “Grow the Fuck Up.”

More Likely Racism

There are several things on this list that are attributed to “misandry”, but are much more likely the result of racism. These problems don’t exist because the people suffering them are men, they exist because the people suffering them are men of color. They are, largely, legitimate concerns, but they are also best solved by doing things other than harassing feminists. Almost all of these are the Ignoring a Common Cause fallacy.

- There is blatant anti-male discrimination in the criminal justice system and the sentencing disparity between men and women exceeds that between whites and any other minority.

The problem is that men are either white or some other minority. They are not distinct categories, they overlap. Moreover, there is a sentencing disparity because men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, which carry longer sentences.

- The 2006 United States’ rate of incarceration of 751 inmates per 100,000 population is the highest reported rate in the world, well ahead of the Russian rate of 628 per 100,000.

93% of the prison population is male with over 60% having no High School education.   America has now passed Russia as the country that has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated, yet we still claim to be the freest country on earth.

The number of persons on probation and parole has been growing dramatically along with institutional populations. There are now 7.2 million Americans incarcerated or on probation or parole, an increase of more than 290 percent since 1980.

This isn’t racism, per se, but it is a result of a prison industrial complex that makes people a lot of money through private prisons when there are inmates, and less money when there aren’t, making incarceration more profitable and therefore more desirable. You can also blame the failed War on Drugs that puts people in jail for minor infractions. This is all a problem, none of it has anything to do with the fact that the vast majority of the prison population is male. They are completely unrelated.

- We hear a lot about the historical oppression of women’s voting rights, but few if any women who were born in the 20th century were every without the right to vote in their lifetime, upon reaching legal voting age.  On the other hand, around 2400 hundred California men (42% of CA men killed in Vietnam) gave their life for their country without being allowed by their country to vote.  The exact number is 2,381.  Four of the twelve Iwo Jimo flag raisers died for their country without their country ever allowing them the right to vote.

Yes, because they were minorities. They weren’t denied the right to vote because they were men. And guess what, women of color couldn’t vote then, either! There are several women of color who were prevented from registering to vote. When minorities were being prevented from voting, do they really think that women of color were just let through because they were women?

- Misandry is often expressed through racism.

From Scottsboro An American Tragedy.

“The protection of white womanhood, it might be the pivot around all Southern culture. Of the 5,000 people who were lynched from 1880 to 1940, most were black men accused of raping or sexually assaulting white women.” – Robin Kelly, Historian

Bwahahahahah! This is hilarious. Notice, again, we have a system where black men are killed for being black, and VAfM assumes it’s because they’re men. Yes, it’s true that black men were lynched to protect white female virtue, but that’s because white men saw that “virtue” as their property and didn’t see black women, primarily, as a threat. This wasn’t men suffering to protect women, it was one set of men killing another set of men to protect something they felt they owned.

Overall comments: This is a blatant attempt to pad out their concerns by linking themselves with a legitimate problem: racism. It’s assumed that because men are the ones suffering so much, it’s because they are men, when often it’s because of their race. You can tell because of the disproportionate way this affects men of color. If it were strictly about their biological sex, the numbers would be more even.

The Result of Patriarchy

By far, the things that irritate me most about MRAs is that many of their most poignant concerns that really do need addressing are the result of the system they are trying to keep in place. For cases like the ones below, there already is a movement attempting to address them. It’s called “feminism.”

- 99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties (historically)

Historically, women have not been allowed to join the American military for the vast majority of its existence, and it’s only been a little over a month since the decision was made to allow them to serve in combat roles. Even then, the DoD has until 2016 to file for exemptions for certain roles. This was because women are traditionally assumed to not be capable of fighting and were designed, instead, to be protected. That’s patriarchy. Same goes for all the other stats on women not getting hurt as often as men.

- Men are 93% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)

Women have only been comparatively recently allowed into these positions. It’s a male dominated field because women are taught that they shouldn’t work in industrial jobs.

- There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails.

And this is a problem, but I fail to see how it’s one that a men’s rights movement can address since it’s men raping men. The act of male rape has been used for centuries as a way of degrading men because being penetrated is associated with…wait for it…being a woman. Prison rape is a gigantic problem as men looking to establish dominance over other men sexually assault them, but it’s not a case where men’s rights are being violated in some systematic fashion because of their maleness. There is an argument to be made that the fact that it’s largely unreported and nothing is done when it is has some merit, but that can be traced directly to gender roles and how men, afraid of being thought of as unmasculine, don’t report incidents of rape against them. Again, patriarchy.

- Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.

Yes, because of ingrained gender roles. Women in patriarchal societies take care of children, and judges tend to assume that women will be better caregivers as a result. This is yet another thing that feminism addresses by trying to get rid of the absurd notion that women were somehow made to be caregivers exclusively.

- Capital Punishment Targets Men Almost Exclusively

Again, because women are assumed to be less dangerous and less capable individually then men. We should get rid of capital punishment all together, but so long as men have to fit into narrowly defined gender roles, they will be assumed to be more capable of committing capital offenses and more likely to be dangerous. Eliminating gender expectations goes a long way to fixing that.

- Men pay the majority of social security taxes and are outlived by six years by women, but the government makes no fair adjustment to how those funds are distributed.

Social security taxes are taken out of paychecks. The reason why men pay more of them is because they are more likely to have a job and make more money at that job. We can fix that by encouraging women to be a part of the workforce, ensuring equal pay for equal work, and reducing the acceptance of sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace.

Overall summary: The elimination of pre-defined gender roles (something MRAs oppose) will go a long way to correcting the imbalances that they see and are legitimate. Also, making the workplace a place where women can thrive without worrying about not being taken seriously, not getting paid the same as male counterparts, or experiencing sexual harassment/gender discrimination would mean they contribute more to the taxes MRAs seem to think are going to subsidize them at men’s expense.

To quote Miriam, who wrote her post before I wrote this one but not before I thought of it, “Men, however, can use the ‘toolbox’ of feminism–examining power differentials, paying attention to intersectionality, critiquing pop culture, etc.–to advocate for their own causes.”

The MRM has some legitimate concerns, but they will ultimately fail to have any sort of major impact on them because they are more concerned with trolling feminists than actually addressing the systematic problems that result in what they’re concerned about. That, and those legitimate problems are buried beneath pointless garbage like how unfair it is that sometimes they have to take paternity tests.

Men’s rights doesn’t need a movement. There are movements already addressing places where their rights are being violated, and they’re doing it without, to quote the AVfM mission statement, “[Promoting] the legal and nonviolent antagonism of all agents of misandry, from members of academe, to holders of public office, to law enforcement and other state functionaries, to popular bloggers and to corporate agents who promote misandry for profit.”

They’re doing it by examining the issues before them and coming to a conclusion that reflects the reality currently observable. They aren’t conjuring problems out of thin air and framing the preservation of privilege as a civil rights battle, nor attributing every single problem to their boogyman of choice. Any potential men’s rights movement that didn’t do that would quickly find themselves involved in other, established groups fairly quickly, I think.

34 thoughts on “Men’s Rights

  1. Pingback: The Fashion Police | Lynley Stace

  2. I’m stealing the “It’s called feminism” line. Just so’s you know.

    The 30% are not the father bit just… bugs me. What exactly is that statistic meant to prove, and what do they propose should be done about it? So… 30% of paternity tests come back negative. So therefore… what? We just shouldn’t name fathers on birth certificates? Women should magically stop being less than perfect? I mean, isn’t this why we HAVE paternity tests? They basically just confirmed that whee, the system works – you have doubts, you test, you find out.

    • You’d think that. There are a lot of things on this list, and ones that I left off because I was getting bored, that I’m not sure what MRAs want to do about them other than complain. I mean, to have a movement, shouldn’t you have concrete goals and an idea of how to achieve them?

      • One would think.

        As I said in the other comments and elsewhere, I can understand having a different aspect of the overall social justice movement as your priority – sometimes you can’t fight all the battles at once. So I could understand a Men’s Rights movement that recognized men’s rights and feminism as two sides of the same coin, chose to focus on the aspect most directly impacting men, but still supported and respected feminism as working towards the same goals from a different direction. I would be cool with that. But not this zero-sum mentality where more rights for me means less rights for someone else.

  3. Oh, man, thanks for going through their bile so I don’t have to. :P

    I desperately want for there to be a men’s movement. But I want it to be allied with the women’s movement, with the queer movement, with the anti-racist movement. The MRM is directly opposed to the women’s movement and only aligns itself with those others when convenient.

    • No problem. Took about five hours to sort through all that bullshit, and I still skipped a bunch of it.

      Sorry the reply has taken so long. Been camping in funny clothes in Mississippi for a week, now in New Orleans for a couple days, so Internet has been spotty.

      As to a real men’s rights movement, it would be amazing to have. I argued here that it’s largely covered by feminism, but somebody on Facebook pointed out that how people choose to identify matters, which I hadn’t thought of. If a men’s rights movement came about that fights the perception that men are incapable of not raping women who don’t dress “modestly”, for example, or that they are just as capable of being single parents, or that they can dress and act how they like without having their masculinity questioned, it wouldn’t much matter if they didn’t identify as feminist. It would be better than the stupid gender policing in the MRM as we know it today.

      Which reminds me, have you seen the Gamma Rabbit shirts John Scalzi is promoting? If I didn’t just buy a $50 hat from a 120 year old hat shop, I would so be getting one. Alas, my love of haberdashery wins.

    • I wasn’t aware of that. I also appreciate the point that is made in that article that more visible parenting is playing a larger role in determining who gets custody, which isn’t necessarily a great system, but it belies the idea that men aren’t getting custody because they’re men.

  4. As a side note, the “women spend more money than men” thing is seen exclusively on MRA sites or sites that source them. In fact, the studies I have read indicate that women spend less money than men in general. Though some studies indicate women spend more of their own money on shared expenses (hydro, toilet paper, etc). Whoohoo.

    Great article.

  5. (Sorry for the lack of a link, I can’t find it. But I thought it was important to note that it was not necessarily factual, it seems to come from the “women are vain materialists who need to shop relentlessly” stereotype cherished by MRAs)

  6. A man would have to be an idiot to presume a movement that has spent it’s entire history focused on women would magically turn into a male focused movement. You don’t care about men’s issues and are only focusing on them because MRA’s exist. In fact MRA’s wouldn’t care about men’s issues if feminist had not made a cottage industry out of redirecting our attention to women every chance they get. It’s their success in doing that which demanded men do the same in order to get any attention at all. Right now they hardly getting any and if anyone is threatened it’s feminists who have come to rely on monopolizing compassion for women alone. We have decades of rhetoric including statements being made today to back this up.

    Stop fighting men trying to fight for men and they won’t have to fight feminist trying to fight for women. Feminist are not focused on men, and MRA’s are not focused on women. Either lying by saying they are primarily concerned with the other’s interest is engaged in hypocrisy. The truth is in their names. If feminist insist on having this fight they are going to be exposed as biased privileged women trying to advantage themselves by playing victim and you can already see that happening. You can play the same card against MRA’s but they get nothing so it’s not like they have anything to lose.

    The smart play is let MRA’s be. The foolish play is to try and take them down because that’s exactly what they need you to do in order to piggy back on your mainstream success.

    I think men’s issues don’t get enough attention and I think feminist are guilty of vilifying men to advance their agenda. So go ahead and attack, the MRM needs it.

    • So… did you have some response to any of the actual points made here, or did you just want to beat your chest and affirm your ridiculous belief in female oppression of men? I mean, either way is fine, but I was curious if there was some sort of useful followup to this.

  7. Pingback: “If You Can’t Bring Yourself to Fight…” | Reasonable Conversation

  8. > This is here because there is no citation. There is probably no citation because the study that they’re referring to is from 1998 (possibly 1986). It’s difficult to tell because the only places where I can find any reference to the actual study is on other MRA websites and they keep getting the details of where they found this wrong. None link to a study at the CDC website, though I have found several pages they’ve linked to that are entirely unrelated to partner violence. It’s like they wanted a link to look like they have evidence to back up their claims, yet count on nobody clicking on them.

    Here is the citation, it’s from 2006.

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

    >Yes, because of ingrained gender roles. Women in patriarchal societies take care of children, and judges tend to assume that women will be better caregivers as a result. This is yet another thing that feminism addresses by trying to get rid of the absurd notion that women were somehow made to be caregivers exclusively.

    No, in patriarchal societies and until the 1800s in UK men get custody, a feminist called Caroline Norton lobbied for the presumption of maternal custody.

    • Thank you for the link. That being said, it is not the “CDC” reporting this. This is a single study published in a journal that conflicts with hundreds of studies that say otherwise. It’s dishonest of AVfM to claim that an organization like the CDC, which usually only reports things that have been verified repeatedly, says something when they manifestly do not.

      That being said, I don’t see why a change in the character of patriarchy hundreds of years ago has any bearing on patriarchy today. That’s a complete non sequitur.

    • I don’t really see the point you’re trying to make – at that time, it was perfectly reasonable for Norton to lobby for that because then women did literally 95% of raising children, and it’s ridiculous to take them away from them and let them live with a father just because of some idea of parental ownership of children. (Also, Norton just lobbied for the RIGHT of women to apply for custody, so…) Today, however, times have changed and men participate more and more in the raising of their children, and indeed, men now get custody just as often – if they actually apply for it, that is.
      Also, regarding that study – here is one that gives other data: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf#page=47
      That said, I don’t quite see your point here. Why do YOU think it is that women’s violence against men is generally seen as “not that bad”, funny or plain nonexistent? Why do you think would a man not report his abuse to the police, even if he has the scars and bruises to prove it?

      • Sorry, Cluisanna, James will not be returning because he couldn’t wait for me to get home from helping a friend to approve his comments, so he’s now banned. I’m sure he would have had very little of any use to say, but I apologize for cutting your conversation short.

  9. >This is a particular MRA shibboleth, the Martin Fiebert Annotated Bibliography that shows almost three hundred studies that claim to say that women are as aggressive as men. It does not quote any of these studies, just gives analysis, and several of the studies have nothing to do with domestic violence. Several have tiny sample sizes, several don’t study the incidences of female aggression in domestic violence and instead talk about how to deal with it psychologically, and several even have in the summary that the perception of female aggression in these cases is distorted by, to quote one of them, ”prevailing patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence.”

    >Also, that’s a very specific sounding number, 286. Almost make it sound like that’s a lot. That’s what’s called Misleading Vividness. If only there weren’t 563,000 papers that said otherwise, at least that I could find through a Google Scholar search in less than a second. Bad science all around, therefore useless.

    This is incorrect, feminists rely on a small handful of deliberately biased sources and studies on domestic violence.

    And that Fieberts findings were recently replicated by a study where “Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables”

    http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/OverviewofFindings.pdf

    • Ok, this study is just as bad as Fiebert’s. There are hardly any citations except for in one of the studies which doesn’t come to the conclusion you’re trying to assert. A third of it is just biographies of the people who worked on it, and the summaries of the various parts don’t support what the overall summary states.

      Feminists don’t rely on a small handful of deliberately biased sources, and even if they did, that still wouldn’t invalidate the hundreds of thousands of sources that support their claim.

      But yes, that study summary gives hardly any citations, no bibliography, and doesn’t list any methodologies.

      • You are dismissing the largest dv study ever undertaken because it contradicts your beliefs. There aren’t 100s of 1000s of sources that support the feminist claims. There are only a handful of biased, often deliberately biased sources and studies that are designed to conform to feminist beliefs and dogma versus the scientific data that contradicts it. You can read about the conflict between the scientific data, and feminist theory here.

        http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf

      • No, I’m saying that the DV study you posted is largely uncited, has no bibliography, and doesn’t list methodologies, so I have nothing to base it’s validity on. There are hundreds of thousands of sources that support feminist claims regarding partner violence. I know because I link to them above.

        And I have a hard time taking a study seriously when it doesn’t even know what the phrase “radical feminist” means and thinks that it’s the same as “feminist.” I seem to remember you saying something about biased sources and studies, but I can’t imagine why it’s jumping to mind just now. Because I’m sure the guy who says that feminism is “neo-Marxist” is totes legit.

  10. >And…? I fail to see how this is a problem that needs a movement to address it. What, precisely, do the people at AVfM want to do? Go back to where women weren’t allowed to file for divorce? Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. They then go on to discuss statistics (without citation) of negative consequences of growing up in a “fatherless home,” but even if those statistics were reliable, I’m not sure what MRAs want to do about that. Force couples to stay married?

    If you had done your research, you would know that AVfM is anti-traditionalism.

    • I can tell by them listing the rates of women getting divorces as a problem that needs to be solved by an increase in men’s rights awareness. That’s so anti-traditional.

      • A quick google search and a read will tell you the AVfM position on both traditionalism and men being chewed up like disposable utilities in biased divorce courts, while simultaneously being stereotyped as unable to commit.

      • Because, again, we can tell how non-traditional they are by just asking them, rather than looking at their decidedly traditional behaviors.

  11. >The problem is that men are either white or some other minority. They are not distinct categories, they overlap. Moreover, there is a sentencing disparity because men are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, which carry longer sentences.

    Collection of sentencing disparity studies here, women receive a greater sentencing discount for the same crime, than whites do over minitories.

    http://feck-blog.blogspot.ie/2012/04/some-studies-about-sentencing.html

    • Ok, I will grant that one and say that it’s categorically wrong and a reflection of the idea that women are somehow weaker or more deserving of mercy than men. Which I already said above and in numerous other places.

      That still doesn’t justify the absurdity of claiming that post-Civil War violence against black men was related to them being men and not them being black.

      • Its not absurd to say that sentencing privileges for women v’s men is greater than that for white men versus minorities, because its true. Its also not absurd to say the treatment of black men was related to them being both black, and men, were it not, we would not be talking about the treatment of black *men*.

  12. >No, I’m saying that the DV study you posted is largely uncited, has no bibliography, and doesn’t list methodologies, so I have nothing to base it’s validity on.

    You can access all the data here.

    http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/

    >here are hundreds of thousands of sources that support feminist claims regarding partner violence. I know because I link to them above.

    No there are not, there are only biased and often deliberately biased sources that are designed to conform to feminist beliefs. For example, deliberately biased survey instruments or information from biased sample groups. You can read about how and why feminist data is deliberately biased here in one of the papers about the conflict between feminist dogma and the scientific data that contradicts it here.

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    • So…your answer is to link me to a site with dozens of different paper on domestic violence and hope I care enough to sort through all of that myself to prove your point for you? And then link me to a collection of conspiracy theories about how feminists are suppressing evidence that actually admits in places to having little or no evidence, but still believes it to be true?

      Ok, we’re done here. Been happy playing, but I know where this conversation is going. Go off and complain about radical feminists to your friends and how they hide from the truth, etc.

  13. I’m pretty sure AVfM does not need your link juice. The site has gone from the 58th thousand most read website on the Internet to the 34th highest in 5 months. Your little PR 2 website is a minion to this website :) BTW, your a sissy mangina.

  14. “Harassing Feminists” ha, thats a joke if i ever heard one.

    There were several “mens rights” groups, fathers right, mens liberation etc. Each and every one of them was attacked and marginalised by feminists, by denouncing them as reactionary, public shaming, and whatever other methods they could use at the time.

    It was just a matter of time until one movement came along which was aware that feminist would automaticy treat any pro-men movement as anti-woman, and try to get rid of it before it could get off the ground.
    Antifeminism is a must if you are in any way interested in helping men getting out from being the disposable gender. This has nothing to do with “women oppressing men”, this has to do with problems that exist since the dawn of history, many of which cannot be addressed until hate movements like feminism are our of the way. Because despite all their claims, their actions clearly show that they will do their level best to stop any social progress that is aiming to help men in any way, because men having any problems at all does not fits into their narrative of “Women are oppressed by the eveeil menz, who have it so good.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s