Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement

What follows is a response to a popular list of claims and arguments made by men’s rights activists.

1. SUICIDE: Men’s suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than that of women’s. [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]

Not for lack of trying: women attempt it three times as often. [1] Researchers have found that gender differences in socialization is the strongest explanation for men’s relative success in suicide attempts. In the United States, for instance, it has been shown that unsuccessful suicide attempts are considered “feminine” while it is considered masculine to succeed. In other words, the fear of being labeled “feminine” or “weak” in a male supremacist culture encourages men to ensure their attempts are successfully completed. [2] The statistic given here also masks that many of these “suicides” were actually murder-suicides. In the United States, an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 people died in suicide attacks each year. [3] More than ninety percent of the offenders are men; nearly all the victims are female. [4]

2. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men’s life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women’s [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.

This is a curious statement. If women live seven years longer than men, it should be obvious why they receive more health support: because the oldest people in society are those that most need subsidized health support, and the oldest people are predominantly women. Furthermore, the insurance industry charges $1 billion a year more to women in health insurance each year for the same coverage plans men receive [5], and up to 53% more for the same individual coverage plan [6], despite women’s overall better health and despite receiving 23% less income then men. [7]

3. WAR: Men are almost exclusively the only victims of war [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women]

The first thing to say is that if trained soldiers sent to engage in imperial wars of aggression can be called “victims” at all, then they are victims of those responsible for the wars in which they fought. And those responsible are men. All Presidents and Vice Presidents have been men. All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been men. Both branches of Congress have always been dominated by men. Polls since Vietnam show that men have been the ones to support going to war, and the ones most likely to support wars currently in progress. [8] On every level of analysis it is men who are responsible for war, and to somehow blame male combat deaths on women is not only absurd, but insane. If we want to stop these deaths, we need to stop those who are responsible for them: the male politicians, male military personnel, male war contractors, and male warmongers who perpetuate them.

The second thing to say is that this is simply a lie. A study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School looking at wars in 13 countries, including the Vietnam War, found that of the 5.4 million people violently killed, more than 1 million were female. [9] This figure does not account for those women killed less measurably through aerial spraying, inflicted poverty, and the use of depleted uranium munitions. This also ignores male sexual violence during wartime. In Vietnam, for instance, it was common and accepted practice for soldiers to gang rape women and young girls, as well to kill a female following a rape. [10] Such was the frequency of the latter that the term “double veteran” was coined to refer to such perpetrators. [11]

4. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of all workplace fatalities.

The figure is 92% as of 2012. One important reason for this discrepancy is that men are inclined to select work that is dangerous in order to prove their masculinity to women, to other men, and to themselves. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most dangerous professions in the United States are construction, transportation, and warehousing, all of which are male-dominated professions. [12] Men’s relative risk of danger is further increased through a relative lack of safety compliance. [13] Tellingly, the most common way for a woman to die in the workplace is to be murdered. [12]

5. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women. [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]

Men also murder at a rate more than 9 times that of women. That men are often killed by other men is not a problem that women are responsible for. I can hardly imagine why that even needs to be said. In the United States in 2010, 1,095 women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, accounting for 37.5% of female murders. By contrast, only 241 men were killed by their female partners. [14] The smallness of this figure is particularly striking when we consider that 200,000 women in the United States suffer serious violence from male partners each year. [15]

6. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive physical custody of 92% of all children of separation, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]

91% of the time, custody is agreed upon or settled by parents themselves, usually without outside mediation. Mothers are more likely to receive custody because both parents usually understand that it is in the best interests of their children. In married two-partner households, women spend nearly twice as much time doing child care as their male partners. [16] Only 4% of custody cases go to trial and only 1.5% are resolved there. [17] In disputed custody cases, fathers win custody 70% of the time, [18] despite abusive men being among those most likely to fight for custody. [19]

7. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]

This is not a matter of “bias”: women are sometimes acquitted of murdering their husbands because their husbands abused them or their children. It is estimated that 1.3 million women are beaten by male partners in the United States every year, putting them in fear for their lives. [20] Every one of these women would be justified in killing her spouse or partner and receiving an acquittal. It is exceptionally rare for any man to experience a comparable level of terroristic threat from his wife.

8. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]

As per above, many women receive lighter sentences for killing their husbands because their purpose in doing so was to stop physical abuse against themselves or their children. One study of men and women charged with domestic offense, distinguished between five forms of domestic violence in order to gather a better understanding of the circumstances underlying partner violence. What they found was that while women “overwhelmingly” engaged in resistive violence, often linked with substance abuse, 95% of the men charged were batterers, defined as “an ongoing patterned use of intimidation, coercion, and violence as well as other tactics of control to establish and maintain a relationship of dominance over an intimate partner.” [21]

9. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Women are assessed for Child Support on average at half the rate of men, yet are twice as likely to default on Child Support payments. Ninety Seven (97%) of all child support prosecutions are against fathers. [Census Bureau]

Women are assessed less often than men and default more often because women aged 18-35 have on average $0 in net worth. Many mothers simply have no means to pay child support. By comparison, white men of the same age have a median wealth of $5,600, and men of color have $1,000. [22] This wealth discrepancy also pressures young mothers who care for the welfare of their children to prosecute men for child support.

10. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Numerous credible studies from independent researchers report that women are the initiators of domestic violence in 58% of all cases, and cause physical abuse in almost 50% of all cases, yet women only account for 6% of all criminal proceedings in such matters.

It’s telling that you speak of “numerous credible studies” and carefully avoid citing any of them. I tried to find studies from any source making such claims, with no success. What I did find is the most recent report by the US Department of Justice, which found women suffer 805,700 physical injuries at the hands of partners each year, compared to 173,960 men. Moreover, the injuries suffered by women were more than twice as likely to be considered “serious”, defined as including sexual violence, gunshot and knife wounds, internal injuries, unconsciousness, and broken bones. To put that another way, partners inflicted 104,741 serious injuries on women, compared with less than 9,400 inflicted on men, a greater than 11:1 ratio. [16] Even those men who have been subject to partner violence have usually not taken it seriously. According to a study by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin, they were “significantly more likely than were women to laugh at partner-initiated violence”, while women “reported more fear, anger, and insult and less amusement when their partners were violent.” [23] It’s also worth noting that a number of these male injuries were incurred by male rather than female partners; according to a 2000 Department of Justice report, men living with male partners are at nearly twice the risk of “serious” violence as those living with women. [24] If women really are criminally prosecuted in 6% of domestic violence cases, then that figure sounds eminently reasonable.

11. CHILD VIOLENCE: Mothers commit 55% of all child murders and biological fathers commit 6%. NIS-3 indicates that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households. Despite these compelling figures, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors.

The first sentence is unsourced and not credible. According to one group of filicide [child murder] researchers:

Although some studies have noted that mothers commit filicide more often than fathers, other research has shown that paternal filicide is as common or more common than maternal filicide.

Reports of a higher proportion of maternal filicides most likely reflect the inclusion of neonaticides in some studies. [25]

In other words, there is no agreement as to whether mothers or fathers are more likely to kill their own children, but when mothers are seen as more likely, it is likely because infanticides are included in the results. According to the above researchers, the main motivation “may be the undesirability of the child,” and mothers under the age of 20 with a previous child are among those most likely to engage in such a murder. Young mothers without sufficient economic, family, or medical support may find there are no better options for themselves or for their other children. By contrast, fathers who kill their children are “often perpetrators of fatal-abuse filicide”, meaning that they batter their children to death. Some of the most common motivations for father filicide are “attempts to control the child’s behavior, and misinterpretation of the child’s behavior”. [25]

I’ve recently obtained a copy of the NIS-3 study, and while Table 5-4 does indeed provide data indicating that “Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households,” the provided footnote also says explicitly that the difference is either statistically insignificant or marginal, with p-values above 0.10. What that means is that the numbers, while provided, are statistically worthless and cannot be used to even hint at inferences. Meanwhile, the data from the NIS-3 regarding parental households that is statistically valid paints a very different picture. In every category, father-only households put children at a higher risk of harm than mother-only households. Risk of abuse is 71% higher, including a 68% greater chance of physical abuse. Risk of neglect is 28% higher, including a 32% rise for physical neglect, 67% rise for emotional neglect, and 14% rise for educational neglect. Risk of both moderate or serious injury is 40% higher.

That this is true is particularly exceptional when we pair this with data from the more recent NIS-4 study which found that households with a lower socioeconomic status were nearly 7 times more likely to involve neglect, including a nearly ninefold risk of physical neglect. Overally the safety of children in these households was classified as 5.7 times more severe than those of a higher socioeconomic background. [26] Single women with children are far more likely than men to live under conditions of severe poverty: both black and Hispanic women with children under age 18 have an average median wealth of $0, compared to $10,960 for black men and $2,400 for Hispanic men; white women with children have an average median wealth of $7,970, compared to an average of $56,100 for white men. [22] If economic justice for women was sufficiently advanced, we would expect the safety of mother-only households illustrated by the NIS-3 to increase still further. Given this information, to call fathers the “most effective protectors” of children is a hateful turn of phrase, suggesting that mothers wish harm on their children and only fathers can protect them. This in spite of the reality that children are far safer in the custody of their mothers than their fathers.

12. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the total wealth in the USA [Fortune Magazine]

This is a ridiculous lie, and to their credit I can find no evidence that Fortune Magazine ever made such a claim.

Contrary to this claim, one Harvard University researcher found that men have an average net worth of $26,850, compared to an average of $12,900 for women. [27] That is to say, men on average hold more than twice the wealth of women.


[10] Nick Turse, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, pages 164-171
[18] Joan Zorza, “Batterer manipulation and retaliation compounded by denial and complicity in the family courts” In M.T. Hannah & B. Goldstein (editors), Domestic violence, abuse and child custody: Legal strategies and policy issues

This response was written by Owen Lloyd, a stay-at-home dad living on the Oregon coast. Hate mail can be addressed to him at

A French translation of this document is also available here:

203 thoughts on “Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement

  1. Pingback: Debunking a Debunker | The Poisoned Well
    • The fact that’s the only thing you can bother to mention out of this entire post is pretty telling.
      Also, the word used was killing, not murdering. There actually is a difference between the two, and if you honestly believe there is never a situation where a person is justified in killing another, then you probably also believe that acquittal due to self defense is wrong, I suppose.

      • Tolerance of / encouragement of violence against the hated group is good evidence feminism is a hate movement.

      • Right. Feminism is a hate movement for saying that women have a right to defend themselves against rapists and batterers. And I guess the men’s rights movement is a love movement for loving rapists and batterers and encouraging them to exercise their “right” to torture and abuse women and children?

      • @DebunkingMRAS 6/2/14 9:36AM

        Where, exactly, have you read that MRAs love ‘rapists and batterers’? Can you name any of them? Can you point to the MRA article that put this notion in your head? Can you link it, or provide a screenshot? If you can’t, I’ll assume it’s the usual baseless accusations against the MRAs.

        Meanwhile, I can think of at least one Feminist who advocates murder of men: You. You write “It is estimated that 1.3 million women are beaten by male partners in the United States every year, putting them in fear for their lives. Every one of these women would be justified in killing her spouse or partner…”

        You don’t know their stories. You don’t know if the violence is mutual. You don’t know the severity of violence. In short, of these 1.3 million couples, you assume that the man is guilty 100% of the time, and so guilty as to deserve execution. And every one of these women – even if, in the vast pool you point out, some of these women are surely the agressors in domestic violence situations – every one of these women is 100% justified in an extra-judicial.

        This IS an example of misandry and female privilege by the way: you read a faceless statistic…and you assume that ALL the women in these situations are wholly innocent victims, and that ALL the men are 100% guilty agressors and in fact deserve to be simply murdered. These are your own words, taken in context, from this very page.

        In your own page, ‘DebunkingMRAs,’ you have presented one very strong example of cultural misandry and deepset discrimination/prejudice against men in our society.

      • Uhm, big difference between saying “in this case killing is not justified” and “killing is never justified.” If you believe spousal abuse should be a capital offense, please feel free to petition the government to change the laws.

        I will also bother to mention the implication that soldiers deserve to die. Or that all wars are imperial acts of aggression. Also, the logic of the claim that men are victims of war more than women is not to blame women for soldiers’ death. It is to imply that men are also victims of this patriarchal society, which I have always understood as being a central claim of feminism.

        I would like to see some evidence backing this assertion: “One important reason for this discrepancy is that men are inclined to select work that is dangerous in order to prove their masculinity to women, to other men, and to themselves” You mean in a world where men didn’t have to prove their masculinity no one would work dangerous jobs? No more oil piplelines? No more construction workers? No more firemen or police? And to the extent that men do choose jobs that are dangerous due to a social construction of machismo, it again demonstrates that men are victims of patriarchal society.

        “In the United States, for instance, it has been shown that unsuccessful suicide attempts are considered “feminine” while it is considered masculine to succeed. In other words, the fear of being labeled “feminine” or “weak” in a male supremacist culture encourages men to ensure their attempts are successfully completed. [2] ”

        Isn’t this a reason to reach out to men, as victims of a male supremacist culture, then? Rather than scorn them?

        “. According to the above researchers, the main motivation “may be the undesirability of the child,” and mothers under the age of 20 with a previous child are among those most likely to engage in such a murder. Young mothers without sufficient economic, family, or medical support may find there are no better options for themselves or for their other children. ”

        So women killing children doesn’t count because mother knows best. Or women’s reasons for killing a children are justified and thus don’t count. And killing a baby within 24 hours isnt’ as bad as killing an infant.

        I think there’s a lot of valuable points here and clearly the logic of the claims here are faulty. I am certainly not arguing against systemic sexism in our society. But you can’t claim to read people’s minds as to their motivations.

      • If anyone who commited a crime were to be killed, the only survivor would be the Flander’s Family.

  2. Child abusers (predominantly women) should be incarcerated for life and have their vaginas sown up so they can’t give birth to even more victims.

  3. “The first thing to say is that if trained soldiers sent to engage in imperial wars of aggression can be called “victims” at all, then they are victims of those responsible for the wars in which they fought. And those responsible are men. ”

    You are a truly evil person.

      • Because if you hate war, you must hate the soliders. Because all wars are imperial acts of aggression and all soldiers have access to all the clear unbiased facts about wars and economic conditions in the world have always been such that fighting in wars has always been a purely voluntary choice–certainly during Vietnam no one was drafted or compelled to go to war.

    • But this is just the natural result of any tendency to blame a collective for the actions within that collective.

      His statement here is literally like blaming all Black Africans for the crimes of the dictators and warlords who have brought so much misery to the continent.

      “I would feel bad for these thousands of Africans killed in the war, but I must point out that the people who sent them off to die are also Africans.”

      Actually, I tend to agree with him that any soldier who dies in a war that is not in direct defense of their country is…morally complicated, and hardly comparable to the death of an innocent civilian.

      But still, that line stuck in my jaw…because, frankly, if I were to be murdered, it wouldn’t really make me feel any better or reduce the moral harm of my murder if I knew that my murderer was also a man. It just doesn’t change anything. MRAs aren’t saying that all men are angelic; we are saying that there exist many men suffer terribly in life and their suffering is not addressed.

    • That’s a bit of a stretch. Wars are fought in the interests of the monied and the powerful, and men bear the brunt of their machinations, both by carrying the chief burden of advancing those machinations and of dying for their cause. The deaths and heroics of soldiers rarely advance their own interests, protecting their own property, their loved ones, their ideals (while those may be the personal reasons they sacrifice themselves, rarely is their death actually necessary for that cause). Instead they sacrifice themselves for same institutions of wealth and power which create and enforce the issues of classism, racism, and sexism.

      That those who head those institutions in the U.S. are overwhelmingly male, white, and wealthy is no coincidence. The patriarchy is inseparable from the oligarchy, just as racism is rooted in classism. Men act and die on behalf of a system which benefits a few at great cost to themselves.

      How is pointing that out evil?

  4. Your rebuttals are so weak and ideology dependent it’s hardly worth the effort of debunking. Let me talk about what hasn’t been discussed. First of all the issue of ideological dependent. You assume men’s issues can be erased by blaming other men for their issues and they cannot. Unlike feminist, MRA’s are not viewing the world exclusively in terms of blaming one sex or another for the problems of either. They worry about men having problems and hope that society would do something about it. The only reason they build the case against women doing harm to men or women having some advantage is to challenge feminist on their own ideological turf which is really just sexism repackaged into a compelling victim narrative to rope in gullible men and women of which there are a great many.

    This means men in wars they were drafted into fighting can’t be dismissed as men’s fault. That’s sexist and stupid unless you’re a feminist, and a particularly bigoted one. Such reasoning if used against say African Americans would be devastating. I’m shocked liberals of which I’m one tolerate your destructive misuse of social justice to rationalize bigoted ideas that hurt the cause of countless disadvantaged minorities by giving legitimacy to the use of statistics to demonize groups you don’t like.

    Your case for dismissing male suicide was pathetic. Attempts don’t count because what matters is saving lives, end of story.

    Your case for life expectancy was also absurd. The point again is saving lives. If men still died sooner then it doesn’t matter how much women paid for healthcare. All that shows is paying more for those services didn’t have a adverse impact on their lifespan relative to men.

    Your case for workplace deaths was also a tragic FAIL. Men choosing jobs we need people to do that put them at great risk is something we should thank them for. We shouldn’t dismiss their deaths on those jobs just because they chose them. The struggle for workers rights and safety would not have been possible with such cold hearted reasoning dominating the conversation. Worse yet imagine if we applied that logic to women in abusive relationships.

    Speaking of abusive relationships, how are we to know if these women killers were real victims of abuse or women caught up in bidirectional domestic violence who took their aggression too far? As usual feminist rely on sexist stereotypes to make judgments when they favor women. Your DOJ stats on who is injured are as dubious as DOJ’s studies showing 10 to 1 rates of domestic abuse between the sexes while hundreds of other studies foreign and domestic show gender symmetry. Even the CDC NISVS shows this and a 3:5 male to female ratio for serious violence. The DOJ has some explaining to do and I would not be surprised if it’s due to feminist rigging the statistics behind the scenes. Awareness of symmetry is a wave you can’t stop because our own lived experiences validate it.

    Your case for child support is bogus because poverty does not exempt you from obligation.

    Your case for child murder is pathetic excuse making. You have endless compassion for women and zero for men even when a women kills her child. It sounds like you’d like women to have the sort of get out of jail card we reserve for children and the mentally disabled but even they we’ll throw in the slammer for life. It’s a lousy argument and being poor doesn’t mean you murder your infant children that are highly strongly by adoption agencies. You didn’t even consider the fathers interest.

    You failed to address sexual violence statistics in the CDC NISVS 2010. You should get on that.

    We should be grateful for MRA’s because having sexist like you running social justice or gender equality is a recipe for disaster and injustice. It’s that injustice that gave rise to MRA’s in the first place. Good day.

    • You know how we know Elliot Rodger can’t possibly have been an MRA?

      Because no MRA has ever done any activism worth talking about, let alone write a 140 page manifesto.

      Social justice you ain’t.

      • @Francois >How is that a cheap shot?

        Well, for one, you are implying that Elliot Rodger has engaged in ‘activism worth talking about’. Second, you imply that writing a deranged, rambling 140 page ‘manifesto’ is somehow beneficial to the world.

        Are you an academic, that you could be so deluded?

    • I keep hearing stories about these MRAs that don’t hate women but just want to help men, but they’re always second hand. I’ve never seen any evidence that one such person exists.

    • I do consider myself a feminist, or sometimes an “egalitarian” because I really do think both- scratch that – ALL genders should be treated equally. However I think some counter-arguments in reaction to this piece are compelling and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, like this one in this comment right here.

      I think acting like Men don’t have Rights is going too far, or “blaming women” for all of these problems that men have, but I’m not sure MRAs as a movement are doing that. I have been a victim of an abusive mother and she also was abusive to her husband, I’ve been in a court child custody battle where there was a real fear of my father, who was clearly the more fit parent, not getting custody because he’d spent less time with me total over the years and because the courts are biased toward women as being better parents. Acknowledging that men have problems in society that people can’t ignore is not the same as blaming women or thinking women don’t have problems too. I am a 24-year-old woman, myself. And I am wary of so-called MRAs, but I don’t want to dismiss them out of hand as purely irrational. I don’t necessarily think they are.

      But being inflammatory against feminists and accusing them of being sexist and unfair is going too far too, I think, and I can’t say I agree with that. I largely agree with what feminists often have to say. And I think there should be a more civil discussion over some of these issues.

      • What little I know of MRA’s is directly from feminists who belittle, insult and humiliate them. There was a time 40 years ago when women and men scoffed at the idea of feminism. Stereotyping feminists in many negative and hateful manners. The only reference that MRA’s are negative towards feminists come from feminists when they are attacking MRA’s. The last time I saw anything on TV on MRA was regarding the SNL skit that parodied, distorted, and humiliated the MRA’s. Recently with the shooting of 2 women the MRA’s have hit the spot light, and to be honest, I don’t believe it was fair since the shooter was crazy and was in a site (anti pua and anti mra).

        However, I have heard of issues that impact men, for example the show 2 1/2 men had a scene where the Mom wanted the Dad to have full care for the son for a summer or a year but refused to reduce her child support payments. There are the putative fathers laws. There are issues on counties with week visitation enforcement. While men do give up primary custody during mediation, it’s often under threat of losing full custody, a perceived unfair system, high costs from guardian ad litem rulings, and much much more. Men not only fear they will lose custody in court, they don’t even think they are qualified to parent. Just like some african americans perceive other african americans as negatives with a inherent negative bias in Harvard IAT studies, just ask they try to turn their skin white because of the marketing and media teaching them self hate. So too men have become accustomed to seeing their own parenting skills as negative. Even Transgender identity issues far more impact men as they have come to hate their own gender identity.

        Issues like child abuse, filicide, rates of abuse between men and women and same gender intimate couples are not brought up to say women are more violent, but to suggest that when things are more even such as investigating a child being abused, or abuse in a female-female relationship, the result is very different. Perhaps, there is a biased against men. Men may be inclined not to see women abusing them physically or verbally as abusive (whether it’s masculine or feminine it’s still a sexist based view). Police, judges, jury’s and psychologists are also less likely to push charges of abuse on women and more likely to see men as an aggressor. That’s why the filicide, child abuse, and same sex abuse rates are brought up.

        Yes, the world is sexist, and there are negative impacts from gender roles that hurt men and women. I don’t know if I would say one is a bigger issue. I would say that there is a very androginistic tone lately against even the idea that men are negatively impacted or that these issues should be addressed.

        Rape excludes men, by definition. Even if a man is forced to penetrate a woman, or is unconscious when a woman impales herself on a man, not only is it not rape–but a woman will likely get custody and can sue for child support in all 50 states. This happens even if the man proves sex was not consenting.

        Sexism excludes men, by definition. Case in point was the debunking article itself which claimed being masculine and doing masculine things which result in self harm is not sexist.

        Domestic violence excludes men, by definition (see: Violence against Women Act).

        Education equity excludes men, by definition (see: Women’s Educational Equity Act).

        Get the picture? Men aren’t part of the definition. Define them out of enough things, and they can be treated as asexual, genderless objects that oppress women instead of human beings.

        Within media things get worse. In the huggies commercial and in many movies and tv shows, men are shown as incapable of caring for a child. While rape is still seen in movies and on TV, it’s almost never a joking matter regarding women. Male on Male rape is still very much a joke and punch line in shows. Within society, it’s not unusual for male rape to be considered as a form of deserved punishment. Which is sad considering many of the male rapists in prison are likely to have raped women.

        Here’s the kicker. I don’t go to MRA sites. I got this from my own observations and after reading a series of very androginistic and hate filled articles attacking men and MRA’s lately. I point this out because the only one making the issue a issue in my eyes are those with who right these androgyny based articles.

  5. I’m hammered right now but some of these sources don’t back up your statements they only provide evidence of the tail end of the sentence not the general claims made or implications you have suggested which often form the crux of your refutation. Also I think the approach taken when looking at the reason for putting out some of the claims is flawed in that it’s been looked at as blaming women for these, where as it is more of a fundamental critique of societal patterns and that needs attention or at the very least puts other claims from other activist groups into a broader context of the expectations we should have in terms of naturally occurring irregularities and disparities in the world. I think all activists of every movement should stop with these idiotic simplifications of what are nuanced concepts that seem to misidentify the fundamental agenda of each movement in the first place. Nevertheless I commend you on a solid response and for using references.

  6. ” I found it more amusing that he complained that I didn’t provide sources for the other guy’s posted claims, i.e. jury bias and the 9x number.”
    You defend a point which had no source in the original, and you also fail to provide a source, so I am allowed to take both of you to the task for not providing a source. Either defend the point with evidence or concede it, you dishonest scum.

  7. Hm, I think you have a very dismissive way of dealing with some pretty dire issues affecting men. I wonder how you feel about it when the roles are reversed (“Let’s look at actual rape statistics.”) and things that affect you are explained away. If you feel that happens already, and you don’t like it… well, how about don’t do it yourself. Sure some of the statistics are taken out of context or presented in a biased way by the MRM, but that happens EVERYWHERE. I also find it interesting how the gender binary comes out in full force: something in society is bad for women: patriarchy, this needs to change! Something is bad for men in society: well, they CHOOSE to do it, let’s try really hard and explain it with anything but gender.

  8. 3. Matters of war:

    The matter here is about perceived male dispensability in war. The fact that you use this as a conduit for venting hateful hangups about who is blameworthy for acts of war (as if one sex can be blameworthy for war) is actually pretty disgusting. Are you suggesting that women in positions of power would be any less polemic? Think again. I don’t even need to cite the examples. The fact, then, that men have dominated commanding positions of the military, therefore, is not very stable.

    Abuses by soldiers are probably as a result of a culture of violence, much less than as a result of having male genitalia as you suggest. Look at the perpetrators of the torture in Abu Ghraib by American forces. Tell me if you happen to spot any women. Please, try to tell me that Lynndie England is somehow less culpable for her actions in Abu Ghraib than the males are. That is, of course, just citing one example. One could write volumes on female atrocities in Nazi camps against other women prisoners, and yes, male prisoners. But that need not be flogged to death, because unlike a plethora of feminist authors, I am not interesting in pinning blame on one sex or the perceived defects of that sex. That is senseless.

    • “unlike a plethora of feminist authors, I am not interesting in pinning blame on one sex or the perceived defects of that sex. That is senseless.”

      I agree wholeheartedly. You cannot campaign against the injustices of damaging sexual stereotypes while indulging in them yourself. There are many ways to engender cultural change, but that is not one of them.

  9. 1. Matters of suicide:

    Firstly, it would perhaps do you some good to read the work you cite in its entirety. Even a broad sweep of the Canetto article that you so brazenly cited would not help in finding any indication that the socialization and cultural factors are by any means the “strongest explanation for men’s relative success in suicide attempts”; rather, you will notice, clearly stated in the concluding paragraphs, that the theory, however merited it may be, is one of a few other explanations (including men’s alcohol consumption and favored use of firearms as a means of suicide). That you declare these reasons to be the strongest factor, and, using the thought-prohibiting language that you do, imply that it is the only relevant factor, is erroneous.

    But I’ll even give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s just assume for a moment that you didn’t just commit a citational blunder, and that the issues of socialization are in fact the leading reason for men’s disproportionately high suicide rates. How exactly, by proposing this explanation, are you debunking their claims? Their concern is the disproportionately high rate of suicide among men; addressing that concern might not lead an inquiring mind to your prescribed explanation, but it also may. Unlike admittedly most feminist dialogues, any experience of the Men’s Rights Movement will show you that its proponents are not so much interested in laying blame on an entire sex in some obscure zero-sum game, rather it is to investigate and remedy the issues for which men are increasingly losing a voice. Therefore, socialization may in fact play a role in the gender paradox as it pertains to suicide, but highlighting that possibility does nothing to discredit those in the MRM.

    The last two sentences you write of the first paragraph are certainly thought provoking, but are almost irrelevant; murder-suicides, however abominable they might be, are of a distinct character than pure suicides. They are indistinguishable in many respects from other violent crimes and homicides affecting a dishearteningly high amount of people. Several school shootings and other violence involving youth end in suicide of the perpetrator, as well. You might as well report a statistic that shows that men are responsible for most murders, which is obvious. No one in the MRM would dispute that, because it is simply true and is an issue that all of us are willing to address. Additionally, it is not so easy to just “eat” a proposition like “many of these suicides were actually murder-suicides” without applying any value to the qualifier “many”. That does not mean “most”. What we’re left with, at the end of the day, is just a small piece of the issue of men’s suicide being redirected to murder-suicide; we still have the other vast majority of suicide cases to contend with.

  10. This genuinely infuriates me. Making up statistics to demonize men, trivializing the experiences of male victims of domestic violence and rape, putting women on a pedestal with ridiculous fantasy ideas, demeaning the experiences of male soldiers and suicides. This brand of feminism is no better or different than the MRAs they are criticizing.

  11. terrorist and criminal PoC’s, evil feminists, gay mafias…straight white men sure do have to elaborately demonize everything that threatens to make them NOT the default power in every situation. Funny how simply saying “straight white guy” needs no demonizing add-on to make women, PoC’s and gay people rightly terrified of them.

  12. Pingback: Look, "Lester", I'm Allowed to Support #NoMRA |
  13. This article saddens me. There is only token debunking going on here, with a strong undercurrent of man-hating. What is it exactly that you want to achieve from this article? You certainly aren’t going to persuade anyone to change their thinking through it. All you are doing is antagonising, making the situation worse.

    How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you come out with bizarre and frankly offensive sweeping generalisations like men taking dangerous jobs to prove their masculinity?! Certainly my reasons for taking that work were nothing to do with that, and I’ve never come across anyone who has those reasons. The overwhelming reason is because its high risk nature makes it fractionally better paid than other options open to people with no experience or qualifications.

    I regard myself as a feminist – I believe in equality. I do not regard you as a feminist. Feminism is not about blame and demonising, but that is the very strong undercurrent in this article.

    Which is a shame, as the general concept, showing up flaws in absurd ‘men’s rights’ propaganda, is a good one.

    I’m sure you have nothing but the best intentions, but you’re clearly not the right person to be doing it, your low opinion of men shines through. from the aforementioned crazed notions of men taking low pay high risk jobs through ‘proving masculinity’, to stating that killing is justified, to diverting from the real issue (the absurd claim that professional soldiers are in some way victims of war) to the same tired old notion that war is caused by men (a coincidence based on the fact that politicians are overwhelmingly men. “On every level of analysis it is men who are responsible for war, and to somehow blame male combat deaths on women is not only absurd, but insane.” – I assume that looking at the recent warmonger Margaret Thatcher would be ‘insane’ and would not come under the banner of ‘every level of analysis’). This is really not good stuff at all.

    If you want to debunk, then debunk. That is a part of the solution. However do not trot out your own hate filled propaganda. That just makes you part of the problem, meaning you are fuelling rather than reducing the ‘men’s rights’ movement.

  14. So when did saying ‘you know we really need feminism Men are perfectly able to hate themselves“ become All Men blaming All Women for Men killing Men? Where? This peice is pointless and illogical, not unusual for a man bashing opinion peice,

  15. Every single one of these comments proves the point they’re trying to make about MRAs being hypocritical skeevy trilby-toting douchebags who think they’re oh so oppressed because women actually have a foothold in society for once. My father was a child rapist. My mother worked her goddamn ass off to keep at least one of us safe and got shit for it while he got praised for raising my two siblings while he was raping them behind closed doors. Why don’t you just admit that the only real problem facing MRAs is bullshit like what you’re spewing in the comments now. Dumbasses.

  16. “Well, for one, you are implying that Elliot Rodger has engaged in ‘activism worth talking about’. Second, you imply that writing a deranged, rambling 140 page ‘manifesto’ is somehow beneficial to the world. ”

    Way to totally miss the point of what I said, buddy.

  17. buddhaflow, your statistics are not worth shit. They don’t distinguish between single families and couples, for one thing. They don’t tell us the degree of abuse, for another. But most importantly, no one said women don’t abuse their children. The original claim was:

    “Child abusers (predominantly women) should be incarcerated for life and have their vaginas sown up so they can’t give birth to even more victims.”

    Okay, this is simply false and hate speech, so shut the fuck up, buddhaflow and your MRA buddies…

  18. Just to add another thread to your evidence base, Owen, using some statistics from another country …

    Here in NSW, Australia, the hospitalisation rate for women as a result of violence by domestic partner/spouse in 2012/2013 is almost six and a half times the rate for men. When you just look at the 15-24 age group that ratio jumps to ELEVEN times.

    The huge disparity tracks back ten years, which is when NSW Health started compiling these statistics. This isn’t an outlier.

    Intimate partner violence against men is a real problem, and one where support services are dreadfully under-resourced. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that women are victims of intimate partner violence in much larger numbers, contrary to MRA talking points. If you don’t accurately understand the scope of the problem, it’s difficult to fix it.

    Source: NSW Health Healthstats website, Interpersonal violence hospitalisations: Persons injured by perpetrator type.

  19. “He was in a anti- PUA anti-MRA website. The name was called”
    You’re an idiot. are for people who are against PUA because they think IT DOESN’T WORK. They still hate women as much as PUAs.

  20. Pingback: Favorite Feminism 101 Links | 740TAO
  21. Pingback: Diversity Writings That Still Echo | The Open Window
  22. Pingback: A bunch of tales of egregious race and gender BS. With studies! | Humanist+Humorist

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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