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. Overall 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:

308 thoughts on “Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement

  1. Quite an effort to bring the blame back to the male sex/gender for every imaginable bad outcome for men. Yet no attention is paid to perhaps the single most important factorin how a man turns out the way he does–his childhood experiences, determined by the behaviors of his primary caregiver, which in the vast majority of cases is his mother. Mothers hit children 2-3 times as often as men, and the average mother begins begins physical aggression against her child before the age of 1, hitting them dozens of times a year. Little boys are also more likely to be hit by their mothers than little girls. Statistically, the two biggest predictors in negative outcomes in adulthood for boys such as emotional dysfunction, violent crime, proclivity to rape and sexual assault, etc, are having grown up in a single mother household, and having been subjected to physical and/or emotional abuse at a young age, which is most often perpetrated by mothers.

      • Warne Farrell has a host of resources and backed by evidence based practices that are supported by credible peer reviewed sources.

      • One argument you don’t address Francois, is discrimination against men in college selection, hiring and promotions. When an institution installs a “diversity program’ or ‘affirmative action program’, white men are subjected to systematic oppression. That is because when the white male equals or even betters the merit scores of females or minorities (however merit is measured by the institution), while men automatically lose because the system is designed to add points to the hiring, promotion or college entrance score to the favored group.

        Now you may say this is justified because of historical oppression of the favored group, or some other reason. While that may lead to a discussion of the pros and cons of this practice, what is also does is acknowledges that there is discrimination taking place. White men get angry about this lack of fairness. As I am sure women would be angry when told “Yes, you were the better qualified applicant but we hired a man instead of you because we wanted a man, not a woman”. So this is just one situation in which the MRA movement has a legitimate argument.

        In this case, the solution is simple. Allow everyone an equal opportunity and advance winners based solely on merit. When that does not happen, white men justifiably complain.

    • This is the best comment ever. And here I thought that everything on the internet such as youtube videos are true (sarcasm).

      • that article is a load of biased nonsense. i mean yeah, he makes some valid points here and there, but its so blatantly biased and strupid, its worthless, it seems nobody can defend feminism by using facts and making sense. im not a supporter of MRAs at this point, i dont know enough about them, and i do suspect they may well be guilty of all the same awful things feminists do. gos ive grown to hate feminism, its so utterly pathetic and divorced from reality. wpmen have equality, so why the need for feminism? men and women are different which means that equality for women does not mean having everything that men have. it also does not mean a life free of female exclusive problems, we dont live in an ideal society. equality means- a woman has the same chance at a happy life. women have that

  2. Women are only good for 1 thing, well maybe 2. And once we have the tech required to make you obsolete, you will be hell look at Africa and China where they abort the useless females. Once sexbots and artificial wombs are available why would bother with the obsolete sex.

    • The question you should be asking, Mr Sandman, is why should we bother with you? What are you useful for? Why shouldn’t we get rid of you instead? And leave women with people who know to appreciate them?

      As long as we’re cool with getting rid of people who don’t meet your criteria for usefulness, I mean.

    • If any sex is eliminated, it would be the male one. Having two X chromosomes is a huge advantage, especially when we unlock how to “activate” genes on the inactive X. Women have stronger immune systems, are less likely to get cancer, and live longer because of the incidental activation of this other chromosome.

  3. What about the fact that women recive shorter sentences for crimes other than spousal murder? Did you conveniently leave that out?
    And let’s talk about parental rights Men have virtually none.
    A woman can name any man she likes as the father, he gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the father within 30 days—(suppose the letter gets lost by the USPS?)—he is now the father and must pay. He cannot contest it.
    A boy who is the victim of statutory rape must pay child support to his rapist.
    A man who is raped while unconscious must likewise pay child support.
    A man who fathers a child and wishes to take custody may have his child adopted out against his will and essentially kidnapped

  4. What about the fact that women receive smaller sentences for the same crime in offences other than spousal murder?
    And what about parental rights?
    •A woman can name any man she likes as the father, he gets a letter in the mail, if he does not prove he isn’t the father within 30 days—(suppose the letter gets lost by the USPS?)—he is now the father and must pay. He cannot contest it. (
    •A boy who is the victim of statutory rape must pay child support to his rapist. (
    •A man who is raped while unconscious must likewise pay child support. (

    And as for reproductive rights, just read this. (

    • Bla bla bla smaller sentences. They commit far fewer violent crimes and the circumstances in which the crimes are committed are different. There’s no such thing as “the same crime.” Their sentences (which btw are handed down by 85% MALE judges) make sense on a case by case basis and the aggregate number is not in and of itself an indication of bias against men.

      A woman can name any man she likes… bla bla bla… Well your link to the (lol) “” article comes up with nothing… so you got nothing.
      But this link does NOT.

      hIn 33 states a RAPIST can FORCE a women to give child visitation rights to her attacker. ttp://

      Apparently convicted rapists have more rights than mothers. Tell me more about how courts are “bias against men”

      And your one-off case from LOL “a vocie for men” (the known hate site where Paul Elam says women going to bars are “begging to get raped” Great source there…) no one was convicted of statutory rape, so legally the guy wasn’t even a rape victim. Nice try “Lies For Men”

      Olivas the “victim” said he wants to be a part of his daughter’s life and is willing to pay child support.

      So much worse than the laws protecting convicted rapists in most states. Us poor mens boo hoo…so oppressed! Jesus MRAs are full of shit. I can’t even get over how full of shit they are. It’s bizarre how much just sheer amount of bullshit can be packed into one group of people.

      And seriously fuck your reddit comments. Read some credible sources for once, honestly it’s embarassing. What’s your next link 4 chan? LOL…

  5. Pingback: Friday Links (pig-nosed turtle edition) | Font Folly
  6. Hey, thanks for writing this article. Thanks especially for citing so well: some of those links led to some pretty interesting reads! A lot of the stats were pretty mind-blowing… I still can’t stop freaking out about the war crimes and violence. LOL I hope one day that MRAs can learn how to defend their views, or at least change their views to ACTUALLY help men. There are so many real problems that men face that they could actually focus on, it seems a waste that such a furious ‘movement’ if it could even be called that, focuses on bringing down a movement that fights for human rights for so many marginalized people, in addition to women.

  7. I just think it’s so hilarious that someone on here said men have a legitimate grip when it comes to Affirmative Action programs. HA HA. HA

    What’s the greatest affirmative action program of the last, oh, 500 years at least? WHITENESS!!! And of the last 10,000 years or so? MALENESS!!! HA! HA HA!

    Let’s promote women and people of color ahead of white men for the next 500-10,000 years (give or take), and then they can start complaining.

    Incidentally, I’m glad women’s higher rate of suicide attempts and the real reason women are more often awarded custody (we do almost all of the childcare anyway) were both mentioned. That’s great.

    For me one of the most telling facts is that in studies of married happiness, married men are happier than single men and single women are happier than married women (according to self-reporting). Could this be because women do all of the unpaid emotional and physical labor of the household? Have to put their own dreams and desires on the back burner so often? Are expected to put up with more ill treatment, and shut up about it lest they be slapped with the dreaded “nag” label?

    I, for one, refuse to marry or even partner with anyone who I don’t think would pull his weight with home and kids and treat me as an equal. That’s definitely a large part of why I’ve chosen to remain single.

    MRA dudes are so delusional…wake up and smell the inequality. It doesn’t smell *that* much better than the inside of your ass, but at least it does marginally.

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