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, justifying a deadly response. [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:

332 thoughts on “Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement

  1. Pingback: Démystifier le Mouvement de Défense Des Hommes | Scènes de l'avis quotidien
  2. Pingback: Démystifier le Mouvement de Défense Des Hommes | mascuwatch
    • “To all MRAs: try being real men for once and admit you’re a clutch of hysterical virgins who lie, cheat and threaten because you don’t have the testicular fortitude to face what woman-hating faggots you all are. Don’t like it, stop being one!”

      I found this quote at the bottom of your ‘reply’. I think we’re done here. You can stop pretending to care, nobody is confused on that one anymore.

      • Pretending to care? I never “pretended to care” about MRAs. So what are you even going on about?

        Your other comments lead me to believe that you are very confused indeed. Let me clarify things for you: you are scum.

      • You weren’t tipped off by his sad opening? 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.

  3. Pingback: Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement | Six words will do; more available.
  4. Pingback: Debunking the Men’s Rights Movement.</p Wow. What an odious abuse of statistics paraded to support a misguided cause. Thanks to Owen Lloyd for debunking it. All the claims are so offensive it almost seems in poor taste to point to one as the wors
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. “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.

      • I don’t think you are evil, but to dismiss the issues most men face because of the decisions of a few men whose gender is incidental to their position as ruling elites is naive and unintelligent.

    • 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?

    • Seriously?

      The point of that statement wasn’t to say that men who die in war are unimportant or that nobody cares about their deaths (or, well, whatever it is about that statement that you think is “evil”). It was to point out that men dying in war isn’t an issue *caused* by women.

  8. 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.

      • And I keep hearing about dictionary definition feminists… but the only one I’ve ever heard of has been labeled anti-feminists in the wikipedia feminist page and is number 1 “woman working tirelessly to screw over other women”.

    • 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.

      • Very well said- way too much labelling and name-calling goes on and it makes it impossible to value each others points. We need to focus on solutions and not merely point out problems and lay blame.

      • I think the main problem is that people are polarizing the two, “men’s rights” and “feminism,” as if feminism equated exclusively “women’s rights.” Feminism is closely tied to the women’s rights movement, especially in the context of history, reproductive rights, and in developing areas, but the point of feminism is to challenge the idea that femininity is weak – and part of that is that feminine aspects are seen as limited to only women and girls. So, to me, feminism not only supports women entering careers and being paid equally as men, but also supports women choosing to devote their careers to raising their children, and supports men who choose to do the same. There’s no word we use for a “non-racist” or whatnot, but a feminist – at the very base level – is supposed to embody a “non-sexist.” (I don’t see feminism as some girl power! group, and I’m insulted when that belittling, age-old image is slapped onto it.) The upsetting reason that male rape cases are not taken as seriously female ones (which is not to say that female rape cases are handled satisfactorily) is because males are still traditionally seen as exclusively masculine, while females are seen as exclusively feminine. This narrow view of genders inhibits society from considering men as legitimate victims.

        Furthermore, it’s simply not fair to label feminism as the “hate movement.” I would never, and as far as every feminist I know would agree, consider just men to blame. But I guess it’s predictable for some to easily dismiss what they want to perceive as a girls’ protest. The problems presented by feminism are problems that need to be addressed in society. Mothers and fathers alike ingrain their children at a young age what being a boy or girl is supposed to mean – Be a man, Act like a lady. I’m not pretending there are no inherent differences in every child. But children will grow up and take those internalized ideas with them, continuing this cycle of women = demure, delicate, emotional; men = professional, macho, insensitive.

        I agree with the people criticizing the poor aspects of this article, though I also recognize some of the facts and logic it presents. I was deeply offended by the statement that tried to downplay filicide committed by mothers, as well as the one that declared fathers as naturally better caregivers and protectors of their children, dismissing the legitimacy of motherhood. Placing blanket statements over feminism is like generalizing all people who identify as Christians. It’s disappointing that the prevailing image of feminism that MRAs insist on clinging to is a hateful, violent one. The reality is that most of the issues presented by MRAs are already included in intersectional feminism, while, frankly, MRA offers no empathy for women or the struggles of women. Are they pretending that women are not severely underrepresented in multiple areas, as well as men in others? Or are men naturally supposed to be supreme? Thankfully, regardless of the snide comments on this article, feminism is recognized by respectable institutions of higher learning (e.g. Stanford, Cornell) as the serious, valid movement that it is.

        And another note on “men’s rights activism” – I’m a bit puzzled as to whether MRAs officially fight for the protection of gay or trans men and their rights? Or the representation and inclusion of men/fathers of color? True activism fights for oppressed, marginalized groups of people, even when you don’t necessarily fit into one of those groups.

    • Yes – the evil patriarchy; a system that oppresses women for the benefit of men apparently. Seems to me that the patriarchy has failed miserably to do that.

      in the country where I live –

      Men are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as women and yet we still have affirmative action programs for women in employment; programs that would be illegal if they applied to men.

      Men make up over 90% of the homeless and yet women are prioritised over men in social housing policy, and the reason why many men are homeless in the first place is because they are heavily discriminated in the family courts.

      Men work harder and longer hours on average but still retire later and die younger and yet women’s health issues are the only ones that matter apparently.

      Men are the victims of over 80% of violent assaults and yet we have heavily funded campaigns every year to fight “violence against women.”

      Feminists complain about the completely debunked “pay-gap” and yet women spend over 70% of all disposable income, which is why our entire media culture revolves around pandering to the needs of women.

      Women make up 54% of the electorate giving us a greater say in who gets into power than men. Women are over-represented on political benches in terms of the amounts of women who join political parties in the first place.

      Politicians and media commentators revel in publicly pouring scorn on men, often making sexist remarks about men that regularly cost people their jobs if made about women.

      Men are being marginalised and demonised throughout the education system where women graduates no outnumber male ones at a rate of 60/40 and yet we still have female only scholarship programs and special fee-grants for female students.

      Men are constantly demonised, ridiculed and discriminated in every way that really matters to the extent that many are simply walking away from a game that is so heavily rigged against them. The results are seen in crashing marriage rates, spiralling divorce rates, exploding prison populations, and normalisation of single mother dependency culture which taxpayers can quite simply no longer afford to support.

      I am a woman who has been working with several MRA groups for some time. Sure, every once in a while I encounter an angry bitter man who just hates women, but by and large, MRAs tend to be open-minded and thoughtful and not at all misogynistic. MRAs with few exception believe in justice and fairness for men. It is not an anti-woman movement although it is virulently anti-feminist because it understands that our misandric culture, driven by feminism, hurts men, women and children.

      • “by and large, MRAs tend to be open-minded and thoughtful and not at all misogynistic”

        Now that’s hilarious. Save this bit for April 1, dear.

  9. 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.

  10. ” 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    • “as if one sex can be blameworthy for war”

      Don’t be obtuse. Men have historically held the vast majority of political and military power basically everywhere. This is NOT to say that ALL men are responsible for war, but the people who ARE responsible for war happen to be men. It is also not to say that putting women in a position of equal power would cause there to be less war – there is no way to determine what effect more women in power would have on war since that hasn’t happened yet. It’s just a statement pointing out that women are not responsible for men dying in war.

      “The matter here is about perceived male dispensability in war.”

      Male dispensability is a result of heavily gendered societies that value women for fertility and domestic capabilities. Many men have done their damndest to prevent women from fighting in wars; why then would you turn around and get angry that it’s mostly men who die in them? Women have TRIED to fight and be in positions of risking their lives for the sake of a cause worth fighting for, and been denied.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Pingback: Look, "Lester", I'm Allowed to Support #NoMRA |
  17. 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.

  18. 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,

    • “Man bashing”… boo fkn hoo… so much worse than men’s holocaust of mass rape and mass murder of women for millenia. /s


  19. 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.

  20. “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.

  21. 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…

  22. 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.

    • Yes, mandatory hospital visit for anything from “He hit me” to “We suspect she was hit” to “lets check her out in the ER”. Men are usually arrested and ignored, so these numbers are HIGHLY SUSPECT.

    • “But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that women are victims of intimate partner violence in much larger numbers”

      You can not logically infer your conclusion from the statistic you sited.

      You can say that women who are victims of DV require medical treatment more often then men, but you can not say with certainty that means that they are victims of DV at a higher rate. It may be true, but would require additional evidence to draw that conclusion.

  23. “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.

    • Why do most of your comments need to include name-calling and profanity? It does nothing to strengthen your argument or garner support or credibility. Quite the opposite to be honest.

  24. Pingback: Favorite Feminism 101 Links | 740TAO
  25. Pingback: Diversity Writings That Still Echo | The Open Window
  26. Pingback: A bunch of tales of egregious race and gender BS. With studies! | Humanist+Humorist
  27. Pingback: On MRAs: Court Bias « Private Made Public
  28. Eh, debunking a random blog post is not really debunking the MRM. I will completely grant you, that some of the cases he makes in the blog post are weak to non-substantial. These points have been argued a lot better in a lot of different places.

    But the main thing why a lot of MRAs don’t like feminism, and hold it accountable for a lot of the ills that men face, is “patriarchy theory”. It is telling the constant story of how men are evil, how they are responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world. At the same time, women are held up to be infallible. If she did something wrong, the men must have made her do it.

    Let’s take some of your arguments. Sure, wars are started by men. Nobody is arguing that. But women play their part as well. Do you know, for example, about the White Feather campaign?

    Lesser sentences for women is not only about domestic violence or even spousal murder. It’s all across the board. For example when it comes to child abuse. A female teacher is abusing a male student, and she gets 2 years on parole, while the male teacher abusing a female student gets twice life. When everything is identical but the sexes of those involved. Both crimes are equally atrocious in my eyes, so why would the woman get off with a slap on the wrist?

  29. But remember folks, feminism is about equality, not hating men. All these discrepancies that benefit women, well, the author can create excuses and blame men for those problems, which means we should ignore them. But any discrepancies women face, well, even suggesting it is a matter of anything other than sexism is, well, sexist. Just look at the excuse given to excuse workplace deaths… men choose more dangerous jobs… Never mind those dangerous jobs pay a lot more, and by this authors own admission, these jobs are something women don’t choose.. but even suggest the wage gap is based on personal choice and you get blasted for “MISOGYNY”. And since men choose those jobs, well, who gives a damn if their dying, right? They choose it. So no need to advocate to better safety regulations… dammit, women are being called “BOSSY”

  30. I’ll start with your totally ignorant section on domestic violence, in which you claim MRAs “speak of “numerous credible studies” and carefully avoid citing any of them.,” and then you cite the Department of Jusice. Wow. The Department of Justice is a CRIME agency. Crime data is totally unreliable because female-on-male domestic violence is much less reported in crime surveys. You want data? Here it is. According to the Centers for Disease Control “More than 1 in 3 women and more than 1 in 4 men in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime” and “About 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime.” See executive summary at

    About 300 studies confirm “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, as men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

    For example, a new study by the University of Cumbria confirmed “Women are ‘more controlling and aggressive than men’ in relationships.”

    This is true throughout the world. A 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and controlling as men in relationships worldwide.

    For another example, a major study funded by the Centers for Disease Control recently examined heterosexual relationships throughout the U.S. and found: “Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence,and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocallyviolent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.”

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, every year there are 4.8 million incidents of intimate partner assaults and rapes against women and 2.9 against men, with 25% of the deaths being men.

    Don’t tell me MRAs don’t cite data. In fact CNN recently had experts on the show that confirmed women initiate DV as often as men do. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Let’s look at a few more of your so-called “debunkings”:

    SUICIDE You said: “women attempt it three times as often” First, attempted suicide rates are far less reliable, since they need to be reported and it’s likely men report it far less. In fact, women who attempt but fail are often just looking for attention. The males are actually dying. I would say that’s pretty significant.

    JOB DEATHS You said: “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.” Ok. And how does that negate the point? Or the fact that 92% of occupational deaths are men? The latest research shows women still seek men who earn more than they do. So women certainly have a part in re-enforcing gender roles.

    CUSTODY You’re ignoring the fact that settlements come in the face of a biased system. Up until the 1970s bar associations were still telling judges not to give custody to men (search Time Magazine, “Father Makes Two”). The bias is still very much there. I have practiced family law for years and teach it at Pasadenay City College and I have seen judges say things that are clear and obvious gender bias.

    CRIMINAL SENTENCING: You’re ignoring LOTS of data. Research has repeatedly shown men get higher sentences than women for the same crime even for non-accomplice crimes when you factor the number of priors, family situation, race, age, etc.

    The gender of the victim matters as well. A drunk driver will receive an average of a 3-year higher sentence for killing a female than for killing a male (compared to a 2-year higher sentence for killing a white instead of a black). (“Unconventional Wisdom,” Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2000.) Researchers Edward Glaeser (Harvard) and Bruce Sacerdote (Dartmouth) examined 2,800 homicide cases randomly drawn from 33 urban counties by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and found killing a female instead of a male increased sentences by 40.6% (compared to 26.8% for killing a white instead of a black).

  31. “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.”

    Actually, men occupy more dangerous jobs because SOMEONE HAS TO. The fraction of men who actually choose dangerous jobs to impress others must be infinitesimal, considering most people (especially women) are far more impressed by jobs which offer higher economic status (which are not necessarily dangerous).

    “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.”

    What a pathetic strawman. No MRA has ever blamed women for the deaths in wars.

    And only men are responsible for wars? Seriously? Let me point you out to a certain White Feather Campaign, in which women shamed men to participating into combat:

    Also, it seems odd to me that you have never heard of Margaret Thatcher and the wars in which she was involved:

    “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.”

    Utterly disgusting. Not only do you ignore the fact that women receive lighter sentences in virtually all crimes (not even counting the fact that a woman is less likely to be convicted), you actually assume that most cases of women murdering their husbands is justified by domestic abuse (with no actual proof to support this claim). I need to point out that society is far less likely to even recognize when women are the abusive side of the relationship due to a deeply ingrained cognitive bias, but no one would EVER attempt to justify a man killing his wife by claiming that she was abusive to him. That clearly shows you have zero empathy for men.

  32. Do you want equality? I’m serious! Do you truly want equality? If you want true equality stop writing special policies, and or laws for specific people. Stop adding gender and/or race tags to your policies, procedures and laws unless it’s about specific things such as testicular cancer vs. ovarian cancer. Equality means: having the same value; having the same need; being treated the same. It does not mean receiving more; paying more; having special treatment; needed exclusive laws; being treated better, or special. Rape is rape. Domestic violence is domestic violence. If you want true equality; if you want blind justice, stop demanding special treatment! Stop manipulating numbers to fit your personal desires and wants, and start looking at what would benefit all. Funny thing! The most important thing I hear about from men regarding equality is about getting equal time with their children. If that’s NOT your experience, Maybe your hanging around the wrong men?

  33. The author is essentially saying that men could not possibly be treated unfairly by society, because society is ruled by men. His best example is that yes, men are killed in wars, but they are sent to those wars by male political and military rulers. This in itself is debatable given that female voters outnumber male ones and that there have also been lots of ruling female warmongers throughout history too.

    He obviously believes that the MRM contention is that men are oppressed by women. It is not. It is that men and women both contribute to a geocentric system under which men are seen as disposable, and that many women, especially feminists, abuse that system for their own benefit. He seems to have thought about this subject a lot, but he has missed the most glaringly obvious truth about the dynamics between the sexes, that a deeply ingrained instinct for male chivalry is what feeds both the feminist movement and our anti-male society in general. Ironically it is this instinct that has led him to the points of view he expresses, and he still doesn’t get it.

  34. How can one simultaneously reject the gender-stereotyped social pressures that drive women out of STEM fields as a problem and blame men for the gender-stereotyped social pressures that lead to more industrial accidents for men?

  35. After losing a ton of braincells at this inept piece of hypocritical trash, this is the statement that best illustrates the problem with this and feminism in general:

    “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.”

    Wow, it must be amazing to be able to read other people’s minds and know for an absolute fact what is the motivation for their actions. James Randi has a million bucks for you.

    You view the world through your patriarchy-colored glasses and thus can only see things as you want and wish them to be instead of how they actually are.

  36. You haven’t debunked anything in this article all you have done is sidestep the facts or tried to introduce other facts thinking that they cancel out the valid and accurate points MRAs make. Your blog just proves and strengthens MRAs points.

  37. Pingback: I wandered lonely as a linkspam (October 2014)
  38. I seen 4 typical responses to Mra`s. 1. The attempt to say that all the bad things that happen to male as a gender is the fault of patriarchy itself, 2. To say that they are not bad things to men, but only prices we pay for being dominant , 3 The attempt to say that women are more victims than men even in fields as suicide and murderer, 4. The attempt to say male problems are gender systemic.

    Your post is one of the first i seen that bet in the 3 as strategy. For me this is one of the worse strategies, because it loses focus of one of the main aspects of feminism rhetoric and ideology. Since one of the most strong phases of feminism was inspired by a narrative that women were infantilized and kept out of problem and violence, to try to prove that women`s problem looks a lot like ‘males problems’ is just fuel to MRA`s and to other men to feel outraged. Feminism worked well for a long time specifying women problems as diametrically different than male problems. Trying to confuse this problems will bring men to the epicenter of the speculation, and that is already inspiring a legion of MRA`s. If men starts to see their problems – their infinite problems – as gender problems, assure you you will never win the fight of “who is more opressed”

    so take this is a advice, not from a mrs, but from someone that can see feminism vulnerabilities, ad knows it is not a eternal truth.

  39. Wow – I started reading this article to inform myself, and ended up sad and angry with all the hate in the comment section. On both sides. I didn’t agree with some of what was written in the article because I saw some manipulation of statistics to support your position, which is exactly what you accuse mens right’s activists of doing. The part about men doing more dangerous work to “prove their masculinity” borders on the ridiculous. Maybe the counter-argument should be that women don’t do those types of jobs because they don’t want to mess up their manicures? Some of the other points were well-taken though, and made me think, which is what I look for in an article. However, the solution to the age old problem of equality for the sexes is not to male bash. You seem smarter than that.

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 )

Connecting to %s