bright picture of screaming woman over white

Society focuses solely on the needs of men?

I got into about one half of a conversation with a friend of mine recently where I presented arguments and evidence, and she simply replied, “No, you’re wrong,” and that was the end of the conversation. In most cases she’s a good skeptic and generally picks apart problems very well. The problem that I ran into this time, however, was her stance that men don’t need a “men’s day” because society already cares only about the problems men face, and ignores the problems women face.

I pointed out a long list of issues that society and government happily endorse in relation to women, but also a long list of men’s issues that they consider sexist for even talking about. The response was simply “I am NOT having this conversation with you.”

“I am NOT having this conversation with you.”

Therein, she sadly lost a bit of my respect. As a skeptic, one should be skeptical of everything in their life that they’ve been told, and question it to the core. Look at things from a rational perspective and consider whether it truly matches what you see in your own, every day life, and, if not, to ask where this disconnect comes from.

My skepticism led me to realize that the claim that society cares about men’s issues is a lie. If this were the case, prostate cancer would flat-out trounce breast cancer for funding and awareness on a plain, easy-to-see scale. Instead, we see the reverse; a 3.5:1 ratio (1) of funding for breast cancer over prostate cancer, where every man should be concerned about breast cancer, and it’s deemed sexist to even suggest we should care about prostate cancer.

This is a clear and present example, one out of many, which showcases that it clearly isn’t what we’ve been told: the issues men face don’t receive biased favor by society and government, otherwise situations like this wouldn’t be the norm.

The fact is, skepticism is about using cold, raw logic to look at problems you would rather consider emotionally. You have to look at the world through the concept that everything is wrong until proven otherwise. That she refused to even consider that she might be wrong, and ended the conversation by saying “You are wrong and I’m very sorry, but I am not willing to argue about it,” an actual quote, without any further evidence, showed me sadly that she was considering the situation based purely on emotion, not logic. She wanted it to be true, but wouldn’t even question the basics when presented with a pile of evidence. She wouldn’t even attempt to refute it with more than a “no” like a child, and this kind of hurt to witness.

Don’t get me wrong, she’s very intelligent and great conversation generally speaking, but this has showcased for me just how emotional the argument is, and that it can shut down even the most logical and rational people I know, to the point they refuse to even shine the light of logic upon their own arguments.

To return to the male problems society supposedly focuses upon more than women’s problems… what are they? Despite my best efforts, I honestly can’t think of any. What male-only issues are being considered seriously by society and government as a whole?

Wages? No, that’s women primarily. If it affects men, it’s a global issue like minimum wage which affects both men and women.

How about circumcision? No, there’s really no backing for that on a larger scale, and guys are generally told it’s not that big a deal so ignore it. If you told that to a woman about female genital mutilation, you’d be blasted for it, so clearly this isn’t the case either.

Maybe… the 1150% (2) increased rate of male deaths and injury in the workplace? No… actually there were laws passed specifically for increasing the safety of women, but not for men. Hrm.

Wait, what about… uh… that boys are now a minority in college attendance? No, the narrative is that there aren’t enough women in college, despite comprising 17% more of the population in relation to males (3).

I’m running out of ideas, here. Where are all these male issues that are being focused on with society and government backing these issues? Shouldn’t they be out in the open and clearly obvious?

I mean, we could look at “women’s issues” and it’s easy:

Wage gap, lack of women in higher positions of authority in companies, lack of women in politics, breast cancer, female genital mutilation, violence against women, domestic violence against women, rape against women, the list goes on and on. I could probably fill a few paragraphs easy just listing off examples of women’s issues which are taken seriously by society as a whole and given strong government backing but what we have so far is adequate enough for the purposes of this demonstration.

For someone to claim that men are the ones who have their issues looked at by society and women are not, you simply have to ignore all of this painfully obvious information to the contrary. I propose the opposite: you have to set aside your convictions and emotional beliefs, then ask yourself “What do the facts actually say?”

In the end, logic wins out. Women have their issues taken seriously by society, and an enormous focus on awareness and funding for such. Men only get considered when it harms women too, in most cases.

The skeptic in me tells me to question that which I thought to be true, to read up on the actual evidence, and view it from a logical perspective. This is why I no longer consider myself to be pro-feminist in ideology. I looked at what was claimed to be true, and found it wanting under the watchful gaze of scrutiny.

Skepticism isn’t just about religion; it’s about everything in life, and that includes all the “truths” you want to believe. It doesn’t mean that everything you’re skeptical about will be false, sometimes it really is true; but it has to provide evidence for that. Saying “No, you’re wrong” is not proof, no matter how much you want it to be, and it’s this truth that has led me to accept that society doesn’t focus solely upon the problems of men; if anything, it’s quite the opposite in practice.


1:USA Funding of cancers by type; UK Funding of cancers by type; Breast Cancer incidence and death rates; Prostate Cancer incidence and death rates
2: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA, on Fatal Occupational Injuries; most recent statistical data compiled (2011)

3: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA, on College Enrollment

Please note: AVfM is in the middle of its Spring Fundraiser. Please help us continue to spread the message. Click here to contribute.

About Catreece Macleod

I'm a writer, a video game writer, an animator, transgendered, Lithuanian, female, bisexual, and, interestingly enough, legally blind without my glasses. And none of that matters. What matters is I'm passionate about men's and others' human rights.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • donzaloog

    Great article. I said to a family member that feminists tell emotional lies. Lies that feel true, despite all evidence to the contrary. That how the wage gap lie and the 1 in 4 will be raped lie have lasted for so long. Society has been conditioned to feel that these things are unquestionably true.

    It’s hard for people to accept that most of these things are lies. The red pill is hard to swallow indeed.

  • TarnishedSophia

    Sadly, I think it’s the same with any emotionally-based ideology, be it religion, feminism, etc. You find people of both sexes who have taken an idea and made it the core of what they stand for. In extreme cases, I’ve seen what you describe here…there are too many pieces of evidence against their “core” that they*must* shut down the conversation or risk losing “themselves”. It’s not so much a lack of skepticism as a purely defensive action.

    That being said, I do wish more people would approach their ideologies with an open, skeptical mind. It would solve many issues…like Men’s Rights and the demonstrable need for them.

  • uranioradioattivo

    The real problem is that many issue men face a striclty correlated to the benevolence and social priviledges given to women. Adrressing men’s issue cannot be done without dealing with women’s mountain of priviledges. Now it is a zero sum game. And feminists know it.

    • Catreece

      In some ways, yes, yes it’s a zero sum game, but these are honestly few and far between, and even most of these are manufactured issues, rather than ones which truly need addressing.

      Consider the concept of something like the job market; there are X total jobs available, if you double the workforce by adding an influx of women, then you still have X jobs, but now have 2X workers needing jobs. The thing is, why do we need jobs in the first place? Sure, it makes sense for people to hold their own weight, but to be perfectly blunt, our civilization has enough manufacturing and farming technology that we could actually all live quite comfortably with maybe 10% of the population working. The rest of these positions are simply things like organization, human resources, bureaucracy, management, service, and so on. The entirety of anything like banking, the service industry, or politics revolve solely around human-generated problems, not survival issues.

      As such, to be blunt, it’s an artificially induced zero-sum issue, as there really isn’t an issue in the first place other than our belief that everyone should work, when we literally don’t need to. We have machines that can simply flat out do the jobs of thousands of people, making us honestly rather obsolete for the most part, and it’s more of just clinging onto tradition that people should all work simply because it was needed in the past.

      From the military to realtor agents, it all comes down to artificially created human problems. Our zero-sum issues are manufactured, not baseline, so I don’t really think it’s the problem you think it is.

      We can solve it much easier simply by breaking down the issues to their core, constituent problems, and in that way, both men and women can be relatively close to equal. The only real reason we’re stuck in this zero sum game, is because we seem to want to be, so I don’t really consider it a real problem, just a persistently imagined one.

  • Petey

    Women are children. Once I recognized that fact and treated them as such it made dealing with them so much easier.

    • Sulla

      Women are not children, women have far more power than children and they are held to even lower standards. Society will jail a 10 year old boy before an adult woman.

      • travis perez

        I think what he meant is not that women are children but that they act as children.

    • Aimee McGee

      Some women behave like children. You might get a surprise one day and meet one who isnt

      • mike gibbs

        And a surprise it would be…

    • Catreece

      I will bring up NAWALT in that now all women really ARE like that… however, we’re all TREATED like that. It’s an important distinction to make.

      It’s not that women are children, so much as they’re allowed to remain children, or more specifically, they’re actively almost forced to remain as children whether it’s their will or not.

      Were I a child, would I have written the article we’re discussing under? Clearly, no, so that’s not the issue, and overgeneralizing like this doesn’t really help anything.

      Stereotypes are a tool that can be used, but they have to be understood that they have very real limitations and don’t apply to the individual, nor even really to the group as a whole outside of a certain context.

      In short, however, women are treated as children by feminists, by society, and by individuals. It doesn’t mean that women as a whole are children, or that it’s even rare for there to be women who don’t act as children, so be careful with using global statements as it just leaves yourself open to being torn apart by piles of examples to the contrary, which then leaves any further points you might have as questionable.

  • travis perez

    Very good article you speak so much truth about the double standard that exists in todays world. I have noticed this myself in my life trying to bring up topics of discussion with friends and family. When I mention anything of women’s problems they all know what I am talking about and are 100% on board. Then I try to slip in some red pill truth, some men’s issues and they have no idea what I am talking about and are immensely skeptical or flat out don’t believe me. It is a quite intresting experience for your own friends and family to call you a sexist for bringing up men’s issues. I think in the end though it can all be summed up like you said its a emotional thing and women and sensitive men alike will only think emotional about it and will defend them selves with false statements and illogical remarks. And the most baffling thing I have ever seen claiming their emotion as morality.

  • Sulla

    “I am NOT having this conversation with you.”

    Invalidation, the classic tactic used to keep emotional dominance.

  • Bewildered

    “You are wrong and I’m very sorry, but I am not willing to argue about
    it,” an actual quote, without any further evidence, showed me sadly that
    she was considering the situation based purely on emotion, not logic.
    She wanted it to be true, but wouldn’t even question the basics when
    presented with a pile of evidence. She wouldn’t even attempt to refute
    it with more than a “no” like a child, and this kind of hurt to witness.

    This attitude is more common than we would like to admit and is the prime reason why religions,ideologies and other convoluted BS thrive on this planet.

    The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. — Blaise Pascal

  • Joe Wilson

    LOL. I began writing a comment here and ended up with a book. So I just copied and pasted it in my blog…sorry for spamming but if you want to read it it’s here:

    Essentially, I attempt to answer why our attempts to communicate with feminists usually ends up with us talking to the wall…and my theory on how this follows the Kübler-Ross Grief Cycle…..and I also attempt to find a way of tearing down that wall and open up meaningful communication.

    • David King

      Précis it here, or better yet, why not submit it as an article in its own right?

      Kübler-Ross.. I actually met her years ago (I was about 9, so I don’t recall much about that meeting), but the idea sounds intriguing.

    • Catreece

      To keep the discussion on here (and because I’m too lazy to log onto a different account, but seemingly not too lazy to rant for half an hour, go figure), I’mma post my response to your link here:

      I can agree to a degree with the concept of it being a grief cycle, since it kind of is when you think about it; they’re grieving a way of thinking, a mode of thought, a belief system of sorts. It’s dead, but they want it to live on forever, and therein lies the problem.

      The way to break someone out of denial isn’t to let them keep pretending that the death hadn’t occurred, being understanding and compassionate about it, because if they’re trapped perpetually in the denial phase, you’re only prolonging the issue. At some point, someone has to splash the water in your face and tell you bluntly that they’re dead, and that you have to get over it.

      If they were just like “No, that can’t be right”, and immediately moved onto the next step? No problem. Just let it run it’s course and be supportive as they go, just like in normal grieving.

      The problem is simply that, when someone gets stuck on one part of that process, it takes a pretty heavy handed approach to jar them out of it, since they’ve dug themselves in, wedging themselves in place far enough that it takes some serious effort to dislodge them to move on with their lives at all.

      Hence… the aggressive approach is still the correct one, because treading lightly simply isn’t enough to work someone out of the pit they’ve dug themselves into emotionally and mentally, any more than it would to try to dig someone out of a six foot deep hole by patting them on the head with a feather.

  • David King

    Eh. Maybe. Same could be said of many men. So many of our male politicians are self-serving, money-grubbing parasites, too.

    An alternative explanation is that parliament is a rough environment — even for men, it has to be said — that many women just don’t want to have to deal with. I certainly’d never stand for parliament. Even if I got elected, having to deal with the jerks in the House day in and day out? Life’s too short.

  • David King

    We’d prefer it if you linked to the article here and posted excerpts rather than post the whole thing.

    Whatever the case, make sure you link back to this article.

  • beevbo

    Hahaha! This is the worst site on the internet! Fuck you guys and fuck your terrible views on women. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history you stupid bag of dicks.

    • Josh O’Brien


    • Chris Wedge

      You say that like history has already been written about the present day.

      I might just have to steal that crystal ball, so we can change the future in that case.

      • Lucian Vâlsan

        Brilliant! When you’re done with it, please pass along that crystal ball. I need for Progressive Yurop as well 😀

      • ExpatMatt

        I’d like to use the crystal ball to see how long until Beevbo is (if male) homeless and bankrupt after a nasty false-accusation filled divorce…or (if female) ends up a bitter old cat lady after ruining some poor bastard for not being ‘good enough.’

        That, and lotto numbers.

    • Aimee McGee

      <= female commenter and author of articles.
      Get over yourself

    • Cylux

      If you think this is the worst site on the internet, I dread to think what’ll happen if you come across return of kings or dare I say Chateau Heartiste.

    • John mws

      Some basic information for you beevbo. This site has dim views on feminism, not on women. Women and feminism are not the same thing. Something you are totally unaware of. Ask any of the women who work for the site. Just like feminists can be male and female, non-feminists are male and female.
      The site is talking about equal rights for men and women. Something feminists have no answers for. Keep coming here for grown up answers and real facts and data, not the emotional fairy tales you are still being told by feminists.
      It is a great compliment that you have such a bad opinion of the site. Please post more of your inspiring insights. Your emotional bankrupt comments will only gain the site and movement more supporters, male and female.
      Emotion is a reaction, but facts are facts. Learn to control the first and recognise the second.

      • beevbo

        Your own promotional material suggests that feminism is “wrong, naive and imbecilic.” Is that a fact? I know you only deal in facts, not “emotional reactions,” so it must be a fact.

        You are correct that men face equality issues as well and I would certainly applaud efforts to raise awareness of those issues. However, raising awareness about men’s issues by couching it in how feminism is “imbecilic” is not a great way of going about it.

        As in with any activist group there are always going to be crazier outliers. There are feminist who attack transgender people because they are shedding their female gender in favour of a male identity, which is awful.

        Cherry picking these people and claiming the all feminist are unreasonable undercuts your “facts are facts” message.

        I know a lot of feminists, I’m dating one, they are good people. Sure some have opinions that I disagree with now and again, but I don’t discount the movement as a whole because of it. To do otherwise is close minded.

        Maybe if you want people to take you seriously your core mission should not be to undercut another group’s message.

        P.S. Calling my reaction “emotional” and then calling my comments “emotional (sic) bankrupt” is kind of a contradiction.

        • John mws

          Hi Beevbo, welcome back.

          “P.S. Calling my reaction “emotional” and then calling my comments “emotional (sic) bankrupt” is kind of a contradiction”.

          No contradiction at all on my part. An emotion is still an emotion regardless of it having any value. Your emotional comment had no value to me as it was not based on anything to back it up with, apart from meaningless hate. Hence bankrupt. Saying people who work for men’s human rights are a “stupid bag of dicks” is pretty conclusive I think. You will have to lob off some of the female supporters parts while you are at it to be consistent in your hatred. Either way is distasteful to me. Mutilation of both sexes genitals is abhorrent to me.

          The promotional material of this site, not mine but thanks for the compliment, implies that modern feminism does not live up to its dictionary definition. Neither do you at the moment. I find it interesting that you ignore the promotional material facts and instead state your own opinions of how they make you feel, “wrong, naive and imbecilic.” and these opinions become facts instead. Feelings are emotions and of themselves are not facts although they may be a reaction to real events. You have your right to have your own feels and emotions but please do not consider them facts. They are only our response to what we previously believed in and can be used to change our views on things or not as we choose.

          Again to be clear the site does not like the practical results from modern ideological feminists. It say nothing about hating women. So do not take it personal. You can still be a woman without being a feminist and you can still even be a feminist without being a bigoted one. It is not here to uncut feminism, it is here to back equal rights for all. If feminist actions are the cause of the inequalities then it is fair to critisise it where it can be shown to do so. Unfortunately for you it can quite easily be shown to do so.

          The commendable rights of equal employment opportunites, wages, education, voting, property owning where all in place over 40 years ago. Since then the facts based on the output for academic ideological feminists and the affect they have on laws and institutions overwhelmingly match the promotional material, that the practical result of modern feminism is to only promote every growing privileges for women in general, but also to deliberately do so at the expense of men’s and even some women’s human rights at the same time. Emotional arguments and lies on DV, sex, and parenting are the worse and most damaging. DV is equal in both sexes, sexual assault is equal to both sexes, children need fathers as much as mothers. The studies and research back these as facts. Women can choose family over career, men cannot, most are lucky if they do not have their children ripped away from them. The undermining of education for boys and growing (feminist) political correctness to censor any critisism is the next big red flag that feminism does not own a dictionary any more.

          If you insist that feminism=equal rights for men and women, then you will be able to produced examples where they have fought for men’s issues. Give me just one law that they have brought about to put right a wrong that men mostly suffer or funding they have put forward to support all men with that issue.

          What you have not realised is the site does not say you cannot be a feminist, and if you are, that you cannot be a nice person. It says if you are a dictionary definition feminist you are welcome to support the Men’s HUMAN rights activism because then you will be supporting the same thing. The men human rights groups are trying to correct the fact that “active” femnists do not support or fight for equal rights for all, they just seek money and privilege just like any elite class of the past, and lie to boot about all the things they do try to achieve it. So by all means call yourself a feminist and carry out its original definition and support men’s rights to equality under the law with women. Or just make it simple and become a men’s human right’s activist that only supports equal rights for all, without having to wear a label that no longer comes close to the dictionary definition you would like to think it does.

          Anyhow it was good to see you are still interested enough to come back to the site to read some more. Their may be hope for you after all. There is not one MRA definition like “Feminism” in the dictionary, just different groups all fighting to be heard on their personal grievance at present. This is beginning to coalesce to a broader group that see that working together can achieve more. All you need to do is truely believe in equal rights for all, instead of an ideology, not based in fact, that hides behind a label with a now discredited definition. You are free to try and live up to the dictionary definition of feminism at any time, just that you may well be the first one.

    • JinnBottle

      Must be hard to key with that straitjacket.

    • Sage Quinn

      Aw how cute, a troll. Does your mommy know you’re on the internets after bedtime?

    • Daniel Qian

      Enjoy being on the wrong side of history you stupid bag of dicks.

      Projection: not just for movie theaters.

  • Josh O’Brien

    I didn’t see a single line where he tried to blame the lack of funding on women. Or where he said that every woman would argue in that way. The article is simply a response to what that one woman said, put in a wider context. He lists facts to the contrary of her opinion and is 100% correct. How is he wrong?

    • Bewildered

      Ooops! I think the author is a woman. [see the discussion above ,besides the name is a female name]

      • Josh O’Brien

        Oop, I assumed it was a man! Silly me.

  • Chris Wedge

    Dogmatic beliefs can hold much sway over a mind that evolved rationality in order to win arguments. (humanity) And while sapience lets us overcome, much like any other psychological instinct, (not ones like breathing) it doesn’t come naturally.

    Easy to call yourself a skeptic, harder to be one.

  • Dagda Mór

    No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too degrading for acceptance when it has become embedded in common belief.

    Men will submit themselves to torture and death, mothers will immolate their children at the bidding of beliefs they thus accept.

    ~Henry George

  • roeboat72

    I agree to an extent, but more importantly Politics tends to be a very gritty and aggressive world. Many women don’t want to be in a job in where your every move is attacked by someone, and that you are always in the forefront right or wrong. That is why the few women who do make it into politics tend to be very good at shrugging off criticism (or at least ignoring it) compared to others. Lots of women would enter politics if it were an echo chamber that everyone agreed to your every word and always voted for you.

  • Sage Quinn

    And you just made the same mistake every feminist commentator makes. You blame “male pride” for men not taking their own health more seriously. But in reality, it is because society as a whole does not have the same empathy for men’s health and issues as it does for women. Eg, how many TV ads you’ve seen focus on women’s health and wellbeing as opposed to men’s? So I’m sorry, but women are half the problem.

  • PaulMurrayCbr

    The sad thing is when a person with an advanced degree admits that they cannot defend their thesis. Defending your thesis in the face of criticism is the heart of scholarship.
    When these people with MAs and PhDs refuse to discuss, they are admitting that their school is nothing but a degree mill.

  • eddardmulligan .

    Very well said. Thank you.

  • Catreece

    Several issues to attend to, here.

    First off, lack of awareness isn’t the cause; it’s the problem. If we bring an issue that affects women forward, people want to be aware of it and find out how to fix it, such as breast cancer. People have an innate desire to help women in this regard, and you’ll find people going out of their way to become part of pink ribbon campaigns and such, simply because of the nature of the fact that it helps women.

    Now, if you look at the same issue when it comes to men, such as prostate cancer’s no shave movember attempt at growing awareness, people actually claim it’s sexist to even draw attention to a problem that only affects males, and that they should be advocating for both breast and prostate cancer instead.

    This is the argument of logic, not emotion, and yes, you can’t blame women for it because it’s rooted deep within our cultural mindset.

    As for the article, it’s obviously not that every woman would argue the same way; I obviously wrote the article and I’m not arguing that way at all, otherwise the article wouldn’t exist. I’m not trying to blame women for anything, it was simply a handy case in point, and would’ve been voiced the same whether the person I was speaking to were male or female. The point is quite simply that it’s how society in general, as a whole, argues these issues, and that even someone who was one of the most logical and sound-minded rational people I knew fell for the same trap.

    Upon pretty much any other topic, the individual referenced in the article is remarkably bright and a joy to converse with and debate, but in this one situation, she just shut down and refused to even question herself, despite being a self proclaimed skeptic and being a member of the skeptics society. This is what made her the perfect example, not that she was female – the issue is that humanity, as a whole, is actively interested in looking into the issues of women rather than men, and that’s not women’s fault, nor is it feminism’s fault; this has been around since the dawn of our species, long before these concepts even existed.

    As such, I think you missed the very point of the article at a very fundamental level, because it’d be physically impossible for me to say every woman would argue that the same way, while being a woman myself and holding the opposing view, nor did I even make the remotest pretense of such a statement.

    I simply advise re-reading the article for context, since you seem to have missed some rather large swaths of important details in the process of skimming for a desired result.

  • Bewildered

    Are you a Martian by any chance?

  • Bewildered

    In fact, as one physicist that I frequently email wrote to me stated, there are no real scientists anymore, only puppets.

    Which is a very frightening thought indeed ! Anything and everything can be labelled ‘scientific’ these days.So you have religions that are ‘scientific’,ideologies that are ‘scientific’ ,etc.etc.
    All you need is to propound a theory,no matter how blatantly it militates against common sense, you can always create ‘facts’ to fit the ‘theory’ and voilà you have created a cult that swears by science.
    How is different from the Middle Ages where people were dead sure that the Earth was flat and that anyone who thought otherwise was a heretic?

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      “Anything and everything can be labelled ‘scientific’ these days.”

      I agree with you – minus the “these days” part. This disease is quite old.
      Just 25 years ago, over 2 billion people were still studying “scientific socialism” as a fact in schools.
      This is not a new phenomenon – it’s just a new version of the older phenomenon. And the phenomenon is even older than the Middle Ages…

  • Eilís

    I find the idea that women are privileged over men insulting. Because in the end, it isn’t society that cares about women’s issues, it’s women who care about women’s issues. It’s women who do things like raising public awareness of breast cancer. It’s women who do lobbying for laws to protect other women with breast cancer. It’s women who establish charitable organisations dedicated to breast cancer research. It’s women who raise money for breast cancer research charities. It’s women who donate money to breast cancer research charities. It’s women who start and participate in conversations about breast cancer. It’s women who teach younger generations of women to check themselves for breast cancer. It’s women who support those suffering from breast cancer. And men could do all of these things with prostate cancer. No one’s stopping them. No one’s discouraging them. They just choose not to. Women have what they have because they worked bloody hard for it over a period of many decades. Men don’t have what women have because most of them are indolent, most of them are self-satisfied, and many of them are petulant. And instead of doing work, they spend their time harassing women and complaining vociferously on the Internet.

    • Daniel Qian

      I find the idea that women are privileged over men insulting. Because in the end, it isn’t society that cares about women’s issues, it’s women who care about women’s issues.

      Welcome to Earth! What planet are you from? Because obviously you’re not from here.

      • Eilís

        Prove to me that women have access to resources because they’re privileged and not because they worked hard for it and I’ll apologise for what I said earlier and agree that you’re right. But the problem with you MRAs is that you always try to push the burden of proof onto someone else.

        • Catreece

          Pardon me a moment; may I point something out?

          The article itself actually provided quite a great deal of evidence of such; you made the assertion that women had earned all of it, while complaining when you were questioned. You can’t hold a moral high ground by stating other people should hold a burden of proof to question your claims, when you’re the initiator.

          I could bring up a wealth of information to countermand you, but the onus is upon you to first defend your statement that women earned any of it.

          You just tried to push the burden of proof onto someone else, and then chastised them for it. You’ve been called on it, and until you correct this, you will receive no answer. I’m not wasting my time on a hypocrite, so the burden is now also upon you to show you aren’t as you already presented that claim.

          Essentially, you made a statement, someone asked for proof, you complained about how it wasn’t fair that they should demand proof from you, and it’s their burden of proof to disprove your statements first. And then had the audacity to state that they were shifting burden of proof.

          Please re-read the article; this is the very kind of bullshit that pisses me off, and considering you’re responding to an article which is centered upon this very point, you should seriously know better.

          The burden of proof is upon you to show that women have done all the heavy lifting, that men never help them in their rights, and that they didn’t use male tax dollars to accomplish these goals indirectly through men. Good luck on that one.

          • Eilís

            Unless you’re accusing women of fraud, I don’t really see what the problem is. Men DON’T own tax, the government owns tax. That money belongs to the state and is spent on state projects and provides for state expenses. Anybody can solicit the government for money. And unless the government is giving out money illegally, I don’t really see what your problem is. It’s a perfectly honest and lawful way to get funding. So either change the laws or do some lobbying.

            As I’ve said before, whenever women have a problem, the question people always ask first is “What are women going to do to resolve this problem?” Whenever men have a problem, the question is always still “What are the women going to do about it?” A Voice for Men is supposed to be a an activist organisation. Other than complain vociferously and acrimoniously about women, what are you doing about it? You have the support and you have the money. Where are the discussions about raising money for charity? Where are the discussions about raising public awareness? Where the discussions about organising an event? Where has anybody even mentioned men once!? Well they haven’t, have they? You’re great when it comes to wild speculation, trite conversation and pointing fingers at other people. You’re just not so on the ball when it comes to veracity, not repeating yourselves in conversations, and ACTUALLY doing something. Nothing you’ve said would last five-minutes under the scrutiny of a university peer-review or in a court of law.

            So I’ll ask you again, why is it that when women do all the social and political activism and lobbying and organising, they’re ‘privileged’? And when men complain on the Internet and do absolutely nothing else, they’re obviously not achieving anything because they’re downtrodden and discriminated against?

    • Bewildered

      I find your orgy of generalizations astounding. You reek of self-righteousness.

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    You say NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That). You know what? I agree.

    But not only I agree but I will say – EWALT!! (Enough Women Are Like That)

  • Daniel Qian

    Rational skepticism is self-skepticism. Any superstitious fool can doubt what he doesn’t believe; there’s nothing praiseworthy about that.

  • Eilís

    Most men don’t support breast cancer awareness in any way other than saying “I support breast cancer awareness” though do they? (Which I raise no objection to.) But after women are done doing all the actual work, making all the actual investments, fighting all the actual fights, don’t patronise us by telling us that the state ‘privileges’ us over men. Don’t bully us by demanding your ‘fair share’ proceeds we worked to procure. When women have a problem they say “What can I do about it?” When men have a problem they say “Why aren’t women doing anything about it?” Which one of us is privileged when you can afford to be complacent, frivolously sanctimonious and idle and I can’t?

    • Kimski

      Let’s see how those claims holds up under closer scrutiny, if we remove male income taxes from the equation.
      Oh, every one of them entirely depends on it?
      What a surprise..

      • Shortcircuit

        Not only the money men make. What if women did not have access to anything men produced? No oil, no cars, no food, no medicine. Not unless they clawed it out of the cold Earth themselves.

        And then there are the blatant lies coming from this person. Men not supporting women’s issues except in word. Men crying for women to fix their problems instead of feminists doing so. The great, magnificent work this person credits women with, the lobbyists and so forth, all they did was whine and make demands. It was men who build those shelters, and often male politicians who had to be swayed and were.

        Not only is this person spitting on men, but with such blatant falsity is discrediting those women who did struggle and fight to better the lives of themselves or others. And where, by the way, are the feminists shouting this kind of bigot down? They seem too busy making demands of politicians and shutting down any effort men or even women attempt to make at seriously discussing how to help men, and then blaming men for it.

        • Eilís

          And what if all the women suddenly stopped getting pregnant? I’m sorry but I don’t see the point of this conjecture. And the money women spend on breast cancer belongs to the government, not men.

          You have an entire forum where men complain about how women haven’t done enough for prostate cancer. “What are women doing about prostate cancer?” “Where are the women raising awareness of prostate cancer?” “Why don’t women care about prostate cancer?” “Low prostate cancer funding is women’s fault because women don’t do enough!” “If the feminists care about equality then they should do something about prostate cancer!” And so on… And no one mentions men. Nobody talks about what men AREN’T doing. Nobody mentions the interest men AREN’T taking. It’s just totally taken for granted that if men have a problem, that not only did women obviously cause it, but that women should be the ones to do something about it. Whereas if women have a problem (like breast cancer) they’re proactive. And that isn’t an opinion or a judgement or a belief, that’s a fact. People who talk about breast cancer, donate money to charitable organisations, campaign to raise awareness, organise marathons, are almost always women and they almost always emphasis what women can do to help women. When men talk about prostate cancer they’re almost always complaining acrimoniously about how women’s lack of interest is at fault.

          • Shortcircuit

            “And what if all the women suddenly stopped getting pregnant?”

            I never claimed women do not get pregnant. You claimed men have problems because they are lazy amongst other things, and that women do everything for themselves. Therefore what I said was perfectly relevant.

          • Eilís

            And I never claimed that you claimed that women do not get pregnant. I just don’t see how wild speculation about what would happen if men suddenly stopped doing some things that we know they’re never going to stop doing is any more relevant than speculating about what would happen if women suddenly stopped doing some things that we know they’re never going to stop doing.

      • Eilís

        Men don’t pay income tax out of charity, and when they do pay income tax it belongs to the government. Women aren’t obtaining money illegally or dishonestly. They’re working the system by jumping through legal hoops that were set up mostly by men. And the system just happens to favour those who ask for what they want and who work to change what they don’t. So where’s the bias? Men could do what women have done they simply choose not to.

        • Shortcircuit

          After making outright bigoted and false claims which have not been substantiated, Eillis criticizes MRAs for not providing proof and pushing the burden of it onto others.

          “They’re working the system by jumping through legal hoops that were set up mostly by men.”
          Credit to men for the “hoops” but not what those hoops are a part of, as if men never did anything but get in the way. Men set up a system that listened to women. They could have been as bigoted as Eillis here, insisting women can be listened to when they build their own government while also lying to minimize the advocacy women had done, but obviously were not.

          • Eilís

            The logic of Catreece’s argument is that men are, in many ways, disadvantaged comparative to women because they have less resources and are given less consideration. (Which I concede.) And that this is due to the government and society privileging women over men. The evidence of this ‘female privilege’ is that the government and society are both more aware of, more concerned about and more willing to invest in resolving female problems than they are male. (Despite many people voluntarily engaging in political and social activism on behalf of women. Which you would think would produce these kinds of effects.) And the consequence of female privilege is that the government and society are both more aware of, more concerned about and more willing to invest in resolving female problems than they are male. See the problem? It’s circular-logic. It allows men’s rights “activists” to credit women’s success to fraudulence and corruption (and not to hard to work) and to blame men’s lack of success on discrimination and innocent naïveté (rather than inaction due primarily to complacency, petulance, ignorance and laziness). It allows them to indulge in exactly the kind of attitudes and behaviours that have ALREADY proved so inimical to the real of men. Like self-important moralising, not taking any personal or group responsibility and a lack of veracity.

          • Shortcircuit

            Yes I see the problem. You are saying that societal female privilege, the existence of which you concede, is not privilege because men have not been acting in the interests of their own sex as women have.

            You have also said that it is due to how lazy and childish men are. Yet as I pointed out, men do far too much for society for that to be a logical explanation.

        • Susie Parker

          Does that include Female Only Scholarships and Affirmative Action appointments?

          • Eilís

            Yes. Those female only scholarships and affirmative action appointments didn’t come out of nowhere did they?

          • Susie Parker

            Nope. Those bad, evile menz tried and tried sooooo hard to put up those legal hoops and old boy systems, but women, bless their little empowered pea pickin’ hearts, just blazed right on through – just like they “fought and died” for the right to vote. What could men do in the face of such overwhelming forces but surrender like the weak, whipped dogs they are? We’ve gone from Chasing Ophelia to Drugging And Trouncing Opie! Gurrl Power! High Five!@

          • Eilís

            I think you misunderstand me. What I meant was that it was primarily the men in places like Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom (which is where I live) who established the laws that govern those countries. And those laws are laws that we all agreed to play by. If people have a problem with any of those laws because, say, they believe those laws are exploitable by women, then they should change them. Because you can’t unilaterally make something a crime. And if people believe that women (feminist women in particular) are operating in a corrupt and illegal way – that is, spending money that isn’t theirs – then formally accuse them. You’re the one painting men as helpless little victims under the boot of nefarious feminists, not me. And I don’t dignify insinuations of guilt.

          • Susie Parker

            My comments were facetitious, goof. I was not “painting men” as anything other than adults tolerating idiot children.

          • Bewildered

            Great comment !

          • Susie Parker

            “you don’t like it then change it – the laws were made by men”.

            Such bs. I just had a friend tell me everything is men’s fault, cuz everything is run by men.

            Really? I replied that women now run everything, and I mean EVERYthing.

            She sent me a breakdown of male politicians versus female – which penises do indeed outnumber vaginas by a wide, wide margin.

            I, of course, sent her information that women are the majority voters – whether or not that politician sports a penis or vagina, they vote female. They pander female. Female rules.

            Reply? “That’s your values and perceptions. We’ll just have to agree to disagree”.

            Deal is, Eilis, and every other woman who tosses off with “you don’t like it change it” – unless someone in power can exploit you for some purpose, the minority does not change anything.

            Men are the minority voters, there is NO profit in changing anything for men unless it’s a change detrimental to men.

            The scariest, and most horrifying part is – these are women with sons – mothers of sons. If THEY don’t see the harm they do to their sons, if Mothers think their sons rights should take a back seat as less worth to theirs as women…we’re lost.

          • Bewildered

            hehehehe ! probably this is a misdirected comment but a great one nevertheless !

            The scariest, and most horrifying part is – these are women with sons –
            mothers of sons. If THEY don’t see the harm they do to their sons, if
            Mothers think their sons rights should take a back seat as less worthy
            to theirs as women…we’re lost.

            Absolutely ! Every time I come across an example of NAWALT it’s like a flash of lightning in an atmosphere of gloom and doom,an uplifting message that there’s still some hope for humanity.

          • Bewildered

            Susie, I dedicate this to you and your lucky sons :

            Those were the days when most mothers didn’t discriminate and truly deserved all the accolades.

          • Susie Parker

            Thank you for that, B. Got me a little misty eyed, never heard it before.

          • Eilís

            Well maybe you should learn to write more clearly. Because I had and still have no idea what you were actually saying.

          • Susie Parker

            Poor dear. I’ll type very slowly so you can keep up.

            Women are the majority voters in America. Women are responsible for voting in every single representative and lawmaker since 1986, yet still claim to not be represented because the men they voted into place are men. Women don’t vote for women, but that’s men’s fault. To be elected, or reelected, these men must pander to women’s whims, wants and needs – but women still complain they are under represented.

            When women apply for funding and grants for female exclusive causes, their grants are approved. When women demand free birth control, they get it. When women want abortion, they get it. When women don’t want equal rights to combat and shared custody, the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and women still wailed they weren’t allowed equality to this day.

            Women demand “choices” for paternity, while demanding no choice for men – men do not have any say in the matter, they have tried since the 1800’s to change those laws. Women being weak, helpless and marginalized, not to mention oppressed.

            When women want college boys presumed guilty when accused, the President of the United States grants them that UnConstitutional right. It’s not something any man voted for, either directly, or by voting in a pandering President.

            I can’t speak for the UK or Canada, but it sounds even more hateful for men there than it does here. Your men have my sincere pity.

          • Bewildered

            WOW ! Ma’am you are on fire ! I have enjoyed your take down of her sophistry.

          • Susie Parker

            I usually refrain from discussing MHRA issues with friends and family, but lately it’s been spilling out unbidden. I was amused to find an antique shop I “liked” “unfriended” me for complaining about them getting all giddy about The First Woman Mayor of Paris(Quote: After 40 years of “liberation” and feminism, You Go Gurrl seems a bit inappropriate for middle aged women. Boom. Unfriended for not supporting other women.

            I usually don’t respond to my friend’s feminist memes, since we’ve been friends for 12 years and I love her dearly otherwise. She posted one reading “Women fought and died for the right to vote, remember that this November”. I challenged the “fought and died” assertion, might’ve mentioned feminists lie about stuff like that too often. Boom. Unfriended.

            Yesterday. Boom. My own sister. I DID refrain from “You have two sons and you say shit like that!?!” I come from a family of four sisters, and everyone of us has a son and a brother we absolutely love. She said our morals and values were too different. I told her my daddy could beat up her daddy(we have the same parents, of course, and I thought the same morals and values. I was wrong).

            Like most women I talk to – THEIR son is perfect – it’s those “other” men who are raping and rampaging and need to be brought to heel. Their own sons are thrown under the bus with all the “others” but they don’t seem to connect the dots.

            I think we give the public far too much ” MRM awareness” credit – every women in my circle of women friends (or ex friends), work, or casual conversation seems completely unaware of men’s rights except as feminist punch lines. I haven’t come across a single woman outside our Honeybadgers that even seem aware that men are human beings, or aware there is even a MRM. Not one women seems prepared for the possibility that I, as the mother of two sons, might take offense at ugly comments about men, or male hate jokes, remarks, or false assertions.

            The are women with sons!

            I don’t get it. I truly feel like I’m discussing unjust Jim Crow laws with sweet southern church ladies of the 1950’s. Yes. I WAS around back then, and I well remember what was said about those who dared speak…

          • Bewildered

            Your input is priceless ! Wish there were more women like you exposing the sheer hypocrisy of feminist drivel.

          • Bewildered

            May be,just may be, you are too full of yourself to understand what she was trying to say.

          • Susie Parker

            They certainly didn’t come out of The Equal Rights Amendment, did they?

    • Bewildered

      You are a good example of what happens when you take the rubbish that’s taught in the gender studies classes seriously.
      Talk of taxpayers paying for their own headaches !

  • donzaloog

    Well said.

  • Catreece

    Devon’s quote, in case he tries to edit it:
    “I love how stories like these reveal women’s mindset in the comments
    section. The female commenters see this article as an attack on women
    collectively. It’s great to see so called female supporters of men’s
    rights show their true colors.”

    Uhm, actually it’s more the feminist commentators who are just complaining in general that have been making this statement, and most of them are male. Aimee and myself, you may have noticed, do not see this. Hell, I wrote the damned thing, so I know it’s not an attack on women.

    Unfortunately, there are bigoted assholes in any large enough group, including men’s rights. You’ve kind of just shown yourself to actually make a broad generalization against all female supporters of men’s rights, without even checking who wrote the article in the first place.

    Seriously, get some help; this isn’t a war on women, it’s a war to help men, and you seem to have gotten these two things confused by attacking your own members via a confirmation bias by ignoring evidence to the contrary all throughout the comments, here. Not joking – if you seriously believe 50% of the population shares ANY kind of mindset, get help.

  • Eilís

    So more men should vote. What’s the problem?

    • Kimski

      The consistent shaming tactics and allegations of misogyny from women whenever men actually vote in favour of men or true equality, no matter if they vote democratic of republican, which makes it absolutely pointless to vote in the first place.

    • Susie Parker

      5 million citizens were not allowed to vote in 2008 due to “felony disenfranchisement”. The vast, vast, vast majority of those disenfranchised voters were…MEN.

      Oh, yes. Men be bad. We have the largest male enslavement, I mean, incarceration the world has ever witnessed, while female incarceration rates are average in world wide comparisons, 97% of those felonies being “non violent” crimes.

      Women enjoy a 63% sentencing discount across the board for the SAME crime a man has committed.

      A man will be imprisoned and have his voting rights taken from him for the SAME crime a woman gets away with and can continue to vote.

      They not only lose the right to vote, they lose the right to bear arms…how useful…

      How can more men vote when more men are imprisoned or “on paper” than any other country in the world, more than Russia, China and North Korea, COMBINED?

      Gee, guys. Just vote more.

      No wonder male politicians LOVE female voters.

  • Susie Parker

    “Is that your dead baby in the trash bag?” “I was molested” “uh. Ok. Just this once, m’kay? Don’t let it happen again”.

    “Is that your boyfriend shot then stabbed 90 times in the shower”? “I was abused” “uh. ok. Just this once, m’kay” Don’t do it again”.

    “Aren’t these your 200 texts begging your ex for sex after you claimed he raped you and he’s been in prison for 5 years”? “I’m bi polar”. “uh. ok. Let’s get you some counseling services and I’ll just sign off so you don’t really have to do 8 hours of community service – just don’t make another false accusation again this week,m’kay”?

    Yeah, liz. Women have privilege.

  • Laura

    The femenist “movement” waged war on men years ago, & as a result , the family court system in this country is” biased against men”, & is therefore, an illegal , unjust sham. .. so to say this country focuses on “men’s needs ?” is a complete & rediculous lie, that has to have undoubtably come from a nazi femenist that hates men…. & that entire hornet’s nest comes strait from the pits of hell.

  • Ted Harrold

    This is written by a regular contributor to AVfM, a female contributor.

  • Ted Harrold

    Just finished this article a few hours ago and after reading both of your pieces, I can safely say that I love your writing! It’s logical and precise and gives no quarter to anyone’s foolery, but does so like a gentle parent reprimanding a child: there is no malice, no intent to harm or humiliate. You simply seek to correct ignorance and imbalance where you find it, and while I am equally in love with all the passionate articles that I am discovering here on AVFM, it’s also good to see that we have balanced and tempered our passion with direct and calm dialogue. We will need both in our long struggle for the M(H)RM to come.

    On a personal note, hello from Ontario, Eh 😛

    • Catreece

      Hey, was just glancing through some new posts (why did this article suddenly start getting comments again? Odd. (EDIT: I just realized why… the other articles that went up! XD Imma derp.)) and am glad you enjoy such =P

      I’ll confess that sometimes I use a snappy, harsh bit of satire when it’s required, but that’s reserved to showcase what happens when you follow flawed reasoning to it’s inevitably flawed conclusion, which can open a dialogue towards what other lines of reasoning are available. It doesn’t solve much, though; you don’t educate anyone with satire, really, except for what’s wrong. Saying “X is wrong” is alright, but it doesn’t really tell them what is actually RIGHT, and until they have something to replace X with, they’ll cling to it even if they know it’s false.

      For most problems, though, it simply comes down to education. Show people why something’s wrong, give examples, break it down into analogies, and discuss the issue from several vectors as no one perspective fits all.

      Regardless, I agree. It’s nice to have a balance between fiery rhetoric to stir people to action, and cool discourse to explain where we should head once we’re stirred to action. I try to alternate back and forth a bit myself, so as to ensure that there’s progress on both ends. Learning where to go doesn’t necessitate that you also garner enough will to move there, but having the will to do what’s right without the knowledge of what “right” even is can leave you adrift and lost. These two things rarely work out hand-in-hand with literary tools due to the opposing nature of how you garner the two, so they normally need to be kept separated, yet they’re both needed in kind.

      Anyway, the international conference kind of stirred me to action, so I’ll be making a lot more articles, have a few more in queue already submitted, and several more that are partially completed that I’m working upon right now, so look forward to more, I suppose. I may as well do something useful and productive after all, right? =P

      • Ted Harrold

        I think it’s all awesome work :) I’ve read (I think) every article you have that’s up on the site, and I love ’em. I’d be particularly interested in your experiences with the LGBTQ communtiy as a trans woman after CAFE got fucked bythe feminastis in Toronto’s Pride celebrations. I’ve read a lot of comments on that Barbara Kay article saying that any non-lesbians in the LGBTQ community get Hosed by the feminists, and (though I can’t speak personally as I refuse to deal with the greater community) as a bisexual male, I have to say that there is a Load of hetero-hate from my LGBTQ-invovled friends, particularly towards males. My fiancee has also been told to “pick a side” as a bisexual woman by LGBTQ community activists.

        Anyways, regardless of what your articles get into, don’t drop the satire :) and keep up the amazing 😀

        • Catreece

          I’ve actually posted comments on a few articles (including the original and the mirror on AVFM) in relation to the CAFE dealie.

          And yes, sadly there is hetero-hate and cisgendered-hate and so on. Sadly many people have to go looking for a scapegoat. It’s painfully common in the trans “community”, if you can call it that. There’s so many trans people that have been wounded emotionally, such as being disowned from their families, or severe problems with dating, that you either A: grow an ungodly thick skin, B: turn into a fiery ball of anger and malice, or C: commit suicide. They’re not particularly great options, and option B is painfully common.

          And… yes again. The whole “pick a side” towards bisexual people is very common as well. The idea of bisexual people existing threatens the “being gay isn’t a choice” narrative somehow, because I guess they assume people can “choose” to be attracted to everyone? It doesn’t make much sense, honestly, but when you live in a world of hate, everything’s a further excuse for hate other than people exactly like you, much of the time.

          Anyway, if you’d like more, try taking a peak at Men’s Rights Sydney here:

          The grand wizard of patriarchy has also talked me into starting up a youtube channel for this sort of thing and I’m recording the first few audio files tonight. I hope to compile several before I start uploading them so I can get a good chunk out in one go so the channel isn’t barren, just in case I get lazy and don’t do any more for a bit =P

          I’ll toss out a link eventually I’m sure at some point, especially on some of these articles since some of the early videos I’m hoping to just have narrated readings of some of these older articles and such.

          Anyway, there’ll be more. Glad you enjoy, and hopefully they even are able to segue into a discussion with people on these topics ^.^

  • Catreece

    Hey, I glanced back at the comments since I just noticed there were some new ones, so here’s a few examples: (This is in direct response to the link above it so I don’t have to dissect it myself =P )

    There was actually quite a lot of claims of noshave movember being sexist as well on the actual twitter feed #noshavemovember itself.

    And, may I stress in addition to that, that I’m not claiming in the slightest that my friend represents all women. I’m a woman and she doesn’t represent my opinions, or you wouldn’t have this article in the first place =P

    The point was simply to show that even the most skeptical and intelligent of people in general can fall prey to this line of reasoning, and has nothing to do with your gender. That she happened to be female is completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the discussion. She just happened to provide some ideal points to use as a segue into the topic is all.

    The question that needs to be asked is… why is it any time anyone mentions something one woman said, an oddly high number of people seem to believe that it means you’re implying ALL women say that, when there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest such?

    In short, you might want to re-read the article, since at no point did I say anything about her views representing all women (and by the very fact that the article exists, it disproves your statement).