Descent Into Madness, and Marc Lepine

Why are men angry?

Escalating female privilege, legal impunity, male-targeting violence and marginalization, and the probable return of Marc Lepine

Why are men angry? Why would men, the presumed patriarchs, overlords, and masters of the world be angry?

It’s an increasingly common question.

There are lots of easy answers to this question, and generally, these answers revolve around assumptions that men are naturally angry creatures. Or that they’re angry that their historical privileges to oppress women and children have been eroded by that most egalitarian of social movements, feminism. Answers of this type are common, and these are the answers supplied to us by writers, academics, activists and gurus of various flavor, all of whom operate from a foundation of feminism.

These answers also share the characteristic of being uniformly false. I’m being polite – they’re not false in the sense of being merely factually incorrect – they’re false in the sense that they are deliberate lies, told by deliberate liars.

Whether we individually believe it to by deserved or not, men in Western society are increasingly viewed with suspicion, contempt, disdain, and violence. Men can no longer afford to enjoy healthy interactions with children. Our society is so ready to condemn any man that the slightest whisper of impropriety will destroy a career and a life. The word paedophile having almost universal male association, despite the endless train in our mainstream media of female teachers molesting students[1], and the peer reviewed research showing women as the prevalent abusers of children.[2](page 28, table 3-5)

Women are also the leading killers of children [2](page 62, table 4-5) – however, in Canadian courts women who murder children are exempted from full accountability by the precedent-setting decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 2nd 2011, in a case involving the interpretation of the offence of infanticide in the Canadian Criminal Code.

Marie Henein, counsel for the women’s Legal Education and Action Fund says that, “This is an important decision since it upholds Parliament’s recognition of the reduced culpability of women who commit infanticide. The decision confirms that even where a woman in these terrible circumstances is charged with murder, she may be convicted of infanticide.”

So when women are convicted of murder – whenever possible, they’re only sentenced for the lesser offence of infanticide.

When women are charged with murder, they’re not only sentenced under a lesser charge, they are increasingly excused from responsibility based on flights of imaginative fancy of the officers of the courts.

On Monday January 3 2010, Canada’s National Post newspaper reported that “After a night of drunken revelry that escalated into a violent street fight, Crystal-Dawn MacKenzie grabbed a knife from her neighbour’s kitchen, yelled “I’m going to kill him” and stabbed her common-law husband to death.

Eight months later, Ms. MacKenzie walked out of a New Brunswick court a free woman after a nine-woman, three-man jury acquitted her of second-degree murder. Her killing excused by the court, based on a presumed history of abuse at the hands of Mr. Thomas.

Her lawyer actually admitted during the trial : “Of course she had other options, But she had been drinking and that impaired her judgement.”

So a claim of past abuse and few drinks is enough to excuse murder? No, not unless you also own a vagina.

Canada, of course, is falling behind when it comes to feminizing the courts and society at large. In airstrip 1, the comically named Women’s Justice Task-force has recommended that female criminal offenders, rather than being treated like criminals when they commit crimes, and sent to prison – should be pampered, coddled, provided state funded housing, therapy and day spas with an apricot facial scrub. (I made that last item up)

According to the BBC : [4]The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) welcomed the report and said it was carefully considering the recommendations.

The Women’s Justice Task Force report also said that rather than incarceration for crimes committed by women, “The focus should be on health, housing and treatment for drug addiction to reduce reoffending”. If violent crime is incentivized with fast access to health services, housing and other benefits, my testosterone addled, logical brain fails to grasp a pathway to reduced offence in the demographic so incentivized.

If this boundlessly stupid idea is implemented, I expect a dramatic – short term increase in violent crime committed by women. When this violent criminality targets men, ideological feminists will likely writhe in a lather of smug glee. However, I also predict that the general public will take several years to fully digest the social consequence of immunity from consequence for a biological demographic and the resulting escalated violence perpetrated by that privileged group. What will happen next will be a sharp, long term increase in brutal retributive violence and murder perpetrated against women.

I also believe that the promoters and pushers of the mind-bendingly stupid idea of exemption from consequence for women actually want to produce this massive and long term increase in female targeting violence. Female victimization is the foundation of organized, state funded, big business feminism’s marketing message. More dead and maimed women means more funding, more government positions and more tenured positions for feminist academics. That’s why the policies produced by organized feminism always produce more social carnage. Women killed and maimed are not merely collateral damage, for big-box feminism, they’re the desired outcome.

I’ll briefly digress at this point to address a favourite argument of my critics: Men’s Rights Activists – including me are routinely accused of hating women, or harbouring a desire to beat or abuse or rape women. A major motivator of all credible MRA writing and activism is to reduce and avoid violence done against both men and women. Those who claim the men’s movement has a motive to justify violence of any kind are nothing except disgusting lying filth, for whom I have nothing except contempt.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, family courts in the United States fund themselves by taking a portion of the money they extract from men being hypergamously discarded by their wives. That characterization used because women initiate 66% of divorce cases. This financial model used by the family courts almost completely guarantees that the courts are corrupt. Only saints could operate courts running on such a funding model without sinking into irretrievable corruption, and saints exist only in fantasy literature. It is not a coincidence that the suicide rate among men, already 4 times higher than among women rises to 11 times higher in males after divorce.

The code phrase “in the best interest of the children” is used to throw a confusing smog around the treatment of men by the family court system as walking cash machines, devoid of human rights.

But how can this “best interest of the children” carry any credibility if :

  • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
    (Source: Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
  • 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
    (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
  • 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
    (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

That question again – how does “best interest of the children” have any veracity at all in light of these facts, which I’ve kindly cited the sources of? The answer is simple. The courts and their publicists are amoral carrion eaters who directly profit by destroying families, fathers, and children, and temporarily elevating divorcing women – and they do not care how much human damage they do as long as they can pay themselves.

Meanwhile the media continues to give currency to the phrase “deadbeat dads” – never whispering that although debtors prisons were abolished more than 100 years ago, for men burdened by the courts with support payments exceeding their ability to pay – prison is where many of them go.

Mainstream social commentators continue to regurgitate the popular message that men are failures for opting out of marriage version 2.0 – where women (but not men) can exit at any time, retaining a their partner’s income while disposing of his person. This message coupled with various imperatives to man up and be the cash, labour and sperm dispenser that would make a Victorian era patriarch proud. The nearly universal message that any male self actualization not of utility to a woman is shameful.

As members of the public, we’re also continuously bludgeoned with the media’s preferred characterization of masculinity as either childishly stupid and incompetent – (sitcoms and advertisements) or as malevolently violent (drama).

Lies about Domestic Violence crafted to cultivate hatred and fear of men; including the omnipresent lie that most domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women. This is what the “experts” in the DV industry keep telling us through public service announcements – but the message is false. Not wrong, not mistaken, it’s deliberately false. The peer reviewed research on DV shows overwhelmingly that [5] “women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners”

Lies about pornography, crafted to demonize and criminalize men. The feminist lie that porn leads to violence or rape, or in some imaginary way oppresses the female actors. Female porn actors are paid 6 to 100 times more than their male counterparts – that’s harm?

In fact, a substantial body of research indicates a positive social benefit correlating societies with increased access to porn with a reduction in social pathology in those societies. According to Anthony D’Amato at the Northwestern University – School of Law: [6] “The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults.” A report on the social effects of porn by Dr Milton Diamond of the university of Hawaii, and published in International Journal of Law and Psychiatry in 1999 stated in it’s conclusion: [7] “It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes.”

This research has been available to the public for over a decade. Have the anti porn anti male crusaders claiming all porn leads to rape been too busy to read the academic research on their own issue? Or are they liars profiting by pushing an agenda built on hatred.

Lies about prostitution, crafted to increase violence against sex workers, and to demonize and criminalize men. Anti prostitution activists, whether they come from a religious or a feminist ideology insist that commercialization of sex degrades women, is equivalent to rape, increases harm, escalates social carnage, but seem curiously incapable of providing any credible evidence to support this point of view. At the same time, they characterize male sexuality in the context of commercialized sex as a predatory, antisocial pathology innate to masculine identity. Sex is a biological drive, and both men and women are driven by it. Would anybody like to try explaining the rising social phenomena of 30-something women screwing everything in pants without acknowledgement of female libido? That many men are willing to pay to satisfy this biological drive seems in the ideological world of radical feminism to cast male sex into a purely negative light.

Or, is it that male access to sex without the increasingly onerous social encumbrance of sex within female controlled relationships disrupts the effective monopoly women as a class maintain over access to sex? The portrayal of purchased sex as if it is inherently pathological is merely a device to deny male sexual self actualization. In fact the ideological opponents of sex as a service ignore the real world damage to women which criminalizing prostitution creates.

According to Doctor Kate Shannon at the British Columbia centre for excellence in HIV/Aids research; [8] “while there has been a growing body of qualitative evidence documenting the negative impacts of criminalization of prostitution on the health and safety of sex workers, our study demonstrates, empirically – a direct link between the criminalization of sex work and the increased odds of violence against female sex workers”

Indeed, escalated violence in prohibited activities is used for victim-assistance fund seeking, and as justification for continued and expanded prohibitions under feminism’s so called “humanitarian mandate”.

Increased harm, and human damage is the real product and the real goal of abolitionist movements against porn and prostitution, because the harm makes a good story to secure funding and political power. And as always, the men driven to satisfy a biological drive by paying women for a service – those men are called criminals.

Lies about men seeking post-divorce contact with their own children, crafted to characterize male parental love as aggression. The anti-male hate organization NOMAS describes the motivation of men seeking continued access to their own children as a cover for continued abuse of those children. As hateful lies go, this is arguably the most egregious nugget of hate propaganda I’ve ever seen. [9] The hatemongers at NOMAS equate father’s rights advocacy with male supremacy groups, and tell fathers shattered by forcible separation from their homes and children to “do whatever [you] can to ensure that their mother is thriving. Stop fighting for “shared parenting” or sole custody if are in court.”

NOMAS is a 36 year old organization, and this thinking is mainstream – but I’m sure it has nothing at all to do with the rate of suicide among divorced men being 11 times higher than the national average.

Also, the advice from this hate organization to men to get quickly out of the way and provide financial and emotional support to divorcing mothers who prefer to view their children’s fathers as cash dispensing appliances, consider that 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control).

Lies about a wage gap while retailers know with certainty that women, and not men control 65% of disposable income [10] – money spent by women without account of who earns it.

Lies about a wage gap while men continue to comprise 93% of workplace deaths.

The word “workers” used in the media to hide the fact that almost every time a workplace accident produces a newsworthy number of corpses – they’re almost all male.

Triumphalism by feminists who [11] preen in sadistic delight at the disproportionate numbers of men [12] driven to poverty and unemployment by female favouring affirmative action programs in employment, education and government.

According to Christina Hoff Sommers: “we’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses, we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule”

I will reiterate another point made by Sommers:

The leading academic text on domestic violence in North America is called Domestic Violence Law from Thompson Press, written by Nancy K. D. Lemon. The first page of the first chapter of this book contains the following paragraph:

“Wife abuse and child abuse, contrary to current opinion are not merely symptoms of modern day stress which disturb family tranquillity, and cause the breakdown of a formerly non violent family structure. The history of women’s abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. The tradition continues to a certain extent even today.”

This paragraph contains a number of overt and implied factual falsehoods (lies). The most obvious being that Romulus of Rome was not a real person, but a mythological character. Romulus is the son of the Roman God Aries, raised by wolves, along with his brother Remus. And this is on the first page of the first chapter of the leading academic text on domestic violence.

This is organized, funded, systematic and institutional promotion of hatred and discrimination against men in our society. It is widespread, overt, and escalating with time.

Is anyone still confused that men are increasingly, and justifiably angry?
Maybe you also think we live in a patriarchy, and that the tooth fairy is coming to your town next week as well.

Where are we going?

Early in this article, I mentioned the bottomless stupidity being pursued by establishment feminist ideologues in their plan to exempt women from legal accountability. Women in the UK, rather than facing potential jail when they commit violent crimes may soon enjoy state provided housing, therapy, job training, state funded daycare, and various other benefits. This will effectively incentive the commission of violent crime by members of an elevated elite biological class. It does not require advanced training in economics to understand that anything you subsidize, you get more of.

In the UK there is already a mandate for judges to sentence women more leniently than men [13]. Supreme Court judge Baroness Hale is quoted as saying: “It is now well recognized that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for women and girls.” Equality is that most elastic of words which can mean anything a feminist’s whim prefers, from one second to the next.

So what should we expect as legal accountability for female criminals is folded away by feminist jurisprudence? To begin, a rise in violent criminality. Women will increasingly abuse, assault, and murder children and adults. However, much of this escalated social carnage will happen out of public sight, because aside from the courts, the mainstream media is a principal disseminator of feminist ideology. Showing the ugly truth that humans owning vaginas are just as capable of violence as their penis-owning contemporaries doesn’t serve the talking points of a feminist media, and so it wont be the top story.

Because of this, and because of the blatant insanity of suspending criminal accountability from an entire biological demographic – the public will take several years to fully grasp the brave new world of incentivized female violence. When this happens, the carnage done by women excepted from criminal consequence will appear mild. This is a bad outcome.

Criminal law serves a specific and necessary function in a civil society. It’s a way for people to seek redress of grievance through a mutually understandable and mostly impartial framework, without resort to vendetta. It allows people to disagree without bashing each other’s heads in with rocks. Human societies cannot function without system to fulfil this need. If, or when the system of law is perverted to a degree that a major segment of society is exempt from accountability through legitimate criminal penalty – the society will adapt to re-introduce accountability. Women, exempted by the courts from accountability will become the targets of public rage, and killed and maimed in historically unprecedented numbers. This is a bad outcome, but in the system proposed by the UK Women’s Justice Task Force, this bad outcome seems so obvious that I cant believe it is not a planned outcome.
In previous articles, I’ve criticized the policies of public funded victim advocacy organizations whose policies appear to produce increased incidence of the victimization their funding relies on. The transformation of western legal systems appears to be this same phenomena amplified.

In 1989 – A man named Marc Lepine murdered 14 women and 4 men, citing the corrosive effects of feminism as his motive[14].

Mainstream media reports have attributed Lepine’s actions to psychiatric conditions including personality disorder, psychosis, or attachment disorder, or societal factors such as poverty, isolation, powerlessness, and violence in the media. Mr Lepine was probably a candidate for psychiatric intervention, as his actions were isolated, and not representative of or reproduced by other members of his community. I certainly do not regard his choice to kill as a good one. Mr Lepine was clearly not a stable or mentally healthy individual. He was, however a single, early example of what may happen in a society which has no lawful framework for redress of grievance.

When humans cannot resolve grievance through the courts, because for half the population, the courts provide no accountability – what is left is retributive violence. I’ll say again, this is a bad outcome to be avoided. Unfortunately, I believe it is coming. The ideologues pushing legal non accountability for half the population do so seeking this outcome.


  • mongo

    According to Christina Hoff Summers: “we’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses, we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule”

    False claims are now so epidemic that I find it hard to believe the latest claim that Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi has launched a “campaign of rape” against Libyan women.

    The local news has just made this extraordinary claim, coupled with the observation that “women are the primary victims targeted by Gaddafi, having been systematically raped, and made to suffer the loss of loved ones”. This immediately brought Hilary Clinton to mind, with her similar infamous remark – and sure enough, within seconds her very face appeared, demanding that Gaddafi must go.

    It’s got to the pass now where I smell the first ever false rape accusation on a national scale. After all, if Hillary Clinton really had been named after the mountain climber (as she claimed), and really had been under fire at Sarajevo airport (her claim again) she might just be believable. Unfortunately, she’s a bare-faced liar with history.

    • MasculistMan

      The lame stream media is a joke. It seems that everytime they want young MEN to die they use the damsel in distress crap.

      OT the blue pill crowd:

    • Wayne

      Hillary Clinton named after Sir Edmund Hillary (mountain climber)? Lol, I’ve never heard that one before. Amusing though. The New Zealand media must have hushed that one up.

      Sir Edmund Hillary was relatively unknown outside of New Zealand until he became the first man to climb Mount Everest on 29th May 1953 when Hillary Clinton was already 5yrs, 7mths & 3days old (born 26th October 1947).

  • Eff’d Off

    You absolutely astound Me Mr Dexter. Bloody great read thank you.

    You just keep giving don’t you mate ?

  • Eff’d Off

    This one was meant for the previous topic but I jumped on the horse a bit late.

    So here.. cop this.


  • criolle johnny

    American men commit suicide THREE times as often as women. ONE out of FIVE suicides is a VETERAN.
    No more veterans should perish while the government fails to perform its obligations.
    At least one newspaper is doing its job. I thank them.

  • Lovekraft

    Marc Lepine doesn’t represent Canadian anglo-saxon men. I believe he was either an immigrant from Algeria, or sons of Algerian immigrants. Comparing North Africa to Northern Europe is a stretch. But progressives and feminists painted all Canadian men with the same brush. Part of their agenda, of course, but it resulted in alienating a lot of men who do not have any connection to Muslim, middle eastern culture.

  • reficul

    ˙˙˙uʍop ǝpısdn sı pןɹoʍ sıɥʇ

    • Eff’d Off

      To read it will give you the true vista of the newer word beyond the monitor.

    • Lovekraft

      wow, how did you do that?

      • scatmaster

        ǝʇısqǝʍ sıɥʇ ɯoɹɟ

        • Eff’d Off

          There’s another too…

          http://flipme fucking/cartoon/over/ya/bastard/


  • Merlin

    Great article Manuel…A fantastic read!

    Quoting an extract from your article…

    “This paragraph contains a number of overt and implied factual falsehoods (lies). The most obvious being that Romulus of Rome was not a real person, but a mythological character. Romulus is the son of the Roman God Aries, raised by wolves, along with his brother Remus. And this is on the first page of the first chapter of the leading academic text on domestic violence”.

    Kind of shows the mentality of these parasites doesn’t it? To have the front to publish this without any feelings of guilt or morality. It’s either that, or she is rather dense in some areas of history. Either way, the publishing house should have picked up on this major lie.

    It has to be said, I’m sure that a lot of folk would just accept it as true, that this must be so, as it’s written in black and white in a book. This is how it all slips through the net isn’t it…busy people with busy lives without enough time to look into things and challenge them. And I believe that’s what these disgraceful excuses for human beings rely on, and why they succeed in selling their poison to a large percentage of individuals.

    Watching daytime television you see how the lies are fabricated to a large percentage of females that will be at home. The main damage is done then, when hubby or boyfriend is out at work and busy. This is when the news coverage is very misandric, because the ones who may be offended by the coverage are out of the way. This is when the women’s daytime garbage shows tout their poison too, with various topics that either blatantly MAN bash or subtly MAN bash. It’s when the screens are bulging with endless brainwashing adverts, all designed to get the women and girls to think they need that shit.

    Then the man returns home from work in the evening, and hey presto the media change tactics. That’s usually when the man bashing either stops, or tones down somewhat. The women’s adds never stop, but then again he’s used to seeing that garbage, so what the heck if it keeps her amused right? We may get the odd shaving add just to try and even things out a bit eh. What a crock of SHIT!

    And this goes on day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. So, are we really surprised when the world seems all about what the spoilt princess wants? And when I use the word princess, I say that tongue in cheek, as many of us know, that couldn’t be further from the truth in many cases.

  • Opt-out

    I know very few individuals who would pursue a strategy that is doomed to fail. I know even less who seek to mirror a life riddled with dead bodies and broken souls based on the premise that somehow there situation is special. If choosing not to participate in a strategy where past results show predictable outcomes of ruin is failure then I chose to fail. Also, fuck this limp dick mangina, all we need is another man cunt leading the white knight cause.

  • AntZ

    Brilliant. Beautifully researched, factually pristine, and utterly damning to a system that is de-railed by a marriage of convenience to femi-fascist hatred.

    Simply brilliant. The only answer that the femi-fascists have to this kind of perfectly put together thesis is to insult and denigrate the author with various worn out feminist lies.

    Good work.

  • AntZ

    For the femi-fascists who constantly repeat the preposterous lie that they are fighting for “equality”: please explain this feminist Canadian law, you bigoted wart hog:


    “237. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding FIVE YEARS. R.S., c. C-34, s. 220.

    Punishment for murder

    235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for LIFE.”

    So what is you explanation, bigoted feminist pig? Why does a man who kills go to prison for life, while a woman who kills gets off with a maximum of five years (usually under six months)?

    • Stu

      So an infants life is only worth five years if killed by a woman, but life if killed by a man. Geez, I never realised the the infant, and all the other relatives, are losing less, and suffering less if a woman kills the infant. Let’s see, if life on average actually means 30 years…..that means a woman has to kill six infants to get the same a guy who kills one. Oh wait……I forgot……concurrent sentencing. So she would probably still only do five. And add to that, womens prisons are holiday homes. I know a woman who was until a few years ago, a warden in a womens prison. She reckons it’s such a joke, the women have more rights then the jailers. Their cells don’t have bars……they are full of every creature comfort, and they run feel good workshops and shit all the time.

      • AntZ

        “So an infants life is only worth five years if killed by a woman, but life if killed by a man.”

        By law, yes. In practice, no Canadian woman has every gone to prison at all in 62 years for killing a child under 1 year old.

        Naturally, Canadian women kill their children much more often than men as a result.

    • MasculistMan

      Is there any way for Canadian MRA’s to combat this?

  • AntZ

    Sorry for repeat postings, but I am outraged. More on women killing their children, exempt from punishment in Canada:

    For the first time in 68 years, a woman who killed her 1 year old child was sentenced to hard time in Canada … so the nation of man-hating bigots wants to STRENGTHEN the infanticide law, making it even easier for women to get off free:

    “… Compassion, rather than extended jail time, is the norm for a neonaticidal mother, or for a mother who commits infanticide, defined in Canadian law as the killing of a child less than one year of age.

    ‘Effert’s second-degree murder conviction is completely out of step with jurisprudence in other provinces,’ University of Winnipeg criminologist Kirsten Kramar, a Canadian expert on infanticide, has said. ‘It wasn’t a just outcome.’

    Effert’s life sentence with no parole for 10 years — the mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder — is unprecedented for a case of infant homicide, in modern times at least. No Canadian woman has gone to jail for longer than a year for this crime since a legal provision for infanticide was enacted in 1948. Instead, convicted mothers usually get no jail time at all, Kramar says.”

    SAY AGAIN?!? NO CANADIAN WOMAN IN 62 YEARS HAS EVER DONE HARD TIME FOR KILLING CHILDREN UNDER 1 YEAR OLD?!? AND CANADIANS THINK THE LAW IS TOO HARSH TO WOMEN?!? A penis-owner goes to jail for life, every time, for the same crime … and 99.99999% of women get counselling and tax payer handouts. But ONE Canadian woman finally is convicted of murder (2nd degree) for killing her children, and the nation of man-hating bigots is up in arms?!?

    I want to wake up. I feel like I am in a dark nightmare.

    • Stu

      Women who kill their children should get the death penalty….every time…no exceptions. There is nothing worse then someone killing a helpless baby who can’t even walk, talk, or defend itself in anyway. These people who are standing up for the child killing women should get the same. Hand them high…the lot of them

      • AntZ

        Be careful with the word “baby”. Canadian women frequently smother/drown/poison/bury alive their children just befoer the first birthday, since by law they are immune from punishment.

        If killed by a mother, a child is not human until it reaches one year old.

        • archmage_lo

          It’s just a late term abortion….

  • BeijaFlor

    It’s a bleak picture you paint here, Manuel. I hope it will be refuted, in time; or that wiser heads will prevail.

    But that is a forlorn hope indeed.

    And when there comes a time when I must choose my stand …

  • Keyster

    It’s not a matter of if but when, more “lone wolf” or even somewhat organized young men take up arms. I think the disillusionment and disenfranchisment has already been manifesting itself in school shootings, mall shootings and family killings. Young men with their whole lives ahead of them and all they have left to embrace is nihilism.

    They can’t articulate exactly why they feel this way, because they can’t talk about it. They can’t understand the origins of animosity, disrespect and scorn towards them just for being born male. It’s not taught or in the MSM so it must somehow be THEIR fault.

    Keep hating on men and boys long enough; dismissing, deriding, disrespecting them and they’ll start hating back. This is the beginning of that time. They need to be reached through the media and mentoring programs, to be told “it’s not your fault”, before we have yet more shooting sprees.

    A man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous man on earth.

    • Jade Michael

      “Young men with their whole lives ahead of them and all they have left to embrace is nihilism. They can’t articulate exactly why they feel this way, because they can’t talk about it.”

      Great point, and thank you for bringing it to light. It about sums up my life prior to a few basic wake-up calls; one of which was that I’m not a horrible abomination just because I have a penis.

      • Jade Michael

        I meant also to add –

        “A man with nothing to lose is the most dangerous man on earth.”

        Yes, and sadly he is the most dangerous to himself. Great post, Keyster.

  • nigeles175d

    Another excellent article Manuel Dexter. This is merely a factual correction to a good article with supporting references, but I believe the correct spelling of Christina Hoff Sommers’ surname uses the letter “o” not “u”.

    Feminist arrogance always surprises me. Women are charged at a fraction of the rate that men are, often due to masculine activity being defined by them as “criminal”, yet even when women commit the same crimes as men their sentences are already a fraction of what men recieve, and they are undertaken in much more luxurious conditions. Now the feminists want women to be not only let off scot-free, but to be rewarded as well! I just do not understand how something so obviously wrong can pass public judgement (well, in fact I do, it’s down to feminised brainwashing).

  • Teebs

    Wimmin – The Fascist Parasite

    In a society that celebrates the wholesale slaughter of males there is only one recourse.

    What now brews shall be a roaring, bone-chilling response erupting from the countless millions of great, freedom loving men whom now have nothing left to loose.

    Ladies of treason, you would now do well to return to that shameless hell whence you come, and watch yourselves lest the penis-chopping frenzy you so crave is turned on your rancid hate-propelled tongues. Bitches of misery, you’ve well proven your allegiance to fascist hatred against half the entire human race, males, and so you shall be lying in your own stinky, wretched beds that you have made upon our broken backs, with your tongues removed no less.

    The war has begun.

  • Colette

    I admit to being unaware that men had a rights movement and sought out this site as a way of learning the other side after stumbling across the article A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If . . .

    I have always been a believer in equality for all and a strong supporter of human rights. Words like feminist and activist brought up visions of a handful of overzealous individuals peddling an extremist cause, not really part of the mainstream of human relations. But after reading that ‘rape-supporter’ article and getting over that first gasp of shock, I had to find out what men were thinking about such claims.

    I’m a woman who appreciates a logical argument, an open mind, and a willingness to make the effort to see things from another perspective. I’ve been following the articles and comments on this site for a few weeks now and have come to some conclusions. Whether caused by societal brainwashing from birth or there really is a divergence in the way men and women think, I had no concept of the pain, anger, and frustration men have become mired in because of women, that there were such inequalities with laws and lack of resources that made many men feel less than second-class citizens. That men had good reason to feel fear and deep depression, knowing they would always end up with the shitty end of the stick.

    For someone who claims to support human rights, I deeply apologize for my blindness. The fact that you may never trust me, a woman, is understandable, but doesn’t stop me from believing in your movement and offering my full support. Your radio program and posts like this one by Manuel Dexter are important because there are more women like me who also recognize the logic of a well written article or a calm, well-informed speaker, and are simply unaware that men and boys are fighting for their lives. I’m no longer blind. At the moment my contribution, although it may seem small, is talking about this on blogs, to my family, to friends who have friends. In time, and with the right changes, maybe men and women can be friends.

    • Raykyn

      Women aren’t the problem, and women like yourself testify to that fact.

  • J3DIforce1

    I think this is why so many people in society go to great length to avoid such truths as this because it is a very scary reality. What in gods name is wrong with woman anyhow ? They are rapidly becoming more violent and cruel then they have ever claimed men to be.

  • andybob

    Dear Colette,

    The fact that you have spent several weeks reading the articles and comments on AVFM before adding your contribution is evident in your calm and honest attitude. Too often, women stumble onto this site, and instantly get their backs up. They have been trained to perceive all criticisms of feminist abuse of power with Hating Women. Some actually react by writing snide rants using shaming language and every long-debunked, hysterical Women’s Studies statistic known to man. These types are beyond redemption and debating them is an exercise in futility. You are onviously a very different type of woman.

    I hope you have noticed that AVFM welcomes women whose concerns for men’s rights are genuine. Some women poster’s, like the splendid Issey, write some of the best articles here. After many years as an MRA, I am still learning about the many issues concerning men. It’s a long process and we are all here to share our ideas. Unlike feminist sites, AVFM has a diverse readership that encourages respectful exchange. Rejecting an ally would be pointless and self-defeating.

    I was very interested to read that it was the “A Man is a Rape Supporter If…” article that initiated your journey here. I had a suspicion that this offensive screed would make at least some women sit up and think. Surely not all women hate their sons, brothers, fathers, nephews and male friends so much that they would fail to be offended by it. Feminists, drunk on arrogance, are overstepping the mark and making these kind of mistakes.

    It was definitely a mistake to make a woman like you have a WTF moment. It was also a huge mistake to get huge numbers of gay men like me so totally off-side with their indiscriminate misandry. Feminism has gorged on priviledge for too long and is crumbling under the weight of its own corruption. Showing your support for men’s rights to those close to you is a very significant contribution, Colette. I hope to read your comments in the future. Welcome.

  • Colette


    Your welcome is appreciated as I was unsure how my ignorance would be taken or if accepted. I almost feel like I’m back in college taking prerequisite classes before being allowed to participate in the actual course. Without clearly understanding the issues involved, there can be no intelligent discourse. But we all have to start somewhere.

    What impressed me the most about this site, beyond the fact that articles are well written with plenty of thought behind them and referencing links, is the powerful determination to stay focused on the objective of educating and not getting lost in rants and bashing that tends to push away rather than draw in. But even that language has its uses if saved to strongly emphasize a point or an emotion.

    You were right on the money about that ‘rape supporter’ article. My first thought was, ‘Whoa, when did the women’s movement start claiming all men were rapists.’ Yes, it was a WTF moment. The article’s hostility veritably jumped from my screen. And although her comments were detailed, there was no logic no positive emotion behind her opinions; just a coldness and a gift to articulate well. One doesn’t have to be an expert to know when something is totally wrong.

    I look forward to learning much more so I too can knowledgeably educate others concerning all the changes that are needed in today’s culture just to get men’s human rights up on an even footing. Time and persistence will eventually lead to stable ground.

  • Aurini

    Mark Lepine – Cho – and that shooter at the women’s fitness centre. And don’t forget 4chan.

    Hmm… almost as if this excess female hypergamy is creating a pattern of sorts…

    • Jimmy

      What does 4chan have to do with those shootings?