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, and the peer reviewed research showing women as the prevalent abusers of children.(page 28, table 3-5)
Women are also the leading killers of children (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 : 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  “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:  “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:  “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;  “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.  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  – 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  preen in sadistic delight at the disproportionate numbers of men  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 . 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.
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.