Men’s human rights & supposed “hate speech”

Just recently there has been a concerted effort by radical feminists to attack any man who dares question their rule of law over all areas of our lives. This domination takes in all social media: television, newspapers, websites and magazines. I have seen screeds of radical feminist rhetoric on the internet that talk about castrating men, killing baby boys and make outrageous threats against transsexuals. Yet, when men finally begin to stand up and talk about the international violence against them at the hands of these radical feminists and the agencies and courts they control, these very same women are able to deem anything they say as a “hate crime.” There is, in fact, a largely invisible war raging as men and men’s groups gather together to oppose the whole radical feminist movement and its own ‘hate speech.’

But first I want to give you some history that will hopefully explain why we are here at this point in time.

In the late sixties a new movement was born out of many of the frustrations women were experiencing at the time. I remember the humiliation of having to prove that I intended to get married before my doctor would agree to give me the pill. In the fifties, I became aware of the numbers of women who were pregnant and were victims of illegal abortions. I lost a friend to a raging infection she had contracted because she was too frightened to go to hospital, fearing she had committed an illegal act and could end up in prison. A woman had to have a father or husband sign to guarantee a mortgage. Yes, there were reasons to embrace this new movement that promised women their voices would be heard and also said that women would no longer compete against each other, but would join together to make a new and better world for all of us. All my friends were as excited as I was to hear everything they could about this new movement.

I was a close friend of a woman journalist called Jill Tweedie and she was writing articles for The Guardian, and every morning I awoke fired up by her rhetoric on the new future of women in the world. I, like so many other women at home with children, was feeling lonely and isolated. My husband was away for long periods of time and effectively I was a single parent family.

So I went along to my first Women’s Liberation meeting (as it was called in the early days) held at a private home near by, only to find that it was chaired by a rather hostile woman. Nevertheless, we paid three pounds ten shillings to join and were told that the next step was so organise ‘consciousness raising’ groups in our own homes and to consider ourselves a ‘collective’ and call each other comrades. I recall being appalled by the huge posters of Chairman Mao on her sitting room wall. I actually knew a lot about Chairman Mao because my family were captured by the Communist in Tien Sien in 1949 and were put under house arrest, while my twin sister and I were in a convent in England. I heard first-hand from my father, a diplomat, about the atrocities that were happening in China, so I feared then that this whole so-called new women’s movement might be just another undercover attempt to coerce women into supporting Marxism.

My involvement ended at a conference where the old Marxist slogans were wheeled out and fed to an audience of bewildered women who had come to talk about equity feminism, but instead were given instructions to ditch their husbands and partners and to put their children into twenty-four-hour nurseries so they could become part of the work force. We were told that the family was a dangerous place for women and children, so the new family must comprise women and children, with men being disenfranchised as fathers. In the end, I found myself on a platform facing a screaming mob of fanatics, while I attempted to shout over the noise that this was not a women’s movement and had never been intended to be a women’s movement.

Most normal women fled the movement, but there were sufficient numbers of troubled women who had anger issues of their own to embrace this new religion. They followed their sister’s instructions to the letter, refusing any game, toy, or book which pertained to masculinity. The sisterhood assured their captive audience that their husbands or partners had oppressed them and that men were the enemy. Their role as mothers was to see that their boy children were to be treated as girls and obliged to play with kitchen sets and dolls. Masculinity was a social construct, so it was up to all women to eradicate any traces of this damaging behaviour from their boys so that the world would become a much safer place.

I was furious and frustrated because no one would listen. I warned as many people as I could that Women’s Liberation was probably the most dangerous movement of the century. I warned that if it was not stopped, it would undermine the family and destroy men and boys. It would force women out to work whether they wanted it or not, and it would create such a division between men and women so that relationships would become impossible.

For a very long time men were silent. Men were not used to supporting each other emotionally. Unlike women, who have a built-in biological mechanism that enables them to network with each other to achieve their goals, men are used to cooperating only to create things and join in with each other over physical activities. Men also channel their emotional life through women, so when women began to turn on their partners, they had no idea how to deal with the fact that they were now being booted out of their homes and denied their children.

Men’s initial response was to see the emerging women’s movement as a joke, but as the years went by, more and more men became aware that their own situations were not just personal but were internationally epidemic. Very slowly and quietly men began to get together on the newly emerging internet. There, anonymously, and sometimes in great pain, men were beginning to share their sorrow and indignation. A fierce undercurrent was being born as men who had always loved their families and paid their taxes discovered that they now could no longer shelter under the umbrella of their human rights.

Any woman in the western world could now pick up the telephone and, without any evidence, have her partner removed. He would simply be deemed guilty and banned from the family until he was able to prove otherwise. Wherever I travelled, I saw with my own eyes the evidence that men are now deprived of their passports and driving licenses for not paying maintenance. Their cars were repossessed and, unable to drive, they were often unable to work.

Within twenty years, without any opposition, this evil empire quietly moved into positions of power. The governments of the western world said nothing. In England, our House of Commons said nothing. Everyone knew that it is women who often get out to vote, so why would Barrack Obama or David Cameron risk the wrath of prominent radical feminists in their midst if it would mean losing votes?

In the twenty-first century we now have a situation were women are almost in a position of total power in relationships. Of course there are many normal happy women who love their husbands and their partners and children. However, as single parenthood was a necessary part of the radical feminist agenda, we now have millions of single parent families (usually women). Some are in this position because they have been abandoned by their partner, but far more have booted out the fathers of their children and have turned to the State for support. We have millions of children across the world who have no fathers and no male role models since men had left the education system in droves.

Today in England, mothers who wish to stay at home and look after their children are not going to be able to apply for the £1200 grant that is to be given to couples who are in full time work to help them pay to put their children into nurseries. Women have lost their right to be home with their children. There are no choices now. By denying mothers the right to be at home with their children our Conservative government, once the bastion of family values, also denies the importance of the role of parents in the family.

The traditional family is all but extinct.

Here in England, there are discussions about removing the word ‘husband’ from our vocabulary. Harriet Harman, the Women’s Minister of the last Labour government, is still driving women out to work with the full approval of our Tory Prime Minister. Fathers are banished from their homes and their children. Men are killing themselves in unprecedented numbers and nobody cares. We have millions of young men deprived of an education thanks to the institutionalised misandry running like a virulent virus through our schools.

I have for so long been wringing my hands in despair, so I was delighted when I first read about “Fathers for Families.” They, at least, seemed to have the courage to come out in the open and bring attention to the sufferings of men. There were howls of rage of course from the radical feminists, but this was the beginning as far as I am concerned of men beginning to fight back.

More recently, I found a home in an organisation called A Voice for Men. They are radical, brash and unapologetic, but they are also a broad church where both men and women can work together to make the necessary changes to eradicate the radical feminist movement. A Voice for Men was founded by Paul Elam, who is a straight-talking, no-nonsense leader and he is quite clear that he and his colleagues will not be deterred from getting justice for men. For my part I have finally found a group of people who have no time for radical feminists. At last men are standing to be counted and hopefully, if more are willing to join us, we can turn this vicious movement of women around.

Of course, there are women who are innocent victims of men’s violence, but there are just as many men who are victims of female aggression. The whole monstrous lie that it is “patriarchy,” i.e. all men who oppress women, is a lie. Why did this lie ever become held up as the truth? Because Marxist women across the world were looking for a just cause to fund their politics.

In 1971, I opened the first ever shelter for battered women and their children. My cause was soon hijacked because, as far as the radical part of the women’s movement were concerned they had found their Trojan horse. By deeming all men as guilty of violence and oppression and all women victims of men’s violence and oppression they had the tools and the machine that could create a billion dollar industry that could be rolled out across the western world. The feminized media, the judiciary, all the caring agencies and governments bowed to this persuasive argument. The movement was ring fenced against men who were banned from working in refuges and boys were also banned from refuges by the age of nine or twelve.

I think that now we are going to see an upsurge in this war against men. Radical feminists know that sufficient politically sophisticated men and women have rumbled the big lie. Valid research makes nonsense of the radical feminists own attempts at publishing their massaged figures. Domestic violence is not a gender issue, it is a generational issue. Children born into toxic families are marinated in violence, and it makes no difference whether they are male or female.

It is now possible to use MRI scans see the damage caused to the young brains of children by exposure to violence in early life. This is what I have always believed. As honest trustworthy men and women’s voices get louder, the radical feminists will have to fight harder to defend their billion dollar funding allocations. Eventually governments across the world will have to take steps to undo some of the legislation that targets men as the enemy. Hopefully, some men who have unjustly been thrown out of the homes and their children’s lives will have the course to take a class action to the courts. Maybe they will be able approach the Court of Human Rights in Brussels to have their human rights restored and to claim compensation from the courts of law that illegally denied them their rights.

Perhaps other men will take the shelter/refuge movement to court for denying them their equal right to allow them to work alongside women in the refuges. The first money donated to my refuge was voted by the mothers to be spent on a good gentle man to work with the children. How can the shelter movement ban men when, not only is it vital for children to experience good gentle men, but so many of the women have never had access to normal kind, sensitive men?

For the first time I have hope.

I work in London with Andy Thomas who is the director of A Voice for Men‘s operation here in the UK. I also work with Dean Esmay who is in the US, and share a radio programme with him called “Revelations with Erin Pizzey,” a bi-monthly show where we can talk to men and women about a wide range of issues that affect them.

There is, however, a systematic effort by feminists to label A Voice for Men and our efforts as “hate.” These are the kinds of bullying tactics that radical feminists have always used. A Voice for Men is not “hate,” but a voice of hope, concern and justice for many lonely, isolated and suicidal men out there.

Editor’s note: the original version of this piece was published earlier today on A Voice for Men-UK. –DE

This article is also available in Hebrew and Romanian.

About Erin Pizzey

Erin Pizzey is founder of Chiswick Womens' Aid, the first ever refuge in the world for victims of domestic violence. She is a lecturer and advocate, and has authored books on domestic abuse, including the seminal "Prone to Violence." Her latest effort is her autobiography, titled "This Way to the Revolution." She is also an Editor-at-Large and adviser for A Voice for Men on domestic violence policy.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Jared Spencer

    Well said, Mrs. Pizzey.

    I am still new to the AVFM scene and am still trotting along to get up to speed with policies, opinions and legislation as they relate to Feminist and MRA positions. Your writings have been very helpful in that regard.

  • The Real Peterman

    Great job, as always. More people need to know how this movement that claims to be for equality and justice came to be.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Now that “the long march through the institutions” has been completed. The committee meetings of ambitious highly intelligent and devoted Frankfurt School Marxists I used to go to decades ago told me that their national/international networking between tenure candidates would enable them to become the leaders in the universities and allow them to promote their values. They were taking Marcuse’s famous very publicly broadcast advice on how to overturn evil patriarchal/capitalist/ pro-fatherhood Western civilization so that it could be replaced by a sexually liberated un-oppressive, un-repressive New Society — a strategy of taking over the university faculties as a first move. These grad students were dedicated, super-networked, well focused and supported one another in their slinky-smooth career maneuvers. Many were very well-off financially. They knew what was good for the rest of us (unenlightened ones).

    They did it. They now have their people, all highly educated, in every institution (including churches, despite their anti-religiosity). Now we can look at what we have and evaluate it. It is not good. So now we can work to take apart the new orthodoxy.

    The long march through the institutions is complete. And those who understand this are refusing to associate with the “body-snatched” institutions. — Free People Going Their Own Way.

    So, now I have hope, too.

    • IrieDave

      The thing about leftism is that it’s unsustainable due to the fact that it’s essentially a rebellion against nature and the nature order of things. The cultural Marxists may be satisfied that they accomplished what they set out to do but they won’t be so happy as Western society collapses like the Soviet Union. The current social order is similar to the financial bubbles they create with their inflationary monetary systems, it’s bound to pop.

  • Flo604

    Erin FTW :)

  • Spidernoir

    Enjoyed your article very much. From what I’ve observed, Feminists use the so called “AVFM and MRA are using hate speech” to deflect their own bullshit, it’s a political tactic used in debates all the time. It’s actually an ad hominid really. Attack the person/group not their arguments.

    My only (some what of an issue but not) issue is when people say the male remodel thing, I was raised by my mom, (dad wasn’t a deadbeat, no). However my parents were born in the 1940’s and 1950’s (Civil Rights Movement), (I’m now 20) so that might be one of the reasons I dodged a bullet.

    This is my own personal experience however. I never needed a male remodel because my mom is the toughest person I know. Funny thing is, everyone talks about how men who leave their children are deadbeats, yet my Grandma NEVER wanted my mom at all, she felt like my Mom and her brothers and sisters were a burden, my GRANDPA was the one who wanted to take care of them, he loved them. You already know what happened, the court gave the rights to my Grandma and she sent them to live with my aunt (who luckily, loved and took care of my mom and her siblings).

    My mom used to do farm work and work in places, where middle or rich class feminists would never want to work, yet they complain women are anxious to do such work (right totally believe that) where are the feminists striking to work in coal mines and other dangerous places ? Oh right they want CEO jobs, even when given the chance to join combat and military only a small few jumped at it.

    Anyway my mom is best remodel I’ve ever had, maybe it’s because she’s a working class woman, and if you’ve ever been or met one, they don’t take shit from anyone. I never turned to a life of crime because I didn’t have a dad, I was simply taught by a woman who never gave excuses who never blamed anyone for her situation, who taught her kids right from wrong and take responsibility for the shit you do. My mom told me to my face that if I ever did anything that inflicts harm on an innocent, she would not stand by my side, I would be on my own.

    What’s that my mom never taught me not to rape ? Oh that’s right, she taught me to respect people and treat them like they are human. Which *gasp* means that, common sense tells me that forcing someone to do something sexual that they don’t want to do, is rape and assault.

    She also taught me not to get into a car with people I don’t know drunk or not, she also taught me not to get shit faced drunk in front of people I don’t know. That’s not victim-blaming, that’s using common sense.

    Funny thing is, is that not only are my mom and me Black (or POC if you want) I was raised by a woman, who if you asked her if she wanted to be a housewife wouldn’t hesitate she’d ask where she can sign up. She knows what hard work is and what working means. She laughs at women nowadays who rich and middle class, complaining about being able to stay at home, which is a luxury and privilege to people like us.

    I cannot for the life of me stand double standards, it’s okay for women to have shelters and support, but when a guy (I know a guy friend who was raped) has issues, he’s told well women have it worse. Don’t victim blame so long as it’s not men ?

    Wow and a friend of mine told me I had messed up views about feminism (male feminist), no I have the reality of feminism, they don’t give two shits about POC, men especially, the women are nothing but lip service, while pretending to be under the guise of equality.

    When we see women and men in the feminist movement, I just grab popcorn along with me and mom and kick back just go “They arguing about equal pay and rights, and we’re just kicking back worrying about bills and rent”

    I forgot though, according to some “enlightened” middle blacks, it’s our fault we’re poor, because we don’t work hard, even though I’ve been trying to apply for Concept Art school for years (have to do self taught for now) I’m not getting a 100,000 loan I can’t pay off with 6 months, just to say I got a degree in something and nothing to show for it.

    So when Feminism tells me they fight for equality, I just sit back laugh with mom.

    Sorry for the life story and wall of text.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      Thanks for sharing that. I think I would like your mom. Women of genuine courage and strength are allies to men and always have been.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      The moment I hear „hate-speech”, „racism”, „misogyny” or other PC buzzwords, I immediately start paying attention to the position labeled like that. In most cases, I end up supporting that position precisely because these buzzwords are being thrown around due to lack of arguments.
      An argument is either correct or incorrect – and that is all that matters.

      „Hypergamy exists” – may be a sexist argument. But it is also correct.

      I recommend a tremendous essay about PC buzzwords and our modern „heresies”:

    • Alex462

      We don’t say that all children raised by single mums become violent, or criminals, or dysfunctional etc, just that it is a very strong risk factor.

  • Skilly n Duff

    Is it strange that Erin is one of my heroes?

    Also I find the idea that Feminism and Marxism are entwined to be interesting, anyone know where I can read more on the subject?

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      “Also I find the idea that Feminism and Marxism are entwined to be interesting, anyone know where I can read more on the subject?”

      A lot of MRAs write about it which you can find online. However be careful with the usual simplistic equation that feminism is an offshoot of Marxism- its an demonstrably incorrect claim.

      MRAs seem not to have looked at the early feminist writings such as those of Mary Wollstoncraft (and many others) who was writing feminist material and stimulated a strong feminist movement from before Karl Marx was even born!

      Lightbulb moment, anyone?

      A more nuanced and accurate statement is that marxism and feminism have cross-influenced each other but did not give birth to each other… they are both products of a European culture of courtly love and chivalry that extends back 800 years. Without that priori culture neither Marxism nor feminism would have even happened.

      • Paul Elam

        Agreed. While the ties to Marxism are clear and irrefutable, it is grossly over simplistic to take things that far and stop.

        Gynocentrism, which ultimately fuels feminism, isn’t tied to Marxism or any other political ideology.

        You could wipe out Marxism today (and you should) and you would still be left with gynocentrism permeating the culture.

        It is a problem rooted in humanity, not politics.

        • Winstone

          In occidental Europe and in the past decades, feminism has been politically supported by communist parties (this is one of the reasons why feminism is a total lie in Pravda-style).
          After the fall of communism, feminism today is still mostly supported by socialist/left parties (Zapatero in Spain, Hollande in France). Of course, many MRA vote for left parties, but I would say that they vote against themselfes and against their children

      • Alphabeta Supe

        It goes back a lot farther than 800 years. Feminism (gynocentrism) is the female contribution to Original Sin – i.e. Eve being conned by the devil into believing she knows better than God what’s good for her.

        Scholars believe the Book of Genesis was written in the middle of the 5th century BC, about events that took place very much farther back than that.

        The first 60 or so verses of the bible are a compelling argument that gynocentrism is how evil finds its way into the world. The next 55,000 verses are detailed instructions on how to stop it.

        Every holy book describes this problem in more or less the same way, so there can be no doubt about its ancient origins. The solution is as ubiquitous as it is ancient – righteous masculine steadfastness, although their methods and sacred objects vary.

        • Daniel Kulkarni

          Come on, those are just ancient fairy tales.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      Have you read Erin’s book “This Way to the Revolution?”

    • Dean Esmay

      She’s one of my heroes and I can tell you that doing a radio show with her every two weeks is one of the coolest things ever in my life.

      I don’t know why considering how much she’s seen and been put through, but she still manages to surprise me anyway. How someone can be so worldly and have seen so much horror and yet mantain such a friendly loving non-cynical and supportive outlook… man, I couldn’t do it!

      • Skilly n Duff

        I’ve actually looked for her bok at a lot of libraries and mainstream bookstores, but haven’t been able to find much in Canada. I suppose Amazon is the best route, thanks folks!

        • Dean Esmay

          A decent library will order it for you, as will a good bookstore.

          Asking your public library to obtain it is particularly subversive because then other people will potentially see and read it. :-)

          • Skilly n Duff

            The library only had a single copy of The Family Terrorist a few ccities over, so hopefully I can get that on order.

  • AlexB

    It seems to be a mindset in Western countries that women are more emotional and capable of connecting and working together to achieve a goal than men, as an Asian I’ve to disagree that it’s either natural or biological, here men have it much better than in the West but in the small time UN and WHO human right’s groups which follow a feminist agenda have shown up we already have formed local men’s rights groups and if we take India for an example MRAs seem to be much more active there – I tend to believe the fact men in Western have trouble organizing and speaking up for their rights is more cultural than biological – mainly due to issues such as chivalry and gynocentric nature of society which were pointed out in other articles on this site.

    • MGTOW-man

      “I tend to believe the fact men in Western have trouble organizing and speaking up for their rights is more cultural than biological – mainly due to issues such as chivalry and gynocentric nature of society…”
      —I believe the same: chivalry, and other foolishness of overly-competing men, is borne of conditioning, not biology. Sure, “hard wiring” to a minor extent exists, but it is not more powerful than the human brain. It is time we use this knowledge to steer a change in how men are conditioned relative to “manhood”… Change men and you change the world.

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    *Standing ovation!*

    THIS: „Of course, there are women who are innocent victims of men’s violence, but there are just as many men who are victims of female aggression. The whole monstrous lie that it is ‘patriarchy’, i.e. all men who oppress women, is a lie. Why did this lie ever become held up as the truth? Because Marxist women across the world were looking for a just cause to fund their politics.”

    And THIS: „I feared then that this whole so-called new women’s movement might be just another undercover attempt to coerce women into supporting Marxism.”

    I hate to say it but… I told you so!

    My great grandmother (1899-2004), as a teenager heard Inessa Armand and read her statements back in the times of the Bolshevik revolution. What did she had to say: „If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

    Socialistworker about this statement: „That statement is a perfect summary of the relationship between the fight for both socialism and women’s liberation–neither is possible without the other.” (source:

    Ceaușescu on quotas and forcing women to work jobs that they do not want:

    Yet somehow, some MRAs still think that modern day political militant feminism is not an intrinsic part of Marxism, whilst feminists themselves have no problem aligning themselves with Marxists.
    Were there feminists before Marxism? Yes. Did anything of their rhetoric even resembles the rhetoric that Erin saw, that I saw, that my great grandmother and my grandmother and my parents saw? No!

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Marxists are non-feminist in the sense that they consider the enemy of women different to the enemy cited by feminists: for Marxists its the bourgeoisie (capitalists), for feminists its the patriarchy (men’s cultural attitudes).

      To say that feminism is an intrinsic part of Marxism is to conflate two different philosophical constructs. If you were to say that both feminist and Marxist philosophies are saturated with gynocentric biases then your comments would hold credibility.

      I would grant there is such a thing as militant feminist-Marxists who believe the bourgeoisie and the patriarchy are synonymous, but the vast majority of feminists view them as separate constructs.

      I agree with Jason G’s comment below that Marxism can become “fetishized” to the point where one imagines other social ills such as feminism as intrinsic to it, or caused by it.

  • Jason Gregory

    Men are disposable objects-of-utility. This was true long before Marxists and feminists. Men have typically been some sort cannon fodder–less-than-human. Fetishizing Marxism and feminism, confusing Materialism with socialism–it does little to change this truth. In fact, focusing on them draws attention away from the gynocentrism that enables the dehumanization of men as objects-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society in-general.

  • Bombay

    I found an article from 1915 about the White Feather campaign that I have not seen referenced in the articles about that campaign. This article refers to the sending of white feathers as bullying. So it seems Bax had some company – and this article seems like it could have been written today as well.——-10–1—-0–


    Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Rōrahi LXXV, Putanga 3500, 29 Whiringa-ā-nuku 1915, Page 2

    This reference most likely should be added to any article about that campaign, IMO. If someone did use it before – my apologies, I looked but did not note it.

    • KeanoReeves

      If there is a white feather campaign today, it would be refuted by “My life, my choice”

      • sadman365

        Wrong. When it comes to men and their lives it’s NEVER seen as it’s their choice. All those poor oppressed innocent soldiers (including CHILD soldiers) had no choice when it came to their VERY OWN lives. Society -and leaders- told them they had to go fight and die whether they wanted or not. When you think about it, societies give more rights and care more about animals rights than they do about men’s. It’s always been this way. I once used to believe in god’s fairness but thinking about how men are treated as nothing but disposable cannon fodder, I DON’T any more.

      • by_the_sword

        I think I will go around giving white feathers to women who don’t want women signing up for selective service.

  • shmiggen

    off topic, but men need to have a recorder at the ready in their intimate lives:

  • Gordon Wadsworth

    A most enjoyable read.

    I noticed on the train today a poster from the Canadian women’s foundation that claimed that 50% of women will be the victim of sexual assault or rape. The “don’t be that guy” posters are also everywhere.

    In this cultural climate being accused of hate for speaking up for men has a distinctly radicalizing effect.

  • Alessandro

    Thank you Erin for this great article. 6 years ago a feminist lawyer (Ms. Baldocchi Massima) helped my wife to abduct my 2 years old child using all sort of false accusations. I spent 4 years in successfully proofing that it was all false, but during these years my child suffered the abuse of parental alienation. The feminist lawyer helped my wife to violate court orders using parental alienation. I am now suing Italy at the European Court for Human Rights because judges do not have the courage to protect and save my children.

    These man-haters feminists are criminals, criminals of the worst kind: child abusers. This is why they try to deny that partental alienation is child abuse.

  • MGTOW-man

    Erin, thank you for your gift to our lives. I just love you.

    As far as calling the MHRM a “hate” thing, feminists and most women (just watch most women, you’ll see) think it is “hate” because of the way their brains naturally organize stuff that goes “against” them. They scheme, sort of subconsciously (perhaps not) to punish and control men any ole way they can. According to many women I know, this method is the power of women and always has been, always will be. Manipulation works; so they do it. Call men with wit “haters” and it works.

    Just watch…when the lamestream media (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc) is forced to acknowledge the men’s movement in front of all the world. They will first address it as…”coming from a known hate movement…”.

    I hope men waking up will join in efforts to eradicate their truthful-but-inconvenient-to-women wit as “hate” just because they might disagree with feminist hegemony.

    Not likely going to happen soon due to the way we, as a species, STILL continue to socialize and condition our males to defer to women/kids to determine their own chance at any worth.

  • tamerlame

    Saying domestic violence is not a gendered issue is politically correct nonsense. Women are more violent than men in the home the stats show it. Also women in countless numbers are getting men kidnapped by proxy violence via the police.

    Also divorce is state sponsored violence against men, driving them away from their families and stealing assets from them.

    Domestic violence is 85% female, 15% male. Maybe it used to be 50/50 but not anymore.

    • strix (David King)

      Women are more violent than men in the home the stats show it. […] Domestic violence is 85% female, 15% male.

      Citations, please?

      • tamerlame

        Everything has to be stats? Do you want your tractor production stats comrade?

        The stats for DV mean nothing. Falsely phoning the police is not counted as violence. The fact that men under report.

        Divorce is violence against men. Parental alienation is violence.

        Domestic violence is an area that females out do men in full stop. Females just use proxy violence of the state, so it is not counted as violence.

        Stealing a man’s kids away, getting him thrown in prison for not paying child support, that is worse than slapping him or even hitting him with a weapon.

        • strix (David King)

          If you quote numbers, then you’d better be ready to defend them or, at the very least, cite your sources — particularly when you make a claim that is not at all in evidence, and particularly when there are other statistics that contradict you.

          If you do not, then it gives the impression that you don’t know what you’re talking about or, worse, lack integrity. Either way, whatever legitimate points you (and, by extension, the rest of us) might make are much easier to dismiss.

          We certainly do not need any more woozles.

          The British Crime Survey (as reported by the UK Home Office, Table 6.1, p.43) reports that the ratio of DV assailants is 64% men and 36% women. (NB: one study is not the last word on that score, but OTOH an actual, citable study is rather more persuasive than figures apparently plucked out of thin air.)

          Now, I realise you’re using a peculiar definition of violence and that’s presumably your justification, but I suggest that if Koss’ manipulation of definitions in order to enhance her case was not persuasive, it shouldn’t be when you do it.

          The real data are good enough to demonstrate that DV is not a particularly gendered issue or (if you reject that) not primarily a male problem. Why undermine your case by exaggerating it?

        • littlezombie

          There is a difference between abuse and violence. Stating that divorce is violence against men is a bit of an overstatement. I would agree that is can be a form of abuse, especially if it’s done with the intention to mess up someone’s life up.

      • Winstone

        Serious studies by experts such as Gelles and Strauss find that domestic violence is almost equally perpetrated by men and women, with a prevalence of women in the number of violent acts, and a prevalence of men in violence with more serious consequences

        • strix (David King)

          Right. I haven’t personally eye-balled Gelles’ or Strauss’ data, but I have seen data that say similar elsewhere (eg the BCS mentioned in my last comment).

          The reason I picked up on Tamerlame is that the MHRM is trying to make a material difference to men and boys, and bogus statistics are profoundly counter-productive. If we do not keep each other honest, nobody else will (or can).

  • Emelio Lizardo

    “Eventually governments across the world will have to take steps to undo some of the legislation that targets men as the enemy. ”


    • sadman365

      Nope. Don’t count on it. If anything, governments will pass even more oppressive laws against men. And the number one reason why this is going to happen is because MEN ALLOW this abuse by governments and society to continue. Men NEVER want to do anything about their rights. Most men still believe the MYTH that they are “privileged” and have it all made. I think men love to be used and abused and then tossed in the trash like garbage. If it weren’t for the appalling SILENCE of men there would be NO feminism.

      • Rob

        I think that;s where the fundamental change will begin. With men finally deciding enough is enough and not cowering at the possibility of being called a “Misogynist”. I found that actually discussing these issues with feminists drew me to the conclusion that they are a dangerous ideology bad for all. Their answers are canned and they always refer to websites like “feminism101″ and are detected by their buzzwords, like “chattel”, misogyny”, etc..

    • sadman365

      Mark my word, you WILL see things get much much worse than they are right now. I will remind you.

  • IrieDave

    “In the late sixties a new movement was born out of many of the frustrations women were experiencing at the time. I remember the humiliation of having to prove that I intended to get married before my doctor would agree to give me the pill. In the fifties, I became aware of the numbers of women who were pregnant and were victims of illegal abortions. I lost a friend to a raging infection she had contracted because she was too frightened to go to hospital, fearing she had committed an illegal act and could end up in prison. A woman had to have a father or husband sign to guarantee a mortgage. Yes, there were reasons to embrace this new movement that promised women their voices would be heard and also said that women would no longer compete against each other, but would join together to make a new and better world for all of us. All my friends were as excited as I was to hear everything they could about this new movement.”

    And this is why we MRAs cannot align ourselves with women. They will always have it out for us in one way or another for perceived grievances, even our so-called allies. Give them an inch and they demand a mile. How about a movement to protest the fact that it was men and only men that died en masse in 2 World Wars only a short time prior to this, in order to ‘protect their women and children’? How about the fact that all the financial responsibilities to take care of himself, his wife and his children fell on men and men exclusively at that time? And god forbid women actually have to take responsibility for conceiving children the same way men do ’til this day and not be able to casually murder them with abortive surgery.

    I don’t need this lady’s endorsement to validate my beliefs.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      “And this is why we MRAs cannot align ourselves with women.”

      Really? “We?” You got a mouse in your pocket? Cuz from where I’m sitting a number of women already ARE MRAs and that number is growing, whether you align yourself with us or not.

      And “this lady?” She has been fighting on behalf of men and their children for four decades, being rewarded with harassment, death threats and financial ruin. She’s not here to endorse you or to validate your beliefs; she’s too damn busy defending your human rights.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      BTW thanks for giving a wee bit of credence to the accusations of all that “misogyny on those awful MRA sites!”

      Sheesh! What an arrogant putz!

    • August Løvenskiolds

      It is should be ok to be skeptical of the women in our lives, but many of the women MHRA have worked hard and sacrificed much for the cause. I myself wouldn’t be here except for the work of Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat). If you were looking for a site that excludes women, you might want to look elsewhere.

      Erin’s insights into the nature and causes of intimate partner violence will be key in overturning the bias against men in laws like VAWA. Ignoring Erin’s work just because she is a woman is lunacy.

    • Paul Elam

      “I don’t need this lady’s endorsement to validate my beliefs.”

      Oh how very transcendent of you.

      Do you get a cookie or something?

    • Orlando

      Just because she and others, at the time, were excited about a movement specifically aimed at addressing some of the problems women were experiencing in their daily lives, doesn’t mean they hated men or thought men’s problems didn’t matter or that men had deliberately caused all of women’s problems – as can be seen from the fact that Erin later dissociated herself from the radical feminists when she realised their agenda. And recognising that there are problems that are specific to men doesn’t have to mean that they are all the fault of women either. Men can be supportive of women in areas where they have specific issues, and women can support men, as can be seen in all the women, like Erin, who support AVFM. It is a very strong endorsement for this site, and against the accusations of hate, that it is supported by the founder of the women’s domestic violence refuge movement and someone with half a century of experience of the feminist movement. I think Erin is great and that her insights are really interesting. If there is anything that will totally shoot this movement in the foot, it’s trying to exclude women, or encouraging the minority of people who are misogynistic (and they do exist – I recently, for example, spent some time reading comments on a MGTOW site which included considerable amounts of hateful generalisations about women).

  • Flab Oy

    If this is all about money we should create list of 1.billion dollar funding allocations 2. ultra feminists – and write petition to EU Human Rights to impose compensation and restrictions against them