What’s the difference between the men’s rights movement and feminism?

A commonly asked question by those on the fence about both men’s rights and feminism is what the difference is between the two movements. Feminism has been around for over five decades and the public is understandably more familiar as a movement.

When people hear the word feminist, even if the first image that comes to their mind is an overweight angry lesbian, they still tend to associate the word with women’s rights. Men’s rights is straight forward with the name. So basically, the average “on the fence” person would think feminism for girls and men’s rights for boys; two movements that are the polar opposites of each other. This is how most people define the two movements and it is understandable how many would come to this conclusion. Of course, all of those people would be wrong.

Recently I have argued with two people over this subject. One was a feminist bigot and the other was another one of those neutral “why can there never be any common ground between Men’s Right’s and Feminism?” observers. These two arguments I had with these two completely different people were interesting for one reason; they both could not argue against the Men’s Right’s Movement without conflating the term MRA with men. When I say argue against I don’t mean arguing against the goals of the MRM…well with the feminist I do but not with the neutral observer. I mean it in terms of trying to refute one of the main differences between the MRM and Feminism that I brought up. The difference is simple and every MRA, anti-feminist, and feminist knows what that difference is, although feminists usually deny it.

Discriminatory laws and policies have been set in place within western governments by feminists influence that allow legal bigotry against men, while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books.

The feminist, as one would expect, denied that there is any discrimination towards men within western legal systems and concluded that if there is, it is justified because of what men did to women in the past. The neutral observer, while having the common sense to recognize the discrimination men face still could not drop his stance that the faults within the MRM are supposedly just as bad as the faults within feminism. This is where the arguments from the neutral observer and the feminist were identical.

When I brought up the fact that MRAs have caused no legal discrimination against women and only wish to abolish the unjust laws set in place by feminism the counterpoint from both the feminist and the neutral observer were “but men in the past set laws in place that discriminated against/oppressed women.”

The feminist, again as one would expect, could not grasp the concept that “MRA” is not synonymous with “man,” however, the neutral observer eventually conceded that MRAs are indeed men and women who oppose the legal bigotry put in place by the feminist movement.

This is something that I feel is a major problem; a very large speed bump in the way of progress towards ending feminist bigotry. As I said before, the common thought surrounding both movements is men vs. women and yet this couldn’t be farther from the truth. However, just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the MRM is comprised of nothing but men. That still wouldn’t change the fact that not one discriminatory law against women has been set in place, or attempted, by the MRM.

I’m sure these facts have been pointed out before but I feel they need to be explored again for one very good reason. There are still those who oppose the bigotry feminism has spread, whether they be MRAs, humanists, or simply anti-feminists, who still bring up the discussion about seeking common ground between the MRM and Feminism.

There can be no common ground.

I say this because there is only one way common ground can be reached between the MRM and the feminist movement. Feminists will have to first acknowledge that their movement has spread anti-male bigotry throughout western governments. Whether they want to blame it on “radicals” or “second wavers” or feminist subdivision C subsection 12. It really doesn’t matter which feminists they want to point the finger at, as long as they acknowledge that Feminism is the reason these laws exist.

We are quick to forget the still recent and two of the most important victories against feminist bigotry that occurred in California and West Virginia, where all of the male built, government funded domestic violence shelters would not accept male victims, even if they were accompanied by their children who were also victims of female abuse because of the anti-male polices set in place by the feminists who ran them.

Legal bigotry like this is to this day ignored and denied by feminists because covering up the wrongs done by their movement seems to be more important than legal equality for both men and women. When that bigotry actually is acknowledged it is either deemed justified or blamed on men and women who aren’t “true” feminists. Only the old second wavers could champion something as hateful as denying men and their children help from abusive women, right?

But then of course to believe that we would have to ignore how “third wave” poster girl and leader Jessica Valenti would be more than happy to take away every man’s right to due process in court when accused of rape. And yes I do mean only a man’s right to due process. Valenti was very specific about what gender rapists are when she proposed her most recent suggestion of anti-male bigotry. So as I was saying, for there to be common ground between the MRM and feminism there would have to be an acknowledgement that feminism has done substantial harm to men over the last half century.

Does this mean the MRM is without faults? Of course not. That was never the point. I have not agreed with every idea I have seen from MRAs on how to solve the current crisis men face within western nations. However, the main goals of the MRM are as follows;

Default 50/50 Custody of Children After a Divorce: Meaning neither the wife or husband can argue over who gets the kids unless there is an actual case of abuse or misconduct. You know, in the case that one of them actually is an unfit parent, instead of human emotions, spite, and lies deciding who gets to be a parent to children.

Abolishing Forced Child Support: This solution would coincide with the 50/50 custody proposal. If both parents have the kids for an equal amount of time then each parent can support them when it is their time to have custody. People, mostly men, are sent to prison because they cannot afford to pay child support and a lot of the time the “child” support isn’t even being spent on the child. In reality, it is just another form of alimony. Neither should exist. However, since ending child support probably won’t happen before we colonize mars there is a simple suggestion MRAs have put on the table.

His wallet, his choice.

Unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes it is a man’s fault, sometimes it is a woman’s, but most of the time it is the fault of both. Either of the two can make decisions and choices that lead, or don’t lead, to a pregnancy. The mutuality in choices end here.

Before the child is even considered a child the woman has the option of aborting the pregnancy. The most common reason for abortion is because the woman is not ready/doesn’t want to be a mother. She either doesn’t want or isn’t ready for the financial and emotional responsibilities of being a parent. Lucky for her, she doesn’t have to. This is completely her choice and I feel it should be. It is her body after all. If she doesn’t want to have an abortion for whatever reason and still doesn’t want/isn’t ready to be a parent, she can either leave the child up for adoption or abandon it, legally. Responsibility gone and all is right with the world, right?Well if you are a woman, yes.

Men, on the other hand, have two options; give the mother of their child money or go to jail. Doesn’t seem fair, does it? Well if you aren’t a feminist then no it doesn’t seem fair. Here is how it can be fair? If an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman actually decides to tell the guy instead of tracking him down and showing up at his doorstep however many years later demanding money, the man should be given a choice similar to that of the woman. He should be able to relinquish all of his parental and financial responsibilities before the child is born. Before the child is considered a child.

Take note that I am not talking about opting out of taking care of kids that have already been born after a divorce. Simply put, just like the woman has the choice of relinquishing her parental and financial responsibilities before and after the child is born, the man is given the option to relinquish his responsibilities before the child is born.

Now if you can hear some squawking and screeching from the house next door that’s probably because a feminist is your next door neighbor and she/he just read the last few sentences of this article. According to them, a man being given the choice to opt out of any financial responsibilities to a child before it is born is selfish and irresponsible, but a woman doing the same thing with abortion is the most holy of freedoms.

Oh and don’t forget women can and do relinquish their responsibilities after the child is born as well. Just put some ear muffs on or crank up the music, I know all too well how annoying feminist screeching can be.

VAWA Reform: I personally wouldn’t mind the name being changed to the Violence against People Act. But regardless of the name, the standards in which it is enforced need to change. Men are routinely arrested by police who answer domestic violence calls, even when it is men who make the call asking for help, and this is just when they do not defend themselves.

Men who dare to defend themselves when being attacked by a violent female partner have almost no chance of seeing their abuser arrested.

On the other hand, one punch from a man who has had enough of being beaten with fists, frying pans, umbrellas, sticks, hammers, knives, wrenches, and other household items will bruise his attacker and in our society a woman with a bruised face is automatically an innocent victim.

Men with bloody faces and knife wounds are ridiculed and asked what they did to upset their wives and/or girlfriends. Men who have their penises cut off are laughed at and their abusers are showcased on talk shows as heroes.

This double standard that is the law; a law created by our feminist friendly vice president, is vehemently defended not only by feminists, but by chivalrously socialized men, too. Men are stronger than women, therefore men should not hit women in self defense because men can do more damage, therefore men are the bigger problem in domestic violence.

This discrimination must be changed. Men should not be automatically hauled off by police in a domestic violence disturbance just because they are the “primary aggressor,” which to police means the bigger and stronger person involved in the disturbance. If police can not figure out who started the fight then both parties should be arrested. Tears shouldn’t determine which side has more merit.

Intoxicated Rape: If a person drinks too much and passes out and someone else proceeds to have sex with that person, a rape has occurred…that is, if the person who passed out was female. Legally, women could not be convicted of raping a man until recently. Just so there is no confusion, a man can still be given an erection, even when he is passed out. Beyond this, due largely in part to feminist rape hysteria, a man who sleeps with a woman that is intoxicated can be brought up on the charge of rape, even if that man was intoxicated himself.

This is wrong, plain and simple. People, young people especially, have sex while intoxicated all the time. I understand that there is a point when someone drinks too much and their perception gets thrown off, I’ve been there many times. However, I was still sensible enough to know if someone was trying to rip my pants off. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone can drink and remain aware of what is going on around them. However, the general public and the law only seems concerned when women are the ones drinking themselves into oblivion.

A woman who has had too many drinks and decides to go out on the dance floor of some club, find a guy, jump in his car, go home with him, and have sex somehow becomes a rape victim when she wakes up with a hangover and doesn’t know who the guy is sleeping next to her. That same guy could wake up with the same hangover because contrary to the rape hysteria, men drink too. That same guy could have a foggy memory about what happened the night prior and be wondering just who the hell the woman is laying next to him.

Both of them could have several reasons to feel that what happened that night was a mistake, however, the woman is the only one with the option to use rape as a cover story. Men having sex with women that have been drinking are not rapists. I cannot say it any more plainly than that.

False Rape Accusations: Feminists are sick to death of hearing about this growing problem. Those who oppose feminist bigotry, myself included, haven’t heard enough. Whenever I see acknowledgement from feminists that women actually do lie about rape for reasons other than “rape culture” induced slut shaming, it is usually a nonchalant and brushed off as not important.

Recently I read an article from a feminist posing as a masculinist advocating that everyone should stop raising awareness about false rape accusations and the next to nothing punishment women usually receive for making them. Why? Because raising awareness about false rape accusations and advocating that the women who file them should receive harsher punishments actually increases the number of false accusations made.  Well, at least he acknowledged that the rate of false rape accusations aren’t stuck at 2-8%. It’s a start…right? One step at a time.

The truth of the matter is false rape accusations have seen men’s lives destroyed and killed,  throughout history. It was, in fact, legal to kill men accused of rape not too long ago and it is socially accepted today. And when I say accused, I do mean accused, not convicted.

Now you would think that something so bad it could get a man killed would be given stricter punishments by a fair and just legal system to discourage its practice, but no. According to chivalry the law, false rape accusations are not serious enough a crime to merit a long prison sentence. One could argue that not all women who falsely accuse men of rape do so out of malice or to seek attention and you would be right. Sometimes women make mistakes about who they accuse and no one would want to send someone to prison just because they made a mistake.

So maybe that is a good reason to not give women who make false rape accusations a long prison sentence. But hold on…aren’t innocent men falsely accused of rape sent to prison for several years? Some over 20 years? I understand that with our not so perfect legal system that the innocent will sometimes suffer and the guilty will sometimes slip through the cracks but the way I see it is chivalry the law is set up to ensure that when the accusation of rape is concerned, innocent men are more likely to receive punishment as opposed to innocent women.

The MRM advocates that men accused of rape are not “perp walked,” and kept out of the media like their accusers are and considered innocent until proven guilty. The MRM advocates that women who falsely accuse men of rape are given long prison sentences similar to the sentences those innocent men would receive if convicted.

For those of you who do not wish for women that simply make a mistake to be sent to jail while her actual rapist is still free I have a suggestion. If her accusation is proven false it should then be proven whether or not there was an ulterior motive for the false accusation such as “teaching the man a lesson,” covering up infidelity, winning a custody battle, getting back at a guy for not giving her a ride home, getting back at a guy because he cheated on her, getting back at a guy because he insulted her, seeking attention, creating an excuse for being late to class, creating an excuse for being late getting home, or because she just felt like it. If none of those or anything similar are the reason she accused an innocent man of rape then hey, no need for jail time.

Male Genital Mutilation: If you’re wondering what this is then my point has already been made. MGM is legally and socially accepted. End it. That is all.  Calling it “circumcision” and adding it to the hospital bill doesn’t make it legit.

These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have. Now compare that with the constant bombardment of new policies that strip more and more freedoms away from men put out by feminists and you will begin to see how different feminism and the MRM truly are.

Are there bigots within the MRM? Damn straight there are. Do any of those bigots have any type of governmental influence at all? No. Have any of them been allowed to create laws or policies that deny women any of their civil rights?

Not. Fucking. One.

So for all of you men and women who support the MRM and to all of you neutral parties who can’t seem to figure out why MRAs and feminists can’t find common ground; to everyone who thinks The MRM and Feminism are two sides of the same coin, take a closer look at the damn coin. One side endorses legal bigotry while the other seeks to end it. You can’t get any more different than that.

About Jared White

Jared is a writer, activist, videographer and a lover of music. He is a regular contributor to A Voice for Men and a devout antifeminist. He is the webmaster at File 13 and his music site, Embracefreedom.com.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • http://www.falserapesoceity.blogspot.com E. Steven Berkimer

    ***** Stands up clapping slowly********

  • Rog

    one thing i would like to add is that any woman who sleeps with a guy who is drunk and gets pregnant has done so while he had a diminished capacity to use birth control because of the nature of the condom and the time its used and should not be able to sue for child support in that case,,, also i dont think a man should have any responsibility to support a child UNLESS he signs up for it put the onus on the girl carrying the child to get the man to sign a document saying he will support the child she carries , why should it be the guys responsibility to “opt out” when in reality he should have to “opt in” i mean you have to sign up for a mortgage dont you, 20+years is a huge financial commitment and she chooses whether she wants to “opt in” before it happens so why should it be different for the guy?

    • W.A.

      Would this relinquish any of his parental rights for life? That is, ten years down the line can he decide he wants to seek visitation rights?

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MassEFR34k J3DIforce1

    Great article jmnzz! Always a great pleasure to read your articles : )

  • Atlas Reloaded

    You are one of the gold standards Jmnzz. At least you have become that to me.

    An MRA/MGHOW: A modern man who finally accepts the truth that women are and should be treated equally after decades of feminist wailing, who decided to get with it and treat women just as feminism has asked him to…and is called a misogynist, sexist peice of shit for it.

  • Tim Legere

    Very clear and well written with just the right amount of emotional appeal. Encore!

  • .ProleScum.

    Awesome jmnzz.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    Good read man. Just who is it that accuses the MRM and feminism as being two sides of the same coin?

    It’s the anti-feminist traditionalists that want to go back in time and put men and women inside of a restrictive little box.

    Feminists are only offering men a shiny new box to crawl into, whereas the MRM is opening the box to men’s liberation.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      “It’s the anti-feminist traditionalists that want to go back in time and put men and women inside of a restrictive little box.”

      It’s funny how those types are met with more tolerance than Zeta-male MRA ones ; feminists attack us far more often. Perhaps because so few take the tradtionalists seriously.

      • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Dan Moore (Factory)

        Feminism and Chivalry are one and the same….THAT is your ‘two sides of the same coin’. Ergo, they attack their ideological cousins less often, and with less enthusiasm.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Good one Jmnzz.

    We sign up for everything that accrues responsibility, mortgage, education, marriage, loans, all types of licenses and so on. When it comes to signing up for a kid there is none for half except for the alimony cheque or the papers processed for jail time.

    Significant responsibilities whatever they are really should be wheeled out to the eyes of others for signatures on paper and so they are. I guess it’s the almighty card of feelings that’s slapped down to ace all others when it comes to child raising.

    I wonder what the motivation of the femmsters is that plays this card ?

    Hmmm, let me think… oh yeah that’s right. It’s another Popeye biff right in the face of that disgusting male built socially oppressive construct – the patriarchy.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    You’ve beaten me to the punch (did I just falsely accuse you of violence?). I’ve been compiling and will soon be posting a lost of men’s rights issues and positions on those issues. Sort of a men’s rights manifesto. I’ve just been waiting for the school term to end so I have more time to put it all together.

    Great job.


  • keyster

    Well said Jmnzz.
    Equal protection under the law is a Constiitutional law that feminists would prefer everyone ignore.
    The elepahnt in the room is that every law specific to women is unconstitutional.
    MRA’s want equality and feminists want superiority and control, through government as their proxy supporter or they will mount large scale public attacks on any public official that does not obey their demands..

    • Rog

      or worse false rape charge on the imf director anyone?

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Awesome piece jmnzz. Thank you for it.

      The obvious absurdity of VAWA is exemplified in the case of any violence. Participants are never of the exact same height or weight, that would be an impossible coincidence. Therefore, by VAWA logic, in every scuffle, police must weigh and measure the height of the participants to determine who is larger and arrest them. Which even further exemplifies the imbecilic nature of it. What if one combatant is taller, while the other is heavier (fatter?)? Then who is larger/bigger? A short stocky person assaults a tall slender person. Who the fuck do you arrest? Or, a small man assaults a large man. How in the fuck could you justify arresting the large man? VAWA is a festering pile of shit.

      That we have to even speak these words of absurd self-evidence is testament to the depravity of feminism and its associates. I literally feel like I’m trying to explain something to a two year old when articulating the insanity of feminist governance.

      Furthermore, with all of these pussy passes that are granted, it is only right and fair that we demand proof of the pussy carrying nature of the beneficiary. With all of the sexual varieties these days, simply wearing a skirt, bra, or makeup in no way qualifies one as a bonafide vagina and uterus containing individual. If such drastic prejudicial privileges are to be granted to those possessing ovaries, then we are going to need to require proof of possession. Just as we would a lottery ticket or otherwise.

  • Rocco

    Here, here, well said.

    The model for feminism, IMO is becoming more and more as a labor union. NOW becoming the biggest pimps the world has ever seen.

    So, what then is the mrm. IMO it is both a movement for social justic and the beginning of equal representation for men at the table of discussion of the social direction our nation is taking.

    This will be a model much examined by the world as femism infects the next generation of young women the world over.

    At this point from news articles, non feminists are screaming for a mrm, their brothers, fathers, and sons are desperate.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      It is like a bad, comical version of a labor union.

  • Atlas Reloaded

    From the very first day I learned of VAWA and what it was about I thought that it should be VAHA-Violence Against Humans Act. Then one day about 8 years ago I voiced that opinion. A woman squinted her eyes at me and said “Well certain people face violence more than others.” She turned out to be totally right.


  • Raven01

    “Lucky for her, she doesn’t have to. This is completely her choice and I feel it should be. It is her body after all. If she doesn’t want to have an abortion for whatever reason and still doesn’t want/isn’t ready to be a parent, she can either leave the child up for adoption or abandon it, legally. ”
    This is the only point I can disagree with.
    What if the man involved for whatever moral reasons is against abortion and prior to any pregnancy occuring she accepted and understood his view. Should she still be able to unilaterally proceed with an abortion? Theoretically, this is a no brainer. The prior understood contract indicated abortion was off the table. So barring documented actual health risk it should remain so.
    A judge in Canada has already agreed with this sentiment but refused to act on it stating that, “she is likely to just drink, smoke and make other poor choices for the health of the child out of spite”.
    The most common feminist argument against this is the “risk” to the mother. Completely ignoring that a womans body is MADE to carry children and that if the risk was that high there would not be in excess of 6 billion humans on the planet. These are the same women that argue that a man gave up all his rights the second he removed his pants……… Well what about her? Why must she not concede some rights the same as him when it is a decision that affects both?

    To be “equal” we must all face the same consequences, responsibilities along with the same rights and freedoms. So far, men are far behind in every category.

  • Kai

    “If her accusation is proven false it should then be proven whether or not there was an ulterior motive for the false accusation”

    I think that’s a good idea in theory. My only concern is how difficult intent can be to prove in court. At first it would probably work. But once they get the idea then false accusers might learn how to work the system. Perhaps this is a point a legal scholar should look at closer since I’m just a layperson in that subject.

    • BeijaFlor

      Kai, let’s take another look at those “ulterior motives”:

      “Teaching the man a lesson”
      Covering up infidelity
      Winning a custody battle
      Getting back at a guy for not giving her a ride home
      Getting back at a guy because he cheated on her
      Getting back at a guy because he insulted her
      Seeking attention
      Creating an excuse for being late to class
      Creating an excuse for being late getting home
      Because she just felt like it
      Or anything similar….

      I can’t see ANYONE who would be able to prove “no ulterior motive”.

      This is Special Feminist Family Court Sauce, served right back at the grrrrlzzz.

  • Qanan

    Excellent article, thank you!

  • Stu

    If her accusation is proven false, she should be sent to jail for a very long time regardless of her motivation. And the jail I’d send them to would be like the solitary confinment that Papione endured in the movie of the same name. lol In this movie though, they would be eaten alive by sharks while trying to float away on a bag of coconuts lol

    • Stu

      Just make me Minister of Justice in your MRM world government when you take over Paul lol

      • Paul Elam


        • Atlas Reloaded

          Just make sure I’m Secret Police.

  • tm

    Great article, point proven clearly. I would also argue that in the case of FRA even if the woman made “an honest mistake” in accusing a man she should still be punished, as for any other ‘mistake’ that is extremely damaging to its victims and has the potential to leave scars.

    • Raven01

      A woman cannot make an “honest mistake” with regard to paternity fraud unless she has no recollection of falling on more than one penis around the time of conception.
      At the very least she would be criminally negligent in causing financial hardship of another for her priveledge of not admitting she likes to sleep around.
      A woman cannot make an “honest mistake” with regard of FRA unless she was actually raped and she ID’s someone that looks remarkably similar to the actual attacker. This is only a FRA from the persective of the wrongly accused. I tend to make a distinction between wrongly accused and falsely accused though and, that would make honest mistakes ONLY possible in wrongly accused rape allegation but never in false rape allegations.

      False claims about men causing real, emotional, or financial injure must be dealt with like any other similar crime.

      • tm

        Yes, there’s a clear difference between wrongly accused and falsely accused. But in terms of its consequences for the accused it’s similar to the one between negligent bodily harm (no intent) vs. assault (intent). When a wrong accusation puts somebody behind bars for 25 years as it has happened, it’s hard not to think of that parallel.

  • Renly

    Awesome article, one of my favourites so far.

    One thing I will point out, though.

    “while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books.”

    Wouldn’t laws against female topfreedom actually fall into this? It’s the one thing I always think of when people talk about discrimination against women. I think I’ve heard of women being charged as sex offenders for just going topless. It’s one thing compared to a lot of things against men, but still.

    • Raven01

      In Ontario women can go topless. It only seems to be taken advantage of by very unfit, unattractive women. The actual charge prior to that law change was public indecency and not ever causing any woman to be registered as a sex offender. While a man exposing himself could be charged and treated as either.

      • Renly

        I didn’t say that the punishment for going topless was always registration as a sex offender. I was just saying that I had heard of cases like that.

        “While a man exposing himself could be charged and treated as either.”

        I’ve never heard of a man getting arrested for going topless. I guess you’re talking about men exposing their genitals? I can’t say I agree with the punishment for that either.

        In any case, I look forward to the next article by jmnzz. If all of his articles are of this quality, he’ll probably be one of the very best on the site.

      • W.A.

        That is because breasts are not considered to be genitals. If the woman walked around with nothing on the bottom she would likely be arrested and charged.

    • Muk

      And rightly so
      Men and women are NOT the same
      most men don’t have tits and yes, boobies are sexual in nature
      Just because babies eat there doesn’t mean that they don’t have other utility
      Just look at all of the women out there playing up their tits and using them as sexual weapons to attract men or to exploit them for everything they have.
      and when viewed, they cause uncontrollable reactions in men which I think qualifies it for sexual harassment.

      My dick is used for sex, but it’s also used to urinate, therefore, it’s not sexually suggestive and I should be able to run around with my dick hanging out??

      • W.A.

        Breasts are not considered to be universally sexual. The history of breast sexuality is long and speculative, but the fact remains that many cultures in the world do not have a problem with women walking around topless, as breasts are not inherently sexual or offensive.

        The western male’s obsession with breasts (mazophilia) has only become ‘normal’ fairly recently. Podophilia is another common paraphilia that is quite common, and is considered the most common in western society since the assumed sexualization of the breast. Though many people may become aroused by it, it is not illegal to walk around bare foot.

        Furthermore, the breasts serve no sexual function other than perhaps attraction (and experts cannot agree on whether this is the purpose of breasts, or is something that developed later perhaps because of the breasts), and their primary function is for nursing young. The penis, on the other hand, has multiple functions but one of them is unarguably sexual. The same goes for the vagina.

        Hence why it is illogical to make covering of the breasts mandatory.

        PS. Just realized this is two years old. I am going to stop posting things from my cell phone….

  • Mr. J

    In my opinion, it’s not really about “feminism” vs “MRM”, its really about the fact that the vast majority of men have allowed injustice to take place by having their heads up their a$$es for 50 years and not paying attention.
    The “superbowl”, the “worldseries”, the “NBA”, and the “NFL” are NOT going to be looking out for anyone’s “rights”, and thats the crap that has filled most mens heads for 50 years.

    • keyster

      Women have always been very good at organizing grass roots movements with political and social activism. (The Tea Party has been mosty organized and led by women!)

      There are several reasons for this, one of which they usually have the personal financial means to do so, another is that chivalrous/white knight politicians will almost ALWAYS grant them an audience and then of course women consider themselves a GROUP, while men are loan wolves competing for women, not contesting what they want.

      No one women could ever do what feminism has done, so they rallied their forces through fomenting hatred of men. Some MRA’s try to do this as well. Not only will it never work, it’s not permitted in this neck of the activist woods.

      • Mr. J

        No need for men to “foment hatred” on women, only on crooked politicians and its awfully hard to get to crooked politicians with heads constantly full of inane garbage.
        I never would have thought that it was women who were behind the tea party, that really surprises me..After all, the tea party want no tax money handed out to ANYONE for anything.

  • Mr. J

    “competing for women” = Heads up their asses.

  • http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey

    Read this three times over the last couple of days.

    Outstanding article, jmnzz
    Can’t add a thing to it.


    • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

      Wow. Three times? Glad you liked it :D.

  • B.R. Merrick


  • Anothervoice

    As a feminist (I know, I know – hear me out?), I found this article interesting and though-provoking. A large amount I could agree with – pretty much all of it, except the anti-feminism bit. Still, this was one of the few male rights articles on the web I found which had enough substance, logic, and sense in it to deserve a response.

    * Default 50/50 Custody of Children After a Divorce – in theory, I totally agree with this, and always have. I don’t believe that females should instantly be assumed to take on the main parental responsibility, and this means benefiting from more social freedom and choice, but losing the advantage in child custody.

    However, the only issue I see is of practically splitting custody 50/50 without significant disruption for the children. (This is an assumption, and I’m open to research finding that 50/50 custody has no negative impact). Perhaps courts should start with a default 50/50, and then the realities of parents’ careers, responsibilities, finances etc, as well as the childs choice, can be taken into account when choosing a parent to take majority custody?

    Similar approaches to maternity/paternity leave would be nice as well. Also, outside of legal issues, it would be nice to see society approach both mother and father as equally capable of/responsible for parenting.

    * Abolishing Forced Child Support – tbh it isn’t something I’ve considered before, but I can completely agree that a man “should be able to relinquish all of his parental and financial responsibilities before the child is born”. Seems fair since, as you say, women have that choice.

    * VAWA Reform: I live in the UK, so I haven’t come across this law before, but am aware of the attitudes towards male victims you describe and totally condemn them. Domestic violence should be taken seriously, regardless of the gender of perpetrator or victim, and this should be reflected in law.

    On the subject of domestic violence, there should obviously be shelters for male victims, and the lack of these should be corrected. I do see an argument for having separate shelters though, so that victims (of both genders) can feel safe, whether logical or not.

    * False Rape Accusations: I can agree that someone who has falsely accused someone of rape, because of an ulterior motive and not an honest mistake, should be seriously punished.

    * Intoxicated Rape: I can agree that, just because someone has been drinking, that does not necessarily mean any sex that occurs is rape. I can definitely agree that women are just as capable of, and should be punished just as severely for, rape. I can agree that anything taken into consideration for female victims (i.e. being too drunk to give consent), should also apply to male victims.

    There is obviously quite a spectrum of drunkness. Someone can be slightly tipsy. Someone can be obviously drunk and acting foolishly, but still basically in control. Or someone can be passed out/unresponsive/unable to control their body movements/unable to communicate/totally unaware of their surroundings etc. And hopefully you can agree that anyone, male or female, in the latter extreme case cannot provide consent.

    I would also hope that, on a personal level, most people would have enough self-respect not to have sex if the other person is considerably more drunk than them and there is doubt as to whether they will regret having sex the next morning. Surely enjoying sex is at least partly contingent on knowledge of the other persons desire for you?

    The main disagreement I think we would have concerning these matters of rape is how commonly women falsely accuse men based on spiteful/frivolous/manipulative etc grounds, how commonly women who simply regret having sex after drinking then “cry rape”, and how commonly women who accuse men of rape are automatically believed vs. automatically challenged and insulted.

    However, reliable, conclusive statistics for rape are notoriously hard to come by because of the issues, among others, to do with low report rates and the difficulty of proving the truth one way or another in many cases. Therefore, maybe instead of focusing on disagreements about “how things are”, when we can’t actually know, we should focus on agreements over how rape victims/accusers/perpetrators of both genders should be treated?

    *Male Genital Mutilation: Again, something I haven’t considered much because, AFAIK, it is far less common in the UK. I would have no problem with ending the practice if that is what most men want – it is obviously one of a few areas in which the male perspective is the only one that really matters.

    Every view point I’ve expressed is consistent with the views of every feminist I personally know, and pretty much every feminist I admire/every feminist blog I follow. Now, it would seem obvious to me from everything above that there is considerable hope for common ground.

    However, you ask us to “acknowledge that feminism has spread anti-male bigotry throughout western governments”… and I don’t. It seems to me that many of the problems you discuss are due to/related to the beliefs and attitudes which feminism challenges.

    The beliefs that men are naturally more aggressive, naturally less able to control their sex drive etc., as the counterpart to the beliefs that women are naturally passive, are specifically challenged by feminism. The segments of society which dismiss and mock all victims of rape and violence, valuing and excusing aggression, are specifically challenged by feminism. The assumption of society and the legal system that females are the natural parents is specifically challenged by feminism. And so on…

    I don’t think that feminism has created anti-male bigotry, but I can accept that feminism has focused more on challenging the limiting stereotypes of females – and historical context is relevant to this – than challenging the corresponding limiting stereotypes of males. Perhaps feminism has helped change the anti-female legislation, without tackling the corresponding anti-male legislation. And I think that this should and can change – it would be of benefit everyone.

    You can keep insisting that feminists are all bigots, that we lie, that we don’t care, that we hate men, that there is no opportunity to work together. You can keep alienating people like me, who are willing to listen and find common ground. You can keep important information about the rates of domestic violence against males hidden in tirades of anti-feminist hate. You can accept supporters on your site who comment with blatantly anti-female comments.

    Or, you can accept that plenty of feminists could find common ground with you, working together to fight for equality, against stereotypes and attitudes which limit both genders. If you let them.
    A first step would obviously be to have some rational, open-minded responses (if this even gets posted).

    Hopefully this won’t be my last venture into male rights territory, but either way this article has opened my eyes to issues which I will now be aware of and fight for.

    (edit: sorry for the length – just a lot of interesting points to respond to!)

    • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

      “However, you ask us to “acknowledge that feminism has spread anti-male bigotry throughout western governments”… and I don’t.”

      And that is a major part of the problem.

      I listed three instances in where legal bigotry has been created and spread by feminism; VAWA and the two lawsuits that had to be brought against the feminist run domestic violence organizations in two states.

      I’m well aware of how society views men but that doesn’t change the fact that feminists made it mandatory that men be denied help because they endorsed the bigoted belief that only men can commit DV.

      Also, in concerns to DV, every single PSA on television, billboards, pamphlets, and not too long ago, websites that raised awareness about DV only raised awareness about male on female DV. Feminists do not only support societal stereotypes about men, they reinforce them and not only with PSAs but with false statistics about DV.

      I notice in your response to Denis that you link to feministing. I guess you decided to ignore the reference I provided that clearly shows the former leader of that website and the poster-girl/leader of third wave feminism advocates that western legal systems be changed to place the burden of proof on men (and only men) accused of rape.

      Like I said in the article, acknowledge that your movement has spread legal bigotry against men. After you do that start working towards abolishing that bigotry.

      Until then, feminism will be fought.

      Finally, I have grown tired of hearing or reading about the supposed “good feminists” that are out there. Every time I provide evidence that feminism has done great harm to men to a feminist, he/she will always claim “that’s not what I or any of my feminist friends support”

      Well…where the hell are all of you?

      Where are the feminists speaking out against VAWA?

      Where were the feminists who were against the misandric policies of the DV shelters in California and West Virginia?

      Please, and this is the most important part, realize that I am not talking about one non-misandric blog article out of hundreds of misandric blog articles from feminist blogs like feministing and jezebel that might acknowledge men get unfairly treated.

      I am talking about government action. Like the government action being taken against Mary Kellet, a feminist bigot that just happens to be an assistant DA.

      You see, feminists with government influence use that influence to harm men, plain and simple.

      Even the pope acknowledged that the Catholic Church fucked up people’s lives for centuries and apologized for it.

      We are still waiting for the apology from feminism.

      • Sondra Carr

        Hang on – so there were two organizations – individual organizations, whose directors apparently believe that only men commit domestic violence. You have a feminist here telling you that she and all the feminists she knows believe that both men and women can and do and that you are right, that men should have a place to go in those situations and that she now would help in that fight and, instead of thanking her and trying to make changes, you focus on what happened in those other two instances?

        Let me ask you a question – why aren’t you out there opening your own shelters for men who have been abused? I mean, sure, some wackadoodles will mess with you, but those women who started the shelters for women had to deal with that too.

        What strikes me as interesting is that instead of making what you say you want, you’re kind of whining about “the women not doing it” – why are you waiting for them to do it? I mean, do you want the change, or just the opportunity to complain about the way it is?

        • Frodo

          One word.FUNDING .Look up where FUNDING for DV shelters comes from..FUNDING for DV shelters comes from TAXES and the GOVERNMENT.

          Feminists do not want to share the FUNDING so they hide the TRUTH about the fact that there is PARITY of DV between the sexes.They hide the parity with things like WOOZZLES and others sorts of lies.

          Erin Pizzey had a huge problem with this FOURTY YEARS AGO.They (feminists) harassed her for years because she had the audacity to say women can be just as violent.

          If by chance you are not just a TROLL and really want to learn just ask.Ask Paul Elam ,ask Driversuz ask any AVFM staff or any educated and informed MHRA



          • Paul

            Damn! Should have pressed see more before posting my comment.

        • Paul

          Erin Pizzey the woman who opened the first battered women’s refuge was driven out of her own home and country by feminists who took over and politicised what she started. She is very supportive of the MRM. Search on this site for “prone to violence” and read of her experiences.

          She along with her counterpart in Canada spoke at the first men’s issues conference and is well worth watching.

          Firstly, why should we? The infrastructure already exists, the providers, if they receive government money, are probably breaking the law on gender equality and so it is right that they should provide services for all. It’s not our fault that they refused to acknowledge the ample evidence that men are victims too to the point where they had to be sued to do the legally and morally right thing to do.

          Secondly, despite the fact that we shouldn’t have to set them up some men have tried, I won’t use we as I haven’t done that, and failed to obtain the funding in large part because feminist dominated government departments on equality have consistently argued against it. Read up on Earl Silverman especially a video by girl writes what.

          We’re not campaigning about the *women* not doing “it”. We’re campaigning about the *feminists* saying they are doing “it” when in fact they are not and are often arguing against “it”.

        • http://embracefreedom.bandcamp.com Jared White

          “Hang on – so there were two organizations – individual organizations, whose directors apparently believe that only men commit domestic violence. You have a feminist here telling you that she and all the feminists she knows believe that both men and women can and do and that you are right, that men should have a place to go in those situations and that she now would help in that fight and, instead of thanking her and trying to make changes, you focus on what happened in those other two instances?”

          Your NAFALT argument is irrelevant and your attempts to minimize the point I was making by referencing those two organizations is very telling. Maybe you should read my followup to this article: When Good Feminists do Nothing. It wouldn’t matter if it was just ONE organization. The point is that the people who ran those organizations denied men because of their ideology. Because of feminism. That is an irrefutable fact. Feminism is an anti-male ideology because the entire basis for the ideology begins with the notion of men being advantaged over women because of “privilege” or the feminist version of “patriarchy” or “toxic masculinity” or all of the above. When the idea that someone or some group is unfairly advantaged over you is put into your head the most common solution is to bring down the advantaged person or group. There is no getting around that fact and that is why Feminism, not every individual feminist, FEMINISM is the problem.

          “What strikes me as interesting is that instead of making what you say you want, you’re kind of whining about “the women not doing it” ”

          I didn’t “whine” about women not doing it. I pointed out that organizations set up under the pretense of providing help to all domestic violence victims (both men and women) instead denied men because the people who run those organizations subscribe to an ideology of intolerance and hatred.

          If some man-hating feminist wants to spend her own money to have a shelter built, or start a fundraiser to have a shelter built and said shelter only accepts female victims then you know what? I honestly would not care. Even though its practices are misandric, at least some DV victims are receiving aid.

          My objections begin when DV organizations that are being funded by the government (meaning, tax dollars) and deny men because the people who run those organizations subscribe to an ideology of intolerance and hatred.

          Lastly, don’t speak to me as if men and women aren’t trying to get funding for male shelters. The government actively denies them funding partly due to the fact that people don’t give a shit about men and partly due to the fact that feminists continue to lie about DV statistics in order to make it seem as if male shelters would be a waste of funding.

        • Bryan Scandrett

          ‘Let me ask you a question – why aren’t you out there opening your own shelters for men who have been abused?’
          We have. Canada, couple of places in Europe and Australia are ones I know of.
          And counting.
          Why have feminists been excluding men from any kind of assistance since at least the late 70’s when I stood in a crisis centre in West End, Brisbane, Australia and got the Anger Management humiliation crap because I was male?
          She was smarmy, smug and condescending, not whining. And yeah, she wasn’t doing it.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    “Domestic violence should be taken seriously, regardless of the gender of perpetrator or victim, and this should be reflected in law.”

    Do you know the story of Erin Pizzey? I’m quite certain she would disagree with you about the feminists?


    “The beliefs that men are naturally more aggressive, naturally less able to control their sex drive etc., as the counterpart to the beliefs that women are naturally passive, are specifically challenged by feminism.”

    Can you provide any references to any prominent feminists that have challenged these views because I can easily provide dozens (maybe hundreds) of references to prominent feminists that have promoted these views.

    • Anothervoice

      A horrific and tragic story, but I’m afraid I disagree with her about feminism contributing in any way (when does feminism claim women can’t be cruel?) and see no reason why feminism is incompatible with acknowledging and punishing female abusers.

      Rather than arguing about what feminism actually means/says with opposing quotes etc, we could focus on what a feminist right here and now is saying…. But I’ll play along if you want…

      Did a quick search on two popular feminist websites I follow, here are some articles with quotes about aggression not being a natural, innate male thing…

      linked to http://www.alternet.org/sex/41356/
      It’s time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.
      Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a real man is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest and domination…
      We have to stop trying to define what men and women are going to be in the world based on extrapolations from physical sex differences.

      the fallacy of biological determinism (according to which men are programmed by their genes to rape and have no free will to do otherwise)
      the myth that rape is inevitable—that male sexuality is naturally predatory—
      links to:
      The falsehood that men are brutes who can’t control their sex drive is harmful to everyone.
      The tired trope of aggressive male sexuality is pervasive.
      The insidious flipside to the lie about aggressive male sexuality is the assumption that women are incapable of sexual aggression.
      The only sexual aggression I see from men is culturally encouraged, not biologically inherent.

      with young, drunken, violent men nobody bats an eyelid. Of course they are violent, people say, they are men, it’s the testosterone running through their veins! Erm, really? Is that it? Is it quite simply that men think in a Tarzan like fashion – ‘I am man with crazy hormones therefore I will beat everyone up?’ Now this isn’t very fair on passive, calm, non-aggressive men who wouldn’t hurt a fly is it?
      This view of men is illustrated also by how male victims of domestic violence are often treated: with ridicule and hilarity, almost as if they have lost their masculinity because they were beaten at the hands of a woman.
      … So in order to further the feminist cause, I believe it is men’s turn to take the spotlight. Masculinity must be deconstructed if it is to change. If we want greater equality between men and women, men must begin to learn that their ‘true masculinity’ may not be particularly true after all and that they too are confined within a gender box.

      Male sexual and physical aggression is never innate and as such is subject to change.

      From a google search for feminist quotes, challenging the idea of biological determinism for gender, and promoting a break from gender steretypes.

      *Not only does feminism give woman a voice, but it also clears the way for men to free themselves from the stranglehold of traditional masculinity.
      Byron Hurt

      *There is more difference within the sexes than between them. ~Ivy Compton-Burnett

      *We’ve begun to raise daughters more like sons… but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters. ~Gloria Steinem

      *Men weren’t really the enemy – they were fellow victims suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill. ~Betty Friedan

      *One is not born a woman, but becomes one.
      Simone de Beauvoir

      The patriarchal system places pressure on men to fit certain gender roles such as masculinity, which include forms of aggression and dominance (Consalvo, 2003).
      The theory also suggests that gender roles learned as a child can mediate the experiences in childhood into a form of adult aggression. For example, according to the norms of gender role women are socialized to be helpless, and this assigned gender role train women to be victims and men to be the perpetrators of violent acts (Lenton 1995).

      • Just1X

        that’s excellant

        should I ever start giving a rat’s arse what some feminist loon thinks, I will head over there.

        quoting Simone de Beauvoir carries about as much intellectual weight as quoting Mickey Mouse as far as I’m concerned. Quoting someone does not add to the argument when you’re quoting another gender bigot.

        As we can now scan men and women’s brains and point to the fucking differences, your blank slate theories look a little lacking in reality. That’s if you are so delusional that you need to see a scan to know that men and women are not the same (speaking in averages, not individuals).

      • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

        I’m not going to argue with you about what feminists are like, I’ve had enough experiences myself.

        Here’s a challenge for you…find me a group of feminists that are actively trying to help male victims of domestic violence and rape without diminishing their experiences?

        Find me a group of feminists that are addressing women’s violence against men?

        • Just1X

          Don’t hold your breath…women like that are rarer than rocking-horse shit

          • thatguyoverthere

            I saw that once! The horse shit, not the feminist one and I expect never will. Sad but true.

  • keyster

    “We have to stop trying to define what men and women are going to be in the world based on extrapolations from physical sex differences.”

    On the contrary, we have to stop pretending that men and women are identical regardless of physical sex differences. There’s a natural state of being for both, and ignoring this, trying to socially engineer, legalize and propagandize our way into an androgoneos egalitarian utopia is exactly what’s gotten us into this mess, or “gender war”.

    Because while men are directed to “play nice”, “let the girls win one” and so forth, holding themselves to a lesser standard so as not to offend women; women are doing very little to advance themselves as members of the human race, equal to what men are and have always done.

    Where exactly ARE all the great women, 50 years on of your “liberation” from the shackles of patriarchy? They’re busy doing what they’ve always done. They’re busy being mommies, because that’s what they want and like to do.

  • DarkByke

    I copied this section to my Facebook status:
    “Discriminatory laws and policies have been set in place within western governments by feminists influence that allow legal bigotry against men, while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books.”

    I was not at all shocked by the responses by a few females.
    – “what laws?” (to which I referred her a few examples on this site)
    – “pity party for 2, your table is ready” (ignored)
    – “That article actually made me laugh! That’s right… I should let a guy have a choice in what I do with my body… by all means. Abortion/child bearing isn’t something a man should have a say in considering it’s not something he has to go through. Ludicrous” (told her she read that completely the wrong way, and isn’t it a mutual agreement between two people when having sex/having a child? apparently not, it’s all about HER)
    – “Why don’t you fight for a cause that really matters? Of all the problems people face, humans face, men, especially white men — who have the most influence, privilege and power — probably are the least in need of a rights movement.” (…. really? because before I found out about the MRA, I wanted to commit suicide… tell that to my face that its not a cause that matters, when there are [to quote Patrick Henry: men falsely put in prison, we are having our home/kids ripped away from us, and more.] so yes, this is what gives me hope and strength to continue on in life and become the man that I wish to be.)

    At that point I was so enraged… so I took some time to cool off. I deleted their comments as they are quite immature and non-intellectual. (my house, my rules!) I came up with a few thoughts about this experience.

    1. Why should women care? They have the good end of the stick. Of course they think nothing is wrong from their point of view, and the social conditioning only reassures this.
    2. The 3rd wave of feminists have been so far conditioned that they think they are owed everything because women were oppressed in the past. Let’s call this the entitlement generation.
    3. This has only confirmed my own experience that it is pointless to argue or deal with them on an individual basis. It’s a waste of time and resources. You must go above them to the higher powers if you want to make a difference.
    4. Fight for something that matters? This proves that men are expendable and I’m not cool with that… not one bit.

    I am learning my friends. This is only the start, and I have great hope for change.

    • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com jmnzz

      “That article actually made me laugh! That’s right… I should let a guy have a choice in what I do with my body…”

      They are indoctrinated idiots with feminist blinders on. No where in this article is there a suggestion for men to have control over what women do with their bodies.

      They cannot see past their hatred and privilege.

      Best part is, they don’t have to. They’ll just be the ones whining the loudest when these bigoted laws get abolished :D.

  • Free Human Being

    Every damn word rings true.

    Freedom. That’s all we want, freedom.

    Feminists want to use socialism and chivalry to make men responsible for women’s decisions and that is what we need to obliterate.

    Some ideologies don’t want to hear the word responsibility.

  • http://a-wayforward.blogspot.com/ caimis.vudnaus.

    While I agree that MRM ideology is opposed to feminist ideology, I think we’re making a mistake.

    The feminist movement has a huge disconnect between what the common feminist believes the movement is for, and what the leadership actually plans and carries out as an agenda.

    Do we have common ground with the leadership? No! You can’t have common ground with someone planning to eradicate you. But… that’s the leadership, we have a ton of common ground with allot of those we automatically label as enemies because they label themselves as feminists.

    Yes by labeling themselves as feminists they empower the radical feminists. But… If we accept them as enemies automatically by being moderate feminists, we as MRA’s, by labeling them, also empower the radical feminists.

    Instead of calling non radical feminists as feminists. We could start calling any moderate feminist something like Feminine Egalitarians.

    Because if we can divorce moderate feminists away from the radicals, even if just in perception, the radical feminists loose.

  • G0R3P1G

    My favorite issue to bring up about extreme feminist sociopaths is that they are able to survive in today’s society due to all of the hard work men have done through out the centuries to build a safe and productive society that allows for the progress of women out side of the home. Do you ever hear a thank you from the women who work in industries that men labored to build and develop? Do you ever hear a thank you to men for building this nation to the point where women are safe outside of the community? Men did these things for the well being of the families and out of good nature. Of course the women held a role through out this time but now are able to expand their opportunities
    outside of the home. I think it would be about the same as men telling women they are not appreciated for any contributions through out history. Extreme feminist make there own look bad through the ignorance and lack of respect for men. They are a disgrace to respectable women through out time and to society that thrived working as man and woman. Would it be so bad to have appreciation for all that men have done for society.

    • ConservativeSniper

      How funny you use the word “sociopath”, then spout off like the psychopath you are.

      Irony is very lost on you, I’m guessing.

  • oneholyroller

    I learned a couple new things this month:
    1) A woman cannot legally get her tubes tied without her husband’s signature (but he wouldn’t need his wife’s approval to do his own)
    2) Single fathers are ineligible for California’s WIC program (a social program supplying food and childrens clothing/toys/etc to low-income families)

    This put things into perspective for me: men and women are both being fucked by society. It’s not as blatant as it was in the past, but it still exists and the consequence is tension between the sexes and a lot of unnecessary bullshit in our day-to-day lives. Society/media is creating these images of the ideal vs. typical man and woman, implanting expectations that we “should have” of the opposite gender and what they expect from us. It’s over generalized, super distorted and super irritating. America needs a humanst movement. Women can drive, go outside with men, and have more or less the same rights as men. The radical feminist movement is outdated and yes, starting to look selfish. It’s time to balance the scales, gender categories have no place in the law. Society needs to view each of us as an independent agent (even in marriages, the only legal say a spouse should have with what you do with your body/money/whatever is asking for divorce) capable of making basic decisions and fullfilling our responsibilities (nowhere in my life have I met a woman more capable of parenting simply because she had a vagina). I just found out about men’s rights today and am interested. I’ve had feminist friends in the past and while I could sympathize in some ways, I could never totally align myself with them. I guess my jiist is, it would be nice to see the two movements come together (sans crazy radicals) and come up with a manifesto that evens out the playing field for everyone, I think that would give everyone’s demands a lot more power, and in its creation would eliminate a lot of sexism in itself. The two movements rightly demand for equality, but in doing so put a barrier between themselves and the other gender, thus generalizing both sexes.

  • Sarah

    You do realise that there are many women who call themselves feminist AND agree that, e.g. you should have the right to relinquish parental/financial responsibility?

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      The problem is Sarah that the number of feminist “e.g.”s advocating fair treatment for males is typically far outweighed by the special treatments feminists champion for women. And there’s the rub.

      Throwing the occasional cookie to men does nothing to diminish feminist bias in favour of empowering women. If you retain the title of feminist here you will automatically be placed in the camp of a gender bigot who wishes to increase women’s power over men’s.

      • Sarah

        But doesn’t that make you the bigot? To assume I just want to increase women’s power of men’s?

        I also never meant that as “throwing a cookie to men”, I just wanted to make the point that there are more good people in feminism that the very focal bad ones.

        • alex brown

          he wasn’t talking about you personally.

        • Paul

          Why do you want to call yourself a feminist? Feminists, by definition, may believe men and women are equal but they only advocate for equal rights for *women* not men. So if, as you say you do, you advocate for equal rights for men as well then you have to say “I’m a feminist AND I advocate for equal rights for men”. Surely it’s easier to use some more inclusive term? It won’t change who you are, what you do, or what you say but it does remove any hook for you to be accused of bigotry.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “You do realise that there are many women who call themselves feminist AND agree that, e.g. you should have the right to relinquish parental/financial responsibility?”

      Parental/financial being one word, right?

      I know plenty of “feminists” who “allow” men to relinquish their financial responsibility ONLY if they relinquish their parental rights as part of the bargain.

      It’s extremely rare for a woman to agree to relinquish financial responsibility while allowing men to have a relationship with his child.

      • Sarah

        On your example, people confuse parental right with having a relationship with the child – there’s a difference. If a person want a say in things like, which school or whatever, they have to share financial responsibility. If they don’t want a say in that but would like to have a relationship with the child, that’s another issue (and one in which financial responsibility or lack thereof shouldn’t play a role). I don’t think it’s wrong to ask for financial help from a person who wants a say in how a child is raised; if they simply want a relationship with the child, then money doesn’t matter.

        Just a side note: people conflate bad people who claim to be feminists with good people who claim to be feminists. Just because there is a radical group of bad people who call themselves feminist does not mean that all who call themselves that are bad people and do things like your example. I do not doubt for one second that many men have had experiences with bad people who call themselves feminists, but it saddens me that a whole group is demonised. Just as it saddens me that because I call myself a feminist people assume I hate men. I don’t. I hate a particular type of person, found in both genders (e.g. a stereotypical chauvinist male and a ‘feminist’ woman who denies, say, a father’s visiting rights).

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          So, Sarah – you’re presuming the child is still exclusively the Mother’s and men should have to pay for the privilege to be “allowed” in his own child’s life?

          Why does a man have to pay a woman to see HIS child when a woman is under no financial obligations to support that child?

          You think no man would rather sit around watching Oprah and collecting welfare?

          I’m going to ask you that once more: why does any man have to pay to see his child?

          Isn’t this why feminists are fighting so hard against 50/50 custody? Because a man providing food, clothing and shelter for his own child exclusive of a woman’s intervention is simply not to be allowed?

          I’m not talking about men who entered into a parental partnership willingly.

          I know several men who became fathers after a one night stand. They want nothing to do with a woman who uses an innocent child as entrapment.

          Why the hell would ANY man want a relationship with a woman who would bring a child into those circumstances or force him into fatherhood against his will?

          A woman that would do that is shit. They aren’t “honorable”. They aren’t “Noble”. They are plain and simple shit.

          Sure, it’s easy to finally take the “high ground” and demand the guy sign away his child or else bankroll her exclusive choice, then claim to be a noble Single Mom beleagued by a Deadbeat Dad.

          Because a man despises a woman who would do that to him doesn’t mean he despises the child.

          He should have the choice to support his own child his own way, 50/50 – and if she can’t afford her part, then SHE needs to “woman up”, do the right thing and allow the responsible person who can to raise it.

        • alex brown

          Women should be kicking fathers away in the first place. Ownership of the family unit should be stripped from women completely. It should be give back to men completely, or it should be an equal ownership thing.

        • Alex Cockell

          Feminism from the perspective of the general public has ONE interface- the activist/lobbying face who also face off to Government. it is THIS voice we hear – the bigoted, anti-male voice. The loudest. The TERF extremists..

          It’s like in Islam – there may be moderates countering the extremists- but we never hear them in the feminist debate on news media (as in mainstream media). On Channel 4 News, on Newsnight.

          We see moderate Muslims calling out the extremists in public – we don’t see this in Feminism.

          So how are we to know?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      No. I don’t. Not anywhere it counts.

    • alex brown

      Yeah and, what have these feminists done about it? Nothing! Most feminists I know support child support payments, they use the most dehumanizing language possible to rationalize away the fact men are treated like crap by the family court system.

      • Paul

        The vast majority of men that can’t afford to fight for custody and so end up as fortnightly fathers are just labeled deadbeat dads who do not want to care for their children. These are used to “prove” that the system is not biased because the majority of cases do not result in an award of custody to the woman but the majority of cases which are contested in court do result in an award of custody to the woman.

        Those that can afford to fight but still lose, often because of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, are labeled as abusers. These are used to justify giving the children to the woman in the majority of the cases, because the fathers are abusive even though this is not proven.

        Those that do win are bullies that prove the system is patriarchal and used the system to oppress the woman. These are used to justify changes in the laws/system to protect women.

        Damned if you, damned if you don’t. Feminist lies since forever.

    • Alex Cockell

      They’re not heard though – not out beyond the lobbying/activism face. They may be within the ivory tower, but the loudest, most extreme messages are what the public hears.

      MRAs are using that public message and pushing back against that.

  • Constructive McCriticism

    That poorly photoshopped picture of a “beaten” man made me laugh out loud. It just makes male victims of domestic violence seem imaginary, like it’s impossible to find a photo of one so you resort to using photoshop to invent one. That’s what lots of critics will think when they see it.

    If you don’t want to include a photo of a real victim to avoid dredging up readers’ bad memories, then I think it’d be better to not have a picture at all. Or if you’re going to include something artificial, use a cartoon so there’s no doubt it was intentional.

  • http://bebopper76.wordpress.com/ Jeff Lewis

    One BIG difference between men and women, that I noticed in all my years. The reason why women are winning the sexual battles.

    Is that women HELP each other constantly. Women are always helping other women. Not just a little bit but a lot. They go out of their way, and many times over do it helping each other. Many times trying to help when no help is even needed.

    Men Don’t help each other. Men view other men as the enemy, and competition. Men feel that in order for them to look good or get ahead they have to compete with other men and hurt them in some way. Men help women and children a lot, and feel it is their duty to help. But, when it comes to other men forget it.

    How many charities do you know of for old men? How many charities do you know of for women and children? Most of the homeless people I see are old men. Could you imagine someone trying to make a charity for old men? They would be laughed out of town, put down, and forced to spend that money on women and children charities.

  • W.A.

    I am grateful to finally find a civil and logical piece written on this subject. That is hard to do these days, if you don’t already know where to look.

    I still consider myself a feminist, but I don’t feel like that interferes with my desire for men’s rights. I definitely do not agree with much of what the ‘feminist’ movement does in the world. I do not feel like what men have done to women over the years justifies any of the gender specific legislation that has been implemented. Conversely, I do not believe that the bad things some feminists have caused negates any of the good things. There have definitely been many positive changes. I believe sexism still exists against women – at least where I live – but that should not be dealt with by imposing sexist laws. It is a matter of awareness and mutual respect. Forcing laws on someone who already doesn’t like women is not going to make them ‘come around’.

    I am upset, however, by some of the ‘men’s rights activists’ who seem to genuinely despise women, and choose to post articles explaining why western women are to be avoided like the plague, unless you are using them for purely sexual purposes. For the record, I do not appreciate man-bashing feminist blogs either. I have heard claims that women only want to get their claws in a man, purposely have him impregnate her, then dump him and laze around in the lap of luxury for evermore, on his dime no less. I have also heard people try to belittle the plight of rape victims, claiming that more men than women get raped and that women should get over it. Come on now, is this really productive?

    All of my female friends are feminists but we all have boyfriends and brothers, male friends and co-workers, male bosses and male subordinates. None of us hate men nor do we agree with any sort of discriminatory laws. I work in law myself, and if the chance ever arises I fully plan to raise my concerns about any sort of gender specific legislation. It is not exactly my area of law, but it concerns me nonetheless. It concerns everyone.

    Feminism is still necessary in many parts of the world. I am a feminist simply because I do have so many rights. I vote, I drive a car, I own property, I attended university, I lived on my own, and I dress as I please. Many women around the world do not have these liberties. Now, some of them may not want it. They might enjoy being subservient, and maybe they do not wish to go to school or to work. They might enjoy staying home, or (I suppose) being physically controlled by their husbands. But that’s the point – it should be a choice, and no human should be oppressed.

    I guess I am wondering why we don’t have a movement that is in between. That says that women should be allowed to do anything men can do – but that also says that every rape victim, battered spouse, or anyone else, be treated equally in society and under the eyes of the law. This bad blood between the ‘feminazis’ and the MRA’s is silly and not productive. It doesn’t solve anything.

    I apologize for that long post – but I have been contemplating this for some time. Thank you for some information, presented in a clear fashion – albeit, a mildly biased one at times. I try not to judge ‘MRA’s too harshly, but it is difficult when so many of them are spiteful and angry. I suppose it goes both ways though, and that is why I am sometimes painted with the ‘feminazi’ brush.

    PS. As for circumcision – I always thought that if I had a son, I would not have that performed. My spouse, however, disagrees. He thinks it is better, as do many of the men I know. It seems to be women who are opposed to it (in my experience).

    • Andrew

      Most of the article is fine, and I may be nitpicking here, but no “civil and logical piece” should include the words “overweight angry lesbian.”

      • Alex Cockell

        Look up Millie Tant – this Viz character was a parody of the VERY LOUD AGGRESSIVE Dworkin/Makinnon/Daly/Burchill/Cooper type that was seen in the Uk in the 80s.

    • alex brown

      “I am upset, however, by some of the ‘men’s rights activists’ who seem to genuinely despise women”

      Perhaps women invalidate men all the time and treat them like sub humans? I know not saying generalized anger against a group is fair, but lets look at the cause of it okay?

      Perhaps men are angry because of the way women have treated men in this culture for the past 50 years.

      Start listening to men, treat them with more respect, have some empathy for them. That will help reduce anger toward women.

      Of course women can carry on doing what they are doing right now and the anger will build.

      • Sondra Carr

        You guys – you understand that you don’t actually represent all men right? In fact, there are a lot of really great guys and most of the really great women like them and respect them and treat them very well. You guys are just attracting and hanging in circles where the really crappy women are. And when you act out in this way because of it and assume all women are like that too, what you do is drive all the great women away and reaffirm to yourselves because of your self-created echo chamber that this is how “women” are. But you’re wrong. Just as wrong as those crappy women are about how “men” are and the idiot bigots are about how “Muslims” are – you’re all wrong cause none of those groups is all what you think and your own perception acts as blinders to the whole way better world out there that you’ll forever miss. It’s sad really.

        • Frodo

          Do you mean women like this by any chance?A randomly selected group by the way and i didnt see a whole lot of disagreement

    • Paul

      I know you posted this a long time ago but if you do have a son please fight for him not to be circumcised. Most of the supposed, but not uncontested, benefits are either not for him (reduce chance of his partner getting cervical cancer) or only kick in when he is sexually active. The only one that doesn’t is UTI which it only helps with for the first year of his life. Girls get more UTI than boys and they just use antibiotics.

      Apparently being circumcised removes 60% of the sensitivity of his penis. I don’t know as I don’t have one, removed 30 years ago for what we now know were spurious medical reasons.

      His body, his choice. Sound familiar. Once it’s gone it’s gone so leave it there and let him decide when he’s older.

      I challenge your husband to watch the following and still think it’s a good idea.

  • Victimschoice

    Sorry if someone else has brought this up, but why isn’t “his wallet, his choice” formatted the same as the other “goals”? That confused the hell out of me.

  • driversuz

    You imply that anti-feminist men aren’t all that into parenting. I suspect you know nothing of what you speak.

  • driversuz

    “But generally women are expected to just get on with it.”
    Uh huh, with child support, the family home, food stamps, government housing, welfare checks….

    Statistics show that the children of single fathers fare far better than the children of single mothers, so my guess is that most men can “figure out” this parenting thing at least as well as mothers.

    Anti-feminist men only denigrate and devalue lousy, abusive and incompetent mothering. Everybody should. You’re full of shit.

  • Alex Cockell

    The problem is that the political Feminist movement as seen through their activism was hijacked by a bunch of female-supremacists in the late 60s/early 70s. People like Christina Hoff-Sommers and Warren Farrell (who headed New York NOW in the early 70s) were blocked from raising men’s issues, and then ousted by the group headed by Gloria Steinem. MAry Daly, Mary Koss, Andre Dworkin, Shulamith Firestone etc came in with the Gender Feminism philosophy based on Culutral MArxism and Simone de Beauvoir – with all other kinds of misandric stuff, and under hte cover of the name “feminism”, pushed for female-supremacist laws, policies etc.

    AVFM and the MRAs are dealing with what Feminism has become on the ground in actuality – a gender-hate movement where you may not be aware of what the leaders are doing.

    The problem is that “gender equality” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It actually appears to be a Versailles type of deal where men have to constantly pay onerous reparations based on some myth or other – and they have to keep atoning for their sins to women because penis.. or something.

    I am something of a lightning rod in all of this, as I am straight, white, heterosexual, autistic and male – therefore somehow i am this Oppressive scapegoat because biology… or something. I was sexually abused by girls at 13 in 1984 – all the time I had Dworkin etc screaming at me through the mass media that I was a “rapist” because penis.. or something.

    Hence the female MRAs and WAF movements..
    Everything downstream of Steinem and the TERFs is effectively suspect. They are on record as being female supremacists. Valenti is the same – she was pushing for New Zealand to bin innocent-until-proven-guilty.

    Now – Christina Hoff-Sommers – plenty of respect for her…

    • Great

      We don’t even have leaders mate. Feminism is an ideology. Theory. We aren’t being led into battle, we aren’t even a threat to you dude. Everything women have gained has been granted by men. We’ve taken nothing. The world around us has been built and run by men for centuries while we cooked for them and done their housework; we own nothing. All we can do is nag at you lot. Also I disagree with your idea of gender equality, though I do see poor practises of it, like women fire fighters having lower fitness standards than men. That is ridiculous and a safety issue.

      All these different movements that obviously do want the same thing even if they go about it in different ways seems pointless to be honest. Especially since they are doing fuck all so far. But language and ideology and debate is what has changed shit in the past, so maybe I’m just being impatient.

      Eeek, I just checked out your profile, all you seem to be doing is arguing against feminism, not actually supporting the rights of men. You don’t even seem to bring up men’s issues, you just fault feminism over and over. Where is this getting you? Feminism wants the same thing, equality. It’s not perfect, but If there are faults in their methods of achieving gender equality they can be fixed along the way, you don’t need to dig your heels in and not give it a chance at all.

      • driversuz

        “Where is this getting you?”
        International press coverage, for the first time in history. Stop concern trolling; you’re not very good at it.

      • driversuz

        Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about derailing. [Ref: 4333]

        Additional remarks:

        Pretending to be concerned about men’s rights, and certain that we’re doing it wrong.

        • Great

          That dude got abused, just cause you don’t give a shit about people doesn’t mean I don’t. I care about both genders treatment, it should be equal, meaning your issues are fixed, our issues are fixed and we end up balanced. I get that it’s hard for you to understand someone can care about a cause that doesn’t only benefit themselves and exclude everyone else, but don’t assume everyone is as shitty as you are.

      • Alex Cockell

        I don’t know.

        All I know is I suffered the following in about 1983-1984, and I’m only starting to unpack stuff.

        I was sexually abused by girls self-identifying as Feminists in 1984, when I was chronologically 13, but running with a sociosexual developmental age of 8. I was silenced by my assailants threatening to cry rape.

        Being on the autism spectrum, i am somehow demonised by what I see as the “leaders” of Militant Political Gender Feminism, and somehow according to them I am everything wrong in the world, a “latent rapist” due to my biology and brain wiring, and should not exist.. or something.

        I admit – I am COMPLETELY confused, and afraid – as why are these powerful people demonising me when I’ve done nothing wrong except exist, apparently?

        I was bullied by everyone at school, shat on by the old, then shat on by this new stuff that I don’t understand.

        Why does Gender Feminism hate me because I am a straight white Asperger male? Why does Emma Watson want to exploit me, and people like Valenti hate me, and why do people like Krista Femitheist want to kill me?

        I have no idea at all.

        • Bryan Scandrett

          Why does Gender Feminism hate me?
          Money. Professional feminists raise and distribute to themselves an unaccounted amount of money, a multibillion dollar global industry. In short it’s profitable to have a monster under the bed to keep everyone in need of safety. Turns out, people with penis’s are the fav one’s to demonise. That way the gov’t needs to spend millions on safety for women and their children. You have no idea just how many people have their wagon hitched to that gravy train.

        • Great

          I’m sorry you got abused by shitty women. I was assaulted by my bullies at school as well. And at work and on holiday and in clubs and followed home yada yada. I don’t think all men are rapists at all, and I don’t think you are like that you don’t need to prove anything dude. It’s just that at this point the pattern I see is that women leave me alone, and men don’t. I would actually rather think all men were asshole’s and then be pleasantly surprised to find the opposite then to assume you are all decent and then end up in another shitty situation.
          I can see why you would have less faith in women after your experiences, same for me. You went to MRA’s, I went to feminism. Neither are really doing anything, and I don’t know how to fix anything anyway. But there are at least some good points within them right? And I think it make they both highlight the problems that need fixing, so at least people can be aware of them.

          • Alex Cockell

            maybe I am a feminist – in the original 1970s pre-Steinem manner. “Her body, her choice, her agency, her responsibility” and “his wallet, his choice, his agency, his responsibility”. Warren Farrell and CHS. If you look at Esther Vilar’s work – her third book seems to gel with Galatians as well…

            Not the extremists running the show now like Jessica Valenti.

          • Ben

            I would rather think all females are c***s and then be surprised as I am occasionally by finding the exception to the rule.

            I was beaten and abused as a child, physically, mentally and emotionally, scapegoated for everything that went wrong in my family’s lives. Father, mother, sister.

            My mother was content to let me be dragged off and beaten as long as she and my sister were safe. She lived in perpetual denial and took every opportunity to break me down mentally and emotionally and along with my sister they became raving feminists.

            My mother undermined my relationships, self esteem, told lies to her friends and bore false witness against me in law.

            Feminism was not limited to my mother and my sister either and while I was growing up I had to endure all the ridicule from her and her friends.

  • Evan L

    I get that there are a lot of feminist bitches out there spreading anti-male hate. But what you don’t seem to get is that feminism in its most primitive definition is the advocacy for EQUALITY. If you think the label “feminism” is too misleading because it has the words FEM in it, then for god’s sake, why be a MEN’s rights activist? Sexism ends when both sexes work TOGETHER, let’s not make it a man vs woman thing.

    • driversuz

      That would be feminism’s most used and least proven definition. NOTHING feminists promote or do creates equality; it all creates female supremacy and male utility. We define feminism by its acts, not by what it says it is.

      “let’s not make it a man vs woman thing.”

      There was no “man vs woman thing” anywhere in any society until feminists created it over a century ago. If you believe that the demonization of either sex is wrong, why are you speaking in favor of the group whose core beliefs depend on the demonization of one sex?

      • Evan L

        Feminists did not create the “man vs woman” a century ago. They saw themselves as oppressed and wanted equality. If it weren’t for feminism, women may not even have the right to vote as of today.

        • driversuz

          So say feminists, but it’s a lie. Most women didn’t want the vote until they were assured women would not be subject to conscription.

          Feminists did not believe they were oppressed. Feminists knew they could win excessive power by convincing OTHER women that THEY were oppressed. And they only succeeded when technology (provided by the “oppressors”) made much of the world safe enough that women didn’t have to recognize, or even notice, that men were every bit as oppressed as women. Or that men as a class were far more likely to protect women as a class than they were to oppress women.

          You are stating myths as if they are true. They are myths. “Patriarchy” as defined by feminists, does not exist and it never has existed. If you are capable of critical or rational thought, do what feminists have been telling you to do our whole life – “Educate Yourself!” Try learning history before it was rewritten by feminists.

          • Evan L

            You are ridiculous.

          • driversuz

            See, that’s the kind of useless, non rational response we’ve come to expect from feminists. Not one feminist here has yet been able to even IMAGINE that “patriarchy theory” MIGHT be unsubstantiated. It’s like the divinity of Jesus to Christians – absolutely not to be questioned under any circumstance. Feminism is utterly faith based.
            Your next ad hom attack will result in a strike. (It doesn’t usually take feminists long to earn three and be banned.)

          • Great

            Non- rational? Attack? Really? Is your ideology so fragile that an honest debate could damage it and yourself? How could you possibly feel attacked? You tell her she is not welcome here to debate and discuss and will be banned; that is your cowardly attack. They had been nothing but courteous in their discussions, I can’t even manage that, I don’t know how she lasted so long.

            You honestly are ridiculous and I don’t understand how you can’t see it. If you can’t debate and see the other side to an argument then you are incredibly blind, and blind followers are detrimental to society; you don’t even know what you are supporting. And don’t even try telling me that the people you have been talking to are blind followers, they are clearly more researched than you are. I can’t even add anything to this argument because these people have said it all and yet you disregard it or ignore it or degrade them while offering very little to support for your own ideas. Your argument against the patriarchy is what exactly? A cradle? The only thing you manage to do well is belittle. I hope your not a salesman cause you are doing a poor job of convincing any rational human being of anything. And the people who are upvoting you are the people who already believe in this ideology, so they do not count.

            I know that men have problems. I want your problems fixed as well as mine, but you don’t appear to give much of a shit about the other half of the human race mate, so who is gonna give a fuck about you?

          • driversuz

            “You are ridiculous” is a rational, courteous “discussion?”

            Regarding “Oblique’s” comment, AVfM decided a long time ago to stop giving space and time to anyone whose worldview is informed by fairy tales – like “Patriarchy.” (You’ll note that Oblique was unable or unwilling to offer an objective defense of feminism’s pet theory.) You kids no longer get to interrupt the grown ups’ conversation with stories about the monsters under your bed.

            I have some news for you. The idea that men and women should have the same legal rights and responsibilities is no more and “ideology” than the idea that anyone should have any rights and responsibilities. We also have no intention of waiting around for feminists to give a fuck about men.

          • Great

            She said you are ridiculous after you told her she was not welcome here, which is ridiculous. There is an obvious lack of women compared to men in any position of power, I’m pretty sure that’s a defence of the patriarchy. I don’t know how you can miss that. There’s not been a female president once.

          • driversuz

            You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (trolling). [Ref: 4381]

          • Daniel Lewin

            Looked at Great’s profile, as in all his comments. You should not have banned him he is not a troll. However from what i’ve read on this comments page alone you are unduly belligerent to other commenters. What I’m trying to get across is that you are acting like an arse.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (ad hominem and general insult (particularly with respect to staff and authors)). [Ref: 5691]

            Additional remarks:

            That would be the case if great was factually correct. It’s easy to make a statement it’s a bit harder to share the why when the why is more important. So I ask you, what is the why and if you come back at me with BS like the majority of women voters are voting for the wrong person, I’ll reply that for an ideology it only counts if it is a specific type of woman. So no, Suz is not the ass here.

          • Ben

            So go elect a female president then…I believe HC is running, lets see if all you women together can elect a female president, if you can’t then your point is proved mute now and forever.

          • Oblique

            According to the Miriam Webster the Patriarchy is (broadly) defined as “control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”. Within the United States, the male to female ratio is 0.97:1, yet within the US Congress and Senate, only 18.5% of Congress and 20% of the Senate is female. In terms of a numbers game, it seems a disproportionate share of power is held by men. Economically speaking, women currently hold 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions, 5.4 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions.

            While these do not automatically indicate total inequality, it does seem that women hold a far lower proportion of power than their population rates would suggest. And this does not discount that women are privileged in other areas, but outright dismissing the concept of a patriarchy in a society in which a disproportionate majority of high economic and political power is held by men seems a little illogical. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why ‘the patriarchy (as defined by feminists) does not, and has never existed.’

          • driversuz

            You have a strange definition of “power” if you think the only power is “nominal” power.
            “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” whether it is the hand of a peasant or an empress.

          • Oblique

            However, women have been ‘rocking the cradle’ for centuries now, and it is only in the past few decades in which more dramatic action has been systematically taken by Women’s Rights Groups has the oppression that women faced started to change. If that statement was true, surely women would have prevented or removed such conditioning centuries ago?

            I find it far easier to believe in a self-perpetuating system which favours its own members to women who, by ‘rocking the cradle, ruled the world’, voluntarily continuing to allow themselves to be oppressed.

            Even if one accepted that the patriarchy had existed in the past, it seems a bit premature to declare it non-existent in today’s society. For example, the PNAS conducted a study in which they sent identical resumes with randomised traditionally male or female names for positions as a laboratory manager at 127 universities. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.

            This examples how, even at a seeming subconscious level, women still face bias and discrimination, which is not discounted by other counts of discrimination against men. Furthermore, the consistent absence of women in the legislative branches of government (Australia, averaging 30.3%, the UK, averaging 22.55%, Canada, 31.3%, or New Zealand, 32.2%), indicates a lack of female representation in legislature, and some significant and culturally consistent bias against women attaining positions of power.

          • driversuz

            Women have never been more oppressed than men, and women have never been oppressed BY men. Individual instances of “discrimination” against women, are no worse than (and now probably not as bad as) individual instances of “discrimination” against men.

            “The Patriarchy” does not exist and it never did. If you can’t think outside the frame of “Patriarchy,” you are not welcome here.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Is it possible other realities may be at play here? Not simply your ill informed and biased one.

          • Myopia

            Anyone can run for office, no one’s stopping women.

            What are the percentages for women working as coal miners, interstate truckers, forest fighters, garbage collectors and sewage workers? I calmly await the day where there’s equality in these fields as well as politics.

            BTW, patriarchy isn’t control by men, it’s control of men. Women don’t storm the Bastille and slit throats to overthrow corrupt governments or financial oppressors, men do. Men who can’t be controlled and won’t do as they’re told are they only threat to the power structures. That top 1% of society is gender neutral (eg. Queen Elizabeth, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, soon to be elected Hillary Clinton). These money bloodlines shift back and forth between male and female primaries, they don’t care about gender dynamics, they just care about remaining in the top 1%. Their goal is to corral and control the men beneath them so they don’t suffer the same fate as the French Aristocracy. They’re using women, and feminism, to do that for them.

          • Oblique

            Look, we made it very clear when we last had this argument four months ago that we are using the same words to mean a completely different ideology. And when you asked me to stay away, if I refused to change the way I though, I respected you, and didn’t reply. I think we’ve established by now, that we are not going to agree, and you have already stated that I am ‘not welcome here’. So please, just let this die. I’m not going to come back here and go through another cat fight, because you’ve changed your mind about that. I wish you luck with your goals, and I hope that one day we can achieve the equality which we are both fighting for, even if we don’t see it the same way.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            Almost like women in the here and now did not vote for their representatives. a false argument. Patriarchy “theory” is politically aimed BS.

        • Ben

          I think you are confusing feminism with women standing up for women’s rights.

          The lobbyists are the feminists who have continued the fight for women’s rights, the feminists may once have been the attack dogs fighting for equality, but then they gained their equality and being attack dogs kept on fighting?

          but supposing that men and women are equal for a moment, I then ask why do women have more rights than men?

          Gender equality? We must employ the same amount of men and women in the work place, because there are the same number of qualified men and women in that field? No.

          If you want gender equality then I am all for it, put more women in harms way, doing security jobs, and I don’t mean sitting in the control room. Put more women in sanitation and cleaning let them clean up shit the same as men, balance all the statistics, don’t just load the sectors of society where women want to work. Balance healthcare reduce the 99% of women in healthcare down to 50% and let men work there too, balance it across the country don’t just look at it as an overall statistic.

          Lets have equality, corporal punishment for girls in schools, treat boys and girls equally in schools, let them fight with fists and get bullied the same way boys are, let girls who want to be pacifists get beaten, picked on and bullied the same way as boys? No, but I thought you said women and men are equal?

          When hostages are released they set the women and children free, because women are weaker than men? because they are brought up to cave? So why are women released? Is it because women are equal to men?

          The ship is sinking, get the women and children to the lifeboats, because? women are more important than men? because women deserve to live more than men? Think how many extra kids you could save by giving up the spots for women? You wanted equality…

          Feminists often refer to the rights of women in general and then cite examples from cultures that are less free than our own to gain women in western cultures more rights. Women in other countries who are forced by culture or religion to dress a certain way, who do not get the same level of education as men, who are stoned to death for adultery etc. They use these arguments to further the rights of women in western countries, but the women in those other countries still have the same rights as before?

          A man is walking down the street, four women are walking up the street towards him, the women are walking four abreast, there is nowhere for the man to go, so he has to flatten himself against a building because women are entitled to walk down the pavement and not look where they are going? It is good manners for the man to get out of their way? or because it is the legacy of women’s rights from when women did not have as many rights as men?

    • Ben

      Feminism is most definitely not equality. Women have too many rights already. Feminists just lobby for additional rights. The balance gets skewed on the side of women and never gets corrected. The only hope we have of addressing this equality as you call it is to stand up for men’s rights too.

  • Oblique

    I would have liked this article a lot more if not for the rude comments regarding feminist groups throughout. I don’t mean the ideology, but things like “Just put some ear muffs on or crank up the music, I know all too well how annoying feminist screeching can be”. That kind of language from both sides does nothing but drag down a debate into petty squabbling and name calling.

    While some feminist writings also unfortunately engage in the same kind of name calling, that does not justify it from anyone else. At least personally, makes it more difficult to read and evaluate the viewpoints of the article, many of which are extremely interesting, as (again, at least in my mind) the ability of the author to create a fair and unbiased article is constantly put into doubt.

    Furthermore, the dismissal of the perspectives of others through such comments prevents true discussion, debate and hopefully co-operation between various groups. Very few people want to listen to the ideas of a person who is constantly insulting and trivialising their own. Again, both sides are guilty of this behaviour, and should stop.

    • driversuz

      Our “tone,” aka FTSU, is why you know we exist. Many men and women have spent decades attempting to have civil discussion on these topics, only to be ignored, vilified and/or silenced.
      We don’t expect most people to like it.

      • Oblique

        I understand the need for an aggressive, or even angry tone, especially if the movement has been ignored for so long. However, is it really necessary, or helpful for an argument to achieve that by insulting and belittling others? And I would suggest that the use of such language has contributed to the image issues which have prevented further support of Men’s Rights Movements in recent years by more traditionally feminist oriented groups.

        • driversuz

          You just contradicted yourself. The aggressive tone is the very reason why support for (and indeed awareness of) the MRM has grown exponentially in the past few years.
          You don’t understand this movement if you think we have any interest whatsoever in support from ANY feminist groups. If you wish to continue to have your opinions heard here, you should probably stay away from your keyboard for a while and read the site.

          • Great

            She was trying to have a discussion with you and you just shat all over her completely valid and considerate points. Nice one mate. Is this how you get your voice heard? You can’t even listen to one woman.

          • driversuz

            “You don’t understand this movement if you think we have any interest whatsoever in support from ANY feminist groups.”
            …or individual feminists.

          • Great

            A wonderful excuse for ignorance.

          • driversuz

            What excuse. She doesn’t have an excuse for her ignorance.

  • http://embracefreedom.bandcamp.com Jared White

    “This is extremely unhelpful.”

    Then it’s a good thing that isn’t what I said.

  • Myopia

    So call it the HRM (Human Rights Movement) and let their arguments run into brick walls.

    “You don’t agree with equitable divorce laws? I guess you have a problem with human rights.”