crime scene

A new/old message for poor, white, hetero males

Hurry up and fucking kill yourselves already.

Mike Buchanan of Justice for Men and Boys and the Anti-Feminism League graciously provided the link to a new study on male suicide produced by the UK charity and support group Samaritans.

Mike pointed out in an email: “It’s about damned time society cared more about the male suicide rate.”

The report, entitled Men, Suicide and Society, provides a much-needed statistical perspective of this issue, but of equal or perhaps greater interest are the theoretical assumptions underlying the report, as well as its unstated conclusions.

As I will show in due course, the report is at heart a collective of rationales for doing nothing at all to help the low-income, middle-aged, white, heterosexual males who are most likely of all population segments to kill themselves. The message is reasonably clear: “fuck you, white hetero suicide guys. Hurry up and fucking kill yourselves already.”

One of the authorities cited in the Samaritans study, Sandy Ruxton, is the lead author of Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Equality in Public Policy, a report produced by the Coalition for Men and Boys.

The CFMB is an organization whose stated goals include providing ‘a national lead in encouraging support and responsibility amongst men and boys for measures to tackle discrimination and gender-based violence.’  It ranks the White Ribbon Campaign among its supporters.

The title phrase ‘Man Made’ is telling – the source of the problems that necessitated the work is identified clearly, given place of honor. But just in case the reader doesn’t immediately catch on, the press release celebrating the report’s production states the case a little more cogently:

 

Public policy needs to respond urgently to the problems that men and boys create and the problems that they experience, according to a new report by the Coalition on Men and Boys. This must take place alongside efforts to improve the position and status of women.

The essential meanings of this communique are both explicitly stated and immediately inferable: men and boys by virtue of gender create the problems. Men and boys experience problems as a result. Women do not create problems and are victims with an undeserved low position and status in society.

Ruxton is also lead author/researcher of a report commissioned by the EU entitled The Involvement of Men in Gender Equality Initiatives in the European Union.

Among other tidbits, the reader of this work learns that the goal of men’s participation in gender equality will be achieved through emphasizing its benefits to men, such as the joys of fatherhood and no longer being ‘the help­less man at the stove after coming home from work, like their fathers and grandfathers. They gain power in education and household affairs.’

This falsehood is, of course, directly at odds with the real life experience of men, as the declining employment of men in teaching, and the millions of fathers who are refused a relationship with their children would tend to demonstrate.

The report further advises that ‘actors were mostly excluded if they clearly subscribed to a ‘men’s rights’/‘fathers’ rights’ approach.’ In other words, those who thought men and fathers should have rights were deliberately excluded from participation in the study. Proponents of women’s rights were neither questioned nor excluded.

Mr. Ruxton’s bio shows a long-term and no doubt lucrative career involvement with various equality and rights organizations, many of them sponsored by UK and EU government organizations. His intellectual and economic bread and butter is the feminist narrative. There are many more like him.

Returning to the Samaritan’s suicide report, a citation accredited to Ruxton states that:

 

In research, policy and practice to address suicide in this group of men, it is important to remember that, while they may be marginalized in power structures by social position – for example, relative to middle-class men (and sometimes women), they may also be implicated in the subordination of other groups, of women and men, including BME or LGBT groups. The needs of disadvantaged men in their mid-years must be addressed, but in ways which benefit society as a whole.

Disenfranchised, white, middle-aged men in the lowest economic bracket may be implicated in the subordination of LGBT groups? Ah yes, they have nothing better to do (outside of killing themselves) so they seek to oppress lesbians and the victim crowd – haven’t you noticed all the anti-LGBT ads they’ve been funding? And hey, we’ve all seen the hordes of mentally ill beer-bellied suicidal white heteros running amok, engaged in anti-whoever pogroms that would have made the Nazis proud. (Actually I haven’t, but then I don’t get out much.)

Ruxton also advises that the needs of men cannot be addressed unless doing so ‘benefits society as a whole.’ The primary benefit society currently derives from males is their utility – servants to the economic demands of women, bureaucrats and corporations, and their disposability – death and injury suffered at war and at work while serving those same masters.

What possible motivation then can society find to address real solutions for these men? What benefit to society as a whole can be extracted from dirt-poor, disenfranchised middle-aged men who have already noticed (consciously or not) the lack of validation provided them as human beings worthy of attention in their own right? No answer is provided, conspicuously.

Let’s look a little further into the Samaritans ‘research’:

 

‘Masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are sociological concepts which can be defined as the collection of roles, behaviours, activities, expressions and practices that are broadly associated with being male or female, respectively. In this view, men’s and women’s identity, behavior and the expectations placed on them are not purely the result of their biological sex, but reflect socially constructed ideas.

If that sounds familiar, well, you know the saying. The report is invoking classic feminist theology – the ‘gender is a social construct’ meme. It is well known who constructed this gender idea, of course – why, it was those same nasty old hetero white guys, for their own benefit at the expense of society’s true victims.

There are further problems with this report, for example we find a paragraph titled ‘constricted by masculinity.’ For those who believe masculinity provides privileges rather than constrictions, a certain amount of doublethink is required.

And then there’s ‘masculinity as driver of suicidal behavior.’ This includes stereotyped fembot descriptions of what masculinity is (very few men actually fit them or would agree with them), as well as the implicit assumption that being male is enough to drive a man to suicide. Oh the horror! I was born male, I had better kill my sorry ass.

To sum up the study’s conclusions:

1) There is no benefit to society from doing anything to help suicidal men.

2) Men have created the very social environment which is driving them to suicide.

3) Men are oppressors of the true victims.

4) Masculinity itself is the problem.

5) Feminism is the solution.

The Samaritans report then, while highlighting some important details for men, is in essence a tedious repetition of classic specious feminist bullshit; a pretense at compassion by a crowd of hand-wringing, taxpayer-funded, neo-liberal ideologues raking in fat consulting fees while quietly doing the dirty work of their feminist comrades.

***

These three reports provide a look at the discreet but ugly voice of power in modern sexism: dreary and dishonest dissertations of feminist gender supremacy and the will of its supporters to impose it on society without regard for reality or principle. It is apparent that people such as these inform and indeed dominate the social policy debate.

In addition, these intellectual elites belong to the school which assumes that government can and should solve every problem, by law (translation: force) if necessary, based on their own ideological presumptions, biases and definitions. No doubt there are actually many among their ranks who mean well; the same could be said for every institutionalized ideology that has ever existed, including the most murderous.

As for the future of gender studies research, Asia is the new frontier. Consider this 2011 call for papers from the National University of Singapore:

“Since the 1980s, scholars such as Robert Connell and Jeff Hearn have argued for pro-feminist gender studies which investigates hierarchies within femininities and masculinities, and considers the implications of narrowly defined gender roles and patriarchal structures for both women and men.”

Although not ostensibly demanded, the anticipated theoretical framework for further research and funding is explicitly spelled out. None of the above bodes well for the future of men.

♦♦♦

Sources:

Samaritans Research Report: Men, Suicide and Society  2012

Coalition for Boys and Men Study: Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Equality in Public Policy  2009

Coalition for Boys and Men:  Press Release   2009

European Institute for Gender Equality Study Report:

The Involvement of Men in Gender Equality Initiatives in the European Union  2012

National University of Singapore Call for Research Proposals  2011

About Kalan Chinuck

I'm a disenfranchised Canadian father of two, currently living and working in China. The abuses of the family court system were a huge wake-up call, and the articles, discussions and ideas promoted by AVfM have been inspirational. I blog at http://bcdad.blog.com.
nMy adventures in China can be followed at http://benxi.blog.com.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Bombay

    Very nice article. Thank you for bringing attention to this report.

    I found this recommendation rather outrageous:

    “Inform suicide prevention measures with an understanding of men’s beliefs, concerns and contexts in particular their views of what it is to ‘be a man’.”

    So is this supposed to prevent suicide or assist it? I could die right now just reading about their recommendations, much less be subjected to them

    Their report gives new meaning to the expression of being worth more dead than alive. I have always thought this referred to life insurance, not one’s life.

  • http://www.mralondon.org Andy Thomas (aka “Andy Man”)

    One of the best articles I’ve read in a long time.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

    Is anybody else completely sickened and disgusted by this? This is supposed to be a report into the male suicide rate and how to reduce it, and it reads like a feminism 101 wannabe paper. Funnily enough, Ruxton, we don’t really give a shit about just what effect reducing male suicide might or might not have on the LGBT community, or how reducing male suicide might benefit “society as a whole”.
    Just what the fuck are you on?

    I have emailed a link to this article to the Samaritans, with a request for comment.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42
    • http://bcdad.blog.com Kalan Chinuck

      ‘Sickened and disgusted’ is the perfect description. It is also what motivated me to write this piece.

      I’ve seen this act before, most noticeably when assessing similar work by bureaucrats in Canada.

      There is a huge disconnect between elected government and the people in most Western democracies; it is the bureaucracy and its associated sycophantic intellectuals who are largely responsible.

      • Near Earth Object

        “There is a huge disconnect between elected government and the people in most Western democracies; it is the bureaucracy and its associated sycophantic intellectuals who are largely responsible.”

        You can fool most of the people most of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

        The notion of ‘we the people’ electing our governments has been a joke for a very long time.

        Elected governments—new faces—come and go; the bureaucracy is the real bedrock and they—for the most part—instruct incoming “elected” officials on what they can and cannot do.

      • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

        “There is a huge disconnect between elected government and the people in most Western democracies; it is the bureaucracy and its associated sycophantic intellectuals who are largely responsible.”

        The insight in that statement, and throughout the article, is sharp enough to cut diamonds.

        One would think that “human compassion for all” would be a given for anyone with a modicum of intelligence and an accurate knowledge of the historical atrocities that have plagued so many “groups” within our species, including males. Apparently, some have mistaken taking a prescribed coursework within “academic education” with attaining enlightenment. Don’t get me wrong, it’s certainly possible, but obviously not guaranteed.

    • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

      I’m sickened; but something in this brings me hope!

      The writer stated they ‘intentionally’ left out fathers/male rights groups.

      IOW, they know we are coming. They know that they have the bread and butter now since they own the media and other institutions like government. Yet, unless they really are going to all come into an agreement and kill us all; they know that now is the time to take the position of high ground. They will need to position themselves to try and pummel as many of us as they are able “before” actually having to debate us in public! If ever.

      On this site it was written by PE that NOW has identified us in their inner chambers; and they are strategizing with how best to deal with us; this town ain’t big enough for two gender sheriffs I guess?

      The thing is that now we are a literal movement; maybe still a fledgling somewhat, but a movement none the less. I talk to younger kids while I go to college; I notice many of the women around these men and I actually are listening, and half of them get up after five minutes and leave!

      They can’t debate someone whose argument they don’t know; as they only know their own. They also must be aware how flawed it is?

      A flipping of the script may not be guaranteed; but it is on everyone’s horizon! The real sage may know what its eventual catalyst is going to be; but will anyone need to be an Biblical prophet of old to know they are going to position themselves to ensure they are never viewed as the culprit? Whether the catalyst is over tax abuse, child murder, or just marital lies; feminists know they have much to answer for. And they will be damned if anyone is going to force them down and make them answer for their crimes.

      I’d love to tell you we are guaranteed to win; but I am not convinced. Many of us here are going to have to put in more than just money, but a load of work. I can’t show it here, but I have put in a lot of time on an individual level talking to men at the ages I wish I would have been told. My own family questions me and my POV. They are literal manginas most of them, or the women know and hate that I am “going crazy.”

      Yet I press on; I know it will be difficult; but my sons are and their future, my future, are worth it. Consequences be damned. I love my family; but they refuse to even look at what I say. They know better! Sucks to be them.

      I want to live in a world that is free for all people, people who are motivated and capable of intellectual thought to govern themselves. Even if it is for one day!

      I, like you, see the monstrous lies and government institutions of mine enemy; and I am not looking away. They will look away, or have to kill me. Either is an option, statistically, in my mind. I can and will do it without violence; but I know that when we start getting close I may have to suffer real persecution for my views and beliefs.

      • http://bcdad.blog.com Kalan Chinuck

        There is hope, that’s an important message. But it is important to scratch the surface of the pious platitudes which invariably preface work such as the Samaritans report to discern the underlying populist themes and motifs.

        George Bernard Shaw observed that the reasonable man adapts himself to suit the world as he finds it, while the unreasonable man seeks to adapt the world to suit himself.

        A definition I recently came across reiterates the point:
        “‘Normal’ people adapt to their environment – both human and natural. ‘Abnormal’ ones try to adapt their environment – both human and natural – to their idiosyncratic needs/profile” (S. Vaknin The Conundrums of Psychology 2006).

        By these measures, the bureaucrats and intellectuals who promote the ideology du jour are normal, reasonable people, just doing their jobs, trying to make a living and get along. Those who protest are the outliers, the unreasonable.

        There is no doubt in my mind that if the current dominant ideology suddenly began embracing the superiority of males, for example, these people would be among the first to start tossing women under the bus.

        Thomas Szasz in his book Manufacturing Madness makes that very point, describing how the witch hunts of the Inquisition were carried out by the state, but it was the dominant ideology of the day (provided in this case by the Church and generally embraced at large) which provided the theoretical justification. Those with a view to personal profit and power were quick to climb on board, freely ignoring the irrational basis for their actions and the harm it was doing.

        The inevitable result was mass persecution and killing. Similar processes, involving many more deaths, have occurred since then, as we are all aware.

        This is why Hannah Arendt warned “Mass support for totalitarianism comes neither from ignorance nor from brainwashing.” It comes, in fact, from the potential for achieving reasonable goals, in terms of everything from trains running on time to making a good living, and to obtaining power, prestige and control, for those who like that sort of thing, by the means currently available in the world as we find it.

        However, as Shaw also pointed out, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. Yes there is hope, but in my view it is not to be found in the state, which by the above mechanism is in actuality the dominant player perpetuating violence in the world.

  • Keith

    “Public policy needs to respond urgently to the problems that men and boys create and the problems that they experience, according to a new report by the Coalition on Men and Boys.”

    This is doublespeak that states any problem a man has is self created. If he should ask for help….blame him.

    “In research, policy and practice to address suicide in this group of men, it is important to remember that, while they may be marginalized in power structures by social position – for example, relative to middle-class men (and sometimes women), they may also be implicated in the subordination of other groups, of women and men, including BME or LGBT groups.”

    This language should not be taken lightly, this is stating openly that research should be confined to this predetermined perspective. Research and policy should never be developed or applied without holding men responsible for subordinating anyone.

    “The needs of disadvantaged men in their mid-years must be addressed, but in ways which benefit society as a whole.”

    This statement is particularly sick; if you read it closely you will realize the statement declares that men have no needs that benefit them individually. Your needs are not your they are theirs.

    “‘Masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ are sociological concepts which can be defined as the collection of roles, behaviors, activities, expressions and practices that are broadly associated with being male or female, respectively. In this view, men’s and women’s identity, behavior and the expectations placed on them are not purely the result of their biological sex, but reflect socially constructed ideas.”

    We are all familiar with the feminist agitprop that states gender is a social construct. What is particularly insidious about this delivery is that the social construct in all cases is bi-directional. You cannot act upon anyone based on your gender without having been acted upon by others based on your gender.

    This is incredibly dehumanizing language that if followed will cost lives through negligence and neglect.
    It is fundamental hate speech popularized by corrupt pseudo- science. This is the politics of death.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    The only thing I wonder about thit article is, is the “white” part entirely accurate? I happen to know that in the US there have been stories indicating that the suicide rate for blacks may be high than reported because there’s a strong cultural taboo about suicide in American black culture and there are efforts in that community to try to cover up suicides as accidents. It isn’t clear to me that black men are really less likely to do it.

    • Bombay
      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        Ah, thanks. Looking at that I found this, which charts it (in the US) by racial demographic:

        http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/statistics/rates01.html

        For a number of reasons, I’m unsurprised that Inuit/Native American males have the highest suicide rate of all; these people are living under a set of government policies that make men a near-complete irrelevancy.

        I am suspicious of the suicide figures for black men because there has been more than one story I’ve seen in the last few years of active efforts within the black community to actively cover up suicide attempts due to it being a very strong taboo. Even the attempt is considered deeply shameful to the entire family. Thus drug overdoses, shooting yourself, etc. may often be strongly played off as “accidents” that aren’t. I wouldn’t call it a government conspiracy per se, but in predominantly black areas even police may be somewhat complicit in looking the other way to spare family feelings. I don’t know as much about hispanic culture (I have a lot of black friends, nowhere near as many latino) but given the strong Catholic cultural leanings of that subgroup it wouldn’t surprise me.

        None of this is to say that ignoring the plight of white males is in any way less tragic here, and it may indeed be that they suicide at higher rates than blacks or hispanics, since looking at that chart it would be hard to imagine that 2/3rds of black men’s suicides are successfully played off by family and authorities as accidents. So I would guess the white male suicide rate is higher than black or hispanic. I just note that for blacks and hispanics it may be higher than it looks.

        Morever, we should give just as much of a damn about white suicides anyway. A man in so much pain he kills himself is in such enormous pain he’d rather die than go on, and I genuinely think I’d prefer to have a limb gnawed off by a wild animal than go through that level of pain.

        • Raykyn

          “I just note that for blacks and hispanics it may be higher than it looks.”

          I agree with this in part. I think it’s likely that in certain low-income areas a suicide might simply be classed as an unresolved homicide, but can that be attributed only to blacks or hispanics? Further, how many actual homicides might just have been classed as a suicide because the authorities are too busy sending SWAT teams on DV calls to properly investigate?

          • Aimee McGee

            Then there is ‘death by cop’, which can be a suicide method

        • August Løvenskiolds

          As I understand it, Catholic theology is damning to suicides to the point where it is forbidden to bury them in Catholic cemeteries. One would imagine that this would artificially suppress reports of Catholic suicides as well.

        • Aimee McGee

          We also wonder in NZ about ‘autocides’, where single men are in road accidents which could be deliberate
          Common amongst Maori and Pacifica men

    • Keith

      Dean to be honest I don’t believe the statistics. I think men in the black community may be more likely put at risk through employment and other factors. I think the requirement or willingness to be at risk is one of several predetermining social factors that contribute to suicide.

      But I will say this; the language of this report or study or whatever they call it has me fucking fuming.

    • John A

      Dean, the term “white (hetro) men” should not be used with its ordinary meaning. White (hetro) men is a feminist technical term the means men the we don’t give a fuck about unless they do something that annoys us. So “white hetro men” just means they deserve no sympathy, even if they are not white and not hetro.

    • James C

      But this really isn’t about the US.
      Regardless of whether the statistics are correct, the reason for that part of the article is pretty clear to me;

      “they may also be implicated in the subordination of other groups, of women and men, including BME or LGBT groups.”

      “BME” means black or minority ethnicity, which is a euphemism for “anyone who isn’t white”. The report is basically saying unless you are a gay or a BME man you probably deserve what you get.
      This terminology really bothers me, I am a second generation immigrant from Hungary to the UK, who on paper is considered “white” although only in the right light. Despite my “ethnicity” being a minority in this country the label BME doesn’t apply to me and I am somehow a privileged person despite my parents arriving with only the clothes on their backs.
      It just boggles my mind how in this “post-racial” society, your skin colour is the most important thing to the so called anti-racists.

      • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

        Upvoted!

        Honestly, I can’t agree more.

        The fact is that the most productive members of our society happened to be white, and male. Stating this, even from members of our own crowd, can get you the suspicious eye of the “I’m not racist crowd.”

        Honestly, must I be a black, gay male to acknowledge what I see in front of me as a white straight male with kids, one of whom I am not allowed to see?

        Or worse; if and when we do when do I become the next feminist grievance machine to “wipe out ‘matriarchy'” everywhere?

        I am of the school that we don’t need rights, but merely enforced law that doesn’t discriminate based on most anyhting; if anything at all. If you do anything messed up, and you don’t have an obvious and valid reason why; away with you. That’s it.

        The fact that we don’t have that you noted pretty welll with this: “It just boggles my mind how in this “post-racial” society, your skin colour is the most important thing to the so called anti-racists.”-JC

        I would add gender identity, orientation, nationality of the oppressed is so important to the so called “anti-everything that makes them uncomfortable and therefore justified in all manner of grievance and irritable behavior.”

        I am high past the point of not caring what happens to any of them; maybe that makes me wrong to. Yet like I said; I don’t care to help those who don’t care either!

  • Grimbold

    The objectionable part of Ruxton’s attitude is that men apparently have no value in and of themselves. Their worth must be considered in the light of their utility to women, or “society”- as though society doesn’t actually include the men in question.

    • Raykyn

      Exactly. If helping men “hurts” society, or doesn’t help everyone else, scrap helping men.

  • Keith

    Bye the way Kalun this is an excellent article, very upsetting but excellent. Thank you for this.

  • Stephen O’Brian

    Kalan,
    Thank you for a very erudite, well written and hugely important article.
    It takes my breath away that guys like Ruxton can so callously use male suicide as a rational to feather their own nests via yet more funding for feminists.
    What a cruel deluded parasite he turned out to be.

  • the Tired Low Social

    >(Actually I haven’t, but then I don’t get out much.)

    this applies to me far more than i’d care to think about. as well, this may be a bit of an indication as to why to more and more young men are going to mediums like the internet and video games. much more entertaining and a lot less bullshit to deal with

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    Thank you for this analysis Kalan,

    A report that might have given significant insight into male suicide ruined by being constructed from a narrow and exclusive feminist perspective.

    It is true as stated in the reports introduction :

    “It is time to extend suicide prevention beyond its focus on individual mental health problems, to understand the social and cultural context which contributes to people feeling
    they wish to die. ”

    Social determinants are indeed critical in reducing suicide regardless of sex. But trying to view these social determinants though the lens of feminist ideology is doomed to failure.

    As you have pointed out the report sees the problem as men’s own fault, a problem of broken / dysfunctional masculinity and a problem only worth fixing if it benefits “society” ( read feminism) , male lives of themselves mean nothing only their utility and disposability for the greater good of “society”.

    • Bev

      The problems of male farmer suicide in Australia has been highlighted by Bob Katter and the CWA (Country Women Association). Bob Katter is sincere in raising the problem however if you read through the CWA thoughts and read between the line it is about the effect on them not about farmers suicide. Many women in the CWA are genuinely interested in men’s welfare but more and more the dialog is morphing into a feminist dialog. Not the effect on men but what it means for women.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    It was windy and cold this evening in Los Angeles. As I drove into the grocery store parking lot, I spotted a homeless man in a wheelchair behind some portable buildings. He was somewhat obscured by a pile of trash that the wind had piled up around him. His head was bowed and resting on his chest.

    I proceeded into the store and got the pint of ice cream my taste buds told me I wanted, but I kept thinking about that homeless man in the wheelchair, then my inner voice whispered a little angrily, “He’s a human being.”

    I walked back to my truck, got in, took a few bucks out of my wallet then drove right over to where I’d seen the homeless man. He was still there. As I got out of the truck with money in hand, his head was still down and he wasn’t moving. “Hey,” I said, “how you doing?” He stirred slightly and murmured something inaudible. I could see clutched tightly in his right hand an uncapped screw top bottle that had been wrapped in a paper bag.

    “Here you go,” I said as I handed him the few bucks. “I wish I could do more. God bless you.” In a stupor he reached out and took the money without saying a word, then I drove off.

    Did I do the right thing? I don’t know. He’ll probably spend the money to buy more of his version of human anti-freeze.

    “He’s a human being,” I whispered to myself as I drove away. “He deserves better than that.”

    • keyster

      I volunteer at the local food bank/soup kitchen. I don’t eat with the staff, I eat with the patrons.

      About 50% are white male, the rest are a mixture of mexican men and women and a few white women.

      These are broken men who’ve simply given up caring. No one loves them, they’re barely subsisting. They have no value to anyone in particular, because they’re not working at anything. Some have mental problems, worsened by being outcast from society.

      Some of the stories will tear you up.

      There are two forms of food bank patrons, those with housing somewhere and those that are homeless or living in their cars. Most of the food bank patrons are illegal mexican mothers, with bambinos in tow – they get the govt funded food. They fill out a different form. The truly homeless or living in their cars get all the donated food only, from local businesses and churches. These are predominantly white men. They have more variety, but sometimes we’re out of basics like milk and eggs. I always double-up on what they’re allowed if no one is watching…plus the women volunteers don’t like dealing with them, so their request will often sit until me or another male volunteer handles it.

      One guy was asking for meat one day and we had none, so I stole it from the govt only allotment. I told him to keep it on the low-down.

      • Bev

        Several years ago in Australia there was a government program to do something about homeless people. Two groups main groups were singled out for aid homeless teenagers and homeless men. The runner up was homeless families and women with children. The definition of homelessness was changed to include those staying with relatives and friends. Then a campaign was started to proclaim that women and children fleeing DV were the biggest cohort of the homeless. The program still supports teenagers (emphasise on girls) but the central drive has morphed into women and children fleeing DV. Even though they are not on the streets and most do have a roof over their head. Homeless men have dropped off the radar. They are no longer a priority.

        • keyster

          “The definition of homelessness was changed to include those staying with relatives and friends.”

          We have that here too.
          If you’re over 18 and still living with your parents, you’re considered homeless and qualify for food. I don’t see much of that. The younger people are drug addicts; peircings, tats, colored hair, etc. They’ll accept the food and try and sell or return it to a store for drug money.

          We get senior citizens who are living on minimum social security of a few hundred a month. Mostly though it’s Mexicans. Our town really takes care of it’s hispanic population – food, housing, medical care, dental, child care, etc. – because they almost always have children.

          The illegal ethnic mother with children is at the top of the heirarchy. The middle-aged white guy is at the bottom. He’s scary and threatening, probably an ex-con or pervert.

          P.S. – I can tell if a mexican is illegal by looking at their record in the system – they’ll be using someone elses social security number, a friend or relative. Some numbers will have 6 or 7 illegals associated with it.

    • Near Earth Object

      Probabilities aside—because that is all they are—you did a humane thing.
      May I suggest that you give yourself your due.

  • Aimee McGee

    Practical activism by stealth here – anyone who works in health can use the PHQ-9 screening tool and can risk assess for suicidality in those who give a positive response to question 9.
    Signposting/alerting mental health services/speaking to GP on behalf of…all can be done.
    Do it with 90% of male clients

    • Stephen O’Brian

      That’s lovely Aimee.
      From my previous work as a social worker – 2 things together that are markers of potential suicide risk.
      1. Loss of community
      2. Loss of identity

      Exactly what men alienated from family during unilateral no fault divorce often experience.

      [About 30,000 people die by suicide each year in America. It is the ninth leading cause of death in this country, and higher for men than women.
      And it’s not just an American problem. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Canadian youth and young adults. Worldwide, there are an estimated 10 million to 20 million attempted suicides each year.
      In fact, the suicide rate is higher than the homicide rate: Nearly a third more people die at their own hands than die at other people’s hands (the murder rate in America is about 6 per 100,000; for suicides it’s 10.8).
      So for every two murders you hear about, three other people killed themselves.
      One reason that people believe homicide is much more common than suicide is because of the news media’s selective coverage]

      from – http://www.livescience.com/7360-suicide-common-homicide.html

      • Aimee McGee

        By the time a man makes it to my service, he’s likely had one of those two things happen. I also have a big understanding that men who are depressed often don’t present as depressed – alexthymia and somatic pain are two big clues.
        I’ve had stand up rows with female colleagues being scared that by identifying suicidality, you are increasing risk…where all the evidence points to the benefit of identification and risk assessment.
        Only had to activate a Section 72 plan with support from a doc once – but I’m not afraid to do it either

      • http://bcdad.blog.com Kalan Chinuck

        In that context, it surprises me that the numbers aren’t higher. Men are a resilient lot.

        • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

          Kalan, your point about resilience reminded me of a passage from Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ (it’s available outside the UK and in a Kindle edition with the title, ‘Exposing Feminism: The Thirty Years’ War Against Men’). I just had to track it down:

          Tim Lott, the writer, identifies this nicely. I know that I have used this quote before but it is also relevant in the present context. There is a passage in his book ‘Love Secrets of Don Juan’ in which the hero, Danny, is at his ex-wife’s house (formerly his home) for their child’s birthday party. The ex-wife’s new boyfriend and female friends are there. Danny asks the women if they think that men and women are equal; and all agree that they are. Danny asks them to name some of the things that women are better at. A long list ensues, also contributed to by the ex-wife’s new boyfriend. Then Danny asks the group, ‘What are the special virtues of men?’:

          ‘Silence. More silence. An embarrassed giggle from Charlotte…”I’ll tell you one thing men are better at,” I say, flatly. “Putting up with things. Biting their lip, and putting up with things. Putting up with bucketloads and bucketloads of absolute shit being poured over their head. And not fighting back. They’re better at not fighting back. They’re better at taking it, taking it, taking it, and then just walking away.” Without another word, I turn on my heel and walk through to the kitchen…’

          Mike Buchanan

          JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
          (and the women who love them)

          http://j4mb.wordpress.com

          • http://bcdad.blog.com Kalan Chinuck

            That’s so accurate; the fundamentally pacifist nature of most men astonishes me at times, despite all the rhetoric of male violence and abuse.

            I think Angry Harry once pointed out that violence is a fairly reasonable response when one’s children are kidnapped and home and assets confiscated, yet men prefer to walk away, or die quietly by their own hand, rather than turn on their abusers.

    • Bev

      In Australia threatening to commit suicide in front of your wife is a DV offence. It is not a plea for help it is upsetting the woman so you can be arrested and thrown out of your house. Help is seldom offered. If he does suicide shoulder shrugs, no loss he was a nasty DV perpertrator.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    Glen Poole highlights some data on male suicide here
    http://helpingmenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/helping-men-in-itn-male-suicide-debate.html

    and followed on from the Samaritans speaker in this Truthloader discussion at about the 9 minute mark

    societies view is that “women have problems and men are problems”

    • Laddition

      “societies view is that “women have problems and men are problems””

      I thought that this was the perfect quote.

      It is why I am utterly uninterested in hearing about any problems encountered by women or girls. I do NOT care about them until they care about the males (and I mean equally, not just empty words about ‘feminists seeking equality for men and women’ – that is a bare faced lie IMHO). I will clearly state this if asked by anyone for a charitable donation to any non-male specific charity.

      Enough.

      Until they hear a flat out statement like this they will continue ignore us.

  • TheSandreGuy

    Men’s suffering = Something inherently wrong with masculinity?

    Then tell me why we should care about women’s suffering.

  • Spark

    This is infuriating. I had to stop reading halfway through to calm myself before finishing.
    >the needs of men cannot be addressed unless doing so ‘benefits society as a whole.’
    Am I paranoid or does this really sound like men are considered to have no value outside of their utility to society? Talk about disposability.
    Just imagine the outrage this exact same statement would spark if it was about women.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I take “benefits society as a whole” to mean “find a way to help men without stepping on women’s toes”.

      In other words, no helping men get jobs if it takes job opportunities away from women, even though men suicide from job loss and women don’t (generalities, generalities).

      Helping men get jobs wouldn’t help “society as a whole” because it interferes with helping woman get jobs, whereas handing out anti depressants and sending them on their way doesn’t interfere with “society”.

      Hopefully Mom’s basement is available.

      I’m wondering if “suicide by cop” would ever be included in these studies.

  • tomomi

    That was a very interesting article. I’ll try to read the original report because I need to see it with my own eyes.

  • Stu

    Maybe men should just say, men should not do anything to help society unless it benefits men.

  • 98abaile

    Has this article been emailed to any MPs?
    Also I find it deeply ironic in a report about male suicide, that men get the blame for it despite the constant harping on by intellectuals about others “blaming the victim” (of course the idea that a “victim” cannot be blamed for their own circumstance is intellectually dishonest anyway, but it’s the double standards that I’m highlighting).

  • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

    An outstanding critique of the Samaritans report, along with related commentary. I confess I hadn’t had the time to read the report in detail before directing people to it.

    Unemployment is believed to be a bigger driver of suicide among men than women, possibly because men are less likely to be supported by their partners after being made redundant than women. I understand male redundancy is a leading risk factor in divorce proceedings being instituted.

    In the UK, for every three women registered as unemployed, four men are. Almost two-thirds of public sector employees are women. The Equality Act (2010) allows public sector employers to favour groups with ‘protected characteristics’ when recruiting and promoting. It hardly needs saying that one of those groups is women. All women, in all places, at all times. This assault on male employment is largely financed by male taxpayers. The same assault is happening in the private sector, although positive discrimination is illegal. I hear all the time of men being passed over for promotion in favour of less qualified women. Very often those women then lean heavily for support on the very men they’ve just been promoted over. Yet I can’t recall a single case of a man taking a company to court over the matter. I guess to do so would be career suicide.

    In November 2012 I sat on a panel giving evidence to a House of Commons inquiry on ‘Women in the Workplace’. Also on the panel was Heather McGregor, who has long owned and run a London-based headhunter, Taylor Bennett. She was a founder member of the 30% club which has campaigned very successfully for an increase in female representation on corporate boards. At the House of Commons inquiry she proudly pointed to the gender balance in her own company. Of the 22 directors and employees, 20 are women. Welcome to a woman’s idea of a good gender balance.

    Across much of the public and private sectors alpha males are handing over power to women on a plate. Those women then abuse that power, by shamelessly favouring women over men.

    Mike Buchanan

    Justice for Men & Boys
    http://j4mb.wordpress.com

    • napocapo69

      spot on

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

      “Unemployment is believed to be a bigger driver of suicide among men than women, possibly because men are less likely to be supported by their partners after being made redundant than women.”

      A recent example:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-21517763

  • napocapo69

    Thanks for the article.
    It reminded me the WHO (UN) program on tackling suicide; “intervention will be prioritized where suicide rate is higher for women and children” … despite it was acknowledged that the rate of suicide for men was 4 time higher than for women.
    Just that.

  • feeriker

    Kalan said in response to Mike Buchanan:

    That’s so accurate; the fundamentally pacifist nature of most men astonishes me at times, despite all the rhetoric of male violence and abuse.

    I think Angry Harry once pointed out that violence is a fairly reasonable response when one’s children are kidnapped and home and assets confiscated, yet men prefer to walk away, or die quietly by their own hand, rather than turn on their abusers.

    As I frequently point out, men have adopted a pacifistic “front” (and that’s exactly what it is – a front, nothing more) over the last several decades because we know that if we were to let the true power of our innate rage kick in in response to all the injustices we suffer, the results would be horrific and catastrophic for all concerned – not least of all for ourselves.

    Most of us, it is reasonable to say, are essentially peaceful, [natural]law-abiding, loving, and giving people. Historically –and one could probably make the case that this is evolutionary “hard wiring” — we have generally reacted in violent anger to our circumstances only when we or our families, especially our children, are directly threatened. And, historically, there were generally not only no repercussions for doing so, but such a reaction was generally expected of a man as a father and head of a household.

    Not anymore.

    I need not rehash, for this readership, the societal upheavals of the last half century that changed all of this. Suffice it to say that any man who refuses to adapt to the shackles placed upon him by the violent police state aided and abetted wholeheartedly by the feminist movement is a man marked for certain death regardless of what he ultimately does or does not do in reaction to his circumstances. Once his children are seized from him by the police state that is his children’s mother’s all-too-willing servant (fatherless children are a key asset to the all-controlling police state’s advancement of its agenda), he faces a classic Hobson’s choice: fight back with all the violence he can muster and be slaughtered in the process, leaving his children at the mercy of their conniving, unfit mother while they suffer the trauma of their father’s violent death; or, alternatively, he can simply roll over and let the same thing happen to his children, his death equally inevitable, but being reduced this time to a slow, life-draining process of legal sanctions, impoverishment, bankruptcy, and alienation of the children he loves. Either way, he loses everything. But he realizes that reacting in the way any husband and father normally and instinctively would to direct threats on his family is only going to make it worse for the children he loves.

    Given this, it is no wonder that so many men see death by their own hand as the only way out. When there are no visible, just options left in the world of the living, one can easily understand the temptation to leave that world.

    • Bombay

      Exactly. You can live to fight another day or die.

      No one is there when the government locks you up for not yielding to the state. No one is there, (except Ray) when you loose your house, job and family. Anyone who criticizes someone for not fighting, most likely has not been there or is not on this forum because they are dead, in jail or homeless on the street.

      • feeriker

        Anyone who criticizes someone for not fighting, most likely has not been there or is not on this forum because they are dead, in jail or homeless on the street.

        EXACTLY! What really makes my blood boil to no end is to hear people shame someone, male or female, who has in some way “given up,” including having attempted suicide. You, I, or those we know may never have reached that point of absolute, end-of-the-road desperation, which is all the more reason we have no right to heap shame or guilt upon those who have. Until we’ve walked a mile in their shoes, we have no way of knowing what that ultimate desperation feels like. Ergo, we have no right to judge them.

        On this same topic, I hear frequent calls for “intervention” of some sort when someone has reached that end-of-the-line point in their life. I would be VERY careful with such advice and first be sure to determine exactly what that “intervention” should consist of. My own rule of thumb is this: if “intervention” consists of enlisting the services of anyone who is in any way connected to ANY level of government, then forget it, The consequences of involving such people and the entities they work for are often just as lethal as if the person had been allowed to end things on their own (primary directive in preventing a suicide: never, never, EVER call the cops. See here, here, and here for just three examples among many that demonstrate why having cops intervene in a potential suicide is the worst decision imaginable). In particular, having “mental health professionals” intervene is a sure-fire way to cause a whole new round of unending grief for a man whose world is already crumbling. Despite the BS your hear to the contrary, there is very much of a stigma attached to suicide and the supposed “mental illness” that is almost reflexively blamed for causing it. Being branded a “suicide risk” will subject the man already hard down to being kicked about even more severely than ever. If he hasn’t had access to his children up until this point, he will probably never see them again after unsuccessfully attempting suicide and once the State gets involved afterward. Is he employed? Odds are that he won’t be after attempting suicide, especially if his job involves a position of trust or a government-issued security clearance. And good luck to him in finding new employment with his newly acquired “record” that is the direct end-product of “intervention” ostensibly designed to “help” him.

        So what’s the solution? Damned if I know what the ideal is, but I would start by keeping any “intervention” strictly personal and unofficial wherever possible, without involving the intervention of any entity that has even tenuous connections to officialdom.

        • Near Earth Object

          “EXACTLY! What really makes my blood boil to no end is to hear people shame someone, male or female, who has in some way “given up,” including having attempted suicide. You, I, or those we know may never have reached that point of absolute, end-of-the-road desperation, which is all the more reason we have no right to heap shame or guilt upon those who have. Until we’ve walked a mile in their shoes, we have no way of knowing what that ultimate desperation feels like. Ergo, we have no right to judge them.”

          I agree with the statement above.

          As a former suicide counselor—at the R.F.I.C.—shaming an individual with suicide ideation is tantamount to kicking their already wobbly legs out from under them. Don’t do it! The game, if you will, is to invite and encourage hope, even if that be for the next few minutes only.

          As a professional, and with a fiduciary responsibility to preserve life, I was required to find larger shoulders when everything I was trained to do had proven ineffective. On occasion, this would necessitate involvement by the Police.

          You don’t want to be a suicide counselor and you most certainly don’t want to be a Police Officer responding to a suicide call. Time ticks differently!

          It may interest you to know that the following quotation by Arthur Schopenhauer was included in our initial training material.

          “They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice… that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”

        • Near Earth Object

          “EXACTLY! What really makes my blood boil to no end is to hear people shame someone, male or female, who has in some way “given up,” including having attempted suicide. You, I, or those we know may never have reached that point of absolute, end-of-the-road desperation, which is all the more reason we have no right to heap shame or guilt upon those who have. Until we’ve walked a mile in their shoes, we have no way of knowing what that ultimate desperation feels like. Ergo, we have no right to judge them.”

          I agree with the statement above.

          As a former suicide counselor—at the R.F.I.C.—shaming an individual with suicide ideation is tantamount to kicking their already wobbly legs out from under them. Don’t do it! The game, if you will, is to invite and encourage hope, even if that be for the next few minutes only.

          As a professional, and with a fiduciary responsibility to preserve life, I was required to find larger shoulders when everything I was trained to do had proven ineffective. On occasion, this would necessitate involvement by the Police.

          You don’t want to be a suicide counselor and you most certainly don’t want to be a Police Officer responding to a suicide call. Time ticks differently!

          It may interest you to know that the following quotation by Arthur Schopenhauer was included in our initial training material.

          “They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice… that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”

      • Bev

        Plus men are criticized for loosing touch with their children. It is their fault they just did not try hard enough so they have no grounds for complaint. So when mum makes impossible conditions for visits he must comply or his complaints are just dismissed.

  • Groot

    From a gender perspective, I don’t see suicide as a white male problem. While white males statistically commit suicide at a higher rate than males of the other major ethnic/racial groups (not including American Indians/Native Americans), white women likewise commit suicide at a similarly higher rate than women of other groups, thus from a gender perspecitve, that makes it a wash.

    If anything, since black males commit suicide at a rate 5 times than of black females compared to white males commiting suicide at a rate 4 times that of white females, the suicide gender gap is actually greater among blacks. Plus, black males commit suicide just short of 2 times the rate of white women.

    So suicide is not a white male issue, but rather could be seen as both a white issue and a general male issue.

  • Spoon

    I think that the report is largely correct. The suicide rate is much higher for men because traditional masculinity, stupidly referred to as “hegemonic masculinity” and greatly misrepresented, puts an immense burden on men that women don’t have to contend with. There are some troubling, disgusting parts of the report though.

    Reading through the report I noticed a trend.

    “The inability to express distressing emotion is
    considered to be a risk factor for suicide. Compared to women, men tend to have less awareness and ability to cope with their own emotions or the emotions of others. This lack of emotional knowledge is part of the construction of masculinity, rooted in beliefs developed from childhood, that to disclose – or even experience –
    emotional distress constitutes weakness.”

    They say beliefs are developed in childhood. Like the boy just developed them himself. This is just stupid. Beliefs are learned. I suspect that they chose the words they did because if you say that something is learned then the next question is, “Taught by who?” Following this is the possibility that women help reinforce the rules of traditional masculinity. These people are dedicated to the non-agent image of women. My grandfather’s brother was injured in a car accident and couldn’t work anymore. He had little education because he had to work as a child to help the family. This man’s wife often called him useless because the money he got from selling alcohol on the nearby reservation was too little to fully support the family. He sucked on a shotgun and then everyone wondered why. Women mock men and call them gay for having close male friends. They tell boys to suck it up and not show pain when they are bleeding. Everybody in society enforces the rules of traditional masculinity, even women. Women benefit greatly from doing so.

    -Ruxton also advises that the needs of men cannot be addressed unless doing so ‘benefits society as a whole.’-

    That’s not surprising.

    The answer to the burdensome aspects of traditional masculinity is not feminism. Feminism is completely gynocentric and only views men as tools that either serve or damage the interests of women. This whole anti-suicide effort is actually about changing men to serve women better, not the benfit or help men. Feminism will only ever help men when doing so directly helps women. They will portray it as being pro-male when it is only unintentionally so. They are seeking to co-opt the problem of male suicides. The great, reeking, black octopus that feminism is continues to curl it’s tentacles around everything that it can.

    By the way, that octopus eats government money and shits hate.

    • feeriker

      -Ruxton also advises that the needs of men cannot be addressed unless doing so ‘benefits society as a whole.’-

      “Society as a whole” = everyone other than white, heterosexual males.

      The cowardly mangina doesn’t even have the guts to say what he really means. But then again, that’s part of what being a cowardly mangina is all about.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

    It took me about a half dozen times to read through this article.
    It wasn’t that it was poorly written or that the subject matter isn’t a Men’s Human Rights issue, it just struck close to home.
    I’ve experienced, I guess almost the full spectrum of the fallout from suicide. About the only situation I haven’t experienced is having a child of mine kill themselves.
    I can honestly say this article forced me to go walk my dog a few times due to righteous indignation at the ‘Samaritan’ paper.

    Thanks for your work on this Kalan.

  • John A

    Great article and great comments.

    On white male privilege, can I just point out that black people have black children and Chinese people have Chinese children, Indians, etcetera… These children inherit the privileges or lack of privileges from their parents along with cultural expectations, wealth and education.

    Now, when a white couple have children, it is not normally the case that women have girl children and men have boy children. So a daughter will inherit the privilege from her rich white daddy, while a son could grow up in poverty with his single mother.

    Therefore, using feminist ‘logic’ a white boy who was abused and grew up in poverty with a single mother has more privilege than, say, Chelsea Clinton or any number of rich white girls. Only an ignorant, bigoted or stupid person would agree with that logic, but I already said that.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Let me cut to the chase here…good article by the way. Policy follows culture, in that light men need to work on that culture aspect by working together and not looking to government to fix things. Men are as responsible for our boy’s suicides as the current culture and policies. Let me explain: Most men particularly successful men have remained focused on their life’s work/goals and families. In doing this we’ve left our peers contemporaries and boys behind. There is nothing more isolating than being a young man in today’s society, especially when women are raising our boys. Now we can work on changing policy but I’d place my money on men becoming more aware of the situation and developing support and mentoring groups to help these kids along.

  • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

    “Ruxton is also lead author/researcher of a report commissioned by the EU entitled The Involvement of Men in Gender Equality Initiatives in the European Union.” – There you go. And then people ask me why do I want EU dismantled and my country out of it. Well, this is one amongst the many reasons.
    Another reason is that it is being lead by a Moist (mr. Barroso), which essentially is a radical communist, and the judicial affairs are being lead by a militant Marxist-feminist and the former leader of the EU was a member of the KGB. What do these people have in common, besides being commies? Well, they were all raised in the father of the feminist ideology.

    I am sorry to say, but until the markets will force EU’s dismantlement, the situation will only get worse and nothing less in terms of misandry should be expected from these people.

    More to come on the radio show on March 8th :D

  • Europa Phoenix

    Rest in peace, Dad.

  • Robert Sides

    > ” ‘Society as a whole’ = everyone other than white, heterosexual males.”

    I’ve always been leery when hearing an emphasis on “gay, cis, trans, lesbian, dwarf, albino, cockeyed” segments of society. I cringe, then get pissed, because the purpose of such segmentation is to shame heterosexual Caucasian men.

    Of course, when ignored/blamed SWMs (“straight white men”) finally protest, they’re told they either have “all the power” or are victims, too (but always less than women) of the booga-booga “Patriarchy.”

    It’s a recipe for disaster. Feminitwits light slow-burn fuses that sizzle-snap-snake, yet don’t expect to hear “Kablooey!” when the bombs ultimately ignite.

    Feminists use Patriarchy because it has “pater” at its base… and thus blames men without appearing to. Don’t see that? Try calling it Matriarchy, stipulating that women are sometimes victims, too. See how perceptions change.

    Feminism’s goal is to make half the adult world children who are responsible for nothing, protected by patriarchal government agencies (Big Daddy!). Male wage-slave taxes are used to feed the fembot Octopus.

    The more I hear folks being sensitive to the plight of “womyn,” the more I see them think it’s okay to kick “dead white men” in the balls.

    The center of that mad mess can’t hold.

    If it’s one thing men know, it’s fighting. Because they’ve always been expected to deal with intruders. To handle the person who won’t listen to reason. To protect the the grain he sweated to plant, weed, harvest, thresh, and store. He learned there comes a point when reason fails to stop her from grabbing his hard-earned sacks of flour. At that point more talk is useless.

    So it is with feminists. They continually con, confuse, and show contempt for men, counting on socialization to keep guys in-check. They count on traditional “masculinity” to stop men from expressing pain or fighting back. They need males to be dis-united, too, so name-call any protesters.

    So far it’s more or less worked. They’re been isolated “snipers” firing back at feminist bombardments, but not enough to change anything.

    You saw a perfect example of “harmless, peaceful, wanting only fairness” fembotulism at the University of Toronto. A “nice” male speaker was mocked, demonized, and lied about. Another “nice” guy who wanted to hear “ideas” discussed at a place of supposed higher education (whose friends had recently committed suicide) was harassed by fembot goons (the same ones who made it a crime to “look at” women with desire!). Some “nice” cops stood by, too, letting the goons win. To wit: humans who were actually, factually peaceful and nice, passive and inquisitive were shouted at, bullied, pushed, blocked, and intimidated by feminazis who SAY they’re pure as the driven snow.

    The difference this time? “Male-created” technology (in the form of camcorders) and Elam’s Army were deployed. They went on the offensive. They showed the new price to be paid for using old feminist thuggery.

    The lesson must be reinforced. We must continue to carry the fight to misandric muttonheads who’ve ruined whole societies while being pampered. We must press on, taking no prisoners, because it’s the only way the fembots will be stopped. Being bigots, they are impervious to logic. It does no good to be “reasonable” with them. They will always fart in the face of honesty, snark at common sense, and insist on citations they have no intention of reading. Ever.

    So, onward and upward!

    FTSU!

    [Oh, and for metaphorically obtuse: I mean fighting back symbolically, but effectively. No guns, just gumption and guile.]

    Feminists repeatedly swear they’re for equality, yet spent a half-century demonizing men, offering guys less and less of the “good life” while adding more and more pain.

    How was/is that equal?

    Feminists also lied through their teeth, using pulled-from-fundaments “factoids.” They said, for example, that boys got “called on” more in class, thereby justifying more attention being paid to girls. What they forgot to say was boys were “called on” more to be DISCIPLINED (for not acting enough like girls). It was like saying raped girls get more “sexual attention” than nuns.

    Title IX was supposed to be about equal funding for ALL programs in state-run educational institutions. But instead of males getting “Men’s Studies,” females got “sports.” Why? Because feminists counted on men being emotionally shamed into not championing their own needs. So men in college lost wrestling teams, guys in middle school did penance in class while girls went on “Take Our Daughters to Work Day” field trips, and boys in grammar school were drugged to kill their Inner Maleness.

    On their own, feminists will never allow men equal courses to study manhood. In fact, like equal custody post-divorce, they will fight it. And they expect men to either not notice such sexism or be too “ashamed” to speak out.

    On and on it goes, feminists lying, endlessly spewing heifershite. Now they whine that they didn’t “mean” to be mean. They pretend feminism somehow helped the word, ignoring the fact that entire segments of societies are now in the shitter.

    Keeeerist: do they actually think having millions of men not in college, who refuse to marry, a GOOD thing? Probably, because feminists only care about females… and then only in the short term. Who, for example, will replace childless fembots societally in the future? What life will daughters born to feminists today have when future males shun them and refuse to pave the roads Cupcake needs to drive on to teach her “Masculine Attributes of Hemorrhoids” post-doctoral course?

    Will women majoring in “Lesbian Labial Literature in Latin America” make the next iPads?

    You know what happens to women when men choose not to protect or pamper them? They become other men’s slaves.

    Think the Taliban will fund DV shelters for women who attack fathers and steal kids for money?

    There are now encyclopedic “regulations” legitimizing the demonization of men in jobs, schools, etc. while paying huge salaries to “diversity experts” who dump on half the world.

    How are such things good?

    Women’s groups have removed all incentive for men to care about females or “society.” Do feminists think that will “long endure”?

    We should promote “Consequence Hours.” For one hour each week men around the world should simultaneously stop working. Let feminists and their mangina/white knight allies experience the future… you know, when men are “no longer needed.”

    Think mechanical drones will someday replace men? Go for it, grrrrrrls! Because fembots won’t be able to understand, much less repair, said robots. Yet I suspect boyos can, and will, create sexbot and artificial wombs to replace the “fair sex.”

    The career of most womyn in future will be “Sammich Assembler.”

    Men are finally marching to meet crazed wimmin on battlefields in the uncivil war the latter has waged for decades.

    Should prove interesting.

    “Hut-one, hut-two….!”