You Literally Won’t Believe These Mind-Blowing Simple Statistics… And How Wrong People Are About Them

Getting a bit sick of this post, actually. I should really get around to re-writing it with some newer information and statistics rather than leaving it scattered around 20 different comment sections. Either way, the take-home point for MRAs sharing this sort of thing remains the same – quit your bullshit persecution complex and get over yourself you whiny self-entitled prick.


How d’you like my attempt at a click-bait headline? Cool, eh? *wink-wink*

Anyway, here are the statistics in question. They’re a specific formulation of something I’ve seen 4-5 times in different ways. It concerns how “hard done by” men actually are – and therefore is a complete and thorough deconstruction and destruction of feminism and women’s rights.

privilege

Fucking women… Bah!

Hopefully, it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out where this is going. The above is bullshit – not that the stats lie, but that their application is flawed. I’ll cover a general response first for brevity and then, for completeness, look at each one individually lest someone whines about missing a point. This is extensive, but that’s the issue with bullshit; it takes a long time to thoroughly dismantle to the point where you can begin to start correcting things. I won’t re-explain what “privilege” means, I’ll try to avoid even raising it as an issue so that anyone reading this won’t need to understand it.

Summary

Overall, none of these statistics (save one, just, see below) have anything to do with gender. Gender is not a causal factor in these cases.* That’s it, basically. If you cannot be bothered to read further (I won’t blame you for that) then that’s your take home message. Those stats above are not male issues or problems in the way that, say, breast cancer or being raped is a female problem.** No one is being targeted in these situations because they are male, and if you can’t spot that, I’ll reiterate how that works for each point below.

Secondly, most of the people who regurgitate these statistics – whom I refer to as MRAssholes, because “MRA” alone suggests that they’re both interested in rights and activism, but this isn’t the case – are simply not interested in addressing these statistics and the dependencies. This sort of thing is used exclusively as a whine – “look how bad us men have it!!” or “see, women are privileged too!” That’s all. No thought, no solutions, no progress; just whining.

These apparent “activists” have demonstrably no interest in addressing these issues, or real issues that actually arise from being male. A simple search for “Men United” (the prostate cancer awareness campaign ran by Prostate Cancer UK) amongst the usual suspects of Men’s Rights on the internet, even the UK-based ones, produces absolute nada as a result. If their interest was in helping men for problems arising because they were men, that sort of thing would be front page news. But no, they instead want to attack women, and blame women, for their own shortcomings, failures, and personal issues. More general searches for male health and well-being also produce precious few results – while I’m open to proof that the precious few are actual rules and aren’t exceptions, I’m not holding my breath (I did find one, which is linked to below, but the comments section suggests it wasn’t universally supported).

So overall; this is whining, and pointless whining at that, with no solutions for how to actually help men or solve wider social problems. The specifics are below.

*Clarification: 4 out of 5 are conflating factors rather than casual. But if you want an executive, take-home summary that summarises them all, then it’s that gender is not a factor in these statistics. Certainly in the 1 out of 5, the cases of suicide, most MRA groups are blinded to why it is a causal factor.

**Clarification 2: I saw this line criticised elsewhere (thanks for not enquiring in the comments where I would have answered this in a less annoyed tone rather than having to have it sent to me from a closed Facebook group) because it supposedly reads as me saying “men can’t get breast cancer” and “men are never raped”. Really? You think I’m that stupid? Do you think I’m not aware of the prevalence of those things? Take the common sense interpretation of this, please – there are issues that, for Reasons, affect women more often than men, and others issues, for Reasons, affect men more oftern than women. Of the former, breast cancer and sexual violence are two examples. It’s not to say that this is not a problem for men, just that these are statistically outlying problems, not core things to keep you up at night because it’s within reasonable chance that you would be affected.

Combat Deaths

The thing about combat deaths is that this is entirely due to exposure. That 97% of combat fatalities are male needs to be taken in the context that about 97% of all soldiers worldwide are male. Even in a (comparatively) progressive modern military such as the US Army, only approximately 15% of all occupations are held by women – a figure that drops way further when you look at frontline infantry, and in the US Marines it drops to a literal handful. This is something that has been fought against by women and feminists for a long time, who have been demanding the ability to enlist throughout most of the modern warfare era. The results of this campaigning have seen an exponential rise in the number of military positions that no longer exclude women by default, and female soldiers are now as prized and celebrated as their male counterparts.

Yet, it is primarily male soldiers, generals and social commentators who oppose this. And if it’s not male soldiers (I can disagree with, but actually respect their view on this), it’s male sofa-warriors with an internet connection and an addiction to increasingly identical First-Person Shooters.

Go on Internet Tough Guy, tear yourself away from shouting racist abuse on multi-player Call of Duty long enough tell them they’re not allowed to serve in combat because they’re physically weak. Go on. See what happens. I dare you.

The statistic on combat deaths is further misleading because it excludes civilian deaths. Effectively by definition this affects either both sexes/genders equally, or disproportionately to women as the men were off fighting (yes, that’s conjecture, so?). Civilian deaths in war, on average, are responsible for approximately 50% of all casualties across the board. Historically this has been through war-induced famine, and with significant increases in some modern warfare fields where civilian casualties can dominate – the second world war, for instance, is estimated to be as high as 70% civilian casualties. That’s a lot of women killed due to combat.

But as stated in the summary, this is not a male issue. This is a social issue; and the way to improve it is to oppose war, not to oppose feminism. Anti-war protests and campaigns are ten-a-penny, yet no significant contribution to them has been made by prominent “Men’s Rights” activists or movements – and when they are, they’re framed in this rather dishonest way as the fault of women for not dying enough. As Man Boobz has reported recently, some self-styled MRAs are literally saying that women should die in droves to combat the discrepancy. If that attitude strikes you as a reasonable response to a disparity in the gender of soldiers killed, you have some serious issues you need to address.

Homicide Victims

That the majority of homicide victims are male needs to be put in the much wider context of a more nuanced breakdown of the demographics – but first, the easy and cheap shot; the majority of homicide perpetrators are also male. What should that tell us? Well, frankly, nothing much more than the demographics of the victims tell us, but you don’t see that factoid being cherry-picked as an example of female privilege.

The statistic has come as a surprise to some people I’ve spoken to on this – who either thought that the split was closer to 50:50, or that life really does work like a police procedural where the victim is always a pretty girl found in a dumpster by the hard-nosed cop and her witty and implausibly quirky sidekick (Castle, I’m looking at you…). But no, the majority of murders (in US statistics, which are nicely summarised here, while the equivalent UK data is discussed here – since we’re all about the first-world-problems here) are gang-related or drugs related. That gang membership and drug-dealing is a predominantly male profession makes being male more of a confounding variable than a causal factor in this case. Presumably as more women begin working in gangs, female victims and perpetrators of homicide will increase accordingly.

Rejected Plot Idea No. 1: Castle and Beckett discover the body of gang member killed for dealing drugs on the wrong territory. It goes unsolved for the rest of the episode.

Now, there are some cases where gender could be a causal factor in homicide rather than merely a confounding variable. For this, we need to look at whether the victim is the victim primarily for being a certain way – for instance, hate crimes are perpetuated with the victim’s identity being a part contributor to the motive. And quite fittingly, the US crime statistics do summarise exactly this in the form of “intimate” or “domestic” violence – i.e., between partners, lovers or family members – or in sex related crimes including rape. In this, sex/gender is not just a confounding variable, but is in fact the exact reason a perpetrator and victim will be in the same place at the same time. And in this (the US statistics), we see a very different picture to the overall, gang-violence dominated, trend; the majority of victims are female and the perpetrators are male. 70% of victims in “intimate” violence are female, and just shy of 50% are victims in intra-family homicide, 80% in sex related crimes and again just shy of 50% in arson and poisoning.

In short, where gender is a causal factor, the majority of victims are female; where gender is not a factor at all (e.g., arson), the rate of victims is ~50:50; and the skew in the overall 75% male figure comes from gang and drug rates of 90+% male victims (and, as a matter of course, 90+% male perpetrators) where sex/gender is just a confounding variable caused by gang membership. So while overall your prior odds of being murdered are  in the region of 75% if you’re male, if you’re outside one of the major high-risk groups such as a gang member or drug user, your risks increase significantly more if you are female.

Again, no mention of how to actually solve this problem coming from MRAssholes. It’s just a whine. No campaigning to decrease the murder rate, or campaigns to keep young men away from gangs. Nothing. They seem to be treating it as if Germaine Greer spent 90% of The Female Eunuch declaringthat young boys should join gangs and deal drugs, rather than far weirder things like drinking menstrual blood.

Industrial Deaths and Accidents

This is pretty much ditto to the military combat deaths; it’s a question of exposure. High risk occupations, manual labour and industrial for instance, are primarily male dominated. The occupations are often seen as masculine, anti-feminine, and as a result women are actively discouraged from performing them. Challenging these ideas of specified gender roles is something that modern feminism looks to fight against – that being female shouldn’t stop you being a bricklayer if that’s what you feel you should do, and as a corollary, that being a secretary should be a fine enough occupation if you’re male.

Mmm… secretaries…

Far from it being an MRA position, it’s actually a very third-wave feminist position to say there should be more female accident victims because better representation of women in the high-risk workplace is a stated goal.

Well, it would be, except that unlike the position above that suggests we should kill women to “even out” the disparity in combat victims since the first world war, an actual liberal position would be to reduce the number of accidents in total. Because, naturally, the average liberal feminist doesn’t go around actively celebrating someone’s death as a sop to equality. A gender breakdown is effectively a meaningless statistic that tells us nothing about the nature of accidents, however, a more useful breakdown does show a meaningful decrease in workplace accidents.

The Orwellian Nightmare; Big Guv’mnt regulation leads to fewer people killing themselves on building sites.

The way to reduce accidents overall is not to blame women for not being in the right (or wrong) occupations, but to take personal safety seriously, not to glorify unnecessary risk, and effectively punish those that risk the lives of workers and those around them in the name of corner-cutting and profit. Yet, from bitter experience I know that MRAsshole attitudes have a very significant overlap with libertarian anti-regulation politics – and a further overlap with the kind of weird douchey behaviour that is obsessed with being Alpha-As-Fuck, which means Real Men don’t wear helmets on building sites or something like that. Either you accept regulation and oversight combined with liberal attitudes to gender roles, or you accept higher casualty rates selectively for the dominant demographic; you cannot have both.

Suicide Victims

Now this is serious fucking business. But it’s also complicated fucking business. Rates of suicide are tied into a myriad of factors. On the face of it, there’s depression and mental health – that much is obvious. There is a massive stigma surrounding mental health; and indeed more so if you’re male, where talking about problems and opening up about them is considered “unmanly” (talking to someone about your feelings is soooo beta, you horrible mangina, you…).

So in this particular issue, the prevalence of male victims is more than the confounding factor that it is in the above examples.

But with the MRAsshole crowd, which is inextricably linked to hyper-misogyny and pick-up-artistry, such a stigma is actively reinforced. A search for “mental health” on A Voice For Men quite literally produces fuck all in terms of help or guidance. A little bit of kowtowing to generic “men’s health”, but two posts in two years rounds down to zero in my humble opinion when it comes to such a serious issue. The stigma that you face as a man for having mental health issues is massive; and yet it’s really an intersectional feminism position to fight against it because that’s about dismantling the attitude that says it’s not okay to talk and be open if you’re male. As someone in possession of both a penis and a Y chromosome (because this is, of course, so damn important for some people…), this is something that actually affects me – but improving access to mental health care in general, as well as specifically fighting against the stigma of being a man with a problem, is the way to fight against this.

Today on Spherical Bullshit, we ask “why do all mental health stock photos look exactly the same?”

But there’s also access to the means of suicide. I don’t really want to de-rail this into gun control, but, it’s a pretty solid statistic that the majority of firearms deaths in the United States are by suicide, not homicide. Where access to firearms is limited, those deaths don’t occur. The theory is pretty simple; suicidal thoughts are transitory; and the ease with which someone can actually kill themselves correlates with an increased suicide rate. A temporary deterrent doesn’t lead someone to seek an option elsewhere, but delays them committing the act long enough for the suicidal thoughts to pass – this is something backed up by evidence from suicide barriers on bridges. The correlation between gun-ownership and perceived manliness is pretty much undeniable – as this particular advert for Bushmaster evidently shows. Combine all this together and you have a significant recipe for increased suicide rates. You have an easy and rapid access to an object that will kill you effectively, that you own because you’ve been encouraged to be “manly”, and thoughts that you refuse to share because you’ve been encouraged to be “manly”. That’s the theory, and evidence from suicide rates and methods demonstrate it fairly robustly.

In this case I did – shock of horrors – find something on this subject on A Voice for Men that might be constructive – but unfortunately a good-size chunk of the comments underline exactly the problem outlined in this entire post; they don’t care about speaking out on male issues or mental health issues, they just want to blame women for them.

Child Custody

Child custody is a another complex issue that has a lot of confounding variables attached to it. It’s really not as simple as you expecting a 50:50 split in outcomes. In fact, given other evidence we should expect anything but an equal custody split.

Now, some history. Back in the day, wrangling over child custody was a non-issue. It was never contested; it was the case that the father literally owned the children, and the mother had no rights to her own children at all. That was just The Way. In the case of a divorce, the children defaulted to the father. Check out any period drama for a good demonstration of how this works, it’s a plot point in most of them.

Elizabeth Foster, later Elizabeth Cavendisth, Duchess of Devonshire, had three children by John Thomas Foster. After they separated, he maintained sole custody and control of the children, and didn’t allow them to see their mother for 14 years. Elizabeth had no legal rights over them. And yes, I’m bringing up this particular example purely because I’ve seen The Duchess and Hayley Atwell in period dress makes me want to take up smoking.

While this fact about male-dominated pre-20th century society is well-known, it’s not often applied. It makes for very striking and vital context for discussing child custody settlements today. We’re talking about women going from absolutely zero rights in this field, to something of a slight advantage in a courtroom. I feel oppressed already…

So, along comes modern law-making that decided that “sanity” was better than “de facto” when it came to figuring out child custody. And so the law switched over, slowly over the course of the early/mid-20th century, from the father having automatic and uncontested custody, to courts making a decision based on the “most suitable parent”. In a way, MRAssholes are right on this; it’s largely thanks to feminism that this has been brought about. The earliest waves of feminism, dating back to the suffragettes and even earlier, focused on legal rights and representation for women; and this included child custody amongst other basic rights that we now take for granted – though emphatically do not mean that social equality has been reached (see, like, all of the above). So far, so history.

But… consider the homicide statistics quoted above and related non-fatal statistics on domestic violence. In the cases of intimate violence and domestic violence, the perpetrators are largely male and the victims female – although by no means a rule, this heavily stacks the statistical weighting of what we expect to see. What the courts conclude as “the most suitable parent” will be heavily biased towards the mother. If a large number of couples split due to violence, and the majority of violence is committed by men, a disparity here should be a no-brainer and highly expected. There’s a lot more that could be discussed on this, but I’ll leave it here for now.

I’m not going to discuss specific cases where there’s demonstrable vindictiveness that leads to unfair custody results – ex-couples dragging themselves through divorce courts are vindictive and bitter, film at 11 – but this is largely a problem for those specific cases, and isn’t proven to be a systematic problem by an overall statistical discrepancy between men and women and their respective victories in child custody battles. That alone doesn’t say anything about specific motives of why the disparity is the case. Of course, this could be a serious issue that self-styled MRAs could have a good point about and a positive contribution to make. Unfortunately they seem incapable of staying on focus long enough. Even the usually on-topic Fathers4Justice went completely off the rails with their most recent attack ads on mothers.

Further Summary

This was long, but hopefully thorough enough. So, in final conclusion, we’ve seen the statistics. We’ve seen more detailed breakdowns of the statistics. We’ve seen the context of them. We’ve seen reasons why the world is like that. We’ve seen ways we could fix it. We’ve seen reasons that most male “rights” enthusiasts largely miss the lessons we can conclude from these statistics

I deliberately haven’t tried demonstrating why treating these aren’t “female privilege” as some might put it; hopefully, I won’t have to.

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “You Literally Won’t Believe These Mind-Blowing Simple Statistics… And How Wrong People Are About Them

  1. Awesome article, I will be saving the link so I can load it in my cannon and fire it at any MRAs who send me that bullshit infographic

    Reply
  2. I would write a detailed reply, but I don’t think it would accomplish anything, because the author is obviously a dishonest pseudo-intellectual. It’s a good thing there are many countries in the world that I get to choose from. I don’t have to stay in countries with stupid laws if I don’t want to.

    The stats aren’t bullshit, you just don’t like what they say, which is why it takes you so long to “rebut” them.

    Reply
      • Exactly, armondikov.

        Brendan: “It’s a good thing there are many countries in the world that I get to choose from. I don’t have to stay in countries with stupid laws if I don’t want to.”

        Right, and I’m sure your movement privileges (legal, financial, physical, responsibility) are in no way connected to to your (willful?) ignorance of global patriarchy.

        Reply
  3. Um when did most homicides become gang or drug related in the US? As someone who is finishing up a criminology degree and who spent a lot of time analyzing homicide related data for my capstone, I never saw any data that would support that. Specifically I spent a lot of time looking at the FBI UCR for 2004 and never saw anything that would support such a claim. The pamphlete you link to (which I did not read in whole) states that only 6% are gang related, not even close to being most. Did I miss something in it?

    The real problem with the MRA claim is that most homicides are male perpetrated, with men committing more homicides against woman, than woman committing homicides overall. As I said, I spent a lot of time looking at the data, so there’s more I could say about this topic but don’t really have time for right now.

    Reply
    • You’re right there. I think I’ve ballsed up reading one of the tables.

      (not that it matters, these special snowflakes are going to feel oppressed no matter what, the poor things)

      Reply
  4. Pingback: Open Thread And Link Farm, How To Locate Bruce Willis edition | Alas, a Blog

  5. This is anecdotal, but I’m sure that a study could be done that would corroborate this: When I first became a domestic violence counselor, I thought as you do in regards to sexual disparity in the violence. Even though, I had lived through it as a victim. However, I learned that the sex of victims is divided in half. Half of those I counselled were men. Difference was, I counselled 90% of them informally. They would usually beg me to swear not to tell anyone. And then I would hear stories as heartbreaking from them as I did their counter-parts. I would say roughly 80% of the men I counselled stayed with their abusers. Fortunately, I also saw 80% of the ladies leave theirs.

    Every one that stayed, male and female, I carry in my heart, and is on my mind as a personal failure because I couldn’t persuade them it was okay to leave.

    You know, to this day, I do not understand how anyone is able to harm someone they claim to love.

    Reply
  6. Here is the flaw with this: You ignore social pressures.

    Certainly, Feminism is well aware of social pressures that women face. Be slim, be beautiful, be acquiescent, etc.

    But what about the negative social pressure that men feel?

    Men feel they MUST sacrifice their lives to be ‘worthy.’ Boys receive tremendous subconscious pressure from a young age to join the military, something girls don’t.

    Men feel they MUST earn a decent income to valuable human beings. If a man can’t financially support his children, he is labelled ‘deadbeat dad.’ There is no corresponding ‘deadbeat mom’ label. So men without skills feel compelled by society to take the dangerous but better paying jobs.

    Male suicide is also significantly higher in countries with strict gun control (UK or AUS for instance). So your paragraphs about gun suicide are merely a waste of ink. The point is that there can be intense psychological pressures associated with being a man, unique pressures different from those faced by women especially if earn a low income…being a non-socially dominant man is not as easy as feminists and ‘check your privilege’ types would have you believe.

    Look, men don’t WANT to go die on some oil rig or in a distant war. They do these things because they feel GENDER SPECIFIC SOCIAL PRESSURES to do so. So when you get down to the question ‘how real and important is male privilege’…well, it’s not nearly as pervasive or as helpful as it’s made out to be, especially for lower class men. Male privilege is a real thing…but male DISPRIVILEGE is also a very real thing as well.

    It’s also worth pointing out that this poster is, IMHO, only referring to issues that are periphery to the MRA. I feel the core issues are A) Gendered discrimination in the judicial system B) Gendered discrimination in the Educational system C) Gendered discrimination in the Family Courts system D) Complete inequality in the issue of choice whether to be a parent or not E) Negative media portrayals of men (either super-alpha violent asskickers or meek screwups)

    Reply
  7. Pingback: Najbolji linkovi s interneta, 17.-21.3. 2014. « planb.hr

  8. Your intimate partner homicide information are wrong, roughly equal numbers of men and women are in court accused of murdering their spouse. You are citing the raw data that doesn’t account for the female sentencing discount the ability to claim battered wives defence.

    Reply
      • Actually, no, he is saying that roughly similar numbers of men and women kill their spouses, but that men suffer from sentencing discrimination.

        Your reply here is borderline dishonest.

        Reply
    • I think your information is what is misleading; presumably the problem is that you are using statistics (from where?) regarding prosecutions, and not data on murders, and the two do not even roughly line up. If the statistics below are correct, and if your statistic is also correct, then fewer female-on-male murders are found prosecutable.

      The following is pulled from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

      “According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

      “Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
      “84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
      “Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
      “50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
      –Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

      Reply
  9. Excellent points and a good overall corrective. I do think you might be a bit sanguine on the child custody issue though. In much of the U.S., a legal default for custody to the wife was enshrined in law during most of the 20th century for younger children; it was often called “the Tender Years provision.” This has been repealed or ruled unconstitutional in most states, but the same old gender stereotypes that affect so many other areas mean that it continues de facto.

    Unless there is something affirmatively wrong with the mother as a parent, such as an addiction problem or a demonstrable hostility with her children, she is essentially guaranteed to win custody of the children in almost any state in the nation. There is also tremendous social pressure for women to demand custody, from both men and women; look at the criticism Wendy Davis is taking in Texas simply for going to Harvard Friggin Law School while her husband stayed back home with their kids.

    It seems to be that a more feminist society can only be one where either parent can choose to put career first and let an ex raise their kids, without social criticism or legal penalty (tax deductions and other legal benefits for parenting go solely to custodial parents, even though the non-custodial parent is responsible for half the cost of raising the child.)

    Reply
    • I do not disagree. Child custody is perhaps the most convoluted topic here thanks to it spanning multiple countries, different laws, and different cultures, as well as having a long history requiring a lot of context, and then a lot of different statistics involving what does and does not reach court (equal, joint custody is often the de-facto out of court) and a myriad other things. If I collected everything I had and have been sent on it, I could equal the word count of the above on that topic alone. It’s a weak angle that I chose, but I was aiming for relative simplicity.

      Evidently not simple enough if some of this comments section is to be believed.,,,

      Reply
  10. Great article. I call myself a feminist, but would happily exchange the title for something that means I strive for the gender equality of both men and women. The patriarchy messes both men and women up, and I, like most feminists (as you have clearly pointed out), support men who suffer in any way due to the demands the patriarchy places upon them. I feel for the men out there who are victims of domestic violence, rape, or face mental health issues and are denied the help they need because they are men – help which will never be provided by the MRA’s, because they only seek to preserve alpha-male brutality and oppression.

    Reply
    • ” I feel for the men out there who are victims of domestic violence, rape, or face mental health issues and are denied the help they need because they are men – help which will never be provided by the MRA’s, because they only seek to preserve alpha-male brutality and oppression.”

      That’s bullshit. MRA’s are incredibly anti alpha male and they routinely blame them for throwing men under the bus in order to appease women. You know shit about MRA’s and shit about men but you insist on running your mouth on both subjects.

      Men aren’t going to get help from feminists who manipulate statistics to make it appear that very few men are victims of rape and domestic violence. You sound like a nice person with good intentions but I don’t think you know what kind of people you’ve gotten into bed with. They’ve been covering up male victimization numbers for over 30 years.

      The patriarchy does impact both sexes but feminism exploits patriarchy more than it fights it. Casting women in the role of superior victim is deeply patriarchal because privileging female victimization over that of males is exactly why we send our sons to die on the battlefield rather than our daughters. The people trying to down play male victims to elevate female victims are in fact working towards the establishment of by traditional patriarchy that has always favored the protection of women and children over able bodied men. We have no more patience for this bullshit. Either you people are going to develop a conscious or you aren’t. If you choose the path of evil then keep doing what you’ve been doing but don’t call that shit equality.

      Reply
      • MRA’s are anti-women and anti-feminism, because they are worried about losing their privilege in society. Feminists don’t manipulate statistics – as this article clearly points out, the MRA’s are responsible for that. I’d like you to show me one single feminist article that manipulates statistics on male rape or domestic violence – but you won’t, because there aren’t any.
        Some branches of feminism or feminist views I do disagree with, because as with any subject there are a whole array of positions out there. Some positions do, I feel, inadvertently support the partriarchy. I don’t take that position, we are all human beings male or female and should existence to cooperate, rather than to compete with each other. MRA’s feel threatened by women’s increasing equality because the patriarchy sets up men and women as opposites, enemies, as so they see women’s gain has to be men’s loss. That’s not how it is, the happiest nations on earth (as found in yearly surveys) are those where women are more equal.
        The language you use shows how aggressive, patronising and frankly irrational you are- I don’t ‘run my mouth’ and I haven’t ‘gotten into bed’ with anyone. Nor do I choose a ‘path of evil’ (how very George W Bush).I have an educated and informed view of the subject, as well as my life experience, thanks.

        Reply
        • > MRA’s are anti-women and anti-feminism, because they are worried about losing their privilege in society.

          Where to unwrap this? First the caveat, there are basically two strains of MRAs, the RedPillers, and the mainstream represented by /r/mensrights and AVFM.

          They might hate feminism, but that is far from hating women.

          Men aren’t worried about losing ‘their privilege,’ they are more worried about losing their basic, fundamental rights. And it’s not an idle worry: If you are a father in our country’s kafkaesque ‘family court’ system, you HAVE NO RIGHTS. You have no constitutional rights as we commonly understand them, this is shielded from society by the fact that these hearings are all confidential.

          Would you look at a man who is burning himself to death on the courthouse steps because he has been utterly ground down by a cruel and relentless ‘family court,’ and tell him to check his privilege? Please.

          Men suffer clear and unmistakable institutional discrimination in America today. Primarily in the educational system, and the entire ‘justice’ system. It’s not anti-woman to want to correct this and end these outrageous abuses, mass incarceration, horrid schools, etc.

          Feminism says that male gender issues can be dealt with within the confines Feminism, and then treats Men with extreme aggression and hostility. It’s a non-starter.

          You can critique the MRA, fine, but you utterly fail to recognize that just as Feminism has many faces and holds some disparate beliefs, so does the MRA.

          > Feminists don’t manipulate statistics

          I ask you a question: what portion of female college students are raped during their time
          in college? We all know the common answer. It’s a grossly distorted number, when you look at the actual studies, they count ‘pestering for a kiss’ in the category that is interpreted as ‘sexual assault.’ You see this 1 in 4 number EVERYWHERE. Ditto the ’77 cents on the dollar’ line, which is also untrue.

          Reply
          • You are speaking in meaningless soundbytes, provide facts, data, evidence for the following:

            “Men suffer clear and unmistakable institutional discrimination in America today. Primarily in the educational system, and the entire ‘justice’ system.”

            – How exactly are they discriminated against in the education system? Provide references to academic studies please.
            – seeing as the majority of law-makers, judges – in fact, anyone in control of these issues – are male, perhaps you should be positively campaigning for change by appealing to the men responsible, rather than trying to find a scapegoat in feminism.

            “It’s a grossly distorted number, when you look at the actual studies, they count ‘pestering for a kiss’ in the category that is interpreted as ‘sexual assault.” – 1) where’s your evidence that these commonly quoted stats are incorrect? (I’m not saying they are correct, I would need to know where your information is sourced from first and to look at the evidence – that’s how you build a constructive argument by the way.)
            2) Where’s is your evidence that they are manipulated by feminists.
            3) what’s your point, even if these figures are higher than the actual ones? So what if it’s ONLY 1/6 or 1/7 women that are raped – is that not enough for you to see that it’s a problem?!?!

            All people face discrimination of some kind on the grounds of their gender, colour, sexuality, disability etc, and I am against all kinds of discrimination for all people, so for any genuine complaints you do have then I am with you. Here’s a website I can recommend to you to help you build an argument around evidence: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/

          • PS – “Feminism says that male gender issues can be dealt with within the confines Feminism, and then treats Men with extreme aggression and hostility.”
            – I’m actually very fond of the men in my life. I also would like to point out that many men are also feminists, which debunks this theory a little.

          • Presumably when you say “Ditto the ’77 cents on the dollar’ line, which is also untrue.” you mean that people have found confounding variables to explain it. If you average all women and all men, the figure checks out. If you control for other variables, it narrows slightly – but the point is why do those variables exist, and why does that dependency happen. Finding excuses for something is not the same as proving that it’s not real.

            And yes, some people will count “pestering for a kiss” as sexual assault. It’s unwanted sexual contact, it’s offensive, it’s pressuring people, it is not acceptable behaviour. The fact is, if you’re male you’re almost certainly not going to be on the receiving end of that sort of behaviour, you will have no experience of what it feels like, you’ll have no experience of whether it feels forced, or threatening. Therefore you don’t have a right to decide whether it can be counted as sexual assault or not.

        • > – How exactly are they discriminated against in the education system? Provide references to academic studies please.

          In elementary school – male behaviors are punished and the entire classroom design is not well suited to boys rowdiness.

          http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/10/politics-and-feminism/the-shameful-truth-about-our-treatment-of-boys/

          http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

          New study from Czech Republic:
          http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/study-finds-huge-discrimination-against.html

          > – seeing as the majority of law-makers, judges – in fact, anyone in control of these issues – are male, perhaps you should be positively campaigning for change by appealing to the men responsible, rather than trying to find a scapegoat in feminism.

          A) I didn’t blame the criminal sentencing discrimination on feminism; I said it is a gendered discrimination. B) Family court discrimination I do, to some extent, blame on feminism.

          http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

          As for family courts, in short, the non-custodial parent is treated like a combination of a punching bag and ATM machine, and this is usually the father. I have heard way too many horror stories from friends wrapped up in family courts, with the victims tending to be the fathers because they are non-custodial. Dragged into court every week, having to pay 70% of gross income, being denied reasonable visitation, etc.

          The ‘1/4 college girls being raped includes being pestered for a kiss’ number came from poring over one of these two some months back; however, at the moment they aren’t loading. Not sure what the problem is.

          https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199705.pdf
          https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

          The ’77 cents on the dollar’ claim can be generously described as dodgy:

          Young, single women make more than corresponding men:
          http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

          Removing that limit, but correctly controlling for different factors, the number is actually 95 cents on the dollar, much narrower.

          http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

          Feminists consistently choose the numbers that best fit their case. I’ve seen many examples of this over the years, I don’t have at my finger tips….the salary thing is a good example, however.

          The question I was addressing was not ‘is rape a serious problem,’ it is ‘are mainstream feminists upright with statistics.’ Sure, 1/4, 1/6, 1/10, whatever, it’s too high. But that’s not the question being asked here.

          If you are really interested in true equality, don’t reject everything MRAs claim out of hand. Sure, there are a fair number of trolls and misogynists in the movement. But there is also a core that makes some pretty important points that simply aren’t being made anywhere else.

          Reply
          • Of course, any issues to do with pay you have mentioned don’t include the fact that women disproportionately are responsible for household tasks and childcare – a full-time job in itself which goes unpaid, and the very reason why the majority of custody is granted to mothers. In order to ensure a more equal dispersal of custodial rights, more fathers have to a) actually want custody and b) be involved in their children’s lives to an equal extent as the mother, both of which are far from the norm (that’s not to deny the small minority of father’s who are equally involved in their children’s lives and should be considered equally).

            I asked for academic studies for evidence, you’ve shown me pages from magazines, some of which are dubious in their objectives.

            I don’t know what the equal pay situation is in the US as I don’t live there, but if it is 95% of that of men then great, the gap is closing – isn’t this something to be celebrated rather than looked upon with fear as you appear to be doing? You’re acting like I personally quoted this statistic myself, I never even mentioned it, so I fail to see why you are trying to attack me by quoting statistics (which you can’t source) which haven’t come from me or anyway that I can verify for that matter, and then telling me that they’re false! You appear to be having an argument with yourself, well enjoy! But I’m absolutely positive that whatever the actual figures are on rape, they’re too high – after all, what is an acceptable amount of rape?!?

            As for education, as someone who had worked in the sector for ten years I can assure you that every individual has their own learning style regardless of gender, and as teachers our job is to ensure that each individual’s learning style is catered for as much as possible, whether it be kinetic, visual, aural etc through differentiation. Ironically, a lot of the problems we see with the behaviour and resulting success of boys in school can be linked to absent father figures – that is, fathers who aren’t involved in their children’s lives bby choice – again, perhaps more equal division of labour in parenting is the main issue here.

        • Note Armondikov: You should really increase the allowable limit of reply depth, because having it at only 3 makes a conversation impossible.

          Armondikov: >Presumably when you say “Ditto the ’77 cents on the dollar’ line, which is >also untrue.” you mean that people have found confounding variables to explain it. If >you average all women and all men, the figure checks out. If you control for other >variables, it narrows slightly – but the point is why do those variables exist, and why >does that dependency happen. Finding excuses for something is not the same as >proving that it’s not real.

          To reduce the argument to absurdity, imagine a situation where you have a woman making $5 an hour staying at home watching the neighbor’s kid, and a man flying to war torn Iraq and working on an oil rig in the middle of the hellish desert for $10 an hour. You can point to this, and say “Look at the gender discrimination! It’s so unfair! She is being stolen from!”

          The point is, no you CAN’T just ignore these other variables, such as what type of work is being done.

          It’s even worse because in your piece you wrote off the tremendous disparity in workplace fatalities being male because it’s ‘their choice.’ But then, you brush aside the role of choice in creating the so-called ‘wage gap.’

          By the way, when you control for other variables, the ‘wage gap’ goes from $.77 to $.95. That’s a fall of 75% in the relative difference.

          That’s not ‘narrowing slightly’, your statement is simply dishonest.

          And of course, you will never mention the fact that young, single women make slightly MORE than young, single men in the same jobs – because it doesn’t support your agenda or ideology.

          This is a fine example of the dishonesty with statistics that I am talking about.

          Armondikov: > And yes, some people will count “pestering for a kiss” as sexual assault.

          No, you won’t. Ask 100 people if being ‘pestered for a kiss’ is sexual assault, without the context of this conversation. I would be surprised if you would find ONE who would agree with this definition: and you would probably find a couple dozen who are deeply offended by you trivializing what ‘sexual assault’ is.

          Is it obnoxious, unacceptable, boorish behavior? Sure, yes, it is. Is it sexual harassment? Quite possibly, yes. But ‘sexual harassment’ and ‘sexual assault’ are different things.

          Words have meanings. You can’t just define them as you like to fit your beliefs..not if you want to be able to communicate with other people, that is.

          Google: ‘cornell sexual assault legal definition’

          If ‘pestering for a kiss’ is sexual assault, you could say a slap is sexual assault, you could say sending a lurid FB message is sexual assault, you could say ‘checking someone out’ is sexual assault, you could say giving a compliment that could be interpreted in a sexual manner is sexual assault.

          Someone could step on my toe, I could say “I’m a victim of toe stepping, and so I choose to define this toe stepping as sexual assault.” I could say that, but I would be full of shit.

          You dilute the meaning of ‘sexual assault’ to nothing, and cheat every legitimate victim out there.

          By the way, as a straight male, I have been sexually assaulted, more than once. Not raped, no, but sexually assaulted, yes, in ways I found quite disturbing. And it was much more than being ‘pestered for a kiss.’

          P.S. Could you please remove my other comment out of moderation?

          Reply
    • While writing this I had a lot of discussions on custody cases. There’s enough information, caveats, specifics and other statistics out there to fill a blog post twice this size – do I just focused on something fairly simple here. Maybe something more extensive could come later if I can get it collected together, but it’s not my speciality to really cover in depth.

      Reply
    • True. There’s a ton of social pressure for men NOT to seek custody, and for women to ALWAYS seek custody after divorce. And it’s rougher on women — any woman who has chosen not to have children can tell you it’s bad, and “giving up” your child brings criticism that’s ten times worse. “I could never do that.” “Aren’t you sad? Don’t you miss them?” (Of course no one ever says a dad “gave up” his children after divorce, whatever the custody decision is.)

      Reply
  11. Thank you for reporting on the men’s rights movement, but I feel this report is a bit biased. Consider checking out the reddit Men’s Rights FAQ. Here are some quotes from our reddit community members from the FAQ:

    “thought I had to share with the community that gave me a lot.” – an abused boy.

    “I was actually feeling very depressed and suicidal earlier .. Reading the posts I stumbled upon by accident here has dramatically improved my mood – one less thing that I don’t feel so isolated on. Thanks for allowing this community to exist!”

    “here you can find help and here we are all brothers and sisters that just want to make the world a better place.”

    “I want to stand up for mens rights. I grew up very oppressed, but never thought poorly of it that way. I always thought that being a man meant that I was supposed to be seen as a “pig” or worse.”

    “As a male survivor, I learned early on not to talk about it, because it makes me the butt of jokes and ridicule. It’s assumed that I wanted it, it’s assumed that I’m supposed to be some kind of insatiable horndog .. Thanks for being there to read a little bit of my f***** up story. Thanks for trying to do something about it. When I can’t stand up and talk about it, I’m glad that there are people who will.”

    “For the last 4 years my Sons Mother has been out of our life. She lives nearby and chooses to have nothing to do with him. .. I have been battling [prejudice] since his mother left when he was 2 years old.”

    “I want to talk about how I was suckered into a hate movement .. men are the enemy .. Paranoia and irrational hatred drives radical feminism. .. [I left because] I couldn’t stay that way with my integrity intact. ”

    “Hi Guys, I am [Liz] a journalist with a New York based digital news agency launching in two weeks .. For everyone who has responded: THANK YOU SO MUCH. Your stories are amazing and you are all brave to tell them.”

    “, I am a 23 year old man who happens to be gay, I am out and proud but it does not define me. … I want to say I’m overwhelmed with the positive reasponse, I did not now what to expect after what I was told about the MRM, I’m glad what I was told was wrong! I will be sticking around and contribute where I can.”

    “I am a gay man as well. The MRM is a movement I support.”

    So, make any report you want. Regardless of your coverage, our community will continue to stand with victims.

    Reply
    • You can cherry pick the positives, that’s admirable. And I’m sure there are MRAs out there who do stick with that – it’s the mission statement of the “movement”. But those valid problems are also, it happens to be, concerns of modern day liberation movements and liberal attitudes. There’s nothing there specifically that isn’t covered by intersectionality.

      However, those are often used as a cover to hide behind when it comes to outright misogyny and sexism. You can go through r/mensrights, AVFM or MGTOW and find people who, frankly, just hate women – and they use valid problems as a cover for that, trying to lend legitimacy to their points.

      Reply
        • The fact that you use “feminism” as a singular entity and not as a distinct set of movements and multiple beliefs, and say “invalid” in a hard-and-fast, all-or-nothing way, and the fact you say “invalid”, as in the negative, in the first instance rather than “valid” suggests to me you don’t care about an answer to that but want to use it as a spring board to say something you already know and won’t budge on.

          So, do you want an actual serious answer or do you want a quick an easy soundbite that preserves your existing “women are privileged and feminism ruins everything” belief?

          Reply
        • Religion may have multiple components, but one wouldn’t (hopefully) say something as stupid as “religion is wrong because Jesus married a 9 year-old Aisha to ward off vengeful thetans from Valhalla” – that would be not even wrong. So if you think that radical feminism invalidates intersectionality, or that the gender essentialism of the second-wave invalidates sex positivity, you have problems.

          You need to find the part above where I dismissed any of these statistics as problems, I don’t recall ever writing it. I pointed out how most of them are social problems, and how the major aspects of the “movement” does little to nothing about campaigning for them. Whenever it’s raised, it’s as non-specific whining – that you can get just by scrolling through r/mensrights. There are valid problems, but they are used as a shield for people to say “it’s all feminists fault!!” while doing absolutely nothing about it. This is hardly a minority. If the ones who genuinely cared about circumcision and male rape got up off their asses and bothered to read what third-wave feminists had to say on the subject, they’d find a far better and more constructive movement to be a part of – and wouldn’t be lending legitimacy to those who are simply anti-women because they’re bitter.

          Reply
      • These are labels. We can debate them, or we can do good, and fight what is wrong.

        If you like, take a look at the action opportunities in reddit’s mractivism subreddit and take action if any appeal to you. Here are a few you might like:

        Action Opportunity: Investigate Possible HHS and DOJ Contractor Misconduct in the Horrific Abuse of a 13 Year Old Boy

        Action Opportunity: All some Michigan boys want for Christmas is for for the authorities to protect them from rape

        Action Opportunity: Investigate Possible HHS Contractor Misconduct Which May Have Led to Horrific Abuse of 3 Girls

        Reply
  12. I realize it is not possible to issue a rebuttal without you mad dog liberals shouting me down, but what the hell.

    I will take just one of those: Combat deaths. Of course they are 97% male. Because most soldiers are male. As you explained. But regardless of what the feminists say, women do not want to go to war. Step outside of your cafe and talk to the average American woman. Even one who calls herself a feminist. Do you think she has any desire whatsoever to go to war? I thought so.

    Do you think that woman, or any other besides the five hardcore loudmouth feminists are going to fight to get women into combat? No. The silence of almost all American women ensures that going to war and dying is a male thing.

    It’s called female privilege. Hope that helps.

    Reply
        • Perhaps when you think you’re seeing that women don’t want to go into the armed forces, what you’re actually seeing is women who want the approval of the bulk of society (as most people do on some level, which is why it works at all). The value of women is often measured based on how closely they match an ideal that is agreeable, gentle and nurturing, even servile, and with a waiflike physique. This is obviously in contravention to the sort of person you have to be to become a soldier. Jettisoning the weird attitude towards how women should behave and appear would mean more young women would develop a temperament that would make them inclined to join the armed forces, and also get rid of the unpleasant ‘97% of combat deaths’ statistics.

          Reply
          • When men were granted the vote on the strength of conscription, the suffragettes were free to campaign that women should have the same deal instead of the vote as a birthrights, just like women today are free to campaign or subscription. Your view of women is patronizing and infantilizing, like they are children that cannot think for themselves.

          • (Not being a regular wordpress user myself I’m not sure why I can’t reply to the post I actually want to reply to. Alas, I will have to throw off the comment hierarchy.)

            Mr. Fullman, when you have grown up absorbing a constant barrage of messages telling you how women must be to gain the approval of society, it can be extremely difficult and frightening to go against that. I certainly don’t think that adult women are too brainwashed by society to decide that they want a career in the armed forces (as you suggest, that would be patronising). But I do think that deciding as an adult that the received expectations of femininity are bullshit is likely to be too late for those who might otherwise aspire to be a soldier.

            The kind of physical condition and mental attitude you need to have that kind of career aren’t going to be acquired overnight. Producing young female soldiers means producing children and teenage girls who know that they won’t lose the validation of their peers and families if they are audacious or have an enthusiasm for rough sports. From a young age, boys are congratulated for behaviours that will make them good soldiers once they reach adulthood. Girls either have to decide that they’re ok with rocking the boat at an unfairly young age, or they have to make big changes in their physical habits and mental attitude once they have broken out the other side. It is these social attitudes that many feminists seek to change.

          • To answer your first question, the current setting limits the amount of comment nesting you can do to about 4. So you cannot directly reply too deep (it would risk becoming unreadable).

    • But regardless of what the feminists say, women do not want to go to war.

      Fortunately that’s not what mainstream feminists are generally saying. What mainstream feminists are saying is that qualified women should be allowed to go to war as coequals with men. There are also feminists who try to make the army a safer place for women (and men as well) by addressing the issue of military sexual assault. Also, last time I checked, the vast majority of people telling women to not enter the military (or even law enforcement) are men, not women.

      Lastly, you seem to be unaware of the fact that many feminist women – and even non-feminist women – are anti-war. Therefore, just because a woman doesn’t want to go to war doesn’t mean that she wants men to go to war instead. I sure as hell don’t want to go to war, but I don’t want my uncles or my older brother to go to war instead of me either.

      Reply
  13. Reblogged this on Skeptical Cubefarm and commented:
    This is a fantastic discussion of the ever-frustrating “Male Privilege” chart floating around the Manosphere. The quick takeaway from this blog is a) MRAs don’t really ‘do’ statistics all that well and, b) Context Matters.

    Reply
  14. Good attempt at exposure to the basic reality that it serves the powerful that are ten layers behind (covered very well by our social and political systems) all of the problems pointed to here, that serve very well to promote ideas that divide us…the labor class.

    So, we keep fighting each other and never notice these invisible and ultimately controlling few folks (maybe about 1% of the world’s population controlling about 99% of every system functioning on our planet) relaxing and enjoying leisure time with loved ones in pleasant environments participating in pleasant activities most of the moments of their lives while we work and fight and struggle our lives away for basic survival and bicker with one another over the issues they continually fuel the flames of …until we die.

    I can only HOPE that thousands of years from now, a truly enlightened society that values all humans and life equally and demonstrates that throughout all social systems will reflect upon us as the barbarians that we truly are.

    Someday…..

    Reply
  15. This essay merely showcases just how good feminists are at lying to themselves and others…Enjoy it while you can for feminism is dying and is well on its way to being thrown into the trash bin of HIS-(s)tory.

    Reply
      • If by evidence you mean the intellectually fraudulent studies feminist love to design in order to get the response they want, cherry picked stats taken out of context feminists love to use and rely on. Then your evidence isn’t worth squat.

        Reply
          • feminists are well known for cherry picking stats out of context while ignoring the stats that prove them wrong, for using studies that are intentionally designed to get the results they want and for using dishonest arguments and outright lying.

            Every single one of her arguments have been refuted many times over during the twenty plus yrs I have been following these issues. She is offering nothing new but the same ole tired lies feminists have always used in their war of hatred against the male gender.

  16. Repeating the same old tired and debunked lies feminists have always trotted out when faced with reality does not a serious argument make.

    Reply
      • Feminism is the radical notion that:

        Only women have rights and that men don’t deserve any.

        That it is ok to murder an unborn child gestating in his mother’s womb.

        That a woman is justified murdering her husband and/or boyfriend in cold blood.

        That only women can be victims.

        That only men have responsibilities.

        That all men are rapists.

        That a man’s financial resources are for the taking.

        That men have absolutely no right to self defense and are forbidden to defend themselves by any means necessary from female financial and sexual predators.

        That the sexual mutilation of a man is funny.

        Reply
          • I would rather someone like you to think that I am an idiot, then to cheaply sell my integrity in a vain attempt to maintain a lie at all costs. As is the habit of feminists and these who willingly – with both malice and forethought – aid and abet them in their crimes against the male gender.

          • The irony is that the majority of those murdered through the means of an abortion are FEMALE especially in other places like China and India.

          • (responding to the post below because ‘DaPoet’ seems to have disabled replies?)

            There’s nothing ironic about it. Your gender-slip spoke only about your own prejudices and nothing at all about global trends of abortion.

            Also, you didn’t answer my question about whether you are vegan, given your (alleged) compassion for life. Are you vegan?

      • If women are disproportionately oppressed, why do women dominate the markers of welling being and men those of hardship in any given social group?

        Why do white people live longer than black people, why do women outlive the men in their social group? hmmm

        Beware of crocodile tears.

        Reply
  17. Evil Is As Evil Does

    Just like the harpies of ancient times
    the daughters
    of Cain and Satana – the feminists
    spread their
    bitterness and hatred far and wide
    with murder
    dwelling within their infected hearts
    throughout
    the land they sow seeds of destruction
    a bitter
    harvest they intend for men to reap
    seduced by
    their lies they are aided by those who
    are corrupt
    at the very core of their inner being
    wearing the
    guise of victimhood they poison
    the simple
    minds of the daughters of mankind
    place the knife
    within the hand that rocks the cradle

    Copyright DaPoet February 13, 2014

    Reply
  18. A fantastically well thought-out put down. Another example for the ‘I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that’ column. Feminists and MRAs often have the same basic goals, and I for one would happily have them under our umbrella if the bulk of their movement would, for a moment, target the external factors that are fucking us all over rather than making feminism their enemies.

    Reply
  19. Feminists can deny and lie about it all they want but that will not change the salient fact that in our society the feminine gender is the “Privileged Sex” – whose members are coddled and protected like an endangered species from the consequences of their own piss poor choices lest they stumble and stub their dainty little toes.

    Reply
      • The problem is that this is not a serious article and I have seen these arguments debunked many many times ever since the mid nineteen eighties when I started paying attention too and researching these issues. And because the entire feminist movement was built upon a lie it is hardly surprising that the ideology of feminism is coming apart at the seems, while increasing numbers of men have decided to eschew marriage and intimate relationships with the average female.

        Reply
        • How does it feel to read an article that lays down facts you don’t like, and have nothing in response except for pathetic, meaningless rhetoric? Is it embarrassing?

          Reply
          • You are trying to attack men’s self esteem instead of employing reason. This is what bullies do on the play ground. This kind of systematic abuse from women’s activists is evidence of their own malicious intent as well as their contempt for the male sex in general.

            None of these stats are challenged on any fundamental basis. To revert to some tired excuse of blaming patriarchy in defense of a style of feminism that apparently has little or no interest in showing compassion for men (just like traditional patriarchy) shows we have nothing but hypocrites and liars here trying to spin reality to aide their self serving agenda. You don’t wish to help men but you attack men for raising awareness about men’s issues. You choose a way of feminism that is distinctly anti male but you are angry those who support men reject your feminism.

            You have no right to hate us because of our gender nor minimize our problems because we have penises. The manipulation and abuse needs to stop.

        • DaPoet@ ‘it is hardly surprising that the ideology of feminism is coming apart at the seems [sic]’

          *Ahem*

          ‘On 14 February 2013, one billion people in 207 countries rose and danced to demand an end to violence against women and girls.

          On 14 February 2014*, we are escalating our efforts, calling on women and men everywhere to RISE, RELEASE, DANCE, and demand JUSTICE!’

          So, erm, yeah. You’re wrong.

          And everyone else – see you tomorrow.

          http://www.onebillionrising.org/about/campaign/

          Reply
    • The fact that you think that merely saying that something is “a lie”, or that you’ve experienced things a lot, is enough of a justification to disprove an entire [and well explained and constructed] essay, shows just how privileged you are.
      You think that by merely being male and saying something repeatedly is a good argument. Probably taught to you have the patriarchal society we live in.

      Sorry, that shite doesn’t fly here.

      Reply
      • Your merely a women whose learned from other bigots you can dismiss men’s ideas outright because of their gender. That’s sexism you learned from feminism and that shite ought not fly.

        The arguments here are nothing but lame excuses to ignore male suffering. A objective reading of the piece would conclude the person who wrote it either hates men or desperately wishes to avoid discussing their problems. Why else would you devote all these words to indifference instead of compassion. Why suggest their gender is not to blame for problems that obviously related to their gender? The greatest threat to feminism is equal compassion for men and that’s why men shouldn’t tolerate feminism monopoly on the gender dialogue.

        The gender bigots can and should be held accountable.

        Reply

Go on, derp away...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s