Men’s rights attracts angry young men

The early days of fathers’ rights has spawned a movement whose vitriol is considerably more pitched


CTV Edmonton

When Earl Silverman was found dead, hanging from the rafters of his garage after an apparent suicide, those who knew him best said he had died from indifference. For the last five years, Silverman had owned Canada’s only shelter for men, taking battered husbands and their children into his own house in Calgary so they could escape abusive wives. A soft-spoken man in his late 50s, Silverman was inspired to start his shelter after leaving his own wife, who he claimed abused him physically and emotionally during their 20-year marriage, but he was unable to find a shelter that would admit him. In March, Silverman had closed his shelter, sold his home and filed for bankruptcy. On April 27 his body was found, along with a four-page suicide note—in which he allegedly blamed the federal and provincial governments for indifference toward the suffering of men.

“That note was his final attempt to get his story on the record,” says Karen Straughan, an Edmonton-based writer, activist and friend of Silverman’s. “During his life, he was always silenced, so I think this was one last, desperate attempt to be heard.”

And he was heard. As soon as the details of Silverman’s death were released by Calgary police, the news began to travel swiftly through the Internet. Hundreds of websites and message boards devoted to men’s rights caught onto the story. Popular sites like A Voice for Men and the men’s rights forums on Reddit and 4chan were flooded with messages about Silverman’s struggle and demise. Many of those who commented online had never heard of Silverman while he was alive, but after his death they felt compelled to share their feelings of grief, frustration and anger.

A Reddit user named AgentmrmOrangemra wrote, “This is what happens when we throw men on the garbage heap.” On A Voice for Men, editor Paul Elam said Silverman was a victim of feminism and “misandrist bulls–t.” Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men, said Silverman was “murdered by suicide by the feminized state of Canada.” One Reddit user commented that, “The vaginocracy has blood on its claws over this.” As the story took off, mainstream media outlets joined the discussion. Salon, the Huffington Post and The Atlantic Wire published articles about Earl Silverman. In Canada, multiple newspapers ran obituaries. Some writers commiserated with Silverman’s troubled life, some discussed abuse against men, but the loudest voices belonged to those looking for someone to blame.

In response to the rhetoric coming from men’s rights groups, Salon writer Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote an article entitled, “Feminism didn’t kill men’s rights advocate Earl Silverman,” where she sympathized with Silverman’s plight, but called into question the statistics used to measure violence against men. Within a matter of hours the response escalated, quickly degenerating into the kind of interplay that ultimately reinforced the worst stereotypes of the men’s rights’ movement, with its inherent sexism, threats of violence and extreme language. Elam from A Voice for Men responded with an article entitled, “Mary Elizabeth Williams killed Earl Silverman.” Blogger Dean Esmay responded with a list of feminist men, women and organizations he believed were to blame, ranging from Alberta Premier Alison Redford to writers with the feminist blog Jezebel to professional video-gamer Anita Sarkeesian. At the end of his article he added that men’s rights activists would be “coming for them” and all the other “feminists who will be dancing on [Silverman’s] grave” for making all men disposable entities in modern society. Every new article about Silverman’s death was met with angry comments, finger-pointing and another incendiary article. Soon, on any website where Silverman and his death were being discussed, any meaningful consideration of the issues was quickly drowned out by the deafening noise of what was quickly becoming a wall of hate.

The men’s right’s movement, born as an offshoot of feminism, first hit its stride in the 1980s, lobbying for more equity in custody disputes, and greater opportunities in a world which, they felt, had tilted intentionally to favour the women ignored for generations by traditional values. Those early days of boys’ education advocacy and father’s rights eventually spawned a movement that bears little resemblance to the original, one whose demographic is considerably younger, whose focus is more scattershot, and whose anger is considerably more pitched. No longer is it a movement for disenfranchised men. This is now, increasingly, a movement of Angry Young Men.

Paul Elam represents the old guard. At 56, he launched A Voice for Men in 2008 to raise awareness about under-reported male issues including domestic violence, suicide and child custody. It wasn’t long, however, before he found that the primary men’s rights demographic was young, unmarried men between the ages of 18-24. He expanded the site’s content to include issues pertinent to his largest readership: the growing gap between girls and boys in education, men who face false rape accusations, and what he calls “the demonization of male sexuality.” The majority of the blog’s content is about feminism, which the blog calls a “totalitarian, violent, amoral murderous ideology of sexual apartheid and hatred.” Articles on feminism are often accompanied by photos of Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, and one of the most prominent features of the blog are the pictures of dangerous “bigots”—most of whom are young, female university students who have protested at men’s rights events on campuses.

While Elam admits that sometimes the comments and photos on the site are not as measured as he would like, he says the vitriolic headlines are an effective way of gathering traffic. A Voice for Men attracts more visitors than any other men’s issues website, including the Canadian Association for Equality and the Good Men Project. Elam, who himself is the author of a post entitled, “When is it OK to punch your wife?” says he doesn’t “get a rise out of offending people,” but admits anger is the only thing that’s driving the conversation forward. Far from encouraging violence, Elam says that being able to talk about being angry at women, hating women and even beating women on sites like A Voice for Men provides a lot of hurt men the ability to vent emotionally in a supportive environment, so they don’t have to express their anger physically.

“Some of the men on the site have been in abusive relationships, have gone through unfair divorces—they’ve just been savaged by the system. I won’t tell them to stop being angry.” He thinks the rage expressed on his site is a natural and harmless reaction to young men’s uncertain place in modern society. As women pull ahead in education, men are being left behind. As universities raise awareness of sexual assault on campus, men feel as if they are all thought to be potential perpetrators of sexual violence. As women transcend traditional gender roles, young men are increasingly confused about how to behave in a relationship. In a more just world, Elam says, men could at least talk about their problems, but many universities shut down men’s groups before they are even formed. This spring, the Canadian Federation of Students passed a motion encouraging all student unions to reject men’s rights groups, because they promote “hateful views toward women” and justify physical and sexual assault.

More recently, a controversy over a campaign at the University of Alberta fed national headlines. The “Don’t Be That Girl” campaign, by Men’s Rights Edmonton, suggests some women lie about being raped and that rape is over-reported. Posters depict attractive young women drinking in the company of young men with the caption, “Just because you regret a one-night stand doesn’t mean it wasn’t consensual.”

The University of Alberta ordered the posters be taken down, saying that while free speech is respected, the posters violated the school’s posting policies. Men’s Rights Edmonton says the poster was meant to provoke discussion about double standards.

Warren Farrell, a prominent gender activist councillor, and author of The Myth of Male Power, is not surprised that young men today are angry. “In our society, the sound of men complaining is like nails on a chalkboard,” he says. But their angst, he says, stems from larger feelings of powerlessness. Farrell, 69, is considered the grandfather of the men’s rights movement. He has been writing about boys and men since the 1980s, but only recently have his books begun to do well commercially. In light of this new success, he admits that he is cautiously optimistic about where the men’s rights movement is headed. He drew a sold-out crow—and protests—when he spoke at the University of Toronto last November.

James McCarthy, a 21-year-old student at the University of Toronto, says he was shocked to see so many people protesting the event and labelling it as a hate group. McCarthy says that, while he has never faced any discrimination because he is a man, he does believe that women are unfairly privileged due to the expectation of chivalry and receiving privileges over men because men are sexually attracted to them. “Feminists often claim that chivalry is a product of the patriarchy that they are trying to change, but I doubt that many are interested in challenging the status quo.”

The Farrell event at U of T was organized by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE)—a men’s rights group that was founded in Toronto in 2011. In March, the group was banned from forming a chapter at Ryerson University after the student council ruled that CAFE was a hate group. Iain Dwyer, a 28-year-old IT specialist and spokesman for the group, says the strong opposition to men’s rights has been frustrating because “no reasonable person” could argue there is a disparity in society that benefits men. In spite of the opposition, in under two years the group has grown to include affiliated groups at university campuses in Guelph, Montreal, Ottawa and Peterborough, as well as off-campus groups in Ottawa and Vancouver, with thousands of young supporters in Canada and the United States. “I understand why a lot of them are angry,” says Dwyer. “I’ve felt anger myself.”

Mark Harris, 24, also learned about the men’s rights movement during the protests at the University of Toronto against Farrell. He sees the growing movement as part of Gen Y’s failure to launch: “Men my age are struggling, they’re doing poorly in school and unemployment is high,” he says. “A lot of young men are frustrated and looking for someone to blame.”

In a time where there is little class consciousness, Harris says, he’s not surprised that women have become a target for angry men. A lot of young men are frustrated by romantic expectations and afraid of being rejected, but it’s more likely to do with how women seem better prepared for the workplace than men. “Women just seem to have a better work ethic, they tend to be more organized, more meticulous,” he says. “Maybe it’s because girls are brought up to believe that the world is a hard place for women. Boys aren’t brought up that way, so women tend to be better prepared to meet the expectations of the world.”

At the protest against Farrell at U of T, where protesters called the attending men misogynists and pigs, what McCarthy remembers best is one sign, which said, “Sorry about your Man-Feels.”

“Sure, it was funny,” he says. “But it was also offensive.”

After a similar men’s rights event, organized by CAFE in April, there was a similar clash of protesters, and afterwards A Voice for Men posted a video from the event. In the clip, a red-haired woman is reading an article about the shared goals of feminism and men’s rights, while swearing at those who interrupted her. The video quickly reached over 100,000 views; hundreds of comments flooded in from men’s rights activists, threatening to beat, rape and murder the woman in the video. The woman, Charlotte (who is using a pseudonym for safety reasons) says that men’s rights activists disseminated her personal information, including what they believed to be her home address, and sent her hundreds of violent, graphic and sexualized threats, which included personal details such as her dog’s name and her favourite karaoke bar. In one Facebook message, the sender promised that he would not sleep until her “unholy blood was spilt.” She contacted police and did not hear from them until 17 days later. After speaking with them a second time, Charlotte says they never contacted her again, and she thinks they did not investigate because the threats did not specifically imply she was in immediate danger.

“I was terrified by the messages,” she says, “but it’s more terrifying when the cops tell you it’s not necessarily illegal. What’s ironic is that most men’s rights activists decry that society treats all men like potential rapists,” she says. “But the first thing they do when a woman speaks out against them is send her rape threats.”

Elam from A Voice for Men and CAFE’s Dwyer insist that the heated conversations and questioning of feminism following Silverman’s death will ultimately do more good than harm. A Voice for Men has already announced they are raising money for a men’s shelter in Montreal, and CAFE will be announcing a project later in the year.

Beyond the legacy of his shelter and his public claims of spousal abuse, very little has been said about Earl Silverman. Comments from those who knew him reveal only a few details about his life beyond his work—he liked to chat with friends over Skype, he had no children, he owned a cat. Memories of Silverman’s personality and day-to-day life are all but lost in the swirl of vitriol that has dominated all conversations surrounding his death.

Warren Farrell does not deny that the Internet culture surrounding men’s rights can be toxic, but it doesn’t worry him. “Every movement has radicals,” he says. “But the important thing is that the radicals are not the leaders.”


Men’s rights attracts angry young men

  1. Perhaps you deferred to concision, but it may have been informative to include instances where feminists or feminist groups really did go over the top with a sort of gender-fascism. As for male social dislocation, there is some good stuff out there about the paradox presented by the social advancement of women vis-à-vis men and the female tendency towards hypergamy, a legacy of evolutionary psychology. Pretty swell story (the writing, not the suicide).

  2. What an awesome article! I can’t believe Mika isn’t at Maclean’s anymore. :( What’s the point of being a subscriber if she won’t be there? I’m going to cancel my subscription until she’s back!#BringBackMika

    • I wouldn’t. Macleans is one of the few rational media left in Canada. Unlike CBC, they don’t have their hands in your pocket and produce content that makes you thing and learn. While CBC is really a propaganda machine to manage you like sheep. CTV and others, just tabloid urinalism.

  3. The “Men’s Rights” movement is an example of some worthy concerns being undermined by obtuse supporters. For every concern about the tendency of an adversarial family law system tending to be weighted against men, there are many men who cling to that as an explanation for their problems rather than engaging in some introspection and acknowledging how their own errors and personal issues contributed. They’ll talk about an education system that’s not dealing well with the attributes of boys vs. girls, then fly off into sexist, mysogynist rants. As feminists could tell these guys, it’s essential to contain the wing nuts or risk having serious concerns written off as nonsense along with the rest.

    • So why don’t men get custody of the children and matrimonial home in half the divorce cases? If the system is as fair as you say then they should.

      • Read the first sentence again: The “Men’s Rights” movement is an example of some worthy concerns being undermined by obtuse supporters.

        They’re not disputing the claim that some of these things may well be true. They’re contending that the signal is being lost in all of the noise–that when significant portions of the movement (or at least the most vocal ones) act like raving lunatics, your audience isn’t very likely to take your concerns seriously.

        • I suppose men could pick out some crazed harpies in the women’s movement and say all women are like them. Good for the goose seems quite fitting in this instance.

          • Which was my point in the last sentence of my comment. However, I think you’d find that the more effective approach is not to fling accusations back at the other side; it’s to fix the weaknesses on your own side. That’s what can be fixed.

        • Men don’t generally listen to obtuse supporters and they sure as hell don’t consider them movement leaders. Why do you?

          • As I said. Signal versus noise. I don’t know much about the men’s rights movement. I don’t know who the leaders are, I don’t know which organizations they represent, and which they don’t. I don’t know which positions are official and which positions are fringe. Most people probably don’t. What they get is the message that it is sent–both the signal and the noise. If the signal is clear, then the message can be understood and interpreted effectively. If there’s a lot of noise in the message, then the signal is lost. At best, people will just tune it all out; at worst, they’ll assume that the noise is the signal.

            Since you brought it up in your other post, sure let’s take the feminist movement as an example. First-wave feminists were wildly successful. They had specific problems they wanted address–voting rights, primarily, as well as property rights. The message was clear and concise, and the movement’s energy was well-focused. The signal dominated the noise.

            By contrast, modern Third-Wave feminism has very poor signal-to-noise. They don’t have well-defined issues that they need to address, the issues that they’re interested in are not nearly so “big” as things like universal suffrage or reproductive freedom. There are many fragmented and contradictory enclaves. The concepts get more abstract–women should be treated as people is a much easier idea to appreciate than “male privilege”, for example. And yes, there are the “crazed harpies” as well. Signal goes down, noise goes up. Consequently, for the most part, people don’t worry about these issues. The prevailing school of thought is that full equality has been achieved.

          • I think the issue is larger than the overwhelming injustice men face within civil and family courts. That first generation of feminists, in their wish to have a more female centric society, installed a raft of mental defectives into every sector of civil society. They have literally destroyed the humanities in our institutions of higher learning – there is not real thing such as ‘culture’ anymore, only commerce and consumers. Their ‘affirmative action or female priority’ policies have made a mockery of the principle of merit and justice in our government and culture. This is no longer a society one can feel any thing for, except as a loose amalgamation of ‘loot’ to be gained through duplicity and being a ‘squeaky wheel’ rather than through effort and self improvement.
            The rose is coming off the bloom. Woman’s entire ‘schtick’ is becoming clear and understood by all.

        • On the contrary, it’s only because of the “noise” that men’s concerns are being noticed at all.

          We need to get even louder and more vocal – to confront feminism everywhere.

          • Google “judith Grossman” and “snake pit of injustice” and you will understand why mens rights activism attracts many young men.

        • If you actually believed that the concerns were worthy, you wouldn’t be using the anger (which you acknowledge to be legitimate when you state that the cause is worthy) as an excuse to ignore those concerns.

          That is intellectual dishonest and moral bankruptcy. If a concern is worthy, you address it regardless of your personal feelings for those expressing it. End of story.

          • The idealism is nice, but… the real world doesn’t work that way. Civil rights movements are, to a significant extent, public relations battles. You need to convince people of the virtue of your cause; if that is accomplished on a large enough scale, change is inevitable.

            Righteous anger at injustice is indeed a legitimate response. But you have to channel that anger into useful outlets. There’s a reason that the civil rights movement in the United States is associated with Martin Luther King Jr. and not with Malcolm X, even though both were influential figures fighting for the same cause.

          • Or is the victim the cause of the problem? In cases of relationships the self-pity, or so called victim is really the cause. If you treat another badly, and they kick back…well, are you the victim or the cause?

            Simple answer for all is simple, if you have emotional or physical abuse, get a divorce and move on. And if you have multiple bad relationships, then get help as you are likely damaged.

          • Unless you’d spent any time in the movement pre-2003 you’d not know that we wasted entire decades following your plan. People laughed at the issues you just acknowledged were worthy. When we got pissed off about having all these problems and being laughed off and started coming back with the anger in the early 2000’s, that’s when people started taking the issues seriously.

            That’s the reason behind the “anger” and the “tone” that everyone who first encounters the movement tries to “tone down”. Go ahead and try it. Try getting anyone to pay attention to the concerns or issues of men, or even little boys, without getting in their face and screaming about it. This isn’t like the so-called “problems” of modern women, people are dying from ours. We have every right to be angry. And if we have to get in someone’s face and tell them how angry we are that nearly 90% (!) of those living on the street are men, that OVER 90% of those killed or injured on the job are men, that men don’t get custody of their children, even when they’re the better parent,if we have to be confrontational to get a worthless,special-interest-group-pandering, disloyal and disinterested government to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT then that is exactly what we’re going to do.

            We have sat by and paid into this system our whole lives as our money was spent on women,welfare for Muslim suicide bombers, gays and lesbians, blacks, now illegal aliens, anybody but the men who do the majority of the work in this country,who make it possible for this government and this country to go on existing by literally offering up their blood,sweat, and tears.

            Now we need help, and this government that we faithfully surrendered 40% of our paychecks to for so many years as they ran around giving our money to everybody else in the country is going to spend a little of that money on us, because this government has spent 50 years causing the problems that we have to deal with every day, and that, until recently everybody laughed at us for having. Period.

            If you have a problem with men acting pissed off because they have issues that either nobody in this society seems to care about or that they are cruelly taunted about on a daily basis, then DO SOMETHING. We aren’t feminists. If you stop poking us with sticks and spitting on us, the anger goes away. We become HAPPY.

            If you want happy MRA’s then you need to set up some dv/homeless shelters for men and do something about the 200-year old divorce laws written before most women had jobs paying minimum wage.

          • It is exactly your contention that we make ‘nice’ and be good girls about these problems which I find enfuriating. I don’t care about your public -relations lectures. You and all who advocate we ‘take it like men’ and ‘man-up’ and treat these issues as if we were selling cupcakes are going to learn how wrong you were. One day with the wisdom of hindsight you will ruefully regret the day our society forgot the purpose of justice was not prioritizing the needs of the manifestly dishonest and avaricious over the people who built this society and make it run for all people.
            We do not want to want a concordance with these people, we want them gone.

        • Agreed. Further, relationship failure are not black and white, it takes two to tango. It is very possible that two people fighting married to others will have better relationships without abuse. If each has toxic behavior that drives the other crazy, divorce is the best answer for both of them.

      • As for custody, it’s because they are overwhelmingly in better circumstances to be providing day to day care for the child. A big chunk of the deviation from 50% comes from women who provide the bulk of day to day care while the husband works more hours. In a great many cases giving the working parent custody just isn’t realistic and the best plan is to ensure generous access while they live with the other parent.

        As for the, they almost always do. The default entitlement is for the value of the home to be split (there are factors which alter this but that is the general rule and how it usually goes down). Often the wife will stay in the home and the cash value is transferred to the husband’s portion of entitlement to the family assets.

        The true basis for comparison isn’t just to assume men would have custody 50% of the time. Bias would be better shown if high salary women working long hours are constantly winning custody over their stay at home husbands.

        • It’s not the 50’s anymore. Women are in the workplace for good so custody should be split equally these days. It’s still not. If men are in a better financial position to care for the children they should go to the father instead of transferring the father’s assets to the woman so she can put them in daycare instead of him.

          • it may not be the 50s but the reality shakes down like I just said.

            Sorry, you’re just wrong and do not understand the situation.

          • And that reality is that the court system is unfair and biased against men. That’s what we’re angry about, hence the movement. What part of this don’t you get?

          • well, on behalf of rational people everywhere I apologize a system crafted to examine the best interests of the children and act accordingly.


          • Yeah, extorting money from fathers to benefit women, and you have the gall to claim it’s for the ‘best interest of children.” BS.

          • The child support I pay goes to look after my child, not my ex. As I love my daughter, and want good things for her, I don’t consider it extortion. Does it make it more difficult to get by? Damn straight it does. But I was an equal partner in bringing her into this life and so I pay my way. Are the child support tables in need of adjustment? Well, that’s another story…
            Too many men let the bitterness over the death of their relationship with the mother get in the way of seeing what is best for their children. That’s not to say there isn’t a certain amount of institutional bias. But rhetoric like “extortion” just exacerbates the problem.

          • Child support goes to women and it is spent by women, however women see fit. A lot of women spend child support on themselves. That character Judith from “Two and a Half Men” spending Jake’s child support money on a boob job is no joke. Men who have also been proven to NOT be the father, through DNA testing, are still dinged for child support for kids that aren’t even theirs. Wake up! Child support is extortion.

          • Why aren’t your children with you while your ex pays you child support? Were you a bad father or abusive towards your ex or children? Were you indifferent about who got custody? If you had the better income you could have provided the better home while your ex worked on her career while providing the children with financial support. I’m just wondering why she got custody instead of you. Was it just assumed that the mother gets custody because that’s the way it’s always been? Did you not even bother trying because you knew what you were up against? That’s what men’s rights advocates are fighting to change. We just want equality. What’s wrong with that?

          • My daughter is with my ex by mutual agreement. She is a teacher at my daughter’s school and so is off when my daughter is. I, on the other hand, work an hour away, work 8:30-5 minimum, and have less time off. It just makes sense. I live within walking distance so she can visit whenever she likes.

            Nothing wrong with equality. But people who equate child support with extortion aren’t looking for equality; they are looking to shirk their responsibility.

          • In your case, as you see yourself an equal partner, I see your point. However a large minority, or even a majority of men do not have this luxury of being an equal partner. For them it is nothing more than on-going legalized extortion.
            Part of the problem is perception, as you exemplify:
            “Too many men let the bitterness over the death of their relationship (usually with their child)”
            But say nothing of ‘Too many women…’ who are encouraged to weaponize custody and use the mutal children as a gambit, with the acquiescence of the courts and people like you, who only see one side of the story.

          • 20% of those in the care of the state are subjected to sexual abuse. “Best interests of the children” is just a buzzword with no more applicability to the situation than “Patriot Act”.

            The idea that women are the primary caregivers is exactly 200 years old. It is NOT in the best interests of the children and never has been. It is arbitrary. The latest studies all show that single father custody is better for the children in a multitude of ways. That would be “the best interests of the child”, but that’s not what we want. We want default shared custody, and jail time for mothers who violate visitation orders.

          • You are only rational in protecting your malformed interests. As for the rationality of your argument, your last word says it all – yeesh.
            The ‘best interests of the children’ in most every contested case is never in ‘the best interests of the child’ but in the interest of the woman who considers both the child and the fathers assets her due property.
            Do not be too offended or surprised when men become rational and act accordingly to their own best interests.

          • no, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

            It is a statistical fact that single fathers do better than single mothers. if a psychopathic women breaks up the family unit, she has proven herself unfit to raise the kids.

            Women instigate the divorce 70% of the time. The system is in the itnerests of the women, not the kids. To claim that a system that enalbes women to divorce when single mothers do far worse than single dads, and couples who stay together is a bizare rataionalization.

          • And maybe the court system is biased against ANGRY men. I can’t imagine why!

          • Disgusting victim blaming! Men who are driven from their homes and kids are angry and asking for it?

            Women who are angry we see them as distressed vulnerable victims needing help, even if what they are angry about is frivolous.

            When a man is upset even at his life being destroyed, he is just an angry male and needs to get over it.

            You are damaged in the brain, you lack empathy for males.

          • Yes, I lack empathy for people who allow their anger to destroy their lives & the lives of those around them. I was raised by a man with serious anger issues who periodically beat the crap out of myself or one of my siblings – whoever was in the way at the time. People have choices – they can hold onto their anger, nurture it & allow it to grow, or take some responsibility & stop blaming the world for what’s wrong in their lives. Make the best of things or make the worst of things – it’s YOUR choice!.

          • You presume that a mother does not work, sorry, that is not backed up by statistics.
            My X worked full time, so while I was losing 1/3 of my net income my child was in daycare anyway, both before and after separation.
            As you will note, 1/3 of a persons income is the maximum according to financial institutions that should be paid for housing… essentially I was making my housing (mortgage) payment to my X. And of course I had to have somewhere to live as well.
            My X married again, someone that compared to either (or both) of us was independently wealthy. They built new log house on 160 acres beside a lake. I paid for many years after this.

            The simple fact is maintenance enforcement ruled out the possibility I could start again with a new partner and family.

            I am finally free of this heinous legislation. Now I can start again… at 56…ya sure…

          • Exactly.

            Fantastic point.

            50% of marriages end in divorce. That means if you mess up the first time,and you will, because women initiate 70% of divorces and there are 0 incentives to stay together and 100’s of thousands of little green reasons to divorce, that means it’s IT for you.

            Not only can a man not get access to children that are biologically his, but if he wants to try again with a different woman,HE CAN’T EVEN DO THAT!

            Yet women are talking about “having it all”!

            Men don’t get to have ANY OF IT!

            And then these fools wonder why young men are angry?

          • Yes but you were paying child support not alimony. That is why you continued to pay when your wife got remarried.

          • Dude, that is why we have child support. You don’t get to advance your career while your partner cares for you children, then on divorce say “well, I have more $ than you so I will dictate where the children live.” For someone who just tried to claim we aren’t in the 50s anymore, that’s a seriously screwed worldview and hardly equal at all.

          • Why is it men paying child support to women for the most part and not women paying child support to men? If men are in a better financial position to care for the children then they should be granted custody. Women are in the workforce now and if their career is stalled don’t blame it on their husbands and children. If men were granted custody women would be in a better position to advance their stalled careers. In those instances women should be begging the courts to grant custody to the father so they can advance their careers and be in a better position to contribute to the children’s upbringing. Wouldn’t two highly paid parents be better than one?

          • There are all kinds of situations, and everything needs to be taken into account. My ex has my daughter and I pay her child support, even though she makes a fair bit more than me. Why did I not seek custody? Because she works fewer hours and has no commute; it just makes sense as far as the best interests of my daughter are concerned.
            But yes there are biases in the system; though she makes more than me and gets child support, my ex gets all the tax breaks. That seems more than a little unfair to me.

          • “There are all kinds of situations, and everything needs to be taken into account.” – this is exactly right, however the national organization for women(the largest feminist organization in America) has for over 40 years explicitly pushed for default maternal custody and describes fathers who seek custody or even visitation as abusers for wanting to see their kids.

          • So you accepted that you are a second rate human being? I don’t. I don’t believe the state has the right to destroy the family unit.

          • Because financial situation is not the only thing that is taken into account in custody disputes? There is a lot more to childcare than money.

          • Does it differ province to province because in all of the situations I know of, the couples have joint custody….split evenly down the middle. Also, child support if any is paid by the person who makes more money be it female or male. Once the child reaches 18, the support for university is split between the parents based on their incomes. If the child doesn’t go to university, support ends. Even the family home is sold or it is decided that the one person will buy out the other.

          • That may be more common in Alberta but is generally not the norm. It is not really in the best interest of the child to uproot them every week or two weeks to swap houses. It often isn’t practical either if the parents live in different school districts. So most often the child has a primary residence with one parent.

          • I did some research, Keith and unless the parents are in very high conflict, the children actually do better if they spend at least 35% of their time living with both parents. In Calgary, it is immaterial what school district the parents live in because you can enroll your child in whatever school you want to in the public system. If the school is outside your district, you as a parent are responsible for getting the child to and from school. So if the child is in the mother’s school district, the dad just has to drive the child to school. The divorced parents I know tend to live in the same area so that the children are never to far from their friend’s homes. It makes sharing custody much easier. I knew one divorced couple who lived on the same street. I don’t know any couples where one spouse has had primary custody, at least not anyone who divorced in the past 20 years. It just doesn’t happen here anymore. Fathers want more “regular time” with their kids and they get it.

          • Good reseach, guess why the number is 35%… because the mother retains 100% of the maintenance enforcement payment even is the father has the children up to 39% of the time, anything over that and the payment is lowered.

            You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about healthcareinsider.

          • cleargreen…is it just me or does your comment suggest you are a man with a woman’s picture on your profile….anyhow. Perhaps you had a lousy lawyer or you made way more than your spouse. Regardless, the research, I was alluding to was in regard to the well being of children…. emotional, mental, physical…..it had really nothing to do with financial arrangements between spouses. What the research found was that children that spent at least 35% of the time with their fathers, were better off. Children that didn’t, were resentful in later life. They felt they had missed out on getting to know their dads.
            Now, as to the the financial arrangements. My guess is you had a shitty lawyer or you made too much money. I knew someone who had Ms Rene Cochard in Edmonton (her dad was the strip king). She was an excellent lawyer. The reality is that a father can’t pay more than he has. Ms. Cochard strongly advised against any conflictual bs between the litigants (mom and dad). It isn’t in the best interest of the children. She recommended that fathers set up an account at Sears to pay for children’s clothing as apart of the child support if they are concerned about where the money is going. Common sense advice for people who really have their children’s best interests at heart.

          • “It is not really in the best interest of the child to uproot them every week or two weeks to swap houses.”

            You keep saying “bests interests of the child” as though you were a child psychologist or a doctor. How, exactly, do you know what is “in the best interests of the child”?

            Moreover, why are we throwing the interests of the parents out? You talk as though the child’s interests were first, and then the parent(s)’ interests were someone in the back, but the truth is that they’re not even CONSIDERED! They have zero weight on the court system. Why?

            Why does the court have to get a warrant showing probable cause of a crime to remove a pocket watch from your home, but it can take your children without so much as a “by your leave”? How is that in ANYONE’S interests?

          • Divorce is not in the best interests of the child, unless one of the parents is abusive.

            Lets have gender neutral laws that take away the rights of custody of the kids for the party that instigates a no fault divorce.

          • You are so out of touch. In British Columbia if you live with a woman for one year, with no children, you owe her alimony if she makes less than you on separation. (This law was passed in the last 5 months)
            This is an example of how mindlessly insane this situation is.

          • Ya.. sure it is, I was divorced in Alberta…

          • Prior to the Tender Years Doctrine (which was a result of women’s advocacy) custody went to the father because he had 100% of the responsibility both in marriage and after divorce for providing for their material needs. He got the kids and the entire job of feeding them. Feminists call that “traditional patriarchal privilege.”

            After the TYD, women got custody, but men were still held to the responsibility to support the children. She got the kids, he got the bill. Feminists call that “fair”.

            It has been suggested by MRAs and even some feminists like Cathy Young and Karen Decrow that in cases where a man has not consented to have children with a woman, he should not be held financially responsible for said children. In other words, like the traditional privileged patriarch post-divorce, women who get pregnant without the man’s consent should have full custody and full responsibility. Feminists call that “OMG! WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS??? BEING A SINGLE MOTHER IS HAAAAAARD, YOU MISOGYNIST!!!”

            NOW opposes equal shared parenting in part because it would have unintended negative impacts on child support awards–that is, shared custody means less money being extracted from the father and handed to the mother.

            Bias toward women and against men in both family and criminal courts, even when laws are gender neutral, is a phenomenon common across cultures. These are not quirks of law. They’re informal, social biases.

          • Yes, that was when women were also treated as children and property. That’s why it was labeled as ‘patriarchy.’ You know, PATER, father, head of the house and everyone below him? Not exactly equitable.

            And yet you spout biological arguments for everything else but child care. If we take your evo psych trash remotely seriously for one minute the argument would be that women are the best caregivers for their kids. Right? While dad goes out and hunts and she stays home and gathers with the kids? We’re a lot more complex than that but considering you think it’s ok to hit women from time to time to keep them in line I don’t expect much from you.

            I love your doublespeak around women’s reproductive functions and the choices they must make either to continue pregnancy or abort.

            Aren’t you MRA’s crazy about the entire risk/responsibility ethic? Well, since her body carries the risk then she carries the power to choose which it will be.

            I love when you all get your evo psych nonsense used to refute your arguments.

          • I think there are few men who would deny a woman right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term… what we don’t like is being stuck with paying for your choices. Nor do we like the under-reported wide-spun problem of women who conceive simply to extort funds from men. Use children and the act of marriage, childbirth as extortion or induced servitude.
            In the 70’s when blood based paternity tests were new the commonwealth countries of Britain, Canada, Aust and NZ made paternity tests mandatory over a year for an experimental study. What they found was 27% of children born were not the children of the acknowledged father. Oh feminists screamed about that! Threatened their cash supply right at the rail head… so the tests where stopped due to their demands. In the interim paternity anomalies where reported at 2.5%. In the late 90’s when DNA paternity tests came out Switzerland and several American hospitals joined together on a paternity study. What they found was 29% of children born for the year studied where not the child of the reported father. Caused a furor – from threatened feminists worried about their reproductive choices.
            I love your double speak around the basis of women’s reproductive choices. Turns out it’s mainly about the cash – just like your feminism is.
            It is a sign of wisdom and mental health to despise your type – it’s not refined yet, but it will be in the not too distant future.

          • See, when you try to mentally diagnose someone on a comment section you instantly get disregarded by me. All your comments become irrelevant. G’day.

          • She undergoes the pregnancy for 9 months and parental responsibility for 20 to 25 years. He has parental responsibility for 20 to 25 years. But whereas the Family Responsibility Office (in Ontario) mercilessly enforces child support (and spousal support) orders. And whereas there is no agency to enforce visitation orders. And whereas primary custody is usually awarded to the mother and financial support obligations usually levied against the father. Fathers are held to higher standards and are subject to greater liability as parents. It is certainly not ‘only’ her that carries risk and responsibility.

          • WHAT THE HELL? Are you insane?

            You don’t get to advance your career after the women has driven you out of your home? Because the women has choose to do the selfish thing and instigate divorce, the man should pay child support? What a weak rationalization.

            The 50’s where better for men and women. We have a pro single mother, pro child abuse society now.

          • Last I looked I lived in Canada, if you can hook me up with a study on the Canadian legal system I’ll be impressed.
            The US is a country that has all sorts of ridiculous legal anomalies from stand your ground to making corporations people. Oh I wonder when companies will set up their own group looking for custody of the children of those they lay off.

          • Ah I’m afraid I don’t. I would be surprised if there wasn’t gender bias in Canada family courts, as the problem seems to stem more directly from institutionalized social standards than obfuscated law.

          • I’m going to need more than “seem” to give that any credence. Also if it isn’t law then how can it apply in family courts where lawyers are used to argue law?

          • Dude, your arguments are stemming from tv sitcoms and newsradio. You are terribly misinformed about the entire deal.

          • Whether he is ‘terribly’ misinformed of the entire deal is arguable, whether you are ‘entirely’ misinformed and wish to promulgate that misinformation, is not.

          • Also well documented; though I’m not affected enough, nor do I care for you enough, to do your homework for you.

          • In other words you have nothing but what you insist must be so. That’s not really going to help your case is it?

          • Well; not to be rude:

            I’ve read several well thought out, and decent, comments (from both sides of the debate) that may prod me to do “”any” work or put out “any” effort to try and impress the writer of said comments,

            Yours were not one of those.

          • You commented to say I don’t agree, but have nothing to refute what you say. Why did you bother commenting at all you added nothing to the thread?

          • you are right, it is not up for debate. i am right for reasons I have patiently explained.

            You may as well just start typing in all caps, dude. It’ll make your argument that much stronger.

          • You’re right because what you said is right. Got it.

          • thanks for your useless input.

        • You seem ignorant of the fact a woman can make any type of vile accusation in a family or civil court and not at any time be held accountable, not only this, but she has government funded helpers to aid her devise her perjuries (which garner her all manner of cash and prizes – forget about your 50/50 division) and if her charges are found to be 100% false, well she must have had ‘some reason’, and that reason could not possibly be greed, aggression or a moral corruption shocking in it’s depravity.
          The same thing with domestic violence, rape charges, paternity suits, etc. etc.

          The feminists have made a woman’s ‘feeling’s so paramount and superior to reality that if she ‘feels’ the need to rely on what is otherwise with lesser-beings called ‘lying’ she will not face charges for perjury and malicious prosecution in our system of law.
          “If she feels it to be true – then it must in some way be true’ is a rule in our courts. It is impossible to charge a woman with malicious prosecution or perjury, thereby handing them an incentive to lie, which they are masters of. Try to find one woman who lied her face off on the stand and was called to account for it, and you can consider yourself very diligent and lucky individual.
          The same for women who murder men in cold blood, commit crimes which they then blame on men, murder or sexually abuse children, accuse men of rape or attempt to conceive for the purpose of stealing another’s assets and freedom, – which they again will blame on men.
          When the clock swings around, as it always does,
          the resettlement of the affairs between the sexes any amount of extremity will be well deserved.

      • Depends, my dad would have made a lousy sole custody father. In fact I would (and did) runaway once.

        But agree in this, there should be more open consideration in where kids go. But I am happy with all things be equal, the woman gets first choice as on average, (and exceptions exist) many women have better child raising instincts than do men.

        • Good mothers like Andrea Yates, Elaine Campione and Lisa Gibson?

          • Fathers like Dwayne Allen Schoenberg?

          • Exactly. And they wonder why the movement isn’t taken seriously.

          • Now a comment like that makes you sound like a deranged misogynist. And about the last person that should be raising children.

          • the national organization for women describes a fathers desire to see his children as abuse against the mother and they’re taken quite seriously and not considered misandric by the general population, but nite_owl posts some names of bad mothers as proof against the myth that women are naturally better parents than men and that makes him a misogynist?

          • For that matter, no one really wants a supercillious airhead like you to have children, yet accept that it is your right. Why do think Fathers should be denied that right?
            In asking this, I’m suggesting aside from whatever self-centred reasons your small, self-satisfied, entitled mind automatically generates.

          • So pointing out that mothers abuse is misogyny and deranged?

            You are pro child abuse, because you are for silencing anyone who criticize women who abuse. Women abuse kids more than men, that is a fact not up for debate.

          • And what percentage of the female population do these women represent? Without too much effort I could probably come up with at least a dozen examples of men who have killed their children. If I were to theorize from that that all men were bad/evil would I be correct? No, but I would have exposed myself as a raving lunatic completely out of touch with reality. Get a grip, please.

          • Women abuse kids more than men. So whatever the percentage it is higher than male abusers.

            Women kill kids far more than men do. 98% of baby killers are female too.

            You are the lunatic who can only think with emotion.

          • I hope you get yourself some therapy soon – you’re in serious need of it.

        • Not so fast dave777. It would seem that in contemporary America women are more likely to catastrophically screw up in dealing with kids.

          The following link to U.S. Department of Health & Human Services — Administration for Children & Families — Children’s Bureau reports quantify the relative frequency of violence against children as committed by male and female perpetrators.

          Child Maltreatment 2007 by Dr. John A. Gaudiosi; http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/cm07.pdf
          Child Maltreatment 2009 by Dr. John A. Gaudiosi; http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf

          In the United States in 2007 42.4% of the perpetrators of child maltreatment were male, 56.5% were female and 1.1% are unknown.(table 5-1, page 68)
          In 2009 44.4% of the perpetrators of child maltreatment were male, 53.8% were female and 1.8% are unknown.(table 5-3, page 76)

          From table 4-5 on page 62 of the 2007 report:

          In 2007 in the US, 29.7% of child maltreatment resulting in the child’s death were committed by a female perpetrator who acted alone whereas 20.6% were committed by a male perpetrator who acted alone.
          In 2007, in the US, 55.3% of child maltreatment resulting in the child’s death was committed by at least one female (ie. one or more women plus zero or more men), whereas 39.6% was committed by at least one male (ie. one or more men plus zero or more women).

          From table 4-6 on page 64 of the 2009 report

          In 2009 in the US, 29.8% of child maltreatment resulting in the child’s death were committed by a female perpetrator who acted alone whereas 19.5% were committed by a male perpetrator who acted alone.

          In 2009, in the US, 62.1% of child maltreatment resulting in the child’s death was committed by at least one female (ie. one or more women plus zero or more men), whereas 43.4% was committed by at least one male (ie. one or more men plus zero or more women).

      • Because they don’t do 50% of the child care duties prior to divorce. Men need to start insisting on taking as much work time off as women do to care for their children.

    • See us MRAs know things, like where the disparities in family courts come from and why they are so difficult to change. The National Organization for Women which is the largest feminist organization in America has opposed shared parenting and supported sole maternal parenting singe the early 70’s and refer to fathers wanting to see their children as abuse against the mother. You wonder why MRAs are anti-feminist, why we go against ‘the other side’ it’s because the largest and most powerful feminist organizations in the world deliberately push for anti-male policies. Look up the Istanbul Convention for instance, not to mention feminists pushed the Dulluth model of domestic violence as the standard model despite the fact that all evidence even in the 70’s pointed to reciprocity and men and women being equally abusive.
      To clarify being anti-feminist is not being anti-woman.

    • How about you share with us some actual examples of them “flying off into sexist, mysogynist rants” to back up your point?

      • This thread (as least as far down as Ive read so far) is being pretty reasonable in tone, but I’ve seen some real whack job mysogynists on some similar threads in the past. He’s not wrong.

        • that’s not an example.

          • Didn’t exactly bookmark those threads and feel no real compunction to seek them out now to appease you. Believe me or don’t; your choice.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • You seem to be doing the same…

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Pssst… scroll down a bit; The Mad Shangi is giving me all kinds of evidence. Among other things, he called Emily a spineless twat. And he’s pretty mild compared to some I’ve seen.

          • Anyone can call themselves an MRA and say whatever they want.

          • Unless you have proof he isn’t, then I have evidence. Prove me wrong, rather than trying to worm out of it.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • It’s not about misogyny or sexism, it’s about being a prick. Which you are doing. Which you should stop.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Again, a remark like that just makes you sound like an idiot. Not the way to gain support.

          • Read all his comments. If you don’t see misogyny in them, then you too have a problem.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • What dictionary are you using?

          • You got the problem sister. You have no empathy for men.

        • yeah, maybe you’ve seen something from two and a half men to provide an example with :)

          • I see your point now; that, above, was hard to read.

      • My textbooks in Sociology classes at U of W (97-2001) had some pretty off colored and angry feminist language within the books.

    • …And feminism doesn’t have the same issue?

  4. Great article, I believe that there is a serious transformation going on in this country (and others like it) with respect to gender rolls, a transformation that will require more dialogue and study. We are by no means in the middle of an apocalyptic calamity on either side, change takes time, and to be honest, those of us with both feet on the ground have plenty else to concern ourselves with… poverty, war, the environment, the economy and yes… even politics.

    • So men having no rights in regards to his family, being the main victims of the police state, being over 90% of the homeless and work related deaths is a transformation that will require more dialogue?

      You just waffled a lot of trite platitudes that mean nothing. You are gone in the head. You are a product of a crap and dying culture.

  5. The concerns about the “biased” family law system are essentially bunk as well and undermine responsible discussion.

    • Uhun; on “that” point, you are wrong.

      • “Very” wrong, in fact.

  6. ” The majority of the blog’s content is about feminism, which the blog
    calls a “totalitarian, violent, amoral murderous ideology of sexual
    apartheid and hatred.” Articles on feminism are often accompanied by
    photos of Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, and one of the most prominent
    features of the blog are the pictures of dangerous “bigots”—most of whom
    are young, female university students who have protested at men’s
    rights events on campuses.


    The video quickly reached over 100,000 views; hundreds of comments
    flooded in from men’s rights activists, threatening to beat, rape and
    murder the woman in the video. The woman, Charlotte (who is using a
    pseudonym for safety reasons) says that men’s rights activists
    disseminated her personal information, including what they believed to
    be her home address, and sent her hundreds of violent, graphic and
    sexualized threats, which included personal details such as her dog’s
    name and her favourite karaoke bar. In one Facebook message, the sender
    promised that he would not sleep until her “unholy blood was spilt.””

    And this is exactly why nobody is going to take men’s rights groups seriously. If you sound like a bat**** crazy hate group, it should not be surprising that’s how you get treated.

    Which is sad because they do indeed have some legitimate concerns, but they’ll never be taken seriously if these are the people who are promoting them; they undermine their own credibility. Learn the lessons from how other civil rights groups have advanced their causes and maybe you’ll get some traction.

    • The fact that this article exists is an example of the men’s rights movement being taken seriously.

      These tactics work, because they gain attention – and because they embody the truth. That’s why feminists are trying so hard to shut them down.

      • No one’s taking your points seriously, they are taking your threat to peace and good governance seriously. From the poisonous outpourings and threats of rape, murder and other untold screeching I see no difference between these guys and the taliban or any other hate group out there.
        I just hope that the security services are gathering up the evidence of very real threats to commit crimes in the furtherance of a political agenda.

        • Since there are a few MRAs contributing to this thread, would you care to point out all the threats of rape and murder on among the comments here?

          Oh wait, there aren’t any. You’re just telling lies, like a typical feminist.

          • So none were ever issued ever because there are none on this forum hey?
            That doesn’t even qualify as an argument.

          • Tell me about these rape threats? Because I can assure you they don’t exist, they are inventions of a feminist psychopath.

          • Maclean’s screens their comments before they are posted.

        • I challenge you to connect a single threat of violence against a person to a member of either A Voice for Men or CAFE.
          let me remind you that at CAFE’s events at UofT the police were there to protect the MRAs from the feminists.

          • Err did I say that a member of any of the groups did? Or are you enjoying playing with straw?

          • okay so AVfM is the largest most prominent Men’s rights site and CAFE is quite prominent as well so if the most prominent portions of the movement are not what you described then what’s the problem?

          • Classic American attitude.
            Recently in England a promoter of Jane Austin being on a bank note was accused of all sorts of anti men BS – rape threats and other classic MRA inspired reactions ensued.
            The leaders of MRA movements are just like the catholics who rant about abortion clinics and doctors, post addresses and details on line and then deny any responsibility when those they enable kill folk.

          • Rape threats? Oh no, someone on the internet made a threat they can in no way ever back up! Call the police! Misogyny!

          • Threatening to commit a crime isn’t to be minimised and is in fact a crime itself. As for “can in no way back up,” There’s one or two victims of many extremist loons who might disagree with you, well they would if they could.

          • There where no rape threats at all. Worst thing said to her was. “I hope you get raped one day.” That is not a threat, that is just a nasty thing to say.

          • well here’s a video an MRA did on that subject, and it’s completely reasonable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P7vkIzncc
            also I read an article by an MRA about how happy she was that jane austen was on the bill because she’s a fan.

          • Nope that women did not receive a single rape threat. If you are not a dupe look into the story yourself.

          • Oh just the infamous terrorist Tom Ball manifesto you guys removed from a voice for misogynists http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/tom-ball-murdered-by-the-family-courts/

            and here’s some of the text of it you finally removed

            “So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses.… the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along.
            They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out. …

            You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

            Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our
            advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA”

            We know about you.

          • Extremist thoughts (and those are just thoughts) are inevitable at this point in history. It’s interesting Orwell couldn’t see into the future far enough to see the main force goading the state into oppression of the populace would be women such as you.

          • Orwell did see it. He wrote about women being the biggest bigots and swallowers of the party orthodoxy.

      • They get the wrong kind of attention. I happen to agree that Men’s Rights groups have some legitimate issues to raise. But all too often the comments or even the articles I have read have degenerated from positive assertions of men’s rights into extreme mysogeny.
        Because of the vocal fringe, rather than showing solidarity over the legitimate causes, I try hard to disassociate myself from the loons. It’s hard to get traction on an issue when people automatically think you’re crazy.

    • If feminists didn’t want to be associated with the KKK them they shouldn’t have gone to clan rallies. kidding aside though, changing feminists articles talking about men and just substituting ‘jew’ for ‘man’ and ‘aryan’ for ‘woman’ and some minor edits for situational things and you get an extremely hateful article against jews which could have easily come out of nazi germany but when it’s about men no one cares. that’s why they have them beside images of nazi’s and such.

      as for the threat good old big red got A Voice for Men put out a statement urging people NOT to post her personal information anywhere, NOT to send her messages and NOT to do any of the things described in this article. 4chan got wind of her and that’s where the abuse came from, not MRAs.

      • Well Feminists and the Klan have the same opinions – Take the feminists male gaze” The KKK said thought why would a black man look at a white woman but to want to rape her ” – The feminists just repeat the same idea but remove the term “black”– it is the same bigotry just relabeled as feminist theory and taught as women’s studies

        • I forget where I saw it but someone took things the KKK said and things feminists said and added black to the feminist ones and men to the KKK ones and said let’s play a game and see if you can tell which is which

          • What’s this about linking to evidence and providing proof?

          • “The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things.”

            — Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

            if I replace male in that quote with the n word would it be any different than something you would hear from a klansman?

    • There where no rape threats against that women, don’t be a dupe.

  7. “Wall of hate?” Anger isn’t hatred, no matter how much you’d like it to be, and anger is a legitimate part of legitimate and useful discussion, especially when those who’ve tried the not-angry way of faced years of marginalization, ridicule, and false allegations anyway.

    Earl had spent 20 years trying to get support from your own government professionals in the domestic violence industry, most of them avowed feminists who to this day continue to minimize the problem of female-on-male violence whenever and wherever they can; many of them were still tormenting and ridiculing Earl the day he killed himself, in a Linkedin group devoted to domestic violence.

    And by the way, I am Managing Editor of A Voice for Men, so I’m not sure why you’d list me as a “blogger.” I do maintain a blog, but I did not write those words there, I wrote those words on A Voice for Men. I also write for other sites.

    You also mistakenly quote me as saying “we’re coming for you,” which I clearly did not write (all you have to do is read the article–you might have provided a link so people could clearly see what you were quoting and that oh, you misquoted me, John Hembling wrote that “we’re coming for you,” not me, and anyone with more than a cursory familiarity with our publication knows what we mean by “we’re coming for you” and that it isn’t violence we intend, it’s destruction of a hateful, sexist, bigoted ideology and exposure of the hateful ideologues for who and what they are.

    I notice you also provide no evidence of any threats of violence, just assert vaguely that they existed. I submit you provide no evidence of that because there isn’t any. There were certainly not any on A Voice for Men, nor would any be allowed since our nonviolence policy is zero-tolerance and written in stone.

    All that said, I’ve seen worse articles than this, so, you know, you guys get a C-. A real effort at journalism would have made sure to identify me properly, fact-check your quote, and even, crazy thought, contact me to ask me about things like this. But hey, you did a better job than the average media outlet on these issues, and at least got some of this right and not completely twisted.

    I am of course available for comment at 313-334-4887 for anyone who has genuine questions, or through avoiceformen.com.

    • Everybody slowly back away from the crazy man. Do not engage, do not make eye contact, no sudden movements.

      • I suppose that would be the best way to prevent reasoned discussion.

        There’s a reason why after 20 years of these issues worsening over time we no longer speak with quiet voices. You don’t have to like our tone but if you misquote us or say something inaccurate, you can expect to hear about it.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • Not in the least scared of debate, relish every opportunity. Do not appreciate people who simply engage in ad hominems and throw hissy fits when they hear things they don’t want to hear. Your grudge against me is personal and I wish you’d get over it.

      • You just lost your argument; right there.

        “UNreasonable” (proven) <–Name calling and all..

      • I suppose your idiotic comments are meant to enrage various persons so you can claim ‘look at the crazy men’

        And the thing is, your type of stupidity is not an exception, it is in most cases an accepted tactic for your type, because at bottom you are still a spoiled child with an inferiority complex you still haven’t worked through.
        Imagine if, one day, it didn’t work anymore! That there were enough ‘craazy men’ who said ‘enough of these idiots’ . I’ve seen this before in life. It’s almost a cycle in nature.

        And that’s the time when ‘ slowly back away from the crazy men. Do not engage, do no make eye contact, no sudden movements….’ is your best hope

    • Go back to your ideological echo chamber. You are doing nothing to help men.

      • Ahh look a typical feminist shouting her version of “Go back to the Kitchen !!” typical man hating feminist

    • Again you say Earl was blocked from achieving his goals by feminism, which is clearly not the case. You also talk about ‘anger’ which unfortunately translates to misogyny and attacks on women at A Voice For Men. If you dropped the anti-woman and anti-feminist insults you would gain more credibility. Your rhetoric and misogyny KILLS your movement.

      The author of this article is absolutely correct about your website. It’s a place where Paul Elam gets to indulge his misogyny with every article that is written either by himself or by others.

      Now he’s trying to backtrack and get the author of this piece to retract things that make him look bad. Well he DOES engage in this and it’s quite clear that MRA’s attacked the feminist at the U of T. It was ALL over the internet. Paul’s denial of this speaks volumes about what kind of individual he is.

      If the author of this piece would like any assistance to completely show Paul for what a dishonest person he is, then please comment back to me and I will gladly help.

  8. There is no rational reason for any of this. But as we’ve just read, most of the people in the ‘movement’ aren’t rational.

    One of the few generations of men that didn’t have to go to war, and who live in prosperous countries, with education readily available…..and they act like this??

    What they’re saying is that now that they have competition in education and on the job market…..they can’t keep up, they can’t function, they can’t cope.

    I doubt they’ll get any sympathy.

    • I’ll buy that BS when men are no longer charged with rape because a woman changes her mind the next day. When men are afforded the same rights as women in divorce cases. When a woman is held responsible for her actions no matter how much she’s had to drink just like men are. Women want their cake and eat it too. I understand that want but it sure as hell doesn’t make it right.

      • For centuries, men have raped women and gotten away with it…..they still do in many places.

        For centuries the man owned the woman right down to the clothes on her back….and could throw her naked out into the snow….no money, either. And in those days women couldn’t get jobs. So living on the street and hooking was all there was.

        Was any of this right?

        No, of course not….but it took a long time to right it…..and it’s only in a few places where that’s happened…..did you expect it would all happen easily, without error….ever….overnight……and that all women would act like saints about it?

        However men behaving like this won’t get any sympathy…or help.

        • So you’re saying instead of equality women prefer vengeance against all men for past suffering of their gender. Thank you for your honesty. And how will you feel if the wheel turns again and men seek vengeance? Will you say it’s just and right?

          • You know very well what I said. Stop it.

          • Yes I know what you said and I responded to it. Do you realize what you said?

          • This comment was deleted.

          • I don’t have to take your crap Emily. I’m not sleeping with you.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • I’m not bitter. I’m stating my opinion and you’re all over me like crap on a baby blanket because it differs from yours. You said you were going to ignore me. Was that just more empty words from you?

          • No, I’m not ‘all over you’….I haven’t even said anything nasty! I was trying to explain why the situation exists….I thought it would help.

          • Why don’t you say something substantive? Even when I know someone is misrepresenting what I said, I repeat what I said. I don’t just say, “read my comment, idiot.”

          • Hey why don’t you stop putting words in her mouth. She never said ‘idiot.’ and yet he was the one who brought in the sexual shaming language. The problem is you MRA’s can’t comprehend easy to understand language and no matter how many times it’s said you still don’t understand it.

            See what you just did? You changed her language and went after her. Typical.

        • You nor any woman alive today experienced any of that so you don’t get to claim victim status for it, sorry.

          immediately going to an argument about the past rather than addressing the now is essential an admission that the now has reversed things rather than fix them.

          • How precious a victim telling others they can’t claim victimhood.

          • That’s kinda what Emily did, too. Just sayin’…

          • Agreed
            I can’t stand the hypocrisy either way.

          • what hypocrisy? saying that what happened to people centuries ago has no bearing on today is not hypocritical.

          • You are remarkably ignorant about the world you live in. Lots of women today stay with abusive men because they are unable to support their kids and themselves. Lots of women today are raped, gang raped, murdered as well….here and in every country on the planet

            A woman is killed by her partner every 6 days in Canada.

            I’m not claiming victim status dude…YOU are

          • This comment was deleted.

          • pls leave

          • Seems to me that young men of today are the spineless imbeciles…..so far you’ve blamed everyone for your failures in life but yourself. Big push against boomers awhile ago until you got smacked down….and now you’re all misogynists because you can’t cope. Maybe you’re closeted or maybe you’re just perverts….because anyone that hates women….is not right in the head.

            Apparently it never occurs to you that this kind of hate will harm your mothers, sisters, and daughters….

            Now get off your ass, stop whining and holding these ‘pity parties’ for yourselves….you look ridiculous and certainly not grown men…..get a job, and get out there and do some work.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Yup. Way to prove her point.

          • The point about women not leaving so-called abusive men because they’re spineless imbeciles? Yeah, I proved that one, alright.

          • No; the point about looking ridiculous and not being grown men. Really? Calling someone a spineless twat? And then you wonder why people call you mysogynist? BTW – remember that earlier post where you said I had no evidence? Well, you just provided it, dweeb.

          • A women in an abusive relationship can get help, a man can’t, massive difference there.

          • He’s right, there’s always these fatuous, brainless women of whom the only thing they know or care of men is that they provide them with goods – and hypocrisy is so deep into their soul there is no separation, no disentangling self-interest from their being – it’s become one and the same thing.
            They really are a different species and i’m not sure it’s human as we presently understand it.
            The first suffergettes went around handing men yellow flowers in Britain if they didn’t sign up to go fight in the trenches and charnel houses. These women always align themselves with the main exploitive powers, and become their pet faction…. and then lecture men on their moral failings – advising to man-up, or slave-up and deliver the goods to these wretched beings who are nothing more than a cosmetic illusion covering a lovecraftian monstrosity.

          • LOL ‘projection’ is what THAT’S called Shangi.

          • Holding women to moral standards is hatred? You are not right in the head if you refuse to hold women to standards.

          • Ah the real face of MRA activism is embarrassing the cognoscenti of the movement

          • Women stay with abusive men, because the women enjoy the drama, women like that are often just as violent or more violent than the men.

          • You are remarkably ignorant about
            the world you live in. Lots of men today stay with abusive women
            because they are unable to support their kids and themselves. Lots of men today are raped, gang raped, murdered as well….here and in every country on the planet

            8 men commit suicide a day in Canada
            A man is killed every 24.33 days by his partner(this does not count when the partner uses an accomplice which many women do, Warren Farrell has written on the subject and shown that spousal homicide is closer than initial stats appear due to ‘multiple offender homicides not being counted as spousal homicide) also the proper number for women is every 7.44 days.

            men die at up to 38 times the rate of women due to work place injury

            about claiming victims status, I’m talking about real current problems men face and seeking recognition for them. you’re creating a narrative of being a victim around yourself by talking about the distant past and the injustices women have always faced! ohmy!. that’s the difference, also I like how you look at human problems and attribute them to only women.

          • False equivalency arguments won’t help you either.

            Nor will fairy tales. LOL

            I gave you the stats for today…..not the distant past.

            And if you don’t want to be injured on the job….get a better job.

          • are feminists innately incapable of following conversations? you did in fact talk about the distant past, which I described as building a victim narrative around yourself. As for your modern stats, they’re just as applicable to men, and men can’t get a better job because feminists have affirmative actioned and quota’d the shit out of all the nice cushy office and corporate jobs and conveniently ignored the dangerous dirty ones.

          • Well sonny, I’m not a feminist. And no I didn’t talk about the ‘distant past’. It happens all around you every day.

            Look you’ve blamed gays, blacks, boomers and now women….everyone but the person at fault….Yourself.

            Canada has thousands of jobs we can’t fill….find one, and get it.

          • who said I have any of the problem I’ve described personally? I see them as problems regardless.
            also it happen all around me everyday, to both men and women let’s not forget you like to only think of women as being victims of these crimes.
            let’s look at something you said real quick: “For centuries the man owned the woman right down to the clothes on her back….and could throw her naked out into the snow” the Hammurabi code had provisions to prevent such things as women being thrown onto the streets with nothing, it also had provisions on what the woman would get when she left the man if he was abusive. First known written laws and they’re not as you describe.

          • If you don’t even have a problem, and yet you’re on here talking rubbish like this, then you’re a pervert.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • LOL You’re the ones who hate half the planet….see, it’s your own problem, no one elses

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Yeah, you do. Women are over half the planet. This also means your grandmother, your mom, your sister, your daughter………

            People don’t live in a fixed class society anymore. Where you are born in the servant class, and die in the servant class. We have upward mobility…..it’s called education, and everybody can get one. …and get a better job.

            Nobody twisted your arm to take your current job. You took it, you chose it, you’re apparently staying in it…..and yet that’s somehow the fault of women??

            And if a robot can do your job….it will, sooner or later….so move now.

          • Nobody twisted your arm to stay with an abusive boyfriend either. You still don’t seem to grasp the concept of how a society actually runs.

          • LOL you sure love to make up rubbish.

            No wonder your life is a mess.

          • Emily why are you making this about employment which has nothing to do with anything?
            Is it because you are a pink-necked bigot? So what is your job? Did you really earn it or was it reserved for you through women’s quotas like so many jobs are today, such as in government? One where you don’t do any work at all and are just a parasite on the taxpayer? And thus you feel silently guilty? Is that the reason you swerve onto such an unrelated topic?

          • If everybody got to pick and choose what kind of work they do, then nothing would get done. Coal would never get mined, buildings would never be built. If you wanna be paid the same as me, do the same work.

          • You do get to pick and choose….jobs depend on education

            Get one.

            And stop worrying about coal and construction….LOL

          • ah the privilege of the female not knowing that men daily trudge through her shit in the sewers to keep the street from flooding with sewage and that it’s over 90% men who work every single job that keeps society running. where are you gonna get a safe office job if no one’s worry about construction? where are you gonna get electricity if no one’s mining coal?(in places with coal electricity)

          • Dude, all this logic is too much for her.


          • Why would you do such a stupid thing….get an education.

            And don’t tell me about the ‘good of society’….LOL Wadda pantload

          • How would anything get done, if everybody were doing all the cushy jobs and no one was doing any of the hard shit? How would you get electricity? How would your toilets run? You really are a thick-headed twit.

          • Oh….so now you hate half the planet for the good of society??

            If a robot can do your job, it will….sooner or later.

            Perhaps you’re not aware of robots building houses now….wired, plumbed and everything.

          • Maybe you get to pick and choose all the cushy jobs. In the real fucking world, if everybody got to pick and choose then no one would be doing the hard jobs. And the hard jobs wouldn’t be getting done.

          • So we are to assume you are educated? Really?
            Share with us.

          • Stop worrying about the high risk jobs that kill men? Yep you don’t give a frig about men at all. You are clearly a psychopath with no empathy for men. You do have massive self regard and self concern though.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Was I talking to you? No.

            Don’t interrupt

          • Again, another stellar comment from EmilyOne, with arguments galore and insights that prove her superior intellect and intuitiveness. Why are you not interested in providing me a comment I actually have to think about and refute?

            Not to mention your “don’t interrupt” bullsh*t in a public comment thread. Do you really feel you have an entitlement to determine who gets to engage you and how? Or is this just your “I’m going to say something glib and dismissive so I don’t have to address the opponent’s arguments”?

            Either way, it doesn’t look good on you (or anyone).

          • Your mother did a lousy job of raising you….now don’t interrupt.

          • SHOCK AND AWE!!!! You have humbled me. I bow to your superior empty sh*t-talking. You pwned me. Behold all, as I lick EmilyOne’s boot.

            Oh wait. Did you actually have a counter-argument?

          • You haven’t made an argument to counter…..you’re just being rude to no purpose.

            Actually you remind me of HI and KV…..same MO.

            So perhaps the same treatment will help you too.


          • So the comment where I cited a historical source that women were not barred from education and work in the 1400s is not an argument against your contention that women were never allowed to be educated or work?

            Please, do go on.

          • The point is, nobody can trust your sources and nobody can trust your interpretation. Like the rest of the MRA’s you take a tiny little sentence or paragraph and then expound on it devoid of its context.

          • You’re not making an argument. As usual, your catty nonsense continues, just like what you said to her earlier. I bet the fact you don’t have any education means that you feel like the big fish in the little pond?

          • Shorter life expectancies too; for a long time running

          • This is either stupidity or dishonesty Emily. You know they have welfare and a thousand other supports for women who are in abusive situations. But forget about the man who ran the ‘only’ shelter for abused males in the country and paid for it out of his own pocket and was denied any funding whatsoever and decided to commit suicide to draw attention to a situation that is almost insane in it’s extremity (when compared to what this country is supposed to stand for), is remarked on in the article preceding these comments…. and we have Emily stating we are ‘remarkably ignorant of the world we live in’.

            I personally have seen statistics, and a silent majority of Police who work the details agree as they authored them, that a majority of rape cases would only be called ‘rape’ if we eliminate the idea of female responsibility. Many are in it just the joy of victimization, and many are in it for revenge or to hide their own bad choices, women resent the idea of a world with any responsibilities for their own sexuality, and love the fact society zealously relieves them of that chore. Woman want to be considered sexually innocent in all cases, or their sexual value falls, and this impairs their prospects.
            Woman murder with close to impunity, sexually abuse and exploit children (85% more than not only the father, but of any family member) and a host of crimes which are abetted and aided by the camouflage of women like you.
            Women are destroying the lives of men and children everywhere, often for selfish and egotistic reasons – in otherwords no real reasons, just spite and the empowerment of revenge.

            And women like you chide us for claiming ‘victim’ status, which in your eyes is not very masculine or attractive. Well, we don’t care what you think really and more and more see that women like you are not a responsible partner with which to negotiate. Therefore you will find in the future more and more men are going to say to hell with you we are going to oppress you for the good of all. I know you can’t see it coming, you can’t imagine it, or you want to throw up some camoflage and hide it… but don’t say we didn’t try to talk with women like you. We did and that was fruitless and thus we learned. Have a nice day.

          • Quite the rant.
            It doesn’t even make sense when you said “we are going to oppress you for the good of all.”

          • Yup, ambiguous. I was getting bored and wanted to get to the point, so I went for effect. I think we are going to have a breakdown in civil society. Several breakdowns. Our polite little society of magnum grade AAA hypocrisy and lies is going to fall apart. It’s very due.

          • Men suffer more violence than women.

            80% of rapists come from abusive single mother households.

            Women rape just as much as men do.

            More women abuse and kill kids, than men who abuse and kill women.

            More women commit violence against men, than men against women.

        • Oh, you mean the women who were never allowed to be educated or work?


          “Women were not excluded from membership in any of the earlier guilds. The Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths in London lists sixty-five “brethren” and two “sistren” in its 1434 charter.”

          And this: “Male or female, a prospective guild member had to apply for entrance by apprenticeship, patrimony, redemption, or marriage. Most women applied by right of marriage, or widowhood. More than 200 youngsters are documented to have been apprenticed to women in Oxford between 1520 and 1800, evidence that women claimed the rights of masters.”

          And this: “Complaints were more common in periods of economic strain,” Hufton wrote, “particularly when the labour supply was overabundant and rising prices outstripped wages. In easy times, journeymen were less anxious and might permit without complaint some infiltration by women into what they saw as their sphere of activity.”

          Ever wonder why that last was the case? Perhaps it was because children’s privilege ended at 18-21 for young men, but upon marriage for women. That is, unmarried women were entitled to the support of their male relatives, and if married, their husbands. Men, on the other hand, had no entitlement.

          Which could explain this, from the linked article: “Girls were apprenticed, too, usually in cases of orphaning.”

          So essentially only the most disadvantaged girls in society saw the role of men as preferable to the role of women.

          Being trained in a trade WAS education back in the day. Women were not barred from participation. In periods where they were socially discouraged, it was because economic circumstances made jobs scarce, during an era where men bore sole financial obligation for the family.

          I also find your comment about men being able to throw a woman naked into the snow amusing. During the time when men could divorce more easily than women (men only had to prove infidelity, women had to prove infidelity and cruelty), and when men instigating divorce received automatic custody of children (along with all the cost) and were not forced to pay alimony unless THEY had wronged their wives… the divorce rate was low and stable.

          However, once the Tender Years Doctrine was enacted through women’s advocacy, which gave custody to mothers without forcing the full cost of custody on them (basically alimony if she has custody)… the divorce rate increased 15-fold in 50 years.

          In other words, the moment divorce became as easy for women as it had been for men, women did it 15 times as often. Go figure.

          • And what are YOU doing Karen?

            You guys all go to the same school? Cuz none of you can argue for toffee….and you’re more concerned with being thought clever than having any regard for the subject.

            Well bless your heart…may you never find out.

          • Oh my goodness? A non-response that addresses nothing I said or cited. Who has no regard for the subject again? Are you going to do ANYTHING other than smack-talk your opponents? This isn’t an MMORPG, ffs. “Yo mama” is not considered an argument here.

            Again, do you have anything substantive to say? Maybe a counter argument, or something to add that would lend nuance to the debate? Maybe you could discredit the source I cited? Or provide an alternate interpretation of the information in it?

            Oh wait, I’m sure you’d rather just “pfft” me, and sit there thinking of something you can accuse me of that is the female equivalent to having a little dick.

          • Contact your school….demand your money back.

            Oh wait….high school is free.

          • Ad hominem attacks belittle us both. Why don’t you address something I’ve said, rather than address some irrelevant item in the stalkerish dossier you and your obsessive sisters keep on me?

          • Never heard of you before actually, but if you think an example from the middle ages counters thousands of years of brutality, you’re fair and far off.

            And why you’d even BE anti-women I don’t know.

            Maybe therapy would help

          • Again, an ad hominem. Here I’ve been in this thread, lauding the accomplishments of women in the 1400s who held their own within male dominated trades, and you’re calling me anti-woman. Why are you so eager to erase the accomplishments of your great-great-great grandmothers?

            Which of us is anti-woman?

          • I don’t know if you get this a lot, but I’m sure glad you’re on our side!

          • Well now it would be one thing if you were honestly representing that article. You used it to manipulate like you usually do. Ok so some poor women and some daughers got to work as a smithy. Context!

            Then at the end you threw this crazy bomb about women divorcing men as if that’s somehow a bad thing. So you’re not lauding anything. You’re using bits and pieces of articles and deceptive babbling to undermine women and make them look bad.

            Oh see, she can work but then she gets a divorce! Oh BAD WOMEN!

          • Uhoh; most concrete point, with reference, on the whole thread.

          • There you go with your crazy interpretations again. Women usually went in there with PERMISSION from their father’s and in rare instances were allowed if they were poor.

            The article also says women’s names weren’t on the registries. Why?

            “”the completion of a man’s apprenticeship had political and social, as well as economic consequences (parliamentary franchise) that did not apply to women.”

            Did you understand that Karen? So women, if they completed, were not given a name on the registry.

            “Perhaps the notion of “choice” is where women’s roles have changed in the workforce, but no matter what century it is, women have always done what is necessary to provide for themselves and their families.

            Oh and now you want to prattle on about divorce as if women having custody of kids is a bad thing. Nasty, evil feminists!

            Could it be that women were sick of the patriarchal dynamic of man as king of his castle/home? Naw, it’s gotta be some misandry in there making women divorce.

            Please stop posting pieces of articles and then making up its meaning. Please.

        • The history you quote Emily is a lie. It was never like that, and the exceptions when it did happen was matched by the untold number of women who murdered, poisoned and exploited men for profit, the vast majority who got away with it by using the ‘woman is a gentle moral flower’ lie.
          Your whole movement is built on lies. It’s why you keep pointing to a past you invented. For almost the entirety of the history of western civilization women were treated with deference and respect.
          That is ending, and it is women like you who earned it.
          We do not in anyway want your sympathy, we want justice and we will get it.
          Quite honestly I do not respect women as a gender in this society. Individually yes, but as a class as in gender – I see them as malignant parasites. Much of it has to do with the marxist tactics they have taken hold of…. but still there it is, whatever tactics they use to further their ‘entitlements’.
          And really I don’t think Emily your game is going to run for much longer…. denying us your ‘sympathy’ as if we cared. I think you rely on us to enforce your ‘privileges’ which you’ve acquired through exploiting your sexuality and children. And I think the clock hand is going to swing and everything you know and consider a ‘right’ is going to be gone. I do not only predict this, I know for certain this will come about.
          I don’t want this, I want equality is the sense of ‘equality before the law’ for everyone. But I do not think it this is possible with women, many who are like you.
          This is terribly unfortunate, but you will have masterfully earned it.

        • Men invented civilization to protect women from rape. You just slandered an entire gender with that post

          Perhaps men should stop protecting women and just let psychopaths have their way with them? When men protect women, women seem to return the favour with hostility.

  9. Today hundreds attended a memorial for a woman who murdered her two children and then committed suicide. In the news reports about it they seem to neglect to mention she murdered her children even going so far as to say someone else might have killed the children. Could you imagine this sympathy towards the killer had it been a father who murdered his children?

    • She suffered from postpartum depression and perhaps postpartum psychosis. In Calgary several years ago, a man suffering from psychosis (possibly schizophrenia) killed his whole family (with the exception of an infant). There was the same outpouring of sympathy toward him, his family and the family of his wife and the young lady who boarded with them. He was a young architect. It was a tragic, awful situation. Tragedies involving young families with mental illness are usually treated with empathy no matter what gender the sufferer is.

      • While there was an outpouring of sympathy for his family and the poor boarder there was none for him. At least none that I witnessed here in Calgary. Personally I have no sympathy for murderers. Particularly those who kill children.

        • There was NEVER any hostility voiced toward the man who killed his family and the boarder because he WAS ILL! Neither was their any hostility directed toward a man who approximately a year ago shot his wife and baby while returning to Airdrie from a visit to his parent’s home in Saskatchewan. You obviously have an agenda to prove that people sympathize with women and demonize men when mental illness is involved. That is not the case. I would like to see even one source article you could provide that would provide what you are claiming. I work as a psych nurse so I know you aren’t being truthful. There is no gender difference in how men and women with mental illness are treated when tragedies occur. The public demands to know why the system failed these people no matter what their sex is.
          Your comment about “not having sympathy for murderers…” is ridiculous given that people who are suffering from psychosis can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality and thus are not responsible for committing murder.

          • Allan Schoenborn…

          • Andrea Yates….

          • Really! What do you expect from Texas? They execute more people than all the other states combined. They gave us the inbred Bush family.

          • Guy Turcotte

          • Vince Lee the schizophrenic murdered who beheaded the man in Manitoba was painted as monster and to this day, 5 yrs later, still is by most. CBC’s The Current used to offer up case after case of murder suicides by men as evidence of “Men’s violence against Women”. They have stopped doing it now after the double standard of their reporting was pointed out.

            CBC Winnipeg also has pointed out there is, as yet, no evidence this woman was mentally ill.

          • The case of Vincent Lee differs in important ways. #1: He killed a stranger on a bus….not his own family member or members and #2: He was an immigrant. If you don’t think racism plays into this, you are completely naive. The Chinese government isn’t big on letting people leave their country but they are happy to give up their people who suffer from mental illness.
            Further, Vincent Lee didn’t just stab his victim to death, he ate part of him. This of course was more than a bit disturbing for people.
            There are also cases where one spouse has killed the children of the marriage but the murderer is not mentally ill. Would you like to offer examples of those instances?

      • There is no evidence the Winnipeg woman suffered as such.

        • All of the news reports say she suffered from postpartum depression.

          • CBC Winnipeg stated yesterday there is as yet no evidence she suffered from mental illness. Sometimes ‘facts’ take a life of their own, which is what is being discussed here.

          • Well, the National Post is saying she did suffer from mental illness and there are calls for any enquiry into why the system failed her.

          • Well we will have to wait till all the shit settles then. Atm there is an awful lot of it flying around. CBC and CTV Winnipeg and the local media has been careful in not mentioning mental illness as the cause. Basically we don’t really know as yet.

          • Certainly there is differing information but to suggest that women with mental illness get a pass when they kill their children while men do not, isn’t true. Andrea Yates in Texas is a example of a clear cut case of postpartum psychosis and they wanted to execute her. In the US, mental illness is almost never recognized. The “Batman killer”, will serve life in prison as will the shooter in Arizona, even though they both suffer from schizophrenia and were acutely psychotic at the time of the killings. Gender is not an issue. Race, however, is at times.

          • Nationality appears to be an issue here too. In the US people have been given life terms for stealing ten bucks worth of toiletries and eating a slice of pizza offered by a child at a beach birthday part when another child complained to police. And don’t start with Texas. They Be F’ing Crazy! Everyone know that.

          • There certainly was in the past, of that I have no doubt. Frankly I have not seen enough cases to make a judgement on the present. My guess is though things have improved a lot. However many assumed, without question, that this women deserved sympathy.

            Not wishing to have a lengthy discussion, but I’d argue gender does play a significant role in many areas of the criminal justice system.

          • Well, in the case of postpartum depression and psychosis, gender DEFINTELY plays a role because it only applies to one gender. To argue that women are getting too much sympathy is like saying men are getting to much sympathy for prostate cancer…what???? Some things are gender specific….sorry. We women truly wish men could have babies and suffer from postpartum depression, etc. Regardless, the woman is dead. Obviously, it is her husband who deserves the sympathy and hopefully is getting it, along with grief counselling and unlimited support. Sympathy is lost on this woman. She needed treatment. If she fell through the cracks, we should find out why. Arguing about gender is ridiculous when two children and their mother are dead and a family is devastated because make no mistake, mental illness and it’s awful outcomes devastate everyone. There are no winners here.

          • We don’t know as yet she needed treatment, in the formal sense of the word. I do think attitudes have improve a lot over the years with regards men, reflexive demonisation is less common. But you are right, whatever way you cut it this is all very tragic.

          • no such thing as postpartum psychosis. Do you not get the fact it is an invented pathology? If you have the ability to kill your own kids, you are a psychopath.

          • System did not fail her, she killed her kids.

      • Postpartum depression is a construct to rationalize female psychopaths killing their babies.

        A women kills her baby she gets sympathy, a kid who does it goes to jail. Women are held less accountable than kids.

  10. Does anyone else notice that the description of the state of the mens rights movement is a mirror of the early feminist movement? – loud, aggressive, and punitive towards the other sex.

    The agressive nature I would attribute to the long boiling frustration to being second class citizens to women.

    For example, there are more women admitted to Medicine, Pharmacy, Physiotherapy, and Occupational Therapy then there are men. Far more women. Instead of making the admissions relative to qualifications they are relative to quota filling. This is disappointing because you can have a brilliant male denied admission in lieu of admitting a less qualified woman. How is this equality, and how does it benefit our society?

    If there was a male oriented scholarship based on merit (excluding athletics) there is a quick and pronounced stop to that because it is sexist, yet there are hundreds of scholarships specifically for women.

    There is no such thing as sexual equality in Canada.

    • Charlotte is quoted as saying: `I was terrified by the messages,” she says, “but it’s more terrifying
      when the cops tell you it’s not necessarily illegal. What’s ironic is
      that most men’s rights activists decry that society treats all men like
      potential rapists,” she says. “But the first thing they do when a woman
      speaks out against them is send her rape threats.`

      Here’s the thing, though. Although some feminists do think an aggressive approach is necessary, most don’t, and, I can’t say I have ever heard of feminists threatening to physically assault, much less sexually assault, any males. That difference is critical and probably says a lot about the issues these chaps have with women, per se.

      It seems to me that, after being told to be nice boys and share the benefits they have taken as their right for being the preferred gender, things have changed and guys who haven’t had the opportunity to grow up are lashing out. I hope the balance will be found but we are going to have to speak together civilly first.

      • You aren’t speaking civilly when you talk about “the issues these chaps have with women, per se” and “guys who haven’t had the opportunity to grow up … lashing out”.

        These sorts of casual insults and sneers only make angry men more angry. And we should be angry – there’s a lot to be angry about.

        • You have a point there; I thought she was being deliberately provocative and demeaning there too.

      • I’ll repeat what I already posted here: MRAs did not send her threats. There’s no proof of them doing it besides the unsubstantiated claims made by feminists.

        As for feminists never threatening anyone, I suggest talking to Murray Strauss or Erin Pizzey, who recieves bomb threats for publishing accurate data on domestic violence. Erin’s dog was shot and she had to be escorted out of the country for her safety.

      • I’ve seen feminists discussing eugenics and the elimination of males down to 10% of the population and only using those ones as sperm banks.
        I’ve seen a feminist day care worker describing a 3 year old boy as a future rapist and fantasizing about throwing him out a window
        I have seen feminists discussing castrating men for fun, and laughing at cases where men have been sexually mutilated
        Feminists sent death and bomb threats to Erin Pizzey and killed her dog
        and prominent MRAs get the same vitriol from feminists that bog red got from random internet trolls from 4chan and reddit who weren’t even MRAs.
        a feminist lawyer assaulted an MRA(goes by ‘daddy justice’) in a courthouse last year
        feminists blocked doorways and fire exits and had to focibly be removed by police at an MRA event at UofT
        feminists pulled a fire alarm at an MRA event at UofT
        feminists threatened violence and then used intimidation and bullhorns to try to censor and MRA event at UofT and when they realized it wasn’t working pulled the fire alarm again

        I challenge you to connect a rape threat to any prominent MRA.

        • I haven’t seen any feminists on this thread suggest euthanising men and treating survivors as sperm banks. According to your logic it can’t have happened.

          • according to someone else’s logic you’re refering to a comment that is not mine.

          • Please, do go there. You’ll find he rebukes the legal system that does not allow men the defense they’re constitutionally entitled to, not women.

      • I agree; we do have to speak civilly. I don’t think many in the men’s rights movement do themselves any favours when they use some of the heated-up rhetoric they do. But then, when their groups keep getting banned as hate groups, and society keeps marginalizing them and pooh-poohing the issues they try to raise, they actually encourage the radicalization.
        To start speaking civilly, both sides also have to listen civilly.

        • Men’s issues were discussed civilly for over a hundred years and have been ignored until we started being intentionally controversial and now people pay attention.(and yes men’s movements have existed for a very long time, some of the earliest were started by mothers concerned for their sons)

      • You realize that male journalists and bloggers typically receive more threats of violence, death and vandalism than female ones, right? Michael Coren of Sun News has even said that if he’s not getting death threats, he’s not doing his job right.

        Female bloggers and journalists don’t even have a monopoly on negative comments on their appearance or sexual attractiveness (I thought it was hilarious when feminists commented that James Taranto looked like just the type of guy who would hate women, since he’s so ugly no woman would sleep with him), or sexist slurs (creep, dick, prick, pervert, pedo, basement-dwelling virgin, tiny penis, etc, are all analogous to the sexist slurs often levelled against women). Someone calls Harriet Harman a harpy, someone else calls James Taranto a cockroach and a scumbag. The male equivalent of the rape “threatoid” (threatoid being not a statement of intention to do harm, but a statement of wishing harm, such as “I hope you get raped”) would be something along the lines of “you should be castrated” or “I hope you get your dick cut off”, which possibility evokes a similar negative response in men to the one rape does in women), which does come up now and then.

        Actual rape threats are pretty rare. Again, “I hope you get raped” is not a threat, any more than “I hope you get hit by a bus” is a threat. Feminist Rebecca Watson has waxed ad nauseam for more than a year about all the rape threats she’s received, and posted screenshots of I would assume is the worst of the abusive comments and messages on her “page o’ hate”. Last I checked, there was not a single ACTUAL threat posted there, and some of the “hateful” comments were nothing more than (ungentle) criticisms of her ideas.

        Pretty much the only type of “abusive” comments women receive more of than men are “offers of sex” and positive feedback (sometimes crude, for sure) regarding their sexual attractiveness. Women receive more “I’d hit that”s than men do.

        One thing I’ve noticed is that when an MRA says something like “Modern western women are such spoiled &*%#ing brats. We men should go on strike for a day, let those &*%$#s live in the dark without running water, see how they like it!” it will be interpreted as “misogyny and hate, because OMG, he sounds angry and was swearing and he’s a man and men are scary.”

        But when a radical feminist says something like, “I think the problem with men is biological. Their androgens are in need of modification. Extermination a la Solanas is, to me, a last resort. Perhaps we ladies can find a way to neutralize men’s disgusting behavior some other way–perhaps eugenics? What say you all?” it will be interpreted as, “Well, they’re just complaining. Besides, women aren’t violent or scary…”

        I have seen WAY more hate and violent rhetoric coming from feminists. I have yet to see a single MRA suggest that women should be exterminated, or their population brought down to 10%, or that they should be genetically altered so they’ll treat men more fairly. I have seen these ideas regarding men spoken about in total seriousness by leading feminists who teach at major universities.

        I have yet to hear of a single actual MRA being charged with making credible bomb or terroristic threats, but Erin Pizzey lived for years under police protection due to such threats from feminists, her daughter once had to call the bomb squad when they received an unexpected parcel while Erin was away, and she finally had to flee the UK when her dog was shot. At the same time, an MRA in Canada was doxxed by feminists, at which point an anonymous (false) tip was called into police that he was stockpiling weapons and munitions.

        You want to know what’s terrifying to me? That Solanas attempted to kill three men just because they were men, after writing a manifesto proposing the complete eradication of men, reaffirmed her intention to devote her life to wiping out the human male, insisted she had done nothing wrong in shooting those men, *and that leading feminists like Robin Morgan championed her, picketed for her release from prison, called her a hero.* That a feminist group in Ecuador (Lorena Bobbitt’s country of origin) sent a threat to several media outlets to castrate 100 random American men if she spent even one day behind bars, and almost no one has even heard about that. And that most of the world has forgotten the terrorist tactics employed by suffragettes–arson, vandalism, violence, threats, intimidation.

        What terrifies me is that feminists have been making threats (and carrying them out) for a LONG time, but people don’t seem to know or care.

        • Oh yes, just use the SCUM manifesto and its particular quotemines to somehow compare calling someone a ‘dick’ to ‘you deserve to be raped until you die’. Brilliant.

      • What I noticed, from her piece, is that she tried her hardest to do anything to elicit a violent or negative response, and prepared her contingencies in advance.

        Mens Rea: Planning: wow.

    • “For example, there are more women admitted to Medicine, Pharmacy,
      Physiotherapy, and Occupational Therapy then there are men. Far more
      women. Instead of making the admissions relative to qualifications they
      are relative to quota filling”

      Actually…. it’s not quotas. Canadian universities don’t use them. The problem is that women have significantly better GPAs than men, pretty much across the board. It’s a bit dated, but Maclean’s did a good story on this some years back:

      “”If we look at the highest grades,” says Laval’s Villeneuve [director of admissions at Université Laval’s faculty of medicine], “it’s
      always the same: 70 per cent of the highest scores are for women.””


      You’ll note if you read the article that there is some gender-biased commentary–women are perceived as more sensitive and will have better patient relationships for example. But even if you look only at grades, women are simply outperforming men, so naturally you’d expect more of them in rigorous academic programs. In fact, an increased emphasis on grades would hurt male applicants more than help.

      The better question is “How can we make the education system work as well for boys and as it does for girls?”

    • “Does anyone else notice that the description of the state of the mens
      rights movement is a mirror of the early feminist movement? – loud,
      aggressive, and punitive towards the other sex.”

      I actually thought the same thing.

    • C. Ruff notice the difference, the early feminist movement was mostly lying, fabricating, talking garbage and no matter what is said of the men’s movement it has a long way to fall before it is ever in parity with the feminist movement. Woman have always relied on the p@ssy pass and their reputation for irrationality and irresponsibility. If the men’s movement does fall to the level – then feminists better watch out, because you will be dealing with a whole different beast. Things get that bad, all bets are off.
      Women have always been privileged in our society, and that privilege is going away girls – and you can say you earned it fairly and equitably.

  11. Where were the decries of feminists being a hate group when they terrorized Erin Pizzey with death and bomb threats?
    Where were the schools shutting out feminism on baseless claims of being a hate group? Where were the feminists, the so called champions of equality when there is only shelters for abused women and nothing for men despite the fact that Statistics Canada shows 585thousand male victims of domestic violence and 601thousand females victims? Feminists ran amok threatening people with death(legitimately not anonymous comments on youtube being wrongly attributed to MRAs), they NEVER faced any major opposition and then when men get angry at the fact that men are leading in the overwhelming majority of social ills from suicide to poverty they’re told that they’re being a hate group?
    When men get angry at the fact that women make up the majority of post secondary student and have for 3 decades but there is still increasing amounts of female only scholarships and benefits, the MEN are being hateful?
    When men are angry that a mens center is not allowed on campus even though there has been a womens center for 40 years, the men are being hateful?
    No, it’s the feminists who are the bigots who shut down Erin Pizzey for caring about men.
    It’s the feminists who are the bigots who maintain a lack of shelters for men and constantly lie about the nature of domestic violence.
    It’s the feminists who are the bigots who lobby for increasing benefits for women in post secondary education despite the fact that they are the majority of graduates.
    It’s the feminists who are the bigots who shut down men’s centers and groups on campus.
    It’s the feminists who are the bigots not the angry young men.
    Yes, I am an angry young man and you should be damn glad that I decided to channel that anger into advocating for all the men who have been disenfranchised by a culture that just doesn’t give a shit about them.

  12. This article was great, except for areas it fell flat on its face. I’ll summarize it as briefly as I can: feminist ideologues have been running a vicious smear campaign against the MHRM (in some cases outright fabricating evidence) and absolutely nothing from them can be trusted. You claimed “men’s rights activists” sent Charlotte threats. If Manboobz (the site who broke it) had bothered with a little thing called journalistic integrity, they would’ve discovered all the threats came from 4chan and MRAs were actually pleading with them NOT to send her hate mail.

    Gender feminists can kick and scream all they want over our long overdue challenge to their monopoly over gender discussion, we’re not going anywhere.

    • Anyone who says anything nasty or sexist to a woman (especially a feminist woman) is an MRA, dontcha know. That’s literally the only criteria used to determine if a person is an MRA. My youngest has been an official MRA since he was 4, when he told a girl who wouldn’t let him join her and her friends in a game that he thought girls were stupid and boring and stinky anyway. /s

      • Yeah well a 4 year old calling a girl stupid boring and stinky is not even close to the misogynist drivel you speak and that your counterparts do.

  13. I’m a girl who’s for gender equality. As a result, I strongly dislike feminism and the MRM.
    But since this article is about the MRM, I’ll share two of the reasons why:

    There is an article on AVFM that defends taking complete inaction if you see a woman being raped.
    The owner of the site has also claimed that if he’s on the jury for a rape case, he will vote Not Guilty even if it’s clear that a rape occurred.

    Those are just two reasons, not all of them. However, I think both make it immediately clear that the MRM is not really pro-equality. Actually, it’s not even pro-man, full-stop. (And it wouldn’t be a problem if it was! I think it’s important for men and women to feel confident.) The MRM is pro-man AND anti-woman – pro-man AT THE EXPENSE OF women.

    I honestly hate my generation so much sometimes. Feminists hate men and MRAs hate women. Throughout my life I’ve gotten along fine with men and women, and yet if you get involved in this modern gender social justice crap, people try to convince you that people with XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes are worthless depending on which movement you’re involved in. That’s news to me.

    According to feminists, I’m forever a victim. According to MRAs, I’m a manipulative, entitled feminist-by-proxy bitch. If I was a guy, I would perpetually be an oppressor in the eyes of feminists and a perpetual victim in the eyes of MRAs.

    Where’s the middle ground?

    • You’ve been listening to feminist propaganda. The MHRM is most certainly NOT anti-woman, many of AVfM’s editors and most vocal activists are female and I’ve never really seen any discrimination at all against women in the first place. The men’s rights movement IS the middle ground you’re looking for.

      Do yourself a favor and forget everything you’ve read about MRAs from feminist and mainstream websites, then go to men’s rights websites on your own with an open mind. You’ll likely learn a lot of new things.

      • Women can be anti-women too, ya know, just as men can be anti-men.

        It really isn’t the middle ground. I’ve seen disgusting shit said about my gender from them. In fact, those two examples I mentioned were things I saw directly, so it wasn’t feminist propaganda.

        Sorry, but when I look at the people I love of both genders – my mom, my dad, my brother, etc – I just can’t come to support modern feminism *or* the MRM at all. I don’t understand how someone could if they actually care about a man or woman in their lives, or if they have a shred of self-respect.

        It would be so wonderful to meet people who actually cared about people more than ideologies, but alas…

        • do you have the full context of either of those example or just the quote mined sound bites?

          • @ReyekoMRA – do you honestly think it’s impossible that someone did, in fact, read those articles and still objects to them?

            I’m just going to talk about the first one for a minute. No matter how you swing it, it’s an article that justifies taking inaction if you see a woman being raped. End of. The article advocates allowing a human being to suffer in the name of Ideology.

            I CANNOT get behind those attitudes. I never have and I never will, nor do I ever want to. I never want to become so angry and bitter that I would not help a human being in need. What good is an ideology if you let someone suffer because of it? Isn’t the entire point of social justice to help people? Why should it matter what genitals someone has?

            Why would it be okay to let a woman suffer through a traumatic event just to abstractly help men? (Because not helping a woman in the name of Men isn’t actually doing anything to directly help men.)

            It’s not about “chivalry.” It’s not about “expectations.” It’s about tapping into a neat little thing called empathy. I understand not directly intervening if you came across something like that, but not even calling the police once you’ve put yourself in a space place?

            At that point it’s not about Men or Women. It’s about People – it’s about Human Beings.

            And so many “social justice” groups – including the MRM – forget that.

            I have very little respect for men who throw their gender under the bus to make nice with feminists.
            I refuse to be someone who does the same thing.

          • can you link me to where he said that?

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/a-message-for-white-knights/

            I’m going to state one thing again:

            I am, in fact, pro-equality.

            I have become so disheartened at the injustice facing so many people in the world today, no matter their gender or race or sexuality, that I’ve felt downright suicidal before. I even took the coward’s way out and blocked myself from news sources for a while as a result.

            I am absolutely not against men’s rights. I will be watching Brian Banks’ documentary when it comes out.

            But I do not like the ~tone~ of modern social justice in general, at least amongst people in my generation.

            I understand that anger is a natural feeling, but there are constructive ways to use it. It does seem to me that, overall, the MRM/manospheres’ use of anger is toxic.

            But don’t worry. They’re not alone in that.

        • I don’t know what exactly you’ve read but I’m fairly certain it hasn’t been put into proper context. I frequent AVfM and /MR and I don’t think I can ever remember reading something written by a woman as objectional as you’re portraying it. AVfM does a lot of satirical work, maybe one of them went over your head?

          By the way, you don’t have to agree with EVERYTHING that EVERY MRA says in order to join, you know. I have been vocal myself about certain articles and members on AVfM I objected to.

          • that’s the beauty though ain’t it? we’re constantly changing at AVfM and learning and growing, these people can throw out little mistakes and stumbles along the way that have been made but there’s several articles a day that are usually always really great. Also the forums are quite active with discussion of the issues constantly taking place. I find it funny how the only thing these people have is sound bites and baseless accusations and they say we’re the crazy ones.

          • Just so you know, I first became aware of the MRM through an MRA telling a female rape victim to “stop bragging about it” on a support site. I had already rejected feminism by that point.

            I first became aware of AVFM proper through another MRA on that site. He basically takes everything Paul Elam says as gospel. Initially he seemed reasonable, but throughout the past year he’s switched his hateful tunes from feminism to women in general.

            Please stop acting like everyone who doesn’t like the climate of your movement doesn’t like it due to ignorance.

          • the problem is in the vast majority of complaints all I get is anecdote like you’ve just provided and whenever I ask for a source of something that was said I get no response, if people were able to link directly to a source where something is misogynistic or whatever then bingo I’d agree with you, and I spend a lot of time on AVfM forums where people self police and there is rarely anything bigoted posted at all. So I’ll take the posts of several hundred member of a forum over a nameless MRA on a nameless site as indicative of the movement,
            am i saying that there isn’t misogynist calling themselves MRAs? no I’m not but feminists have their ‘radicals’ who advocate eugenics working in university gender study departments, where are the MRA radicals? in a basement getting shunned by MRAs and feminists alike?

        • If you had read some of the analyses of the effects of rape law reforms that I have, you might not be so quick to judge the “jury nullification” idea as misogyny. Sexual assault has completely different rules of admissibility of evidence, and there is plenty of room for judges to exercise “scope-creep” in their rulings.

          In Vladek Filler’s first rape trial (conviction was overturned on appeal), the prosecutor withheld at least 2 key pieces of exculpatory evidence even after court orders were issued for her to hand them over, and successfully argued to keep several other pieces of evidence from the jury. She then instructed the jury that the absence of exculpatory evidence (you know, evidence that existed, but she had excluded) was demonstrative of Filler’s guilt. As in, “If he was innocent, wouldn’t he have some evidence of that?”

          In a sexual assault trial, you are NEVER seeing all the relevant evidence. In some instances, an accuser’s history of making false accusations of rape can even be excluded as part of her “sexual history”.

          Given that, I’d have to be 1000% more sure of guilt in a rape trial than in a murder trial to vote to convict. But then, I’m sure to you I’m just one of those anti-woman women…

        • k I get what you are saying. Maybe if there were more voices like yours people would have some hope and chill out. I know many younger women who have not been affected by our debauched academic system who are totally cool and just themselves. Unfortunately this is a social disease that effects everyone, so I’m sorry you have to live through it the way we do.

    • MRAs most certainly do not hate women, they do tend to hate feminism though.
      feminism is not women.
      there are many prominent female MRAs in fact.

      • Some “hate feminism, not women” until they slip the word exchange up.

        Listen, I’m aware of the fact that not EVERY SINGLE MRA ALIVE!!1 is a misogynist, but misogyny is a part of your movement. I’ve seen perfectly rational, reasonable girls and women get involved with feminism who later become very bitter and hateful towards men. It’s the exact same thing with MRAs. It makes me extremely sad and it also makes me worry a lot about our future.

        There doesn’t have to be a gender war, but people seem incessant on creating one.

        • I actually see more people bitter and resentful of women coming new to the MRM and becoming less so as they get more involved than I have people who become more bitter and resentful of women.

          • I’ve seen the same, although I have seen a few go the other way–I think of them as walking wounded who can’t heal. It hurts but I understand it. But for a few things going different I might have gone the same way. :-(

    • Here’s the deal: WHY did Paul Elam say he would vote for acquittal on a jury? These questions matter. He spelled out exactly why: we have seen and documented a sickening amount of evidence that prosecutors all too frequently hide exculpatory evidence in rape cases and how often things like The Innocence Project have proven men sentenced for rape to be innocent and gotten them out of jail, the majority of those being rape cases. Elam’s made it clear he has lost so much faith in the justice system in this area, and seen so much evidence that prosecutors will CONVINCINGLY LIE to juries, he no longer feels ANY prosecution can be trusted. Many of his fellows in the movement take exception to his stance, but we at least understand it. Have you at least made the effort to try to understand it before leaping to justice?

      And if you think we’re so interested in doing things at the expense of women, or that we hate women, have you taken the time to actually talk to one of us long enough to determine whether that’s really true? Have you talked to the women who write for us and support us and contribute to us about their direct experiences with us and our supposed misogyny? I would encourage you to do so, and to ask hard questions–hard questions for us, but also for yourself.

    • “like”

    • If I saw a women getting raped I would walk on by as well.

      Do you realize how many false rape accusations happen? Females abuse our protective instinct by manipulation and use it to get men in trouble. Time to stop protecting women. Women don’t even look after their kids properly, why should men protect women

    • So you cite this one article that you missed the entire point of, and then based an opinion and prosylization of the entire MRM on your misunderstanding of that one article? What about the rest of the movement? What about the rest of AVfM?

      For the record, the takeaways from that story are:
      1. You are not an unpaid bodyguard, or a public safety officer.
      2. Men do not have due process in rape cases. Until due process for men is restored, all rape trials should be jury nullification.

  14. #bringbackmika for realz

  15. There is nothing wrong with being angry, it’s a natural reaction to societal injustice and indifference.

    I used to support AVoiceForMen until I figured out that they are just the other side of the GoodMenProject coin. They pretend to be pro-male rights but in reality they are just anti-feminists that will throw abused men under the bus to promote their anti-feminist message.

    Dean Esmay in particular recommends to abused men to abandon their children to their abusive wife and was fully involved with scamming men out of their money for the EarlSilvermanCenter which is run by a known misandrist.

    Their hypocrisy runs deep and they have lost all claims of intellectual integrity when they threaten to banish people for debating.

    • And ever since you had a falling out with AVFM, you just go on and on and on.. like that Energizer bunny… So @dean_esmay:disqus recommends something that you dont like? And your world comes tumbling down?
      You dont think they are “helping men?” ok. Move on. Even that dumb bitch WBB is not as obsessive as you are.

  16. Earl Silverman was fully justified in blaming the government for lack of assistance but he also didn’t have any assistance from his supposed allies who were to busy fighting feminism instead of helping men.

    Even the government of Canada helped Earl Silverman more than Dean Esmay and the whole bunch at AVoiceForMen.

    Feminists are to blame promoting false statistics and blaming men for all domestic violence, but men are to blame for not supporting Earl Silverman.

    • You’re quite the loudmouthed piece of trash, aren’t you?

    • AVfM helped the late Mr Silverman when they prompted their readers to make a cash donation to help him keep the shelter going. What did the federal government ever do to help him or his cause ? There were (provincial) government agencies and publicly funded NGOs that were outright hostile to his efforts to help abused men and their children.

      • Oh yes encouraging money to be sent but far from Paul to actually do the donating when we all know how men are so important to him.

  17. I am sure I am being obtuse – but I can’t figure out the “Sorry About Your Man-Feels” sign.Funny and offensive? I must be missing the obvious – somebody please enlighten me.

    • “Sorry About Your Man-Feels” is an effort to shame men for having feelings – men are expected to be stoic, resistant to pain, selfless, and subservient to the whims of the women in their lives. A man who objects to the inhumanity of this is a bad slave, unworthy of the company of the women he is supposed to die to protect. The Men’s human rights movement asks for the right for men to express their unapproved feelings without being shamed by women.
      Feminists would rather kill those “weak” bad slaves than actually admit that men are worthy humans with worthy feelings. A true advocate of equality would permit the open expression of the feelings of both women and men.

  18. Now there’s a balanced title.

  19. This article was written by a woman. WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?

    • oh my another cogent argument
      nice going MR SHOUTY way to boost your point of view

      • Oh my, another whiny slag.

        • #mensrights

        • I can see you really know how to charm a woman.
          If you didn’t treat women like the enemy, maybe they wouldn’t treat you that way.

          • Boo-hoo.

          • “I can be sarcastic in my mockery of you, but if you do the same, well then I will shame you for not treating women right”.

            …-Sigh- If you didn’t want this sort of attention from someone, then don’t initiate such behavior.

            As for the “You really know how to charm a woman”…Well, ever think he wasn’t trying to charm you? I like this idea that for him treating you in a blunt way you treated him, that he somehow is treating women less than you have treated him, a man.

            “You didn’t respond to my sarcastic mockery with charm and praise? You sure know how to charm a woman! Hmph!”…Seriously?

          • Got reading comprehension problems? Shangi called Harebell a slag. Elsewhere he called Emily a spineless twat. And the tone of his comments generally are very much in the woman-hating realm.

            I didn’t initiate the name-calling and mockery with Shangi – here, or elsewhere on this thread. I have responded in kind, though less vulgarly. I’d be happy to treat Shangi like a grown-up and have a civil discussion of the issues… when he is mature enough.

            And I know he wasn’t trying to charm me; he may hate women, but I don’t get the sense that he’s gay.

          • I won’t deny he’s acting the asshole, but as I said in a previous comment that does not mean he hates women. Disagreement is not hate.

  20. This comment was deleted.

    • Thomas Ball’s manifesto was posted to show how far the family courts corruption pushed a man, not as an example of something to admire, in fact they actively spoke out against doing anything he recommended doing.
      what wrong with getting an erection at the though of fucking shit up?
      you can’t commit perjury as a juror, you can vote not guilty no matter what the facts are, also I wonder do you just have that sound bite or do you have the context with which it was said?

    • “These are the men complaining about Ariel Castro being sent to prison.”

      Really? Can you prove that, or is it just another feminist lie?

      • I actually had to google the name. Nice to know he’s been put away for good.

        Regarding this “better man than they” person’s arguments, well, Robin Morgan picketed for Valerie Solanas’ release from prison, and several prominent feminists hailed her as a champion of women’s rights. Her manifesto calling for the systematic murder of all men is not only still available from retailers, but it inspired the creation of a yearly international feminist conference.

        A feminist group in Ecuador called in a threat to several mainstream media outlets that they would castrate 100 random American men if Lorena Bobbitt spent a day in jail. On the other hand, the only person killed by Thomas Ball was Thomas Ball, and the most damage he did to the family court system he hated was a moment of embarrassment and making a few judges late for lunch.

        I mean, given what this guy seems to believe about us based on…well, not much, I’d like to see him apply the same reasoning to feminism: They’re pro-castration, pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-murder.

        • “and several prominent feminists hailed her as a champion of women’s rights.”

          Don’t forget the large support Lorena Bobbit received from feminists. And we’re not talking radical feminists, either. That was mainstream support.

    • Goebbels would have been proud of you for that post.

    • Precisely. Thank you for the clarity and honesty. Now we will have to listen to the other rape apologists and his fellow misogynist pals defend him.

  21. ‘ Angry young men>–So you are saying Slaves are not happy to be slaves

  22. Reading through the Comments of the bigoted angry man hating feminists I think you should do an article on them

  23. So young men aren’t allowed to be angry about asking for the same kinds of support and rights that women have but feminists are allowed to be angry at them for asking? riiiiiiiiiiight your into that kind of equality.

  24. I you’red the wrong you are.

  25. What’s most interesting about the discussion of the Men’s Rights Movement is that any discussion about it illustrates precisely why the movement exists in the first place.

    Consider for a moment the things that have come out of the mouths of feminists. Everything from the desire to see all males aborted in the womb to a sort of selective breeding program where males are kept solely as studs of a sort. These sorts of statements are attributed to radicals and considered to be only the fringe element of the feminist movement. Not to be taken too seriously when compared to the millions of women who do not hold such hostile views.

    Now for the social double standard : When you get the same thing coming from mouths of men this same fraction of the whole is considered representative of the entire movement.

    That’s why so many are angry and want change. They’re tired of being ignored and demonized for crimes they haven’t committed.

    • And vice versa – both sides assume extremes to be the norm in their opponents.
      Just look at christianists insisting all moslems are jihadis.
      I’ve no argument with your position it just shows that most commenters are trolls who are not really interested in exploring ideas, just restating their deeply held prejudices.

      • This is what you said in another comment:

        “From the poisonous outpourings and threats of rape, murder and other
        untold screeching I see no difference between these guys and the taliban
        or any other hate group out there.”

        Hypocritical much?

        • nope
          I look forward to your next ill founded attempt at refuting the obvious.

          I see no difference between the rape threats of some of those responding to women who dare to state their views in public online and the prehistoric attitudes of the holy men of the taliban.
          The two groups are afraid because the fact that they are men doesn’t automatically confer upon them a certain authority that all women are supposed to respect.
          No human is a beholding to any other because of their gender and the fact that the wannabe rapists that congregate around the MRA sites in the west and the taliban insist that that is the case for women is telling.

          • You really see zero difference between a bunch of online trolls typing “I hope you get raped,” or “Get back in the kitchen, b*tch,” when a woman says or does something controversial (like, I don’t know, getting Charles Darwin removed from the ten pound note?), and a religious tradition that stones women to death for infidelity and shoots them for going to school? Words (most of them not even threats) are really equivalent to violent actions?

            Tell me, what do you think of the Twitter hashtag #killallmen? How about the Facebook group “castrate your boyfriend”? How about the feminists at AtheismPlus telling critics to “go die in a fire”? Or the feminist circlejerks at r/shitredditsays waxing poetical about how baby foreskins make lovely, stylish purses.

            Do you think they’re as bad as the Taliban, too? Or maybe the people who say things aren’t the same as the people who actually do them?

          • Not in terms of attitudes and the poisoning of societal interactions, Both are misogynistic criminals who use and threaten violence to shut people up and make them live in fear. They do so on the basis of one’s gender and not the content of one’s speech. They are hate filled birds of a feather and when the overton window has shifted far enough and the otherness of the target is completed, actions follow very quickly on from words.

            Nobody got Charles Darwin pulled from the fiver, that was a decision made by the Bank of England’s governor.
            As for they do it too, does that still work for you because my mum knocked that one on the head when I was 4.

            As for your last sentence, uttering threats is a criminal offence as one very sad loser in the UK is finding out right now. It is a criminal offence here too and those who utter such threats are committing a crime. Committing a crime is actually doing something.

          • Darwin wasn’t removed from the 10 pound note because of feminists wanting him off. It wasn’t a conspiracy to remove Darwin. It’s called changing the design of the money, like commonwealth countries do every few years.

          • You really should stop speaking on subjects you have no clue about. Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. Charles Darwin was not removed from the ten pound note by the means of some of Feminist coup. What kind of fantasy land do you live in with your deranged cookie cutter philosophy. Feminism EVIL! A different famous Briton is placed upon the money every time the Bank of England updates the bank notes. There have been famous people such as Churchill and Dickens etc. What is the issue with celebrating a female author such as Jane Austen and her contribution the British Novel? Only an MRA ideologue could find fault where there is none to be found. Pro tip… Females are apart of British culture too. Moron!

        • Moderate feminists are the majority of sane people. People who think people who do the same job should receive the same money. People who think aptitude should count for more than anything else. People who think that reason and equality are not mutually exclusive. People who do not deny that history has created an unbalanced society in terms of power and that the current situation is far from a level playing field.
          Moderate feminists are for equality just like any rational person and are in the majority but are also one of the largest groups who are marginalised by the structures created by history. The extremists are heard just like those in a position of privilege are heard and the moderates are ignored because they have no power or aren’t shocking.
          The voices of the majority are there but they don’t say what people want to hear or they are easily blocked out by those with an agenda to push; like those who insist they are silent when they are not. Male dominated society created the response of the extremists now it disingenuously likes to pretend the extremists are all there is. Listen honestly and who you might hear voices that aren’t all about you and your agenda.

        • MacLeans magazine is a Canadian magazine, This is a Canadian chat forum, I am a Canadian. Why do you keep dragging US views and organisations into it.
          It’s like wanting to apply the US Constitution to gun laws here, they don’t count.
          When you feel like discussing the situation in Canada come back, if you want to apply foreign laws, foreign opinions and foreign extremes to Canada then there is little point in engaging you.

          • okay, The feminists who protested Warren Farrel at UofT were sponsored by CUPE which is one of the largest unions in the country and supported by the gender studies department of the university as well as the student union. So they are mainstream given they have so much public support.
            The Canadian arm of the government which is feminism called “status of women Canada” focuses mainly on womens health, violence against women, and womens economic status meanwhile men die at high rates from 6 out of 10 leading causes of death in Canada, Suffer violence at a much higher rate in much more severe ways and if you look only at domestic violence you see men as 49.3% of victims but there is not one single shelter for abused men and there is ~600 shelter for abused women all of which are funded by the government this disparity is caused by feminist lobbying for ending ‘violence against women’ thereby making the 49.3% of victim who are male invisible. Women make less money than men on average, not for the same work and not for the same job this is demonstrable by looking at the genders of each industry on StatCan, further more the majority of homeless are male. Despite men being as effected or more effected by these social ills the feminist arm of the Canadian government known as ‘Status of Women Canada” releases reports and does campaigns which make it seem like these problems are predominantly female problems.
            is that enough from Canada for you?

          • Again, one really powerless ministerial position is directed to over 50% of the population, while the rich, powerful, white men run the rest of the show. Talk about worrying about the speck of dust while ignoring the beam. Native Canadians also have a ministerial position that’s supposed to look after there interests, but are you trying to tell me that they are more privileged than white males in society too?
            As for men suffering a higher percentage of violence, how much of that is inflicted upon them by other men? Most of the ills that face men are also experienced by women, yet most of those ills are created by men and the activities of men. But somehow it is all the fault of another group of victims.
            Grow up and realise that the cause of suffering is not your fellow sufferers, it’s those who create the suffering.

          • Men are over-represented in the homeless population. Despite that disparity, more public money and effort is directed toward providing shelters for homeless women. This is one instance where women are more privileged than men.

          • Rich white men run the show? You are lacking in critical thinking skills. Do you know what the front man fallacy is?

            Powerful men don’t identify with powerless men. Powerful men run the state in the interests of women, not men.

          • ha ha
            So powerful men don’t identify with powerless men, but they do with women? Seriously? I googled your fallacy and it’s an MRA invention to back up their conspiracy theory. It is pure bunkum. Stuff isn’t so because you really want it to be so.
            Nice try but no cigar.

  26. In the heat of pain and rage, it will be difficult to remain rational and constructive. That is the challenge any movement faces. Charismatic leaders, impassioned with Rage, are often the ones who do and say things that call attention and get a movement on the map. Soon after, those same leaders are apt to derail the movement with that same extremism. My message is healthy, and for that reason, it is not “sexy.” My message, explained in depth in my book, is simply this: It All Balances Out. In the benefits/liabilities, power/victim, freedoms/constraints, It All Balances Out between Woman and Man–and it always has. I believe that this is the only truth we really need. With this truth we replace “female-ism” with equalism.

  27. This was a biased article (as usual) against Men’s Rights Activists.

    Why don’t you talk about men being 40% of the domestic violence victims? Men being 90% of the homeless people? Men dying 7 years earlier as women? There’s a reason young men are angry when they grow up in Western societies when women get all the sympathy, help and funding from everyone while men have similar human problems (and some are way worse as the problems women have right now). Not only are they left in the cold, they are also blamed for every wrongdoing in society (especially if they are young white men).

    They have to hear how women have it supposedly worse as them. That is, until they wake up to the REAL facts. They wake up realizing they don’t have it so much better as women at all. They wake up realizing nobody in government does a thing for men’s issues while they can’t wait to fund every little women’s organization.

    And you are blaming them for being a little angry?? Why don’t you blame the traditional gender roles in our society hurting men???

  28. “hundreds of comments flooded in from men’s rights activists, threatening to beat, rape and murder the woman in the video The woman, Charlotte (who is using a pseudonym for safety reasons) says that men’s rights activists disseminated her personal information, including what they believed to be her home address, and sent her hundreds of violent, graphic and sexualized threats, which included personal details such as her dog’s name and her favourite karaoke bar. In one Facebook message, the sender promised that he would not sleep until her “unholy blood was spilt.”

    Is there any evidence of this? In my experience, feminists like to make false and exaggerated accusations relating to violence against women.

    • Futrelle posted screencaps of what I assume were the worst of the worst of the threatening comments on his blog. They really weren’t that bad, and arguably the only one that was really nasty (the commenter said he hoped someone would fill her stomach full of lead, if I remember right) was almost certainly by a feminist, since his main issue with her seemed to be how she made feminism look bad.

      There may have been comments attempting to doxx her, but I can’t say either way, and who knows who they were made by?

  29. I’m a mgtow and to my mra cohort, I will only ask you to consider that this wasn’t as bad an article as you think it is. She is not exactly hostile to us, and she never once said society must fear us. She just said we were “angry”. Big deal.

    Moreover, any press, especially in a national rag like Macleans, is good for us. There are a few hotheads in our movement, but its all online. The really violent ones are the feminists who blockaded Warren Farrell’s lecture. Now that is “anger”. Does anyone have any footage of any MRA being anywhere close to the violence and hatred exhibited by “Charlotte” and her friends?

    Didn’t think so.

    Let’s have a little honesty.

    • The first couple of paragraphs were okay (although the bias was showing already) but once she started to solely focus on the audacity men had for being angry about society I stopped reading.

  30. The anger is well placed, men have right to be angry, we have been nullified in society by feminists who use at least the same anger, lest we forget S.C.U.M. manifesto ladies… the vitriol I have personally experienced from feminists has been far worse & effectual than anything I have heard a man say in anger. I have been excluded from a life with my children 12 years no contact & it looks like they will be if not already totally alienated for my lifetime by their feminist mother & grandmother who spoke these words to me “we will destroy patriarchy matriarchy will rule” this they belched at me, I was the fool supporting them asking their direction, helping them, yet they blame me for all of histories patriarchy. Feminism is in itself an hate movement started by KKK women to attack & murder black men using rape hysteria then hijacked by the CIA delivering the very division they strive for in our communities. Men are rightfully angry along with many women too who see what feminism is doing to society; dividing it, used as a tool to enact law after law oppressing all.

  31. This just in – Slaves are not happy to be slaves – News at Eleven

  32. How does this “It wasn’t long, however, before he found that the primary men’s rights demographic was young, unmarried men between the ages of 18-24.” square with this ““Some of the men on the site have been in abusive relationships, have gone through unfair divorces—they’ve just been savaged by the system. I won’t tell them to stop being angry.”
    It shows these young men are just looking for an enemy to blame for their problems and have latched onto feminism and women as that enemy. What they don’t seem to understand is that they have far more in common with women than they do the men in power, the 1%. These are the true enemies and the people who actually shafted men. There was a men’s rights movement, it was the unions movement which many men have seemed to abandon because of the lies of those in power. I look at these Men’s Rights Activists the same way I view the Tea Party – people trying to figure out who shafted them and pathetically missing the mark. These young men are inexperienced in life and don’t understand how the court system works, the rights of the child doctrine (children are not property to be metaphorically cut in two), or even how an adult relationship is supposed to work just like the tea party doesn’t understand how the government and the economic system works.

    • It’s pretty obvious that you’ve never actually looked at a men’s rights discussion site. Don’t get your information from assumptions based on articles by third parties with an agenda – go see what it’s about for yourself.

      • No. I get it. It’s easier to attack and blame women or gays or natives or blacks or unions or socialists then it is to deal with the actual enemy. Reactionary groups that cause rifts and fights between the plebs play right into their hands because when the people are fighting amongst themselves they won’t stand up to those with the real power who are crushing us all.

        • I’m not going to support groups that blame men or straights or whites, which is what you seem to be advocating.

          • What are these groups that blame men, straights, or whites?

          • Most of the major feminist groups do.

          • “straight white cisgendered male” is the typical feminist line when talking about the ‘oppressors’ in society.

          • Feminism blames the power structure in society that favors the “straight white cisgendered male” for women’s oppression.

            Progressive movements fight against power structures in society not particular groups of people.

            For example, the LGBT community is fighting against the heteronormative power structure that reinforces the alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity, and gender roles. They aren’t fighting straight people. (This is why feminism and the lgbt movement are often linked). The unions fight against an unfettered capitalistic power structure that favors those at the top. Minorites are fighting Structural Racism that gives whites more opportunities, not white people.

            It’s understandable that some individuals of oppressed groups will feel anger at members of the dominant group who try to maintain the power structures. I realize not every business owner only cares about profits at the expense of workers. However, those who cut workers pay and benefits, who scrimp on safety, who don’t care about the well-being of their workers in order to increase profits are who I consider to be enemies.

            It is true that some misguided members of the oppressed group will get carried away and actually blame all members of the dominant class, but this is not characteristic of entire progressive movements.

            Reactionary and regressive groups attack progressive movements in order to maintain the dominant power structures in society. They will single out that movement for attack and will fight against the members of an oppressed group of people that is working to gain equal rights. That’s exactly what the Men’s Rights Movement is and does.


          • Geez, and there I thought feminism was defined as equality of the sexes.

            Then you offer up the ” we don’t dislike men etc, it’s the system they are a part of we dislike” argument. This is a more recent piece of word twisting that has arrived on the rhetorical scene. It’s purpose has been to try to soften the man hating image feminism has garnered. Hey, I don’t dislike David Duke and and the KKK, it’s their racism I don’t like.

          • Feminists have been denigrated and maligned from the beginning as child-hating, man-hating, self-absorbed harpies and lesbians. You have simply bought into the rhetoric designed to destroy the reputation of progressive movements in order to undermine their validity and ultimately marginalize and silence them. The massive smear campaign against unions that has also been going on since the beginning of the workers’ movement is another example of this type of vilification that people often buy into.

          • there is one inescapable fact that feminists can’t get around, the straight white cisgendered man was expect to swear fealty to a woman with gifts of gold a jewels offered as he bent his knee at her feet in subjugation to her. This is what we call a marriage proposal and has existed in this form for about 800 years.

          • Reactionary groups also enjoy revisionist history. Historically, chivalry is about viewing women as fragile, delicate creatures who need special protection, special consideration, and special treatment. As society has changed, the meanings of many of our traditions have changed. Bending the knee is today seen as seen as a sign of respect and trust.

            Historically, the woman took the name of the man because they were seen as one person.

            In Canada, “The British North America Act of 1867 set out the powers and responsibilities of the provinces and of the federal government. This federal act used the word “persons” when it referred to more than one person and the word “he” when it referred to one person. Therefore, many argued, the Act was really saying that only a man could be a person, thus preventing women from participating fully in politics or affairs of state.” In 1928, the Supreme Court ruled that women were not persons under the law. Women weren’t persons under the law until 1929 when the case went before the British Privy Council.

          • Brutal

          • I did not revise history at all, what you said does not refute anything I said. You just proved that both men and women were ‘oppressed’ by the system not only women as feminists will argue.
            Also the debate about being considered ‘persons’ under the law is a semantic one as women were treated as persons when they voted for the first time in Canada in 1809.

          • How do you come to the conclusion that both men and women were oppressed when men were considered persons under the law and women weren’t? That’s like saying that because of the three-fifths compromise both whites and blacks were oppressed in the U.S. You’re not making any sense.

          • There was a time in Canada (and Britain) when a husband was held liable for any crimes that his wife committed.

          • Hmmmm; never thought of that one before.


          • But affirmative action and protected group politics favor not white males. When government and large corporations are the dominant structures in society then the people being subject to structural racism are the ones that are not members of a protected demographic group.

          • Once again, everything with MRA’s is zero-sum. White males aren’t experiencing racism just because minorities have protections from discrimination and are provided with opportunities to succeed. Members of disadvantaged groups deserve opportunities too.

        • What you have have described is Cultural Marxism, which large swathes of more strident Feminism has been take over by.

          • Cultural Marxism is just another catchall nonsense term like “political correctness” used to denigrate progressive politics.

          • Feminism is not progressive, it is regressive and pro capitalist.

    • Rich, white, straight men rule the world control most of the corporations, run some of the richest countries in the world and yet it’s never their fault. The top 1% aren’t women, they are white men in the West and they aren’t usually young either.
      They however are very good at dividing in order to conquer and the whiners who need someone to blame for their troubles are only too pleased to take their direction and attack those even worse off than themselves.
      Absolutely stunning in their stupidity, hyperbolic in their rhetoric and simplistic in their need to point fingers. How can people be that daft?

      • The Apex Fallacy, you can’t blame the 99.99999999999999999% of white men for the 0.00000000000000001%.

        • But you’re quite prepared to blame one of the most powerless groups in society while giving the most powerful and influential group a pass. Yeah makes perfect sense.

          • Women comprise a little over half of the electorate in Canada. That is certainly not powerlessness.

          • As well as the focus of the vast majority of those apex position. It is hardly powerless to have powerful people acting on your behalf. Additionally, only one sex has a ministry dedicated to pushing forward their interests with a budget to meet that goal, while anyone acting on the behalf of that other sex gets called sexist for even considering it.

          • Women are not the most powerless group in society, are you nuts?

      • Men tend to be more risk-takers than women. That would be why men are overrepresented on both extremes. Most of the people who become rich and powerful are men, but so are most of society’s destitute and discarded members.

      • What about Rich Chinese, rich Arabs? Rich black people? You are just a white hating bigot, just as bad as any KKK member.

  33. hang on , i have to ask the woman you are claiming to be a victim of mras because of her stance at the university of toronto ” protest” , lets just call her big red , the same big red who when challenged about male suicides being 80 plus percent of all suicides sung ” cry me a river” to mock those who were advocating for helping men, the same big red who cheered when her comrades broke and illegally set off a fire alarm and who has been seen doing many , many things, footage of her falsely accusing a christian protesting at a gay rights event of touching her when it was clearly shown on camera he didnt ….. yes this is a victim.

  34. Sorry men, while I agree women can be abusive and I was married to one in the 80s, on average most abusers are male by a long shot. And many abusers claim to be victims. These groups contain a lot of angry men that are in fact abusers themselves.

    That being said, just get divorced. I mean this seriously. My 1980s ex was a passive aggressive with our marriage and I just gave up. Haven’t seen her since. Met the love of my life two years later and still happily married and no abuse to either of us at all.

    Moral of my story is simple, if you are in an abusive relationship, get out of the relationship and stop letting it damage you. These scars can become life long if you allow it to continue.

    And if you are a angry man (or woman), seek help. Until you diffuse the anger, your not worth living with.

      • “As for ” And many abusers claim to be victims.”, oh wow, just wow.”

        And the idea that this might apply to women as well seems to slip his mind.

    • Statistics Canada shows men as 49.3% of victims of domestic violence, that is not males being ‘most abusers by a long shot’, what you said is a myth spread by feminists to demonize males, you can read all about it in the writings of Erin Pizzey who founded the worlds first shelter for abused women. The damage of this myth is that there is about 600 shelters in Canada for the 50.7% of DV victims who are female and ZERO shelters for the 49.3% of DV victims who are male. It has also led to police policies of automatically arresting the man, and laws being passed like VAWA which assume exactly what you said and therefore ignore half the victims. Not only does this ignore male victims of female abusers but the denial of viewing females as abusive allows child abuse to continue, as in the case of Joel Kirk where the abusive mother was given custody of the kids.

      • StatsCan also shows that 6 women per million will be killed by their male partner as opposed to 2 men per million by their female partner,
        They also state that 18 women seniors per million will be abused by their male spouse as opposed to 10 per million in return
        Female children are more likely to be assaulted (especially sexually) than male children.

        Females also “continued to experience more serious types of spousal violence than males.”

        In fact the only categories where incidences to men outstripped women were in being called names and being made to feel small and jealousy over them speaking to another woman.

        The violent and life threatening incidents still are overwhelmingly perpetrated by males on females.

        Try and be honest and compare like with like.


        • “In fact the only categories where incidences to men outstripped women
          were in being called names and being made to feel small and jealousy
          over them speaking to another woman.”
          Actually men outstripped women by about three time in the category of being hit and assaulted with a weapon. Also if you think we shouldn’t treat men as well as women because women experience more serious types, then should we not also ignore the about 70% of female victims who don’t experience those more serious types right along the men? I also have to ask because I must have missed this in law class but since when did we start only caring about a crime if it met some sort of threshold of seriousness?

          • Ha
            Well I’ve been repeatedly told on this comment forum, “they were only rape/death threats, what’s the big deal?” So I guess I was assuming “the sticks and stones” defence was an MRA tactic and you’d agree with it.

          • It has been pointed out a few times that the online threats to Charlotte (“Big Red”) were from anonymous, therefore they could easily be from feminists posing as MRAs in order to make MRAs appear guilty of threats.

          • There where no rape threats, you are a violent bigot.

    • Amen

    • No, no, no, nooooooooooooooooooooo
      Most abusers are female in the domestic sphere. Sorry you are misinformed.

  35. The Men’s Rights Movement also attracts, in fact mostly attracts, quite rational and thoughtful Men and Women of all ages. A point that seems to have been lost on the
    author here.

    Strangely enough you don’t have to be angry to be concerned with education, suicide rates, fathers, family law, negative depictions in the media, work place fatalities, early death and so on and on.

  36. “What’s ironic is that most men’s rights activists decry that society treats all men like potential rapists,” she says. “But the first thing they do when a woman speaks out against them is send her rape threats.””

    WOW. How you can say that a majority of men respond to a woman speaking with rape threats? I posit that 99.999999% of men do not respond in such a manner. How do you expect to appeal to men when you’re spewing this factually incorrect and flangrantly biased nonsense?? Shame on you.

  37. I’m sorry, but as a male that was a feminist, went neutral and is now anti-feminist that occasionally goes on to MRA pages (I do not consider myself one yet, I have not read in to the ideas of them to label myself one yet), I have to say feminists are far more “angry”, etc.

    Can you provide me to a link where MRAs are tearing down female victim awareness posters? Because I can provide a link where feminists tear down male victim awareness posters.

    Can you provide me with a link where MRAs are targeting free speech (a feminist speech) and illegally sneaks in to pull the fire alarm to protest freedom of speech? You can’t? Well I can link you to feminists doing just that.

    The world has been blind for a long time, and now it is starting to open its eyes. The world is seeing feminism for what it is, and yes, this increases the numbers of “MRAs and “MGTOW”.
    You cannot sit there am make a few nasty comments online as the poster-comment for the “proof of sexism” when there are videos of the things I explained above against men.

    The world is waking up, and it has every right to be angry at feminists.

  38. “Memories of Silverman’s personality and day-to-day life are all but lost
    in the swirl of vitriol that has dominated all conversations
    surrounding his death.” This is a flat out lie, shortly after his death AVfM had a radio special on blogtalkradio in which they expressed their anger at the Canadian government for ignoring and silencing him but also brought on several people who knew him personally and talked at length about what kind of man he was from the perspective of several of his close friends and acquaintances.

    • That is true — I am one of these people. This article is nauseatingly inaccurate. Shame on you, Macleans!

  39. Paul Elam had some good comment about the anger MRAs have in the radioshow about Earl Silverman’s death: “one of the things men’s advocates hear all the time is why are we
    so angry…the reason that men’s advocates are angry is because anger in
    men is the only thing you can see, you certainly can’t see their pain. A
    good man is dead today because the world around him could not see his
    pain, did not want to and in fact if they were subjected to his pain
    their response was ‘cry me a river’, the response that we have had in
    trying to talk about these issues, the five to one male suicide rate,
    the rate of depression, alcoholism, homelessness, falling out of
    education and employment, the total destruction of the civil rights in
    family courts of men, across the board going on in this culture right
    now to millions of men has been ‘cry me a river’, it has been
    humiliating remarks like ‘I’m sorry I hurt your manfeelz’. Do you want
    to know why we’re angry? Do you really? You know, I don’t think a lot of
    you do, I don’t think a lot of you really want to know how much anger
    is here.” – Paul Elam

  40. I don’t agree with violence – but men need to gain equaility – as a cousellor I can tell you that 50% of domestic violence comes from the female – but charges are rarely laid (boiling water while sleeping, knife through the scrotum = no charges) Personally – my wife took off with my children when they were 2 + 3 – to the other end of the country – finally after the police and I found them in a hotel – the judge said – “Well children should be with the woman” – even though I had been the main caregiver. And there are very few if any shelters that will allow men and children – I could go on

  41. Having read the note, I can share that it is true that Ear blamed Redford and all levels of government, naming many politicians. However, Earl did not file for bankruptcy. Keep an eye on the Family of Men website for an update.

    • which family of men website? link? I’m interested in what his parting words had to say.

  42. Maybe if the hateful feminists would have listened to the father’s rights groups there would be no need for the MRA movement. And it’s pretty hypocritical to criticise the tone of their rhetoric when the feminist narrative demonizes all men.

    • The beliefs of the Men’s Rights Movement are completely ideological, reactionary, and ill-informed.

      A private members bill was introduced in 2010 which would have made presumed equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in every case of child custody.

      This was the conclusion of the Canadian Bar Association on this ill-conceived bill:

      “Bill C-422 does not accomplish what it proposes. It does not give parties tools to resolve differences, nor does it assist them in making plans to share decision-making and physical care of children to minimize conflict and maximize children’s benefits. It would move from considering the individual child to preferring parents’ rights. It would encourage contentious litigation in future cases of family breakdown, and equally important, would cause thousands of children to be re-exposed to litigation and conflict as many settled cases would be reopened.

      Under current law, the legal playing field is even; there is no gender bias in law requiring judges to consider “the best interests of the child” as paramount. Instead, the Bill proposes an overly simplistic idea of equality: rather than considering a fair result best for the children involved in the case at hand, children must be split right down the middle. The Bill does not advance equality for either fathers or mothers. Its proposals would come at the sacrifice of the
      appropriate focus, solely on what is best for children.”

      The full report can be read here:

      MRA’s have a very juvenile and zero-sum view on equality. They do not view issues from a logical, evidence-based perspective. They warp statistics to fit their views and base their arguments mostly on appeals to emotion.

      • yes because the fact that it takes a woman all of 3 minutes to get a restraining order without any evidence of abuse and have the man kicked out of the house with nothing but the shirt on his back is equal and fair.
        the fact that making a false accusation of abuse is called ‘the silver bullet’ by lawyers in child custody and divorce cases and nothing is done about it is completely fair and right.
        Also there is no gender bias in the law but there is gender bias in the application of the law which you can see also in criminal court where women receive far lesser punishments for similar crimes with similar criminal backgrounds. You can also see gender bias in the application of the law in cases where a man calls the police because his wife is beating him and they arrest him instead of her.

        • “yes because the fact that it takes a woman all of 3 minutes to get a restraining order without any evidence of abuse and have the man kicked out of the house with nothing but the shirt on his back is equal and fair.”

          Anyone who has a restraining order filed against him/her gets his/her day in court. Courts don’t just hand out restraining orders without evidence. Temporary restraining orders are issued in urgent cases where, ” there must be “dire circumstances” before the court will deal with a request for a restraining order on an urgent basis. You must provide clear evidence in your affidavit to show why your situation must be dealt with right away. The judge will decide whether your motion for a restraining order will be dealt with on an urgent basis.” The process for obtaining a restraining order is not gender specific.

          You can read the full procedure for obtaining a restraining order in Ontario here:

          “the fact that making a false accusation of abuse is called ‘the silver bullet’ by lawyers in child custody and divorce cases and nothing is done about it is completely fair and right.”

          The bias has been found to be against women claiming abuse actually. Women who have claimed abuse have been stereotyped as vindictive and “alienating” the child(ren). The now debunked Parental Alienation Syndrome was often used to discredit the mother and grant sole custody to the father. It should also be noted that the majority of custody arrangements are mediated and don’t go to trial. Parents can usually sort out custody arrangements between themselves. Only about 10 percent of custody disputes actually go to trial and those that do often involve abuse. One of the problems the CBA had with Bill c-422 is that it would have increased conflict and litigation, and also increased the cost by taking up more of the court’s time.

          One report by the Law Society of British Columbia Gender Bias Committee noted that, “…although research indicates that false accusations of sexual abuse during child custody disputes are not a common occurrence, lawyers tend to advise women not to raise allegations of sexual abuse because they will jeopardize their chances of receiving custody.”

          You can read further reports about the systemic bias against women in custody disputes here (most are American but some are Canadian) that discuss the systemic bias against women in family court.

          There is a case currently before the BC Supreme Court that indicates continued gender bias against mothers today:

          “Also there is no gender bias in the law but there is gender bias in the application of the law which you can see also in criminal court where women receive far lesser punishments for similar crimes with similar criminal backgrounds.”

          A summary of international research has shown that women are more likely to be cautioned and receive less harsh sentencing than men on average. Some sex differences in legal variables, like criminal history or current crime seriousness may account for some difference, but not all. Women have historically been seen as weak, irrational, and unable to control their behavior, so therefore, less culpable than men.


          Yes, there is bias in the application of the law and there are current attempts to address that. There is no gender bias in the written laws, however. So attempts to change laws to lean in favor of one sex or the other are not an effective way to address this.

          “You can also see gender bias in the application of the law in cases where a man calls the police because his wife is beating him and they arrest him instead of her.”

          Generally, I would imagine the police would arrest the one who isn’t injured.

          There was a case in Montreal recently where Emma Roberts was arrested for domestic violence.

          “We’re told when cops arrived . . . they observed Evan with a bloody nose. Emma was immediately arrested.”


          • “Anyone who has a restraining order filed against him/her gets his/her day in court.”

            Months later. By which time the damage is done, the man has been stripped from his children for months (and the mother is deemed primary caregiver going forward, in order to maintain their current situation), he’s been forced to pay for two homes as well as child support and legal fee’s to fight the accusation, and the woman faces absolutely no repercussions for the tactic.

            “Courts don’t just hand out restraining orders without evidence.”

            Yes, they do… ALL THE TIME!

          • As per the Government of Ontario website:

            Temporary restraining orders are only issued in special “dire circumstances.” Obtaining a permanent restraining order does require evidence be presented in court.

            You have made a big claim that judges are just handing out restraining orders willy-nilly without following procedure and have provided nothing to back it up.

          • As per law, women are to be paid the same as men. Wow, the
            gender pay gap has been solved. Glad we don’t need to hear that tired old cliche anymore.. Oh, wait, you mean people can ignore and abuse the system? You mean what counts as “dire circumstances” is a subjective decision for individual judges (trained in “equality” courses, based off the Duluth model of domestic violence power dynamics and vetted by the feminist ministry for status of women)? Hmm, I guess just because something is said, doesn’t make it absolute, And hiding behind definitions like that is weak, especially coming from an ideology that constantly advocates that just because something is written as law, doesn’t make it good enough.

            Also, I do note you glossed over my point about getting their day in court months later, and the negative impacts that has. A temp order, which is not what you are arguing about, has more than sufficient power to destroy a man’s hope of attaining a fair shake in a custody dispute.

            “You have made a big claim that judges are just handing out restraining orders willy-nilly without following procedure and have provided nothing to back it up.”


            Elaine Epstein restraining orders

            you’ll get plenty of results to look through, but I suspect you’ll dismiss anything presented anyways, so you have a whole list of things to choose from there.

          • Do you know what reality is?Dire Circumstances is when the women makes a accusation.

      • Is this a joke? Feminists have actively lobbied against fathers receiving equal treatment,as they treat parenting as a zero sum game. Possibly the largest feminist lobby in the world, National Organization for Women oppose shared parenting, one of the reasons being because it would effect the amount of child support women receive. And that pretty much sums up how feminists see men: walking wallets.

        • They oppose presumed ‘equal’ custody as any reasonable person without an ideological agenda would when they look at the practical implications:

          “True joint custody arrangements are rare, because of their potential to cause both personal difficulties (stress, disruption of child’s routine) and practical problems (scheduling, costs of maintaining two permanent living spaces for the child ~ this is why NOW is concerned about the consequences to child support ~).”

          This is what I found on the NOW website:
          “Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.”

          “The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.”

          “”My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative,” said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. “It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children — and with the blessing of the courts.

          “Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act’ because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer,” Gandy said.”

          Children have rights and those rights outweigh the rights of the parents. Child support assists with the cost of the care of children, that’s why it’s called ‘child support.’ The children deserve to be cared for properly even if you don’t still care about your former partner. They are not pawns to be used in your ideological war against feminists.

          • Are you seriously trying to suggest feminists don’t have an ideological agenda?

            “”The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.””

            I so love this claim, as it is demonstrative of the misrepresentation of feminists. This whole “most times, when fathers contest custody” line is often used to make the claim that courts are biased in favor of fathers. But the reality is, when it says “fathers gain custody”, all it’s saying is that the father wasn’t COMPLETELY shut out of his child’s life. A father that gets his child 1 weekend per MONTH and is supposed to be allowed a say in education, religious and medical decisions has been granted custody. One has to wonder why only a “majority” of fathers, and not all, or almost all, are winning custody? The very idea that not completely stripping fathers of their children is some kind of victory for men, some kind of bias in their favor, shows just how despicable feminists are when it comes to men.

            And one must consider, why so many men give up sole custody to their ex’s? Could it be that, despite the courts being willing to grant at least “some” custody, they are more likely to complete screw men over in child support and alimony, as well as giving the men the legal bills for both parties, and so, any gains in child custody will get drowned out by the financial devastation wrought upon him?

            “Children have rights and those rights outweigh the rights of the parents.”

            Correct, and one of those right is to have both parents… and this outweighs “personal difficulties (stress, disruption of child’s routine) and practical problems (scheduling, costs of maintaining two permanent living spaces for the child)”, does it not? The child’s rights should come first, and if both parties want to raise their child, the parents should figure it out. Of course, the next step in feminist rhetoric is to present fathers as dangerous to their own children, and to mothers, and thus, deservedly stripped of their children, regardless of proof.

          • You have written a lot of emotional rhetoric that has no basis in reality. Most child custody arrangements are worked out between the parents based on their work schedules, who the primary caregiver is, the child’s input and other factors. Most often the mother takes on primary custody of the children because even today women do most of the work at home and provide most of the child care while the father advances his career. Often fathers don’t want to take on primary care because taking care of children full time is far different than spending time with them when you get home from work. A marriage is a partnership, so when there’s a split the work that has been done within the home needs to be taken into account. This has been seen in the past, and even to an extent today, as “women’s work” and has been under appreciated for it’s importance to society and the economy.

            High conflict custody disputes that reach the litigation stage are different and the court is biased towards fathers even though many of these cases have reached that stage because abuse is involved.

            “Correct, and one of those right is to have both parents… and this outweighs”

            No. Children do not belong to their parents. Their well being comes first.

            “the next step in feminist rhetoric is to present fathers as dangerous to their own children”

            If a parent presents any danger to his/her child then that child’s safety is more important than what the parent wants.

          • “You have written a lot of emotional rhetoric that has no basis in reality.”

            Well, aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black.

            “Most child custody arrangements are worked out between the parents based on their work schedules, who the primary caregiver is, the child’s input and other factors.”

            Oh, you forgot to mention the influence the perception that family courts favor women plays a part in that. After all, when the majority of divorces are filed by women, and one reason listed in surveys is “they know they will get the kids”, one can’t dismiss the influence this has on negotiating power. I find it incredibly amusing how feminists can twist things back and forth to suit their needs. Women need all these programs, all this help, because women are “perceived” to be less valuable in this field or that, but the idea that perception can influence men’s choices is anathema to you.

            “Most often the mother takes on primary custody of the children because even today women do most of the work at home and provide most of the child care while the father advances his career.”

            Actually, they take it on because they demand it. Most divorces are filed for by women, and again, they do so “knowing they will get the children”. The fact fathers need to go to court just so they aren’t cut completely out speaks volumes.

            The bulk of this paragraph is, ironically, the very emotional rhetoric you’re attempting to project onto me.

            “A marriage is a partnership, so when there’s a split the work that has been done within the home needs to be taken into account.”

            But the work that has been done outside the home shouldn’t be, and marital assets should be split 50/50. By you’re reasoning, while the partner who does most of the child raising should get the kids, the partner who pays most of the bills should get the assets. Except you’d never argue that. Double standards. got to love them.

            “No. Children do not belong to their parents. Their well being comes first.”

            I never said a child belongs to their parents, I said a child has a right TO HAVE both parents. Their well being is served best by equal access to both parents, and they should work shit out. Nice try on the strawman.

            “If a parent presents any danger to his/her child then that child’s safety is more important than what the parent wants.”

            Except feminist rhetoric doesn’t require any evidence. The opposition to 50/50 parenting by feminists presumes men are dangerous. Every single 50/50 presumptive bill that has been put forward has included clauses stating parents proven unfit (due to abuse, etc) should not be granted 50/50 custody, yet feminists still oppose these bills, using the pretense of protecting children from the fathers who can’t be proven as abusive, and to hell with the children of abusive mothers who are put 100% with their mothers in full control, under the current system, because according to feminists, they don’t exist.

          • “Well, aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black”

            I actually provided links in my post and had to look up what you claimed NOW said for myself.

            “Oh, you forgot to mention the influence the perception that family courts favor women plays a part in that. After all, when the majority of divorces are filed by women, and one reason listed in surveys is “they know they will get the kids”

            Why does it matter if most divorces are filed by women?

            Why would a man’s lawyer fail to dispel any misconceptions they would have about custody and family court proceedings? His lawyer would know that any perceptions he has that custody disputes favor women is false and advise him of this. The truth is that most people are reasonable and can work out custody arrangements themselves.

            “But the work that has been done outside the home shouldn’t be, and marital assets should be split 50/50.”

            A woman who has stayed home and taken care of the home and raised the children should be compensated for her work and contribution to the partnership.

            “By you’re reasoning, while the partner who does most of the child raising should get the kids, the partner who pays most of the bills should get the assets. Except you’d never argue that. Double standards. got to love them.”

            It is not about “getting the kids.” It’s about what’s best for the children. If the mother has been providing the bulk of the primary care, it makes sense that she would continue to provide that care.

            “Their well being is served best by equal access to both parents.”

            Each case should be considered individually. Splitting the children ‘equally’ between the parents is not the most important consideration in determining custody arrangements for a variety of reasons.

            “It would sublimate a focus on the best interests of children to a presumptive regime of equal parenting time for all parents, regardless of abilities, circumstances, needs, history, challenges or attitudes of the people involved. It would inappropriately limit judges in exercising their discretion based on the parents and children in the case before them.”


            “The opposition to 50/50 parenting by feminists presumes men are dangerous.”

            No. It is opposed because it starts from a presumption of joint custody instead of the best interests of the child. It places the onus on the parties to provide evidence that a different arrangement is in the best interests of the children, and it would be difficult for a parent to ever satisfy that. It would tilt the law in favor of an abusive partner.

          • “I actually provided links in my post and had to look up what you claimed NOW said for myself.”

            Doesn’t make your comments any less based on emotional rhetoric, just means you can point to others that use the same emotional rhetoric as well.

            “Why does it matter if most divorces are filed by women?”

            It shows the power that the perception of women getting custody has. If women have no problems with divorce because they know they’ll get the kids, do you seriously believe a man’s choices won’t also be influenced by the same perception?

            “Why would a man’s lawyer fail to dispel any misconceptions they would have about custody and family court proceedings?”

            I can think of two reasons up front… 1: they can’t afford a lawyer, why do you think many men take what they can get, rather than a long drawn out court battle for little, if any gain? 2: It’s not a misconception. There wouldn’t be such a large fathers rights movement if men were getting what they wanted.

            ” His lawyer would know that any perceptions he has that custody disputes favor women is false and advise him of this.”

            But it’s not false. You haven’t proven otherwise, and the fact the VAST majority (90%+) of custody arrangements have mothers as primary caregiver, including the ones that go to court, supports the assertion it is true. When the pay gap ratio is 3:4, that is deemed only attainable via discrimination, but father custody being 1:10 we’re expected to believe that’s just men’s choices. The hypocrisy and double speak is astounding.

            ” The truth is that most people are reasonable and can work out custody arrangements themselves.”

            yes, but when the starting position gives one party a significant upper hand (in that, going to court will likely result in mother custody anyways), it skews those negotiations in their favor, and the results lead to disparities such as 90% mother custody. Why is it a 44:56 ratio of college attendee’s (when the 44 was women) required a call to action, but 90% mother custody doesn’t seem to be a feminist issue (nor the 40:60 attendee rate of current education)? why are tiny disparities always a problem when they don’t favor women, but massive disparities are all fine, and excuses are constantly found to blame those disparities on men and dismiss them as unimportant, when they negatively affect men? Why the double standard? I shouldn’t NEED to provide states, given you acknowledge the disparity exists. Based on feminist precedent, that disparity should be enough to demand action… but for some reason, it’s not. why not?

            “A woman who has stayed home and taken care of the home and raised the children should be compensated for her work and contribution to the partnership.”

            AKA a double standard. A man who has sacrificed his time with his children in order to provide for them and his wife should likewise be compensated by giving him the opportunity to spend time with his kids, and build a relationship, when the marriage he’s sacrificed for breaks down. But nope, Double standards must apply, and they must favor women or they are discrimination. You have literally argued a woman should be compensated for her raising the kids by both getting preferential treatment in the custody dispute AND getting financially compensated with full access to the marital assets, the efforts of the other partners labor.

            “It’s about what’s best for the children”

            And how, precisely, does stripping a father from a child’s life, marginalizing their relationship, help meet that goal? The reality is, “the best interests of the children” is nothing but a smokescreen to push for a mothers best interests, given mothers tend to see children as an extension of themselves, like an appendage.

            “If the mother has been providing the bulk of the primary care, it makes sense that she would continue to provide that care.”

            And again, she should be compensated with both preferential treatment and financial compensation. Best of both worlds. And the sacrifices men have made, fuck men. Double standards, got to love em.

            “Each case should be considered individually.”

            Agreed, but they should start at a default position of equality, IE shared 50/50 parenting. Anything less creates a disparity that can only skew results.

            “Splitting the children ‘equally’ between the parents is not the most important consideration in determining custody arrangements for a variety of reasons.”

            And those reasons are? I thought this was tabout the child’s best interests? what’s more important to a child than having two loving parents, and maintaining a significant relationship with both? Again, it sounds like “best interests of the child” is just being used as a smokescreen to push the best interests of the mother.

            “…regardless of abilities, circumstances, needs, history, challenges or attitudes of the people involved.”

            None of these are required of women to be parents, or else we would have regulations against teen pregnancies, now wouldn’t we. So why is it men are held to these expectations? Again, double standards.

            ” It would inappropriately limit judges in exercising their discretion based on the parents and children in the case before them.”

            That’s a lie. Every single bill proposed has included giving judges discretion where a parent is deemed unfit. But unless a parent can be deemed unfit, they should not be denied the opportunity to parent, women aren’t. Enough with the double standards!


            “It would tilt the law in favor of an abusive partner.”

            AKA yes. As every proposed 50/50 arrangement includes clauses for unfit parents (which include those who are abusive), we are not discussing parents who can be shown to be abusive, only those who can’t. Under the current system, a child with an abusive father is spared by the default mother custody currently in place. Those without abusive parents lose their fathers more often than not, due to vindictive mother gatekeeping or simply not having enough time together to maintain a relationship.

            The real problem is that children with abusive mothers are then placed in their abusive mothers care almost exclusively. So, the argument against 50/50 shared parenting is that the number of children rescued by default mother care of the current system must be worth the loss of relationships in non-abusive environments AND completely immersing children, 100% (because really, is an abusive mother going to respect a father? or court orders that aren’t enforced?), in an abusive mothers care. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a pretty man-hating/female chauvinistic position to take of an ideology that claims men and women are the same, and any differences are due to discrimination. I think having two parents to protect you is in the best interests of children who’s parents are not demonstrated to be abusive.

          • Rights of the child come first, except when it comes into conflict with the whims of the mother.

            When it comes to denying men their rights, rights of the child are used as an excuse.

      • You are an imbecile, because the state can do a fair and objectuive report on itself right?

  43. women live longer than men, because they are not married to women.

  44. Ho about violence against men initiated by the requets or actions of a woman. (i.e.cheated on her hubby with an unknowing other male, and let the fight happen) <_- I bet that would raise your statbar of woman induced violence more than a tad right.

    • If they counted proxy violence by women in stats it would show completely different thing than it does now.

  45. To me this is a case of men telling women what they want to hear.women put labels on men and so do the courts so men just tell you what you want to hear then the label is at least accurate. But if men were smart just go on with your life and take your dreams and burn them and stay away from women if you can not give a fake name take them to a cheap hotel that takes cash give it to her for as long as you want then drop her at the curb like garbage it is what she came to you for anyway money and a dick like a hooker.

  46. NOT a victim of feminism, but a victim of patriarchy!

    • yes dear, of course you are.

  47. To all the people arguing that the MRA are all batsh*t crazy; BOTH the feminist side and the MR side have their share of insane over dramatic freaks that should be locked up but the majority of MRA (like myself) just want a discussion without threats or yelling or insulting an entire group of people.

    The sad part is most MRA are to afraid to speak up for fear of being judged and threatened the ones that aren’t afraid are the crazy ones that make us all look bad. We need to all stand up and not just talk about this in the comment section of a MacLean’s article but on Twitter and Facebook etc. We need to show the world and the feminists that we’re aren’t insane misogynists but just men who want real equality and that we are tired of being thrown on the garbage heap. We don’t want things to go back to the way they were in the 50’s and 60’s we just want to be heard and taken seriously.

    • I’ve spent a long time attempting to do just that. I didn’t come from divorce, I was never abused, I’ve not had my children stolen (as I have none). Nothing “drove” me to the men’s movement, I found it when I read an article by Barbara Kay, talking about a judge who presided over a murder trial, where a mother killed two young girls by drowning them in the tub. This mother claimed she was protecting her children from an abusive father… his abuse? he had been fighting to see his children for 3 years, denied that entire time. He was a recovering alcoholic, but there was no evidence of him being abusive. In fact, the mother who killed her children had HER mother testify AGAINST her, claiming it was the mother, not the father, who was abusive. Despite the fact the mother had been institutionalized several times (and still got custody). Despite no evidence, despite the grandmothers testimony, the judge still stated openly, to the press “It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive…”


      This kind of things is sickening, when a woman can kill children and the father, who just lost his children, is blamed for it BY THE JUDGE, based on nothing but the say so of the very person trying to get away with murder. This drew me into the discussion of men’s issues.

      I approached the discussion calmly, rationally, seeking to have an honest discussion. I have yet to find one. I have not had a single discussion that did not include ad hom attacks, shaming tactics and/or a massive helping of condescension (you know, “mansplaining”, but from women who think they know gender issues better than men, like they whinge about when men think they know more about cars than women) directed at me. I have yet to have a conversation that didn’t require me to accept feminist doctrine whole cloth in order for me to progress, and when that doctrine was challenged, I got pointed to some other piece of writing where I couldn’t challenge that writer (in other words, when one feminist didn’t understand their own material well enough to defend it, they pointed me somewhere else in order to end the debate and dismiss me). This dismissiveness, these attacks and accusations against me, it is those that have built the anger in me.

      Feminists created my anger, no one else, through their own actions, and then they try to claim my anger is unreasonable and dangerous, and that I should be ignored because of that anger… In otherwords, they are using my anger to do precisely the same thing they did to create the anger in the first place. Until feminists take responsibility for THEIR causing this anger, and are willing to work through the anger instead of dismissing it, nothing is going to get done, short of the mrm tearing down the feminist movement, one lie at a time. But I don’t see that happening, I don’t see feminists taking responsibility for anything. And so long as they control the debate table (which they currently do), while refusing to let men sit at it (unless they conform to the doctrine) under the guise of “men are dangerous”, you can’t keep pointing the finger at the men’s movement and telling them they need to come to the table.

      EDIT: 10/8/2013:

      I think this video (youtube: Feminist makes false sexual assault allegation and then assaults innocent man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIZTKcVKTYs) is a perfect analogy to my situation. Both myself and the man in the video were there to have our say, we wished to speak our minds, but the feminists in the picture didn’t want that, so they tried to silence us by shouting us out. When we refused to stand aside, they then manufactured a scenario, a threat narrative, in the video by pushing her boobs into his arm and claiming he’s touching her boobs, and he has to move in order to stop it (her hole point from the start), and me with using the frustration they cause through constant dismissals and attacks as being dangerous and threatening. In both scenario’s, they are using the very threats they themselves created in order to accomplish their goals of silencing the opposing views. And in both cases, they use this threat narrative they have manufactured to justify violence onto those they seek to silence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mprqvuUS_Ho)

  48. you know, when the whole feminist thing started in the early 70’s, there was never a real socio/impact study made on the long term effects to north american norms, now we have a guilt ridden society overcompensating toward one sex and marginalising the other. doesn’t humanity realize that these ideas ex. ms, hyphanated names in marrige, the courts ubersiding against men in any domestic court proceedings, all of this was designed from the getgo to drive a wedge between men and women, and it worked…till now, let’s hope the men in their calm messured aproach to this problem will do better.

  49. As a male I find the article a little over the top. These feminist bigots that are mentioned here can and are matched by as many male bigots. I mean young males threating rape is just wrong and sick and in fact doesn’t look at the bigger societal picture.
    Cool down everyone; a huge majority of males and females are fair and respectful in Canada today. Is there marital problems? Yes; and these should be dealt with honestly and fairly in the courts of law. If the laws are bent in favour of one side or the other then sober minds should change the laws…that I can agree with.
    For one side or the other to radicalize with hate and violent threats is anarchy and not representative of the huge majority.
    Stay cool on the larger subject and know that sensationalism as in this case usually gets the printed article in the media of today.
    I’m sure we could all find hundreds of stories of co-operation and respect but this doesn’t make for good interesting media. Sad a bit; isn’t it?

  50. haha ya now we know why there’s so many rainbow’s they all hate women..and i do not blame them..most women are pig’s………..