Sunday, March 4, 2012


Here's the thing. I really like the idea of men's rights. It dovetails neatly with feminism, and with helping people to escape the patriarchy. It's just that, when I've gone looking for men's rights blogs I end up finding... a lot of jerks.

But... I love the idea of men's rights. A revaluation of custody and child support to better evaluate what is truly best for the child? Yes! A way for men to cut off parental obligations and rights to unwanted children before they are born? Yes! Awareness of sexual harassment of men? Yes! More mental health services for men? Yes! A more open dialog in America on circumcision? Yes! Hell, even more talk about how we treat our veterans, especially the disabled ones!

To me, all these things fit very nicely with what feminism is trying to do-- break down the restrictive walls of the patriarchy. Yes, feminism works primarily for women, but even in today's society, women are more disadvantaged than men. It seems like a lot of ideas of men's rights are just a recognition that the patriarchy hurts men too.


When I go looking for dialogue or blogs, I wind up finding a majority of men who are hostile or mistrusting to women, who think they are entitled to sex, who think young women in tight clothes exist to be objects of the male gaze, and who think women are scheming creatures out to get the most money from men. These sites seem to treat women as subhuman. It's scary. They call feminism hate speech, irrational, and evil. They want control over the choice of whether or not to have abortion, want rape redefined, and want women to understand that it's looks, not what's inside, that matters.

And when I read that stuff, I feel literally ill. I forget sometimes how lucky I am to be in a very educated, fairly liberal bubble--law students in Boston-- where men and women are allowed to express themselves pretty much however they want.

So what I want to ask is-- is there a reasonable side to this men's rights movement? Are there people out there advocating for change without denigrating women along the way? And how can this movement and feminism work together for the benefit of us all?

some MRA sites I've found that have left me rather horrified, either through the content, or through the manner in which the content is present. There are more out there, but honestly, a little bit of following the sites these sites link to will give you a pretty good idea, without me having to type them all out.


Paul Elam said...

A truly excellent post. At least on the surface I think you nailed things down exactly as they are. But I would ask you to consider some things that you might not have noticed.

One, it is not like feminism has been male friendly at all. Just the opposite, the misandry and invective that blazes through feminist literature and emanates from feminist icons and permeates MANY feminist blogs is no different than the problem children we have in the MRM, and often it is much, much worse.

Two, you are quite correct that there are problems in family courts. Many of the MRA forums you might visit are inhabited by numbers of men who have literally been destroyed by those courts, and who still live lives that make them more or less slaves.

So many of them are in unthinkable pain and, to make it worse, they live in an indifferent, often ridiculing world around them that regularly throws salt into the wounds.

One of the things that people will have to understand is that the MRM attracts very angry men. Men that are angry because they have every right to be.

But I agree that when that is not under control it becomes a problem. It often causes problems for other MRA's that are trying to do more than just vent.

In the end though, I think it helps to understand that the venting of angry men is to be expected in these times.

Those sites you mentioned have some very good content. Despite the fact it is not written in a style that suits everyone, it is good information.

The way we help people with their anger is to examine and do something to address the problems they are angry about as long as those problems actually exist.

In this, men have a long way to go before the average person even cares. If you want to fix their anger, that is the first place to start looking.

Men's Rights said...

I'm the author of and I'd like to state why I have no apologies whatsoever for saying I hate you from the bottom of my heart - as well as every feminist like you (the vast majority) and every woman who supports you and gives you your power (the majority at this time, unfortunately).

Yep, your first paragraph sounded reasonable, then you came out with this - accusing us of :
"They want control over the choice of whether or not to have abortion, want rape redefined, and want women to understand that it's looks, not what's inside, that matters."

Not a lot of common ground there between us is there?

Firstly, I don't particularly want 'control over your body' but I am interested in the welfare of defenceless,small, vulnerable children (the same motives you profess when feminists create laws locking men away for making love to a woman in her late teens). And I truly am sickened that you 'have no moral qualms about an abortion' and ' compare it to buying a couch'. I studied the morality of abortion at a leading university philosophy department. Why did we bother? Why did we study a 'problem' that poses as few ethical issues as purchasing a couch?

Because abortion is a serious ethical matter, because it involves the life of an unborn, defenceless child. Even Peter Singer, undoubtedly the greatest practical moral philosopher of the 20th century, can only defend abortion by likewise defending infantacide. There IS an ethical issue with abortion and your dismissal of it and offenseive comparison of the life of an unborn couch with an inanimate couch just reveals you to be the selfish being you are, utterly unconcerned with the welfare and rights of anyone else, especially when they might conflict with your 'reproductive interests'.

Secondly, all we want to do is define rape back to what it was before crazed, misandristic feminists like you exploited it in order to increase your sexual power over men. And this is another thing we justly hate about feminists. The fact that you are so willing to exploit real suffering on the part of women and children in order to further your own sexual and reproductive interests.

We don't want women to be judged solely on their looks. But we don't want unattractive feminists to force attractive women to hide their bodies or to make men feel like degraded perverts simply for having a normal, healthy sexuality.

Get it?

My site is small fry compared to AngryHarry or the Spearhead, but I can categorically state that those sites are far more representative of real men's rights than reddit is. Feminists are shafting men, they are shafting children, and they are shafting society. We have every right to be angry with women in general, let alone with feminists.

Personally, I don't think there is any dialogue to be had with feminists like you and, again personally, I hope most of you fry in eternal hell.

The men's movement will succeed only when men become sufficiently angry to shout for their rights and to call out feminists and women for what they are doing to society.

I don't want to be part of a movement that seeks dialogue and understanding with people who compare killing unborn children to buying a couch.

Anonymous said...

Sir: At its core, feminism is about equality and respect. You are, by your own admission, preaching hatred and oppression.

Uhh... said...

Wow Men's Rights. "I hate you" is a really lousy rebuttal.

How many people do you speak to with that attitude that respond at all?

Do you believe in hell? If you do, do you really think Christ needs someone like you to damn people? Sounds like blasphemy to me, oh protector-of-human-life.

And there are a lot of hot feminists, btw. But it would require some actual balls to talk to someone that has a different view from yours to really find anything about them, which I doubt you have.

I have to get back to washing dishes in my g-string.

Amanda said...

Thank you for your comment, Paul.

I do agree that there are a number of feminists-- and women who are not feminists-- out there who are angry, bitter, and who hate men. I do not think they are indicative of the majority of the modern movement though, and do not think that that mindset has been dominant since the time of Dworkin and MacKinnon. I also feel that women have the same right, if not more right, to be angry as men in the MRM. I know we are likely to agree on this point, but I do feel that American society tends to continue to be male dominated and patriarchal in a way that hurts career minded women and domestic minded men. Some of this is likely because I am in professional school and see that the attitude still exists in some firms-- they tout diversity because they have to, but talking with women who work in firms shows that discrimination still exists. There are plenty of other examples, of course, but I don't want to turn this into an entire blog post.

Also, much modern feminism is friendly to men-- or at least, many modern feminists are. Sadly, as with your movement, some of our more vocal outliers are the easiest ones to find-- and the ones that tend to stick in the brain.

Again, thank you for your comment. I do hope to hear from you again!

Amanda said...

To the Antifeminist,

I would agree that there seems to be little common ground between us. the content of your posts seems not only anti-feminist, but anti-woman. However, my comments that you quoted are referring to the general feeling I get from many MRA blogs-- yours was merely one of the ones that I felt would help readers understand. Your language and harshness is honestly scary-- telling me you hate me and directly insulting me doesn't exactly make me think you're someone worth debating with honestly, or even discussing things with. Your comment here is the sort of thing that makes me less sympathetic to the men's rights movement, rather than more sympathetic-- meaning you are doing yourself a disservice.

You and I clearly disagree on the status of fetuses. I don't am of the view that a fetus is not a child. I've studied developmental biology and psychology, which have influenced my views. I also studied abortion in a law school course taught by a bio-ethicist. Why did we discuss it? Because there are people out there who think it is a child-- and we need to discuss whether their claims have merits, and at what point to start considering the potential life as relevant. If you want to control women's ability to access abortions, than you also want to control their bodies. There is no way around that point.

I think you missed the point of my point of "Today, I compared abortion to a couch". The point of the post was that even though I don't have moral qualms about abortion, I would still make the decision about whether or not to have one with my fiance, rather than on my own. In the post, I stated that abortion and couches are not the same, and I did not say that there was no ethical difference: "Obviously, the decision about whether or not to have a child is worlds apart from whether or not to redecorate" but that I was using the comparison to shift into a discussion on communication. Please reread the post, instead of merely looking at the title.

Abortion, to my understanding, does not involve a child. You disagree, I think you're wrong, and we're unlikely to convince each other on this point. Even if it did involve a child, though, I would still want it to be legal-- because I care more about acknowledging individual rights to bodily autonomy. I would have moral qualms with it if it was a child, but ultimately, I wouldn't judge any woman who removed it from her body.

I clearly am concerned with the rights of others here, not simply the rights of myself. Abortion is an issue I care a lot about, but it isn't for my own sake that I care, but the autonomy of other women.

As far as my views on rape go, I see rape laws as having little to do with "increasing sexual power over men". Instead, it is again about increasing bodily autonomy for women. I don't care if you're someones husband, cousin, classmate, boyfriend, or stranger, you don't get to force women to have sex with you, and you don't get to drug her into passivity. Again, I'm neither crazed (in this sense, at least) nor misandristic, so please quit with the insults.

Most feminists also don't want to force women to hide their bodies or make men feel bad for a normal healthy sexuality. Your definition of a normal healthy sexuality might be skewed if you think that.

Frankly, sir, I don't want you to be part of any movement. You've repeatedly twisted what I've said and directly insulted me. You are making yourself look like a fool. As you may have noticed, I did not call your site one of the major ones in the MRA movement. I certainly hope it is not. Rather, I said your site is representative of a type of site-- in the case of your individual blog, it seems to be representative of small minded bigotry.

schopenbecq said...

I have no wish to have a dialogue with you.

I dislike women in general, and sometimes, after reading blogs like yours and realising that most women think like you, I admit to freaking hating women.

I belive in treating women as responsible adults, even if they are clearly not most of the time. So long as you give me reason to hate, I will.

Everything you write about is connected with sex and reproduction. All the feminists on men's rights reddit are only interested in commenting in reddits that are to do in some way with sex and relationships. You are never found in the science, technology, or art reddits.

I call you names, you enact laws that leave millions of men being raped and beaten in prison. All based on your selfish emotional needs rather than any logical argument or empirical evidence.

Amanda said...


If you don't want to have a dialouge, then why do you keep commenting on my blog and why have you twice excerpted it?

I believe in treating women, men, and all others as responsible adults as well.

This blog is focussed on sexuality and relationships. I attempt to stay on that topic, though I do occasionally discuss other issues that are very interesting. All you discus are men's issues. Is it really a bad thing that either of us have blogs that are narrowly tailored to certain areas? Isn't a blog SUPPOSED to be centered around a certain topic?

You have no knowledge of my stance on prison reform. I think any individual, man or woman, free or prisoner, being raped is a horrible thing and a crime. I wish rapists in jail were further prosecuted and that jails were reorganized in a way to make rape impossible. I also wish the jail program was revised so that a greater focus was on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

My arguments are based in logic, law, and science.

schopenbecq said...

I keep commenting because I have to answer your bullshit. You accused me on this blog of being an extremist. YOU first called me out on Reddit and claimed I was committing hate speech by saying that older women hate the fact that younger women are better looking.

My site focuses on men's issues, which entail a variety of issues. You just have one issue - how to increase your sexual value in a free sexual market.

Feminists like you degrade and objectify women more than all the misogyinsts and porn films in the world put together.

Amanda said...


I gave your site as an example of "some MRA sites I've found that have left me rather horrified, either through the content, or through the manner in which the content is present. There are more out there, but honestly, a little bit of following the sites these sites link to will give you a pretty good idea, without me having to type them all out."

This blog has not called you extremist, and it has not said you perpetuate hate speech. If you want to make silly claims like that older women hate younger women for their beauty, I will call you out on them. It's simply untrue and ridiculous.

My blog talks about a lot of issues. It's a blog about sexuality and feminism-- so it talks about sexuality and feminism. HOW SHOCKING, a blog has a niche focus! It does not, however, have anything to do with "increasing sexual value". You certainly haven't read much of it, if that's the impression you got. Or maybe sexist commercials and ads on the T and discussions of female friendship somehow have something to do with sexual value?

I do not degrade or objectify women. Please, if you're going to keep commenting here, quit lying.

schopenbecq said...

You're the only one who thinks that claim is ridiculous.

Whether or not they hate younger females themselves, they certainly hate the fact that men prefer younger females, and are willing to harm younger females in order to improve their own ability to attract men.

For example, when you go on about limbic systems and claim that 17 year olds are child reptiles, do you ever consider that a 17 year old having consensual sex with an older partner will be damaged by being forced to testify against her lover in a court of law and to see his life ruined as a result of that testimony?

No, of course you don't. I guess when you make statements such as '17 year olds can't give meaningful consent' with no evidence or logic to back it up, it's no more difficult for you to do than to decide to purchase a couch or a kill your unborn child.

If it's in your interests, go for it girl.

Anonymous said...

I think that claim is ridiculous too. I enjoy Amanda's blog, and I enjoy questioning the same issues that she questions.

My answers are sometimes different, but I don't see reason to resort to cheap personal attacks. Paul Elam raised some good questions too, and maybe there's a common ground between these two sites. However, I’m actually paying attention to their interaction because it’s more than static.

If you really don't desire to have a dialogue, if you really hate people that think like this, and your comments only serve to tell the author how you want her to go to hell, I think your efforts could be better spent either talking to other people that share the same hatred, or trying to rationally convince people your position is correct.

I just don't see the benefit of posting the same comment over and over.

I get it. You hate all feminists. You don't think any feminist issues raise good questions. You can't convince the readers not to be engaged by e-rants. By the time I’ve read her article and your comment, you can’t make me unread her view. That does seem to be your goal, correct? To somehow make her statements disappear? Unfortunately you can only delete things in your own space.

There are a lot of people who are in the middle and really do like to examine gender issues from a lot of different perspectives. I certainly checked out Paul’s site. So Mr. Antifeminist, please stop speaking for the general public.

If you really think Love Letters in Hell is bullshit, you don't need to worry about people listening to it.

On the other hand, if it bothers you the author of this blog has an audience and some of us really appreciate her articles, that's a problem you simply have to live with.

She's not going away, and neither are her readers. If you'd like to attract traffic, you might try advertising.

As for your claim that older women hate younger women, I just don't see it. I think women AND men who are taught to be ashamed of their bodies get hostile towards other people who might flaunt or show more skin. I really don't think that's sex specific though, and I think the root of that problem can only be solved by raising a child, male or female, in an environment where s/he is taught to love the body they have, and is taught the lesson which I think you may be missing:
Your appreciation for yourself is separate from your hatred of others. Your actions and your confidence can’t be validated by cutting other people down.

AlekNovy said...

Hey Amanda :)

"It's just that, when I've gone looking for men's rights blogs I end up finding... a lot of jerks."

Let me offer you the opposite

"When I've gone looking for feminism blogs I end up fiding... a lot of man-hating bitches"

Both of these statements are equally true... As both movements have the same problem... A lot of people find or join a movement as an escape hatch for personal frustration... The guy who can't get laid and who's been hurt by a lot of women... or the woman who's had a string of bad men in her life...

Now, I disagree with feminism as a whole (except iFeminism) because its based on marxist concepts... But I can claim not all feminists are man-haters.

If you want to see a mature discussion of men's rights, visit Paul Elam's site or mensnewsdaily.

Don't go to sites hosted by angst filled boys who are pissed off that they've been rejected by the hottie...


I have to agree with Paul though... I've said this a couple of times too. The percentage is much worse on the feminist side.

- Whereas MRA are some 20-30 sexually-frustrated boys
- Feminists are some 80% man-hating marxists

Go to any feminist blog (even a major site) with a male alias and just POLITELY try to ask a question, and you will be insulted, mocked, censored, banned, and called a murderer.

Feminists are far less open to dialogue, and far more hostile than MRA.

Schopenbecq said...


Why would I want feminists coming to my site just to inflate my traffic???

I have a google page rank of 4, my site is on the first page of Google for 'anti-feminism'. My traffic is doubling every couple of months through both search engine traffic and repeat visitors.

She is the one benefiting from leaving comments on my site.

Yes, there are closet manginas and white knights in the men's rights movement who would talk to the devil if it wore a skirt and they think they could lay it. I'm not one of them.

The fact is, women were never oppressed. Men ARE being raped by women. I don't want to have a dialogue with somebody who compares killing babies to buying furniture or who calls for millions of men to be criminilized at the same time as accusing me of hate speech for suggesting it's all psycho-sexually motivated.


Jilly said...

I've failed to find a men's rights site or blog that actually wants a dialogue on the subject. They see everything in society as promoting misandry - even though men have the greatest wealth, the best paid jobs and the most power in the western world. Stereotypes hurt men and women; access to children after divorce is unfair. There are issues which disadvantage men but in order to tackle them men need dialogue with women - and they seem unwilling to have the dialogue - many just want to be right - without argument.

jonas1453 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jonas1453 said...


Men and women are not homogeneous groups. The idea that there might be a need for a debate between genders seems irrelevant to me, since viewpoints are widely diverging within each gender. Socio-economical status, personality, religion, geography, age are often more relevant than gender. Everyone has a specific deal in his hands, specific assets to rely on and specific handicaps to overcome. The vast majority of people have good relationships with many people from the other sex and they don't interpret the occasional misunderstandings or quarrels as a gender problem. They believe such a leap is overgeneralization akin to racism or nationalism or whatever "us" and "them" rift. Excessive groupishness is almost always detrimental to society as a whole in my opinion.

Best regards from France

schopenbecq said...

"There are issues which disadvantage men but in order to tackle them men need dialogue with women - and they seem unwilling to have the dialogue - many just want to be right - without argument."

You're joking right? You leave a comment on my website (after being directed there to harrass me from this blog) that contains no argument but simply an absurd claim and a call for even more men to be locked up. Is that your idea of dialogue?

Meanwhile Amanda threatens to sue me for defamation and have my blog taken down for claiming that somebody who has posted an article entitled 'today I compared abortion to a couch' has compared abortion to a couch. All as a response to her accusing me of being a crazed extremist on a par with feminazis who want all men burnt alive.

It is our job as MRAs to remove your feminist heads from your arseholes. One day, you might even be grateful for us.

Jilly said...

schopenbecq - noactually I've been aware of your site since last year and have looked at it from time to time without posting anything. If you think a - probably - two line comment stating a fact - age of consent applies to both sexes equally - is harrassment then I am really sorry for you.

AlekNovy said...

"""I've failed to find a men's rights site or blog that actually wants a dialogue on the subject."""

((Waves)) Helloooooooooooooo!!!

Are you saying me and Paul Elam don't exist? Both me and Paul have been extremely cooperative and invited you to discussion.

This is a common female filter called "the invisible male". You only register arrogant, narcissistic men as being men. Men who are cooperative you completely ignore.

I feel offended Jilly, you just told me I don't exist. Considering you ignored both me and paul's offers at cooperation/debate, I'm sure you've also missed the other 50% of MRA who are like this, while focusing on the angry, bitter ones that are not open to discussion.

I just posted a response to your claims on my website. You can come there and join the discussion, or ignore my invitation to a discussion and continue claiming no MRA are open to a discussion... which makes you a hypocrite Jilly

Amanda said...


This is a warning. I instituted a new comment policy. It can be found here:

As you'll note, outright lies are not permitted. Please refrain from doing so in the future-- and yes, claiming that motivations are different than they are, especially when I have told you in the past that the assumptions you are writing are incorrect, does count as a lie.

Again, this is a warning, since you may not have noticed the comment policy.

Jilly said...

AlexNovy - what invitation??? Your site is not in English and as far as I am aware I have not posted a comment on it - if so show me where.

All the men's rights sites which come top of a Goggle search appear to me to be quite extreme and usually full of swear words - which really puts me off.

I was simply agreeing with the blog post that the reasonable sites seem few and far between. And that is the first time I have posted a comment on this blog because I only discovered it the other day.

The ONLY comments I have posted on a men's rights site have been the ones - 3 of them - on which have earned me an accusation of harrassment!

So what invitation?

AlekNovy said...

Jilly. My site has 230 posts, of which 229 are in english, lol.

You didn't bother to scroll down did you ? Its the very second post on the blog:


You literally IGNORE all men who are open to discussion. You completely missed the cooperative tonality that me and paul elam display here in the comments. I didn't mean invite you personally, I mean being inviting to you(as a group) in general. You're always free to come over and discuss this stuff with us.

You actually fly past me and paul, and read the comments of the angst filled anti-feminist, and then generalize all MRA are like that.

You are actually SEEKING to find proof for your belief. Again, I have always been to open to discussion and so have many others (paul elam is a leading example). Why do you completely ignore us.

Heck, scroll to the top of the page. Notice how extremely cooperative paul is and how friendly his comment is.

Guess what? Paul Elam is one of the leaders in MRA.

What did you do? Did you use Paul's comment to generalize MRA? No, you used the angst-filled random trolls and teenagers. Shame on you.

schopenbecq said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Amanda said...


I informed you that lying was against comment policy on this blog. As your last comment contained statements that I know to be lies, it was deleted. You are welcome to post here, as long as you abide by the comment rules, even if you have banned me from your blog, despite my lack of commenting on it of late.

Just an average dude... said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jilly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
schopenbecq said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
schopenbecq said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jilly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jilly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
schopenbecq said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jilly said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Amanda said...

Jilly and Schopenbecq,

Some of your comments have been deleted as they are getting entirely off topic.

For others who are wondering what they missed: Some visitors to The Antifeminist have experienced malware warnings (I got one too, actually) My guess is that it's a result of bad links from some other commenter on the site, or simply an antivirus program not recognizing something in the code. The fight itself seems irrelevant to my blog.

Jilly said...

Sorry Amanda - you're right - but at least you got the message as well.

Ernest Chatham MSW said...

Amanda -Yours is one of the most reasonable descriptions of the Men's Rights Movement I have ever read thus far, and I commend you for it.

Many men are tired of being subjected to negative stereotypy by thin-skinned propagandists, who wouldn't tolerate the same thing being done to them.

Equality means, if you dish it out, you've got to take it as well. Please spare us the prissy indignation and remonstrations about our conduct or choice of language. Go to RH Reality Check, if you want to see gratuitously rude and abusive treatment, especially that routinely heaped on Paul Bradford.

Equality also means that laws against discrimination weren't written exclusively for one side only, but apply to both sides the same. "I'm oppressed" doesn't mean "I can get away with anything."

The Biscuit Queen said...

I have been an MRA for about 10 years. I am a married mother of two, and am not in the second wife club. I got into men's rights through my husband, and for my sons. I do not hate women,I am not bitter and I am not upset I can't get laid. I don't think the majority of women who identify as feminist are bad people. I think they have been snowed.

As Paul said, for every angry men's blog there is an equally angry feminist blog (or 10). I have searched for feminist blogs open to discussion, and have found fewer than 5 in the last ten years which even came close. I have had luck with one or two posters on RH health, but was shouted down and derided by many there. I have been banned by many feminist sites because I refuse to agree with them. I never call names. I never use phrases such as "all women" or any negative blanket statements. I use cites from credible sources and I speak politely and respectfully, as I am doing here. I admit if I am wrong, and I give credit where credit is due.

It does not matter. I am shouted down, called names, shamed, considered a traitor and misogynist, and then banned. Often they will let the guys like 'antifeminist' post because they dovetail neatly into what feminists think of MRAs, but they never know what to do with me.

Feminist doctrine cannot stand reason and logic. It is based on a fabrication-that women as a group were oppressed by men as a group, and this was enabled by the patriarchy. The truth is that the ruling class has always consisted of the rich, both men and women, and the rest of people, both men and women, spent their time trying to survive. There is no patriarchy. It is more about class than gender. There never was 'a patriarchy' or 'the patriarchy'.

Most women were just trying to have and raise their families. Most men, in addition to trying to support their families, were and and continue to be cogs in the machine, to be used and discarded at the whims of those in power.

The 37 million men who were killed or wounded in WWI were not the ruling class, they were not in power, and they were not oppressing anyone. Those men are representative of men throughout history. They did not start the wars, but they had to fight in them, kill in them, and die in them.

The idea of women as a group being oppressed does not stand up to logic and reason. And it is this alleged oppression on which feminism is based.

I have been a voice against extremism in the mens movement. I dislike the hatred and long term anger which occurs on some boards. What I have come to realize is that men need a space to feel anger and hatred. Just because they vent online, does not mean they are going to go out and hurt someone. Often when a person who has suffered an injury (be it a woman who was raped or a man who was destroyed in family court) needs to get angry in order to go through the healing process.Women have people in their real life to express their anger and emotions to. Men usually do not.

Most men suffer a huge shock when they "take the red pill" and see how skewed the world is compared to what they have been taught to believe. These men have a right to their feelings. If you feel you can judge them, you must also be willing to judge your own group first.

I post at I have met many of the men there personally at conferences, and the rules protect both men and women and are enforced equally. You are welcome to come discuss anything you like. You will not be moderated, but you may be warned if you break basic rules which we are likewise held to. I can also post here, if your rules are followed by both feminists and MRAs alike.

Death Vajra said...

Hey Amanda, just out of curiousity, if the primary concern of 'feminists' is equality for all, why wouldn't they call themselves 'humanists' instead?

If you had legions of men walking around calling themselves 'masculinists', would you believe they had your best interests in mind?

Anonymous said...

Damn, Biscuit Queen. That was beautifully put.

Men who have been horribly hurt by the misandry of the system need to see more of that. Your post brings home so clearly that women are not the problem. Misandry is the problem. And while there are many women who are misandrist, having bought into the distortions and lies of mainstream feminism, there are many men who have fallen for the same or, perhaps worse, see through the lies but feel that they can personally benefit from repeating them.

Anonymous said...

Death Vajra, they call themselves feminists instead of humanists because in our society the default assumption of the human norm is a cisgendered white male, and everything else is deviant to one degree or another. But there IS a movement called Womanism.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Biscuit Queen said...

Anonymous, thank you!

The etymology of the word feminism:

Ultimately from Latin féminīnus, from fémina (woman). (See feminine). Feminist first recorded in English 1894, from French féministe (1872). See also feminism.

Race and orientation issues were not added to feminism until much later-the 1960's I believe. Feminism was called that because it was a movement to help women, white women specifically. Early feminists actually rejected the black woman's vote.

February 12, 2011 8:24 AM

Factory said...

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here as well. You don't seem to be able to wrap your head around a simple concept:

The Mens Movement is not being marketed to Feminists. The Mens Movement isn't even being marketed to conciliatory men.

The Mens Movement is marketed towards all those men who have found themselves disenfranchised, beset and demonized. All the men who are tired of being called a potential rapist and wife-beater. All the men who are tired of being denied opportunity to satisfy a quota, and all the men who don't buy, for one second, the idea women are 'disadvantaged' at all in todays society.

Feminism is literally based on lies and twisted interpretations of history. It founds itself on the idea that all men everywhere worked together to keep women down. Even while they blew each other up on the battlefield, apparently.

Talk about your loony conspiracy theory...

I get a kick out of debating issues with feminists, it makes my viewpoint a bit sharper each day. But it's sheer arrogance on your part to think you matter, at all, to the Mens Movement.

We know what we want to accomplish, and we're going to do it with or without you.

But if you insist on continuing to be our enemy, we will run over you like a steamroller. Count on it.

The other thing you need to consider is the much different takes on sexual relations and mating behaviours. Feminists do almost no realistic analysis of female behaviour, and a mostly negative analysis of male sexuality (being the product of lesbian man haters, this is hardly surprising).

And the final insult?

You people deign to create a theory (PHMT), then try to force it on us. Then, call us troglodytes when we tell you where to stick it.

Talk about your cultural imperialism...

Sorry, I don't buy this Feminist "why can't we just get along" part because it only shifted to that from "no one cares what you losers say" because...well, it turns out people DO care.

You've done nothing but insult, degrade, dismiss, and demonize men and the people who stand up for them.

And you have the nuts to complain at the TONE of the rhetoric? Should we start calling you Madame Antoinette now?

Susie said...

Here from Shakesville, and since you posted the link to this Friday, I decided to comment even though it's an old post. :)

This post summed up precisely my first and second reactions to the men's rights movement. And it doesn't surprise me at all that the dissenting comments here suggest their authors just don't get it. And by it I mean feminism of course.

Doubtless there have been feminists (generally women) who claimed that women could do no wrong, or that any relationship between an individual woman and an individual man was inherently unequal and sexist. But I, a lifelong feminist in a family of feminist activists, who came of age in the 21st Century, have never met one.

And certainly feminism was not remotely as progressive as it is today when it got started. But all the feminist/womanist/progressive writers I read today care about the fundamental freedom, dignity, and humanity of all people, regardless of sex, gender, sexual expression, race, class, physical and mental ability, religion, philsophy, etc. In other words, they espouse* the belief that all people are created equal and are equally endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that we must work to ensure/allow those rights because we have thousands of years of kyriarchy standing in the way. :)

"Are there people out there advocating for change without denigrating women along the way?"

I have met many men who do. Most call themselves feminists, and those that don't, don't call themselves MRAs. But that is purely my personal experience. I believe that just as there are a few women who call themselves feminists who believe in individual culpability** for systemic injustice, there are probably a few MRAs who recognize that women are human beings.

*Interesting word, that. "I'm married to feminism!" *g*

**I.E. that every individual man in history has consciously worked to oppress women and must carry the blame for it forever. (And this holds true for all oppressions, as any discussion of racism in America will show.) Whereas my view is summed up in this quote from Abraham Joshua Heschel: "in a free society, [only] some are guilty, but all are responsible." Hence the teaspoons. ;)

The Biscuit Queen said...

I have been a woman in the men's rights movement for about a decade. Most MRAs very much believe women are human. So much so they believe women should be treated equally, which includes taking responsibility for themselves, and their sucesses and their failures.

You obviously have not spoken to any mainstream MRAs. I have; I have met Christina Hoff Summers, driven around Washington DC with Glenn Sacks, shared an umbrella with Warren Farrell, discussed fatherhood with Paul Nathanson, and had a few beers with F4J. These are some of the prominant MRAs in the US, Canada and the UK, and every one of them treated me with respect and equality. I have spent many hours in person and online with dozens of MRAs who are not leaders but consider themselves part of the mainstream movement. Every one of them has treated me with respect and equality. Even when I disagree with them, I am treated with respect and equality.

You are mistaken to assume all MRAs, or even most MRAs, hate women.

Being angry with the state of affairs in the US, hating the ideology that is feminism, is NOT the same thing as hating women. Disagreeing with feminism is NOT the same thing as hating women.

Why? Because feminism does NOT represent all women. It sure as heck does not represent me. It is NOT about equality at it's core, which can be found in the teachings of women's studies, the stances of mainstream feminist groups such as NOW and Feministing, and the obvious disregard or highjacking of any issues which disenfranchise men.

Feminism, just as the MRM, must be defined based on the goals and attitudes of the mainstream groups and what it teaches in its acedemic settings. These things have little to do with equality, and everything to do with gaining privilages and safety for women, at the expense of men if necessary.

If you want to be feminist, by all means do so. However do NOT pretend it represents all women, and do not pretend it is anything but self-serving for its participants.

Anonymous said...

@ Biscuit Queen. Thanks for the cogent and reasonable definition of MRM/MRA. Keep up the good work and continue to ignore the hate you get.