Men’s Rights and Straw Men

I should stay away from Men’s Rights forums. The world is certainly full of well-meaning men looking for an open dialogue on gender politics. But their voices rarely appear in online Men’s Rights forums. A quick glance at the Men’s Rights page on Reddit, which currently boasts over 78,000 subscribers, reveals a smorgasbord obnoxious YouTube videos and commentary on false rape accusations. Commenters visiting from r/feminism sometimes bring up the “straw feminist,” a variation on the straw man fallacy, as a counterpoint. The straw feminist is a castrating shrew who thinks men should all be caged, women are always right, and the quest for equality ends when lifeboats come into play. I should not read the Men’s Rights forums. But I do.

That said, I would never deny that there are some very real issues concerning masculinity as we enter the 21st century, many of which overlap with women’s and LGBT issues. While women struggle for reproductive rights, fathers are often overlooked altogether as relevant members of a family. And masculinity, like femininity, comes along with its own set of harmful stereotypes and asinine rule for acceptable behavior. So why do so many people consider men’s and women’s issues mutually exclusive?  Part of the reason that feminism is such a misunderstood movement derives from the reality that feminism isn’t a movement. Feminism is made up of countless subcultures and varying opinions. Loosely, feminists advocate equality of the genders, but equality means endlessly different things to different people.

There are some distinctions that are useful when discussing feminism, or at least when you want to seem well-read while you’re participating in the great American pastime of trolling online discussion forums. In this article, I will barely scratch the surface of complex gender movements, and I will mainly be discussing the American movements with which I am most familiar. Please feel free to add to the list in the comments section.


There is no universally agreed upon beginning to feminism, but scholars generally regard American feminism in terms of “waves.” The first-wave feminists rallied around suffrage and reproductive rights. Well known first-wave feminists include Margaret Fuller, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Margaret Sanger. Approaches to feminism varied widely between the Christian feminism of the Women’s Temperance Movement and Emma Goldman’s free love, anarcha-feminism.

Stanton and Anthony

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony

As a suffrage movement, early feminism was closely linked to abolitionism and black suffrage. The nineteenth amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was first proposed by California Senator Aaron A. Sargent in 1878. It passed on June 4, 1919. Tennessee became the last state to accept the amendment on August 18, 1920.

First-wave feminists, of course, were not perfect, and some held opinions that seem outright monstrous by today’s standards. Margaret Sanger in particular was an advocate the practice of negative eugenics, which was popular in America before World War II; America was the first country to institute force sterilization. Modern scholars debate whether Sanger was earnest in her support for eugenics or simply using it to promote her reproductive rights and education platform.


The second-wave of feminism, which spans roughly from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, gained widespread attention in United States after the American translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex in 1953, and the 1963 publication of Betty Freidan’s The Feminine Mystique.  The movement also garnered attention when the FDA approved the oral birth control pill in 1960.

Second-wave feminism was a part of the Civil Rights Movement. Major concerns for second-wave feminists included changing social attitudes toward gender, marital rape and domestic abuse, and integrating women into the white collar work sphere and government positions.  The feminist activists of the 1960s and 70s achieved remarkable victories, such as the Women’s Educational Equality Act, Roe v. Wade, and the Equal Pay Act, which hasn’t quite panned out yet.

Equal Rights March, 1970

Equal Rights March, 1970

Unfortunately, not everyone had the luxury of worrying about whether or not society approved of women in the workplace. Poor women have always had to work to make ends meet, and critics considered feminism a movement for white, middle class women only.


The third wave began in the early 90s and, by many accounts, is alive and well in the present. Second-wavers sometimes dismiss this group as a “backlash” movement established by their well-meaning, if misguided, daughters. The Riot Grrl movement of the early 90s played an important role in third-wave feminism, but the third wave was rooted in the activism of black and minority feminists and queer theorists.

Kathleen Hannah Rockin' Out

Kathleen Hannah rockin’ out

Third-wave feminists have sought to address the problem of inclusion in feminist and LGBT circles. Though social attitudes are still an important topic, they reject the second-wave concept of universal womanhood, and are more in line with LGBT and gender advocates than with second-wave feminism.

While inclusion remains a hot topic of debate for third-wave feminists, what some have deemed “post-feminism” is a challenge for the movement. Post-feminism, similar to post-racialism, is the idea that feminists already achieved their goals, and have gone “too-far,” putting boys and men at a disadvantage.

Sex-positive feminism:

Let’s go back to the second wave for a minute. In the mid-70s to 80s, radical feminist groups such as Women Against Violence Against Women and Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media, took up the cause of banning pornography, or certain violent types of pornography. American Poet and activist, Robin Morgan, summed up the anti-pornography feminist position with the statement: “Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice.”

Subsequent studies have found no correlation between pornography consumption and rape statistics. Many feminists such as BDSM lesbians felt alienated by the perceived “Puritan,” patriarchal values of the anti-pornography movement. In her article, “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of Sexual Politics,” Gayle Rubin argued that anti-pornography feminists assumed that all women shared a monolithic attitude toward sex, and that the movement shared a common ideology with right wing anti-obscenity crusades. Some women have rejected sex-positive and third wave feminism as an attempt to make feminism sexy, distracting from larger socioeconomic issues.

Black Feminism:

During the first wave of feminism, white activists considered themselves advocates for racial equality as well as equal rights for women, but during the second wave, African American women felt alienated by the feminist movement and by Black Nationalist movements. Feminism focused of white women’s problems, like legalization of abortion, while many black women were still suffering from forced sterilization and abortion programs.

Women also faced extreme sexism in African American organizations. Black women began to form their own organizations, such as the National Black Feminist Organization and the Combahee River Collective. Barbara Smith, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, and Audre Lorde emerged as influential voices in the movement.

The complicated history of the interplay between sexuality and race, particularly with regard to American slavery, provides the basis for Black Feminism. Slave traffickers viewed black women and men as breeding stock. Slaves, especially women, were subject to constant threats of rape and violence. And it didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. These attitudes are still prominently reflected in gendered stereotypes of African Americans. Black men are perceived as violent rapists, women as exotic sex objects.

Pro-feminist men’s liberation:

There have always been men who supported the equal rights movement for women, but we’re not always entirely sure what to call them. While some men think “feminist” suffices, some feminist organizations, such as the National Organization for Women, call male supporters “pro-feminists.”

The men’s liberation movement began in the 1970s as a response to the women’s movement. Pro-feminist men believe that gender discrimination negatively affects both sexes. Some focus on educating men as a preventative measure against rape and domestic abuse, and some focus on empowering men to overcome gendered stereotypes. Still others strive to end performance discrepancies between boys and girl in education.

Men’s Rights activists, conversely, believe that the feminist movement has had a negative impact on men. They argue that feminists only advocate for equality when it is advantageous for them, and not in cases of alimony or military drafts. Legal gender discrimination is a major concern, particularly with regard to child custody, alimony, and rape litigation.


Sure, there are some women out there who want to steal your sperm, falsely accuse you of rape, and eat your testicles for supper. But there are also entire states full of people who think that the truly pious among them will become gods on the planet Kolob. Rule #34 holds true for fringe ideologies as well as it does for porn; there is an article about it somewhere on the internet, no exceptions.

The straw feminist doesn’t just influence men’s attitudes toward feminism. Countless women reject feminism based on the assumption that feminists are only interested in transforming the patriarchy into a matriarchy. The truth is, most feminists do not hate men, and you don’t have to agree with everything Gloria Steinem says to call yourself a feminist. If you believe in gender equality, there is a form of feminism out there for you. And if there isn’t, it might be time to start your own feminism. Just stay away from Reddit.

About Jennie Burd

Jennie Burd is a PhD fellow in Temple University's English department. She specializes in early American medical literature.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Men’s Rights and Straw Men

  1. Mike Lee says:

    Um…. The beginning and end make reference to “Men’s Rights”, but then we get a history of feminism, belaboring the fact that it encompasses more than one view on the subject. Then we get a general conclusion that “Men’s Rights activists, conversely, believe that the feminist movement has had a negative impact on men.” Yeah, see, not only is the heading misleading, the ending judgment call is no different than what is accused of MRAs at the start.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have to agree with Mike, what is presented as a discussion about “mens issues” ends up being nothing more than a discussion of women’s issues. The bottom line for me is that men and women should be treated equal, and that society in large should stop valuing men less than women. But of course any discussion along these lines will only end up with flaming arguments. Can everyone just agree to move on and place equal value on ALL people?

    • Elyaz says:

      Hahahahaha, you’re funny

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah this article supposedly about Men’s Rights became a history of Feminism and didn’t address anything brought up by Men’s Rights Activists. Any mentions of them are straw men and dismissive of their ideology before you even bring up any facts.Though this is indicative of one of the MRA claims, that feminists and feminism does not adequately address men’s issues, usually dismissed with the mocking phrase “WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ???”, making fun of any issue men may face before even looking at the evidence to see if it holds validity.

      This is sub-par for Skeptoid and I’m disappointed because I’ve come to associate a level of quality with the brand. Hopefully it returns and use of the platform as a bully pulpit

  3. JustAHistoryBuff says:

    >you don’t have to agree with everything Gloria Steinem says to call yourself a feminist.

    Is this accurate though? I’d argue there is a very strong dogmatic streak that runs through a lot of ideologies, not just feminism where if you do not subscribe to certain views, you must hate women.

    Also, a lot of this sounds like the no true scotsman fallacy – whenever you point out feminists tearing down posters or trying to stop men right’s clubs from meeting, the argument is always that they are not *Real* feminists.

    • Toby says:

      I agree 100%. The author’s identification of an alleged straw man fallacy is way off target.

      Anyone who believes that feminism is about gender equality should acquaint themselves with the provisions of VAWA and the Primary Aggressor laws. Any law that makes a distinction based on gender cannot be about equality. A law that made a distinction based on race, colour or religious belief would be rejected as abhorrent yet laws that presuppose mens’ guilt are accepted without question. Not only that, they are seen as good and just.

      The author believes that “women struggle for reproductive rights” while ignoring the fact that men have none. She also ignores the fact that feminists actively campaign against the creation of the male birth control pill. Perhaps they are just not “real feminists”.

      So as to avoid the straw man diversion, does any fair person believe that denying equal access to birth control or enacting laws to disadvantage one group of people due to their anatomy has anything to do with equality? Further, does anyone believe that pointing out this inequity is unreasonable?

      • I would go a step further and say that if you are really about gender equality, you should drop the gender based terminology altogether. Egalitarianism is sufficient and is not a gender based linguistic construct. Humanism is also sufficient but may generate faith based backlash.

        The problem with defining a movement that purports to be based on equality with a gender based derivative term is that right off the bat you have alienated the uninformed audience that does not belong to that gender. Instead of fighting to convince others that the term itself is misleading, consider rebranding the term to something a bit more universally inclusive.

  4. Reg. says:

    Dear Jennie.

    Only 78,000?

    My High School teaching daughter in Australia, has recently introduced me to the term, “Emotional Intelligence.”

    At first I was extremely scornful that someone should see fit to couple those two words, until I realised that High School teenagers, who frequently undergo emotional trauma, would immediately identify with both. That’s got to be a good first step towards self moderation and gawd knows, it has to come from somewhere,even with adults.

    So now I think the coupling is very clever indeed and I have not yet read a single EI site.

    Anyhow then I extended my thoughts on the subject. There are emotional people in all genders but for some reason I cannot shake the impression that women rejoice in their ability to accept their emotional side as a bulwark against hard-hearted men, alright, people. And for-goodness-sake, nature engenders emotion from the cradle to the grave.

    Emotion is the substitute for religion and most likely even the origin of religion.

    Then I thought about the old Victorian attitude to women and realised I was beginning to empathize with Victorian standards. OMG, and me one of the first Women’s Lib people at age 8, see what maturity has done.

    But here’s the crux of the question; Is there a mature way of accepting emotion as a state which produces irrationality, when in order to remain objective we must reject emotion?

    In case you’re wondering, I claim to have the perfect balance of empathy tempered by social justice and I’m not even being emotional about this. Please convince me otherwise.

    • BK says:

      Emotion is an instinctive reaction. If people acted on their emotion without thinking, we would fight when upset, kill if infuriated, steal when we wanted something, and use emotional outcries to rally support when things didn’t go as we liked. I think emotional intelligence is learning to tune your emotions in a healthy way for the modern age. Compare uneducated, less higher thinking individuals who are more likely to behave in a violent way to those who understand there are more positive solutions. We must not let emotional responses overwhelm us when calm and rational thought generally yields a greater outcome. We can be passionate without behaving like wild animals. Of course people are at different stages of evolution and are likely to act according to how far they have progressed. Humanity is improving and learning to use emotion when it is the best tool for the job, instead of the only tool for the job, is needed.

      • Reg. says:

        Well I’m inclined to think that instinctive reactions are sometimes actually encouraged, as they should be, rather than moderated.

        There’s a technical term called critical impulse damping. In this process a sudden impulse applied to a network sets the system in oscillation after which it will ring and alternate between positive and negative excursions.
        In this case, the initial excursion is violent and the next is passive. The critical adjustment is to arrest the rebound oscillation as it transits the zero, or normal part of the swing.

        The initial excursion equates with a required reaction in the positive use of the word instinctive as when taking offense at real or imagined hurt, the critical mental damping helps the person arrest an unwarranted negative reaction at the zero crossing, which is normality.

        This is called the critical point because it enables a maximum rate of initial response yet (almost) immediately damps an over-reaction.

        Critical damping should taught in primary schools. There’s nothing wrong with having the impulse, it’s what you do with it next that counts.

  5. Ryan Megan says:

    I’m as concerned about misandry as I am about “reverse racism” and the war on Christmas.

    I’ve had about as much luck having a rational discussion with those who believe men are persecuted in this country as I have with those who believe Christians are persecuted in this country.

    I applaud the effort though,.

    • Serafina Kalashnikova says:

      My sentiments exactly.

    • Great article, but the comments are ruining my appetite.

      • Toby says:

        @ Michael: What is it about the comments that you find so offensive?

        Do you believe it is reasonable that a person be denied their presumption of innocence based on their anatomy?

        Do you believe it reasonable that a group be denied their right to assembly and free speech based on their anatomy?

        Do you believe it is reasonable for people to speak out against these situations or do you think that trying to silence them by labelling them “women haters” is an appropriate response?

        • I can’t speak for Michael, but I would like to answer your questions too.

          1. Absolutely not. You are, of course, talking about rape, and asking the question the way you are radically oversimplifies an extremely difficult topic. The simple fact is that rape comes in a horrifying number of forms, each and every one of which is still rape. Most of them, in fact, are not of the violent sort that leaves bruising, broken bones, and other evidence of physical violation. But, it’s still rape. And it’s still terrible and needs to be investigated. Our legal system does not deny men the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, fortunately. Yes, there are cases where men are accused of rape falsely and suffer for it. This is the unfortunate result of having an imperfect system. It happens to all groups. There is no easy answer. But I am sure you and I agree that rape is a subject that always needs to be treated seriously and the system needs to encourage women who have been raped to come forward, rather than stay silent and live with shame and fear for the rest of their lives, the way so many do under this current system that you feel is biased against men.

          2. No, and I don’t believe this actually happens.

          3. I think free speech means that someone can label you whatever they want, so long as they do not use terms intended to cause violence against you. I get called a lot of things, and I shrug them off because I don’t care what a lot of people think of me.

  6. Wayne says:

    The middle 2/3rds of the article is good, I feel like I learned a thing or two. But the article should have been titled “The Waves of Feminism” or something like that. All very interesting, but what does the history of feminism have to do with mens’ perception of feminists now?

  7. Peter Zachos says:

    Great piece, Jennie, and a good primer on feminism. A question: if equality means endlessly different things to different people, should one dare call it equality?

  8. Sasha says:

    I don’t particularly care what the history of feminism is; I don’t need to study ‘pastararianism’ to know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fictitious. The fact is that all feminism(s) have an originating belief that women are ‘oppressed’ by men. This is erroneous nonsense.

    Mens Rights Activists do not believe that feminism has had a ‘negative impact on men’. MRAs believe that feminism has had a negative impact on society and the men, women and children who comprise society. This is demonstrably true. To take one example; when Virginia Woolf wrote ‘A Room of One’s Own’ the average UK house cost the equivalent of the average annual salary. Today the average house costs >10 times the average annual salary. Why is this? Because house prices rocketed from the early 70s onwards as women joined the workforce, created ‘double income’ households, and the price of housing and childcare went up while wages were driven down. Now women don’t have a choice – they HAVE to work – and they’re faced with the problem of ‘having it all’ or, as it turns out in reality, NOT having it all. Families are less resilient, more debt-ridden and under greater pressure. As a result, families break down, more people are living alone, children are less happy, and everyone is more stressed. Women themselves are less happy than 40 years ago. All of this is well proven and very well understood by demographers and sociologists (view Elizabeth Warren’s ‘The coming collapse of the middle class’ on You Tube for more).

    When women joined the workforce, they were almost instantly granted equal pay. However in the UK, until 1999, there was a ‘Widow’s Pension’ but no equivalent ‘Widower’s Pension’. 15,000 elderly men each year were thrown into poverty as a result. While equal pay claims were backdated, widowers were not. In most countries the age of retirement is not equal – men work longer, yet die younger. Men account for 93% of all workplace deaths and serious injuries. To blame this on the ‘patriarchy’ is laughable – instead it’s the innate, unstated assumption which weaves its way through society that men are disposable, and of less value than women. Feminism simply weaponized this tendency and gave it direction and strategy.

    Neither I, nor any MRA I know, wants to go back to the 1950s. I don’t want to have to look after a woman – she can look after herself. What we do want is equal rights: equal funding for mens issues such as domestic violence for instance. If feminists were serious about equality, they’d be on our side.

    • Why would there be equal funding for female against male domestic violence as male against female when the latter comprises 99%+ of the domestic violence that occurs? You are blaming the current economic problems of the country on the fact that women entered the workforce? You think feminists blame a higher mortality rate on the job and lower life expectancy for men on the patriarchy?

      What are you smoking? As a man, and a feminist (I don’t like “pro-feminist”), you have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Toby says:

        would you care to provide a citation for that 99%+ number? I have not seen a single study that suggests anything of the sort.

    • Reg. says:

      A good case Sasha, particularly the fact that once the double income has propelled the commercial world into lifting the cost of everything by several times, there is no way back. The damage is done. Families are induced into loan traps and an unemployed partner means the family must suffer or default on those loans. Then this opens the way to irrational domestic violence.

      This may sound like a straw-man argument to a single woman who is deprived of her income, but the effect is multiplied with each additional dependent as long as they remain outside the work-force and while child-rearing is seen as an irksome duty.

  9. Anonymous says:

    So we start off talking about Men’s Rights, you cherry pick negative posts from an open forum, then go on to say how MRA’s cherry pick negative posts and create “straw feminists”, I’ll get to your sidetrack off into a history of feminism in a second, so you come back creating straw men of MRA’s “Sure, there are some women out there who want to steal your sperm, falsely accuse you of rape, and eat your testicles for supper.” so not only do you use the same fallacious reasoning you accuse MRA’s of you add a nice dose of hypocrisy because you’re supposedly “calling them out” on it.

    Now back to your sidebar into the history of feminism, this is a good example of how feminism treats men’s issues, when they’re brought up in feminist spheres the’re quickly dismissed and then the discussion is redirected towards an issue facing women. And now that men are seeking a coherent movement to address these issues, such as how male victims of abuse and violence are ignored, how boys are falling behind in school, and male disposability and high workplace fatality rates we see the same old straw men pulled out to shame and belittle a movement based on a fringe, just what you’re accusing MRA’s of doing to feminists.

    • AstroKid Nj says:

      Good comment.

      Many of the people in the Atheist/Skeptic movement have immense ego thinking that they are in some way significantly different from outsiders.. as if A/S arent beholden to the psychology and cognitive-biases that all humans are beholden to.. OR are able to overcome those limitations any better than the rest of us are.
      for e.g there is the emotional bias called ‘Women are wonderful effect’

      The “women are wonderful” effect is the phenomenon found in psychological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with the general social category of women compared to men. Related to ambivalent sexism, this effect reflects an emotional bias toward the female gender as a general case. The phrase was coined by Eagly & Mladinic (1994) after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign exceptionally positive traits to the female gender (males are also viewed positively, though not quite as positively)

      Ever hear feminism-supporting skeptics talk about this? Nope.

      The low quality of this article shows how pedestrian one can get when one ventures out of their zone of “expertise”, irrespective of whether they slap on the Skeptic label or not.

      Now.. I am only slightly familiar with popular skeptics such as James Randy & Michael Shermer’s work and whatever I have seen of them, I am very impressed. Its the Lefty feminist “social justice warriors” amongst them who are Anti-MRA, and who proclaim their rewritten History & feminist theory as The Truth that passes skeptic-muster.

      • Anonymous says:

        The thing is I’m a really huge Skeptoid fan, and this is just sub-par for the excellence that I’ve come to expect. It’s intellectually dishonest and in poor form. I will admit I’m an MRA, but I’m willing to examine my own beliefs and change them to fit the best data available. This does nothing to actually provide an objective look at the Men’s Rights movement, but mudslings, and straw man’s and misdirects attention away from any issues and stays in the realm of knee-jerk emotional reaction.

  10. Rob says:

    Bait and switch article.

  11. AstroKid Nj says:

    I got into the Atheist community about 4 years ago, and over time ran into feminism.
    I am now an MRA (or more accurately an MHRA Mens Human Rights Activist).

    The lies and damage done by feminism isnt something that only the MRAs talk about..
    Many have talked about it.. for e.g feminists who are now persona non grata
    From the 90s.. Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Tammy Bruce
    From the 70s.. Erin Pizzey
    Women accomplished in The hard sciences..for e.g
    for e.g Bioengineer Barbara Oakley
    The Elephant in the Room: A Review of Dr. Helen Smith’s Revelatory New Book, Men on Strike

    Dr. Smith also sensitively describes the inhospitable climate on college campuses towards men. As a college professor, I can vouch for the deeply troubling atmosphere — I’ve attended dozens of luncheons over the years celebrating women’s victimization with litanies of misleading and downright false “facts” and one-sided perspectives that resemble nothing so much as an old-fashioned revival meeting. (God forbid anyone ever stand upright to object to the misinformation being conveyed.) As Dr. Smith observes, women already approach 60% of the population of most campuses. If the percentages of men and women were reversed, we would have a national uproar.

    I was once invited to speak to a class of feminists about life as a female engineering professor. I looked at these bright, intelligent young women and couldn’t resist. “What the hell are you doing in here studying feminist theory?” I asked. “Why aren’t you over in the School of Engineering, studying with me and getting yourself out of victimization by getting a fascinating, empowering, and high paying job as engineer? My generation of women’s rights activists fought for you to have that opportunity, and you’re acting as if we’d done nothing.” The students sat staring at me, open-mouthed.

    Even after 50+ years of feminism giving a massive leg up to women, there’s very few women that have moved civilization forward..through great scientific progress.. hardly any female Nobel Prize winners in science, innovators like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, or any great art.. or even great standup comedians.. or even a chess grandmaster (judith polgar.. only one in top 100). And feminists die in jealousy.
    And the few great women who have.. dont need any of the leg-ups that feminism gave them. Think Marie Curie, one of only 4 to ever win Nobel Prizes in two disciplines.

    Camille Paglia was right.. “If civilization was left to women, we would still be living in grass huts”.
    To understand why, you need to understand how civilization was built upon how men and women are motivated differently.. Roy Baumeister did a great job explaining this in his 2010 book “Is there anything good about men? How cultures flourish by exploiting men”.

    In summary, feminism has been discredited and intellectually dismantled by others. If you havent reached this point intellectually, you arent worth an MRAs time.

  12. Michael says:

    Just a small correction: under First Wave you said the Nineteenth Amendment was introducted in 1878; your link says May 19, 1919.

  13. Moral Dolphin says:

    Jenny, a great article. Ignore the complaints from the dinosaurs.

    They havent had a better person around to explain it to them. Your article is a start and every benefit equality gains through feminism is certainly enjoyed by the next generational freedoms of both men and women.

    If you dont get feminism as part of the equality movement and think that “mens lib” is anything but resentment then the issues that mens fora highlight but never resolve to legislation are the very issues they (the resentful) tend to ignore.

    Its feminism that made co-parenting a right in australia after divorce..It took a woman to implement it after the diabolical failures of australian male politicians.

    If you think its tough being divorced and have kids in this country, thank the women for at least getting equality in access for males.

    The blokes just whinged endlessly..and still do.

    Proactivity seems to dissapear between the work place and the garage or fishing spot for most blokes. Its a shame really.

    If you want equality, get up off yer arses and do something that is not just equal for you.

    • Edward says:

      “The blokes just whinged endlessly..and still do.”

      More hatred against men. Do you not realize men are human beings with feelings just like women? They can complain about their problems and should not be shamed when they do so. The real dinosaurs are the arrogant men who think they’re superior to the rest who have the courage to speak up about men’s problems.

      “If you want equality, get up off yer arses and do something that is not just equal for you.”

      Is that what you tell women? No you’d tell them it’s men’s fault and leave it at that. We have a lot of men in pain and we should stop ignoring them. If men want to prove how strong they are they should try standing up to feminist promoting anti male attitudes and look at how they could improve the lives of the men and women around them by ending the culture of gender hate.

  14. Anton says:

    Please dont go there, don’t make this great website about politics. Leave all controversial subjects such as feminism, racism and abortion alone, unless its som specific woo you are adressing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *