Greetings!! Is this your first visit? If so, please consider registering. It enables downloads and removal of adverts. Use the 'facebook connect' for quick access.
View RSS Feed


  1. Wage Gap Discrimination .. or fictition ('obviously')

    by , 13th-July-2014 at 10:45 AM
    Across the western world, feminists decry the existence of a 'wage gap' as an excuse for all kinds of discrimination against men, from spending initiatives of millions on educating females even though males are already doing worse, to legislation denying men the opportunity of advancing on merit. The 'wage gap' or 'pay gap' shows that when you total all of the gross pay to men who work full time (typically, 35 hours a week or more) and all of the gross pay to women who work full time, it shows that men are higher earners. This fact is then used to pretend that for the same job, or doing the same work, women are paid less even though there has been legislation against doing so for almost everyone's working life (and such legislation is used but not much).

    When you take any two demographics and compare their incomes, you are almost certainly going to find a difference. The demographics could be
    • Young people compared to old people;
    • Coloured people compared to colourless people;
    • Religious people compared to atheists;
    • Women compared to men;
    • Children of single parents compared to those from two-parent families.
    • Or just about anything else you think of. There will almost certainly be a difference.

    There is then a choice. Do you want to take a political/ideological position and pretend that the difference is 'obviously' due to discrimination against those earning more? Or do you want to take a scientific view and look into the reasons for why there is a difference.

    Obviously, if you don't take into account the hours worked by the two groups (including overtime), you don't have a proper comparison. Likewise the average occupational danger (reflected in the proportion of workplace deaths, for example); or the average time in the same company; or whether one group tends to look for flexible working hours while the other tends to go for higher-paid but less flexible jobs; or a comparison of job risk ...
  2. Ladies and gentlemen ...

    by , 5th-July-2014 at 05:01 PM
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Just stop right there and read that last line again. It's a formal phrase addressing a mixed group, so embedded in our culture that it is easy to miss the misandry that has been there all along.

    It is almost as though a feminist travelled back in time, to around the late 16th century, and messed around with the English language. The phrase used to be "gentlemen and gentlewomen."

    'Lady' has always been the feminine equivalent of 'Lord.' 'Gentleman' has always been associated with a lower social class than 'Lady'.

    So every time a room full of men and women has been addressed formally with that easy phrase
    Ladies and gentlemen
    not only is it notable that the females are always addressed first but they are accorded the honorary highest title, while the males come in second as a lower class of person.

    There is so much more that is important for the men's movement to address in the world than stuff like this, which is why I am posting this piece in my personal blog rather than on the forum. Yet language says a great deal about a society and for many centuries it has been quite acceptable to address men as lower-class than women.

    Men and women,

    Think before you use a misandric phrase too freely!
  3. Building policies on lies

    by , 5th-December-2013 at 05:29 PM
    "When a wife can beat up her husband while enjoying complete impunity,
    when millions of men and boys are trafficked in modern day slavery,
    ... it is time for action," says Douglas.

    And who could disagree with him?

    The thing is, those statements aren't true.

    • Wives do beat up husbands .. but they are subject to legal penalties in many countries;
    • modern day slavery is terrible and getting worse but it does not number in the millions.

    So when an EU delegate visits an African country and says:
    "When a husband can beat up his wife while enjoying complete impunity,
    when millions of women and girls are trafficked in modern day slavery,
    and when women's bodies are battleground and rape is used as a tactic of war, it is time for action"

    One should first say "OK, WHEN those things are true - and to the extent they are - then it is time for action.
    • Husbands do beat up wives .. but they are subject to legal penalties in every country;
    • modern day slavery is terrible and getting worse but it does not number in the millions;
    • women's bodies are used in battlegrounds in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands as with men's bodies;
    • rape is abhorrent and is used about equally on men as on women as a tactic of war.

    It's like the number of sexual assaults. A few months ago there was a questionable report that one in ten Asian men have sexually assaulted a female; within days, feminists had inflated this to their favourite figure of one in four. That one-in-four figure was discussed at a United Nations conference based on that same report but by the end of the two-day conference, it had become 'at least' one-in-four across the entire globe - with no more evidence. Last month, all traceable back to the same initial questionable Asian survey, the United Nations was issuing press releases saying that one in three women were subject to sexual assault. ...
  4. Some feminists say that the Men's Rights Movement is about hate

    by , 19th-November-2013 at 01:19 PM
    While I don't stand by all that some people who consider themselves to be in the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) say or do, it needs to be understood that if "Men's Rights Movement" has any meaning, it is a movement connected with the promotion of the rights of men.

    People might believe that men have all the same rights as everyone else, in which case the MRM would be rather pointless. They might even think that whatever rights men don't have are rather unimportant (to them, anyway). But who could really object to the idea of men having rights? A movement to give men rights is about granting men the rights that other humans have, or that are supposed to be theirs already according to documents such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Human Rights Charter, or the Pacific Island Human Rights Accord, or simply those rights that are supposedly everyone's according to their country's constitution.

    Only A Men-Hater Could Hate The Idea Of Men Having Rights

    How could a Human Rights movement be claimed to be about hate other than by people who hate the humans being cared about?

    Movements for rights of black people were called hate movements by those who hated blacks, especially white supremacists.

    Movements for rights of religious people were (and are) called hate movements by those who hate religion, especially pagan or atheist supremacists.

    Movements for rights of male people (men and boys) are now called hate movements by those who hate males, especially female supremacists.

    Nothing seems to change. Hate groups exist. Movements arise to offset the hate group and get labelled themselves a hate group. It should be no big surprise that there are people who want to brand the Human Rights for men movement as a hate group.
  5. Equal retirement age is NOT equality

    by , 21st-September-2011 at 03:42 PM

    In the UK at the moment there is a lot of justified rage at the way men are continuing to be discriminated against on state pension. Since 1946, there has been deliberate discrimination that set the age that men get a pension from the state at five years higher (65) than women (60) even though women have always lived longer. The gender death gap has increased since 1946, largely due to unequal gender health expenditure that now enables women to have an average life six years longer than men.

    The UK government currently have a 'plan' to equalise the ages by 2018 but they have already shown a willingness to back-peddle on this date and have allowed the equalisation of retirement ages to be later and later.

    The mathematics of discrimination

    I'm now going to explain why women having the same retirement age as men is NOT equality. My proof for this is based on the United Kingdom but I believe much the same result would come from looking at any other country's data.

    Working from government statistics (197Kb - Xls) for the year 2008 (the latest year that nationwide statistics are available) it can be calculated that the average age of adult male death is 74 years and six weeks. Similarly, the average age of adult female death is 80 years and four weeks. So, for all but two weeks, the difference is that women outlive men by six years. (If we look at the difference based on average age of death of child and adult, the gap widens to over six years.)

    The voting age; the ages of compulsory education; the age when people must start paying taxes and National Insurance (supposedly, state pension fund): all of these have affected the genders the same way for almost everyone alive today.

    At a retirement age of 66, the average life expectancy after retirement is:
    Males: 8.1 years
    Females: 14.1 years

    This means that the proportion of ...

    Updated 14th-June-2012 at 06:56 AM by Douglas

    Legal Matters , Political Issues
  6. Qualified feminism. ("moderate feminism" "ifeminism" NAFALT "feminist but.." etc.)

    by , 21st-January-2011 at 03:49 PM
    In a previous blog, I wrote about the distinction between feminism and women and why many women think they are feminists but are wrong. Here I address those who want to use the feminist label for meaning something good, often re-defining feminism in the process to something like "radical feminism" even though hardly anyone self-identifies as a radical feminist - they just call themselves a feminist.

    I believe it is both incorrect and unhelpful for the plight of men to group females and feminists together and blame all women for feminism (and, by implication, not blame any men). That said, I encourage anyone - male and female - to distance themselves from concepts like "feminism" and "feminist" as much as possible unless you believe in female supremacy and have a distaste of men and masculinity.

    I encourage you not to call yourself any kind of "feminist" unless you believe in the social illness that is feminism. Claiming that not all feminists are like that (NAFALT) may be true in specific cases but the reality of feminism is seen by its overall actions, not by any one individual.

    Among the reasons to avoid the feminist label unless you are an unqualified feminist are:
    1) To achieve balance and fairness/egalitarianism in society, we have to undo all that feminism has brought upon our society (note: that is not undoing suffrage, nor equal pay, nor...). To be able to quickly undo everything that can be associated with feminism, it is important not to muddy what feminism is by using the same word for any other purpose.
    2) To those aware of the misandry and social damage caused by feminist ideology, there is a psychological effect on someone saying they are feminist. This can be seen all over forums such as Anti-misandry and Stand Your Ground when people say they are a "feminist but..." or a "moderate feminist" or an "ifeminist". It's not that people can't read, nor that they consciously ignore the qualification

    Updated 26th-February-2014 at 09:36 AM by Douglas

  7. UK: What is your council doing about DV shelters - draft FOI letter

    by , 8th-December-2010 at 02:20 AM
    I have prepared a draft letter for anyone who wants to use it to find out what their local council is doing about shelters. Such shelters are needed for victims of domestic violence and yet there are very few available for men.

    Shelters for domestic violence are primarily provided under requirements to care for the homeless (which do not require someone to not to have a home). Although the homeless laws differ in Scotland, the need for men to be included in the help for domestic violence is probably greater there for action than anywhere else and I have made efforts to ensure this letter is applicable there. As far as I know, this letter is appropriate anywhere in the United Kingdom.

    As we are not a formal member-based organisation, it is up to you to decide if care about this issue and whether you are willing to find out what your council is doing. For those unfamiliar with the processes involved in such dealings with your local civil servants, this could be useful but if you want to amend the request, or add to it, that is obviously entirely in your hands.

    Please note
    Before using this letter for your local council, please check the comments - there is no point sending lots of the same letters to the same council if one person writing is willing to share the result. If you are willing to share the result, please provide the name of the council in a comment.
    This is a draft letter applying for information under the Freedom of Information Act that you can use to try finding out what your council is doing. It specifically seeks information that could reveal gender discrimination and victim gagging. Only send ONE request and only to your own local council. If you don't hear back in about 28 days, send a chasing letter including your original correspondence but still only as a single request.
    This is not a political letter. You are not addressing a politician. You do not have a right to anything which is not recorded,

    Updated 8th-December-2010 at 02:34 PM by Douglas (Formatting and added guidance for e-mail.)

    Fathers , Feminism
  8. Why many women think they are feminists -- and why they are wrong.

    by , 6th-December-2010 at 12:21 AM
    Conflicting statements

    It is not unusual to encounter a woman who will say "I'm a feminist" or "I believe in feminism" even when she then declares that she:
    ♦ believes equality is a good thing to aim for;
    ♦ disagrees with 'extremist' feminists;
    ♦ thinks men get a hard deal in some areas;
    ♦ wants to be a mother and perhaps even be given the choice to be a housewife;
    ♦ actually likes men.

    As people trying to get a fair deal for men and stop society's increasing misandrist leanings, we should not alienate such women. I will show here that mostly they are not feminists and they need to understand that there is a greater divide between ordinary women and feminists than there is between ordinary women and non-misogynistic men.

    I believe the pool of women that could be on the side of the anti-misandrist is far greater than the total number of women and men who are misandrist.

    So, why do so many women think they are feminist?

    For a start, they are female. The root word to female, feminine, and feminist is the Latin fēmella. They all have the same kind of sound. They are all connected. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminine with oneself. If one thinks of oneself as female then by default one associates feminist with oneself.

    Most of us were taught in school that "the suffragettes" achieved equal voting rights for women. As an overall impression, most people hold that the suffragettes are (pretty much) synonymous with the feminist movement and that the suffragettes got women the vote. So therefore, from a gut reaction, to be against feminism is to be against equal voting rights for women and all other forms of equality.

    Lastly, there is the simple belief that feminism has done some good for women. There are now equal pay laws; there's maternity pay; there is recognition of and support for battered women; ...

    Updated 14th-June-2012 at 07:05 AM by Douglas


Donate to AntiMisandry

1e2 Forum