What is the “men’s rights” movement?

I suppose I should preface this entry by clarifying my own position: I am not a feminist, and I am not a “men’s rights” proponent. Anyone calling me a mangina or any other term intended as a slur will be swiftly censored. Also, if you do this, fuck you in advance, you woman-hating asshole.

The “men’s rights” movement (MRM) is an ideology based on the premise that women have more power than men in our society (??), mainly concentrating on things like alimony and custody disputes, false rape accusations, laws biased towards women, and so on. At least, that’s the theory (an incredibly sexist theory, but still a defensible theory if you are incredibly sexist).

In practice, when you read what these people write, when they defend their positions or discuss them with like-minded people, you find invariably one thing: they don’t do anything about “men’s rights” or care a whit about the hardships of men, but they despise, mock, infantilize, resent, and hate women. It’s not that they think women are favoured by our institutions or laws, although that’s always part of it; their main drive seems to be a seething, sometimes violent, hatred for women. To them, women marry men purely to abuse and use men. Women are vile creatures, and on the whole it’s better to have nothing to do with them if possible.

An interesting thing. Where have we heard that before?

But the further interesting thing is that not only do they hate women, but they also hate abortion, they hate homosexuals, they hate sexuality, they believe in gender segregation, objectify women. They also profusely use projection: they are “nice guy” who just happen to want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, they claim women only want to exploit men and then talk about their fantasies of exploiting women, they are paranoid that women berate men when they talk to each other while they come together as a bunch of men to berate women, they believe that women only want to exploit them in relationships while they constantly talk about exploiting women for sex, they talk about women being herd animals and emotional while violently opposing anyone who disagrees with them on any subject, and so on and so forth.

Again, where have we heard these traits before? That’s right.. the truth is, “men’s rights” activists (MRAs) are faggots!

MRAs say they support MRM because women have too much power in relationships and in society (except when they say it, there’s a lot of b-words and c-words). Others, more clinical, say that the MRM (“men’s rights” movement) comes from men feeling they are losing all their privileges. But the probably truth, at least the only hypothesis that fits the facts observed, is that they are all faggots.

Feeling someone is taking away your privileges, or that women have too much power, doesn’t fit at all with the other hatreds MRAs have. But the faggot hypothesis does, almost completely. The only part of faggotry which MRAs do not possess is the self-hatred and subsequent belief in salvation: they believe they are perfect “nice guys,” so they don’t hate themselves (although there is a bit of self-hatred in that they are still attracted to women, and resent that fact about themselves). This may be related to the fact that MRM is not a belief system, but purely a system to channel faggot energy and faggot hatred.

There is also the added fact that MRAs constantly harp on themselves being the victims of women’s needs, aggression and dominance. But at the same time, they describe their fantasies of raping women, beating women to a bloody pulp, or just outright killing them. This is very reminiscent, again, of the Christian faggots who scream their victimhood while they are in control of the government, said government furthermore ruthlessly murdering brown people for the crime of having a different religion.

There seems to be other movements or ideologies which emphasize some other hatred over the rest. People who emphasize hatred of homosexuals? Ex-gay ministries (and Fred Phelps). People who emphasize hatred of abortion? Pro-life movement. People who emphasize hatred of sexuality? I’m not sure about that one, although I suppose most religions and various cults fit the bill. MRM seems to inscribe itself within this framework as putting the emphasis on hatred of women.

At no other phase of history would such an absurd concept of “men’s rights” make any sense whatsoever. Generally speaking, men have always been in control of women and have never needed a reminder of that fact. The fact that feminism has risen to the ranks of respectable ideologies and is now within the margins of discourse, however, is new. Feminism is a threat to male domination, which is a hierarchy, and all hierarchies have their own self-serving defenders, even the most ignoble of all hierarchies. Plenty of smart people defended black slavery. Plenty of smart people defended Catholicism throughout the centuries. Plenty of smart people defended Jew-hatred throughout the centuries. And now, plenty of smart people defend male domination and women-hating, even though it’s on the way out, because they are scared shitless that they will no longer be able to dominate women and delegate suffering to them (such as the suffering of giving birth).

The fact is, any person who still holds on to these outdated beliefs at this point is a fanatic. They profusely use projection, stimulate violence against women (the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, for instance, was an MAM phenomenon), and violently react to anyone who is against them in any way whatsoever. Like all faggots, they are fanatics, they are aggressive, and they throw themselves fully into their favourite cause. Their propensity for violence is merely the outwards indication of a crumbling ideology.

The sad reality is that they are fucked up in the head, probably because they didn’t have a healthy mother figure to teach them to love and respect women. Their mother wasn’t there for them. So now they are rebelling against their own mother which they see reflected in all women, even when it’s obviously not true. Hating half of the population because of a childhood trauma is a sick way of living, if you can even call it that.

From an Anarchist perspective, MRAs are class traitors, pure and simple. Their constant attacks against working class women sap energy from the class struggle and further undermine class consciousness. Instead of talking about the real social problem of the exploitation of the working class and how we, of the working class, can regain the power that has been taken from us, we are stuck rehashing the age-old sexist nonsense of the “battle of the sexes.” Instead of trying to bring about egalitarianism, we have to look at endless dick-waving from retarded faggots who want to throw us back into the fifties.

These bozos are cheerleaders for the patriarchy. They persist in claiming that women are in control, even though 90% of the power elite is made of men (see Who Rules America? by G. William Domhoff), men’s wages are higher than women’s, women’s sexuality is not as respected as men’s sexuality and women are not as respected in the media as men, and far more women are raped and abused (three times more women are victim of conjugal violence) as men. They are batshit insane, and these dangerous imbeciles have to be stomped out of public discourse right away before they send us straight to their own Hell. They must be chemically castrated, or otherwise removed from the gene pool, so they may not create daughters to abuse.

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are.

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low.

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent.

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.

40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.”

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment.

45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

34 thoughts on “What is the “men’s rights” movement?

  1. Ant September 30, 2011 at 02:26

    Man.. I don’t which MRM’s you’ve done your research on, but your view seems quite biased. Or, you’ve just had a bad experience or something..lol. My dad belonged to an MRM group when I was a child because my mom falsely accused my dad of sexually molesting me and my sister. The system favored her, she got away with it for years. She got free lawyers, child support, and the whole nine yards. In the meantime, she sent me off to a foster home because I wanted to live my dad. Unfortunately, some women are crazy. And some of those women are, in fact, favored under the system by the law. Your perspective is, at large, a biased generalization. MRM groups that I’ve known and heard of are nowhere near similar to how you represent them. Try not to generalize so much…

    • Ant September 30, 2011 at 02:28

      Of course, you can find crazy people out there everywhere, but seriously you generalize way too much.

    • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 02:30

      I don’t deny that some men will join the MRM because of irrational hatred brought about by specific events, like most have, I’m sure. Faggots always have a lot of frustration and resentment towards women. But that doesn’t make the MRM something else than a faggot ideology, fundamentally.

  2. Ant September 30, 2011 at 02:34

    I feel sorry for you, although I really shouldn’t. You’re plagued with prejudice and hatred my friend. Good luck in the future, you’ll need it. Now that I think about it, no wonder you sit around all day and blog, right?

    • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 02:38

      An interesting statement. What prejudice and hatred am I plagued with?

      I won’t defend my blogging, you don’t know me and there’s no point for you to make such a statement, except trying to insult me. I’m not offended, but do try to follow the Prime Directive, huh?

  3. Ant September 30, 2011 at 02:42

    Take a wild guess, use your generalization skills…lol.

    • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 02:46

      Well, I don’t observe any prejudice or hatred in myself, at this moment. I think that should be the best guide to verify whether there are any or not. If you think any prejudice or hatred is expressed in the entry, then I would like to rectify it. It is my fair assessment of the MRM as exemplified by their discussion boards and literature.

  4. Ant September 30, 2011 at 02:51

    You just come off as a homophobic by saying, fagot this, fagot that. All I’m trying to say is that, not all MRM groups are how you say they’re, plain and simple. By the sound of your inaccurate article, you demonize and slander pretty much all MRM groups.

    • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 13:47

      Well, that’s the result of my observations into these groups. I don’t know why you’re trying to invalidate my subjective experience.

      • n8chz September 30, 2011 at 16:46

        I doubt that anyone here is invalidating your subjective experience. It’s only about your choice of words. I don’t know what to believe. Maybe it’s a francophone thing that got lost in translation (like “autism in economics” or “autoerotic Buddhists,”) or maybe it’s just political incorrectness for its own sake; perhaps daring people to expose themselves as authoritarians by policing your language?

        • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 16:52

          I have no idea what you’re going on about. For the sake of discussion, I would point out that “autistic exchange” is an Austrian economics term, and that, while a Buddhist, I have no interest whatsoever in autoerotic asphyxiation.

          • Ant October 1, 2011 at 02:11

            I’m not trying to invalidate your subjective experience, in fact, I never was. You take things extremely personally, clearly, a little too personally. All I’ve been trying to say is that, you’ve generalized in your article, as your somewhat negative comments are addressed to MRM at large or in general, plain and simple.

        • David Gendron October 1, 2011 at 13:00

          “That’s right.. the truth is, “men’s rights” activists (MRAs) are faggots!”

          I strongly agree with François here, especially in this case, where MRMs are the main fucktards to call homosexuals “faggots”.

          MRMs are way more faggots than homosexuals, this is just a plain fact!

  5. ladycat123 September 30, 2011 at 15:24

    While I don’t agree with your outlook on religion or feminism*, the MRM is more like a cult, that is misandric, misogynistic, and a just all around bad bunch of people. I posed as one for like half a year to learn about their positions and their attitudes and while I am convinced that there are legitimate men’s issues out there**… this group of internet trolls and hatemongers come off as some creepy cult and is what pushed me away from it all.

    * This isn’t obviously the place to argue about feminism or religion here, but I am a religious feminist and anarchist so this is probably my own bias coming through here.

    ** This is the frustrating part… I am supportive of ending things like circumcision, improving men’s healthcare, encouraging non-normative gender roles, and a healthier look on sexuality.

    • Francois Tremblay September 30, 2011 at 15:39

      I think we definitely agree on that point. If it really was about “men’s rights”, they would do something about it. Instead, individuals in MRM have to gout of their way to point out that they’re NOT doing these things, and those individuals get shot down by the community.

  6. David Gendron October 1, 2011 at 12:40

    “My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.”

    Not in public service in Québec, though.

  7. David Gendron October 1, 2011 at 12:49

    In Québec, MRM and FRM exist. I hate both. I don’t think FRM exists at all (or FRM is a very weak movement) in USA.

  8. David Gendron October 1, 2011 at 12:55

    This is a great post, but I have some issues with pro-female sexist discrimination in public institutions (not private capitalistic, which are utterly patriarchical) that is very common in Québec.

    “mainly concentrating on things like alimony and custody disputes, false rape accusations, laws biased towards women, and so on.”

    Is opting out of child support should be permitted only for women, even on a case of rape?


    • Francois Tremblay October 1, 2011 at 13:49

      Well that all goes back to the issue of paternal irresponsibility. I am against parental irresponsibility, so my answer would be “yes.”
      I am no feminist, so I definitely agree about the pro-female nonsense. It’s just not faggotry, it’s something else which I haven’t really analyzed.

  9. Robert October 1, 2011 at 22:31

    “and far more women are raped (even in jail: twice as many women as men are raped in jail or prison)” – I never heard that before. Male rape is a sore point with me, I was sexually attacked as a teen because I seemed “wimpy and gay” (Wierd thing is while “fagbashing” me the perps engaged in some VERY homosexual acts themselves., a quarrter century later I still have flashbacks). I’m not arguing with what you say ( I find much of the MRM insufferable myself and for the very reasons you enumerate) but I read the opposite concerning prison rape.That said I rather enjoy your blog, it’s in my RSS feeds.

    • Francois Tremblay October 1, 2011 at 22:41

      I got my statistic from this recent study:

      However, after some investigation, I have determined that the percentage varies greatly, one assumes from the ways of gleaning data. Due to this uncertainty, I will retract the statement.

      • thespacebetween2 June 22, 2014 at 03:31

        You are a homophobe. Every thing you dislike is “faggot this” faggot that.. Meaning your saying anything bad is again to being gay meaning you think gay people are less deserving of human rights, just like you think men are less deserving of human rights and 8 week old foetuses that feel fucking pain are less deserving of human rights, at very least an 8 year old foetuses deserves the sames rights an animal deserves that is to not inflict needless pain on the animal-human foetus where it is not required (this would still allow for abortions where the womens life is at risk or she was victim of rape as in this case the suffering on the human-animal foetus is not “needless” before 8 weeks she can do what she likes as the foetus does not feel pain but after 8weeks science has proven the foetus feels the pain like you or I would do if our head was drilled in with a screw driver) .

        Most mens right activists are actually far left wing only a few conform to your stereo types. At the top patriarchy exists but at the bottom we have replace patriarchy with matriachy, the answer to this is not more matriarchy for the joe regular guy but is infact an abandoment of either matriachy or patriarchy and instead of feminists and mens rights activists,human rights activists who focus on equality for all. That includes the very real lack of rights men currently have in regards to custody when in fact 50% of custody disputes of children should end up going to men as based on a meritocracy 50% of the time each sex will be able to provide the better finacial or stable home environment for the child, right now many men who would do a better job of looking after child than a women are discriminated on based on their sex alone, not their capabilities.

        • Francois Tremblay June 22, 2014 at 03:38

          “You are a homophobe. Every thing you dislike is “faggot this” faggot that.. Meaning your saying anything bad is again to being gay meaning you think gay people are less deserving of human rights,”

          No… I use the word “faggot” in a very specific way, to designate homosexuals who hide their sexuality and aggressively lobby against homosexuality. If you had followed the damn link, you’d have known that. Lazy commenting on your part.

          “just like you think men are less deserving of human rights”


          “and 8 week old foetuses that feel fucking pain”

          You are gravely misinformed. Fetuses do not feel pain, especially not at 8 weeks old. They do not have the nervous structures necessary to feel pain.

          “are less deserving of human rights, at very least an 8 year old foetuses deserves the sames rights an animal deserves”

          On what principle(s) do you ground this statement?

          “Most mens right activists are actually far left wing”

          ROTFL. You are a bad liar. Get off my blog, troll.

  10. […] A powerful post on what hides behind the men’s rights movement. […]

  11. […] response to my entry against “Men’s Rights Advocates,” some dickhead calling himself “Rajesh Kumar” tried to post a comment (which I flagged […]

  12. […] word “patriarchy” has been turned into somewhat of an object of ridicule. Of course, there are groups dedicated specifically to laugh at the exploitation of women and to make the ridiculous claim that […]

  13. […] that woman-haters must be sexually frustrated or sexually repressed). In the worse cases, mostly MRAs, complex systems of beliefs about a female conspiracy to withdraw sex, and hierarchies of […]

  14. […] entry has now been linked by an MRA tumblr. If you came from there, hi faggots! I’ve written some stuff about you […]

  15. […] topic is the attempt to have spaces reserved for the privileged. For instance, some men establish “men’s rights” groups, even though all rights are already men’s rights. Others want a White History […]

  16. […] entry having been posted on Reddit/Mensrights, I am shutting down the comments section. Also, hi MRA faggots! […]

  17. Vivian June 6, 2013 at 14:21

    I’m pressed for time at the moment, so I’ll keep this short: I completely share your sentiments regarding the hilarious irrationality behind the MRM claim that women, as a group, somehow have more power than men in today’s world (in the West). The examples brought forth by many MRAs as “evidence” of so-called “male oppression” — military drafting, disadvantages in custodial courts, the expectation of wage-slavery, the expectation to keep silent about emotional hardships, etc — were/are not instituted by “feminists” (their imaginary enemies), but other men. Other men in power with influence and resources at their disposal who, in seeking the best method for keeping women out of traditional avenues of power, ordained that *men* should do X, Y, and Z. It is the logical consequence of having ordained that women do X, Y, and Z according to what they perceive to be “appropriate” to the female sex.

    For instance, there are many women in North American history that wanted to join their male counterparts in military combat, but were barred from doing so not by other women, but primarily by other men under the guise of wanting to “protect them” (and the sexist combat prohibition was only lifted this year in Canada in January). This “protection” excuse is familiar: in the past it’s been used to justify keeping women from higher education, public paid labor, and politics, among other things deemed the exclusive domain of men.
    The disadvantages that men face in custodial battles likewise stem not from “feminists” against joint custody (we feminists are indeed very much FOR it, for obvious gender-equality reasons), but from patriarchal ideals which manifest through the judicial process as portioning hands-on childcare to the presumed “nurturer” (guess which sex that is deemed to be). It also seems the patriarchal structure sees wage-slavery (expected of men) to be preferable and more honorable to the domestic-slavery expected of women, and for good reason: one gets credit for their labor through being paid wages (i.e., money – and not specific rations like food and room/board, rations which were also offered to slaves – because only money allows you the freedom to *choose* what to do with the fruits of your labor) in the public labor system. And money is power. The domestic labor system doesn’t offer the corresponding dues to the women who are pressured to stay there by sexist expectations – her labor is thus exploited by her husband, allowing her husband to gain more individual power and recognition at the expense of developing her own self-actualization. I recall that Marx once put it succinctly: “She is the slave of a wage-slave.” Between the two necessary options (created by our capitalistic economic system), I’d personally rather choose to be a “wage-slave” than a “domestic-slave”.

    So it’s very funny indeed that MRAs choose to target feminists (and women in general) as their enemies, because not only are these feminist “enemies” actually their allies according to the written (if not practiced) MRM causes – these MRAs fail to see that it is/was almost entirely *other men* who instituted and supported the “masculinity” norms that men suffer under. In fact, I once ran across a recent sociological study which showed that men personally uphold “masculine” ideals not for the sake of women, but for the sake of “proving” themselves in front of other men.

    Anyway, one little quibble I had with your otherwise well-argued article: your use of the word “faggot” in reference to someone who is stupid and cowardly is, frankly, homophobic. If these MRAs are being illogical and cowardly, why not just refer to them as such, instead of linking their detestable behaviour to a label which connotes and demonizes an identifiable group (i.e. gays)? It’s ironic how you seem to support equality for homosexuals, yet use the term “faggot” in a derogatory manner with wild abandon.

    • Francois Tremblay June 6, 2013 at 17:26

      You said you were gonna keep it short, but you really got a lot of stuff here. And I completely agree. I always repeat again and again about these so-called “benefits” being “secondary gains” meant to reinforce people’s belief in their inferior status, and refer people to the book The Culture of Conformism p50-51 for further explanations.

  18. Jane July 13, 2013 at 15:57

    Again, where have we heard these traits before? That’s right.. the truth is, “men’s rights” activists (MRAs) are faggots!

    Your antinatalist hero David Benatar is also a Men’s Rights Activist:


    Is he also a faggot?

    • Francois Tremblay July 14, 2013 at 00:13

      Yes, I am aware that Benatar is an MRA. I make no excuses for his other positions. He is a reprehensible person.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: