Janice Turner of The Times, you are taking an interest in men’s issues. This is good. Our messages are finally hitting home. You acknowledge the unfairness of men being accused of rape when both partners are blind drunk and that inequality is less likely to affect young women than young men. You even say we need a well-funded Minister for Men. But your facts and figures are forged in the belly of feminism’s prejudices, your sexist stereotypes place limits on how much you understand.

You peddle the myth that women are more likely to be imprisoned for their first offence. This is nonsense. Men are more likely to receive immediate custody, women are more likely to be discharged. The prison system treats women much more leniently. You have not bothered doing your homework; you do not need to because as a feminist you are on the side of the gods. Men are substantially more likely to be sent to prison for the same category of crime, they are also given longer sentences. If men were treated as leniently as women are by the prison system there would only be one sixth of them there.

It is true that men commit more crimes, but they are also more likely to come from the disadvantaged groups from which our prisons are filled. It also suggests that the rules do after all protect women’s interests. If women committed more crimes feminists would be moaning that the rules were all made by the men.

But it is your sexist stereotypes which really need to be addressed. You talk about beery banter culture which allows no weakness. There are no advantages to weakness in men because men are not listened to. But despite that, they do cry in pubs.

You talk about men being reluctant to adapt but the past 50 years shows that they meld themselves to women’s wishes. Evidence suggests it is women who suffer mental health problems and stress issues when they move into the workplace, indicating it is they who have difficulties trying to adapt.

And no, women might not feel diminished when they enter the workplace but they feel very threatened by the possibility of taking second place in the home.

You talk about fathers who leave. Janice, among those who get married, women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Among the less well off the welfare state pays so much better than men’s meagre salaries that women choose to go it alone.

You talk about sons passing from the care of their mothers to the care of their wife. If you knew anything about fatherless families, sons caring for mothers is what you would see. And sometimes those single mothers are so absorbing a man has few resources left over to care for a wife.

You talk about men’s political omnipotence. Yet when an ultra-alpha male Grayson Perry wants to pontificate – he dons that symbol of moral authority – a frock.

You portray women as biddable. Speak for yourself. Women have never been biddable. They used to look after their men who went out in dirty and dangerous conditions and worked long and hard.

You criticise what women did for men yet you seem extraordinarily blind to the way men prop up our world. Men pay 70 per cent of the taxes, but not because of the mythical wage gap but simply because men do a lot more work. And in this era of feminist independence, poverty occurs because women have no partners while independent feminist princesses all choose to marry up.

Janice, you criticise Breitbart and J4MB for railing against feminism. Why have you missed out The Conservative Woman? Aren’t you being a tad sexist there? Or, is it because we are women you know we are more dangerous and you do not want to give us any air? And, Janice, at least we blame an ideology for a great many of the problems which men and women suffer. You are less charitable. You simply blame men.

Janice, you want a deep explanation of masculinity, which you call toxic. Yet you attribute men’s shorter life span to their self-neglect. You attribute suicide to beery banter culture. Janice, who appears to have difficulties thinking things through here?

Suicide for men is linked to unemployment. This is not because employment gives men power and status. That is only for the most privileged – the sort of men you have in your life. Employment is important to men because it gives them a place in the family – a chance to participate in the reproductive role. Men want to support their families because they love them. But if they have nothing to put on the table, they are very open to abuse.

Just think about it. When a woman gets pregnant the father has no say on whether the child lives or dies. When it comes to the birth certificate the mother can write the father out of the child’s life. If the child’s mother decides life is easier without you she has the help of completely biased family courts – and that is the father gone. Janice these are not trivial things like being a female professor or on a board of directors, or someone telling you have a nice butt. These are the issues which strike at the core of what it means to be human. When men have no one to need them, they may be more liable to self-neglect. When they have to support children with whom they are allowed no contact, that is dehumanizing, an unspeakable wrong.

Janice, I am glad you recognise the truth behind our arguments and I give you credit for that. But do not appropriate our arguments and then submit them to a feminist narrative. And do not expect the Minister for Men to submit to feminist mistresses. That will mean more of the same, not change.

(Image: Denis Mihallov)


  1. One of the great contradictions of leftist thinking is that they happily accept that (all things being equal) that black men are more likely to have harsher court outcomes than white men. Yet they cannot accept the same for men and women. Their conclusion is that judges must be racist and yet not sexist. Work that one out.
    A second contradiction is that, yes men do pay 70% of tax, and yes they do earn more on average (its and earnings gap not a pay gap!) Yet those ‘biddable’ women male 70% of all consumer spending decisions. Work that one out.

    • OK I’ve worked it out. Most consumer spending is a household chore – groceries, kids clothes etc. Like cleaning, ironing, washing, women do a bigger share of the household shopping. There is an army of men behind closed doors ruthlessly sitting on the settee whilst women buy the groceries. Give me a harder one.

      • Not so. Next time your at a shopping centre, check out how much floor space is taken for women’s fashion stores etc.. Compare this with stores specific for men’s items.I think it would be at least 70% women.

      • A ‘chore’in your opinion Terry. But now you have completely made my point for me. You assume women find shopping a chore like many men do.

        • You are so right!

          My wife was disappointed last Friday because she had to stay at home and so was unable to go out shopping with my mum.

          They rearranged for Monday when my mum was annoyed that they were only able to go out for a couple of hours as my wife had appointments mid morning and late afternoon.

      • You missed the point. If women earn less than men on average, how can they also be spending 70% of the money? Where did that money come from? What that money is spent on is irrelevant. I’ll leave that one with you.

    • Well obviously because if any man is considered to be more harshly treated than a comparable woman, then the oppression matrix begins to crumble. Thus a white feminist is happy to cry racism, just as a black feminist is happy to change BLM from a movement about police shooting black men into something about spending more money on childcare and organic food – hijacking gay pride marches on the way.

  2. As a white male it is safe to say I no longer care or listen to feminists. I have been accused and shouted at for so long by feminists and the lefts for my conservative traditional views;
    (2 parents good, single parent bad, slow growing community of like minded people good, rapidly expanding community of different cultures not so good,, actual equality for everyone no matter their sex/colour, too much state bad)
    that quite honestly i do not listen pay attention or care what they say anymore.

    Feminists have gone the way of computer game violence, I have seen so much now its basically numbed that part of my brain.

  3. As background to the daily torrent of feminist disparagement of men, here’s a couple of observations from Kenneth Minogue on the role of radical feminism in the decline of civilisation:

    Back in the 60s, the original radical feminists were a tribe of well educated women who had been liberated from the chores of housewifery by technological innovations. They were also released from the burden of unwanted pregnancies by advances in pharmacology. (In other words, the ingenuity of men made the feminist movement a probability.)

    Betty Friedan and her followers successfully concealed the radical aims of feminism. They did this by suppressing almost completely the idea that their project involved a transfer of power, and operated on the moralistic battle cry of “Justice for Women”.

    That transfer of power isn’t complete yet – remember the “glass ceilings” which are supposed to be in the way – but it’s made immense headway.

        • All the more reason to make the most of the opportunity now to expose her shortcomings – which she shares with most of the feminist wing of the Labour party.

        • It already is, if grounds are given for its classification as a ‘hate crime’, a category that makes me deeply uneasy. The burden of proof lies in “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice…”.

          So, if Ms Abbott, or even some bystander, were to believe you were being horrid to her based on some prejudice they imagine you to hold, you’ve had it. Presumably it would be up to you to prove you simply scorn the old bat because she’s despicable. Not easy when in jeering at her you must obviously be deemed to be clearly prejudiced against black people and women.

          The CPS (cps.gov.uk) says:-

          “A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

          “If you, or anyone you know, has been called names, been bullied or had anything happen to them that you think may be because of one of these factors, then you should report this as a hate incident. Even if you dont want the incident to be investigated, it is important that the police know about it, so that they can build up a picture of how many incidents are happening and where. This information can help police investigating other hate incidents.

          “Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but those that do become hate crimes. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be.” “

  4. So her idea is to have a minister for men to work alongside the minister for wimmin and the one for kidz.

    Alternatively, we could seek better political leaders and set the bar higher for columnists and intelligentsia wannabes.

    Meanwhile, a statistic from ONS; the most common cause of death for men under 50 is suicide (in the 17-25 age range it’s car crashes in #1, suicide in #2).

    It is also the case that more men die from testicular cancer than women from breast cancer.

    Such is the feminist paradise that has been created.

    • This is utter rubbish, like many of the assertions in the article, the article it criticises and this comment section, totally unsupported by any data and when you look at the real data – WRONG. The number of deaths from breast cancer is hundreds of times that from testicular cancer.

      Moreover, this is nothing to do with any “paradise” anyone has created, feminist or otherwise. it is just the case that the occurrence of breast cancer is far higher than that of testicular cancer. In fact more MEN die from breast cancer than die from testicular cancer, before you begin to count the women!

      • According to government figures for the UK in 2012, 10,292 women died from breast cancer and 10,837 men died from prostate cancer. In addition, 919 women died from cervical cancer. In the same year, breast cancer screening programmes received £100 million, cervical cancer £150 million and bowel cancer (which affects both sexes) £100 million. There was NO funding earmarked for the screening of prostate cancer. However, there is now a charity, “Prostate Cancer UK”, which raises funds for prostate cancer research.

  5. The headline of that article is “Don’t blame us for your problems, chaps”. Pretty much all men’s problems are to do with the institutional bias against men. Everything else we can handle – you know like losing limbs in defence of our country.

  6. Transference of power has been taking place beneath our very noses for quite some time now. Its evidence is all around but much of it behind closed schoolroom doors.
    Having worked in nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools, and with a wide range of children and young people I can testify that many men and women within these environments are experienced, hardworking, professional, good-hearted, intelligent, and well meaning. I guess this is statistically to be expected. Good News. We need to acknowledge and celebrate their contribution. However, again from first-hand experience and observation many are far from inspiring to the point of being harmful. This is the reality and is particularly relevant regarding a certain kind of male-hostile woman and what appears to be their strangle-hold on the education system. The majority of schools and educational environments have become female dominated ‘communities,’ many of which are institutionally anti-male environments where ‘permission to be present’ for both staff and students is decided not only by the official managers of the environment (headmistresses, female deputies, female support staff leaders etc) but also by the unofficial mob-rule mentality of staffroom politics. Ignoring individual male members of staff is one subtle but sure way to communicate to the rest of the female ‘team’. “This one has no place here” is an unspoken covert feminist mantra. I have witnessed and experienced this many times in countless schools. A social environment has developed in many such ‘settings’ along the lines of a ‘women’s group’ where the priorities, opinions, beliefs and considerations of the female perspective is regarded as the official, logical, necessary approach in all areas, and is therefore implemented against the social/emotional interest of male staff and male students in the dogmatic interest of female staff and female students.

    The rise in ‘specialist behaviour schools’ in this country is a part of that malpractice; A mainstream SEN obsessed female-led social-group which states clearly but covertly to many boys and men in the educational mainstream educational environment that “You are substandard and do not belong here.”…(Unless of course you accept, mimic, and implement the modern feminist ideals and views on childhood, gender, parenthood, educational development, discipline and mental and social health ‘norms’). To many such women in positions of authority within education the boy is an irritating defective girl and the male member of staff is an unnecessary intruder. Sounds extreme doesn’t it? That’s because in many environments it is.
    It’s consequences are far reaching. Of course OFSTED can’t see this dynamic in the few days they spend thumbing through the establishment’s paperwork once in a while, or sitting as an observer watching a classroom of kids on their ‘best behaviour’. Of course they can’t, and to be honest they don’t have the interest or time to look for it. It appears that in practice they are complicit with this gender-based streaming process. Their real objective appears to be to tick the boxes and move on to the next one…to create an illusion that standards are being maintained, that ‘it’s all under control’ and being monitored. Then, once they’re off the premises the gender imbalanced malpractice continues letting the boys down and therefore, in the long run, inevitably letting the girls down as well. In years to come up goes the cry from the early/late-twenties young women as they seek a capable and partner and father for their own family.. “Where have all the good men gone…?!” they will cry, and often it seems, already do.

    It’s not all bad news though. As we know, awareness of a problem is the first step toward resolving it. Society is dynamic. Change does occur.. not always initially for the best. Finding the correct balance is taking time but when we see and experience malpractice we can work towards redressing that imbalance and that process. Within education particularly, that process of correction is now overdue. With thanks to Belinda Brown for her understanding and support in the challenges and corruptions being presented by modern day feminist practice and ‘leadership’ against boys and men and therefore society as a whole. Belinda’s support has clear importance because the female protagonists of modern gender-role manipulation tend not to see error within the feminine. Error is much more neatly and simply placed exclusively with the men and boys of our society, particularly those who do not adopt feminine traits as their own.

    • For quite a number of years I worked for a well-known university In that time I noticed that almost all new appointments were of women. Yet all appointments were made on merit; the sole explanation possible being a precipitous loss of competence among the male population which should perhaps have prompted calls for men to be given quotas or some other sort of special consideration.

      But they were not.

      Then, when we were running weekend residential schools for certain students, there came a crackdown on providing tutors with a drink or two in the evening. Believe me, they had earned it and it also aided professional discussion of matters that had arisen – all to the benefit of students. We had a small budget which, spent cannily, went quite a long way.

      An edict came from the (female) O/C to say that this ‘pub culture’ was not to be tolerated. In future all drinks were to be bought at extortionate bar prices, ensuring that the entire budget for the weekend went on a single drink on one night. The cohesion of the tutor team weakened in consequence.

      If I hadn’t been a bit of a Cavalier beforehand, these cold Roundheads would have converted me to the joys of grape and grain.

      • Hi there mjm6mjm6. Yes indeed. I recognise the territory from your account. It would appear a two tier system has developed to a degree. The social expectations of a form of self-interested puritanical females has seemingly hi-jacked common sense and decent team dymamics with females of that male-hostile disposition taking the reins.

        I occasionally use a dictionary to look up words and meanings: ‘Life long learning’ they call it dont they..?! I call it logical. 🙂 One definition I had reason to look up came up as ‘Misandry’ …after repeated first hand experience of being on the receiving end of female staff hostility within schools. I never knew that word or had need for it before my time working in education. The tyrannical humourless ‘leadership’ by too many of the female staff I have encountered seemed almost to employ a process of subtle humiliation towards boys and male staff. In place of respectful discipline has come hostility or patronising dissent. One simple example.. last years national initiative aimed at getting more girls and women into sport carried a poster campaign I saw posted on a PE hall wall.. (put there by a female PE Teacher). It was a picture of a girl in football kit with a soccer ball… The caption read: “I kick balls ..deal with it!” I need not point out that this has a theme of ‘humour’ based on the notion of ‘a kick in the balls’..which is in conceptual terms inferring a girl kicking a boy in the testicles..(So deal with it if you dont like it). Now, how would a similar spitefully themed ‘joke’ go if applied with reversed gender roles? I dont think it would be accepted do you..’chaps’..?

        Hard not to get dragged down by this stuff. But the reality is that there are many boys iniwho this country who spend their days in chaotic ‘behaviour schools’ often ‘led’ by female (‘leaders’) and their evenings in the company of sisters, aunties, and single mothers. Many of these boys are not responding well to those conditions to put it mildly.
        Society is showing the signs clearly now and that concerns me greatly.
        Thanks again for your reply. I appreciate it. sdk

        • That poster you describe is disgraceful, anything similar directed at girls in school would create outrage, but only a very small example of the unapologetic man hate that males seem to be expected to tolerate. Personally I rate single sex schooling, especially at secondary school. At an all boys school, boys can escape the insidious feminisation of education.

          • https://www.sportengland.org/media/1669/i-kick-balls-football.jpg

            Here’s the ad if you didn’t see it above. I actually contacted the organisation responsible for it and sent a full explanation as to why it was hostile to boys and that surely the objective was to inspire girls rather than be negatively provocative towards boys.. The response was unapologetically emphatic that it was a ‘joke’ , along with the suggestion that my sense of humour was defective. The not so funny thing was that I actually witnessed two 12 yr old lads notice it and comment on its hostile message. The notion being that ots ok to be nasty to boys.. the girls are in on the act now!

          • It’s outrageous and I really think men must ruthlessly use the whole ‘hate crime’ pc agenda to their advantage by making an enormous fuss about things like this to gain publicity in the media for the insidious way we promote and tolerate anti- male propaganda.

          • Hi Log. In regard to your suggestion of single sex schools I tend to agree to a degree. It has become clear to me during my time in schools that both boys and girls are experiencing more social confusion than necessary as a result of ‘experiments’ with gender roles and sexuality and the adjustments made in regard to ‘acceptible modes of behaviour.’ It appears to me that both boys and girls have become confused as to the process of socially effective behaviour and I believe that a large part of this has come from the process of changing roles within the family and society as a whole. Many young girls grow up under the impression that their (single) mother is their ‘best mate’ and that their ‘dad’ is – ‘like all blokes’- a ‘loser’.. Many lads grow up in the absence of an assertive respected father with notion that they are the ‘top dog’. As a result they relentlessly challenge any male who has responsibility over them. It frequently gets hostile. I am not here suggesting the old ‘Victorian Values’ cliche as a proposal however. What I am doing is reporting the fact boys and girls are being misled by the adults and are becoming confused as to their relationship with themselves, their relationship with eachother, and their relationship with ‘adults.’

            Boys are generally regarded as ‘later developers’ than girls arent they? (..rightly or wrongly). The suggestion generally is that girls are more ‘mature.’ It may be that in fact boys are more predisposed to ‘have a bit of a laugh’ and be fun-orientated. Unfortunately for them most of the feminine leadership agenda is not ‘fun’ orientated. It seems to.me that Women in positions of power tend to be scared of humour because it is often challenging and, to a degree, ‘subversive’.The issue of confusion tends to be noticeable in that girls these days appear to be much more intent on challenginging, ‘winding up’ and provoking boys, and boys seem less restrained in their reaction to that provocation. The hyper-sexualisation of society is linked to this and appears to be stirring this issue up to chaotic proportions; classrooms tend to become environments of undisclosed non-curricular tensions, on many social and emotional levels…
            Teachers trying to be ‘mates’ with the ‘kids’ forvan easy life… The students trying to impress and outwit eachother. Everyone jostling for their place in a crazy culture of overly emphasised ‘diversity’.

            I have thought many times.. the boys cant concentrate too well with the girls around? – then give them boys-own lessons. Simplify the equation. Shared break times for social engagement, yes, but single sex study times so that distractions are removed and the skills of focus, prioritising, and concentration can be developed. Classroom culture is so heavily in the grip of banter these days that many children who would benefit from peaceful silence struggle. And if they cannot concentrate in such an environment they are sent to the female SENCO who cannot see the problem and who insteadvuses their ‘expert£ status’ to diagnosel ADHD and put on the child on the SEN register.
            I am not trying to paint an exaggerated picture here. I have become very concerned at what is really happening in classrooms and playgrounds around this land. Not only are children being put under ridiculous levels ofcsocial stress, the staff too are attempting to juggle a myriad of conflicting undisclosed issues. Thanks for your interest I n replying to my comment btw. 🙂

          • Hi there womanathome. I qrote a lengthy reply to log explaining my thoughts on single sex schools but it hasnt been posted here. To summarise I would say that.yes, single sex schools would remove many of the obstructions present in classrooms today…obstructions with their origins in the sometimes difficult interactional processes between boys and girls as they grow up. Increasingly it seems to me that people in society are reactive and that reactive tendency is often displyed by hostility. This appears to be true within the family, in the workplace, in public and in the classroom. Removing the element of provocation is one way to settle things down perhaps and boyscand girls in schools appear to be tending towards provocation and reactive hostility as a common mode of interaction. ‘Banter’ is an instrumental part of that process which, as a corriluptionof good humoured good humour

  7. The vast majority of male prisoners are from single mother headed homes , this whole problem has been down to Government policy of replace the father with welfare payments , yes some men run off but the mother still chose that man to have a child with . It’s welfare that’s caused this problem .

    • I’m not sure about causation but it certainly speeds its spread. Its significant that the countries with the least teen pregnancy, lone mothers etc. are those without much by way of welfare benefits for lone parents or which have them as short term insisting lone parents work. At its core the worse societies are those that regard it as a “right” no matter who has to fund the right.

    • It’s not welfare per se.

      Although the policies of Harriet Harman did not help.

      After all the money is supposed to be for the child.

      Which is fine, except it doesn’t address the love and care the child should, and could, be receiving from a father. Nor does it address the other issues in the break up – such as the willingness of the state to facilitate false claims of domestic violence etc. And it’s willingness to address issues such as mother’s often being the source of violence and neglect towards their children, which may lead to later criminality.

  8. A truly clear and concise summation of the issues and thoughts. I am in awe of you. As you say in fact very little has actually changed for men. I suppose a partial plus is that many of the really dangerous jobs etc. have been exported for other men to do. Though there are still a couple of hundred casualties each year in the still numerous jobs that we all need doing. For all the bally hoo men are still the “breadwinner” even if they are prevented from seeing their family eat that bread. As the Fawcett society ably pointed out, this is true where women rely on “the state” as men are the funders of that state.
    Though there are complaints men don’t help in the home or with children I don’t see any shift in women’s hold on “the home” and children. Men it appears filling in for the lack of domestic paid help.
    I recall a telling quote from research into men and depression “there’s a reason why men don’t cry; the women in their life don’t like it.” After all one of the top qualities women seek in a man is “he makes me feel safe.” Which won’t happen if he reveals his weaknesses. No, men still know they have only the option to “man up”. So no change there.
    As you say feminists completely evade or deny the obvious in their own theory, that men will modify their behaviours to take accord of women’s expectations (the actual ones they see not some guardianistas imaginings) as much as vice versa. Because of course the really daft idea is that somehow its all separate. And finally it is now more than ever true, that boys are brought up by women, so the men have learned a lot of how to be a man from women!

    • Germaine Greer pushing for men to be “the walking meatsack automaton and scapegoat for all her bullshit”. as Terrence Popp put so well.

  9. “You talk about fathers who leave. Janice, among those who get married,
    women initiate the vast majority of divorces. Among the less well off
    the welfare state pays so much better than men’s meagre salaries that
    women choose to go it alone.”

    Happened to me this year, after 8 years of being together and producing a son; although we weren’t married. She didn’t want to work five days a week, so it’s two days’ work and benefits for the rest.

    Belinda, I just want to say – thank you for caring, and valuing, men.

    • It is just a crime how the benefits system means women can be equally or even better off without a man around – even if the man has relatively okay employment. I don’t know if that is your situation but I know that is how it happens. Be strong and stay in there for your son. One day I hope we (as in people in general because I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime – but I try) will look back on this era of broken families etc etc as a sort of dark age and feminism as a dreadful, destructive ideology.

      • Thank you for that.

        Look, I’m loathe to turn this into a “look at me, give me sympathy” kind of post so please understand, I’m not bitter. It’s happened, I am moving on; but yes, I have okay employment, I’m self-employed. My business died, in part because of what I did for her and her family, my new business is not great, so she had to help out when before she was at home looking after our boy and her other kids. That’s not to say we didn’t have our problems; we did. But she now wants me back. Not happening. Once bitten, twice shy!

        One point I’d like to make here: if the state treated single mothers in the same way as they did couples – i.e., if single mothers got nowt – this wouldn’t have happened. She’d have stayed and made the best of it, instead of taking the easy route.

        Still, that’s cultural marxism / the Frankfurt School of Marxism for you – any way to split up a family.

        “One day I hope we (as in people in general because I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime – but I try) will look back on this era of broken families etc etc as a sort of dark age and feminism as a dreadful, destructive ideology.”

        I agree completely.

      • I think it will at least begin to happen in your lifetime Belinda, a lot can change in a couple of decades. It won’t happen evenly and completely but I think the momentum and energy is with the ‘change candidate’ to borrow from the US election. Social conservatism and the feminist backlash is the change candidate. Trouble is the subversion of our social order runs deep.

      • Yes, I do thankfully – she’s actually really awesome at this aspect, I have no complaints whatsoever (except that I only see him for a few days a week). No solicitors involved either; we were just honest with each other.

  10. Women have choices:
    – have sex / don’t have sex
    – decide it was rape/decide it was sex
    – tell him about the pregnany/don’t tell him
    – have the baby/have an abortion
    – get married/stay single,
    – work/get him to work for you,
    – stay married/get divorced,
    – shut him out of his kid’s lives/give him access
    – demand half his assets and endless alimony/do the decent thing

    Men have the same basic choice they have always had:
    – Work / Prison

  11. More gynocentric nonsense from a woman who fears the consequences of equality and cares nothing for the lot of men. Sorry Belinda but you’re behind the times: we don’t need you to defend us and we no longer wish to defend you for the sake of a smile, a bill we haven’t run up and a lifetime hoping for sex we’re highly unlikely to be allowed.

    Change the record.

  12. I hate to be pedantic–honestly, I do–but ‘dice’ (like ‘mice’) is a plural word. Either ‘the dice are loaded’ or ‘the die is loaded’ (as in ‘the die is cast).

    • “The die is cast” refers to the die that is an engraved stamp. Once the cast is made there is no going back.

      • Nope, sorry. It’s from the book of Proverbs (KJV). The die is cast into the lap, but the disposing is of the Lord. Can’t recall the reference just now.

      • Oops, very sorry. I repent in dust and ashes. Old age, failing memory. In Proverbs it’s ‘ the lot is cast.’ Forgive me. (I’m still right about ‘dice’ though.)

  13. The push back begins, men have just had enough of being cast in a lousy light by feminists. Its so true, who do women earn less than men?? Er because many women only want to work part time so of course they earn less than a man working full time. Feminists just IGNORE REAL FACTS. Lots of really disillusioned pissed off men out there.

Comments are closed.