back to article Men's rights activists: Symantec branded us a 'hate group'

A men's issues website has cried foul after it was apparently classified as a "hate" site by Symantec. Surfers visiting A Voice for Men ( were confronted by a message stating that it is a "known hate site" blocking from going any further by web-filtering technology in Symantec. A Voice for Men angrily …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Ian 62

    And 'they' wondered why...

    We complained about the Guvmint having control of a list of blocked content with no over-sight.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. g e

    Paul ELAM ? Really?

    Male spelled backwards

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Paul ELAM ? Really?

      good spot, and on the same day the Pope resigned too...and so soon after horse meat was discovered in beef products. All the signs are there if only we would look closer

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Paul ELAM ? Really?

        The riders of the apocalypse won't be coming. Their horses have been processed...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Paul ELAM ? Really?

        Not only that, Home Depot just switched to iPhone from Blackberry. Coincidence? I think not!

    2. Poor Coco
      Thumb Up

      Re: Paul ELAM ? Really?

      That’s actually his name. Here is his story: — feel free to judge his character by his own words, rather than by your assumptions.

      There are many authors at AVfM who publish under their own name, and the number is increasing. Dean Esmay has been working with Paul Elam for years; also, many women such as Karen Straughn (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat) and Kristina Hansen (a.k.a. TheWoolyBumblebee) have joined in recent years. Last month, they added Erin Pizzey, who founded the world’s first domestic violence shelter in Chiswick in 1971 — she was hounded out by feminists after she realized that women were just as likely to be violent in the home as men.

      AVfM, and MRALondon, are both excellent organizations. Thanks, Vulture Central, for writing about this.

  4. Alister

    ...It is not the job of Norton Symantec to be telling their customers which sites are and are not morally acceptable."

    Umm, only it is, really, that's the basis on which the product is sold. You don't have to use it though.

    1. VaalDonkie


      Their job is to filter sites which can harm your computer.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nope

        "Their job is to filter sites which can harm your computer."

        I always thought that Norton Diskf****er was intended to work by slowing the capabilities of any machine to such a crawl that you couldn't access any sites that might harm your computer. Recently had to remove the things from a relative's PC that was taking twenty minutes to boot.

        Vile, vile software, sold to the gullible through scaremongering.

        1. Fatman

          Re: Nope

          I am so glad that we, in the Linux world, do not have to worry about such things, and watch our computers strain under the load of multiple AV systems required to keep the WindblowZE nastys out of our PCs. I mean, $DIETY forbid that a state of the art Core i7 runs slower than a 386 piece of shit under the strain, because of the load imposed by all of that unnecessary AV software. Need to get some work done - use Linux.


          </troll alert>

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Am I supposed to pity the poor white anglo-saxon protestants? It must be a terrible life. I've never found a single one of these "white, striaght men are the real oppressed minority" groups to be credible in any way.

    I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism - I remember holding a door open for someone and being told not to patronise her, I pointed out that I was bing polite and hold doors open for men too. This sort of thing has pretty much gone away now, with the exception of a couple of Labour MPs...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism

      Yup, remember when I was at University in the 80s I group I was involved with used to have meetings in a cafe run by a feminist collective which prominently featured on the back wall a large poster saying "Kill all men before they kill us"

      1. LaeMing

        Re: Err...

        > I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism.

        And a little trickle through to the 90's. I recall the Uni. bookshop selling the "All Men are Bastards" diaries/notepads and thinking it was a terribly offensive thing to have on display (offensive to men in general and offensive /real/ feminists* like myself too.)

        *Men and women in favour of sexual equality and empowerment for both genders, as opposed to women band-wagon jumping as an excuse to hate someone, in this case men.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Err...

        "I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism"

        Indeed. There was an effort to teach more men to cook at Foothill Jr. College in Los Altos a couple-three decades ago. The feminists went berserk because it was aimed at men specifically. Death threats, slashed tires & paint thrown on the instructors cars, etc. It was funny, in a sad kind of way. (I was one of the targets of their ire.)

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Err...

      I don't currently find any of the claims of any religious group you care to mention "credible in any way". I wouldn't want to ban them from the interwebs, though.

      There's a rather appropriate quote kicking about in the back of my mind. Google seems to think the original is Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.". Ho hum. He wouldn't be my *first* choice "font of wisdom". Still, I suppose that rather proves the point.

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Err...

        I suppose that should have been "fount of wisdom", unless we're talking Comic Sans. Ho hum, again. Point proven, again.

      2. Anonymous Coward

        Re: Err...

        Doesn't the bible explicitly prohibit going anywhere near the bowels of Christ, or any one else, for that matter?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      >I've never found a single one of these "white, striaght men are the real oppressed minority" groups to be credible in any way.

      Reading comprehension: 1/3: Can do better. The group was at pains to point out that race or sexuality had nothing to do with it.

      Just look at advertising on television (I don't mind if you don't bother)- it is very common for the woman to be portrayed as smart and the man as being generally clueless and lost without her. Were the roles be reversed, it would be broadly attacked as belonging to the 1950s.

      I don't mind swimming pools having ladies-only hours, but I can't think of a men-only equivalent.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: Err...

        Childrens television programmes are just as bad as advertising, except they indoctrinate the young into the same delusion that women are *always* superior to men.

        Go ahead, pick a random childrens TV program (especially dramas) and see for yourselves...

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      While the feminists complaining about a man holding the door for her is mostly a thing of the past the fact of the matter is that the problems stemming from excessive feminism are still around. For example I have to sit here and listen, almost daily, about the perceived failings of men from several of my female coworkers. Usually it's along the lines of men being incapable of thinking of anything except sex, football, and beer or being unable to do anything right. They are quite nasty about it, but if I were to say anything about I'd be the one accused of being sexist and written up (it's happened here to a couple guys). On the other hand if I were to make the kinds of comments they make daily I'd be dismissed for sexual harassment immediately.

      And it's not isolated. It's been this way everywhere I've ever worked, from the store where I bagged groceries in high school to the assisted living place I worked at in college to the various tech jobs I've had since. The one exception to the rule was a shop I worked in where there were no female employees (apparently they had never had a female applicant who had the certifications they required for the job -- not surprising given the male to female ratio of CCNAs).

      1. Keep Refrigerated

        Re: Err...

        OK just going to play devils advocate here, but I'm pretty certain that since the dawn of time, when women have gotten together they've bemoaned the oafish traits of their hunter-gatherer partners. What equality of the sexes has done is just allow them to speak their views in the open.

        Just so you know where I'm coming from, my grandmother and other women in my family have always equally lambasted their husbands at times and other times speak sincere admiration for them and all they do (just not in the same conversation) - it's not a new thing.

        OTOH the women in your office don't seem the enlightened type - they sound like ladettes. I never talk about football or sex and if I talk about beer then it's always my favorite continental beers. But I have been around women like that occasionally, it can sometimes get uncomfortable but I look at it as a challenge to rise above it and be thankful I know classier women. Show a bit of class, they'll soon shut up or put up.

    5. Irongut

      Re: Err...

      Time to go back and read the article, white anglo-saxon protestants are not mentioned. This group quite clearly state that they are promoting men's rights whether those men are white, black, red, yellow, green, brown or purple with kinda orangey spots.

      I've never found a single one of these Anonymous Cowards to be credible in any way.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Err...@Irongut

        "I've never found a single one of these Anonymous Cowards to be credible in any way."

        Me neither.

        Does that blow the logic of your argument, though?

    6. Robin

      Re: Err...

      "Am I supposed to pity the poor white anglo-saxon protestants?"

      Protesters surely? Let's not bring religion into this.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      You should go tell all those divorced Dads who barely get to see their kids that there is no discrimination. It'll save them all that pointless campaigning.

      1. Fatman

        Re: Divorced Dads

        Is a very touchy subject with a colleague of mine.

        He was divorced when his kids were little, and that vindictive bitch has done everything she could to prevent him from having any kind of relationship with his kids. She used him for a sperm donor and an ATM. For years, she has been spewing the lie that he is a dead beat daddy, and finally Karma has bit that bitch squarely on her ass.

        His oldest, once she turned 18, defied the mother and contacted her dad. That re-union was extremely emotional for both of them. As they began to patch up the severely damaged relationship, the question of child support came up. The company's payroll records backed up his statement that he was having child support garnished from his wages. Mommy Dearest had some explaining to do. Things between mother and daughter deteriorated to the point where daughter moved out. My colleague is now enjoying a renewed relationship with both of his kids, as the younger one has now since turned 18, and having learned the truth about Mommy's lies; moved out also.

        Life's a bitch, especially when you marry ONE!!!

    8. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Err...

      Tell your tripe to the man who lost his child in the custody battle to the cocaine-addicted wife because "women are inherently better caretakers of women." Or how about the dichotomy regarding child support/alimony that is entirely gender-based, especially punitive to males who fought long and hard to be able to keep provide a home for their children.

      How about a society that says children must live with the mother after a breakup, regardless of what the children want, or one what automatically presumes a male is guilty in any case of accused sexual malfeasance. What about a society that says it is okay to send millions of young men out to die in battle, yet coddles and protects women; telling them they are too precious to fight.

      I think you'll find that most men's rights movements are very explicitly not</i. chauvinist movements. Masculist are generally <i>egalitarians, seeking equal treatment, regardless of gender. In the same way that bullshit propaganda exists today which says (at it's core) "you can't be racist against white people" we have today this ridiculous belief that "you can't be sexist against men."

      We have a culture that is in many ways chauvinist (glass ceiling is one sad example) and in many ways misandrist (custody laws and lack of innocent until proven guilty in rape cases.) Both chauvinism and misandry are unacceptable.

      Feminism has a strong movement that is well funded by all levels of government, private donation and various registered charities to fight the good fight on behalf of women. Masculism gets easily labelled a hate site, even by companies that should know better like Symantec.


      1. sisk

        Re: Err...

        You bring up a good point Trevor. After my brother in law's divorce (before he was my brother in law, I might add, so no one thinks my sister is the such-and-such I'm speaking about) my niece (yes, she's my niece even though we're in no way blood relatives) went to live with her mother despite his long hard fight to keep her. Said mother has been in and out of jail for fraud and hot checks several times over the course of the last few years and the courts STILL gave her the kid in the final custody hearing just a few months ago. She was only out on bail awaiting a sentencing hearing at the time. Why? Because 'kids should be with their mothers'. Never mind that this particular mother is a convicted criminal several times over or that there's plenty of proof that she isn't a particularly good parent. They even keep sending her back there every time the woman gets out of jail even though she can't manage to stay out for more than 5 or 6 months.

        That said, as I pointed out in another post, masculism probably has nothing to do with this site being labeled as a hate site. There's a post on there (posted for rebuttal), that could easily be mistaken by a spider as anti-Semitic. I'd guess Symantec's spider latched onto that post and the mistake just hadn't been caught yet before people started getting angry.

        1. NoIWontPublishMyName

          Re: Err...

          Aand look at the dates of the postings. I doubt Symantec ae smart enough to have a time travelling web spider.

        2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Err...

          I'm not angry at Symantec's algorithm for hating on masculists. (Though I'd love to educate the dev a little on cultural attitudes about men that are more modern than 1985.) No, I'm upset at that douchewoggle AC up yonder who was hating on white males.

          That bloke ought to know better.

      2. Cari

        Re: Err...

        @Trevor_Pott - you can blame patriarchy for that, not feminism. Feminism doesn't want women being lumped with the title of "only person fit to look after kids" (which has negative effects on women long term financially and career-wise, men who are the better choice for main parent in separation cases and of course the kids who end stuck with unfit mothers), and it certainly isn't responsible for centuries (millennia?) of social conditioning that has been telling us women are delicate little flowers who must be protected. Feminism is about equality and equal opportunity. It is not what is responsible for all the stupid gender roles our societies have been built on.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          Re: Err...

          > It is not what is responsible for all the stupid gender roles our societies have been built on.

          You miss the point.

          Whereas the shameful oppression of women in the past was a major concern, things are very different now.

          There is still discrimination against women, but that has brought more to the fore discrimination of men.

          In our struggle to overcome social conditioning and natural urges, we now face the prospect that women discriminate against men as well as men discriminate against women. In our supposedlly inlightened modern again, both are unacceptable.

          The tidbit above describing a work situation with women bitching about men and their "idleness" and "cluelessness" is very typical and usually a bonding activity rather than an expression of the truth. I have come across it in female dominated workplaces myself and so has my nurse wife. She finds it very unpleasant.

          We see this representation more and more in advertising, particularly so here in Canada where I find quite a lot of the situational adverts really quite depressing.

    9. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Err...

      I should also say that while I am a strong believer in the gender equality - and do consider myself a masculist - I haven't visited this site in particular, nor do I endorse (or not) what may be on it. My argument is not for/against this one site, but is an argument regarding the concept of masculist itself.

      I am offended that there are people who are themselves offended that men might desire to stick up for themselves and demand equal treatment. What makes men less deserving of equality than women? Should the men of today be punished for the sins of our father's father's father's long dead and long removed from the society that raised us?

      I think it is as shameful that you would mock "the white male" as if you were to attempt to alienate any other identifiable group. judge people by the actions of the individual, not their gender, colour of their skin, height, weight, sexual orientation or any other such item.

      I am not my skin colour, nor am I my gender. I am the sum of my beliefs and my actions. I am my words and deeds, not my outward appearance. That is worth fighting for; regardless of your gender.

    10. Daniel B.

      Re: Err...

      Hm. Having known someone who has been beaten repeatedly by his wife and yet managed to get convicted of "LETHAL BEHAVIOR" even when he was the one being beaten... yes, there's a big problem on the legal side for males, skin color nonwithstanding.

      There are women that consider cheating to be a basic women's right because "he's cheating anyway". And then get to divorce the dude *and* get a pension, even if she's the one at fault.

      Yes, the macho culture needed to be taken down, and to be honest there's still problems with wifebeaters and male-on-female abuse, but the opposite things SHOULD be taken into account as well. Thus groups like these.

      That said, there are truly hateful groups out there, like Men Go Their Own Way. That's what Symantec must've thought they were filtering.

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      @People replying to me: I am not talking about the men who have lost access to their children, or other such genuine injustices, these are specific areas which have been allowed for too long and need to be fixed. That said, there aren't many genuine areas where men loose out, but this is definitely one. What I was talking about were the mewling of people who I would tend to classify as "CAMRA twats" (I speak as a member of CAMRA) who hang around the bar in the pub complaining about modern life and how the women are taking over. They tend to be WASPs, probably more likely brought up as protestant than actually practicing, who complain about feminists, Europe, the youth, immigration, women in general, how bad things are for them and they go on and on about it. They genuinely think that they are a trampled on minority.

  6. Tom 7

    I wouldnt call it a 'Hate' site

    more of a 'Self Hate and blame it on the feminists' site.

    1. 1Rafayal

      Re: I wouldnt call it a 'Hate' site

      There are a number of humorous articles on why feminists are evil. One selected quote is as follows:

      ..."Women no more “give” birth than they give themselves heartbeats. Unless actively stopped by abortion, birthing continues as an autonomic process. It requires no will, just like breathing and moving bowels. So basically NOW wants international kudos for women who…poop."...


  7. graeme leggett Silver badge

    Not the only filtering offender

    With one of Trend's products, I've seen

    Tesco blocked because it sells cigarettes

    ditto a local gastro-pub/restaurant because the website listed fine wines

    blocking access to Marks and Spencer https addresses (but not http!) because of women's apparel and swimwear

    a well-repsected charity classed as activism and therefore blocked

    In this case of the last I submitted a request for reclassification and it was relisted as political/campaigning. But there's no human interaction so other - in my mind reasonable - reclassification requests have come back as "the computer says no".

    1. Roger Stenning

      Re: Not the only filtering offender

      Won't be that long before your friend the computer requires a retina scan to be able to process your reclassification request...

      *please insert retina here*


    2. s. pam Silver badge

      Re: Not the only filtering offender

      O2 personal mobile blocks any site with alcohol on it, so I can't get to CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) without paying & getting a £2 charge/refund to verify my identity even though I have a monthly direct-debit account on my personal phone.

      Yet with my work O2 mobile, I can go to the same site.

      So the filtering is far more widespread than anyone wants to own up to.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not the only filtering offender

      Was a time when company I worked for had a project involving our site in UK and another in California so we needed to fly London->San Francisco every so often. However, finding out info on flights etc was hampered by the company webfilter deeming "" to be a "probable sex site"

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Not the only filtering offender

        Only if you take care of personal hygiene and are lucky.

  8. mhoulden

    I misread the headline as "Symantec branded as a 'hate group'" and wondered if John McAfee was behind it. It's been a long day...

    1. Cpt Blue Bear
      Thumb Up

      You've obviously never used their software. I find it quite credible that they might be a front for an anti-computer group. No need for John Mcafee's involvement.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like a bloody hat esite to me

    If you disagree ask your gf / wife / mum / sistser what they think about the crap on that site.

    Have you read it.

    I would say I am ashamed to be part of the sex, but instead they should be ashamed

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sounds like a bloody hat esite to me

      Somebody's under the thumb.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sounds like a bloody hat esite to me

        Under the thumb ?

        I so hope you are joking

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sounds like a bloody hat esite to me

      You should take a closer look at it - but this time pay attention to the satire - such as taking an article posted by a modern feminist and changing the words like "man" to "Jew" and "woman" to "Aryan" to show just the idiocy of what they fight against.

      You may find that "Voice for Men" isn't really so far out there as you think -- unless your gf / wife / mum / sister believes that crap that men are biologically defective and should be euthanized. If so, watch your back buddy....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sounds like a bloody hat esite to me

        So that is satire is it.

        The cracked is satire

  10. NomNomNom

    "Being non-white myself, I was an anti-racist campaigner in the 1970s and '80s. I am, therefore, well-placed to recognise how routine and fashionable it is for men to be belittled and denigrated en masse as non-whites once were. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter what bigotry cultural fashion promotes."

    what a girl

  11. Jamie Kitson


    They'll be dressing up in superhero costumes next and scaling the Symantec building.

  12. The Alpha Klutz

    Warning: its been determined that you'll behave in unpredicatable ways if exposed to this material

    For your continued safety and ongoing comfort, our skilled Endorsement and Recommendations team have determined that, in this particular instance, we are not able to endorse this material for your viewing.

    For maximum benefit and to ensure your happiness, we are pleased to recommend that you view other material at this time.

    Kind regards,

    Symantec Endorsement and Recommendations Team

    Total Safety and Security for the New World

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      The title is too long

      Hmmm.... I imagine this will be voice by an exceedingly pleasant airport announciatrix ... or GlaDOS, depending on how far we are along the road.

  13. Anonymous C0ward


    Of all the non-trivial projects you've worked on, how many have never hit a bug?

  14. sisk

    Well no wonder

    Mystery solved. See this page:

    Symantec is no doubt using a spider of some sort to classify hate sites. While a human would read this whole article and realize it was posted for rebuttal purposes a spider would look at it and think neo-Nazi propaganda was in the works.

    1. Michael Thibault

      Re: Well no wonder

      >While a human would read this whole article and realize...

      Your model of humans needs revisiting, apparently. I get your point, though.

  15. David Ward 1

    I don't agree with everything this group goes on about but, someone was recently turned down for post-doctoral funding immediately on application, because the funding body are apparently making up for the fact that there have historically been more opportunities for men than women, and as such that they are no longer accepting applications from men at all even though they were giving more than 50% of the awards to women already. It sounds like some promotion of actual equality is sensible, so called positive discrimination is just discrimination.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    MSE. Freeeeeeee!

    No idea why anyone uses a virus checker, when Microsoft Security Essentials is free.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Seems like a hate site to me.

    Try reading their forums for a while. Bunch of miserable, bitter, bile-spewing losers, incoherently rambling and repeating their own in-group magical keyphrases to each other.

  18. jake Silver badge

    If you can't use your wetware to do the filtering ...

    ... I suspect you are probably not mature enough to be online in the first place. Thus the whining, methinks.

  19. Tikimon

    Hate site? So you drank the Kool-Aid?

    Never heard of it until today. Quick visit and some reading done, and it's not a hate site. Certainly less offensive than the strident, angry spewing I've seen from "feminist" writers who get a free pass to say anything.

    UNLESS you subscribe to the "criticize a popular political trend and you're a HATER" mindset. It's funny to me that the ones most ready to scream "racist, hate" etc. shriek for the suppression of any opposing view. If you can't win a debate, close it down, eh?

  20. John Savard

    Over the top

    Yes, classing it as a hate site is probably over the top. However, many men's rights organizations, in addressing such matters as the injustice of assessing child support against men when paternity is, shall we say, misattributed, don't always approach these issues in a balanced way with the goal of providing justice for men consistently with the equality of women - instead, at least some individual men's rights advocates advocate throwing out child support altogether.

    They may reject claims that they're trying to turn back the clock on the equality of women, but they do tend to leave themselves open to the charge, at least, that they would end up doing so in some specific areas.

    There are some feminists, of course, who would like to classify every right-to-life organization as a hate group, so, yes, that isn't quite enough.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Over the top


      How exactly do you "misattribute" one man's penis for another? You understand that by saying that, you are also saying that women are fundamentally too stupid to be able to tell the difference in facial characteristics of the man said penis belongs too, right?

      Go concern troll somewhere else.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: Over the top

        Possibly the stupidest comment on this thread.

  21. Irk
    Black Helicopters

    It's quite possible to reach all of the goals men's rights activists claim to be striving toward by working within feminism to strengthen and support the reasonable voices within the movement. Starting a movement to oppose a pre-existing movement doesn't really convince anyone that you're not trying to oppress the people that pre-existing movement is trying to empower. Feminism is for the equality of women and men, not the superiority of women over men.

    Feminism isn't a fight anybody 'won'. It's an ongoing movement - the biases towards women as being more capable of childcare and more preferred towards motherly roles is a patriarchal bias that persists from the past, not a step forward. Feminism, when applied to such a bias, would err towards equality. When men face a society-wide level of oppression that drives down their pay rate in the majority of jobs and does not consider them part of the default the majority of times, and don't have a conversation onscreen unless it's about a woman, or don't have roles in videogames unless they're for the sexual tittilation of women, then we can talk about how societal oppression of men is a real thing. Until then, the evidence for overwhelming societal-level misandry is just not there and it is more like listening to the wailing of a class group that is longing for the level of power it used to have as opposed to actually being close to on equal footing in some areas with some oppressed classes.

    The quote at the end implying that racial discrimination is 'over' is quite laughable as well. Said representative might want to reexamine today's society and the obviously-still-existing biases against people of color.

    1. Mark Neil

      "It's quite possible to reach all of the goals men's rights activists claim to be striving toward by working within feminism to strengthen and support the reasonable voices within the movement."

      No, actually, it's not. Feminism claimed from the very beginning to be about equality for both sexes. Some early feminists did actually believe it, such as Karen ecrow, who stated two things men's groups fight for today, 1: women shall never be equal in the workplace until men are equal in the family, and 2: if women are to have unilateral decision power over abortion, they should likewise bear unilateral financial responsibility. (these are paraphrasing). Problem is, feminism never actually wored towards equality for men where they needed it, and currently opposes such efforts (NOW being one of the greater opponents of equal shared parenting).

      For decades men worked with feminism under the pretense that it was equality for both sexes. But as the years passed, and women's issues got addressed while men's issues got buried under shame and guilt, men realized the claim was a shame, the "reasonable" feminists you claim are a rarity. And when men started speaking up for their own issues, we got attacked. The men's rights groups did not form as anti-feminist groups, they were forced to become such because feminism is their biggest obstacle to actual equality. Feminists are the ones who most greatly oppose equal rights for men. And if you want to pretend otherwise, point me to a feminist group that actively promotes and advocates for men's issues, such as equal parenting or consequences for malicious false rape accusations.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why does a site like this remind me of...

    (Note, I haven't looked at the site) Episodes of _Married With Children_ where Al Bundy and his buddies for a group called "No Mam". I'll let others comment on the similarities or differences and enumerate them.

    As for generalities: There are inequities in everything. Some worse than others. While civilization attempts to reduce most of them, some remain. That's life. My hope is that the ones based on "what you are" (DNA based) will be few. Those that correspond to "what you have" (tokens, etc.), and "what you know" (knowledge) will remain. Hard work removes some of those.

    I better quit while I'm not getting flamed (yet).

  23. BC Fathers

    Only Symantec branded you a hate site?

    I run a similar website (BC Fathers) in Canada at

    None other than the government of Canada branded it a "hate site" and published a report naming me (and others) as "hatemongers", for the "crime" of criticizing the more extremist elements of man-hating feminism.

    After a lengthy (and expensive) lawsuit, the Supreme Court of British Columbia riled that the government published a pack of defamatory ideologically-motivated lies, and then went on to say that this was perfectly acceptable because government "scientific research" from the feminist agency of the government is "opinion" that is protected by freedom of speech.

    Kafka-esque twisted reasoning indeed when a national government can publish lies that destroy a good career in IT, and get away with it. The reason, of course, is that feminism is a protected ideology with a lot of friends in high places. Higher than Symantec, even.

  24. Grikath

    50 Shades of Grey

    Is Bollocks... period.

    I've been picking up worse stuff off the "female" shelf in dead tree format at the airports and seaports of the world for ..yonks. I've also been a practising Dom for just over two decades. And believe me, the Ideal of the Housewife is still rife, and just as unattainable in the 21st century as it was in the 1950's, despite post-war US/british propaganda that sparked the whole damn catfight to begin with. Or a shedload of $$$, as most of those books begin with.

    That being said, Symantec has, using the ole' vernacular, Jack Shyte Business with whether or not something is "offensive" to someone. Fom a purely IT point of view, their job is to stop MALWARE, and they are doing a piss poor job at that as it is.

    People cringe when governments meddle with the intarwebs, but I prefer *that* to ...LTD.'s messing with what we can and cannot see on our screens, as a private agent or a stooge.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Wasn't just AVFM

    perhaps they had a feminist blue-pill guy working there who thought he'd get some extra points wiv da sistas if he monkeyed with the ban list?

  26. Dana W
    Thumb Down

    Oh yes, because men are SOOOO oppressed. That's like the Christians claiming to be oppressed when they run everything.

    To these guys misandry means you object to being barefoot and pregnant,

    1. Mark Neil

      I'm curious, how does one translate "I don't want to lose my children in divorce for the sole reason that I am male" into "you belong barefoot and pregnant"?

      Also, one does not need to be oppressed to suffer discrimination. Nobody claims men are oppressed, though we do claim the feminist assertion women were oppressed is a very simplistic, embellished narrative designed to give women an excuse to shame men into compliance. If one looks at the early gender dynamics, both men and women had rights and responsibilities. Feminists created the oppression narrative by examining the rights of men in comparison to the responsibilities of women and ignoring the rest. And just to drive the point home, I return to my above question, and point out how easily you ignore (or outright deny) genuine male issues, such as family court reform, in order to portray men ass being unreasonable for daring to even ask for a discussion on the topic.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward are SOOOO oppressed

      Utterly ignorant post by somebody who either approves of the massive gender bias in areas such as access to one's children, or is just a bit too thick to comprehend the issues.

      1. Dana W

        Re: are SOOOO oppressed

        No, just a woman who refuses to "know her place" and that kind of thing angers the man children here no end.

        Men can have "equal access" when they have equal investment, when they can carry one for nine months. When it takes men nine months to have a child not ten minutes, when it ravages THEIR bodies, maybe things can get more equal. Maybe then more of them might take some actual responsibility.

        I hear these MEN all the time, the ones who don't think its rape if you are married to the woman. The ones who miss the "good old days" of slapping her around, the ones who feel that marriage equals free housecleaning, cooking and on demand blowjobs, and feel terribly cheated when they find getting married does not equal automatic sex, and want to claim a kid they never actually take care of as a form of emotional poker chip to get back at a wife they can't own.

        I've seen far too many custody battles where the only reason the man wants custody is to "stick it to that bitch and make her hurt". Once they get it they could care less. (I knew one who got it, then put the kids in a foster home) This is not ALL of them by any stretch, but its far, far too many of them.

        My brother gives me hope, he would die for his son, and his wife is an evil psycho, but I digress.

        Right now in the US we have "men's rights" activists who want to make abortion illegal without the FATHER'S permission. These people show what they really want is to own women, and what they consider them to be is a form of baby incubator, and property. I'd like to see what would happen if they had to get permission from their wives to get a vasectomy. Oh would they howl.

        One of my best friend's soon to be ex-husband's is a drunk, and is mentally ill, he has repeatedly abused the children, he punishes his daughter by sitting on her head till she stops crying. Last time she had fabric burns on her face, and she wound up in the hospital. She can't get his accesses denied since "He is the father".

        He is drunk, and threatens the family with firearms, she can't get access denied, he is the father, "and a serviceman too, if I was drunk with a weapon I'd be in jail but nothing is too good for our heroes!" He has beaten the crap out of her but she still can't keep him out of the house, after all, he is the father.

        Misandry is such a nice term isn't it? And yes it does exist, but more often than not its used by white male crybabies who piss and whine that they find out women are NOT property, and a marriage license isn't a title of ownership.

        Misandry (pron.: /mɪˈsændri/) is the hatred or dislike of men or boys.

        What the word is being tortured into meaning is (any woman who won't know her place and gets high flying ideas she is her own person)

        If you think we have equality of the sexes, you are probably a man, and if you think society considers women to have SUPERIOR rights in anything I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

        Thumb me down all you like, I honestly don't care anymore.

        1. Archi Desai

          Re: are SOOOO oppressed

          I am the person quoted in the article, and I am real. The Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is not about putting women "in their place". Absolutely not.

          Your post is a classic example of what we refer to in the MHRM as a baseless shaming tactic. Your approach is one of a bully. In effect, what accusing those who stand up for their own human worth of being wife beaters and rapists. Most men do not even realise the subtle, but powerful impact, that this vernacular has in terms of manipulation.

          We are here to open their eyes.

          You say that your brother gives you hope. In the UK, the biggest killer of young men is suicide. I pray that you will never have to see him experience the hell of family courts, where prejudice such as yours holds sway.

          1. Dana W

            Re: are SOOOO oppressed

            Yet you never replied to the case I mentioned with the abusive man who can't even be stopped from torturing his own DAUGHTER. I've had to watch THAT go through family courts. Apparently that is less valid.

            The mother has NO rights to even defend her CHILD because the fathers rights are considered sacrosanct.

            You ignored me and called me a bigot for disagreeing with you. SO much for "shaming tactics"

            I've never seen a worse festival of crybabay men. But that's what you do with "uppity women" shut them up and shut them down. Some tings never change.

            1. Mark Neil

              Re: are SOOOO oppressed

              Anyone can fabricate or find a story that supports their agenda. The fact you provided such a story does not, in any way, justify your assertions and generalizations of men, nor your double standards of what should and shouldn't be equal. And the failure to acknowledge your anecdote is not ignoring you (after all, the response was to you, so you clearly weren't being ignored)., it's choosing not to accept a single example as representative of the whole. You weren't called a bigot because you disagreed, you were called a bigot because of your rather hostile views of men. The assertions of men only fighting to be fathers to their children as some kind of vindictive attack on their ex's. You need to have a pretty hateful, bigoted view of men to think that is the default.

              You were also called a bigot because your view on whether someone deserves equality shifts based on their gender and how it suits your own desires. You would deny men equality with regards to their own children based on "investment" (And we clearly understand you don't mean financial. I suspect you feel a man is fully responsible for a financial investment, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge that investment as justification for letting him be a dad), despite investment being irrelevant when it works against you. Do women deserve equal pay in a physical labour job, where a man's investment produces more? I suspect your answer will be that biological differences should not be held against a woman, despite your attempts to do just that against a man. It's this double standard, alongside the hateful default view of men, that makes you a bigot.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "No hate speech on campus"

    These are th scary "feminists" attempting to convince the world that men's rights = hate:

    Deeply disturbing!

  28. Cihatari

    Am I the only one to wonder...

    What the former Moderatrix, Sarah Bee would have made of some of the responses?

    Methinks that a not so gentle tolchocking with a cricket bat would have been the least forceful response from her.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like