Feminists Earn Merit Badge of Misandry


On May 9th, I wrote about an effort by Dan Perrins to draw attention to issues of male suicide, and male victims of abuse. His 75 mile walk and his hunger strike served to both spread that awareness, and pressure Ontario politicians to consider these issues. In addition to his request that the Ontario legislature take action to ensure funding for shelters to house male victims of abuse, he asked that Canada’s criminal defamation law be enforced against opponents of men’s issues activists when they resort to libel or slander instead of honest discussion.

The hashtag #IStandWithDan was used to promote awareness of Dan’s campaign. Feminists who oppose men’s rights activism in general and Dan’s activism specifically found it, and set about giving a demonstration of why men’s rights activists are so critical of feminism.

Feminists often complain that men’s rights activists never do anything. They visit forums for discussion of men’s issues to tell us that very thing, accompanied by the accusation that men’s rights activism is about nothing but criticizing feminism. With one of their chief accusations being a lack of real-world action, you’d think their response to #IStandWithDan would have been somewhere between neutral and positive.

Instead, a group of them reacted with outrage, opposing any suggestion that battered men should receive the same protections as battered women. Their arguments?


Some men are violent. Apparently this means that nonviolent men should be punished.
Some men are violent. Apparently this means that nonviolent men should be punished.


In light of the above, it was argued, abused men deserve nothing more than a few days in a homeless shelter to help them escape their circumstances:

Unequal time
Feminist math: 3 = 21. Wonder why so few of them enter STEM fields?

They also complained against the idea of holding gender discussion to the same legal standards as other speech. Dan asked that section 300 of the criminal code of Canada be upheld. This request is due to a habit among feminists of responding to advocacy with defamatory hyperbole. Assertions such as “male victims of sexual violence deserve the same legal recourse as female victims” and “fathers are as important to their children as mothers” are answered with targeted accusations of everything from intent to roll back women’s voting rights to a desire to legalize rape, and even pedophilia.

The right to free political speech extends to criticizing any group’s assertions and even to discussing known behavior. The disagreement between MRAs and feminists is whether it extends to leveling false accusations as a means of silencing or obscuring an opponent’s political speech. Dan’s request is that the legislators recognize everyone’s rights and responsibilities equally. His opponents wish to legalize the use of false, but often unfalsifiable accusations to silence whoever they do not wish to be heard. Rather than just admit that, however, they played the victim card, falsely claiming that the goal was to silence all criticism. When that claim was countered, one of the group made it his mission to spam the hashtag with repetition of that claim and others under the apparent belief that a lie repeated often enough actually does become the truth.

When these tactics did not deter either Dan’s efforts or the enthusiasm of men’s issues activists communicating in the hashtag, the opposition decided to switch gears. Beginning on the 15th of May, they began spamming the hashtag with random images ranging from ridiculous to gross to NSFW, along with a few threatoids. The attack was neither well organized nor enthusiastic enough to keep up with activity in the hashtag. It was abandoned after a couple of days and most of the spammers disappeared, with a few remaining behind to resume demonizing men and treating calls for accountability as an attack. One of them (shown above) linked to another hashtag, #menareviolent.

Curious, I visited it. It was pitiful, a barely populated tag created by one of the same accounts which has been harassing Dan, entirely for the purpose of generalizing the dysfunction of criminals onto the general male population.

Feminists will tell you that feminism is about equality for everyone. They’ll tell you it’s not about man-hating. When the hashtag #yesallwomen was coined the excuse was that it was about female experiences, not bashing men. Thin as that excuse was for #yesallwomen, it’s nonexistent for #menareviolent. There is no purpose for it except to, by compiling a list of incidents, insinuate that violence is a uniquely defining characteristic of masculinity.

Further, such an attack is not accidental or incidental. The same ideologues who engage in it object vehemently when dysfunctional female behavior is even discussed at all. While they expect men to take no issue with all being generalized to their lowest common denominator, the act of even acknowledging that women and girls are capable of having character flaws is taken as woman-bashing and treated as evidence of misogyny.

This can be seen in many men’s issues discussion forums, where concern troll posts can be found admonishing the regulars that “women behaving badly” posts, generally put up as a response to “dysfunction-X is a male behavior,” make them look like woman-hating basement dwellers. In other words, if feminists claim that certain character flaws are elements of masculinity, no man had better contradict them with anything stronger than “Nuh UH!” or he’ll be labeled a misogynist, because as feminists will tell you, compiling evidence of a gender’s dysfunction is a display of hate for that gender. Except, of course, when they do it.

Considering the attack on #IStandWithDan, a group of us decided to see what would happen if we gave the opposition a taste of their own medicine. We posted to #menareviolent, linking images, videos, and news stories showing men in a positive light.

Because the hashtag was infrequently used, the new posts were at first not noticed by its regular users. Our twitter followers, however, did notice, and some of them began following our lead. In short order the violent posts were drowned in a sea of men fighting fires, rescuing people trapped in flooded homes and submerged cars, saving animals, and volunteering to mentor children.

When the tag’s dedicated feminists and their friends noticed the change, their response was very telling. They all but sat in a corner and hissed at us like vampires hit with bright light.


screenshot-twitter com 2015-05-23 14-24-56

screenshot-twitter com 2015-05-23 14-34-23

All men are responsible for all women


Interestingly, other feminists who noticed the tag because of the activity mistakenly believed its source to be nonfeminist and responded to that.

screenshot-twitter com 2015-05-23 14-35-21

screenshot-twitter com 2015-05-23 14-37-22

screenshot-twitter com 2015-05-23 14-38-47

If it wasn’t clear before feminists’ response that the hashtag was, in fact, about demonizing men, the resentful whining that showing good things men do contradicts their hateful narrative made it obvious. While feminists claim to not hate men, they demonstrate a hateful opinion of what men’s innate nature is. While they claim their advocacy is about equality for women and that somehow that advocacy will help men, they clearly have demonizing men as a goal. And while they claim that they want men to be kind, compassionate, and protective, they are offended at anything which shows men in that light. It’s obvious that feminism is not about helping women, but about damaging society’s view of men. Why else would a show of men displaying admirable character be taken as an attack?

These ideologues effectively communicated that while demonstration of admirable character is expected of men, it is never to be acknowledged, nor does feminism consider any admirable trait a male characteristic, even when examples of it are common among men. Only things which can be used to demonize men may be generalized as a means of defining and describing masculinity.

Feminists complain that women are objectified, but there’s nothing more objectifying than treating a person in such a utilitarian manner as men are treated by feminist ideology. They want a man to be a weapon, a wallet, a stepping stone, a security blanket, a punching bag when they’re mad… anything but an actual person with his own unique set of characteristics, experiences, and needs.

Such is the nature of feminist misandry. This is why they are so offended at advocacy for the inclusion of men and boys in human rights initiatives such as domestic violence victim’s advocacy; not because need is a uniquely female experience, but because doing so requires acknowledging that men are equally human. And then they wonder why men’s rights activists are critical of their rhetoric.

Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at https://www.minds.com/Oneiorosgrip

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="152138 https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=152138">52 comments</span>

  • I find it absolutely appalling that when women issues are being discussed, everyone needs to pay attention and listen like there is nothing else in this world. But when men raise perfectly reasonable concerns over their part of lives, they must “shut the fuck up” and get met with a shitstorm of shaming, libeling, pathetic jokes etc. Yeah, I can just feel that equality and how men are “privileged” when they aren’t even allowed to speak up, let alone actually achieve anything to make their lives better compared to women. As hard as it is for some to believe, men are actually being systematically oppressed (not in the way feminists portray their oppression) by the government system. Healthcare that is biased in favor of women diseases, child custody that is biased in favor of women, shelters and centers for abused men, workplace quotas (I have yet to see one for male dominated jobs like mining, garbage collection, construction, sewer maintenance) etc. These aren’t things on bullshit level of manspreading, these are serious life changing issues no one seems to give a fuck about.

    What men actually want to get things on the same level, feminists want to go far beyond point of equality and when questioned, they start yelling about dictionary definition of feminism and equality when in reality, they behave nothing like that. They are like these greedy power hungry harpies. Just no. No.

    • ∎∎∎∎∎∎✈✈✈✈✈Take Easy with honeybadgerbrigade < my buddy's step-mother makes $74 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $14216 just working on the computer for a few hours.

      official website ===—->-> SEE MORE DETAIL

    • ∎∎∎∎∎∎❉❊❶❷❸It’s very Easy with google and honeybadgerbrigade < my buddy's step-mother makes $74 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $14216 just working on the computer for a few hours.

      official website ===—->-> SEE MORE DETAIL

      • Anita, is that you? When you look in a dictionary under “professional victim”, you’ll find her picture. She’s not a feminist, she’s not a gamer, but she is a con artist. She intentionally makes lies about games and false narratives to fuel her bank account and people are tired of her bullshit.

        If you’re comparing retarded tweets to real world problems men face, I suggest you shuffle around those priorities of yours…

        This is what MRA is about:

        Maybe I disagree with parts of it, but in an essence, these are significant problems that only affect men and they aren’t some petty bullshit as manspreading (which also shows feminists don’t understand male body anatomy). You know, I’m egalitarian, as much as I wish women to have their rights I also wish men to have theirs. Because it’s a natural and right thing to do.

          • No, that person just behaved like her… a professional victim kind of behavior.

            As for being special for her to talk to me? I frankly don’t give a shit. She’s an imbecile. I don’t talk to imbeciles.

          • :^) At the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy we are. I guess that’s what happens when you have no actual refute.

    • And ultimately marginalizing. This particular misandry – rancid, unthinking, toxic – is the number one reason women give why they don’t call themselves feminists.
      So it’s actually a very good thing that these people have such powerful platforms in the media, because it makes more people aware of their misandry and helps discredit it and in time all other forms of misandry.
      In the same way we gay men owe a lot to Fred Phelps for making homophobia look so toxic and loserly.

    • Almost as irrational as the guy who forgot his site’s facebook feed told men to not watch Mad Max.
      P.S. how interconnected are the Honey Badger Brigade and A Voice for Men? Inb4 censored

      • Coming in with accusations won’t get you censored, and wouldn’t even if censoring wasn’t one of your unfounded insinuations.
        HBB & AVFM are independent organizations with some members in common and a history together. We have separate budgets and separate administrations.

        • Is THAT why A Voice for Men has posted an article on their site saying they take responsibility for your financing and your legal fund? Besides sharing conferences and employees, I guess there’s no connection!

          • I wonder what your point is in insisting on some connection between the Honey badgers and AVfM. Do you think that somehow discredits this site? Are you one of those hysterical zealots who thinks AVfM is a “hate site”?

          • As it has published a terrorist manifesto (except the part about how to make a molotov cocktail, but WITH the part about where to throw them)… yes.
            Yes, it is a hate site by any rational definition of the word.

          • “As it has published a terrorist manifesto (except the part about how to make a molotov cocktail, but WITH the part about where to throw them)… yes.”
            What a pseud. You wouldn’t know a terrorist manifesto or a real threat if one came up and bit you.
            What a bunch of Princess and the Pea idiocy.

          • My claims are demonstrably true. Yelling “that’s not right” doesn’t really change them. 😉 Check out Wayback archives that chronicle A Voice for Men’s descent into idolozing a man who set himself on fire to tell other men to bomb courthouses: Tom Ball.

            Jim Doyle
            rainsammi, you just outed yourself as a liar or a fool. The way you are trying to distort Tom Ball’s suicide and that article is sociopathic. You are behaving like a sociopath. You sound like a Glenn close character.

            It’s pretty rich, a sociopath calling someone else a hate site, but not very surprising.

          • Well, a feminist would know all about screaming “That’s Not Right!” as a defense tactic.

          • And now you’re labeling me… can we stick to the topic, or have you decided to race to the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy? :^)

          • I bet if a woman set herself on fire to protest rape you’d kiss her ashes, right?

            Oh, I forgot: you condemn Buddhist monks for setting themselves on fire, too.

            Now, show us feminism’s condemnation of SCUM and any and all calls to harm men.

            When Sharon Osbourne joked about an amputated penis you said and did what?

            Thought so.

          • Unlike the MRAnosphere, I haven’t come into contact with any feminists that promote this. Unlike, you know, Paul Elam DIRECTLY, or directly, the Honey Badger Brigade (many employees of which are employees of him).

          • I bet you think Twain was a raysiss, too, him using “NIgger Jim” and all, eh wot?

          • It does seem odd that you’re striving desperately to put a notch in your tin-foil hat, rather than address any of the substance in the article you’re ostensibly commenting on.

            It makes it appear as though you cannot successfully refute the content, and must resort to rummaging through tertiary trivia seeking fault.

            Was it your intent to make this article look irrefutable?

          • That’s the text from our fundraiser statement, reprinted by AVFM. It does not say anywhere on the page that AVFM is responsible for our financing and legal fund.


            We’re not the only group that allows AVFM reprint privileges. I am surprised that you as a regular reader of men’s rights writing have not noticed that previously.

            While we don’t have any reason to distance ourselves from them, we are two separate organizations. As far as a connection, of course there is. We’re all men’s rights activists engaged in the same activities.

            What I want to know is what makes you think that associating with AVFM is a problem.

          • I looked at raimsammi’s disqus and the very next comment after this one was on a website called “surenews” (about “Man Just Trying to Film the Traffic is Interrupted by a Crazy Lady”) where raimsammi posted:

            “Hello, Men’s Rights Activist from A Voice for Men… you know, the site that is okay with taking in thousands of dollars but doing nothing to fix “mens’ issues” besides yelling about them.”

            That was their comment in reply to one by Attila_L_Vinczer

            This may answer your question, even if the answer is no more satisfying than had it instead been a feminist disqus user upset at HBB for allowing other sites to reprint. But now we know I guess..

            A Ginko pointed out even their other comment about “irrationality” didn’t seem to make sense..

          • This is the kind of ridiculousness we’ve come to expect from a certain anti-MRA blogger’s readers. You always know them by their particular brand of stretchy, twisting, flippity-gibberish laden mental gymnastics, in which they always “stick” their landing on a link to his blog.

          • That’s really the impression most of us get from the MRA. Here’s a little chart.

            Fight for and win equal tax credits and family leave for mothers and fathers
            Bitch about feminists.
            Fight for comprehensive sex education against “abstinence only” crap taught in schools
            Bitch about feminists.
            Start rape counseling programs for male victims. Fought (and won) to change the federal definition of rape victims to include men.
            Bitch about feminists.
            Dare to think we should do more to prevent rape than telling victims all the wrong things they’re doing to “get raped.”
            Bitch about feminists

            As a man I’m just not sure how bitching about and demonizing feminism “gives me more rights.”

          • “MRAs:
            Bitch about feminists.”

            You must have missed all of Second Wave feminism, which was nothing more than moaning about the “patriarchy” and what pigs men all were.

            By the way, feminists fighting for fathers and men and boys? These are the people who actually do that:

            Feminists have a track record. They only care about men and boys if it somehow benefits women and girls one way or another. Everything is framed in how it will be good for women. They are quite clumsy in hiding their gynocentric sexism.

            Start rape counseling programs for male victims. Fought (and won) to change the federal definition of rape victims to include men.’

            Try harder. Everyone, especially F>M rape victims, knows what a crock this is and has been since the mid-90s.

            And by the way, it was feminists in India who fought the change in Indian federal law that would include male rape victims.

          • …And you STILL can’t even think of one single damn thing MRAs have done to improve men’s rights or actually make things better for men. More bitching about feminists.

            And not giving them credit where credit is due:


            “And by the way, it was feminists in India who fought the change in Indian federal law that would include male rape victims.”

            And by the way NO THEY HAVEN’T! But it’s nice you had to go all the way to India to even try to push that MRA lie.

            The change would do nothing either way for male rape victims, since their sexual assault laws that cover male rape victims already have the same punishments.

            It did, however lower the age of consent from 18 to 16.. which would probably get a lot of Indian men off the hook for potential statutory rape charges, so thanks for the example of Feminsts helping men yet again!

            I’d say you have to do better, but you’d have to do … at all first.

          • “The change would do nothing either way for male rape victims, since their sexual assault laws that cover male rape victims already have the same punishments.”

            Males raped by other males in India can only allege a victimless crime and in doing so run the risk of being charged with the same offense as the perpetrator – to whit “unnatural sex and related activity”. Women can rape men with complete legal impunity courtesy of feminists.


            Start rape counseling programs for male victims. Fought (and won) to change the federal definition of rape victims to include men.”

            Not in my country. In fact it was feminists who opposed – fortunately unsuccessfully – legal changes in my state and others which would have achieved those ends. They actually opposed legal amendments to laws which previously enabled women to rape little boys legally. A couple of years later the same feminists vehemently opposed the inclusion of male victims in the state’s rape crisis network. A decade later there are still fractures in that network as a consequence.

          • “…And you STILL can’t even think of one single damn thing MRAs have done to improve men’s rights or actually make things better for men. ”
            You have just made it clear that evidence will not change your mind. Dogmatism is the sign of an enslaved soul. good bye.

          • Sadly, I agree that the non-moving men’s movement rarely takes any ACTION to help guys. Mostly guys jabber online or fight other MRAs. I know this upclose and personal, having advocated for men’s rights for 4 decades.

            That being said, you pretend feminism would welcome more pro-male activism. It wouldn’t.

            It’s like fembots moaning that men aren’t more emotionally candid. As soon as guys are, they get shamed for being whiners or “angry.”

            Same with doing something as simple as holding a conference. Immediately tolerant-open-inclusive feminists pull fire alarms, stomp in hallways, use megaphones, remove posters, call in bomb threats, etc.

            Feminuts have no sense of fair play or “live and let live.” They are basically fascists posing as spoiled brats.

            The had 5 decades to listen to men and rewrite the social contract. They arrogantly ignored and demonized males.

            Now men…and the women who love them (my phrase, by the way!)…are finally fighting back.

            Get ready to change your Depends.

      • “Almost as irrational as the guy who forgot his site’s facebook feed told men to not watch Mad Max.”
        I’m not quite following…what is irrational about forgetting something? Or about telling people not to watch a film? Is it irrational to dislike a film?

        By the way I hear good things about it.

      • After talking to few fellow GamerGaters on Twittert, two female members told me the whole thing around Mad Max is a made up bullshit. There is no feminism in it that would scream “feminism” and they both said it was actually pretty good. I’ve also heard female lead (Charlize Therone’s character) was one of the better written characters in last years. Haven’t watched it yet so it’s all hearsay, but still, it sounds far more encouraging than the initial “it’s a feminist movie” thing. Because my initial reaction for that was: “Oh god, they have to fuck up everything with feminism politics these days…”. As it turns out it was all a hoax, most likely made up by feminists themselves…

          • Fun fact, it wasn’t even made up by MRA’s. It was made up by feminists who blamed MRA’s, pretending they posted it where in fact it were the feminists from the get go.

          • And this is suppose to mean what? They rated it B for Bullshit. Guess what, anyone can have an opinion. This was theirs. Guess what, I rate all Anita Sarkeesian videos as B. Because they are full of bullshit as well.

          • It means your assumption this was a “feminist conspiracy” is false, unless the con artist Roosh and Paul Elam are feminists in disguise :^)

          • Instead of hiring a male combat vet amputee as a consultant per the use of an artificial limb, the director hired Eve Ensler, the feminist hack who celebrates rape.

            A male character is made to admit men ruined the world.

            All sex slaves are female and pretty. No oogly-moogly dworkinites or “dancing boys.”

            Most of the evil folks and murdered folks are male.

            Theron’s mother killed her father with impunity. Charlize said her father never abused her or her murdering momster.

            So, sure: not a hint of feminism slipped into a traditionally-male action film.

            So, when will half the panelists on THE VIEW be both male and MRAs?

          • “Raimsammi”=The psychological condition whereby a certified manginac douche-nozzle thinks he’s human ‘cuz vag.

  • As long as they are enabled by mainstream media, this will continue to grow.

  • I used to be a “feminist” but got tired of hanging around women who constantly complain and wimpy males who want to fit in. I’ve never even experienced sexism (at least nothing significant that any man doesn’t experience). I think feminists just hate men and housewives. That’s their whole agenda. And I should know, because at one women’s entrepreneur business meeting I was called out for being a stay-at-home mom. I was embarrassed and offended that they made fun of me in front of 300 people. That’s a lifestyle I CHOSE and it’s a full-time job. But they don’t care. I’m just a dumb “sheep” to most feminists.

    Feminism = Hate.

    • “But they don’t care. I’m just a dumb “sheep” to most feminists.”
      At best. More often they resent that you will not let your life be fodder for their ideological agenda. You are not a real person to them, just a talking point, and you hade better get with the program, or else the mean girl cool kids will shun and malign you. That looks like what they did with you.
      The do exactly the same thing with gay men. I am sick of every bit of it.

  • Very well documented piece…And you nailed it on “they complain MHRAs never DO anything for men but…” when there is an action, their reaction is not “neutral or positive” as you say…but anger, even outrage..

    The fact the hashtag was “menrviolent” rather than let’s say, “violencebymenexists” or “violentmenexist” is to me indicative of more than the obvious fact that, they don’t *need* to convince society that “violent men exist” or “violence by men exists”…they’ve won that…(while sanity has not yet won the other and equally valid side of the coin, that “violent women exist” or whose who abuse power, molest kids, batter men, file false charges etc)

    The other thing it’s indicative of is a mindset..I will admit the mindset comes in several shades. One type literally believes “all men are violent” and for that matter “all men are evil”

    But the other shades, while less extreme, are more subtle and therefore in a way, more insidious and dangerous: they are the Enablers of the Dworkin types. They don’t quite believe “all men are evil” or don’t quite see it that way, but enable the people ,and the memes and hashtags, that do put out that message.

  • Here in Norway MRAs are almost non-existing in our society. Despite the fact that child custody fights between divorcing parents have become more commonplace, and fathers almost always lose. I think we need a functional MRA group in Norway, that openly advocates these problems.

  • Men are definitely not privileged, especially here in America…when the majority of them don’t even have their private parts intact or protected by the law like women are.

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather