Canada: 'Men's rights groups thrive on anger'

...like the "Star" has decided it doesn't like us very much.

B-O-O H-O-O.

What a surprise.

This is a tampon disguising itself as a "newspaper" that used to publish that hate-filled, homophobic gasbag, Michelle Landsberg (I could be off on the spelling, I don't care enough to check), who was so busy stuffing junk food into her empty soul via her empty head that I guess it finally killed her ability to write for good...with any luck. She caused a lot of harm to a lot of people, as will the bloviating feminist nutcase who wrote this most recent piece of Star-approved, manhating filth. Screw you too, Toronto Star.

Ah well, that's what URL filters are for.

These are the sort of people who think that a non-parent, as proven by DNA testing, should remain on the hook for child support until death because it's so much more convenient for the mother and children. Much, MUCH more convenient than bothering to name or worse still, look for the fool that the slut mother screwed around with so HE, the real deadbeat, can pay back the man that he and the mother defrauded.

Notice how feminists inevitably link child support and fatherhood, implying that a man who has been the victim of paternity fraud couldn't possibly remain a father if the biological father were to take over paying the child support obligations in the background?

See how that works, my fellow wallets and ATMs? (Not me - a successful vasectomy and refusing to cohabitate with women who have children or become pregnant means never having to pay child support). And for the record, I've never been divorced, I've never wanted or had children as I don't see why men should be prisoners of biology either, I've never seen the inside of an anti-family court other than as an advocate or a witness. I'm not angry about losing control over anything or anyone, especially a woman. What sort of demented fantasy world does Antonia live in, anyhow?

Men's rights groups thrive on anger, huh? And what do women's rights groups thrive on? Unicorns and moonbeams? I think not.

I just love women like this feminist troll who deliberately set out to anger men, just so they can blame us for "being angry" or "thriving on anger". Anger is a perfectly reasonable response to the way men have been mistreated over the last half-century, and to outrages like this latest bit of irrelevant misandry.

Stop cherry-picking your statistics, stop trolling and get your head out of your ass, Antonia, before it becomes a permanent fixture there. It's probably too late for that - as a feminist, her spontaneous rectal-cranial union is sort of understood.

I've never seen such a misleading argument with such clearly sledgehammered facts in my whole life. Here's what I had to say to her:

Hi. I just read your article "men's rights groups thrive on anger", and I would like to point out that you are incorrect
on several things.

First off all, this statistic:43 per cent of women who went through a break-up had a substantial drop in their household income, compared with 15 per cent of3 per cent of women who went through a break-up had a substantial drop in their household income, compared with 15 per cent of men is clearly wrong. You mean to tell me that only 15 percent of men who get divorced end up having to pay child support or allimony? I don't belive you. It's clearly disproportionately the other way around.

Also, half of divorces are due to abuse? I highly doubt it. That figure only proves that women are far more likely to lie about abuse and rape and stuff like that than a man. After all, whenever a woman falsely accuses a man, she's never held accountable.

As well, about all those men who abuse their wives and get full custody.... how about the woman who stabbed her husband and got custody of all three kids? How about Mary Winkler, who shot her husband, and still got custody. There are 10 stories of a woman getting custody when she clearly should not have for every 1 story there is about a man getting it.

SO, yes, we're angry. Because men are treated like 2nd class citizens, and we have a right to be mad about it. We don't give a crap about controlling woman. If a girl doesn't want to be with me, that's fine, but I sure as hell shouldn't end up having to finance her desire to be a harlot.

And for future reference, this tactic of emasculation towards those who have seen injustice and want to rectify it... doesn't work.

What are women so angry about these days anyway? A ficticious wage gap, and not enough preferential treatment
(as if there's not enough of that already).

Trust me, it is not a man's world.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Well said!

half baked stat's + assigning guilt to men + labeling those who disagree = feminism

feminist math at it's worse.

i've always felt i understood most hard core feminists.
they just want the same thing most men want,
but will viciously attack all who stand in their way to get it.

what's is it that most hard core feminists want,
and it's the same as what most men want, you ask?

p%$$y of course.

Good one. It's funny 'cause it's true.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

"So it's easy to conclude that, in many cases, the most vehement of these men's rights types are angry over losing control over their women."

Uhhh, no. What a load of self-serving steaming crap.

Men are not angry about losing "control over women," they are angry about losing (being denied) control over their own lives.

The far-left (Red) Star is also often referred to as "Pravda."