BusterB: Men's Bill of Rights

Men's Bill of Rights

For thirty years I've heard a whole lot about women's rights. At first the "rights" seemed reasonable. You know, things like, "If I work the same hours as you, do the same work, and have the same experience and capability then I should be paid the same as you." Perfectly reasonable. However, as the years wore on, these "rights" began to sound more and more like people asking for things just because they thought they could get them. "Equal pay for equal work" became "equal pay for equivalent work," where "equivalent" became a very plastic and adaptable word. "Women's rights" advocates started inventing rights on the fly; it seemed as though anything they could dream up over coffee became a "right."

Well, two can play at that game. I thought of all of the ways in which men are stiffed by society, all of the ways in which women still have more power than men, and all of the ways that feminism has kneed men in the crotch, and came up with this list. Some of these items are serious, while some are written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Some of them contradict others, but since feminist's "women's rights" regularly contradict themselves, I thought I'd give myself that license, too.

Emotional Environment

We have the right to live without shame. This has to be at the top of my list. For thirty years of my life, and probably more, feminists have been trying to make men ashamed not of their individual behaviours, but of simply being men. Some men's rights advocates claim that shame is to men what physical violence is to women. I find this an apt parallel: for my life, at least, women have been swinging "shame" around the way that feminists have accused men of swinging fists around. The difference has been that women don't think that telling men that they're violent, lascivious, uncivilized, wasteful, useless, stupid, and in so many ways sub-human hurts anyone. "They're just words," they say, or more often, "It's just a joke." Well, these words do hurt. In fact, as a man I'm not sure whether I would prefer being constantly pummeled with condescending words or being pounded with fists; it would for me be about the same.
We have the right to be with other men sometimes without having women around. I'm not on a football team, hockey team, basketball team, or any other all-male team. I don't shoot the shit with the guys in the locker room. Neither am I a high-flying businessman who dreams of the days of yore sipping sherry and smoking cigars whilst plotting new ways to control society. I'm just an ordinary man who would like a place to go now and then to be with other men and only other men. I would like to see men's clubs make a comeback. Evidently women find this general idea appealing, because there is no shortage of women-only clubs and institutions. So, ladies, why not the same for us?
We have the right to get angry, yell, cry, stop speaking, and carry on without giving a reason. OK, so I don't really believe this one; I'm being funny here. Nonetheless, I've noticed that even "liberated" women see nothing wrong with having a screaming hissy fit, or being bitchy, or stomping around the house not talking to anyone whenever they feel lousy. Apparently it is the man's job to figure out what is bothering his liberated, feminist mate and do something to make her feel better, just like in the olden days. Well, if women, even "liberated" women, can still see their way clear to acting childish and petulant when they're angry or upset, then I claim that same right... and I want someone trailing along behind me trying to make me feel better, too, if only because it adds to the experience.
We have the right to complain. This is the serious side of the previous item. Sometimes I look at my life and think, "You know, it's tough being a man." Just try saying that, though, and a dozen women and half a dozen male feminists will pipe up and start drowning you out with stories about how women have it so much worse and men have it easy. They'll say that whatever small problems men might have pale in comparison to women's problems. Well excuse me. It's not like I was trying to say that men have it worse than women; I've had thirty years of hearing how rotten women's lives can be. After all of that, can't I talk about the ways in which men have rotten lives? Evidently not: I've never been able to start a conversation on "men's problems" and not have the subject be hijacked to "women's problems," within seconds except when I'm alone with men or with one of two female friends. These two friends say, "Yeah, it must be hard being a man; I'm glad I'm a woman." These ladies have it right: everybody's life sucks sometimes whether they're a man or a woman, and we all have a right to talk about it.
We have the right to be proud of what men have accomplished throughout history. We have the right to be proud of what good men are doing today. Feminists complain that the study of history is just the "study of dead white men." No shit, sister. That's because men did everything that was recorded. Men did all of the big stuff. Women carried on the oral tradition of transmitting culture from one generation to the next and, although this is no less noble, nobody wrote it down. I'm not sure how one would study women's history, other than encouraging children to learn from their mothers. (You can bet I'm going to be encouraging my children to learn from my wife, who comes from a rich cultural tradition.) Regardless, I don't see how this detracts from the study of traditional history. Sure, it talks about a bunch of dead white European men, but it's where a lot of us came from, and that's important, particularly for boys. Add a healthy dollop of dead Chinese men, dead Indian men, dead Native American men, dead South American men, and dead African men, and keep teaching it. Girls have a right to be proud of the role that women have played throughout history and what they're doing today, but nobody has the right to make boys ignorant or ashamed of what men have done or are doing just because they believe that doing so will somehow help girls. Boys don't have some magic reserve of self-esteem that they can draw on all of their lives. Boys need heroes as much as girls need heroines.
We have the right to be treated as individuals, not merely generic males. You have no right to imply that I'm violent because some other man was violent. You have no right to label me "oppressor" because, as one man put it, "Your grandfather oppressed my grandmother." You have no right to label me "part of the problem" just because my skin is white and I have a penis. Every man is an individual and deserves to be treated as such. Down with the politics of identity!
We are not responsible for the sins of our forefathers. I don't care what men did a hundred, ten, or even one generation ago. I am not my father, my grandfather, or my great-great-great-great-grandfather. I don't believe that they all did rotten things, but even if you manage to prove it, it wasn't my fault. I wasn't there. Go find their graves and complain to them; I'm not interested.
We don't have to be nice to women just because our grandmothers suffered at the hands of some men. We're sorry that your great-great grandmother was raped and then forced into an unhappy marriage. If this is a big thing in your life we may even help you through it if we can see a way. However, we would do this as a favour to you, not because we feel responsible. Then again, maybe we don't give a shit, and you can deal with it yourself. We don't have to feel guilty about anything we didn't do personally. Period.
We should not have to listen to nasty female jokes about how useless and irresponsible men are. (Just as women should not have to listen to nasty jokes about how women are good only for breeding.) Women campaigned long and hard for a respectful environment in which they were not being belittled or attacked. Women particularly wanted this kind of environment where they worked. I see no reason why men should be afforded any less.
We have the right not to be feared. Turn on the TV, read a newspaper, or listen to women. In all cases, you'll eventually hear or see how terrified "Western" women are of men. In the media, and in female conversation, bad men take on mythic proportions: they're manipulative, they can control women through mere suggestion or brute force, they pop up out of nowhere, they look completely unassuming, disappear into nowhere, and can't be caught. This is the stuff of female nightmares. Add to this the pervasive attitude that "any man could be a rapist," and you have a potent formula for mass hysteria. During my university days, the rape relief talk that was mandatory for all of the women in residence included the warning that no woman should ever walk alone with any man, including her father, brother, or husband. Any man, the message went, could turn out to be a molester, a rapist, or a murderer, even if you had known him for most of your life. In part because of organized programs like this, ordinary women, even those who don't refer to themselves as "feminists," fear men. Thirty years ago, feminists demanded that men change their attitudes toward women; they demanded that men stop seeing women as inept, incapable, and unintelligent. Now it's time for men to demand that women change their attitudes, too. Women must stop being afraid of every man they meet. Women must stop treating men like potential attackers. This doesn't mean being incautious, but it does mean an end to prejudice. It won't be easy to do, but neither was it easy for men to change their attitudes. It's time that women repaid our cooperation with some of their own.

Children and Family

For twenty years or so, feminists have been trying to convince Canadians, Americans, and Brits that fathers are like tonsils: they serve a function, but the family is really no worse off if dad is sliced out one day and thrown in the scrap heap. I find this appalling and hypocritical. As I note elsewhere, feminists are firmly against stereotypes, unless the stereotypes slam men, in which case feminists help perpetuate them.

We have the right to be involved in the lives of our children. No matter what some man-hating bitches may say about the "few minutes' work" we do in biologically creating a child, most of us are loving, supportive, and committed to our families. If some fathers try to escape fatherhood, or some fathers aren't supportive, that shouldn't tar all of us (see above about being treated as individuals). The men's group I was is was primarily populated by sad fathers who wanted desperately to see their kids. I still have no idea why the mothers of their children had more right to parent the kids than these men did. What this right means to me is that a father has exactly the same rights as a mother does; most of what's below just fleshes out this idea.
We have the right to an equal possibility to stay home and raise our children. Everybody says that men have the choice to stay home and raise their kids. Yeah, right. Just try finding a woman who's willing to work while you stay home and raise junior. Good luck. There are some, but they're few and far between. Some feminist jerks say that women will support men when women get "equal pay for equal work," after women and men (and that included me) fought for equal pay for women! After we helped women achieve their goal (almost), women won't do a damned thing for us until their world is perfect. Thanks loads.
We have the right to participate fully in the lives of our children after a divorce. There are lots of fathers' rights groups out there, and I won't bother repeating their arguments here. Suffice to say that being a father is probably the most wonderful experience a man can have and, despite a minority of men who want nothing to do with their children, most men feel a strong attachment to their kids. It is grossly unfair to take a father who is deeply attached to his children and toss him aside on the presumption that he fits some feminine stereotype of a "deadbeat dad." Women often use the "best interests of the child" as a weapon to crush their ex-spouses and exclude them from their children's lives. This is wrong. It is done out of pure self-interest.¹ It is abuse, both of the ex-husband and the children. It's about time that a man and a woman in divorce court had exactly equal rights and exactly equal real-life chances of staying in their kids' lives after a marriage breaks up.
We have the right to an fair and equal chance at custody of our children in cases where sole custody is mandated. I've heard the (probably invented) story of the father who asked for custody of his children, only to be asked by the judge, "Did you breast-feed your kids?" You know, it's funny: when there were no women in business, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at business. When there were no women in politics, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at politics. This didn't stop feminists. "Men are better at politics and business because they've had more practice," they said, "We deserve a chance to gain experience." So, it was full steam ahead with getting women into business and politics, including a relatively brief tryst with "affirmative action" to "even out the numbers." Now, when fathers complain that they don't often get custody of their own children, feminists respond with, "Mothers are better at raising children." I don't hear feminists talking about "affirmative action" in this area, and I doubt that I ever will.²
We have the right to an accounting of how our support payments are spent when we are non-custodial, supporting fathers. In turn, we accept the responsibility of providing such records when we are custodial fathers receiving child support from our ex-wives. This is another situation in which women rule when it comes to divorce courts and family law. After a divorce, men are required to continue paying their ex-wives, ostensibly to support their children. (Career-oriented women who divorce their stay-at-home husbands must also pay upkeep, but they have a worse record for non-payment than do men. Does this surprise anyone?) However, the money doesn't go to the kids; it goes to the ex-wife, and she is under no obligation to: a) spend the money on the children or b) explain where the money went. All she has to do is get up in court and justify a certain amount based on a budget. Actual spending makes no difference. If we are willing to hold a hammer over men's heads to press them into paying what they ought to, then the least we can do for them is offer them an accounting of where their money went. In the spirit of feminist's back-handed "equality" we offer to do the same in those few cases in which women are paying us the support.
We have the right to know whether we are fathers. Women do not have the right to use us as sperm donors and then raise the baby alone, unless we have explicitly agreed to this. I understand that it is practically impossible to discover whether you are a father if the mother does not want you to know. However, it boggles my mind that a woman can purposely get herself pregnant, have a child without the father's knowledge, start raising it on her own, decide that she wants some money, then sue the (unknowning) father for support, and win. I find this incomprehensible. A woman who uses a man for procreation without his knowledge should have the same social status as a man who gets a woman pregnant and then skips the country (i.e. "scum"). She should also be treated by the courts in an analogous fashion. For example, if she didn't bother to inform the baby's father that she was pregnant, then when she tries to sue for support the case should be thrown out. This should be the law. Any argument by feminists that men don't care whether they're fathers or not is pure bigotry and should not be a basis for public policy.

Home Environment

We have the right to help decorate our homes, even if we're not very good at it. Most of the women I know seem to think that it is their birthright to decide how their home will look and to implement their ideas. Sure, they "consult" with their mates, but the consultation seems to be strictly a formality, or offering him a choice between two or three options that she likes. The men tend to grin sheepishly and say nothing when decor is mentioned; I think they get very quiet because they know that their opinions will at best be ignored and at worst laughed at. It used to be that way with women and politics until we changed society; why not change how we think about men and decorating?
We have the right to help decide how often things need to be cleaned, and how clean they need to be. We have the right to do whatever jobs are given us our way. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman complain that her man won't help around the house, I'd be able to hire housekeeping. My beef with this is exactly what I just said: women expect men to "help" around the house, and be cheerful about it. How cheerful would these same women be if someone told them how nice it was that they went every day to "help" the men at work? Women want men to do half the work, but they still want to be the bosses when it comes to quality. Some women sit down with their mates and discuss how clean things need to be and how often they need to be cleaned, and think that this is "mutual" discussion. Yeah, right. How many people consider sitting down with their boss at work to be a discussion among equals?
We have the right to security of person. No person has the right to hit us or threaten us. Women in particular should disabuse themselves of the notion that they can hit men with impunity. Many women have the strange idea that hitting a man is their birthright, that it's inconsequential, funny, or cool. Men don't help the situation by not complaining or by laughing it off. We live in an odd society that sees a man striking a woman as a horror but laughs off a woman striking a man. It's not based on size, either: even a large, strong woman hitting a small, weak man is seen as a joke.

Educational Environment

We have the right to teach children. When I went to university I stayed in the residence at the teachers' college. As such, a lot of my friends were aspiring teachers. I heard from several friends about "the talk" given men who wanted to become primary school teachers. They were told that as a male primary school teacher, they would always be under scrutiny lest they turn out to be pædophiles, and that all it would take would be one complaint from one mother to ruin their careers. Most of my friends thus advised decided to switch to secondary education. First of all, I think that this is a grievous assault on the rights of these men. Why should they not be as free as a woman to choose primary education as their life's work? Second, I think that by discouraging men from teaching early grades we do a terrible injustice to our children. Children are now growing up in single-mom homes and going through most of their early education having very little contact with men. Where will boys and girls learn how good men behave? From the women around them? Women think themselves invincible and all-knowing when it comes to rearing children. Ironically, as each generation becomes more lost than the previous one, the very women who consider themselves the ultimate role models and sources of wisdom for children blame anything but themselves for the condition of today's youth. Men need to be reintroduced to the primary classroom, both for equality of their own opportunity and for the welfare of our children.
We have the right to be taught by men, as well as by women, at all levels of education. As I stated in the previous item: kids deserve role models from both sexes and all ideological slants, just as teachers of both sexes and with various ideological slants deserve equal opportunity to work in their chosen fields.
Our children have a right to a variety of male role models, not just the sensitive, feminist, Alan Alda types that feminists want them to see. Regarding the preceding right, it's not enough to simply hire men. Our teachers, both male and female, should hold a variety of political views and have a variety of attitudes toward the world. If you were to believe feminists, men with traditional viewpoints are one step short of child molesters. Of course, feminists say this not because it is true but to ensure that only men who buy into their point of view are acceptable as teachers of children. Some time ago many schools decided to make themselves religion-free zones, claiming that this made non-Christian students more comfortable. I agree. Now it's time to make our schools ideology-free zones, or at least ideologically rich. Rather than ensuring that everyone is a small-l liberal feminist before putting them at the front of a classroom, it's time to balance that philosophy with others.
We have the right to education without prejudice. We should not have to hear about how awful men are and how they have destroyed the planet without also hearing about how wonderful men are and how they have made everyone's lives better. What a wonderful message for our boys: the planet is going down the tubes, it's men who caused all the damage, and you're going to turn into one.
We have the right to have our work judged on its merits, rather than having it examined for patriarchal symbolism because we are men. This one was prompted by a recent news article in a local North Vancouver paper describing the situation at our local university. One male reader wrote back in to say that he was taking fine arts, and every time he created anything that was in any way tall, long, or pointed, he was told that he was creating a phallic symbol, and that he was doing so because of his urge to oppress women. I find this as outrageous as some teacher telling female art students that whenever they create anything round it must represent an egg and their inner instinct to have babies and care for them.
We have the right to special programs and extra help in subject areas where we have trouble, just as women have the right to special programs and extra help in areas where they have trouble. We have the right to see the funding available for these extra programs split equitably between the sexes. Pick up any course schedule for any school, college, or university and skim through it. You will see many special programs for women and girls. "Engine repair for women." "Computer skills for women." "Self-defense for women." These courses are the same as the generic ones, but the content and presentation have been altered to be more appropriate for a female audience. You will find no special courses for men. Part of the reason for this is economics: women take more courses. However, the other part of this is cultural bias: anything "generic" is assumed to meet the needs of men. Women are sensitive souls who need special treatment. Well, I'm a sensitive soul, too, and I would love special treatment. Of course, it would be different from the special treatment given to women, but it would similarly be tailored to my way of learning instead of being "generic."
We have the right to have special job training programs based on background rather than on sex. I have no special insight into starting a small company just because I am a man. Special training programs on entrepreneurship for women only are a disservice to men who have no experience in such things, especially when more women than men are starting small companies. The upshot of this item is that maybe sex is not the most appropriate division for training. Having a penis does not make me automatically good at any number of spheres of life that are dominated by men. People forget that just because all of the presidents of the United States have been men doesn't mean that any man, anywhere would automatically have some special insight into how to become president. In fact, there are many women who have a better idea of how to run a country than do the vast majority of men. So it is with entrepreneurship, engine repair, and any number of other "traditionally male" areas.

This item addresses the silly situation in which a rich girl gets a scholarship to a university because she's female and women are under-represented, while a poor boy from the sticks gets nothing because there are already lots of men. The error in logic is assuming that dividing the population into "women" and "men" is somehow more enlightening and useful than dividing it into "rich" and "poor", or some other division. For a course on how to start a business, for example, it might be more useful to divide the population into "people whose parents own their own businesses" and "people whose parents are employees" and give special courses to the latter, regardless of their sex.
So long as female students have the right to cry "sexual harrassment" and be immediately believed, male teachers should have the right to teach only men. Fair is fair: if you create an environment in which female students are not just safe but feel safe, an environment in which they have power over their teachers, then there should be the reciprocal right for male teachers to opt out of this environment. If we go to great lengths to make female students feel comfortable, why not allow male teachers the same right? This is particularly true in high schools and universities, where students are moving toward sexual maturity. Female students regularly select institutions and courses of study to avoid being taught by men, whom they see as "patriarchal" or "oppressive." While I think that this is immature and increases these women's distrust and misunderstanding of men, I must agree that it is reasonable to offer them the choice. However, on the flip side, why can't male teachers say, "I'm afraid of being falsely accused of sexual harrassment. I don't want to teach female students." Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.

Work Environment

We have the right to a healthful work environment, even in male-dominated jobs. We should not have to wait until women enter a job field before conditions start to improve. I work in an office. My father worked in an office. The difference between my working environment and the way his was is like day and night. What changed in thirty years? Technology? A bit, but that's not it. What changed is that more women entered the office. Whenever women move into a profession, they immediately demand improvements in the working environment. It starts with pregnant women, complaining that they're afraid they're damaging their unborn babies, then moves on to women in general. I think that this is a great idea, but I have one question: why was it OK to have terrible working conditions when only men were on the job? As I write this, trades like construction, window washing, and garbage collection have spartan and unpleasant working conditions. If you think that these are just the nature of the job, well that's what they said about offices thirty years ago. Why don't we start improving working conditions in these areas now, rather than waiting until the ladies start making inroads? It's enough to give one the idea that nobody values men's comfort....
We have the right to paternity leave; we have the right to be with our families when they need us most. Fathers matter. Fathers have as much right to share time with their children as mothers do. Feminists can't expect to gain equal rights in the workplace and then maintain a traditional hammerlock on family rights. It isn't fair, and it isn't right.
We have the right to a workplace free from sexual displays. Women do sexually harass men at work. The difference between women and men is that instead of using crude jokes, sexual innuendo, and asking men outright for dates, women simply change their clothes. I agree that being inundated with crude jokes, sexual images, and unwanted attention can make work a lousy place to be, but then so can cleavage, mini-skirts, and nylon-clad legs. Women successfully convinced us to outlaw crudeness in the workplace. Now they even have kangaroo courts, called "human rights commissions" to back them up. We, on the other hand, do not want to have to stare at tits, ass, legs, or—in extreme cases—pussy on the job. If sexual propositioning is to be outlawed at work, then so should sexual advertising.

Public Environment

We have the right to fair and unbiased (or as unbiased as is humanly possible) research into social issues. It should not be "common and accepted practice" to accept the results of feminist "scholars" who perform selective studies, who selectively cull their results, or who outright fabricate results in order to support a feminist agenda. We have the right to studies into female-on-male violence, abuse rates within marriage versus common-law relationships versus casual relationships.
We have the right to see public policy based on fair and honest research.
We have the right to unbiased media.

¹ A recent example of this was a court case in Canada between two jerks: he was lavishing the kids with gifts and expensive schooling, while making sure that his ex got the minimum possible; she was living in a decent house with many of the kids' expenses taken care of, but wanted to control the other money, too. They were both manipulative and vindictive. The court's decision? It was "psychologically bad" for the daughters to go from their father's wealth to their mother's modest house. He had to pay his ex more money. My point is that this had nothing to do with the "welfare of the children." The children were already getting the benefit of his wealth; the only detail was that the ex-wife wasn't controlling the cash flow. The only result of this decision was to ensure that the money passed through the ex-wife's hands first, so that she could control it.

² Not only do women not talk about affirmative action, they pull a typically female trick by turning the tables, and claiming that ex-husbands are leaving the burden of custody with ex-wives rather than taking custody of the kids themselves. This in a family court system that is obviously slanted in favour of women. This is one reason why I find it pretty funny when feminists complain about "blaming the victim": they're experts at it themselves.

There is another men's bill of rights on Kirby Inwood's site. I must warn you, though... this man is angry. Nonetheless, his bill of rights itself makes a lot of sense.

Men's Bill of Rights Up Pain Crime Attitudes Men Links Bill of Rights
	Men's Bill of Rights For thirty years I've heard a whole lot about women's rights. At first the "rights" seemed reasonable. You know, things like, "If I work the same hours as you, do the same work, and have the same experience and capability then I should be paid the same as you." Perfectly reasonable. However, as the years wore on, these "rights" began to sound more and more like people asking for things just because they thought they could get them. "Equal pay for equal work" became "equal pay for equivalent work," where "equivalent" became a very plastic and adaptable word. "Women's rights" advocates started inventing rights on the fly; it seemed as though anything they could dream up over coffee became a "right." Well, two can play at that game. I thought of all of the ways in which men are stiffed by society, all of the ways in which women still have more power than men, and all of the ways that feminism has kneed men in the crotch, and came up with this list. Some of these items are serious, while some are written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Some of them contradict others, but since feminist's "women's rights" regularly contradict themselves, I thought I'd give myself that license, too. Emotional Environment We have the right to live without shame. This has to be at the top of my list. For thirty years of my life, and probably more, feminists have been trying to make men ashamed not of their individual behaviours, but of simply being men. Some men's rights advocates claim that shame is to men what physical violence is to women. I find this an apt parallel: for my life, at least, women have been swinging "shame" around the way that feminists have accused men of swinging fists around. The difference has been that women don't think that telling men that they're violent, lascivious, uncivilized, wasteful, useless, stupid, and in so many ways sub-human hurts anyone. "They're just words," they say, or more often, "It's just a joke." Well, these words do hurt. In fact, as a man I'm not sure whether I would prefer being constantly pummeled with condescending words or being pounded with fists; it would for me be about the same. We have the right to be with other men sometimes without having women around. I'm not on a football team, hockey team, basketball team, or any other all-male team. I don't shoot the shit with the guys in the locker room. Neither am I a high-flying businessman who dreams of the days of yore sipping sherry and smoking cigars whilst plotting new ways to control society. I'm just an ordinary man who would like a place to go now and then to be with other men and only other men. I would like to see men's clubs make a comeback. Evidently women find this general idea appealing, because there is no shortage of women-only clubs and institutions. So, ladies, why not the same for us? We have the right to get angry, yell, cry, stop speaking, and carry on without giving a reason. OK, so I don't really believe this one; I'm being funny here. Nonetheless, I've noticed that even "liberated" women see nothing wrong with having a screaming hissy fit, or being bitchy, or stomping around the house not talking to anyone whenever they feel lousy. Apparently it is the man's job to figure out what is bothering his liberated, feminist mate and do something to make her feel better, just like in the olden days. Well, if women, even "liberated" women, can still see their way clear to acting childish and petulant when they're angry or upset, then I claim that same right... and I want someone trailing along behind me trying to make me feel better, too, if only because it adds to the experience. We have the right to complain. This is the serious side of the previous item. Sometimes I look at my life and think, "You know, it's tough being a man." Just try saying that, though, and a dozen women and half a dozen male feminists will pipe up and start drowning you out with stories about how women have it so much worse and men have it easy. They'll say that whatever small problems men might have pale in comparison to women's problems. Well excuse me. It's not like I was trying to say that men have it worse than women; I've had thirty years of hearing how rotten women's lives can be. After all of that, can't I talk about the ways in which men have rotten lives? Evidently not: I've never been able to start a conversation on "men's problems" and not have the subject be hijacked to "women's problems," within seconds except when I'm alone with men or with one of two female friends. These two friends say, "Yeah, it must be hard being a man; I'm glad I'm a woman." These ladies have it right: everybody's life sucks sometimes whether they're a man or a woman, and we all have a right to talk about it. We have the right to be proud of what men have accomplished throughout history. We have the right to be proud of what good men are doing today. Feminists complain that the study of history is just the "study of dead white men." No shit, sister. That's because men did everything that was recorded. Men did all of the big stuff. Women carried on the oral tradition of transmitting culture from one generation to the next and, although this is no less noble, nobody wrote it down. I'm not sure how one would study women's history, other than encouraging children to learn from their mothers. (You can bet I'm going to be encouraging my children to learn from my wife, who comes from a rich cultural tradition.) Regardless, I don't see how this detracts from the study of traditional history. Sure, it talks about a bunch of dead white European men, but it's where a lot of us came from, and that's important, particularly for boys. Add a healthy dollop of dead Chinese men, dead Indian men, dead Native American men, dead South American men, and dead African men, and keep teaching it. Girls have a right to be proud of the role that women have played throughout history and what they're doing today, but nobody has the right to make boys ignorant or ashamed of what men have done or are doing just because they believe that doing so will somehow help girls. Boys don't have some magic reserve of self-esteem that they can draw on all of their lives. Boys need heroes as much as girls need heroines. We have the right to be treated as individuals, not merely generic males. You have no right to imply that I'm violent because some other man was violent. You have no right to label me "oppressor" because, as one man put it, "Your grandfather oppressed my grandmother." You have no right to label me "part of the problem" just because my skin is white and I have a penis. Every man is an individual and deserves to be treated as such. Down with the politics of identity! We are not responsible for the sins of our forefathers. I don't care what men did a hundred, ten, or even one generation ago. I am not my father, my grandfather, or my great-great-great-great-grandfather. I don't believe that they all did rotten things, but even if you manage to prove it, it wasn't my fault. I wasn't there. Go find their graves and complain to them; I'm not interested. We don't have to be nice to women just because our grandmothers suffered at the hands of some men. We're sorry that your great-great grandmother was raped and then forced into an unhappy marriage. If this is a big thing in your life we may even help you through it if we can see a way. However, we would do this as a favour to you, not because we feel responsible. Then again, maybe we don't give a shit, and you can deal with it yourself. We don't have to feel guilty about anything we didn't do personally. Period. We should not have to listen to nasty female jokes about how useless and irresponsible men are. (Just as women should not have to listen to nasty jokes about how women are good only for breeding.) Women campaigned long and hard for a respectful environment in which they were not being belittled or attacked. Women particularly wanted this kind of environment where they worked. I see no reason why men should be afforded any less. We have the right not to be feared. Turn on the TV, read a newspaper, or listen to women. In all cases, you'll eventually hear or see how terrified "Western" women are of men. In the media, and in female conversation, bad men take on mythic proportions: they're manipulative, they can control women through mere suggestion or brute force, they pop up out of nowhere, they look completely unassuming, disappear into nowhere, and can't be caught. This is the stuff of female nightmares. Add to this the pervasive attitude that "any man could be a rapist," and you have a potent formula for mass hysteria. During my university days, the rape relief talk that was mandatory for all of the women in residence included the warning that no woman should ever walk alone with any man, including her father, brother, or husband. Any man, the message went, could turn out to be a molester, a rapist, or a murderer, even if you had known him for most of your life. In part because of organized programs like this, ordinary women, even those who don't refer to themselves as "feminists," fear men. Thirty years ago, feminists demanded that men change their attitudes toward women; they demanded that men stop seeing women as inept, incapable, and unintelligent. Now it's time for men to demand that women change their attitudes, too. Women must stop being afraid of every man they meet. Women must stop treating men like potential attackers. This doesn't mean being incautious, but it does mean an end to prejudice. It won't be easy to do, but neither was it easy for men to change their attitudes. It's time that women repaid our cooperation with some of their own. Children and Family For twenty years or so, feminists have been trying to convince Canadians, Americans, and Brits that fathers are like tonsils: they serve a function, but the family is really no worse off if dad is sliced out one day and thrown in the scrap heap. I find this appalling and hypocritical. As I note elsewhere, feminists are firmly against stereotypes, unless the stereotypes slam men, in which case feminists help perpetuate them. We have the right to be involved in the lives of our children. No matter what some man-hating bitches may say about the "few minutes' work" we do in biologically creating a child, most of us are loving, supportive, and committed to our families. If some fathers try to escape fatherhood, or some fathers aren't supportive, that shouldn't tar all of us (see above about being treated as individuals). The men's group I was is was primarily populated by sad fathers who wanted desperately to see their kids. I still have no idea why the mothers of their children had more right to parent the kids than these men did. What this right means to me is that a father has exactly the same rights as a mother does; most of what's below just fleshes out this idea. We have the right to an equal possibility to stay home and raise our children. Everybody says that men have the choice to stay home and raise their kids. Yeah, right. Just try finding a woman who's willing to work while you stay home and raise junior. Good luck. There are some, but they're few and far between. Some feminist jerks say that women will support men when women get "equal pay for equal work," after women and men (and that included me) fought for equal pay for women! After we helped women achieve their goal (almost), women won't do a damned thing for us until their world is perfect. Thanks loads. We have the right to participate fully in the lives of our children after a divorce. There are lots of fathers' rights groups out there, and I won't bother repeating their arguments here. Suffice to say that being a father is probably the most wonderful experience a man can have and, despite a minority of men who want nothing to do with their children, most men feel a strong attachment to their kids. It is grossly unfair to take a father who is deeply attached to his children and toss him aside on the presumption that he fits some feminine stereotype of a "deadbeat dad." Women often use the "best interests of the child" as a weapon to crush their ex-spouses and exclude them from their children's lives. This is wrong. It is done out of pure self-interest.¹ It is abuse, both of the ex-husband and the children. It's about time that a man and a woman in divorce court had exactly equal rights and exactly equal real-life chances of staying in their kids' lives after a marriage breaks up. We have the right to an fair and equal chance at custody of our children in cases where sole custody is mandated. I've heard the (probably invented) story of the father who asked for custody of his children, only to be asked by the judge, "Did you breast-feed your kids?" You know, it's funny: when there were no women in business, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at business. When there were no women in politics, a lot of people thought that women would be no good at politics. This didn't stop feminists. "Men are better at politics and business because they've had more practice," they said, "We deserve a chance to gain experience." So, it was full steam ahead with getting women into business and politics, including a relatively brief tryst with "affirmative action" to "even out the numbers." Now, when fathers complain that they don't often get custody of their own children, feminists respond with, "Mothers are better at raising children." I don't hear feminists talking about "affirmative action" in this area, and I doubt that I ever will.² We have the right to an accounting of how our support payments are spent when we are non-custodial, supporting fathers. In turn, we accept the responsibility of providing such records when we are custodial fathers receiving child support from our ex-wives. This is another situation in which women rule when it comes to divorce courts and family law. After a divorce, men are required to continue paying their ex-wives, ostensibly to support their children. (Career-oriented women who divorce their stay-at-home husbands must also pay upkeep, but they have a worse record for non-payment than do men. Does this surprise anyone?) However, the money doesn't go to the kids; it goes to the ex-wife, and she is under no obligation to: a) spend the money on the children or b) explain where the money went. All she has to do is get up in court and justify a certain amount based on a budget. Actual spending makes no difference. If we are willing to hold a hammer over men's heads to press them into paying what they ought to, then the least we can do for them is offer them an accounting of where their money went. In the spirit of feminist's back-handed "equality" we offer to do the same in those few cases in which women are paying us the support. We have the right to know whether we are fathers. Women do not have the right to use us as sperm donors and then raise the baby alone, unless we have explicitly agreed to this. I understand that it is practically impossible to discover whether you are a father if the mother does not want you to know. However, it boggles my mind that a woman can purposely get herself pregnant, have a child without the father's knowledge, start raising it on her own, decide that she wants some money, then sue the (unknowning) father for support, and win. I find this incomprehensible. A woman who uses a man for procreation without his knowledge should have the same social status as a man who gets a woman pregnant and then skips the country (i.e. "scum"). She should also be treated by the courts in an analogous fashion. For example, if she didn't bother to inform the baby's father that she was pregnant, then when she tries to sue for support the case should be thrown out. This should be the law. Any argument by feminists that men don't care whether they're fathers or not is pure bigotry and should not be a basis for public policy. Home Environment We have the right to help decorate our homes, even if we're not very good at it. Most of the women I know seem to think that it is their birthright to decide how their home will look and to implement their ideas. Sure, they "consult" with their mates, but the consultation seems to be strictly a formality, or offering him a choice between two or three options that she likes. The men tend to grin sheepishly and say nothing when decor is mentioned; I think they get very quiet because they know that their opinions will at best be ignored and at worst laughed at. It used to be that way with women and politics until we changed society; why not change how we think about men and decorating? *We have the right to help decide how often things need to be cleaned, and how clean they need to be. We have the right to do whatever jobs are given us our way.* If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman complain that her man won't help around the house, I'd be able to hire housekeeping. My beef with this is exactly what I just said: women expect men to "help" around the house, and be cheerful about it. How cheerful would these same women be if someone told them how nice it was that they went every day to "help" the men at work? Women want men to do half the work, but they still want to be the bosses when it comes to quality. Some women sit down with their mates and discuss how clean things need to be and how often they need to be cleaned, and think that this is "mutual" discussion. Yeah, right. How many people consider sitting down with their boss at work to be a discussion among equals? We have the right to security of person. No person has the right to hit us or threaten us. Women in particular should disabuse themselves of the notion that they can hit men with impunity. Many women have the strange idea that hitting a man is their birthright, that it's inconsequential, funny, or cool. Men don't help the situation by not complaining or by laughing it off. We live in an odd society that sees a man striking a woman as a horror but laughs off a woman striking a man. It's not based on size, either: even a large, strong woman hitting a small, weak man is seen as a joke. Educational Environment We have the right to teach children. When I went to university I stayed in the residence at the teachers' college. As such, a lot of my friends were aspiring teachers. I heard from several friends about "the talk" given men who wanted to become primary school teachers. They were told that as a male primary school teacher, they would always be under scrutiny lest they turn out to be pædophiles, and that all it would take would be one complaint from one mother to ruin their careers. Most of my friends thus advised decided to switch to secondary education. First of all, I think that this is a grievous assault on the rights of these men. Why should they not be as free as a woman to choose primary education as their life's work? Second, I think that by discouraging men from teaching early grades we do a terrible injustice to our children. Children are now growing up in single-mom homes and going through most of their early education having very little contact with men. Where will boys and girls learn how good men behave? From the women around them? Women think themselves invincible and all-knowing when it comes to rearing children. Ironically, as each generation becomes more lost than the previous one, the very women who consider themselves the ultimate role models and sources of wisdom for children blame anything but themselves for the condition of today's youth. Men need to be reintroduced to the primary classroom, both for equality of their own opportunity and for the welfare of our children. We have the right to be taught by men, as well as by women, at all levels of education. As I stated in the previous item: kids deserve role models from both sexes and all ideological slants, just as teachers of both sexes and with various ideological slants deserve equal opportunity to work in their chosen fields. Our children have a right to a variety of male role models, not just the sensitive, feminist, Alan Alda types that feminists want them to see. Regarding the preceding right, it's not enough to simply hire men. Our teachers, both male and female, should hold a variety of political views and have a variety of attitudes toward the world. If you were to believe feminists, men with traditional viewpoints are one step short of child molesters. Of course, feminists say this not because it is true but to ensure that only men who buy into their point of view are acceptable as teachers of children. Some time ago many schools decided to make themselves religion-free zones, claiming that this made non-Christian students more comfortable. I agree. Now it's time to make our schools ideology-free zones, or at least ideologically rich. Rather than ensuring that everyone is a small-l liberal feminist before putting them at the front of a classroom, it's time to balance that philosophy with others. We have the right to education without prejudice. We should not have to hear about how awful men are and how they have destroyed the planet without also hearing about how wonderful men are and how they have made everyone's lives better. What a wonderful message for our boys: the planet is going down the tubes, it's men who caused all the damage, and you're going to turn into one. We have the right to have our work judged on its merits, rather than having it examined for patriarchal symbolism because we are men. This one was prompted by a recent news article in a local North Vancouver paper describing the situation at our local university. One male reader wrote back in to say that he was taking fine arts, and every time he created anything that was in any way tall, long, or pointed, he was told that he was creating a phallic symbol, and that he was doing so because of his urge to oppress women. I find this as outrageous as some teacher telling female art students that whenever they create anything round it must represent an egg and their inner instinct to have babies and care for them. We have the right to special programs and extra help in subject areas where we have trouble, just as women have the right to special programs and extra help in areas where they have trouble. We have the right to see the funding available for these extra programs split equitably between the sexes. Pick up any course schedule for any school, college, or university and skim through it. You will see many special programs for women and girls. "Engine repair for women." "Computer skills for women." "Self-defense for women." These courses are the same as the generic ones, but the content and presentation have been altered to be more appropriate for a female audience. You will find no special courses for men. Part of the reason for this is economics: women take more courses. However, the other part of this is cultural bias: anything "generic" is assumed to meet the needs of men. Women are sensitive souls who need special treatment. Well, I'm a sensitive soul, too, and I would love special treatment. Of course, it would be different from the special treatment given to women, but it would similarly be tailored to my way of learning instead of being "generic." We have the right to have special job training programs based on background rather than on sex. I have no special insight into starting a small company just because I am a man. Special training programs on entrepreneurship for women only are a disservice to men who have no experience in such things, especially when more women than men are starting small companies. The upshot of this item is that maybe sex is not the most appropriate division for training. Having a penis does not make me automatically good at any number of spheres of life that are dominated by men. People forget that just because all of the presidents of the United States have been men doesn't mean that any man, anywhere would automatically have some special insight into how to become president. In fact, there are many women who have a better idea of how to run a country than do the vast majority of men. So it is with entrepreneurship, engine repair, and any number of other "traditionally male" areas. This item addresses the silly situation in which a rich girl gets a scholarship to a university because she's female and women are under-represented, while a poor boy from the sticks gets nothing because there are already lots of men. The error in logic is assuming that dividing the population into "women" and "men" is somehow more enlightening and useful than dividing it into "rich" and "poor", or some other division. For a course on how to start a business, for example, it might be more useful to divide the population into "people whose parents own their own businesses" and "people whose parents are employees" and give special courses to the latter, regardless of their sex. So long as female students have the right to cry "sexual harrassment" and be immediately believed, male teachers should have the right to teach only men. Fair is fair: if you create an environment in which female students are not just safe but feel safe, an environment in which they have power over their teachers, then there should be the reciprocal right for male teachers to opt out of this environment. If we go to great lengths to make female students feel comfortable, why not allow male teachers the same right? This is particularly true in high schools and universities, where students are moving toward sexual maturity. Female students regularly select institutions and courses of study to avoid being taught by men, whom they see as "patriarchal" or "oppressive." While I think that this is immature and increases these women's distrust and misunderstanding of men, I must agree that it is reasonable to offer them the choice. However, on the flip side, why can't male teachers say, "I'm afraid of being falsely accused of sexual harrassment. I don't want to teach female students." Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. Work Environment We have the right to a healthful work environment, even in male-dominated jobs. We should not have to wait until women enter a job field before conditions start to improve. I work in an office. My father worked in an office. The difference between my working environment and the way his was is like day and night. What changed in thirty years? Technology? A bit, but that's not it. What changed is that more women entered the office. Whenever women move into a profession, they immediately demand improvements in the working environment. It starts with pregnant women, complaining that they're afraid they're damaging their unborn babies, then moves on to women in general. I think that this is a great idea, but I have one question: why was it OK to have terrible working conditions when only men were on the job? As I write this, trades like construction, window washing, and garbage collection have spartan and unpleasant working conditions. If you think that these are just the nature of the job, well that's what they said about offices thirty years ago. Why don't we start improving working conditions in these areas now, rather than waiting until the ladies start making inroads? It's enough to give one the idea that nobody values men's comfort.... We have the right to paternity leave; we have the right to be with our families when they need us most. Fathers matter. Fathers have as much right to share time with their children as mothers do. Feminists can't expect to gain equal rights in the workplace and then maintain a traditional hammerlock on family rights. It isn't fair, and it isn't right. We have the right to a workplace free from sexual displays. Women do sexually harass men at work. The difference between women and men is that instead of using crude jokes, sexual innuendo, and asking men outright for dates, women simply change their clothes. I agree that being inundated with crude jokes, sexual images, and unwanted attention can make work a lousy place to be, but then so can cleavage, mini-skirts, and nylon-clad legs. Women successfully convinced us to outlaw crudeness in the workplace. Now they even have kangaroo courts, called "human rights commissions" to back them up. We, on the other hand, do not want to have to stare at tits, ass, legs, or—in extreme cases—pussy on the job. If sexual propositioning is to be outlawed at work, then so should sexual advertising. Public Environment We have the right to fair and unbiased (or as unbiased as is humanly possible) research into social issues. It should not be "common and accepted practice" to accept the results of feminist "scholars" who perform selective studies, who selectively cull their results, or who outright fabricate results in order to support a feminist agenda. We have the right to studies into female-on-male violence, abuse rates within marriage versus common-law relationships versus casual relationships. We have the right to see public policy based on fair and honest research. We have the right to unbiased media.

	¹ A recent example of this was a court case in Canada between two jerks: he was lavishing the kids with gifts and expensive schooling, while making sure that his ex got the minimum possible; she was living in a decent house with many of the kids' expenses taken care of, but wanted to control the other money, too. They were both manipulative and vindictive. The court's decision? It was "psychologically bad" for the daughters to go from their father's wealth to their mother's modest house. He had to pay his ex more money. My point is that this had nothing to do with the "welfare of the children." The children were already getting the benefit of his wealth; the only detail was that the ex-wife wasn't controlling the cash flow. The only result of this decision was to ensure that the money passed through the ex-wife's hands first, so that she could control it. ² Not only do women not talk about affirmative action, they pull a typically female trick by turning the tables, and claiming that ex-husbands are leaving the burden of custody with ex-wives rather than taking custody of the kids themselves. This in a family court system that is obviously slanted in favour of women. This is one reason why I find it pretty funny when feminists complain about "blaming the victim": they're experts at it themselves. There is another men's bill of rights on Kirby Inwood's site. I must warn you, though... this man is angry. Nonetheless, his bill of rights itself makes a lot of sense.