A male feminist complains about lack of statistics at F4L

Update 2018 04 16: Added Epilogue

A male feminist complains about lack of statistics at F4L

Adam McRae wrote:


I stumbled upon your website while looking for a completely unrelated topic and was very curious as to your message. As a 25 year old male born and raised in Alberta, I was eager to see the message you would put forth to the world. After reading many articles and links on your site I was about to close the window when I realized that my conscience would not allow me to without first writing this email. Your absolutely disgusting misrepresentation and complete fabrication of facts underscores everything that is wrong with society. Your viewpoints are not only morally repulsive but they undermine any progress women have made in the past century while ignoring their continuing pain and struggle. Where are your graphs regarding pay scales or the official statistics on domestic violence or sexual abuse, a crime you claim to be gender equal when the evidence clearly shows that over 90% of sexual abuse is committed by a male (97% according to Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2003 & 90% in a study by Finkelhor in the US in 1994). Anytime the statistics are overwhelmingly against your viewpoint, you turn to the fringe of statistics and cite feminist cover ups or conspiracies. I, like any right minded individual, was aware of the gender inequalities that still exist in our society and thought of myself as someone who would always support equality. But after finding your website I have personally committed myself to become a loud, fierce and persistant voice towards the destruction of “organizations” and attitudes such as yours. I have felt many things in my life, but you have managed to make me ashamed to not only be an Albertan, a male but also a human being. I would like to thank you for adding another layer of purpose to my life.

I hope you stay true to your claim of reading all responses and read this as an intellectual challenge, not as an obligation that will simply be deleted.

Adam McRae

Hello Adam,

Good of you to write and to offer your opinions, but, wow, what strong language you use!

That you “stumbled upon” our website is not surprising.  It is a large and popular website that covers a large variety of topics.  Moreover, “stumbled upon your website” is a cliché that is literally never used by someone who is not a feminist or someone who agrees with what our website stands for.  Without exception, of those about 4,500 “stumblers” who wrote to us over the years and found our website a stumbling block, not one ever had to say anything good about Fathers for Life.  I am not surprised that you had nothing good to say.  The reason why I wrote back to you with such a lengthy response is that you distinguished yourself from all of the other 4,500 “stumblers.” You do stand out.  (More on that farther down)

“Stumblers” who wrote to us used to comprise about three percent of the incoming mail to Fathers for Life but lately, over the space of the last three years, their verbal eruptions dwindled down to next to nothing.  Yours is the very first message from a stumbler in 2009, but that is just a random accident and not the true measure of your uniqueness. (I will come to what it is.)

Of course I read your complaint, although at times it is hard to keep up with all of the mail that is coming in. Moreover, I read your comments even though you made totally unsubstantiated insinuations and predictions that I would not do so. To make such insinuations and predictions is a little childish and does not become a man, but then you appear to feel that a man you are not. However, because your complaint was so very unique, I posted it to dads & things.  After all, I would not write such a comment just to one individual without giving many others a chance to read it, too. It is of course befitting that they must have a chance to read what sparked my response, therefore, and because you are so unique, I posted both.  (I am a man of my word and will most certainly explain what makes you unique, as surely as I wrote back to you, and I will come to it soon.)

I am a man who wrote as a man, as a member of humanity. You wrote several times that you are a male.  Am I correct in assuming that you emphasized that bit of feminist-created terminology because you consider yourself to be a member of the animal kingdom? Still that is nothing special.  Many “new men” feel that way, especially if they posture to please their girlfriends.

What makes you unique is that you are the first individual, out of far more than 100,000 that wrote over the years, who complained about there being a lack of statistics at our website.  That is very fascinating.

You are somewhat misinformed (perhaps because you attended a women’s studies course or perhaps because you never had anyone but feminists teach you), but that is not due to the absence of statistics at our website, and I assume that you referred to http://fathersforlife.org, although you did not identify that or the web pages in which you found the statistics that offend you, nor did you identify the statistics that caused you to be obviously unhappy.  That is very unprofessional, tsk, tsk, tsk.  Did your teachers not tell you better?

I hate to take a guess at the sources of your misinterpretations and therefore will not.  Your specifications are far too vague, and our website is far too large (1000 web pages, not counting our blog), to permit anyone to come even remotely close to guessing correctly what it was that raised your ire.

It is curious that you complain about the absence of statistics at Fathers for Life, yet your complaint is about statistics you found at our website. The website search-facility you apparently failed to discover (you could not possibly have overlooked it if only you would have read the short home page of Fathers for Life) identifies references to statistics and even shows them on a very large number of our web pages.

However, when you allege “misrepresentation and complete fabrication of facts” as you come falling with the door into the house when you come knocking, you must do much better.  In essence, your accusations are slanderous and violate the reputation of the professionals whose statistics you label as misrepresentations and fabrications.  Misrepresentations and fabrications are what feminists do.  They are not something that reputable and self-respecting researchers engage in.  For your own good, given the fact that you know very little about the subjects you are too quick to judge, you lay yourself open to lawsuits for slander and quite possibly even libel.

It is good that our website woke you up a little and made you determined to become a “voice towards the destruction of “organizations” and attitudes such as” ours.  That your mind is made up about that will without a doubt ensure that you will be enlightened in more ways than you imagined to be even possible.  I look forward to seeing the evidence of your efforts to that extent and hope that you will make the results of those efforts available at the earliest opportunity.  Please, by all means, tell me when you are ready and go public with the results of your efforts.  I will then look up the source location.

By the way, you will most definitely benefit from the use of two tools we installed to help people who try to debunk feminist propaganda and bigotry.  Make sure to use the site-specific search-entry-field in the upper right-hand corner of virtually all of our web pages, and also explore dads & things, the blog affiliated with the website of Fathers for Life.  Our blog is almost as popular as our website is (its popularity has doubled during the last year), and blog entries relating to specific searches you will undertake will be included in the search-return list.  Using the search facility to find occurrences of “sexual abuse” will give you a long list of entries, and a search for “sexual child abuse” OR “child sexual abuse” will provide another fairly long list, while many of the pages you will find through those searches also contain many links to more in-depth studies on those subjects.

A search for pay equity will also prove to be very productive, and, interestingly, one of the reports on that issue, commissioned and published by StatCan, will provide you with more statistical tables, bar charts and graphs than you will probably like to read or are perhaps capable to comprehend if you can’t handle the mathematics.  That report (and a graph from it) is mentioned in the web page on “Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?“.  The conclusion of that StatCan report is that:

On page 27 of their study they say:

Do the models provide evidence of discrimination against women?

The models provide incontrovertible evidence that women interact differently with the labour market than men.  However, it would be very tenuous to conclude that the differences are due to widespread discrimination against women.  Keep in mind the four conditions introduced at the beginning of this section.

              The first two conditions ask the questions: “Are women rewarded differently than men?” and “Is the net effect of these differences negative for women?”.  In every model except one the answer to both of these questions is “Yes.”6, providing consistent evidence that female and male graduates interact differently with the labour market.  However, the third condition — a negative and significant intercept term — is met only for two of the 1988 university models for full-time workers.  But when the population is expanded to include all workers, women are estimated to earn higher wages all else being equal.  This was also the case for almost every other “All Earners” model.  Therefore, net of the effects captured by the model, women earned higher wages than men.  Chart 1 illustrates this point for 1992.

Isn’t that amazing?  Already in 1992 women had “pay equity” that exceeded what men earned.  You asked for it, and there it is, but don’t just take StatCan’s word for that, check “Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?” for what many other reputable sources and authorities have to say on the issue.

That, contrary to your false assertion that Fathers for Life contains no statistics that satisfy your requirements, Fathers for Life contains many and far more than you insisted it does should not surprise you.  We have been searching for and compiling such statistics for longer than before you went to Grade I, since before you were born.

Without a doubt, dads & things and the search facility I mentioned but that you obviously must have missed will open a whole new world of information to you that will give you plenty of targets you can attack with your so-far unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I should have closed with that, but on account of you being so fired up about setting perceived wrongs right, a little more needs to be said.  Before you respond or write back on any issue covered at our website and blog, be aware of not only our e-mail address but also of the information that the other links in the footer of each web page point to, especially the disclaimer.  I don’t like repeating myself, therefore make sure, please, to read that disclaimer.

One more thing in that respect: You violated virtually every rule for posting to our blog. I would be negligent if I did not tell you that those rules also apply to mail sent directly to me or to whomever the webmaster of our website happens to be.  You will benefit from reading those rules. That won’t take you long, they are short, and you will not be over-taxed. To that end, check About Dads & Things [and the Blog Rules, now on a separate page].

I must be fair.  Perhaps you did not read those rules in your head-long rush to slander the work of reputable social researchers.  I will allow that for now, but now that excuse is no longer valid.  Every time you break those rules is a strike, and after three strikes you are out. Conduct yourself accordingly.  This website and its blog are about the truth, not about fluff, and if that photo on Facebook is yours, then I hope I did not put any wrinkles into your crown.

Have a good life, make the best of it and keep it safe.  After all, the average life expectancy of Canadian men is only about 90 percent of what the average life expectancy of Canadian women is. Are you truly fighting for the right to die before their time?  That would not be extraordinary, but is it necessary?

Normally, slaves do not live longer than their masters, and men always volunteered to die for home and country; they do the sweaty, dirty, dangerous and deadly jobs, and the research funding for health issues that are specific to men is at best half of what is being spent on comparable research for women’s health issues.

Even amongst the newly “gender-equalized” armed forces in Afghanistan, the score is now in the order of about 120 soldiers and one soldierette who died.  It is slaves who die before their masters do, and life spans that are shorter than men’s are most definitely something that women never had to worry about.  The myth of the oppressed women is a femprop production.

Expand your horizons far beyond feminist indoctrination, read Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry.  After you do that you will know what it is like to be a real man and be proud to call yourself one.  You will wonder why you ever called yourself a male.  Just perhaps, and only if you are sufficiently objective, a quality you presently do not appear to possess, you will be far angrier than you were when you wrote to us, but for much different reasons that you will be very glad to have learned about.


Walter Schneider

Epilogue (2018 04 16)

When Adam McRae wrote to Fathers for Life in January 2009, he promised (or should I say “threatened”?) that,

after finding your website I have personally committed myself to become a loud, fierce and persistant voice towards the destruction of “organizations” and attitudes such as yours.

He insisted that he was a male, wherefore I take that to mean that his promise is as good as the word of a man.  I checked today to see how much progress he has made on making good on his promise.  His primary concerns appeared to have been statistics in relation to women.  Seeing that he was concerned about an alleged lack of statistics at fathersforlife.org, I searched with the help of Google, using this character string:

“Adam McRae” AND statistics AND women AND fathersforlife.org

That search produced 6 results, five at fathersforlife.org and its blog, blog.fathersforlife.org, and one on a parental alienation blog at which Adam McRae’s letter and my response have been quoted.  I decided to amend the search string to this:

“Adam McRae” +statistics +women +fathersforlife.org

The search returns for that totaled 5 (excluding the quotes, and having missing: +statistics ‎+women ‎fathersforlife ).  None of the search results related to the Adam McRae who had written the letter in which he had expressed his concerns.

I tried a few different variations of the search string. None of the search results produced related to the Adam McRae who had written the letter or to the concerns he had expressed in that letter.

It appears safe to assume that Adam McRae is a male but not a man who is as good as his word.  It seems that Adam McRae, the male complainer, may have stumbled before he got out of the starting gate on his quest to meet the commitment he had promised he would fulfill.  Sorry about that, but Adam McRae, the male complainer, is not quite the man he tried to pretend to be, but he did not disappoint me.  He is quite the sort of man I had thought he was.  I hope that his letter at least got him the Brownie points with his girlfriend he had hoped the letter would earn him.

(Visited 14 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Education, Feminism, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.