Update on anti-male Internet censorship

Updated 2019 04 19, to add links to related articles.

Update on anti-male Internet censorship

A few PC problems, such as trying to overcome the tendency of my laptop to crash when I was trying to back it up, prevented me from being very active on Facebook or on this blog, while at the same time there are things that need to be done outside, in the garden, but for now I have a chance to catch my breath.

Facebook : legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer

Facebook censorship
All in one: Legislator, police, judge, jury, and jailer

Trying to catch up on what was happening in the outside world,  yesterday and today, I found that the men’s rights movement is increasingly becoming aware of the intensification of the war against men, and that there is more and more anti-male Internet censorship.

The war is real.  It is not so much a war by women against men as it is a war by feminists against men and against women who are for traditional social norms as well as against feminism.

Feminism is not about giving women freedom to choose; it is about taking away choices of which feminists disapprove. And one choice they disapprove is participation in a conventional family.

—Robert H. Bork, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah

There are now ever more calls to declare any objections to feminism to be hate speech. That affects not only the 100+ pro-male and pro-family men’s human rights websites censored by O2 and Symantec (this blog and it affiliated website are on that list, almost in its entirety shown under the heading “Roll of Honour” in the right sidebar menu of this page), but the latest development is this:

It’s on

May 30, 2013, by

This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.

Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.

Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.

Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.

Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news…(Read the whole article)

In case you missed the link to the news item that triggered Paul Elam’s commentary, here it is:

Facebook hates women?

AVFM, May 29, 2013, by

Facebook, we need to talk.

Apparently Woman Action Media (WAM!) has you looking out for gender-based hate speech. That’s good to hear, but why focus so strongly on hate speech against women and not men? Does “hate speech” include speech regarding glorification of violence against men?

For those of you who have not seen the news today, Facebook gave in to pressure from a collection of women’s groups to do three things. Their message has been copied verbatim from the WAM! Open Letter to Facebook, signed by over one hundred organizations and individuals….(Read the whole article)

Victor Zen’s article is very important.  Amongst other things, it identifies links to FB pages that will not be censored, FB pages that express outright and open hatred against men, such as «the results for “I hate men,” “men are evil” or “men suck” when I searched for them in Facebook,» as found by Victor Zen.

Erin Pizzey (the founder of the very first modern battered women’s shelters, in Chiswick, London, England, 1971) is of course aware of the issue of censorship launched by the feminists and expressed these concerns on her FB timeline, as she already is one of the many individuals who attracted the hatred and wrath of the feminists since the days of the launching of her shelter movement.  Here are the concerns she expressed about it:

Erin Pizzey

6 hours ago via mobile

Just looked at first four posts criticising feminism. Do realise that Mark Zuckerberg has been told by women’s groups that there are MRA and groups that are posting “hate speech” against women. I gather Mark Has agreed that these feminist groups will now police our Facebook pages and remove any posts they deem anti feminist or remove our pages completely. What happened to our democratic right to free speech? I would be grateful for any lawyers out there to advise us what we can do to stop this happening.

(Read the whole discussion thread)

It does not look as if the anti-male Internet censorship will abate anytime soon, not if Facebook can help it.


See also:

(Visited 314 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Censorship. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Update on anti-male Internet censorship

  1. Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics

    The following is an excerpt from a letter written by Eeva Sodhi in response to a Globe and Mail article, 2002 02 23:


    Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually

    Actual statistics:

    A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]

    BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year.
    Read more: http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/debunkingDV.htm#Rape

  2. I posted on Facebook a pointer to the contents of the previous comment, with the following introduction:

    A trial balloon for an attempt at the criminalization of opposition to feminism was launched in Canada in March 2003. Now, ten years later, who needs governments, taxpayer funding and voter permissions to install censorship, when the feminists got multibillion, multinational corporations doing it for them for “free”?

    The comment at the blog-thread at dads & things that is identified here contains a list of men’s right organizations and individuals whom Canadian feminists had already in 2003 marked for criminal prosecution due to having committed hate crimes against feminism. Their report containing that list had been funded and published by the Canadian government department “Status of Women”.

    The source of some of the information in the following is an excerpt that used to be part of “School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse” (full citation in the lead-in posting to this thread), from an archived copy of the report (the link for that archived copy is identified in the comment in the discussion thread). It is not likely that you will be able to find another copy of the full report on the Net. The Canadian Government has done a very good job of removing all other copies that contained “APPENDIX II: LIST OF MEN’S ASSOCIATIONS”, including those that were once accessible at the web archive (the web archive now contains only a 2013 version of a redacted copy of the report).

    The list contains not only the names of Canadian organizations and of their officers or founders but also those of comparable organizations in the USA, Australia and France, as well as the names of a good number of American authors.

  3. A trial balloon for an attempt at the criminalization of opposition to feminism was launched in Canada in March 2003 (now, 10 years later, who needs governments, taxpayer funding and voter permissions to install censorship, when the feminists got multi-billion, multi-national corporations doing it for them for “free”?):


    Our research identified a number of issues that have led us to formulate the following recommendations, including the issues of Internet monitoring and providing information on women for journalists.

    1. Sexual stereotypes and the denial of gender intra-group diversity are extremely common in the education sector, as witness the generalization to all boys of the difficulties experienced by a minority of them, as well as the generalization to all girls of the success of a significant number of them. Depending on the situation, the naturalism argument makes it possible to discriminate against girls or favour boys. In both cases, girls or women who hold better positions than boys or men are considered to be usurping the place that rightly belongs to the latter. It is important to deconstruct these perceptions and show that girls still have many barriers to overcome in pursuing their chosen educational and professional paths.

    2. The issue of school success, examined in terms of sexual categorizations, reveals an extremely important economic and social issue: employment. We know that girls do better in school because they spend more time on their schoolwork (Bouchard and St-Amant, 1996) and are more involved in their education, especially girls from lower- income environments (Bouchard et al., 1998; Baudoux and Noircent, 1995). Educational goals are set at a very young age. If most girls are already motivated by Grade 4 (Gagnon, 1999) and maintain that attitude to high school (Terrail, 1992; Bouchard et al., to be published) or post-secondary levels (Ambassa, 1996), this is due, among other things, to the fact that the discourse with their parents, and their mother in particular,38 convinces them that special problems await them in the job market, including the difficulty of finding full-time work or work at a salary equivalent to that of male workers (Bouchard and St-Amant, 1996; Bouchard et al., to be published). In this regard, it is crucial to continue to support initiatives that help girls to persevere in the school system.

    3. The rapid (in just one decade) and sharp change in gender social relationships is evidenced by the fact that for the first time, the dominant social group of men is being portrayed as a class that suffers discrimination. This attitude, which seeks more resources for boys, denies the social inequalities between men and women. It masks the social, political and economic divisions of power that continue to keep women in subordinate positions. Women have trouble translating their educational capital into access to full-time jobs or equitable working conditions. That is why it is so important to be prudent in allocating government funding and maintaining incentives to encourage girls to look to the professions of the future.


    On the Internet:
    4. In light of the growing use of the Internet by masculinist groups to develop misogynist sites inciting violence and the growing number of discussion groups used to promote hatred of women, we suggest that a monitoring organization be established, similar to Hate Watch, but focussed solely on gender social relations. It would also be useful to maintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups.

    5. Given the proliferation and formation of international networks of these organizations, the Canadian Human Rights Foundation’s proposal to establish international observatory centres is timely: “[They] would provide a sound basis for the analysis and evaluation of hate on the Internet and be a source of information to the human rights community. . . . would serve as watchdogs and collect data.” (http://www.chrf.ca/eng/education/files/ internet/misuses.htm: 4).

    6. Discussions should also be held with access providers to suggest a conduct protocol.

    7. It is also important to support organizations, such as the Media Awareness Network, that are working to provide information and consciousness-raising for young people, especially since they are likely to encounter misinformation about “school-based discrimination against boys.”

    8. Along the same lines, studies should be carried out to put together files concerning section 319 of the Criminal Code. Mechanisms must also be developed to ensure the safety of those who publicly denounce hate messages against women, specifically action against electronic mail harassment practices, defamation and infringement of privacy through Internet sites.

    Since such action is limited to protecting an identifiable group within the meaning of section 318 of the Criminal Code (“‘identifiable group’ means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin”), and this section does not provide for the fact that a group distinguished by gender, such as women, may be subject to hate propaganda, we recommend that section 318 be amended to include women among the segments of the public distinguished by sex in the definition of “identifiable group.”

    9. We also suggest that a strategy be established to develop and support the dissemination by women’s groups of positive, egalitarian messages on the Internet to balance the messaging. Although groups such as NetWomen or Par-L act as forums for information exchange, women’s groups do not spontaneously create Internet sites to disseminate their goals and lobby for social and political action.

    On the Press and Other Information Media:
    10. We suggest that a central information, reference, resource and factual data site on women be developed on the Internet. Such a site would also include brief and accurate updates on the status of women in various areas. The site should be broadly publicized to journalists.


    11. In addition, a network of experts in fields targeted by masculinists should be formed to react to the misinformation campaign, especially since the trigger events for this discourse are known.

    On the Collection and Publication of Statistical Data:
    12. The publication of gendered data must always be supported by analyses that provide the context, since without it the data only fuel the masculinist discourses.

    13. In addition, the collection of gendered data should be systematically disaggregated by social environment or other relevant variables, such as level of education, type of work, ethnic origin, etc.

    On the Effects of this Discourse on Women, Women’s Groups and Feminists:
    14. Many women and women’s groups may experience repercussions from the propaganda of the masculinist discourse, whether in terms of grants to maintain existing resources or create new ones, increased violence against women and the consequent need to accommodate more women, access to public resources, employment equity, possible discrimination in the application of legislation and the creation of new bills, or in terms of the education of girls at risk — completely overlooked — and guilt trips laid on those who succeed, etc. We suggest that support be given to establishing a monitoring and awareness network (an observatory centre) among people and groups targeted by these discourses, notably gays and lesbians, who are victims of the same hate propaganda. This network could also be responsible for gaining a better understanding of how masculinist groups are influencing policy makers, in order to make them aware of the limitations and shortcomings of these discourses. All policies, measures, programs or legislation related to equal opportunity should be monitored.

    On Research:
    15. We believe that further feminist research should be carried out, notably in the areas of the “alleged violence perpetrated by women,” child custody and health, to provide an empirical base for the arguments, concepts and statistics presented by masculinists.


    The source of the following is an excerpt that used to be part of “School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse” (full citation in the led-in posting to this thread) archived copy of the report. It is not likely that you will be able to find another copy of this on the Net. The Canadian Government has done a very good job of removing all other copies that contained “APPENDIX II: LIST OF MEN’S ASSOCIATIONS”, including those that were once accessible at the web archive.

    Canadian Associations
    British Columbia
    • BC Fathers
    Ken Wiebe, creator of the BC Fathers Web site

    • Michael Jebbett, Director, Victoria Men’s Centre
    Joseph Maillo
    John Hedlin, retired social worker

    • Association, Parent’s Coalition of B. C.
    Todd Eckert, President

    • Kamloops Parents of Broken Families
    Mickey MacMillan, Founder of the Men’s Alternative Safe House in a private house on Seymour Street

    • MERGE (Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality):
    Ferrell Christensen, professor of philosophy, University of Alberta

    • Alberta Men’s Resource Centre
    Chris Cavenaugh

    • Family of Men Support Society
    Earl Silverman

    • Men’s Educational Support Association (MESA)
    Gus Sleiman

    • Men’s Equalization Inc.

    • National Alliance for the Advancement of Non-Custodial Parents (N.A.A.N.C.P.) / Alliance Nationale des Organisations pour l’entraide des parents Non-Gardiens (A-ONG)
    Jason Bouchard

    • Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law
    James Hodgins

    • Canadian Men’s Parenting Association


    • Children for Justice
    Frank Verkey
    Dale Cherr

    • Coalition of Canadian Men’s Organizations
    J. Kirby Inwood

    • Divorce and Defence Strategies Canada (DADS Canada)
    Stacy Robb, President

    • Equal Parenting of Durham (EPD)
    Peter Meier
    Ron Dovey

    • Ex-Fathers
    Lloyd Gorling

    • Fathercraft Communication
    Glenn Cheriton

    • Fathers Are Capable Too (F.A.C.T.)

    • Fathers After Rights Equalization (F.A.R.E.)
    Brett Peters

    • Fatherz for Justice — Ontario
    Rick Morrison
    Paul Nelson
    Robert McKinnon
    Joe Lopez
    Steve Jackson

    • Fathers’ Group — Owen Sound
    Graham Jordan

    • Fathers Helping Fathers
    Tim Ready, Founding President

    • Fathers’ Rights Brantford

    • Fathers’ Support Group — Nepean
    Cathy Gardner

    • Fathers With Rights
    Armand Massicotte


    • In Search of Justice
    Ross Virgin, President

    • Kids Need Both Parents
    Chuck Farrauto

    • Mending Fences Support Services for Men Inc.
    Scott Elliott

    • Men’s Divorce Centre
    Terry Bissessar

    • Men’s Health Network
    Glenn Cheriton, Ottawa Coordinator

    • Ontario Centre for Men
    Alan Roth

    • Single Fathers of Niagara
    Alan Roth

    • Single Fathers Network of Ottawa
    Robert Gagnon

    • Windsor Men’s Forum
    Bob Cartlidge

    • Toronto Men’s Clearinghouse
    Greg Barowski

    • Entraide Pères-Enfants Séparés (ENPES)
    Jacques Dupuis
    Claude Bouchard

    • Groupe d’entraide aux pères et de soutien à l’enfant (GEPSE)
    Yves Coutu, President
    Jean Lanthier

    • Groupe d’action des Pères pour le Maintien des Liens Familiaux (GAPLMF)
    Norman Levasseur, President
    Réal Proulx, Vice-President
    Sylvain Gélinas, Secretary


    • L’Après-rupture
    Gilbert Claes, CEO
    Jean-Claude Boucher, President
    Serge Ferrand

    • Association Masculine d’Entraide pour la Famille (AMEF)
    Jacques Pettigrew, President

    • L’A.M.I. (Association masculine irénique)
    Roger Fatta, Founding President

    • Organisation pour le Respect des Liens Familiaux
    Jean-Dominique Riché, Founding President

    • Organisation pour la Sauvegarde des Droits des Enfants
    Ricardo Di Done, President
    Germain Dulac, professor of sociology, McGill University
    Jeffrey Asher, professor of social studies
    Glenne F. Cartwright, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University

    • Men’s Legal Defence Fund
    Mark Wickam

    • Réseau Men Québec
    Guy Corneau, Network founder

    American Associations
    • American Fathers Coalition (lobby wing of the National Congress for Fathers and Children)
    Warren Farrell
    Stuart A. Miller, senior legal analyst

    • Centre of Fathering — Colorado Springs

    • Coalition for the Preservation of Fatherhood — Boston

    • Coalition of Free Men — New York

    • Daddy and Me (national association)
    Ilan Rabinowitz

    • Dads Against Discrimination (DADS) (national association)
    Victor Smith, Portland
    Bob Karls, Seattle


    • False Memory Syndrome Foundation

    • Fathers Are Parents Too
    Ande Burke

    • Fathers for Equal Rights — National
    David Shelton, Dallas
    Ed Wilson, Montrose
    Adolph Riebenack, Huntsville
    Dick Woods, Iowa

    • Fathers’ Rights and Equality Exchange (F.R.E.E.) — California

    • M.A.L.E. — Colorado

    • Men’s Media Network — National (anti-feminist)

    • Men’s Life Coaching

    • Ken Byers, Ph.D., author of ‘Man in Transition and Father and Son Survival Kit’

    • Men’s Defense Association
    Richard F. Doyle

    • Men’s Health Network (national association)

    • Mentor

    • MN Men’s Conference (annual five-day retreat for men)
    Robert Bly

    • National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM)
    Pradeep Ramanathan, Senior Vice-President

    • National Association for Fathering

    • National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centres (NOCIRC)

    • National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM)

    • New Warrior Training

    • Promise Keepers


    United States — Referents
    • William Pollack, clinical psychologist, Co-director of the Centre for Men at McLean Hospital / Harvard Medical School, author of ‘The Real Boys

    • Robert Bly, Mythopoetic Men’s Movement

    • Warren Farrell, Ph.D., author of ‘The Myth of Men Power’

    • Herb Goldberg, Ph.D., author of ‘The Hazards of Being Male’

    • Ira Daniel Turkat, Ph.D. (abusive mothers syndrome related to divorce), Florida Institute of Psychology, University of Florida College of Medicine

    • Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., author of ‘The War on Boys: How Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men’

    • Daniel Amneus, Ph.D., author of ‘The Garbage Generation’ and ‘The Case for Father Custody’

    • Dr. James A. Levine, Director of Fatherhood Project of Families and Work Institute, New York

    • Catherine T. Coyle and Robert Enright, Ph.D. (educational psychology), authors of a study (1997) on ‘Post-Abortion Men’

    Australian Associations
    • Dads Queensland

    • Queensland Men’s Issues

    • Men’s Rights
    Warren Farrel

    • Australian Men’s Party

    • Australian Men’s Health Network

    • Australian False Memory Association (AFMA)

    French Associations
    • L’Enfant Et Son Droit

    • SOS PAPA
    Michel Thizon, Founder

    • SOS PAPA NORMANDIE Yasser Abouzeid, Founding President


    Luc Domas, President

    • Fédération des Mouvements de la Condition Paternelle

    • Nouveau Mouvement de la Condition Paternelle (N.M.C.P.)

    • Mouvement condition masculine–Soutien de l’enfance
    Marc Pradet, President Christophe Henry, Vice-President
    Gilles Garnier, Secretary General
    Roger Andon Kazian, Treasurer

    France: References
    • Christiane Olivier, psychoanalyst

    • Guy Corneau, psychoanalyst

Comments are closed.