Misandry Kills

I’m a scientist. I build arguments from evidence, not ideology. So when I say misandry kills, I’m not being hyperbolic - I’m counting bodies.

49,000 men died by suicide in the US last year (www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm). That’s one every 11 minutes. Men die by suicide at four times the rate women do, and that gap keeps growing.

Here’s what nobody wants to talk about: when we examine the systems correlated with these deaths, we find feminist fingerprints everywhere.

The Duluth Model - created by feminist activists Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar in 1981 - arrests male domestic violence victims when they call for help. It was explicitly built on the theory that domestic violence is “patriarchal terrorism” by men against women (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model). When male victims get arrested instead of helped, that’s not a bug. That’s the framework working exactly as designed. Pence herself later admitted: “We created a conceptual framework that didn’t fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with.”

Family courts separate fathers from children at rates that correlate directly with suicide. Divorced men have double the suicide risk of married men (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10706340). When states adopt joint custody laws, male suicide rates drop 9% (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14652268). That’s roughly 4,400 lives per year that policy could save. But we don’t, because acknowledging it would require examining whether feminist advocacy for maternal custody preference contributed to the problem.

Men die at work at nine times the rate women do - 5,041 deaths versus 445 in 2022 (www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi\_revised22.htm). Yet workplace safety advocacy focuses overwhelmingly on getting women into boardrooms, not reducing male occupational mortality. When men are dying in logging, fishing, and construction at rates that would spark international intervention if they affected women, and nobody’s talking about it - that’s not oversight. That’s systematic devaluation.

Criminal justice gives men 63% longer sentences than women for identical crimes (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002). That’s larger than racial sentencing disparities. Women are twice as likely to avoid prison entirely. But there’s no movement demanding we address this gap, because the framework we use to identify injustice doesn’t recognize men as potential victims of systemic bias.

Title IX procedures removed due process protections for accused students in 2011. The president of the Association of Title IX Administrators admits 40-50% of campus sexual assault allegations are “baseless,” yet the system uses a 50.01% evidence standard. Black men are disproportionately targeted - at some schools they’re 4x more likely to be accused despite being tiny minorities of the student population. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by wrongfully accused students whose lives were destroyed on allegations alone.

Governor Newsom issued an executive order in July 2025 addressing California’s “alarming rise in suicides and disconnection among young men and boys.” He noted that California has extensive infrastructure for women and girls’ wellbeing, but virtually nothing comparable for boys and men - despite one in four young men having no close friends (up from one in twenty in 1990), despite male unemployment exceeding female, despite boys failing at every educational level.

Even a Democratic governor in a blue state now recognizes the crisis.

Here’s what’s telling: when you search academic databases for “gender bias in research funding,” every single study examines bias against women. Not one investigates whether men’s issues are underfunded. When men try to advocate - Warren Farrell at University of Toronto (www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0), campus men’s groups at Ryerson - they get physically blockaded by feminist protesters or banned entirely. The Canadian Federation of Students officially opposes men’s rights groups as “misogynist” in policy.

The research gap isn’t an accident. It’s suppression.

I’ve been told these harms are all caused by “patriarchy” or “toxic masculinity” - that men did this to themselves. But the Duluth Model wasn’t created by patriarchy. It was created by feminists, based on feminist theory, and implemented as policy. Family court presumptions didn’t emerge from toxic masculinity. They came from feminist advocacy starting in the 1800s. Title IX procedures weren’t designed by male power brokers. They were implemented through feminist lobbying.

When feminist-designed systems correlate with male deaths, and the theoretical framework says it’s still men’s fault, that framework exists to make feminist culpability invisible.

Men are dying at epidemic rates. Boys are failing at every educational level. Fathers are being systematically separated from children. Male domestic violence victims are being arrested. Men receive massively longer criminal sentences. Prime-age male labor force participation has collapsed from 98% to 89% since 1954.

And when anyone tries to discuss it, they’re told they’re playing “oppression olympics” or engaging in “whataboutism.”

At what point does systematic indifference to male death, combined with active opposition to anyone trying to address it, become functionally equivalent to causing it?

I’m not asking you to stop caring about women’s issues. I’m asking you to acknowledge that men are dying under systems that feminist ideology built, and that dismissing those deaths as “patriarchy backfiring” is just a way to avoid examining whether the movement that claims to want gender equality has caused catastrophic harm to half the population.

The bodies are real. The policies are documented. The correlations are measurable.

Misandry kills. And we’re not allowed to talk about it.