For decades men have been receptive of the message that they must ``be better". Thousands of publications mentioned terrible crimes committed by men and called on men to be better. But how? But why?

Of course the 0.5% of men who have been guilty of murder should have been better and perhaps they would be rehabilitated by prison. Canadian and West European prison conditions are much more humane then those in USA, so they should have much greater rehabilitative effect on offenders. Different studies give different percentages for men guilty of rape -- ranging from 1% to 6%. According to "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence", 18.9% of women and 6.1% of men perpetrated nonreciprocal IPV. Of course the 6.1% men should not have been abusive, but the same applies to almost 19% of women.

Do the 90% of men who were never abusive need to be better? How and what for? Begin with how. Most publications mention not taking offense at generalizations like "men are pigs" and "men are scum". On several forums it has been suggested that men may take offense, but they "do not have to" talk about it. Others request that men must police other men for making sexist jokes.

Now we can look at the question of why. By not taking offense at generalizations of their gender, men can show how open minded they are. Indeed, since 1970s, men tolerated slander and generalization against their gender which would have not been acceptable against any other birth group. What has Tolerance for the Intolerant brought men as a class? It has brought misandrists and others with abusive personality making careers of slandering and abusing men. As a result, men came to be seen as vile and monstrous Privileged Oppressors. The very tolerance, humility and open mindedness of most men is the reason men as a class have such terrible reputation.

Misandrists claim that all men are trash, pigs, and scum complicit in every act of oppression. They claim that men have no or almost no goodness. The same misandrists rely on men's godness as the main resource for abusing and vilifying men. They rely on men's unconditional loyalty. They rely on extraordinary kindness and tolerance of men who accept hate speech unacceptable toward any other birth group. Misandrists understand very well what they are doing.

Many men tolerate misandry in order to attract misandrists as dating partners. Unfortunately, this is an almost guaranteed way for a man to attract an abuser. Given that DV laws are biased against men, the male victim himself is likely to end up in jail.

Should men police their friends for "sexist" jokes? Finding good friends is hard and losing them is easy. A friend lost over speech policing may be a friend unavailable for help when needed. Should a man sacrifice his friendships over jokes?

That would make sense if men could count on feminists to call out hate and violence against men. That would make sense if feminists called out constant male bashing on MSM and Social Media. And/or if feminists called out women and some men who laugh at men who have been castrated for infidelity. And/or if if feminists called out women and some men who laugh at men being abused in comedy. And/or if feminists denounced and boycotted their own popular site Jezebel for bragging about committing Domestic Violence.Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have

We are very grateful to Equality Feminists and all women who speak up for male victims of abuse and discrimination. We view their help as a great act of Charity, Kindness and Humanity. We never feel entitled to anyone's help nor do we view help as a duty. Likewise, men have no legal or moral duty to police other men's speech.

Unfortunately, being good" andbeing better" has brought men a continuum of discrimination, vilification, and abuse. Hard as is it is, men must understand that they must look out for their own personal and class interests. If that means ``being worse", then so be it.