A familiar canard of modern feminism is that men cannot be discriminated against, because they do not face powerful, institutional forms of oppression that disadvantage them for the simple reason they are men, and not women.

This, of course, is absolutely not true. Men are disadvantaged at every level of formal education, continue to die years earlier than women, partially because their healthcare issues are woefully underfunded, and they face severe consequences for violence, particularly violence against women. If the departments of Education, Justice, and Health are not powerful institutional forces, what are?

The promising and extraordinary aspiring doctor who stabbed her lover in a drug-fueled fueled rage, yet faces no jail time because a conviction would seriously inconvenience her plans to become a heart surgeon, is just one example of women who are ‘oppressed’ and ‘discriminated against’ in a system designed by mysterious patriarchal forces to absolve women of consequences, even when men suffer and die.

The Glass Smasher

When William Scott had the audacity to text another girl on Facebook, Lucie Slater responded by smashing a glass she was holding across his face. The damage was significant, resulting in a disfiguring wound that severed an artery and left her aspiring model boyfriend unable to control nerves in his face.

Lucie was spared jail for this assault, despite ending Scott’s career ambitions. According to the judge, Lucie was drunk and “lost her temper”.

The Jezebel Editors

Failed Gawker site Jezebel, run by a team of feminist editors, recount in fairly graphic detail the extent to which they regularly assault their male partners. The violent ladies find the assaults quite amusing, while acknowledging that they are engaged in what can only be called domestic violence.

No record of any of these women facing criminal consequences for their actions can be found.

The Hit Man for Hire

Nicole Doucet was not a happy camper up in Canada when she decided she preferred widowhood to divorce. Having lost custody of her daughter to her ex-husband, Nicole hired a hitman to negotiate a much more favorable outcome for her. He stole her $25 000 and declined to kill Mike Ryan, who suffered from a bad attitude, but was never physically violent with his wife.

The next hitman was a police officer, who recorded Nicole on tape, requesting her ex-husband’s murder.

The courts decided Nicole was an abused woman who was simply fighting back and declined to sentence her to any jail time.

The Boxcutter

When Bonita Vela suspected her daughter’s boyfriend of molesting her two year old son, she decided to take justice into her own hands. The boyfriend vigorously denied the charges, but this did not stop Bonita from trapping the man in a trailer and hacking at his penis with a box cutter, so he would be left with a visible scar.

Bonita faces no jail time.

Dancing With Tears In My Eyes

When Jon Steer attacked a stranger, glassing him in the face for trying to break up a fight in a pub, Steer was sentenced to eight years in prison. When Alice Walpole glassed the nice man playing air guitar, dancing and chatting with her, she had an iron-clad excuse that saved her from any jail time.

She was wasted, dude, and couldn’t remember a thing.

When it comes to violence against men, women get a pass that no man would get.

There is a curious lack of protest from feminists who generally oppose gender inequalities.

  • CrusadaB

    Fight like a girl has a whole new meaning today.

  • Daniel Sundkvist

    Thank you Milo for this article. I think the hidden amount of female violence towards males is huge. Have you noticed all the “revenge” movies where some raped or abused woman has the moral upper hand to apply a horrible revenge on men? The message seems to be that only women have the right and reason to fight back. Time to make a reversed revenge movie I think.

  • Keith

    Men don’t fight back. There in lies the problem. Same sob story decades ago with the issue of child custody and alimony. Men(Hetero) do nothing but piss and moan.

    • Thomas Crane

      If men fight back they are the one’s arrested. One of the guys in the The Red Pill was told by the cops that if his wife broke a fingernail from punching him in the face they would lock him up.

      • David Calvani

        Keith was talking about fighting back in a sense other than physical violence.

        Of course, a man can always defend himself physically against cops who would falsely arrest him.

      • Keith

        Men as a group would stand in front of the police station demanding fair treatment. This obsessive compulsive individualism is cancer.

  • Rekt

    And people wonder why are MGTOW.

  • karen straughan

    The Nicole Ryan case is even more egregious than what you presented here.

    In the video of her negotiating with the “hit man” (and I’m going from memory), he came right out and asked her, “like, is he hitting you or anything?” She replied, “no no, nothing like that.” BUT, it was very important that the deed be done before a certain date (that happened to be the date the divorce was due to be finalized), likely because once it was final she’d cease to have a claim on his military pension and death benefits.

    Of course, when she presented the battered woman defence along with claims that she had phoned 911 several times and the police had “abandoned” her, the media in Canada went apeshit, with feminist groups calling for an RCMP complaints commission inquiry. Among her claims was that she had been living in fear of Mike Ryan, who she was terrified would murder her. This, despite the fact that he’d not only somehow managed to get full custody of their daughter, but had moved hundreds of kilometres away to get away from HER, had gotten a new, much younger girlfriend, and was moving on with his life.

    Anyway, Mike was parked outside the courthouse at the initial trial, waiting to be called in to testify. The prosecutor never did call him, believing the case to be a slam dunk based on what Nicole had told the undercover cop “hit man”: that Mike had never hit her, and that she stood to inherit well over a million dollars if he died before the divorce was final.

    She was acquitted, and the prosecution appealed (IIRC) on the basis that Nicole had never substantiated her claims of being a battered woman.

    While waiting on the appeal, the complaints commission inquiry was underway.

    The appeal court upheld the acquittal, even despite admitting: “It is hard to imagine that, as a teacher with a steady income, support from family and friends, presumed police protection, a divorce in the works and with the last specific threat months before the ‘crime’, she would not have had other avenues of escape.”

    Among the findings of the inquiry: 1) there was no record that Nicole had ever called 911 over domestic violence, nor that she had ever made any complaint against her husband; 2) there WAS a record of violence on the part of Nicole, who had a habit of assaulting family members with whom she wasn’t getting along, and had even tried to run her own sister over with a car.

    Despite ALL of this, when the case went to the Supreme Court, the decision was that “as a battered woman” she had already been through enough. They stayed the charges.

    From the SCC decision: “It seems the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. Ryan than they had been to respond to her request for help in dealing with his reign of terror over her.”

    Um… you dumbasses. She never requested help from the police. She told a hit man that he’d never laid a finger on her and that she was motivated by money.

    The decision vilifies both Mike Ryan and the RCMP. She falsely accused Mike of beating her, and falsely accused the RCMP of repeatedly abandoning a battered woman to her abuser. There is absolutely no evidence of either of these allegations.

    The ONLY evidence in this case was the video in which she told a hit man her husband had never hit her, and she was after his money, and multiple complaints to police regarding her OWN violence toward her family members.

  • David Calvani

    Feminists are miserable harpies with penis envy.

    Or, in other words, they are females jealous of the strengths of the male sex. They can’t have said strengths, of course, so they engage in unending war against males.

  • David Calvani

    This story needs to be spread far and wide.

  • Fangtooth

    “There is a curious lack of protest from feminists who generally oppose gender inequalities.”

    Who *CLAIM to oppose gender inequalities.

    Of course they don’t. Feminism never was a cause for gender equality. That’d be equalism, not feminism. Feminism is called feminism because what defines it is the dogma that women form an oppressed class. And men the oppressor.