But regardless - you should consider the argument and not the motives or reasons of the person behind them. Don’t shoot the messenger until you have understood the message and you clearly have not understood the message - why is it that when changes occur that if there is a gender diference in the effect of those changes that it is just about always men who suffer more than women? Is it coincedence or is there a deeper conspiracy going on?

Laugh if you like, but it would be better to join the fight against female subjugation of men before it is too late.

I’m not going to get into an argument - it would take us too long and I doubt it’d achieve much. The fact is that in your blog there is the odd good point floating around. The problem is that you take your opinions and analysis to such an extreme level that it robs you of your credibility because your readers start laughing before they understand what you’re trying to say.

Discrimination in its purest form is inevitable - take one of your points:

There are currently proposals to introduce road pricing (‘toll roads’) on motorways. This would disproportionately penalise men who make up the majority of high mileage drivers.

That’s probably true, assuming you mean disproportionate as in ‘proportion’ rather than ‘proportionality’. Everything we do in life effects one group more than another. But an intelligent analysis accepts that as inevitable, and goes a step further to say ‘how does it affect individuals?’ This is where any argument that the discrimination has a practical impact on an individual because of his gender falls down: a man and a woman will pay the same toll. Your approach is to say ‘all men pay more tolls than all women.’ What that does is pit all the men against all the women - is that what you want to happen? On your way of thinking there can never be equality. Women will keep on having children, being worse at reading maps, being better at multi-tasking, crashing their cars less often, and so on. And there will always be more of them, and they’ll live longer. Because that’s just biology. All we can do in society is create the maximum opportunity for each individual to reach their potential.

None of that is meant to take away from things that you say are in themselves unfair - such as the argument you make about ‘passported days’ in child benefit. These are genuine, good points. But the rest of what you say is so twisted by the hate you have inside you that to anyone without your experiences it’s gibberish. I’m sorry, but it is. Gibberish.

I honestly think you should keep doing the blog, and sharing your opinions. However, you might want to take a step back, get rid of the emotion left over from whatever happened (or didn’t happen) to you, and decide rationally on your key arguments. Ditch the examples, especially ones you must know are weak - like saying that this story wouldn’t have been reported if it were a man - and do an essay in a couple of hundred words which gives those points. Write it for the majority who, like me, don’t at the moment care about what you have to say. Make it persuasive instead of just ranting. And maybe then, you’ll change some minds. Good luck with it.