By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

AVFM Fundraiser

1/4/14 edit:
A huge thank you to everyone who donated to this fundraiser. AVFM is pushing forward into the new year having met their fundraising goals for the quarter. This will be an exciting year, with a new radio system, the first AVFM hosted men's rights conference (may there be many to come), a widening network, and continued journalistic excellence. Thanks everyone who donated, and thanks to everyone for reading, listening, watching, and supporting the site and the activism.  

A Voice For Men is seeking donations to help fund site operations and expansion. There's a host of good reasons to donate explained in this AVFM article about the fundraising effort, including

  • Journalistic and editorial coverage of men's issues.
  • The Voices of Men Network, a new platform by A Voice for Men where you can represent your country as a part of the official AVfM worldwide community.

AVFM has been very helpful in sharing important information I've gathered during the last year. I have several articles published on the site, which allowed the point in those articles to reach a much wider audience than I'd normally reach simply publishing the information myself. The article Feminists define rape to exclude male victims, and the article Abused boys and men: feminism's acceptable losses are two examples. Each contain links to information which is useful in better understanding some of the conditions which cause legal and social discrimination against male victims of intimate partner and sexual violence, especially when the perpetrator is female. 

Funds collected in this drive will go to support these activities and more, fueling acceleration of the MHRM's momentum to continued and potentially greater achievement in 2014. If you can, please consider supporting A Voice For Men's continued activism, journalism, and unifying efforts with a donation.

Reddit Feminists admit everything, page 2

Return to page 1

Several times during the last few years, men's issues discussion has included analysis and criticism of events in which there was feminist involvement;

In each instance, instead of dealing with the reality of overt behavior on behalf of their movement, internet feminists have used the deflection, dodging, and denial approach I've previously described. Among the arguments used in that approach:

  • Active, world-effecting feminists don't represent what feminism means to the world (a staple in their repertoire).
  • That feminists pushed for something doesn't mean feminists are responsible for it happening.
  • That a response or claim is based on widely-articulated and cited feminist ideology or claims doesn't link the response or claim to feminism.
  • That feminists spoke out in support of an individual's actions doesn't link those actions to feminism. 

In each case, internet feminists have essentially argued that no matter what other indicators exist making a connection between a behavior or event, and feminism or any specific feminist group, unless there is an undeniable, in-your-face smoking gun, it's unreasonable to discuss those connections and draw any conclusions which would consider those connections valid.

Imagine my surprise... okay, so I wasn't surprised, just delighted at the ability to cite yet another display of feminist hypocrisy... when reddit feminists used exactly the same processes they have previously criticized when they wanted to support the claim "Men's Rights Activists flooded Occidental university with false rape reports!"

Now, for the record, here's where I have to admit to trolling a reddit feminist or two (and I'd apologize to them, but you know, they really asked for it) in order to get better evidence of that hypocrisy.

It didn't start out that way. I came in to that situation after the fact, not knowing whether or not there had even been any MRAs who filled out forms. Reading the accusation, the feminist response to it appeared to me to be completely hysterical. After all, they have spent the last few years arguing that false accusations are no big deal, even when they have real, life-wrecking consequences. They've specifically argued that wrongful use of the form in question would cause no damage at all, despite the stigma of being labeled a sex offender without the recourse of any kind of hearing for the accused. The equivalent would be in arguing the right to tattoo the word "rapist" on someone any time you like, because after all, that isn't same as imprisonment.
Therefore, it's not an abuse of the individual's rights.

If those really are their beliefs, it should not have bothered them if there had been over 9000 prank accusations filed... unless, of course, what is not damaging when women supported by feminists do it becomes a holy freakin' super-destructive force when those Magic Patriarchy Powers™ come into play.

As I looked into the existing discussions, I realized that once again, these feminists were using the molehill + feminist objection = mountain formula for justifying their own articulated outrage. Though the loophole-demonstration approach isn't something I'd have come up with, I don't actually see a problem with it, especially not one which justifies the mouth-frothing feminist response to this incident. Those involved, an unknown, untraceable mix of 4chan users and /r/mensrights subscribers, are not subjecting anyone to anything feminists don't support subjecting men to at random. They're simply demonstrating a serious flaw in the system set up by Occidental; that the anonymity factor and internet-wide availability of their sexual misconduct report form makes it easy to abuse, and abuse of it hard to quell or counter. The smartest approach Occidental could make to this display is to address that flaw, and take steps to improve their reporting system so that actual victims can report misconduct, but their students won't be vulnerable to the same attacks which were perpetrated against the poor Kool-Aid man and various incarnations of Mr. Jimmy Russel this week.

Within my set of comments, I asked for proof of the following:

  • That the behavior (Prank use of Occidental's anonymous reporting form) was widespread among MRAs,
  • That following their brigading of the sub, reddit feminists didn't manipulate voting
  • That anything about the incident (either the demonstrable involvement in the behavior, or the vote pattern on comments and on the original post) demonstrated a unified sub-wide attitude about the behavior.
These weren't complicated questions, and though as I said, I have no doubt that there was involvement by MRAs, these questions weren't outside the standard of reason set by past reddit feminist responses to other discussion of feminist behavior and attitudes. They were based on the reality that an accusation can't be reasonably considered proved if there is not physical evidence, if there's reasonable suspicion of contributing factors not taken into account, and/or if there's not a direct, traceable and unbroken link between presented evidence and the conclusion offered.

The commenters replying to me failed to deliver on all 3 counts.

The show of hypocrisy by reddit's /r/againstmensrights feminists in response to my questions about this incident was priceless. On pushing the feminist trolls on /r/mensrights for more evidence, and then looking through the screenshots and links I was given, I learned the following:

  • A small few /r/mensrights accounts (less than 0.00002% of the sub's overall population) had posted comments claiming to have filled out the forms.
  • A very slightly larger number of /r/mensrights accounts had posted comments discussing the idea, with some encouraging it. Some of these were long-term, prominent members. 
  • There was controversy among regulars in the sub over whether or not the idea was a good idea.
  • Evidence for the claim that MRAs "flooded" Occidental with reports included an official from Occidental stating that reports "contained language similar to that used by members of 4chan and reddit's /r/mensrights." No concrete evidence was presented showing that more reports than were claimed by MRAs came from MRAs, nor was any concrete evidence presented that the official in question had any familiarity with either 4chan or /r/mensrights. 
  • Based on the combined populations from which the reports are said to have come, there was no flood, but a mere 400 reports... a fraction of either individual population, and a pittance when considering their overall numbers. 
  • There was no smoking gun here, but /r/againstmensrights thinks that a minority of comments and claims based on circumstantial evidence constitutes one when it's their accusation they're trying to prove. 
Now, let me repeat that I do believe there were men's rights activists involved in the effort to highlight this huge flaw in Occidental's approach to handling sexual misconduct. From the moment I saw the first list (to which I replied with my initial 0.00002% comment) I knew there were prominent, respected (including by me) MRAs involved, and I have no problem whatsoever with their actions. This article is not a denial of that; it's about the hysterical feminist response to the incident. 

Feminists - the same group which uses the deflect, dodge, and deny approach to discussion about feminist and feminist-led behavior, which responds to evidence of damage done by their movement with NAFALT, and actions taken in their name with "nothing but a smoking gun is evidence" - responded to my trollish barrage of requests for more and more evidence by offering me two things: More circumstantial evidence, and a healthy dose of vitriol. How dare I demand proof when I knew there was none? That they were so sure of their findings should be enough to convince me! Was I nuts? How could I be so unreasonable as to put forth the same requirements and stipulations they've made in the past in response to discussion of feminist behaviors? Don't I realize that when the suspects are MRAs, appearance = guilt?

The realization that those responding to me were so shocked when I presented in mock seriousness the same responses I've seen feminists present in actual seriousness made it a little hard to keep up the charade. I think I blew it in the end by pushing too hard, because they gave up and quit responding...

...but not before they cemented their display of hypocrisy by falling back on oft-used NAFALT-based projection, once again demanding that I ignore the difference between things feminists just don't like, and things that have a demonstrably discriminatory or oppressive impact on men both individually and as a group.

Reddit Feminists admit everything

The main response of feminists on the internet to any criticism of the movement is deflection, dodging, and denial. To understand this, you only have to look back at internet feminists' responses to information presented to them about their movement, and about internet feminists' actions during the last few years.

One example of the deflection response is to dismiss men's issues by combining blame for them on a conspiratorial concept they've labeled "Patriarchy" with the treatment of all men everywhere as a single unit instead of individuals with individual experiences and effects on the world. The gist of this argument is "men's problems are caused by men having power and control in society. One man's power is all men's power. Therefore, your issues are your fault, while women's issues are also your fault. That makes women's issues more important, and means that men aren't qualified to seek and apply solutions to men's issues. You should back off and let feminists have control. Our efforts to empower women will solve all of the issues related to discrimination in the world, and if they don't, you probably deserve to be discriminated against, anyway."

However, an accurate look at the history of the issues and the feminist response to them often reveals that feminist activism and feminist ideological assertions have been either causative or exacerbating factors leading or contributing to discriminatory conditions faced by men.

One example which stands out is the unequal legal handling of child custody and division of property following divorce. It was feminist activism which led to the widespread adoption of the belief that mothers should be primarily awarded child custody. Prior to their involvement, it was standard procedure that custody of children in divorce would remain with fathers, who did not receive any financial support from their ex-wives. Following the change, women given custody of their children were awarded support on the basis of their lower earning capacity. However, as women's earning capacity has increased, the expectation that an ex-husband will continue to fund his ex-wife's custody of their children following their divorce has not decreased in proportion to it.

When estranged fathers denied contact with their children and kept in poverty by exorbitant and often arbitrarily imposed support obligations (and therefore unable to fight the willful alienation imposed by their exes) began lobbying for equal custodial rights, feminist organizations opposed that effort by demonizing all fathers as abusers and deadbeats, and denying the behavior of mothers whose denial of parental contact and abuse of the system led to the effort. Further, feminist groups have not only supported the continuation of the use of outdated reasoning for the imposition of support obligation on divorcing husbands and fathers, they've fought to impose stricter legal handling of that obligation. This, knowing that the group primarily assigned custody is women, and the group primarily assigned child support obligation is men.

Another is the unequal treatment of victims of intimate partner and sexual violence depending on the sex of the victim and the sex of the perpetrator. This is another area in which feminists blame "patriarchy," but a look at their own activism shows that with respect to modern treatment of victims, their hands are as dirty as they can get, in both the area of sexual violence, and intimate partner violence. And they're still doing it. Feminist rape apologia is so blatant that they're willing to admit they have no basis for defining the same forced or coerced sex act differently depending on who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. 

The internet feminist answer to being confronted with feminist involvement in causing or exacerbating discriminatory conditions faced by men is to actually claim that despite their own actions, it's still "patriarchy," not feminism, which is the primary and current cause of these issues because   
1) NAFALT (explained below), and
2) Lawmakers are mostly men, and they don't have to listen to feminist advocates.
In other words, no matter the lobbying/information on which their decisions are based, all discrimination is male lawmakers' fault (female lawmakers who support feminist efforts don't count) and no responsibility can be placed on feminist groups exercising influence on the process. Or to put it another way, the all-powerful male lawmakers should have known that feminist groups were talking out of their asses, ignored all of the information presented to them, and decided purely based on the innate knowledge that comes from male omnipotence.

NAFALT is a combination of deflection, dodging, and denial that takes expert mental gymnastics to pull off. Address a concept upon which the feminist pro-discrimination lobby is based, using it exactly as feminists have described it, and your approach will be dismissed with "that's not what that concept is." Give references for your usage of the concept, and they'll be dismissed with some version of the "Not All Feminists Are Like That" argument, which boils down to the claim that no matter what the mainstream, heavily funded, established and world-effecting segment of feminism has laid down as feminist ideology on which to base their organized activism, if there's anyone anywhere who calls themselves "feminist" and believes or says differently, that feminist constitutes the new "mainstream," and all other feminism with which she disagrees (at the moment) due to her discomfort at hearing organized feminist pro-discrimination activism criticized is "radical." This argument is used in attempts to deflect responsibility for the effects of organized, established feminist activism to the subjective concept "radicalism." It's used to dodge one's responsibility to counter or accept the assertion that discriminatory conditions men currently face cannot be dismissed, or men's activism co-opted by attributing that discrimination to the ill-defined feminist concept "Patriarchy." It's used to deny the movement's role in the political process by proclaiming anything damaging which organized feminism has done "not feminism."

The NAFALT argument is the lazy feminist's answer to any criticism of any damaging thing ever done by feminist activists. It doesn't actually counter any of those criticisms, but it makes the feminist offering it more comfortable with them. 

Recently, feminists have begun responding to rejection of the NAFALT argument with lame attempts at projection. This method entails equating "prominence within a group" with "political/government establishment" and demanding that men's rights activists "take responsibility" for  men's issues discussion to which feminists take personal or ideological offense, by censoring said "offensive" speech. "If feminism is responsible for feminist-advocated and feminist-lobbied anti-male discriminatory conditions, then you're oppressing me by not condemning other MRAs for saying things I don't like!"

To employ this method, feminists treat speech they dislike as if their dislike defines it as malevolent, and  elevates its impact and that imposed malevolence to the same level as the active feminist lobby for discrimination against men in law, policy, and social response. In other words, the argument is "If you don't accept the claim that feminism is not responsible for the real, demonstrable damage feminist activism has done, then we expect you to let us tell you what you can and can't say on the basis that you're responsible for our emotional response to it. Having in existence statements we don't want to hear is as damaging to us as being falsely imprisoned, having one's victimization by intimate partner or sexual violence condoned by society and the law, being artificially pushed into poverty by the law, and being denied contact with one's children. We just can't tell the difference between an affront to our own fragile and twisted sensibilities, and real, demonstrable oppression."

Pointing out the double standard in that approach varies in effect depending on which feminists are involved in the discussion. Those purporting to be reasonable will often simply abandon the discussion at this point. Vehement opponents of the men's human rights movement, such as the trolls from reddit.com's /r/againsmensrights (certainly not a name that contains bias, right?) subreddit, on the other hand, have actually tried to justify their molehill=mountain and mountain=molehill mentality in two ways. 

The first is by assuming for themselves the right to not be offended and treating that presumed "human right" as if it is as valid and vital as the very real human rights which are violated when one is wrongfully imprisoned, stripped of personal property, separated from one's loved ones, or subjected to tolerance of violent crimes against oneself specifically on the basis of one's sex. In this way, internet feminists exercise a complete abandonment of all sense of proportion and authenticity in order to feel justified in attempting to use criticism of feminism as leveraging support for their effort to cut off nonfeminist or antifeminist speech about men's issues. 

The second is the "lower ground" argument, which employs the social justice concept of "privilege." The "privilege" dialogue uses treatment of perceived disadvantage as an excuse to infer guilt upon anyone not experiencing that disadvantage, and a baseline level of innocence for the disadvantaged. The term is used as a cattle prod in gender and other human issues discussion, allowing Social Justice ideologues to claim it's justified to treat existing conditions differently based on the "averaging" factor of privilege. Injustices against privileged people become justified; Injustices against the non-privileged are amplified. This allows the feminist to ignore real, life-effecting conditions in favor of an ideological interpretation of them. "Oh, you're in jail? Well, you're male, so you have Magic Patriarchy Powers™ that cancel out all adversity. Women have it worse just trying to live in public because women are oppressed."

The double standard approach to justifying feminist deflection of responsibility for their own movement's damage to society can also be seen in internet feminists' responses to the last few years' events. In this case, the double standard is in their application of standards of evidence.

Page 2

FOIA update - Sorry for the cliffhanger

Edit: In light of the CDC's efforts to cover up their researchers' discrimination against male victims of sexual assault by female perpetrators, Alison and I decided the call referred to in this post merited further exploration. Alison looked at it from a very basic, fundamental standpoint which plows past the psychobabble to the stark reality of feminist researcher bias... one the researchers themselves cannot explain away when bluntly asked about it. This video was the result

*     *     *

The CDC's condition for releasing to me the data I requested from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey was that I speak to them about it via phone conference before doing anything with the numbers I received.

On Thursday afternoon, I spent nearly an hour with them discussing the information. The gist of the conversation was that they don't want raw data used for anything.
I had requested raw data specific to the year 2010. I was very specific at the beginning of my letter in stating that all of the numbers requested was from the data for the year 2010. According to the instructions at the beginning of the PDF I was sent, I received simply raw data. I sent an email repeating the request, and was told it would be addressed during the conversation. Instead of offering the data they used to calculate the "last 12 months" numbers they released in their report, they told me they didn't have those numbers.

That's not actually possible, considering they reported predictions across the U.S. population based on those numbers. However, there was simply nowhere to go on that question, as it was made clear that I was going to be stonewalled.

They made a point of telling me that the only way to get the numbers they got was to weight and manipulate the data exactly the way they had done, meaning that some of the numbers were given more weight in figuring statistics than others, based on criteria determined by the researchers, and referred me to table B-1 of appendix B of the NISVS full report for more information on their criteria.  
I've made a composite screenshot of that page for this post.

I also asked specifically about the choice to define male respondents having been made to penetrate as "other sexual offense" instead of rape.

The researchers I spoke to stumbled profoundly over answering that, eventually falling back on a long version of "because the 'experts' said so." They could not give me any specific reason why forcibly subjecting a male victim to coitus or receipt of fellatio should be any less reasonably considered rape as forcing a woman to perform coitus or receipt of oral penetration of the vagina.

These were the basic admonitions upon which the researchers made a point to say that the data they recorded showing male victims who reported female perpetrators could not be compared to the data they collected showing female victims who reported male perpetrators.

From the above criteria, all I can gather is that they think the accuracy or value of the data they collected varies based on what type of phone people use, their age, their ethnicity, or their sex.
For the purpose of predicting how many people overall in the U.S. may have suffered victimization during the time periods covered by the survey, that may be true, but it doesn't follow that the data doesn't accurately show what percentage of male respondents reported female perpetrators, vs what percentage of female respondents reported male perpetrators, unless the researchers think perpetrators of intimate partner and sexual violence select victims based on that criteria. Based on that, I see no reason to not report and use those percentages calculated straight from the raw data. 

On a side note, I can see that the data on gay and lesbian partner violence is drawn from ridiculously small samples. I don't think those samples are enough to predict anything about the overall population of the U.S. Drawing out less than 200 respondents in any given segment to predict the experiences of millions does not seem like a reasonable approach, and I think other studies would be needed to make any of the results found in the NISVS worth depending on to guide an approach to addressing intimate and partner violence within those communities, and I am going to have to do some more research on incidence before even considering the potential for conclusions about my local area, community needs, and how those needs might be met. I don't think the CDC survey is going to be any help with that. It may be useful in campaigning for assistance for male victims in general, but until I can gather more information on the prevalence of intimate partner and sexual violence in the GLBT community, I can't assume that any effort I put into that area will actually be beneficial. That's a setback, but not a deterrent.

Without further comment, below is a link to the PDF file the CDC sent me:


Here is the question list to which it was sent in response: 

I am requesting information from a document, not the entire document. The document referenced in this request is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The overall document is the raw data from the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

I am requesting access to some of the raw NUMBERS (not any data containing personally identifying information of surveyed individuals) on which the information given in the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010) Report is based. All numbers requested are requested from the data for the year 2010.

I am specifically interested in the following information:

Total number of MALES surveyed.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as bisexual.
Number of total MALES surveyed who self-identified as homosexual.

Total number of FEMALES surveyed.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as bisexual.
Number of total FEMALES surveyed who self-identified as lesbian.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as bisexual.

Number of surveyed MALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as homosexual.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as heterosexual, or did not identify a sexuality.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as bisexual.

Number of surveyed FEMALE victims reporting in each category of sexual violence and partner violence who self-identified as lesbian.

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified lesbian victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual FEMALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified lesbian victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified homosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported FEMALE perpetrators (even if also reporting male perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified heterosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified bisexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Number of surveyed self-identified homosexual MALE victims reporting in each listed category of sexual violence and partner violence (with each category listed separately) who reported MALE perpetrators (even if also reporting female perpetrators.)

Because feminism

Schoolboy feared to have killed himself after being falsely branded a rapist on Facebook

Tom Acton, 16, was subjected to a false rape accusation (circulated as a rumor) after contacting police about drug dealers in his neighborhood. Despite the absence of any evidence, any news story, any police report, and apparently without even a specific alleged victim, the rumors sparked enough local outrage that his schoolmates and other residents of his community threatened, harassed, and bullied him into an apparent suicide.

Some discussion on the story has highlighted the relationship between feminist "rape culture" claims, and the environment of credulity and knee-jerk reactions which led to Acton's death. The first response I saw to that discussion by a self proclaimed feminist is as vapid as one can get, acknowledging that the story is tragic, but ignoring the existing discussion to simply deny responsibility "as a feminist." That's expected; given that the modern feminist victim complex relies largely on hypoagency, it would be out of character for a feminist to take responsibility for any negative result of the movement's advocacy. It's also a steaming load of bullshit. 

Feminists, this tragedy is your fault. It's a direct result of feminist promulgation on rape and rapists.

No, the social response to rape accusations wasn't balanced prior to feminist advocacy. No, there has never been a time when a man could be genuinely believed by his community to be a rapist, and consider himself safe. Even criminals will take vigilante vengeance upon a presumed rapist.

However, thanks to feminists, the existing reaction has been exacerbated to the point where no evidence is needed to spark the kind of outraged harassment and abuse faced by Tom Acton. Society's strict stance on the crime has evolved into a hair-triggered hatred not just of known rapists, but of the accused in general. This isn't a natural extension of society's response to rape. There are other reasons for this, and none of them has anything to do with the society's view on the nature of the crime, or the nature of those who actually commit it.

One reason is the decades of feminist agitation for societal adoption of a "believe the female accuser (feminists say victim) mentality. Once a woman alleges a sex crime, we aren't supposed to ever doubt her story. All rape allegations must be presumed true unless proved false, and often even after proved false. Feminist-presented statistics all rely on the presumption that female accusations of sexual misconduct are rarely false, including popularly used statistics about frequency of occurrence, reporting, arrests, and conviction. This has normalized presuming any man or boy accused of rape guilty.

Another reason is feminist capitalization on male disposability. Any time there is a discussion about the falsely accused, arguments put forth by feminist ideologues rely on taking as a given that imposing adverse conditions on an uninvolved or innocent man can be made acceptable by arguing that doing so will benefit a woman. Feminists impose a false competition upon allegations of sexual misconduct, wrongfully pitting the rights of the accused as a group against the rights of actual crime victims (in part by treating all accusers as victims, as described above, and also in part by treating all accused as perpetrators) as a group. They base arguments on the topic of due process on treating the rights of the accused as a barrier to recognizing the rights of the accuser. This generally includes treating attainment of a conviction as "justice," and that brand of "justice" as an accuser's right by virtue of being presumed honest. This normalizes ignoring the humanity of the accused, which facilitates inhuman treatment of them.

A third is predatory feminist exploitation of female proxy victim status. In order to maximize the mileage feminist advocates get from trotting out female victimization as lobbying material, fundraising fodder, and a ploy for social power, mainstream advocates, academic activists, and grassroots debaters have worked to distort the perception of rape into a belief that the crime is worse than even murder. In fact, many feminist advocates respond to the idea that any crime might be worse than rape with eye-bulging outrage, as if acknowledging that there are crimes more damaging than rape somehow excuses or reduces the crime itself. Treating rape in this manner normalizes the kind of overreaction that incites ordinarily reasonable people to vigilante violence.

A fourth is the hard push by feminists to make all of society responsible for sex crimes committed by male individuals. The "teach men not to rape" and "don't be that guy" campaigns are examples of this. So is the feminist version of "rape culture" theory. The concepts used to support all three of these rely on holding everyone but perpetrators responsible for the crime, while imposing an image of complete and utter helplessness on the entire female population, who are all treated as victims-in-waiting. Feminist advocates use these concepts to try to shame society into adopting their ideological perspective on sex, sexual relationships, and sexual misconduct, and to normalize violence against men accused of misconduct against women.

The effect of this set of approaches, when combined, can lead to a completely warped response to an accusation, or even a rumor, as in Acton's case. Guilt is presumed by reason of accusation. The humanity of the accused is eclipsed by that presumption of guilt; now that he's labeled a rapist, his humanity isn't important any more. Since rape is the most heinous of crimes and the worst experience one can have, so horrible one would prefer to be brutally murdered rather than experience it, the accused is now a terrible monster. He must be stopped, punished, or at least used as a convenient receptacle for everyone else's guilt and outrage. Being an inhuman monster, his bodily autonomy is null and void. It's acceptable to assault him, harass him, threaten him, stalk him, anything to achieve a personal sense of accomplishment in the name of "justice."

It doesn't matter if, as a feminist, you don't feel responsible for Tom Ashton's death. In supporting the ideology that enabled drug dealers in his neighborhood to manipulate his own community into badgering and harassing him to death, you might as well have committed the attack against him and every other innocent victim of rape-accusation triggered social vigilantism yourself.     
If it's your tendency to use the word "victim" to describe a rape accuser whose case has not been tried, much less proved, you're responsible.

If it's your tendency to use the word "rapist" or "perpetrator" to describe a man accused of rape or any other sex crime when his case hasn't yet been tried, much less his guilt proved, you're responsible.

If you're offended at the idea of questioning a rape accuser's story, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued in favor of feminist-advocated legal protection from judicial scrutiny for female accusers using statistics that are based on the assumption that all or most rape reports are true, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued against prosecuting proved false rape accusers because you think it might discourage other women from filing rape accusations, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued against taking measures to discourage false accusation on the basis that it is rare, you're responsible. 

If you're offended at the idea that the potential for severe penalty in a sex crime case merits a high standard for proof of guilt, you're responsible.

If you've ever argued that "it's better to jail an innocent man than to let a rapist go free," you're responsible.

If you've inflated the number of "rapists going free" to make that argument sound more valid, you're responsible.

If you've ever responded to statements about the experiences of the falsely accused by describing the experiences of rape victims, you're responsible.

If you think of obtaining a conviction as justice and a right for a female rape accuser, you're responsible.

If you believe intervention programs for sex offenders work, but you still want to put them on a state-sponsored, publicly available registry after they complete those programs, you're responsible.

If you've ever called rape a worse crime than murder, you're responsible.

If you've ever used the concept of "Schrodinger's rapist" to describe the experience of being female in public, you're responsible.

If you back the use of male-demonizing, society-shaming advocacy such as the "teach men not to rape" or "don't be that guy" campaigns, you're responsible.

If your personal ideology includes a belief in the feminist concept of 'rape culture,' and you've ever defended or advocated that others adopt that belief, you're responsible.

If, upon hearing or reading an unsupported, context-free accusation like the one to which Tom Acton was subjected, you'd believe it, you're responsible.

If you're offended at seeing responsibility for Acton's death attributed to feminists, instead of concerned with how you can help reverse the feminist-led trends that led to it, you're responsible.

If you feel inspired to argue "Not All Feminists Are Like That" in response to this post, and then proceed to tell me what "real feminism" is all about, you're responsible.

If you believe you can fit one of the above descriptions and not be responsible, you're responsible. 

If you're not comfortable with that responsibility, then take some responsibility for reforming your activism, and stop supporting an ideological push designed to create the conditions which cause terrible tragedies like this.

Countering the feminist method of "handling" disagreement

Rather than confront, assess, and decide whether to assimilate or reject information they initially don't like, many feminists have a habit of taking the head-in-the-sand approach, and insisting that everyone else must do so along with them.

That's exactly the approach taken to the recent Victor Zen video, The Feminist Deliverer of Diabetes, as explained in

Copyright Strike Response

Now, when it comes to copyright, I'm a supporter of intellectual property rights within the intent of the law. I'm not so keen on the uneven way it gets enforced, but that's a horse of a different color. You create a work of art, write something new, etc., someone else shouldn't just make a copy and profit from that without your consent and you getting credit for your original work, and some share in the profit (or at least consenting to not get paid for the profitable use of your work.)

Critique of a work, however, does fall under the fair use clause, meaning that it's not a violation of your copyright to show your work when one is offering an analysis of it. You cannot effectively offer that critique without referencing the original, and in doing so, showing it. Claiming a violation of one's copyright against a piece created expressly for the purpose of critiquing one's work is not within the letter or intent of copyright law. It's simply a lazy-assed, yellow-bellied cowardly attempt at preventing legitimate criticism of one's work.

As stated in the video at the above link, when you make a vlog, you put yourself out there. People are going to respond to your work, and answer what you put out there. People are going to disagree with you. There is nothing you can do to stop them, even if you sincerely and vehemently believe everything you think and say. Or, as I find myself having to remind feminists on reddit all the time, thinking you're right doesn't make you immune to criticism. 
For some reason, that just doesn't seem to sink in with feminists. Instead of realizing "hey, basing my assertions on emotion and fluff instead of facts and logic has left me open to being caught with my intellectual ass hanging in the wind" they attempt to silence their critics, especially those who make valid points which require the listener or reader to



This bobble-headed femthusiasm cheerleader is apparently no different, since her response to criticism of her statements was to attempt to cover her wind-chapped ass and demonstrate the validity of a men's rights issue by leveling a false accusation of copyright infringement (much in the way a woman whose boyfriend finds out she's cheating on him might level a false accusation of rape against her consensual, illicit sex partner) and as a result, the channel - not just the video, but the channel has been censored so that no video longer than 15 minutes can be uploaded to it.

In the interest of preventing the use of censorship as a substitute for open debate, here's a link to the censored video:

The Feminist Deliverer of Diabetes

I encourage everyone who reads this to pass both of these links on to others, whether you link to this blog post or not.

Why do male feminists support campaigns that label all men rapists-in-waiting?

Seriously, this is probably one of the most subtly disturbing things about male feminists.

I mean, they have to have some kind of a basis for believing that "rapist" is the natural "untrained" male state of being, because that's pretty much what they're expressing... but the implication of that carries what I'd think would feel to a rational person like intellectual splashback. 

You'd expect a person to be shocked when confronted with the notion that behavior he finds abhorrent is not just common to his sex, but supposedly universal. You'd expect denial, especially from someone without any tendency to exhibit the behavior. A non-rapey man should be appalled at being told that all men are potential rapists, and he should be offended and outraged at having that label applied to him. He should feel like he's been lied about.

For a guy to simply stand by and accept the label, or worse, participate in the application of it to other men indicates something about him... yet male feminists as a group do exactly that.

Here you have a bunch of guys supporting advocacy that says all guys are predisposed to rape unless taught otherwise.

That has to include themselves, doesn't it?

Is the reason they support the idea is because they think all other men... are just like them?

Why do feminists lie about male rape victims

Feminists and feminist-led researchers choose to exclude from the definition of the term rape male victims who, instead of being forcibly penetrated, were "made to penetrate," or forcibly enveloped.

Part of their excuse for this exclusion is the claim the category "made to penetrate" includes incidents during which the perpetrator has forced the victim to use a body part other than his penis to penetrate the perpetrator's body part in order to sexually stimulate the perpetrator, and since the penetrating body parts aren't sexual in nature, the sexual violation of the victim is diminished.  
These are the same groups which define it as rape when a woman is forced to sexually stimulate a man's penis with her mouth, a body part which is also not sexual in nature. They also define it as rape when a female victim is forcibly penetrated by a perpetrator's fingers, even though fingers aren't sexually stimulated.   
They define a female victim as a victim of rape if the perpetrator engages her genitals in a sex act against her will, or if a male perpetrator engages her in a sex act with his genitals against her will. Excluded from this definition is when a female perpetrator engages her in a sex act with the perp's genitals against the victim's will.

They define a male victim as a victim of rape only if a male perpetrator engages the victim in a sex act with the perp's genitals that involves penetrating the victim against his will. Excluded from this is any traditional sex act that engages the victim's genitals, and when a female perpetrator engages him in a sex act with her genitals against his will.  
In other words, the definition isn't written to exclude behaviors that aren't significantly sexually imposing, invasive or traumatic, but specifically to minimize the number of female sex crime perpetrators who would be counted as rapists.

Another excuse feminists and their followers make for this discrepancy is the claim that including incidents of being forced to penetrate would make statistics inaccurate because that category would include males who were forced by a third party to penetrate other victims.   
Let's take another look at that idea.    
A third party forces two people to perform a sex act, and feminists only want to consider one of them a victim, because... ?    
There really isn't an answer to that question which justifies considering one victim's experience rape, but not the other victim's experience. In fact, even if you consider the female experience of sexual assault to be a greater violation of bodily autonomy by reason of penetration, in this type of scenario, the male victim has the added horror of being forced to subject the female victim to that violation. In addition to feeling dominated and violated because he has been raped, he'd also have added to that pain a sense of responsibility for his co-victim's suffering, and being forced to commit what, if he's like most males, would be an evil act representing a violation of his most basic nature, as offering protection is one of the most basic ways in which a male human nurtures other humans, and being forced to hurt someone (especially someone he perceives as more vulnerable than himself) would feel fundamentally and deeply wrong.    
It would be a horrifying experience.    
It's dishonest to suggest that the horrifying experience of being forced to perform a sex act against one's will is not rape simply because one is male, or simply because there's another victim upon whom the experience is also inflicted. Tailoring one's ideological approach to sex crimes to exclude male victims of female perpetrators isn't rational, but it does suit feminism's predatory exploitation of proxy victim status in women, and it does suit their equally predatory exploitation of presumed perpetrator status in men. Female victimhood is most exploitable if women are seen as wholly innocent. Male perpetration is most exploitable if men are seen as solely guilty. Show that females aren't universally innocent, and males aren't commonly guilty, and you lose the basis upon which feminist organizations like NOW have lobbied for law and policy that discriminates against men, purportedly for the protection of women. You lose the basis upon which these groups have demanded grants and other funds dedicated to feminist-led initiatives, organizations, and services dedicated to female victims. You lose the feminist ability to use accusations of rape apology to try to shut down discussion about false accusations, and other men's issues related to discrimination against men in criminal court.   
That's really where the bottom line is; it's not about the semantics feminists try to use to excuse their choice to exclude male victims of female perpetrators from the definition of the word "rape." It's about money, power, and influence, just as it is with every other area of feminist hypocrisy.

Calling bullshit on a recycled tone argument

This is in reference to recent discussion on a short statement by Paul Elam in which he points out that it's not hyperbole to say "I'm not going to give a damn about female rape victims any more" under the circumstances in which the statement was originally made. Unable to effectively criticize the video at face value and in an honest manner, some individuals have been ignoring nearly everything in it except that line. This has led to comments by feminists, reddit's againstmensrights trolls, and some others claiming that Mr. Elam has stated gender as a reason, and as his only reason, for choosing not to come to the defense of an individual in distress.

To do this, they've deliberately ignored the context provided by other parts of the statement, in which he points out that a lot of men have begun to decide that men are not the world's unpaid bodyguards, and they don't owe it to anybody to intervene when a crime is happening to a stranger, including female strangers.

Since he also pointed out that while MRAs are accused of misogyny and rape apology for refusing to adhere to the traditional male gender role of protector, feminists have actively worked to cover up male victimization and marginalize male victims, Mr. Elam's feminist critics are making the claim that the refusal he describes applies only to women, and that he's encouraging it exclusively in retaliation for feminist efforts to erase perception of male victims. Some have even gone so far as to state that they only want to debate those two parts of the video; the refusal, and the aside they're treating as the motive for it.

In other words, they're deliberately taking parts of the statement out of context for the purpose of making them fit the arguments they want to put forth.

The sentence with which they're stating offense is set within the context of a wider argument. It's not "I don't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims." It's "I'm not required to involve myself in other people's violent conflicts just because of my gender. I'm not required to advocate for female rape victims because they already have extensive advocacy, and I'm not required to make discussion about female rape victims a part of every dialogue on gender issues in which I participate.  Also, if you're concerned about marginalization, look at feminists; they've actively and willfully marginalized male victims."

Understanding the roots of the discussion helps.

Male victims of rape can't be discussed without feminists targeting the discussion for derailment with intent to impose their ideological narrative on the issue. According to that narrative, men and boys are perpetrators, and women and girls are victims. If it's ever acknowledged that men or boys are victims, it can't also be acknowledged that women or girls are perpetrators; either the perpetrator must also be male, or the responsible party must be the victim himself, other men, or other boys... or the victim has to be whining or lying. That's not the main thing the statement feminists are taking out of context speaks to, however. According to the feminist narrative, male victims can never, ever be the primary topic of a discussion about sex crimes, because to them, sex crimes in general are a societal attack on women. Because of that, feminists make a targeted effort to impose discussion of female victims on any and all discussion about sex crimes.

This is especially true of discussions on the lack of resources dedicated to preventing female on male sex crimes, and the lack of recourse available to male victims of female sexual predators.

The moment MRAs point out that male victims get thrown under the bus, feminists step forward with claims like "Well, the vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men..." as if, even if it were true, that would excuse condoning and enabling any sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls.

The moment MRAs point out that there are different standards in criminal court between accused men and boys, and accused women and girls, feminists attempt to derail with claims that, when the varnish is taken off of them, amount to the assertion that male perpetration is caused by masculinity, but female perpetration is imposed by male-perpetrated oppression.  Their conclusion is that women shouldn't be held as accountable for their crimes as men should be held for theirs.

The moment MRAs object to double standards on consent, bodily autonomy, and responsibility wherein male consent is assumed, male suffering is presumed less, and male agency is presumed higher, feminists attempt to enforce aspects of male and female gender roles that they find conducive to limiting to only women claims of victim status which rely on excluding from the putative victim's experience having had the agency to refuse the interaction, and male and female gender roles which they find conducive to widening the spectrum of scenarios in which they can apply that exclusion.

A prime example of this is discussion on when sex while drunk ceases to be consensual and becomes rape, as feminists scramble to define drunk rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators while simultaneously maximizing the perception of female victims of male perpetrators. They ignore that consumption of alcohol is a choice. They ignore every shade of drunk between stone cold sober, and unconscious. They refuse to stick with a clear and concrete standard for what constitutes incapacitated, and to apply that term equally to both sexes, in an effort to ensure that the term "incapacitated" can be applied regardless of a woman's actual capability, but never to a man. They promote myths and stereotypes about men, alcohol, and the presumption of male consent.

The statement "I don't give a damn about female victims of rape" is an obvious response to the constant haranguing by feminists who will not let a discussion about male victims remain about male victims, and who use shaming language to try to shut down discussion of issues related to the sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls. What makes that obvious is the context of the previous statements, beginning with the point that men are treated as responsible for women, continuing on with the point that feminists don't just fail to give a damn, but actively attempt to exclude male victims from the public discourse, and hammered home by the point that female victims have a shitload of dedicated advocacy and resources.

In singling out the one line and the point about feminists marginalizing male victims, commenters complaining about that statement are responding to a recent part of an existing argument as if that part exists independently of the argument;

MRAs: Discussion about male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: You're not paying proper homage to female victims. You can't have a discussion about rape without talking about female victims. If you do that you're marginalizing them. And men are bad, because men rape women. Male victims don't matter because patriarchy.

MRAs: Female victims get discussed all the time. Discussion of male victims doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Men are not bad. Rapists are bad. Not all males are rapists. Not all rapists are male. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: Female victims have it worse! Implication that women having it worse means male victims don't deserve any support or recourse. Talking about male victims is whining and an attempt to derail discussion about female victims. Talking about female perpetrators is misogyny. Saying it's not okay for feminists to say that all men are rapists is rape apology. Tone argument. Shaming language. Patriarchy. Let's be friends. You should let us take over the dialogue on this issue. You're not doing it right.

MRAs: Females don't have it worse. (Evidence.) Even if female victims did have it worse, that wouldn't excuse condoning victimization of males, or discriminating against them. Discussion of male victims still doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Re: talking about female perpetrators... What's misogyny to the goose is misandry to the gander. We talk about perpetrators. You generalize perpetrator behavior to the entire male population. Who does that make more hateful? Tone argument is a derailing tactic. Shaming language is only a statement of opinion. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Laws and policies that define rape to exclude male victims and due process to exclude accused men were lobbied for and celebrated by feminists. You're not helping. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: NAFALT! Further comments that very often prove otherwise. FEMALE VICTIMS! Mocking language. STFU! PATRIARCHY!

It's after years of this type of exchange that MRAs are starting to respond to "You're not allowed to have a discussion about male victims of anything without paying proper homage to female victims and the feminist narrative on victimization that says you're responsible for preventing female suffering" with "I'm not your bodyguard. I don't care about female victims. Female victims already have plenty of discussion and support. I'm here to talk about male experiences and issues, a discussion which your movement has deliberately attempted to silence."

To which multiple people have responded "Tone argument!"

Which, in the context of the larger conversation, is more of the same bullshit that some of us have been dealing with from feminists for decades. It doesn't get any fresher with age.

On how some women are never satisfied

One of feminism's main complaints about society's treatment of women is a phenomenon they refer to as objectification, a notion central to feminist theory. The dictionary definition of the term "objectification" is the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing. The feminist use of the term objectification makes this specific to people; objectification is the act of treating or seeing a person as an object. The focus of feminist complaint regarding this is sexual objectification, or the treatment of specifically women as sex objects.

Among other claims related to the concept of sexual objectification is the assertion that display of women in sexually suggestive clothing and portrayals by media outlets like fashion magazines contributes to people's tendency to sexually objectify women in everyday life. They complain that this specific type of sexual objectification hurts all women by normalizing a focus on women as sex objects.

Complaints related to objectification have become pretty mainstream in the female population, even when women aren't actually being objectified. For instance, some women fail to differentiate between noticing a woman's appearance, and treating her as a sex object.

There is also the complaint that these magazines communicate unhealthy standards for beauty, requiring models to maintain a physique that is unrealistic and dangerous for women to attempt to maintain. Many women have made their voices heard on this - they want to see popular media using models of different physiques, representing more of the female population.

Elle Magazine's November cover model should have satisfied both of these interests; she's not a thin woman, and though she looks quite lovely in the image, that appeal is not achieved by placing her in revealing clothing and a sexually suggestive pose.

Instead, some women saw the cover as another opportunity to complain: OMG! Elle Magazine didn't sexually objectify Melissa McCarthy because she's fat! How dare they!

Seriously. That is the complaint, boiled down from an article-length rant to its basic nature. McCarthy was wearing a coat. It's not tight-fitting. She wasn't showing any skin. She wasn't showing any tits and ass. The pose she's in isn't suggestive... therefore the cover is bad.

So in addition to the rules "Don't show women in revealing clothing and sexually suggestive poses" and "Use models who aren't skinny" there is now also "If you follow both rules at the same time, we're going to complain about that, too."

And we wonder why we have a reputation for being unable to make up our minds?

Google Search: Can I get arrested for entrapment on a restraining order

That's where one recent page view to my blog came from. Someone had something in mind which lead them to search whether or not they could get arrested for entrapment on a restraining order.

Most people think entrapment is tricking someone into committing a crime that they otherwise weren't going to commit. That's the meaning of the slang use of the term. It's not the meaning that determines whether or not you get charged with entrapment.

Entrapment is legally defined as The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.

Even though you're a slime if you're considering trying to trick whoever you have a restraining order against into unwittingly violating it, if you face legal repercussions for that, entrapment won't be one of them.

However, if it can be proved that you lied to get that restraining order, you could face other repercussions, including criminal charges.

It's illegal to file a false complaint with police, so if the police were involved in obtaining an order you got based on lies, you could be culpable for any lies you told to them.

It's illegal to lie under oath, so if there's already been a hearing to determine whether you really needed a restraining order or not, and you lied to obtain a favorable verdict, you could be criminally charged for that.

It's illegal to file a false charge, so if you claim your target intentionally violated the restraining order, and it can be proved that it was you who initiated contact, you could be charged for that, too.

In some states, the proximaty limitations stated in the restraining order go both ways. Therefore, if it's proved that you initiated contact, if that's part of your state's law, you could be arrested for violating the restraining order.

Even if you don't face any criminal charges for initiating contact with an individual against whom you have a restraining order, if your target can prove you did that, it could be used as grounds to demand the order be lifted, because if you're initiating contact, you're obviously not afraid enough to need a restraining order. In fact, you might be enough of an abuser that maybe your target needs a restraining order against you.

To recap, no, entrapment isn't a charge a private citizen will face, but if you're considering attempting to trick the target of your restraining order into a criminal violation of it, you're a walking, talking piece of shit for that, and you could face other criminal charges and other repercussions.

A tale of two faces

In May of this year, A Voice For Men published an article by Paul Elam about Women Action Media's successful crusade to get facebook to censor images they considered anti-woman. As Paul pointed out, the policy change statement facebook released in response to WAM was pulled from the WAM complaint word for word.
The result? A policy statement that was vague on most of its wording, with its only specificity being in language denoting that the rules wouldn't apply equally between the sexes.
Disturbing as it is that WAM decided to take control of speech on facebook, even more disturbing was that unequal approach. Their letter and the statement inspired by it spelled out a policy which would censor speech then spelled out why speech advocating violence against men was exempt.
Their excuse?
Violence against men don't real.

It wasn't long before facebook's administrators showed exactly how this broadly worded policy was going to affect speech, removing one AVFM image because its text criticized a feminist claim, and showed evidence against that claim, and another simply because it contained criticism of feminism

In my last post, I talked about the attitude it would take to report as offensive an image of a poster advertising a rally for men and boys in crisis. The choice to take offense at the idea of helping men and boys overcome disadvantages they face is, itself, a manifestation of hatred. Fortunately, this time facebook's administrators didn't cave in to the hateful individual(s) who reported the image. Unfortunately, previous actions by facebook administrators have demonstrated that it wasn't because the image was good. It was because the image didn't openly and directly criticize feminism.

They have decreed that it's not just hateful to post images glorifying violence against women and girls. It's also apparently hateful to post images which criticize feminist political ideology and the behaviors that are based on feminist ideology. It is not, apparently, hateful to post images glorifying and outright advocating violence against men.

All of the above images were reported to facebook. Facebook declined to remove any of them, stating of each "Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the photo you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn't violate our community standard." I was provided with a link to the community standards page. While AVFM's account was suspended for a day while their image was investigated, I got a reply back about my report within a couple of hours.

Reading the standards outlined on the page, I cannot see anything which indicates that the removed AVFM images should be reasonably considered more in violation than should be photos of battered men on a page advocating castration and other physical abuse.

This is not just a simple double standard. In adopting and executing feminist-led policy, facebook has become a vehicle of both censorship, and hatred. The policy isn't "you can't advocate violence against and hatred." It's "You can't say anything feminists don't like, but we'll ignore actual celebrations of violence when men are the target."

With this discrepancy in their handling of speech, facebook's administrators have given a clear demonstration that their new policy is based not on morals but money. With that in mind, I've hatched an idea, and composed a couple of letters. WAM posted a list of organizations which pulled their advertising from facebook to pressure the site to cave to the organization's demands. I think those advertisers should hear from us, as well.

Love It Love It Love It
Desire Books

Specialty Natural Medicine

Jump! Magazine
Down Easy Brewing         
Nationwide UK 
eReader Utopia         
Matt Miner Comics
House of Burlesque
Grow Your Own Theatre
Capturing Childhood
J Street
Nissan UK
Dove (To contact Dove, you have to contact Unilever.)
David Lloyd Leisure

Letter to facebook advertisers:

You recently participated along with multiple organizations in a successful effort to bring censorship to Facebook. Following the success of that effort, the site updated its policy to bar users from posting images advocating gender based violence, and other communications determined by facebook staff to be "hate speech." Since the policy was adopted last spring, it has been used to remove images based not on the stated criteria, but on whether or not they fit in with specific political ideology.

Images which don't depict or advocate violence, but which criticize specific political beliefs, statements, or actions, have been removed as "offensive." Images advocating violence against men and posts containing hate speech targeting men are not removed when reported using facebook's complaint system. These include graphic depiction of injuries, and pages and posts advocating castration.

This means that while your ads will no longer be displayed on pages or next to images which feminists find objectionable, you will still be funding pages that advocate violence against men, contain statements of hatred and bigotry against men, and contain images depicting injuries to men described on the page as the result of said violence.

In working with Women Action Media's campaign to censor facebook, your organization has openly supported adopting a policy deeming the type of speech shown to you in the protests you received unacceptable, including depictions like the ones facebook is refusing to remove simply because men are the subject instead of women.

Do you support gender-based discrimination? Are you in favor of silencing political speech? That is what facebook's uneven execution of their new policy is. The site has determined that women are to be protected from potentially offensive speech, but men may be openly and aggressively targeted by it. The site has determined that one political ideology is to be protected from dissenting speech, while other ideological beliefs may be challenged or even openly slandered. Since you supported WAM's advocacy, your name is now associated with facebook's discriminatory attitude and censorship of political speech.

I urge you to reject that discriminatory association. Don't let your organization be used to impose a system of selective censorship. Tell facebook that association with your organization depends on equal application of their policy, and their support of free political speech. Their standards should apply equally and identically to both sexes, and should not include censorship based on political ideology.

Facebook should hear from us, too. I thought providing a link to their feedback page would assist in that, but you can't get to it unless you access it from your account so that facebook knows exactly who is contacting them. Instead, in the upper-right corner of your facebook page, click once on the little gear symbol, then once on "report a problem." When the "report a problem" pop-up shows, click "send feedback."
You'll see in the address bar the same link I've included on every mention of the site in this post (https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/), followed by a 15 digit number. The page will request a category for your feedback. You do not have to select a category.
Letter to facebook:

Earlier this year, you responded to an organization called Women Action Media by making changes to your policy on speech. According to your public statements, your new policy bars users from posting images advocating gender based violence, and other communications determined by facebook staff to be "hate speech." However, you have not executed your new policy without undue discrimination. Since the policy was adopted last spring, it has been used to remove images based not on the stated criteria, but on whether or not they fit in with specific political ideology.

Your stated policy calls for removal of hate speech and images advocating violence. It does not state anything about removal of speech or imagery which either states or dissents against a political viewpoint, but you have removed political statements that do not contain hatred or advocate violence, labeling them "hate speech." Images advocating violence against men and posts containing hate speech targeting men are not removed when reported using facebook's complaint system. These include graphic depiction of injuries, and pages and posts advocating castration.

This is a clear demonstration of political bias, and a gender based discriminatory attitude among facebook's administrators.

Do you support gender-based discrimination? Are you in favor of silencing political speech? That is what the uneven execution of your new policy indicates. You have determined that women are to be protected from potentially offensive speech, but men may be openly and aggressively targeted by it. You have determined that one political ideology is to be protected from dissenting speech, while other ideological beliefs may be challenged or even openly slandered.

This policy creates a hostile, discriminatory environment for male users, their friends, and their families. You may not be aware of this, but as many of your male users have faced intimate  partner and sexual violence as your female users have, only your male users have fewer options for support and recovery.

This means that your policy of tolerating images depicting violence against men is even worse than your previous policy of tolerating images depicting violence against women. You took steps to end the latter. You have no reasonable excuse for continuing to tolerate the former.

It also means that when you censor political speech which relates to the struggles faced by disadvantaged and abused men, including speech which debunks politically popular beliefs, you're contributing to the discriminatory social environment faced by men, particularly those who have been victimized.

Reasonable execution of your stated policy would not allow for this. Don't let your organization be used by a group with a political agenda to impose a system of selective censorship. Please instead commit to equal application of your policy, and your support of free political speech. Your standards should apply equally and identically to both sexes, and should not include censorship based on political ideology.

True colors

Does this picture look like hate speech to you?

It was flagged as a violation of facebook's community standards. Facebook took the image down and suspended A Voice For Men's account while investigating, then eventually restored everything, but the fact remains that someone on facebook flagged an image advertising a rally for men and boys in crisis as offensive.

Think about that for a moment.

Somewhere in the ideology this person has espoused is such deep hatred for the male half of the human race that the idea of helping those among them who are facing crisis was intolerable. In other words, someone found something about advocating for men and boys offensive. It's hard to tell exactly what it would be. There's nothing on that image to which one could legitimately object.

Maybe she is in favor of discrimination as long as men and boys are the victims. Maybe she prefers to see them suffer. Maybe the offensive part was the line, "Men's rights are human rights," because she doesn't consider men human. Or maybe it is simply that she is offended that anyone would acknowledge men and boys at all.

Whatever the reason, taking such offense shows a sick level of spiteful bigotry. Reporting it as hate really is nothing but projection by the "offended" party.

But of course, misandry doesn't real, right?

I guess we all must be imagining shit like this.

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, via Sherrod Brown


Just found out from a friend that the bill referred to in this post passed at least 6 months ago - it takes effect March of 2014. I'm going to leave the post as written, including the typing errors in the Senator's letter. However, this tells me that he's not just sending autoreplies - he's got nothing but lip service, and apparently that's all it takes for most people who write to him, because nobody has alerted him to the fact that he's sending a 6+ month outdated letter out to his constituents. In the meantime, since I hadn't mailed any letters yet, I'll have a chance to correct the parts that assume the bill hasn't passed yet, and ask that the bill be repealed.
This post has been updated on A Voice For Men.

I recently wrote to several federal political office holders about the issues with the current policy the federal departments of Education and Justice have foisted onto America's post secondary education institutions.

It's been a few weeks, and I've received a reply from Senator Sherrod Brown. It looks like yet another autoreply, but it tells you exactly where he stands on the issue.

Ohio voters, take note - men's rights activists will get no help from this senator. He belongs to the feminist lobbyists who advocated for the discriminatory law and policy in the first place.

I do intend to reply to this letter with a breakdown of why I'm not happy with what my senator has sent me. I don't expect my reply to have a lot of influence, but I'll post it here, in hopes that I can motivate others to write either Ohio's senators and congressmen, or other politicians.

The letter I received:

Dear (my actual last name:)

Thank you for getting in touch with my office regarding sexual harassment on college campuses.

Today, one of out of five women will experience sexual violence while attending college. In too many instances, sexual harassment or sexual assault cases are left unreported or the assaulter is exonerated of any charges.  
The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act or Campus (SaVE) Act would ensure colleges and universities are doing their part to minimize sexual crimes on campuses. It would require all institutes of higher education participating in a title IV program, except foreign schools, to include their policies and procedures for handling sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking in their annual security report. Additionally, the legislation would promote awareness and prevention across campuses by requiring schools to provide transparent information to their student body on programs and assistance related to sexual crimes.
We have a solemn responsibility to protect young people from harm and to ensure those who are guilty of a sexual crime are held accountable. Should the SaVE Act come before the Senate, I will keep your views in mind.
Thank you for your advocacy.
                         Sherrod Brown
                         United States Senator

This is the bill he was writing about.

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act text

Campus SaVE act summary

This pretty much goes along with what the Department of Education had tried to mandate using threat of denial of federal funding. The difference is this would make it federal law.

It would significantly change the wording of the Higher Education Act of 1965, adding stipulations requiring colleges to substitute college disciplinary boards for courtrooms in cases of allegations of sexual misconduct. It also mandates both the use of the preponderance of evidence standard instead of beyond a reasonable doubt as a standard, and that these institutions allow the accuser to appeal a not guilty verdict.

In other words, it reduces the standard of evidence, and allows for double jeopardy.

There is absolutely no good purpose for this design. The only thing this will do is allow accusers the ability to railroad through at school accusations which would not hold up in court due to lack of evidence.

This is a false-accuser support bill.

Senators  Sherrod Brown and Robert Portman will be receiving letters and phone calls from me on this topic, as will the House representative for my area, along with a few other representatives.

I've recently learned of a bill which may soon be under consideration to be voted into law. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (S. 128, H. R. 812) presents significant danger to anyone seeking higher education. If passed into law, it will apply the following mandates to post-secondary educational institutions

  • That there be an on-campus disciplinary hearing whenever there is an accusation of sexual misconduct.
  • That the hearing must be held using a lower standard of evidence for conviction than is used in a court of law, even though heavy penalties with long term effects (such as being banned from campus) may follow a guilty verdict.
  • That accusers be notified of a right to not contact actual law enforcement regarding the accusation.
  • That in the event of a not guilty verdict, an accuser can subject the accused to effective double jeopardy by appealing the verdict
This combination provides would-be accusers with a means to bypass law enforcement, bypass the legal system, bypass the right of the accused to due process, and use college disciplinary boards as an easier means to secure conviction and potentially seriously life-impacting punishment. This will include false accusers who can get friends to testify, and it will include accusers who can look convincing while bringing a word against word case.

Instead of protecting students from a dangerous environment, this bill will create one. It will place students in jeopardy of having their academic careers and their future employment prospects easily destroyed by false or exaggerated accusations. 

The first thing to understand about sex crimes and false allegations is that we are never going to eliminate either the incidence of innocent people being penalized, or guilty people escaping the justice system, because sex crime cases can be subjective, lawyers can be sneaky, and mistakes can be made with any case.

What we can do is ensure that the reason innocent people sometimes get penalized is not because they were denied their right to a fair trial, and the reason guilty people sometimes get away is not because their initial conviction didn't have to be based on any real evidence and a deserved conviction was overturned because the initial handling of the case didn't involve a thorough investigation.

We have a legal system for a reason. We would not want a law dictating that university curriculum be written by trained chefs, or that restaurant menus be designed by doctors, surgery done by attorneys, or city infrastructure designed by interior decorators. Why should we accept a law dictating that legal issues be handled by educational institution administrators? This is not their job. They do what they do because that's where their expertise is. It is ridiculous to cut the legal system out of the equation when there is any accusation of sexual abuse.

Even if we decide that these administrators are so qualified, the procedures laid out in this bill would deny those accused on campuses across the U.S. the right to a fair trial. Instead of having their cases heard before a qualified judge and/or jury, students accused of sexual misconduct will be subjected to trial by educators, with a reduced standard of evidence, and even if found innocent, they'll face double jeopardy as their accusers will be allowed to appeal the initial decision and force them to go through the experience a second time.

This is a major departure from the constitutional guarantee of due process, and a violation of student rights. It will create on post secondary institutional campuses a legally hostile environment which can interfere with students' focus on their studies, and their ability to obtain their education in peace.

I strongly urge you to vote against this bill. Do not participate in the attack that this is; an assault on the U.S. justice system, and the right of citizens to due process when accused of a crime.

Part of that letter is based on my previous post, "The Nature of the Allegation."

I'm hoping others will join me in writing to your senators and state reps about this issue, before these bills are even introduced. I don't mind if people copy mine verbatim, but if you write your own, I'd love to see them posted in the comments section under this blog.

You can find your state's senators' contact information here:


You can find your state's  house representatives' contact information here:


If you happen to write or call and get an interesting response, please feel free to share that in the comments here, too. I think everyone interested in the outcome of this bill would also be interested in knowing what their representatives have to say about it.

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html