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.

The Feminist Advocacy "Research" Scam

Feminist legislative advocacy is a self-defined, self-perpetuating cycle.

Step 1, Assume Victimization of Women, begins with a general supposition, such as "There exists an epidemic of sexual violence against women in the United States, perpetrated mainly by men." The less detailed base-assumption for this supposition would be the general concept of female victims and male violence.

Step 2, Use Bias Tailored "Research" to Support Victimization Premise, involves designing a method of research specifically to return "data" which appears to support the initial supposition. Feminist organizations have pressured government agencies to adopt their biased methods, and with some success such as with the feminist-influenced CDC's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, in which researchers used questions with broad or poorly defined applications, interpreting the respondent's recall of having felt harassed in a public place as an incident of sexual violence, and placing drunk sex and sex under false pretenses in the same category as being subjected to physical force or threats of physical force by counting sexual activity taking place under those circumstances as an act of forced penetration (rape.) The survey combines discussion of ambiguously distasteful acts (the subject being exposed to someone else's nudity, without including in the survey the stipulation that the act was deliberate) with discussion of imposition (made you show your sexual body parts to them) to justify attributing personal violation to answers not necessarily indicative of it. This treats accidentally walking in on an individual's nudity the same as being forced to strip, pose nude, or perform for pornographic video.

This pattern is continued throughout the survey: Questions on stalking including questions which could count telemarketing and collections calls as stalking behavior, as well as awareness of an unwanted person's presence in public places as stalking behavior (regardless of the person's reason for being there)... and the giving of unwanted gifts. Questions on coercive control treat concern for a partner's whereabouts as coercion if ever expressed, not just if pursued excessively. Under that definition, most teens in nurturing families are subjected to stalking by their parents. Partners in families with tight schedules may also be guilty of stalking each other. Under Control of reproductive health, the survey asks if a partner "refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one" but doesn't ask whether that was followed by nonconsensual sex, leaving the implication that if one chooses to have sex with a partner who refuses to wear a condom, the refusing partner is guilty of sexual violence (control of reproductive health) even when the decision to continue the act is a choice made by the "victim."      

The researchers didn't ask the respondents to define their experiences, but instead made the definitions themselves, greatly padding their numbers in a way which would demonstrate an epidemic of sexual violence in the United States. Upon completion of the survey, which produced "evidence" of violence perpetrated by both sexes, and of victims of both sexes, the CDC published a report. In it, the authors directly mentioned lifetime rape findings for both sexes, as this showed a gap between male and female experiences, but only mentioned the figure for women during the last 12 months... with no numbers for men. The inconsistency of this omission becomes even more glaring considering that in every instance where men's numbers were lower, the report mentions both.

Reading the description for the researchers' definition of rape explains the gap in numbers between men and women, as they used a definition of rape which omitted victims who were forced to penetrate the perpetrator, limiting the male experience to being penetrated, the same as a female. This effectively excludes the victim's sex organ from the definition of rape, where the victim is a man. Consequently, in the report, the authors make the claim that the majority of male rape victims reported male perpetrators. According to the report, excluding (report-defined) rape, non-contact sexual violence, and stalking, perpetrators of every (other) type of sexual violence (which would include being forced to penetrate) were mostly female. Were the researchers to include the category "forced to penetrate," in their definition of rape, the 2010 rape numbers would even out between the genders of victim, and the percentage of female perpetrators of rape would greatly increase.

The report also emphasizes male perpetration where it is not merited, with statements like "Nearly half of male stalking victims also reported perpetration by a male," the correction of which would be "More than half of all male stalking victims reported perpetration by a female." Instead of pointing out the prevalence of female perpetrators in that finding, they emphasized the presence of male perpetrators, masking the majority by mentioning the minority.

The "Discussion" section of the report focuses primarily on female victims, citing violence as a health risk to both sexes but specifying that women are heavily effected, and repeating the emphasis on male perpetrators of stalking.

Then there is this:
Other features of NISVS also are designed to reduce underreporting, such as use of only female interviewers...
Question: If victims of sexual violence perpetrated by males would be too intimidated to give honest answers to a male interviewer, wouldn't victims of sexual violence perpetrated by females be too intimidated to give honest answers to a female interviewer?

Step 3, Create Panic and Call for Action, involves disseminating the findings to the general public, beginning with publication of the initial results, release of them to news organizations with dramatic claims which support the original supposition. Continuing on with the same example, the Implications for Prevention section of NISVS, while much of the assertions made are gender-neutral, the authors specifically cite "beliefs and social norms" that "reinforce negative stereotypes about masculinity, or that objectify and degrade women" as contributing factors to partner and sexual violence within society, but make no mention of the reverse; negative stereotypes about femininity, or objectification and degradation of men. Apparently, Playboy contributes to "rape culture," but Playgirl does not?

Less than 2 hours after the initial data was released, the National Resource Center on Violence Against Women went into action, engaging its online network in a Tweet Up to promote the study's claims, and releasing talking points on the study, emphasizing female victims, that same day. Interestingly, one response to the Tweet campaign involved participants asking "How might the measured impacts studied in NISVS be useful in supporting positive outcomes in child custody cases?" For the significance of this question, read Restraining Order Abuse and Vexatious Litigation, part two.

The release of the study and report was followed by articles from various outlets. The New York Times introduced the report with the headline, "Nearly 1 in 5 Women in U.S. Survey Say They Have Been Sexually Assaulted," followed by a story which emphasized the survey's findings on female victimization, the stated experiences of women, and the consequences to women... with only a brief mention of violence against men. CNN did just about the same, with the headline "Survey: 1 in 3 women affected by partner's violent behavior," and another story focused on female victims, though there is more mention of males than in the Times. Consultant360.com, which describes itself in its "about" page as "the No. 1 independent clinical journal among office-based primary care physicians," published a February 2012 article Intimate Partner Violence: The Silent Epidemic which was largely a reiteration of the CDC's NISVS claims and conclusions... for only female victims.

The report was similarly shared on college campuses, as with the presentation at Slippery Rock University using graphics which combined images suggestive of male-on-female violence with statistics from the report, and with the campus website's article, which focuses entirely on victimization of females, ending with the claim that men are the perpetrators of 95 percent of cases of sexual violence, which is not actually supported by the study's results.

Step 4, Lobby for Legislative and Policy "Fix," involves activist campaigns as well as continued writing and advocacy calling for lawmakers and organization administrators to respond to the "research" claims with changes to law and policy.

In January 2012, the official website of the National Organization of Women posted an activism initiative asking members to urge their legislators to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, citing the NISVS claims about female victims as evidence that "violence is prevalent."
Further encouragement from lobbying came from media sources. Debora Tucker, executive director of the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence cited NISVS in her post Violence Against Women Act is Working, published in US News's Debate Club forum under the question "Should the Violence Against Women Act Be Reauthorized?"

Bloomberg News article U.S. Senate Passes Aid to Victims of Domestic Violence quoted the white house citing NISVS in support of reauthorizing VAWA.

Citation of NISVS in support of reauthorization of VAWA shows up in a variety of sources - publishing a full list of them would take hours, and fill pages - but here are a few examples:

Senators Patrick Leahy (D) and Mike Crapo (R)

Terry Poore of The Hill's Congress blog

Ms. Magazine
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
The Daily Nebraskan
Jewish Women International 
The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence
http://feministcampus.org/ (republish of the Ms. Mag article, sans links)
United Methodist Women

Step 5, Use False Labels and Personal Slander to Silence Those Presenting Evidence Against Claim, is an ongoing effort which began well before the current controversy. One only has to read about the experiences of Warren Farrel as his feminist colleagues learned that he was more interested in facts, rather than propaganda, and reality than ideology. Erin Pizzey, founder of the Chiswick Women's Aid, one of the first women's shelters in the modern world, could tell you much about feminist harassment of advocates who contradict feminist ideology and stand in the way of feminist goals... as could Richard J. Gelles, along with, Murray A. Straus, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. In addition to harassing researchers with whom they disagree, feminists use six other methods to suppress information that does not support their claims.   
Step 6, Use Existing Claims and Existing Law as Evidence for Further Research and Legislation. This is often done during the research phase. The text of the official report on NISVS calls for further research more than once:
Ongoing data collection and monitoring of these problems through NISVS and other data sources at the local, state, and national level must lead to further research to develop and evaluate strategies to effectively prevent first-time perpetration of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence.
The report calls for "(research) to provide information on which to base the development and evaluation of prevention and intervention programs," "research that addresses the social and economic conditions," and "Research examining risk and protective factors, including inequities in the distribution of and access to resources and opportunities"

The World health Organization's publication, Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women cites "pressing need for evidence and further research" in multiple areas of the subject.   
...which leads us back to step one, beginning with assumptions about violence based on the findings of  NISVS.

Letter to representatives, regarding the imposition of child support liability on rape victims

As I mentioned before the new year, one of the things I wanted to begin doing at the beginning of 2013 was writing letters on issues of discrimination against men, and sending them to federal and state representatives. This letter is the first in that effort. It highlights an issue which is not widespread, but which represents a serious civil rights violation against those it affects. It's an issue which I think both parties should be able to agree on - the state, at the request of a criminal, holding her male victim financially liable for a circumstance which she has chosen to accept, and which he did not choose to cause, and did not have the power to prevent.

To that end, I've sent the message to both Ohio Senators, and five different Ohio representatives in the House, and I'm asking anyone who is willing to please send a message on this topic to your representatives as well. For those who would like to send a message, but do not know how, you can use the following links to find contact information for your representatives:
Find Your Representative in the House
Find Your Senator

To fax to one congressman to whom I could not send mail online due to system restrictions, I used FaxZero, and sent the letter as a fax.
The message:

I'm writing to draw your attention to a loophole in U.S. law that allows female sexual predators to repeatedly traumatize an intended victim for a period of years, potentially beginning as early as the start of adolescence, and continuing well beyond a decade of time.

This traumatic abuse, when perpetrated against a minor or a family man, may not only be inflicted upon the intended victim, but also against supporting members of his family. Not only does such abuse exist, occur for long time spans, and visit itself upon the victim's supporting family, all under the sanction of state and federal law; it is actually enforced by the law.

Under current legal standard, a victim of such abuse is offered no remedy, nor recourse, should he seek assistance in ending his torment. In fact, should he refuse to submit to his abuser's demands, the law carries harsh penalty, including possible incarceration. These penalties may be imposed even if the victim is physically or legally unable to comply.

How could such a situation exist? What group of representatives would have created such a terrible imposition upon innocent citizens?

Well, it was an accident of omission; a manner in which a law ordinarily expected to see to the provision for the needs of children was left open to exploitation by female sexual predators who assault or abuse men and boys.

Once all is said and done, when a female rapist has been stopped - arrested, tried, convicted, penalized - she has lost access to her victim, and is no longer able to do him any harm.

That is, unless she has become pregnant.

Being female, the rapist then has a plethora of options aside from custodial parenthood: She can terminate or carry to term and give birth. She can relinquish custody to the victim - the baby's father. Barring that, she can relinquish custody to family, either the victim's, or her own. She can allow the baby to be placed in foster care, or put up for adoption. She can leave the baby with a safe-haven abandonment center. At no point, and under no logic, can the rapist who becomes pregnant in any way be reasonably considered a victim. Parenthood is not inflicted on her. It is her privilege, and her choice.

Being male, the victim has zero options. Given that he is a rape victim, he was not even permitted the option to refuse sexual intercourse. He cannot abort. He must fight in court if he wants custody, and he has to prove the mother an unfit parent to obtain that. If he is too young to raise a baby, he won't be given that opportunity. If he did not want to become a father, he has no option to sever his parental responsibilities along with his rights, as the mother can do with hers. Under current law, if a male rape victim fathers a child during the act, he is out of luck, and on the hook.

Due to these circumstances and the way child support laws are written and enforced, the situation exists wherein a female rapist may enforce a child support debt upon her victim (S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)), even if he is underage... even if he is too young to legally work. (County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843, 843 (Ct. App. 1996)), State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer , 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273, 1279 (1993).

Think about that; a boy victimized by a rapist may be too young to work, because he's considered too young to consent to an adult contract - too young to be held to an agreement - but he can have financial liability forced upon him against his will. This means that he will either have to obtain a waiver, and seek employment at an age when he should be focused on his studies and his personal development, or he will have to depend on someone in his family to pay his debt and keep him from being penalized as a deadbeat parent. By the time his financial obligation has ended, his childhood will be long gone, as will his best opportunity for an education and the development of a career. By making this demand of an underage victim, the court essentially sells him, or his supporting family, into a status of indentured servitude, making him buy his freedom back from the state, and robbing him of life experiences and opportunities which he can never revisit or regain.

This, in the supposed best interest of a child which the state has left in the custody of an admitted or convicted rapist.

This is a particularly grievous rights violation when considered in comparison to the way in which female victims who become pregnant are viewed by society. If she bears a child, but chooses to reject custodial parenthood, nobody has suggested that a female rape victim must pay child support to her rapist - anyone advocating such an idea would be shouted down in protest by people regardless of political affiliation.

Why, then, is it acceptable that U.S. courts should force financial liability on rape victims who happen to be male?

Writing two specifications into law would remedy this appalling perversion of justice. First, in the event that a child is conceived during an act of sexual assault for which the perpetrator is convicted, the conviction should carry with it the stipulation that upon the birth of the baby, custody will be awarded to the victim unless the victim chooses otherwise, is incapable, or is deemed unfit. In the event that the victim rejects custodial parenthood, regardless of who else raises the baby, the victim must be exempt from all laws mandating child support payments.

Making these two changes to existing law would protect male victims of rape and sexual assault from being repeatedly re-victimized by perpetrators using family law as a weapon.

Conflict between feminist advocates and the rest of us

This post was originally a comment I left in reply to an Explain It Like I'm Five post, asking the question, "ELI5: why does the issue of women's rights stir up so much anger?"
It was suggested that I post my answer to that in the Men's Rights Wiki. I looked through the listed categories and could not find a heading under which I thought the comment really fit. There are things I'm working on that might more likely belong there, but those are longer term projects. In the meantime, I'm making the comment an entry here, instead.


It isn't necessarily women's rights issues which are the area of conflict, but feminist advocacy. The two are not necessarily the same. My explanation as to why:

Feminists fail to differentiate between having a fundamental need, and having a fundamental right. The pursuit of conditions or factors to meet fundamental needs (eg., putting forth effort to obtain food and shelter) is a human right. The receipt of conditions or factors to meet fundamental needs (eg., having food and shelter provided at the expense of others) is not a fundamental right, but an act of charity on the part of the provider (as long as it's voluntary - otherwise, it's theft by the recipient, even when those things are needed.) With this misapplication of the word "right," feminists treat the condition of being given possession or position as if it were the same as the condition of having one's pursuit not be being wrongfully obstructed.

Another problem which has a side effect upon this is that feminist advocates fail to differentiate between fundamental needs, and dearly valued/wanted conveniences. Food and shelter are fundamental needs. Yummy food and nice shelter are dearly valued/wanted conveniences. Feminists go beyond claiming the right to the pursuit of fulfillment of fundamental needs to claim the right to receive dearly valued/wanted conveniences.
One outgrowth of that combination of beliefs is the sense of entitlement to enforce the provision of the fulfillment of needs or dearly held wants upon other human beings; treating as a given fact upon which society must base law and policy, "If A has a need for or dearly held want of factor 1, B must provide it," where A is the individual with whom feminism identifies itself, and B is the individual with whom feminism takes issue.

This is further modified by another fundamental flaw in the movement; Patriarchy Theory, which in short, blames upon male society all issues or conditions which feminists define as oppression of women. Patriarchy Theory makes female society group A, and male society group B.
So you have a group which labels having (as opposed to not being prevented from reasonably pursuing) that which women want or need to be a right, and asserts that as justification for demanding or taking it from men.

Now, the feminist movement has been treated as the architect and arbiter of women's rights advocacy since its inception, even though not all women subscribe to the feminist line of reasoning, much lest feminist theory. Many of us do not believe that there is systematic, institutionalized discrimination against women in first world countries. Antifeminist women do not believe in Patriarchy theory, Rape Culture theory, or even the feminist description of gender roles as male oppression of women. This leads to conflict between groups of women, who do not all hold the same sets of beliefs and values or all perceive society in the same way, over what is or should be defined as "women's rights," and advocated in the name of women in general.

Then, you have men in the western world waking up to the fact that as society has changed, and women's roles have evolved (in part through feminist advocacy, and in part due to advancements in technology and the advent of conveniences which reduce the effort which both sexes must put into simple survival,) society's expectations of men, and the legal requirements accompanying those expectations, haven't relaxed much at all.
That realization has been one of the bigger contributing factors to the growth of the men's rights movement, comprised of people who have noticed that the practical application of feminist advocacy in enforcement of male gender roles authoritative societal imposition of provision for women's wants and needs upon men - is in fact a violation of men's basic human rights, particularly the right to liberty.

In some cases this involves a direct transfer of material possessions from men to women (alimony, child support) and in some, indirect (social programs for custodial parents, funded by income taxes; free birth control for women, funded by taxes.)
In other cases this involves wrongfully obstructing men's pursuit of the fulfillment of needs and wants (preferential treatment in hiring and promotion.)
In some, it involves wrongfully unbalancing the application of policy in the justice system (infringing upon due process rights, unequal treatment in civil disputes and criminal cases, for the imposed protection of only women.)

In other words, despite decades of feminist advocacy claiming female independence and female responsibility, the practical application of feminist theory/advocacy manifests in the difference in social and legal obligations between the sexes, where men are expected to protect and provide, and women may be shielded from conditions and responsibilities which men are expected to face and embrace.
That's the base issue between those movements, before you even get to the concepts of what constitutes discrimination or oppression, and what constitutes equality. At the very bottom of every area of conflict between feminism and antifeminist women, and feminism and the MRM, is a struggle over that disagreement; the feminist belief that women have the right to demand or take what we want or need from men, and the antifeminist and MRActivist contention that no, we don't. This is the conflict which creates the big hullabaloo over pretty much any discussion on gender rights.

VAWA is not like that? (3)

Section 40241 designated federal funding for Battered Women's Shelters established in the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984.

Yep - there was a law before VAWA.

Title III: Family Violence Prevention and Services - Family Violence Prevention and Services Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make demonstration grants to States to assist in supporting the establishment, maintenance, and States to assist in supporting the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of programs and projects to: (1) prevent incidents of family violence; and (2) provide shelter and related assistance for victims and dependents of victims of family violence in order to prevent future violent incidents. 
VAWA's section 40241 increased funding for battered women's shelters through the year 2000.
FVPSA's grant eligibility requirements are simple:

Eligible entities
To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity shall be a local agency, a nonprofit private organization (including faith-based and charitable organizations, community-based organizations, and voluntary associations), or a tribal organization, with a demonstrated record of serving victims of family violence, domestic violence, or dating violence and their children.

States had a longer list of requirements in order to obtain an allotment of funds to distribute to these agencies;
They had to prove the funds were being used for their designated purpose, that the state give "special emphasis" to community-based support, primarily in the form of shelters, but also for treatment of conditions contributing to an abuse victim remaining in an abusive relationship. States had to prove that urban and rural areas were both represented, with representation not limited by income, and victim information kept confidential. States also had to demonstrate having a process in place for eviction of abusers from shared residences. States were barred from gender discrimination in the application of policy related to this funding.

The 1994 act did not create these programs. It increased funding for them, and contained wording which imposed the gender restrictions which the original law forbade, referring to the domestic abuse shelters as "battered women's shelters" and describing domestic violence as "violence against women."

VAWA also established additional assistance for victims, which was backed with still more federal funding.
From the original bill, section 40114, Authorization for Federal Victim's Counselors:
    There are authorized to be appropriated for the United States Attorneys for the purpose of appointing Victim/Witness Counselors for the prosecution of sex crimes and domestic violence crimes where applicable (such as the District of Columbia)--
      (1) $500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
      (2) $500,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
      (3) $500,000 for fiscal year 1998.

While the funding and maintenance of shelters for abuse victims is a benevolent action, when it is combined with the rest of the bill, this adds incentive to find victims to the already existing incentive to find perpetrators. And while this doesn't mean that all allegations are false, it does create an environment conducive to the support and promotion of false allegations through the system. Last but not least, while gender-neutral terms like family, domestic, and partner were used in the original FVPSA law, VAWA is peppered with instances of the use of the word "women," indicating to the reader that certain services, policy, and law laid out by the text are designated strictly for the benefit and use of women.

Moving forward: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (yes, the stimulus bill - remember when Republicans said there were items hidden in that bill which had nothing to do with economic stimulus?) established Violence Against Women Formula Grants to fund female-based initiatives.
Text copied from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and placed into an image with all instances of the word "women" tinted red:
This clearly establishes a mandate for the entire legal system to treat domestic violence as a crime committed by men against women. Funding for this program is in Section 101 of the 2005 re-authorization of VAWA update: Stop Grant Improvements, which establishes funding for Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistants, whose job it is to advocate for women who have obtained restraining orders, and for the Crystal Judson Domestic Violence Protocol Program, which is charged with influencing law enforcement response to domestic violence allegations.

Now, we have a program which initially provided incentives separately to the branches of its authorities of execution - money to law enforcement and judicial systems to fund their activities, and money to victim's services systems to fund their activities. In the 2005 re-authorization of VAWA, the federal government decided to cross the streams, resulting in a system wherein victim's advocates had the government-sanctioned ability to influence the legal system in favor of accusers and against the accused.

That is the system which led to the events in this case.

Following that update was the 2012 re-authorization bill, which contained still more changes, including one which would have given tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal lands. When the controversy over that stipulation was presented to reddit's /r/mensrights, my comment was:
That whole issue is quicksand. There is no wining that discussion for the Republicans, or for NOW. The more both sides maneuver on this, the more wrong they're both going to be.
On one hand, you have the home court advantage issue on both sides. Because of the circumstances, either side of a domestic case in which the woman is tribal and the man is not will be able to claim that the other side's native legal system will be biased. In both cases, that claim would probably be right.
On the other hand, there is the issue of timeliness. When there is an arrest over an allegation of criminal violence on a reservation, and it's going to take a month or two for anyone to get in there and handle it, what is the community's law enforcement to do? Keep the accused imprisoned the whole time? Allow bail-bought probational freedom? What if they keep an innocent man locked up for two months, unable to work*, and then he is acquitted? What if they let a guilty man out, and he goes home and kills his wife?
And that's not even taking into account the sexist nature of VAWA, and American law enforcement's handling of it. What if the perp is a woman? When she's arrested for beating, raping, or otherwise harming her partner, will American law enforcement back tribal law enforcement up on that arrest?
*meaning, of course, the question of will he be employed when he gets out, and still able to support himself, or will being falsely imprisoned leave him broke and homeless, too?

The update sought to slap a bandaid over the edge of a gaping wound on the face of American interaction with tribal populations; our government cannot make up its mind whether Indian Reservations are U.S. territory, subject to U.S. law and with their people benefiting from U.S. policy, or whether they are independent territory, and the people there are on their own. When it benefits politicians to claim tribal people as American folks and American responsibility, they're fully willing to interfere in tribal culture, community, and government. When it benefits politicians to turn their heads and ignore tribal issues, then that is what they do. The VAWA update argument is no different than that.

The 2005 and 2012 renewals also included several areas where text specifying application of policy as being to various types of crime (sex crimes, dating violence, assault) expanded to include the broadly defined term "stalking."
An individual may be accused of stalking if the accuser claims that the accused repeatedly followed or harassed the accuser, having made an expressed or implied threat with intent to make the accuser fear death or serious bodily harm. As VAWA is written, however, charges of stalking can be leveled based on the alleged victim's feelings of fear, regardless of the alleged perpetrator's intent.

To recap: VAWA contains sexist, female-specific language, funding for research designed to justify its policies, and further funding designed to influence law enforcement, prosecutors, and the judicial system by incentivizing arrest, conviction, harsh sentencing, and sentence enforcement. It also contains funding to incentivize identification of victims and pursuit of action against accused perpetrators. Updates have introduced funding for female-oriented victim's advocacy programs designed to further influence law enforcement, and expanded the definition of domestic abuse. This is not a gender-neutral law, with problems caused at the law-enforcement end. This is a gender-specific law with problems written into its design, so that no part of the legal system has any choice but to apply it in an entirely sexist fashion, and the recently defeated update demonstrated in its text that if politicians have their way, that trend will only continue.

1    2    3 

VAWA is not like that? (2)

Retracing again, we

1) Establish a claim of rampant male-on-female domestic violence.
2) Train law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to accept that bias.  
3) Incentivize arrest.

What next?

That would be established in sections 20102, 20103, and 30208 part 5.  

Section 20102, Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants
(a) TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANT PROGRAM.—Fifty percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be made available for Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant, a State must meet the requirements of section 20101(b) and shall demonstrate that the State—
(1) has in effect laws which require that persons convicted of violent crimes serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed; or
(2) since 1993—
(A) has increased the percentage of convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison;
(B) has increased the average prison time which will be served in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison;
(C) has increased the percentage of sentence which will be served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison; and
(D) has in effect at the time of application laws requiring that a person who is convicted of a violent crime shall serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed if—
(i) the person has been convicted on 1 or more prior occasions in a court of the United States or of a State of a violent crime or a serious drug offense; and
(ii) each violent crime or serious drug offense was committed after the defendant’s conviction of the preceding violent crime or serious drug offense.
By itself, 20102 looks justified, as it provides incentive to back up criminal sentencing after conviction, by increasing sentence time and mandating that time given be served. It is less innocent, however, when seen in conjunction with section 20103, which incentivizes inflation of conviction rates for "part 1 violent crimes," described in section 30208 part 5 as including aggravated assault, which may be leveled for the attempt to cause serious bodily injury. Any domestic abuse allegation involving an assault can be defined as an attempt to cause serious bodily injury, whether injury occurred or not.

Section 20103, Violent Offender Incarceration Grants Program

(a) VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION GRANT PROGRAM- Fifty percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be made available for Violent Offender Incarceration Grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant, a State or States must meet the requirements of section 20101(b).


(1) FORMULA ALLOCATION- Eighty-five percent of the sum of the amount available for Violent Offender Incarceration Grants for any fiscal year under subsection (a) and any amount transferred under section 20102(b)(2) for that fiscal year shall be allocated as follows:

(A) 0.25 percent shall be allocated to each eligible State except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands each shall be allocated 0.05 percent.

(B) The amount remaining after application of subparagraph (A) shall be allocated to each eligible State in the ratio that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by such State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993 bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993.

(2) DISCRETIONARY ALLOCATION- Fifteen percent of the sum of the amount available for Violent Offender Incarceration Grants for any fiscal year under subsection (a) and any amount transferred under section 20103(b)(3) for that fiscal year shall be allocated at the discretion of the Attorney General to States that have demonstrated the greatest need for such grants and the ability to best utilize the funds to meet the objectives of the grant program and ensure that prison cell space is available for the confinement of violent offenders.

(3) TRANSFER OF UNUSED FORMULA FUNDS- On September 30 of each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Attorney General shall transfer to the discretionary program under paragraph (2) any funds made available for allocation under paragraph (1) that are not allocated to an eligible State under paragraph (1).

From section 30208, Definitions:

(5) The term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.

Section 20103 establishes with the 1993 numbers a standard of measurement which incentivizes continual increase in the reporting of "part 1 violent crimes," and includes one with criteria which can be applied (especially in conjunction with biases the law has imposed upon law enforcement and prosecutors) to any domestic dispute which progresses beyond a simple shouting match.

So now... we establish the claim, create a bias in all three steps of enforcement (arrest, prosecution, judicial hearing,) then incentivize conviction, harsh sentencing, and adherence to that sentencing. This is the establishment, by VAWA, of the legal equivalent of a giant Rube-Goldberg device designed to funnel men through the criminal justice system into the prison system, for the alleged benefit of women.   

1    2    3

VAWA is not like that?

This isn't what I was going to write about today, but in light of recent discussion, I think covering the topic is imperative.

I'm seeing repeated presentation of the notion that VAWA itself is a gender-neutral piece of legislation, and that all of the problems with it are caused by law-enforcement, administrative, and judicial response. That notion is a blatantly false representation of both the letter, and the intent of the law.

Let me start by saying that VAWA is hard to search online. That is because its official title is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. (This link goes to the complete text of that law, in PDF form.) Title IV (sec. 40001) of the act states, "This title may be cited as the `Violence Against Women Act of 1994'."  
A section by section breakdown of the bill (the version which passed into law) is available on the Library of Congress's website, via THOMAS.

Going on, the discriminatory effects of the law occur in part due to gender-specific wording which indicates for the entire system that the intent of the law is that it apply to the protection of women, not the protection of everyone. However, the bulk of gender discrimination is caused by the way the law's funding is designed.   
VAWA's stipulations included funding to contract research done with the express goal of justifying the continued application of enforcement aimed at benefiting only women:
(a) REQUEST FOR CONTRACT- The Attorney General shall request the National Academy of Sciences, through its National Research Council, to enter into a contract to develop a research agenda to increase the understanding and control of violence against women, including rape and domestic violence. In furtherance of the contract, the National Academy shall convene a panel of nationally recognized experts on violence against women, in the fields of law, medicine, criminal justice, and direct services to victims and experts on domestic violence in diverse, ethnic, social, and language minority communities and the social sciences. In setting the agenda, the Academy shall focus primarily on preventive, educative, social, and legal strategies, including addressing the needs of underserved populations.
(b) DECLINATION OF REQUEST- If the National Academy of Sciences declines to conduct the study and develop a research agenda, it shall recommend a nonprofit private entity that is qualified to conduct such a study. In that case, the Attorney General shall carry out subsection (a) through the nonprofit private entity recommended by the Academy. In either case, whether the study is conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or by the nonprofit group it recommends, the funds for the contract shall be made available from sums appropriated for the conduct of research by the National Institute of Justice.
(c) REPORT- The Attorney General shall ensure that no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the study required under subsection (a) is completed and a report describing the findings made is submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
 This creates a system of self-perpetuation, wherein VAWA funding goes toward the purchase of academic "proof" that VAWA is necessary and right.

Also contained in the bill were grants to fund the funneling of that propaganda effort into law enforcement policy, prosecutor policy, and judicial policy.

Section 40121 created grants specifically focusing only on violence against women, which funded:
  • Training for officers and prosecutors
  • The creation of special units to focus on domestic violence (specifically) against women
  • Changing precinct, prosecutor's office, and court policy to reflect the intent of the law
  • Developing communication and tracking systems around the concept of addressing specifically violence against women
  • Providing additional crime victim's services to female accusers
VAWA also established the barring of admission of an accuser's sexual history from rape cases - which can prevent the admission of false accusation history if it is deemed that doing so violates the law. It also effectively prevents the defense in a rape case from refuting an accuser's claims that the defendant should have known information which is contradicted by her history... and today, feminists are using terms like "meaningful consent" and "enthusiastic consent" to justify the use of "should have known" as evidence in a rape accusation.

So far: Section 40291 establishes an effort to prove a pattern of male violence against women. Section 40121 establishes an effort to train law enforcement and prosecutors to look for male violence against women. Next, section 40231 establishes a financial incentive for arrests, offers state-funded legal advocacy for accusers in domestic violence cases, and funds influence of judicial handling of cases:

`SEC. 2101. GRANTS.

    `(a) PURPOSE- The purpose of this part is to encourage States, Indian tribal governments, and units of local government to treat domestic violence as a serious violation of criminal law.

    `(b) GRANT AUTHORITY- The Attorney General may make grants to eligible States, Indian tribal governments, or units of local government for the following purposes:

        `(1) To implement mandatory arrest or proarrest programs and policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and policies for protection order violations.

        `(2) To develop policies and training in police departments to improve tracking of cases involving domestic violence.

        `(3) To centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution, or judicial responsibility for domestic violence cases in groups or units of police officers, prosecutors, or judges.

        `(4) To coordinate computer tracking systems to ensure communication between police, prosecutors, and both criminal and family courts.

        `(5) To strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of domestic violence.

        `(6) To educate judges in criminal and other courts about domestic violence and to improve judicial handling of such cases.

1    2    3

For the record

Note to readers visiting from the link in the comment section of Manboobz: You may find this relevant.

I've been noticing it for a while... talking about it for a while, and replying as best I can when it happens; an influx of feminist posters, commenters, and voters in reddit's /r/mensrights. I've seen that other MRAs have started to notice it, too, so I decided to do a search in the sub using the word feminist, and highlight some of the posts which either were troll posts, or included a lot of feminist trolling.

Read: that means if your post is included in this list, that doesn't necessarily mean I think you are a troll. Before anyone gets hurt feelings, look through not just the post itself, but the comments underneath, or look through the list to see if your post (or the comment response) is part of a pattern I'm noting. I've tagged some posts to make it easier to see, but I don't have time to go through and tag everything.   
There are several, including (but not limited to)

  • "Feminism is your friend. You just don't understand." (Can't we all just get along?)
  • "Not All Feminists Are Like That" (NAFALT)
  • Tone policing, including "don't criticize feminism," "you sound whiny," "you sound misogynistic," etc.
  • "You're not good enough" (You're not doing anything. You're not helping group X. You're not talking about topic Y.)
  • Attempts to sneak feminist rhetoric into the sub
  • Divide and Conquer - attempts to create animosity or other conflict between /r/mensrights and other groups, or deny that the men's rights movement includes groups that are included in the movement (like gay men's rights, or trans rights.)
  • Fishing - posting something inflammatory or carefully worded to create an emotional response in order to facilitate quote mining.

That also means that if there's a lot of feminist support in the comments, that doesn't necessarily mean I don't think the post is a troll post, either - it may well be. Rather than placing a label, I'm simply tracking patterns.  
This post is not intended to call any specific redditor out (though if I have someone tagged as SRS or AMR, that's not getting removed from your name when I post it here.) Nor is it complete. There are posts I remember responding to in the past that I did not find using this method, so this entry will be periodically updated as I am able to go back and find those, as well. I have seen 2 to 4 a month up until the last few weeks, when there has been a dramatic increase, as far as I can tell.  
If you see posts you think belong here, PM me on reddit or leave a comment here, and I'll update. 

*note - I've recently added links to several self-posts which are all variations on asking if the MRM supports gay rights, or claiming it doesn't and asking why. If you see your post here, it doesn't mean I'm calling your post a troll post. It is simply that we're seeing the same self-posts over and over on this topic, with small variation, and that's a pattern.

Why is feminism discussed so much on this subreddit? (self.MensRights)
submitted by futfootballer  /u/AMRthroaway linked to AMR

i don't understand (self.MensRights)
submitted 21 Apr 2014 by aerxo17

So, I've been calling feminist groups in Canada about my effort to open more men's shelters, and have been pleasantly surprised. (self.MensRights)
submitted 19 Apr 2014 by William_Red
/r/againstmensrights vote manipulation used to boost feminist-friendly comments to top of thread

An example of feminism done right. (self.MensRights)
submitted by Broken_Castle 

Are men's rights in the US really being impinged upon? How? (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Apr 2014 by MyUnpopularThoughts

submitted by Zacky007

submitted by DemonicHeartYeah, no.
Privilege as a cattle prod

(51|29) submitted by dullboy9000
(92|28) submitted 08 Apr 2014 by adevil

(8|6) submitted 08 Apr 2014* by SemperFlea
(Visits MR subreddit, totally misses the fact that many MRAs ARE women)

(51|21) submitted by OttersAreSuperCool
submitted by Kuramo

submitted 03 Apr 2014 by jcoe-in which wreckedsomething admits, in a roundabout way, to regularly violating reddit's rules on vote-manipulation.
This comment amounts to the claim that linking to a comment in a thread equals vote brigading, 

It also comes from someone who regularly links to /r/mensrights.
Now, one can reasonably argue that linking to a comment does not constitute brigading, especially when the link is an np (nonparticipation) link. However, one can't so reasonably argue that one who says that linking to a comment is done for the purpose of brigading is innocent of attempting to brigade when linking to a comment.

What does being a male rights activist mean to you? (self.MensRights)
submitted by appleeyed

(3|8) submitted by Prankster_Bob

submitted by OMoraine

submitted  by rocelot7

submitted  by nonhiphipster

submitted  by Mohaan

(43|32) submitted by Mouon

submitted by Winter_of_Discontent

(7|5) submitted by murtaza64

submitted by typhonblue 

(40|14) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by RelentlesslyDead
Not calling this a troll post by any means, but part of a pattern. I have noticed that periodically, there's a post like this with a lot of replies from names I don't see a lot in the sub.

(50|37) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by XisanXbeforeitsakiss
This is not a troll post, but it links to a post that goes along with a pattern I've seen with young accounts claiming to have visited /r/mensrights, read unspecified posts, and come to the conclusion that the sub and sometimes the movement is anti-some factor, usually something it's politically incorrect to oppose or criticize. When called the anti-factor claim, they offer replies that boil down to "you disagreed with something I or someone else said that I or they linked to (whatever the factor was) and therefore you're anti-(that factor.) Following an original post along the lines of "I had subjective experience X as a factor-1 person, therefore conclusion," MRAs may argue that the experience is subjective, that factor-1 doesn't make the experience applicable to everyone, or that the conclusion is based on some other flawed thinking. That is cited by anyone supporting the poster's stated conclusion as an indication that the sub is anti-factor-1, not because it's an indication of such, but because that's easier to do than make arguments supporting the conclusion. I've seen being gay or female as the factor a lot, but the trend lately seems to be using "I'm transgender" instead.

submitted  by lolbye2
(1|8) submitted  by jcoe

submitted  by throwaway41823

submitted by lolbye1

submitted  by Vladith

submitted  by smariroach

 submitted  by Dexter77

submitted  by [gutless snot who deleted their account almost immediately]

submitted  by guywithaccount

submitted  by transsisterradio

submitted  by gblr

submitted 29 Dec 2013 by Apemazzle

submitted 29 Dec 2013 ago by slu-g

submitted by stillissitting

A letter to the men's rights movement (dearnonacepeople.tumblr.com)
submitted ago by ezra811

submitted by summersanne
The short version: "I'm a trans-woman who entered life as a woman carrying a belief in the concept of male privilege, and have interpreted all of my experiences as confirmation of it. Since I'm trans, you now have to believe in male privilege."

Bonus: Brigaded by /r/againstmensrights.

submitted 18 Dec 13 by [deleted]
(OP didn't even stick around for a day.)

Why did sillymod remove the Occidental College post?" Let me tell you why. (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Dec 13 by sillymod
Vote and comment brigaded by SRS, AMR, and SRD
Also, I was able to get an interesting result by engaging AMR trolls in discussion under the post.

submitted by infinette

submitted by relaxandenjoy

submitted by NickAckerman

submitted ago by buddyloveshispie

submitted  by 11thGRADEteacher

submitted by WheyDaBusAt

submitted  by Titsout4theboiz

(6|11) submitted by IjustcametosayAnyang
Divide and Conquer

submitted  by Horrorbuff2
Divide and Conquer

submitted by deathbutton1

submitted ago by zwirlo
submitted  by a_personification

submitted 15 Nov 2013* by Ultraoctopus

submitted 04 Nov 2013 by macnalley

submitted by perfectdesignNot a troll post, but the post itself was trolled in the comments.

submitted 22 Oct 2013 by nocbl2

submitted  by Smallpaul

submitted 10 Oct 2013 by thighproblem

submitted by NeonPiggy

submitted by ZerowithanH

(2|3) submitted by hhoburg

(109|30) submitted by onetenth

(11|9) submitted  by WheyDaBusAt

(8|10) submitted by Mishap89

submitted  by Anonaux

submitted 19 Sept 2013 by seego79

submitted 17 Sept 2013 by stageflight

submitted on by __banana
I'm not ready to say "pattern" after just 2 "let's associate MR with TRP posts, but still...
Divide and Conquer

submitted by didosrevenge

Hi. People on this site seem to talk about feminists a lot, but..
submitted on by Kate150

submitted 22 Aug 2013 by PinkiePo

A little confusion maybe you can clear up? (self.MensRights)
submitted  by punxpunx54"I've seen the term "red pill" thrown around here. Does this refer to the subreddit, or is it referring to the phrase as an alternative to "having my eyes opened"?
What are the general thoughts about the sub TRP and the manhood academy?"

submitted 06 Aug 2013 by recentlyunearthed

submitted 4 August 2013 by No_Fudge

Infographic: 40% of rapists are female (i.imgur.com)
 submitted submitted on by Frankly_No

submitted by CosmicKeys
This is not a spam or troll post, but instead describes brigading that has happened in relation to discussion on the Anita Sarkeesian videos.

submitted by 6aerataob
Tone Policing, Divide and Conquer 

submitted by KGBway

 Brigaded, Tone Policing

submitted by HappyGerbil88
Tone Policing: Attempts to use term "Misogynistic" in describing men's rights blogs to poison MRAs against outspoken Men's rights bloggers. 

(103|41) submitted by Little_maroon_alien

submitted by MrScolex

submitted by indigotrip

(15|20) submitted by bubbleearth

submitted  the_shakeweight

(11|8) submitted  by MaunderingMoose

submitted by Camerinthus

(7|3) submitted by turiyag

submitted by ddxxdd

submitted by mramrs

submitted by mehjbmeh

submitted by videoninja

submitted by fecal_encephalopathy
Tone Policing, NAFALT

submitted  by HalfysReddit

submitted by DaNiceguy
Heavily Brigaded.

submitted by royzin

submitted 29 Apr 2013 by lost-and-confused-

submitted  by GanbatteSisyphus

submitted by Tsaxmafia

   submitted  cypherdtraitor
NAFALT, but guys, it's a graphic so believe it! 

submitted 20 Apr 2013 by Typicaledgyname
Day old account, depressing message, maybe not a troll, but it sure looks like one.

(2|5) submitted by ga13be

submitted by mattblau

submitted by DerFisher
(Originally linked from /r/mensrights. Post removed by OP, who didn't like responses to it.)

(7|5) submitted  by GregoryPanic
Not a troll or brigade - just shows that there are MRAs who do not know everything feminism has done.

submitted 13 Apr 2013 by Kingle0nidas

submitted by memymineown
OP is longstanding MRA, but post invaded by trolls due to subject matter.

(3|4) submitted  by NEET_Here

submitted by feminazi_ftw

submitted by vaselinepete

submitted on by nobodysothername
(wonder why a sub where gay rights does get discussed keeps getting asked if gay rights are part of the discussion?)
submitted 27 Mar 2013 by WikipediaBrown

submitted on by yourblacksister

(23|24) submitted on by nutflushdraw
This one is pretty ridiculous, apparently posted just to give SRSers a place to circlejerk in the sub. Regularly posting MRAs are downvoted into hiding, while the top voted comment is a blatantly feminist viewpoint not actually related to the sub or the movement. Not even sure what kind of an effect they thought this effort would achieve.

submitted by sherylintexas

submitted by HalfysReddit

(93|46) submitted on by smallsmerry01

submitted by NemosHero
submitted  by bravestlittletoaster

(690|143)submitted by icamefromtumblr

(656|133) submitted by SUPERSMILEYMAN
This is not an MR regular. The wording of the post itself is rather fake - it's like a parody of "women behaving badly" posts, intended to set off comments. I think this one is trolling with intent to inspire speech which can be labeled "hate speech."

(128|21) submitted by gingerninjer2
I very strongly suspect this of being designed to get people's facebook profile information.

(3|1) submitted  by ElfmanLV

(46|19) submitted by eosri1

(327|94) submitted  by MercedezBento

(3|8) submitted by goddessworshipper

(3|0) submitted  by kwyjibo1230

submitted  by somethingofdoom

(9|13) submitted by XWindX

(13|0) submitted by They_Killed_Kenny

(12|10) submitted  by occupythekitchen

(28|17) submitted 02 Feb 2013 by viganhe005

(87|65 ago by ezra_epwell

submitted 26 Jan 2013 by T-rex_with_a_gun

submitted  ago by ExiledSenpai

submitted  by FEMANON_HERE
This thread is a response to the one listed below, contains vote brigading and a shitload of feminist apologists.

submitted  by DougDante This thread contains vote brigading and feminist apologists.

(4|2) submitted by SpaghettiLeftovers
(5|3) submitted  by morty369
      (Why can't we all just get along?)   (Again)

submitted  by kelloo
Post highlights the fraud behind Rosie the riveter poster. Issue is obvious - Rosie wasn't up to "equal work."
Immediately garnered "this is not a men's rights issue" and a brigade.

(11|8) submitted  by arrace415
Essentially, "I'm a feminist... please stop posting the Kanin study. I believe it's invalid because it used methodology similar to that used by feminists (small sample size), because Kanin was ethical, because it's based on women admitting that they lied, because polygraphs were used. The bottom line - (aside from the polygraph bit, which I can buy, but which doesn't carry the argument by itself) still the same old feminist crap about considering a rape accusation true if it isn't proved false, or guilty until proven innocent. Further, arrace415 asserts that a rape report is not an accusation, and that the accused isn't harmed by the report - a statement that assumes that every false report never gets past the paper stage, as if the accuser never says anything outside of the report itself. This completely ignores the effects caused by leveling such a serious charge. Conclusion: Troll trying to stop a useful argument from being circulated.

(1|2) submitted 02 Jan 2013 by curlymeatball38

As a feminist, thank you r/MensRights. (self.MensRights)
(106|49) submitted 01 Jan 2013 by HereToHumilateAFrand

submitted 01 Jan 2013 by thefran
 - heavily concern trolled by feminists  

Can We Try To Focus on Men's Rights, not "I Hate Feminists!" jokes? (self.MensRights)
(1649|610) submitted 30 Dec 2012 by absolutekraze

(25|11) submitted 29 Dec 2012 by Fisto27

(15|12) submitted by JaguscothSRS

7 Tactics Used by Academic Feminists To Suppress Information (self.MensRights)
(624|169) submitted by actanonverba8 

Why Feminism will always be the enemy (self.MensRights)(90|74) submitted by DavidByron
(comment section)Where Girlwriteswhat gets downvote brigaded by /r/againstmensrights for asserting that effective birth control is better than ineffective birth control

(17|14) submitted  by prettylittledaggers 

Something i think we all should read because i feel this means that our two groups are able able to reach a common ground.(MRAs and Feminists) Xpost to /r/Feminism (chicagonow.com)
(256|72) submitted  by Inbefore121

Men's Rights vs. Feminism vs. Egalitarianism (self.MensRights)
(17|14) submitted 24 Dec 2012 by DJ_Fleetwood_MacBook

what do you look for in a partner? (self.MensRights)
(8|4) submitted 22 Dec 2012 by hentaipolice 

(41|38) submitted 20 Dec 2012 by jawndisease

(40|28) submitted by ArchangelleFascist

(11|18) submitted by pretzelzetzel

(26|22)submitted by Jernlov

I'm both a feminist and a MRA. (self.MensRights)
(111|68) submitted by TheCameraLady

A question from an outsider. (self.MensRights)
(20|16) submitted by carpetpowder

Why do we have Men's Rights and Feminist Groups? Why not Gender Equality groups? (self.MensRights (8|11) submitted  by Skwalin 

A discussion on the word feminism. (self.MensRights)
(5|5) submitted  by ottawadeveloper 

 (7|10) submitted 04 Dec 2012 by Skwalin 

After just finding this sub a few days ago, I have some things I feel that I need to say, and would really love all your feedback. (self.MensRights)
(8|10) submitted  by duck97 

Well this is new. A feminist forum bringing awareness of men's rights issues, but still calling it feminism.(i.imgur.com)
(301|52) submitted  by idontgiveitout
Not a troll post, but feminists converged on it to try to out-shout MRAs.

I'm a little confused (self.MensRights) 
(32|10) submitted  by Tatshua 

submitted 28 Nov 2013 by 11thGRADEteacherFishing
I could be wrong, and this could just be a badly concluded paper, but the presentation of it here in this manner makes this post look to me like a quote-mining effort instead of a genuine attempt to get a paper graded, as it would provide a quote-miner with the ability to refer back to it later and twist people's comments into "MRAs support refusing to prosecute anyone accused of acquaintance rape," which will in turn be stretched to mean "MRAs support rape."

What do you people actually believe? (self.MensRights)
(20|21) submitted 19 Nov 2012 by jonahofscott 

Why is Men's Rights so anti-women/anti-feminist? (self.MensRights)
(9|18) submitted  by DerpinaTheThird 
    See also this post

(124|40) submitted  by femquestionthr 

(69|31) submitted  by Thermodynamo 

(269|55) submitted 03 Oct 2012 by deerp 
(8|10) submitted  by MRdaBakkle

(14|15) submitted  by ADevilNamedBen

Do you think Feminists can ever get along with MRA's? (self.MensRights)(16|9) submitted  by Species_0002

(41|33) submitted 22 Aug 2012 by toptrool

MR, what's your biggest "feminist" belief, or opinion that wouldn't mesh well with other MRA's? (self.MensRights)
(31|15) submitted 16 Aug 2012 by 12431 

I'm an aspiring equity feminist and I have some questions for you. (self.MensRights)(28|27) submitted  by PurpleVNeck

Female with a question about alliance-building around gender equality (self.MensRights)
submitted 01 Aug 2012 by tmesispieces 

(39|11) submitted 8 Jul 2012 by MrShenanigans

Feminists converged on this post to play victim Olympics over circumcision:  
 (661|186) submitted 14 Jun 2012 by shmittywerber 

(12|14) submitted 08 Jun 2012 by trombodachi 

(50|22) submitted 29 May 2012 by glass_hedgehog  

Not a troll post, but this one has been concern tolled by feminists

Isn't this subreddit getting kind of biased? (self.MensRights)
(13|23) submitted 23 May 2012 by FF15 

A quick word on feminists (self.MensRights)
(35|9) submitted 01 May 2012 by nlakes
 Appeal for more diplomatic feminist labels in discussion.
Why are we talking about (radical) feminists? (self.MensRights)(58|21) submitted 14 Apr 2012 by Police_Murdering_Us

(35|37) submitted 11 Apr 2012* by muckette

Do you hate Feminists? (self.MensRights)
 (24|29) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by Fluffy_Fsh 

(38|17) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by radiojojo

I'm new to Men's Rights and I am a feminist. Now that we have that out of the way, I want to let you know that I (and I believe most feminists my age) agree with the basic tenets of MRAs, if not the language and attitude of it.

(34|19) submitted 30 Mar 2012 ago by kratistos 

This subreddit needs to shake off its anti-women reputation for the sake of these issues being taken seriously. (self.MensRights)
(574|233) submitted 04 Mar 2012 by steam-pug 

(34|19) submitted 10 Feb 2012* by newsgentry 

I support complete gender equality, but the attitude towards feminism here is a bit disappointing... (self.MensRights)
(25|27) submitted 05 Jan 2012* by hippiechan

A suggestion for MensRights to maybe help the dialogue. (self.MensRights)
(13|14) submitted  by dangerousbirde 

Feminists for men's rights (self.MensRights)
(13|18) submitted * by feminazibitchyoumad 

So are gay men's rights somehow less important than straight men's rights? (self.MensRights)
(22|23) submitted  by rabbaroo

(332|113) submitted  by iamunstrung

(44|38) submitted  * by conn1e

I'm sorry, but I just had to say something. I'm sick of all these threads complaining about 'stupid feminist' and 'feminazis' and whatever other derogatory crap you want to throw at women who believe in equality for them.
I love this forum, it's great, men get kicked around some times too. This should be fought for too. But don't sink to the same low as these women who think they're feminists, but arn't, and slander men.
A true feminist just wants a fair go, she wants to work as hard as you (at WHATEVER, except maybe something like sport that is just genuinely unfair due to anatomy). This includes working when she's got her period, or pregnant. She's not a princess bitching about how men don't kiss her feet.
Don't slander feminists, they're supporting you. We can't be equal if men aren't.
Edit: Um wow. This is exactly what I needed to understand. I was angry because I lacked insight, into men's AND women's rights. I don't have the sheer power to reply to you all but once again, thankyou. I feel a bit emotional. I think I need to do a bit of reflection.
TL;DR, I am equalitarian. :)

Preparing for massive downvotes, but would like to share my opinion (self.MensRights)
(702|412) submitted  * by joannchilada
I know many MR readers *really* don't like feminists, but I thought this was an interesting study (self.MensRights)(5|9) submitted * by a_curious_koala

A question from an employee of a "feminist" non-profit (self.MensRights)
(10|3) submitted by GoingTo

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html