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.

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html