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.

Let's talk

Rape/Assault victims: Phoebe Greenwood wants to hear from you (either sex) if your assault was dismissed "because you had been drinking." She tweeted a few hours ago that she was looking for such stories from women. In response to a reply criticizing her for ignoring male victims, she amended her statement in a second tweet, saying she'd be interested in hearing from men, as well.  
I think she should hear from victims whose assault was dismissed because they're male, or because their perpetrator was female, which I believe happens far more often than the dismissal of an assault strictly because the victim was drinking, regardless of gender.    

Because this looks like a case of a feminist journalist attempting to use reporting only part of the story to support feminism's female-victim rape culture narrative.

How can you help?

If you've been victimized and you've been dismissed when seeking assistance or legal recourse, either because you're male or your perpetrator was female, or if you're male, because you'd been drinking (her original question) please reply to the tweet I sent in response to her request, and describe your experience. If it can't be put into 140 characters, Twit longer is a useful tool for creating longer than normal tweets. The tweet will then show the title, with the option of viewing the rest of the post.

If you haven't, but you know someone who has been dismissed while seeking assistance for any of those reasons, pass the tweet on. If you can, tweet a link to it with a request for responses.

Please only tweet responses that describe wrongful dismissal of your own experience or the experience of someone you know. Though it is frustrating to deal with a person who seems to have an anti-male or at least male-dismissive bias, this will only be productive if we offer evidence rather than blunt or emotional criticism, no matter how justified it might be.

I don't know if we'll touch her heart or change her mind, but at the very least, maybe receiving examples will help Ms. Greenwood see that narrowing her focus to support a narrative won't go unnoticed.

How should rape be defined?

Recent discussion on reddit led me back to an old comment I made in response to the assertion of another commenter in defense of feminist researchers using an overly broad definition of rape that the crime is hard to define. While I understand why a feminist might think that, as proponents of the ideology can't even fully agree on what constitutes consent, the determining factor in their various definitions for the crime, I disagree.

I contend that such a belief relies on ignoring the importance of mens rea, a vital factor which feminists strive to eliminate from the discussion. I would argue that relying on the subjective concept of sexual consent rather than the more definitive measure of intent, which can be demonstrated based on the alleged perpetrator's provable actions, makes it more difficult to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. Relying on whether proof of consent exists also places the burden of proof in a criminal case on the accused rather than on the accuser, a violation of the due process rights of the accused.

My response was to describe how rape should be defined in order to avoid confusion and minimize the incidence of false allegations resulting in conviction.

It would have to start with describing sex crime in general, defining that as the act by the perpetrator of contravening or disregarding the victim's right to refuse sexual contact.

Disregarding should be defined as ignoring an unresponsive/incapacitated state, or age or disability related inability of the victim to understand and agree to the act. This would cover incapacity due to an intoxicant, and protection of minors and the mentally disabled. It wouldn't cover drunk sex with a responsive partner, as a responsive partner is capable of refusal.

Contravening could be defined as taking any measure to enforce the perpetrator's will on an unwilling victim such that the victim no longer has the option to refuse. This would cover physical force, coercion by threat, and surreptitious use of an intoxicant to bypass the victim's will. It wouldn't cover pressure or seduction, as these means do not prevent refusal, but seek to persuade.

The term "rape" would be used when there was penetration of any orifice by either the perpetrator or the victim, or enforced oral contact with sex organs, under the conditions described in the overall refusal definition.

This would cover the actions generally considered to be sexual intercourse - oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex would all fall under that definition, even when the perpetrator is a female rapist forcing the victim to perform cunnilingus, where "penetration" might not be seen as an accurate description of the act.

Making the definition so specific would avoid problems caused by using an overly broad definition which relies on a subjective concept like sexual consent.  It would go a long way toward reducing false allegations brought forth due to misunderstanding of the law, and provide counselors with a clear guideline for discussion of prevention - communication would be key, as it would be made clear that a potential victim has both the right and the responsibility to communicate refusal unless incapacitated or unqualified, and a potential partner becomes a perpetrator at the moment that refusal (or incapability) is ignored.

#IStandByJack update 2: Futrelle's Magic Fainting Couch Ride

In a recent post I described David Futrelle's sniveling cowardice and melodramatic damseling over a father's response to the result of Futrelle's manipulation of his more unstable readers.


As I said, Futrelle's method of operation involves selective presentation of cherry-picked information, falsely framed to infer that which it does not actually support. Futrelle's self-sustaining slander farm stretches right past error through the land of the deliberately obtuse to outright targeted deception. He uses that method to stir outrage in a loyal following of individuals of questionable mental stability whose pattern of behavior, generally inspired by his publication, he'd whine piteously about if they were targeting him. He then sits back and watches his useful idiots do his dirty work for him, cherry picks from the responses to their behavior, and starts the pattern all over again.

Futrelle's shit-stirring resulted in one of his useful idiots sending a father messages threatening his family, including his 6 year old daughter, over Futrelle's writing. One of the tweets named Futrelle specifically, just to make that clear.

Needless to say, the child's father responded with all of the tact and finesse of an angry Dad whose child's safety has been wrongfully compromised. He made a conditional statement which Futrelle, fully aware of what set it off, chose to take as a meaningful threat, thereby admitting that in writing his manipulative posts, he does intend to send his crazy followers after his targets. Futrelle feigned ignorance, then when he could no longer do so, made a series of excuses relying on imputing malice where malice has not been proved. As I explained in the earlier post, he's actually portraying HIMSELF as the victim of the doxing of a 6 year old child, targeted in his name by one of his supporters enraged by his presentation of his narrative. He's like a man who kicks a revolving door, then cries foul when the other side of it swings back and bumps him in the ass.

Having seen the post, and being fully aware that his manipulation is eliciting threats of violence against not only his targets, but their children, Futrelle FINALLY came to his senses and wrote a post admonishing his readers to exercise restraint, and...

haha, no, Of course he couldn't do that.

After being criticized for trying to make himself the victim of threats he inspired against someone else's child, Futrelle has taken the additional step of whining to his readers that he's being bullied. His response to Jack? He ran Jack's statement through the same MO I outlined above; selective presentation, false framing, and manipulative writing. His whining, boiled down to its essence, was as follows;

"Poor me, Jack is mad at me because I got someone to threaten his little girl, and he said words I don't like! His response to threats against his child are unjustified but I'm totally within my rights to indulge in extreme paranoia over this, and everyone KNOWS I'm a nice guy who doesn't condone behavior I haven't bothered to criticize until I feared blame for it might stick to me."


In other words, in a desperate and pitiful attempt to snatch victimhood from the jaws of shame, Futrelle responded to being criticized for sparking proxy abuse by knowingly fueling the reaction. And he supplemented that by adding similarly presented complaints about my criticism of his initial response. Rather than take a smidgen of adult responsibility for the results of his own actions, Futrelle has portrayed exposure of his paranoid fantasy for what it is as an irrational attack on him. Not only is he "victim" of a 6 year old's experience, the guy who fancies himself every MRA's judge and jury is also now "victim" of not being given control over others' assessment of HIS behavior.

Before writing this most recent article, one might have understood how he could have convinced himself that he was completely detached from the behavior of his readers. Now that he's admitted in print to having seen the cause & effect relationship between his dishonesty and his readers' actions outlined, he cannot rightfully claim that his carefully crafted demonization of men's rights advocates is ever, in any way, disconnected from any response his readers make. And knowing that at least one is not averse to responding by targeting innocent, uninvolved 6 year old girls, he's decided his best course of action is to add fuel to the fire while continuing to deny responsibility for any damage done by its eventual spread.

Futrelle says he will not apologize for taking Jack's "threat" seriously, yet he has attempted to shame Jack for taking seriously the proxy threat that has resulted from Futrelle targeting him and other AVFM writers. He's reversed in his mind a threat against Jack's child, turning it around to make himself the victim, and has the nerve to complain that the rest of us won't go along with his delusion.


Futrelle thinks a chain of sound logic explaining why presuming fulfilled Jack's condition - if harm would come to his family - demonstrates expectation, and therefore intent, is irrational... yet presents as a rational belief the inference that a man sounding off about being made to fear for his family's safety would, without that cause, do anything that would jeopardize his ability to provide for them.

Futrelle feels maligned because his disclaimers about doxing haven't detracted from his perceived responsibility when his dehumanization campaign results in it, yet he feels entitled to ignore the part of Jack's statement that doesn't fit in with the victim narrative he wants to present to his readers.

If he becomes any less self-aware in his complaints, he'll have to start referring to himself in the 3rd person.

Update; Knowing that his yellow journalism sends his readers out on real-world crusades against his targets, Futrelle has selected another:


After months of David Futrelle producing and promoting inflammatory false frames and lies about the men's rights movement, A Voice For Men in particular, the publication's writers and editorial staff as a group, and each of us personally, Jack Barnes's 6 year old kid was doxed and slyly threatened "I would hate for something to happen" style in Futrelle's name, presumably by a reader inspired by Futrelle's work.

As a father reacting to a stated threat against his child, Jack made a conditional statement - one that several times contained "If" in it, along with the statement that he hopes and prays never to have cause to back it up. If something happens to Jack's family. If his family is harmed. If he has to bury his wife and kid because Futrelle's intentional shit-stirring has riled up a psycho. It's pretty clear how Jack has been affected by recent events; a person who contacted him in Futrelle's name has given him reason to fear for the safety of his family.

Feminists have a habit of phrasing their complaints to paint fathers as uninvolved, callous deadbeats who take no interest in their children's welfare or experiences. Seeing a father's protective instinct laid bare ought to pleasantly surprise those who expect indifference in its place. That's the role they demanded he and all other fathers fill.

Male feminism's white knights especially ought to be able to empathize with a man's need to express that instinct, as they lay claim to it daily. One would think male feminists, of all people, would get that sounding off like this might be an expected response when a father sees his child threatened. One might even expect a male feminist to feel embarrassed at being associated with the threat that elicited Jack's response.

So how has David Futrelle answered?

Not by stating that he discourages this type of behavior in his readers.
Not by assuring that is readers won't attack Jack's family.
Not by promising to write a post admonishing his readers to refrain from engaging in violence against their political opponents.
Not even by sympathizing with a father's concern for his family's safety... but instead by confirming that concern, by treating those statements - which include "this is not a threat," as threats of planned actions, not conditional, but direct.

There's only two logical possibilities left, now that Futrelle has made this response. He can admit that his answer was a completely irrational overreaction to being held responsible for the effects of his dishonest shit stirring on his followers, and backpedal to a more rational (or at least rational sounding) response... or he can admit what his current response indicates; that he intends for harm to come Jack's family as a result of his shit stirring, that he DOES encourage his readers to engage in this type of behavior, and that he DOES intend for one or more of his readers to respond to his writing by engaging in violence against HIS political opponents.

After all, "If X, then Y" only infers Y on the condition of X... so responding to "If you X, then I'll Y" as if the individual has only stated "I'm going to Y" is an admission that you've planned on X happening. And Futrelle's apparent plan X seems pretty cowardly if you ask me.

It's getting old, watching sick fucks like Futrelle take cheap shots at political activists from behind followers who are little more than useful idiots. Futrelle's knowingly dishonest, falsely framed and deliberately inflammatory style
(See the post under the video here: http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/video/cassie-jay-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-red-pill-documentary-film/),
is designed to stir up exactly the kind of nutjob who would dox and threaten a child to punish her parent for his political activism.

The behavior is textbook "queen bee" style relational aggression taken to the next level. It consists of falsely framing selectively presented information and using rhetological fallacies to create an impression the information does not actually support, all to manipulate the reader both intellectually and emotionally. Futrelle's spin on it is doing so in such a way as to be excessively inflammatory, and it does exactly that. The threat narrative ( https://youtu.be/Uy3SKPWjWeM?list=PLJOWMtQBIv1sFM-u8FIKZxK0_AkoBzeCV ) built by Futrelle's writing has resulted in a pattern of behavior among his faithful that would be called stalking or targeted harassment if MRAs or even just guys in general did it to feminist women. Futrelle's followers do it to MRAs of both sexes... then try to play victim when it results in criticism they're not willing to weather.

Several of them have obsessively pursued AVFM's writers and other staff with defamatory assertions and insinuations, inserting themselves into discussions that do not involve them, making the discussions about themselves and Futrelle, then making harassment accusations when they don't like the answers they receive. These nutjobs actually once tried to push a man to commit suicide by starvation because they were angry that he was asking that Canadian law be enforced equally with respect to both sexes.

When Thunderf00t responded to Laughing Witch's letter writing campaign by signal boosting her own release of her own information and it had negative results for her, SJWs came out of the woodwork to condemn him as if he'd doxed her and sicced the internet on her, portraying the "fire Thunderf00t for disagreeing with me on the internet" campaigner as a victim because shit she threw into the wind blew back and hit her in the face. A massive hand wringing lament went up because Laughing Witch claimed without proof that people she was responsible for would be indirectly affected by the blowback.

Now, Futrelle's dishonest, deliberately inflammatory shit-stirring has inspired one of his head-fucked followers to directly dox and directly threaten the six-year-old child of one of his political opponents... not in response to an attack but over nothing more than disagreement about political ideology.

How does Futrelle respond? Calling off the dogs? Posting a call to be better than that? Admonishing his readers to not destroy their credibility by taking actions that make them the "bad guys," as MRAs are expected to do when so accused?

Haha, nope!

Futrelle has instead mounted his high horse, feigned detachment despite his own dishonesty being the first domino in the chain, and is now seeking a means to make HIMSELF out as the victim of doxing and threats targeting a 6 year old girl.

He uses the word "escalate" to describe Jack's conditional statement. He ignores the fact that targeting Jack's family IS escalation. He assumes that the reason his own family has never been so targeted is because his favorite writing subjects couldn't get that information, rather than the simple fact that we don't work that way. Futrelle doesn't know the difference between his high horse and moral high ground. His ability to make that mistake with near impunity relies on his choice to target only people who do know the difference, and who don't do the same things to him that he does to others.

Way to go, David, you prevaricating, skanky-assed dolt-hustler. You just demonstrated with your own occupancy of it that there is a lower place to sink in the name of gender issues debate than I believed actually existed.

Edit: Update

As I recall... a little history on feminism's SPLC claims

This post is actually a fleshed-out version of one of my responses in a skype conversation. In writing it, I realized that this particular bit of reddit's history hasn't been written down by anyone, so I thought I'd put it here. The following is from my memory.  

When the conflict between reddit feminists and /r/mensrights started, neither /r/mensrights nor /r/feminism had many subscribers. Reddit itself wasn't all that big yet. When it was new, its format was slightly different from the way it is now. Originally, links could be posted without choosing a subreddit. They were there, but they were not the focus for the site. They were for specialized posting when the link in question might not be fitting for general posting to the front page... but if you wanted to just post to reddit.com, you could. Both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights were created during that time, when subreddits were basically a side gig.

Contrary to feminist claims about men's issues discussion, it's been functional from the beginning. When /r/mensrights was new there was discussion about things like the Innocence Project, Dr. Farrell's writing, Murray Strauss's work, Erin Pizzey's work, etc. That was true even before AVFM had the readership or visibility in the movement that it has now. It took time for the staff to build up a body of sourced writing, and during that time it was just one among many blogs with sourced writing, all of which were regularly linked and cited in posts and comments on /r/mensrights. Discussion in the subreddit made it a communication hub for different groups of MRAs, where sources of information were offered, issues discussed, theories shared and evaluated, conclusions drawn, and even some real world activism planned. And while reddit's feminist presence divided itself among a plethora of heavily moderated subreddits (which feminist sub moderators have since labeled "the fempire,) for the longest time, men's issues discussion remained open, but centered firmly in /r/mensrights, leading to the faster and larger growth of that subreddit.

Feminists became upset that information contradicting their narrative was being shared and discussed in /r/mensrights. In fact, they didn't like any of what was going on in the subreddit, and some reddit feminists took it upon themselves to put a stop to it.

They began attacking /r/mensrights in a few different ways. Concern trolling complete with shaming tactics began immediately. There were a lot of women who seemed to think visiting the sub to state their disapproval would shame these unruly guys into silence, so there were actual lecture posts.

I wish today that I'd archived them, because it's hard to go back more than a few years on reddit, and some of those posts were really comical. One chick took the Nurse Ratched approach and demanded to know what our mothers would think if they knew "what we were doing in this subreddit." What I did eventually do was spend a little time archiving into a post titled "For the record" a set of links that includes concern troll posts and comments, manipulative efforts, and posts that appear to have been brigaded (targeted by other subreddits for vote or discussion manipulation). I'm not working on that as a project any more, having sampled a pretty good sized window in time, but if you look at today's posts on /r/mensrights, I'm sure you'll probably see some of the same things I noted during the creation of that archive.

Another form of attack was to make a sockpuppet account and post something positive that would garner emphatic responses, then edit it, changing to something that made the existing comments look misogynistic. That would then be archived and the archive of the edited post presented elsewhere on reddit as evidence of rampant misogyny in the sub. The mods of /r/mensrights had to employ a bot created by another redditor to archive posts so that there would be an accurate record when those accusations were made.

There were two results of this: One, the admins did temporarily ban /r/mensrights in its early stages, and we had to argue for it to be reinstated (it obviously was,)... and two, reddit was so inundated with complaints about posts and comments being edited to make responding comments look bad (in multiple subreddits) that they took user suggestions to denote edits. Posts and comments edited after the first 60 seconds are now marked with an asterisk, so now while you do have a chance to fix formatting, nobody can use editing to gaslight their commenters.

At the same time, there was a discussion among reddit's feminists about writing to the SPLC and asking them to declare men's rights activists a hate movement (referred to as "the MRA" because they apparently didn't know the "A" stood for Activists and not something like "Association.")

The SPLC article that feminists now cite as a declaration that the MRM is a hate movement came out shortly after that spate of edit-based gas-lighting and the reddit discussion. The speech it describes as hateful and misogynistic could just about only be what was presented after editing those posts.

Now, the SPLC itself is just a mouthpiece for the American left, for whom identity politics represents a major cash cow... and though they didn't apply the requested label, I believe the article is evidence that the organization was influenced by those demands from reddit feminists.

Even when the SPLC didn't do what feminists were asking, feminists immediately began citing the article to back the claim that the organization had labeled men's rights "a" hate group. They did that so quickly that I suspect we weren't even on the SPLC's radar until feminists started complaining about us, and that feminists have been bent on that goal (using the "hate group" label to discredit our advocacy) from the first time they heard of us.

Transcript for my video, "Rant on Enthusiastic Consent"

Video Link

This isn't a response video, just a short rant about feminism and consent... particularly the "enthusiastic consent" standard, which is getting more and more coverage and has now been adopted into law in California.

This is something I've discussed in various other forums for years, and there's a response I consistently get that is terribly dishonest so I want to address it now & get it out of the way. All of feminism's various approaches to separating consensual sex from sexual violence rely on the very same traditional gender roles and stereotyping they claim to oppose. Every campaign they've had has been based on assuming that the male role in a sex encounter is seeker, and the female role is gatekeeper.

Their portrayal of social interaction is insultingly melodramatic, presenting the female role as that of a naive, helpless non-participant who never seeks sex and never has control over our environment or ourselves, making men and boys, with the inferred privilege of agency and strength, responsible for us by insinuation.
They, in turn, are presented with a false dichotomy: Fill the age-old role of women's guardians and protectors, or by default fit the villain portrayed in these campaign's propaganda; indiscriminately sex-obsessed, insensitive, pushy, and unscrupulous about where and how he gets what he wants.

When that reliance on traditional roles and stereotypes is pointed out, then and only then do feminists promoting any given campaign ever mention male consent as a factor. Often, that mention is limited to homosexual relationships, thereby still excluding female responsibility for obtaining consent, until that, too is pointed out. It takes a hard push against their own lack of self-awareness before feminists even so much as pay lip service to the human rights of men and boys in relation to sexual choice.

So before anyone responds to this video with statements about how your particular brand of feminist consent campaign includes men and boys and therefore isn't about demonizing and dehumanizing them, you'd better be willing to prove that from the beginning, you've been equally targeting females with "don't rape" messages, equally teaching women and girls not to assume their advances are wanted or accepted, equally portraying them the same way your campaign portrays men and boys... in short, assigning women and girls the same responsibility and accountability for their role in an encounter as you do men or boys.

If not, you might want to re-examine your claim that you're giving male consent equal time. If you're following the existing formula that relies on presenting hapless female helplessness and ineptitude as the norm, you can't rightfully make that argument, and it's a waste of your time to bother making it here.

With that out of the way, on to the rant itself.

I wrote about this a while back in my breaking the glasses post about the enthusiastic consent standard, titled Tit for tat: A standard advocated is a standard owed. I'm going to revisit it here so although the article is a longer statement, much of what I'm saying will be the same.

According to feminism's expressed rhetoric on the enthusiastic consent standard, spoken word is the only acceptable method by which female consent during a heterosexual encounter may be accurately confirmed.
The inference is that nothing a woman does, even to the point of aggressive sexual pursuit of a man, indicates consent to sex. It's basically a statement that no matter what action a woman takes, men must ask for permission to respond, even in kind.

Within this mentality, a man's consent is assumed, partly on the basis of the same behaviors feminists claim don't indicate a woman's consent, but mostly just because he's a man. This standard relies on treating women's sexuality as sacred and coveted, while condemning male sexuality as automatically predatory and in a way, larcenous. It's very clearly intended as nothing more than a means of enforcing the traditional male seeker, female gatekeeper sexual dynamic women use to make sex a tool for manipulating men.

I don't think men have to let it be used that way.

Instead of accepting the imposition of these traditional dynamics, if you're living in an environment where this is now the legal standard, you can use it to cast those dynamics off.

For one thing, stop juming through hoops to earn the affection of women who can't even be troubled to respond to your efforts with equal enthusiasm. Stop shouldering all of the responsibility for the experiences of both parties.

Most of all, don't accept being treated like your consent is a given.

While feminists advocate their enthusiastic consent model as a means of giving women the upper hand, logic makes it a reason for men to exercise the right of refusal when you are not comfortable or satisfied with the dynamics of an encounter.
Nobody is entitled to your attention or affection. Being male doesn't make you community property.

Don't let women treat you like it does.

If nothing else, you have the right to protect yourself from what this standard turns shy or demure women into; essentially Schrodinger's false accuser. After all, you're being told that a woman's participation in a sex act isn't valid consent unless she enthusiastically says so.

She can initiate sex with you, make all of the advances, ride you like a post horse and later accuse you of committing a felony because she didn't say the magic words.

Logically, that's reason to presume heterosexual sex a risky proposal that you're entitled approach with suspicion. You've got every right to require that your partner prove her intent with clear, unmistakable communication before you give your consent. It's reasonable for you to reserve your attention, your affection, your regard, and your trust for only someone willing to give you that reassurance.

And really, you should have been entitled to expect that all along anyway. You're no less deserving than a woman is to be treated as a wanted and interesting partner, to be offered an equal experience of demonstrated intent to please and impress.

Don't settle for some lazy scumbag who expects you to put in all of the effort while she sits back and makes you guess.

Don't tolerate getting treated like a beggar or a slave instead of a romantic interest.

Don't accept being ignored or lied to throughout a sexual encounter.

Those behaviors are abusive.

If the woman you're with cannot afford you the human dignity to treat you as, and act as, an equal partner, she hasn't earned the right to be one. No one has the right to expect you to put up with that, and you don't have to.

You never should have, but now you can also cite this standard and the danger it presents as supporting reasons why you refuse.

As for any women watching this who are offended by what I've said, I'm not the person you should be complaining to about it. Tell your feminist friends who have asserted that male courtship behavior is predatory, consent resulting from it isn't consent, and only verbal communication is communication.

They've made these demands in your name and governing bodies are listening.

Therefore, you no longer have the right to expect to be courted for your attention, subtly flirted with, or even treated like your own actions are intentional, because men have been authoritatively told that when they give you that they're abusing you.

Protesting the expectations I just laid out is asking your potential partners to risk a rape charge just to be with you.

That's a hell of a demand to make, and frankly, there is not a person on earth whose attention is worth that risk. Therefore, women, it IS your responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy... or even worthy at all, the same responsibility men have always had. You no longer have the right to sit back and expect a man to impress you, while you attempt to maintain an air of demure, modest propriety. If you're shy, if you prefer a traditional approach, if you like to be romanced... well, tough shit. Get over it. It's the 21st century now, and you're outdated.

Realize that a requirement for communication goes both ways.

If men are to be expected to obtain communication, women must be equally expected to provide it.
By asserting that men may be expected to assume that anything a you don't directly and clearly request is unwanted, feminists have given men license to assume that you don't want anything until it has been directly and clearly requested.

They haven't just placed the greater burden on men to obtain verbal consent, or be guilty of rape.
They've placed an equal burden on you to speak up and do so with enthusiasm, or go without sexual intimacy.

So it's on you now. Quit being so lazy.

Get off of your ass, stop expecting to sit back and leave all of the work in a relationship to the guy, and start proving yourself the way they've had to for centuries.

Under the circumstances, you're an abusive asshole if you don't.

Transcript for my video, "Response to 'The Men's Rights Movement' by Brave the World"

The video can be seen here: https://youtu.be/HIG6KMnFjg8

The following text may differ slightly from the video in a few places because while reading I added thoughts or skipped things I'd written, but for the most part it's an accurate representation of the video's content.


This is in response to the video "The Men's Rights Movement" by youtuber Brave the world.
I want to start out by saying this is one of the most ridiculous examples of the middle ground fallacy I've seen yet. You've used a combination of strawman attacks, entitlement to dictate other people's standards, and repetition of already disproved claims to bolster your own belief that "both sides of the conflict between MRAs and feminists are dysfunctional and damaging their own causes." While that approach is pretty common, your version of it is particularly shallow and sweeping, with an unusually blunt display of the bigoted belief that conditions of adversity magically have less impact on men who experience them than on women.

There is so much fail in your video that it's hard to respond to all in one statement, though what I've said so far can be taken as a decent summary.

However, I think a bit more in-depth analysis of your assertions is merited, so here goes:
The men's rights movement is not a reaction to feminism. This is a belief feminists have put forth as a way of disparaging the movement. In fact, it exists to address discriminatory conditions which men face, whether related to feminism or not, and not all of them are. The conflict between MRAs and feminists is not in a belief that "women's rights" have gone too far, but in areas where feminist lobbying has exploited discriminatory attitudes toward men for political benefit, or where feminist groups have opposed men's advocacy for relief from discrimination.

Your assessment that men's advocacy has become radicalized seems to rely on a failure to differentiate between men's rights activists and other groups which, by their nature, touch on men's issues. I would also point out that you are mistaken in thinking those groups originated from men's rights activism rather than evolving on their own, and that they're a response to feminism. Like men's activism, other male oriented groups you're calling reactionary are a response to discriminatory social and legal conditions faced by men and boys. Approaches taken by various groups within the spectrum of male responses to that environment range from treating it as a danger and abandoning it (as Men Going Their Own Way do) to advocacy for legal balance and evolution of social attitudes (as Men's Rights Advocates do) to largely bad advice with a sprinkling of knowledge about people, purporting to help young men navigate said environment while attempting to find companionship (see the Pick Up Artist community, who feminists often portray as men's rights activists against the protests of both groups.

As for your statement about the death of feminism, that movement killed itself without any help. From having had to study feminist history to respond to their territorial attitude toward myself and other women, I can tell you that feminism has never been about rights. It's about politics. And it's never been about equality. It's always been a gynocentric approach to genderless issues, treating all women and only women as victims and only victims... and men as both gods and devils. Its ideology promotes the view that female experiences and interests are uniquely relevant and meaningful, women and girls are uniquely deserving of relief or protection from discriminatory law and policy, and men and boys are uniquely guilty of causing that discrimination and accountable for providing that relief.

That combination of toxic ideology, along with an unhealthy dose of collectivism, has quite naturally evolved over time into the level of entitled pettiness that you see today among 3rd wave feminists. Seeing everything through that filter mentally "justifies" advocating for discriminatory law as long as it's men who are discriminated against and women at least appear to benefit.

One significant difference between feminism and men's rights activism is the focus. Where feminists fight to gender government response to genderless issues, MRAs fight for a genderless approach that treats the underlying issue, not the sex of the people involved, as the priority. While feminists consider female experiences and interests uniquely relevant and meaningful, and female needs paramount, MRAs want to see male experiences, needs, and interests given equal consideration; to treat everyone equally in their activism, and to see the law reformed to do the same. It's an uphill battle for us, largely because many people fail to see certain areas of discrimination as discriminatory.

Next, you threw in a series of supposedly predicted men's rights assertions, none of which would actually ever originate from men's rights advocacy positions. The closest you got was on the backlash against modern women expecting men to buy things for them as was traditional when middle & upper class women didn't work. Why should men treat women like we don't have any money when we can all earn it just like they do? Are you really that entitled?

The funny thing is, if you reverse the genders, you did mirror some feminist positions. In particular, the idea of being entitled to romantic attention despite being unattractive; feminists use the fat acceptance narrative to call straight men who have a preference for attractive, healthy women "sexist." Often, however, their belief that having standards for aesthetics is sexist does not extend to women's standards. Men who argue against those standards are labeled "creeps."

There is not only EVIDENCE that there's as much physical violence from women, there's EVIDENCE that there is more. Your claim that men (and only men) who report domestic violence are lying, or that the assaults women commit don't matter because men are stronger absolutely is a gender bias. It is intellectually dishonest of you to use the inclusion of self-reports in the data as an excuse to dismiss the data when self-reports - often well after the events described in them - are the basis for the vast majority of existing statistics supporting the belief that partner violence against women is common and pervasive in our society. Either self-reports are to be believed, or they're not. Believable when you want and unbelievable when you don't like what they imply is not a choice.

It's also a sad statement that you buy into the gender myths that
1) all men are bigger and stronger and all women are smaller and weaker and
2) being smaller means being less capable of doing damage.

Some violent women are bigger than their partners. Some use weapons, solicit proxy violence from friends and family and sometimes law enforcement, and even attack using household objects.

I know a guy whose ex-wife used to throw pots and pans, small appliances, and movable light fixtures at him. I used to know a guy whose ex-girlfriend cracked his skull with an heirloom solid glass paperweight he kept on his desk.

One friend of mine had to defend his current wife against his approximately 5 and a half foot waif of a wife, who picked up a motorized push lawnmower and threw it at her.

Another was convicted of assault for putting his hands up to block a woman trying to stab him in the throat with a pencil, because when he did he caught her in the jaw. The woman was not even arrested... because gender made him popping her once in the jaw a worse offense than her repeated attempts to murder him with a sharp object.

Another case involved a woman who blocked the only exit to an upstairs room with her body and threw every small but heavy object within her reach at her husband. When he squeezed past her to flee the conflict, she called police and he was arrested, later convicted, and spent 18 months in jail.

Domestic violence victim's advocates consider it battery when a man slaps or pushes a woman even if it leaves no injury, not even marks. There is no reason the same condition should not be considered domestic violence when a woman is the perpetrator.

Further, violent women don't just slap and quit. They push and nag and hit and harass until the guy can't take it any more and responds. And restraining her is, by many advocates, considered domestic violence as well - so he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't... and that's if he doesn't end up like Travis Alexander at the hands of his murdering girlfriend Jodi Arias.

When a woman is the victim, advocates label this type of continued, prolonged attack "emotional abuse" and treat it as a direct cause all kinds of dysfunctional behavior in the victim, from withdrawal from social connections to addiction to co-battery and even criminal behavior against third parties, all on the basis that the pattern of abuse affects the victim's mental state. Where do you think you get off denying that the same experience might have the same impact on men?

Jennifer  Langhinrichsen-Rohling   stated in her report, Rates of bi-directional vs uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review, published in Partner Abuse, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, that 58% of violent relationships are bi-directional, and 28% are uni-directional perpetration by women against their partners, leaving only 14% of domestic violence as the uni-directional male-on-female partner violence feminists portray as the majority.

Not only do women engage in domestic violence against men, the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence surveys have found that a higher percentage of lesbian relationships than heterosexual relationships are violent. According to the CDC's 2010 NISVS, the Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical  Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner was 43% of lesbians vs 35% of heterosexual women, and only 26% for gay men. Approximately 1 in 3 lesbian women vs 1 in 4 heterosexual women reported at least one form of severe physical violence from an intimate partner, vs approximately 1 in 6 gay men. If men were naturally more violent than women, the most violence per capita would be found in relationships with two men, not those with two women.

Women also are more likely than men to be violent toward their children. Health department data shows women as the majority of perpetrators during the last decade, with a decline in their percentage concurrent with a decline in overall perpetration as paternal custody has slowly increased during that time.
Why does all of this matter? I'll bet if you took the time to watch this, you're sitting there thinking, "But I agree with you that men deserve equal remedy! Why are the numbers important if I say men deserve help getting out of abusive relationships?"

I have three  answers for this.

First, it's the truth, and the truth matters, even if confronting it is uncomfortable.

Second, feminist lobbying groups which have established themselves as expert advisers to legislative and other policy making bodies have used the claim that men rarely experience domestic violence, and when they do it's usually not serious, to deny men equal assistance. They made that argument in 1978 when they lobbied Congress for domestic violence law.

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 provided funds to states for programs to prevent family violence and provide shelter to family members attempting to escape it, but didn't give feminists the gender-specific stipulations they wanted. They spent the next 10 years trying to get congress to make the law gender specific on the basis of their claim that women are the vast majority of victims and deserve the lion's share of funding. Lobbying for the Violence Against Women act of 1994 included the same claims made in 1978, despite the existence of information contradicting them. Feminist lobbyists succeeded in persuading congress to gender the language of the law to follow the Duluth model which presumes family violence to be mainly male perpetrated and female experienced, so that the vast majority of shelters would be women-only.
They also succeeded in persuading congress to create a funding incentive for mandatory arrest, prosecution, conviction, sentencing, and sentence enforcement policies guaranteeing an accusation-to-prison pipeline that feeds on men involved in family conflicts, whether they're the actual primary aggressor, or not. They also persuaded congress to fund research based on traffic through these women-only shelters, guaranteeing the production of a body of bias-created "evidence" to support their claims that family violence is gendered. Victims should not be denied either assistance in recovery, or justice, merely because of their gender, or because of of the gender of their perpetrator... but male victims are, especially when victimized by women, and a large part of the reason is that feminists have worked so hard to marginalize them.

And third, if you need a self-serving reason, that would be because reducing female violence would result in an overall reduction in domestic violence from both sexes, as a large percentage of two-way violence involves the female partner assaulting and emotionally abusing the male partner until he snaps and reacts violently. Many women feel entitled to slap or hit if they feel offended, and to push the other person involved in a conflict until they get the response they want. Girls don't grow up with the same admonition to refrain from hitting the opposite sex that boys are given; for them, hitting girls is taboo. For girls, it's not only accepted, it's widely portrayed in television and movies as normal behavior. That mirrors prevailing social attitudes.

When a man hits a woman, the standard response of others is to rush to her aid.

When a woman hits a man, the standard response is to wonder what he did to deserve it.

With such a pervasive attitude of acceptance in our society, why wouldn't women hit the opposite sex more than men do? Do you think that women are just naturally more ethical and caring because of their gender? If you do, why don't you recognize the sexism inherent in that belief?

If women had the same taboo against hitting men that men have against hitting women, and it was enforced with the same level of social shaming and legal ramifications, female-initiated partner abuse would be greatly reduced. And it doesn't matter if you think it's more immoral for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man. The practical result is unchanged by the gender bias of your morals.

But let's explore for a moment whether if it were affected, your morals would change the importance of acknowledging and addressing female-initiated partner violence.

You seem to think women who initiate are exempt from defensive violence and to consider it to be domestic abuse when the defender is a man, even though it's commonly asserted by domestic violence victim's advocates, when discussing female victims, that self-defense should not be considered abuse... even if she escalates the violence. In fact, that's the entire basis for the use of battered women's syndrome as a defense in assault and murder cases.

The reality is that female violence is at least as provocative as male violence, and in some cases more. When it involves a pattern of repetated, frequent, persistent, or enduring violence accompanied by emotional abuse and aggressive baiting such as getting right up in the guy's face and refusing to allow him to disengage, it is shocking and extremely distressing, and can cause the same fight or flight response a woman experiences in response to

[There is a jump scare at this point in the video]

See, reflexes aren't necessarily optional. To assume a man can just shut off that response because the willfully aggressive person eliciting it is female is not just gender biased, it's a heartless attitude toward men, especially if you're using that assumption as the basis for claiming it's not important to acknowledge that deliberately acting to elicit such a response from your partner is abusive.

Enough on that.

Let's move on to your statements on rape. First I'll address your assertions about prison rape vs prison guard perpetration.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to develop national data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence within adult and juvenile correctional facilities. To fulfill that requirement, BJS statisticians have begun surveying incarcerated youth on their experiences of sexual violence while in custody.

Two reports made from these surveys are available on the BJS website: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09 and Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012.

The two surveys produced similar results.

Staff at the surveyed facilities was 42% female, 58% male in 2008 and 44% female, 56% male in 2012.
92% of respondents in 2008 and 89.1% in 2012 were males reporting sexual activity with female staff only, and another 2.5% in 2008 and 3% in 2012 said they had been victimized by both male and female.

88% of youth reporting staff misconduct in the 2008/9 report and  85.9% in 2012 reported more than one incident. The 2008/8 report states that 27% of this group reported more than 10 incidents. The 2012 report states that 20.4% reported 11 or more incidents. In both reports, approximately a third of youth reporting staff misconduct reported misconduct by more than one staff member.

Based on those and other statistics listed in the report, a significant portion of this exploitation took place in broad daylight, in common areas where it should have been easier to spot and stop.

Interestingly, the majority of female respondents reporting sexual misconduct in those studies were assaulted by other (female) inmates, not male guards.

News stories about similar abuse in adult prisons describe the phenomenon as if the prisoners are responsible, and the guards are being seduced. With that as the attitude of journalists, how would you know if there is a significant difference in sexual violence perpetration by female guards against juvenile and adult male prisoners?

But let's say for a moment that the majority of male victimization in the adult detention system is perpetrated by other men. What makes you think that's a reason for you to be so dismissive of their experiences? Do you think that sharing the same gender makes them responsible for being victimized, or maybe that it's not as harmful when a man does it to them? Do you think prison statistics, which come from an entirely different environment than rape statistics on the outside, have any bearing on perpetration in the general population? Do you acknowledge that a percentage of prison rape is perpetrated by prisoners who would not perpetrate if they were not locked up? Are you aware that you have singled out the phenomenon of male prison rape as if the phenomenon of female prison rape doesn't exist and shouldn't be factored in to your beliefs about the tendency to perpetrate? Or are you so bent on denying the female capacity for predation that you're willing to selectively consider and present information in order to maintain your outlook?

With respect to the general population, the U.S. Centers for Disease control contradicts your claim that when men are raped, men are the vast majority of perpetrators. However, to find that contradiction, you have to actually look past statistics to the methodology of the NISVS itself, which defines rape as "other sexual assault" when a woman is the perpetrator in order to not record female perpetration of rape in the numbers it would show if it were accurately defined. This alternate definition for female perpetration of rape was established by Mary Koss in the 80s and has been used in every survey-type study on sexual violence done by feminist or feminist-leaning researchers since. It was described in her paper,  "Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods" in which she stated, "Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman."

How long would feminists' hissey fit last if rape of women were described as "unwanted sexual intercourse with a man" and victims were described as having engaged in it?

The significance of Koss's definition is that it prevented the type of rape most likely perpetrated against men by women - that in which the victim is forced to penetrate rather than being forcibly penetrated - from being included in rape statistics. According to the 2012 & 2014 NISVS reports, equal numbers of men and women reported in those matching categories for the previous year. Why is the previous year significant? It's the time period likely to be most fresh in their memories. As Alison Tieman reported in her article, Manufacturing female victimhood and marginalizing vulnerable men,

"Researchers into the field of traumatic memory recovery note that the longer the period of time a person is asked recall a traumatic event, the less likely they are to remember it. How this works is that surveys that ask about a traumatic event in the last six months get less false negatives than those that ask about a traumatic event in the last twelve months which, itself, gets considerably fewer false negatives than lifetime prevalence.
For men this effect is even more pronounced.

16% of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early childhood experiences sexual abuse, compared with 64% of women with documented cases of sexual abuse. These gender differences may reflect inadequate measurement techniques or an unwillingness on the part of men to disclose this information (Widom and Morris 1997). Only 16% of men with documented case histories of child sexual abuse disclosed that abuse on a survey intended to capture child sexual abuse. Sixteen percent of men compared to sixty-four percent of women. That amounts to a disclosure rate of child sexual abuse four times higher in women than in men."

I bet you're wondering, just as with numbers on domestic violence, why this is so important if you're acknowledging that rape happens to men. Of course, the same main reason applies: The truth matters. The same second reason applies, as well. Men who seek help after being subjected to sexual violence find scant resources and few willing to believe them. That sparcity and disbelief are even worse when the perpetrator is female, and just as with domestic violence victim's resources, feminists have fought hard for the last 40 years to reserve rape victim's resources, including law enforcement, for female victims. Again, victims should should not be denied either assistance in recovery, or justice, merely because of their gender, or because of of the gender of their perpetrator... but male victims are, especially when victimized by women, and a large part of the reason is that feminists have worked so hard to marginalize them.

Another reason is vulnerability. As long as female perpetration of sexual violence remains an invisible problem in society, female perpetrators can feel comfortably able to act with impunity. Men and boys are made vulnerable to female predators by society's denial of their experiences. Continuing to deny them is tantamount to promotion of female on male rape.

Finally, if you need a self-serving reason, multiple studies have found a high rate of victimization by female sexual predators in the history of men who rape women. While not all men and boys raped by women or girls go on to become rapists, that prevalence in the histories of those who do indicates that their experience contributes to or compounds whatever dysfunction motivates them to engage in sexual violence.
Another self-serving reason: Female victims of female perpetrators are also marginalized.

Look up a documentary called "She Stole My Voice." Don't watch it unless you can handle rape scenes graphically portrayed, but there is plenty of information about the documentary available online that you can read, and understand. Political bias and the fear of being accused of making the experience up, or being labeled homophobic, or having one's sexuality mislabeled because of one's stated objection to the experience can cause victims of lesbian rape to fear reporting. The denial of female perpetration makes it harder for any victim of a female perpetrator to come forward.
Regarding your scientific explanation of - to paraphrase your point, "why men are horrible rapey bastards!"
There are a few reasons why your carefully crafted explanation is bullshit, starting with the fact that testosterone is not confirmed to cause physical aggression and therefore a testosterone increase would not be a contributing factor to anyone's decision to commit rape. In fact, the claim that testosterone causes physical aggression was based on flawed or limited scientific study. The conclusions from those studies can't be sufficiently duplicated to support a definitive claim of a relationship between testosterone and physical aggression, particularly not a one listing testosterone as a cause of it.

However, there is a 2009 study, The role of testosterone in social interaction, (Eisenegger, Haushofer and Fehr) which describes evidence that high levels of testosterone would make a man more likely to seek higher social status, which arguably would make him less likely to commit rape. Risking the stigma that comes with the label "rapist" would not be consistent with such a goal. 

Even if testosterone could be confirmed to contribute to it, your conclusion that that would make men want to rape women is flawed. It relies on treating testosterone as the only thing that goes on during sex, ignoring the fact that you're talking about an extremely complex organism with a multitude of chemical changes taking place in and outside the nervous system during the act. It also relies on treating the male experience of sex as one-dimensional; no emotional attachment, no need to feel wanted or loved, just a primal urge to fuck, and a complete lack of standards or conditions for when or how it should happen. That is a profoundly disturbing prejudice you display with that line of thinking.

Rape is not a natural manifestation of either gender's sexuality. It's a dysfunctional response to psychological and emotional damage. Read some research on the subject, such as "Reports of Rape Perpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel" by McWhorter, Stander, Merrill, Thomsen, and Milner, and Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists by Lisak & Miller. Feminists have wrongfully touted both papers as evidence that there is an epidemic of serial rapists on modern campuses, when much of the research was not done on university students, but what it actually shows is that sexual violence is not a common behavioral issue. According to the research, it is is generally committed by a small percentage of the population, usually people who display an overall greater tendency toward criminal violence, not your average person, male or female. If testosterone were a cause, the percentage of male perpetrators would be significantly higher than the research found, and the number of victims exponentially so.

Further, although it's far from a direct cause and effect link which dooms all molestation victims to future perpetration, multiple sources indicate that a history of sexual exploitation by females during youth is a significant risk factor for later perpetration of sex crimes by men. If you want to prevent rape, don't attack testosterone levels in men. Admit the far-reaching consequences of female sexual predation, and stop being part of the widespread force of public attitude that has made it so difficult for advocates to get that issue addressed in law and policy the same as male perpetration is.

Prison sentences
Guess what: It's still sexism, regardless of whether judges are "used to" seeing female criminals or not. It's institutionalized sexism, in fact, and it actually spans the entire justice system, not just the courtroom. This is described in a report from Sonja B. Starr University of Michigan Law School, titled "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases." Social attitudes hold women less accountable for their actions, often blaming the nearest associated man. Women's actions are also treated as less impacting, even when there is evidence to the contrary. According to the report, such attitudes and beliefs affect the decisions of officers, prosecutors, and judges. Women are less likely to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and made to serve their full sentence. And while these prejudices and these tendencies are partly a pre-existing part of society's general attitudes, feminists have fought to capitalize on them by advocating against equal treatment in the justice system... even to the point where some advocate closing women's prisons in favor of psychiatric treatment. 

As for men committing more violent crimes, how would we know? Earlier in your video, you gave a prime example of why we don't, when you showed a willingness to dismiss the seriousness of female violence on the assumption that women are not as skilled at it as men. This attiude's prevalence in society likely covers up a significant portion of female violence. Before a violent woman doesn't get equally sentenced, she may not get convicted because her actions may not be taken as seriously. Before she doesn't get convicted, she may not be prosecuted because a city prosecutor may judge the seriousness of her crime by how the public will perceive his choice to prosecute her. Before she doesn't get prosecuted, she may not be arrested because a responding officer may not even see what she's done as genuinely violent, where the same behavior in a man would result in an arrest. And before she doesn't get arrested, her behavior may not even be reported to authorities, because her victim or witnesses to her crime may, like you, dismiss her violent behavior as less damaging, less hurtful, and therefore less of a threat.

Under the circumstances it's unlikely that any conclusion drawn from existing data on the prevalence of female perpetration in society will be accurate. It's impossible to honestly say that criminal behavior is significantly more prevalent in one gender than the other when the available data does not accurately reflect the perpetration rates of either.

Unplanned pregnancy.
Let's start with the fact that the thing you called fucking retarded is available to women twice if they should become pregnant when they don't want to raise a child... three times in nations where abortion is legal and widely available. But it's her overall set of sexual activity, partner, birth control, and post-conception choices which really justifies the men's rights position. Based on those choices, becoming a single custodial mother in the nations where MRAs advocate for paternal surrender is always a choice, even if pregnancy isn't, and even if live birth isn't.

By the time a woman reaches single custodial mother status, she has chosen:

Whether to have sex

Who to have it with

Whether to use birth control

How much birth control (1 method, or more)

Available to her are multiple choices for barrier methods, spermicides, combinations of those two items, intrauterine devices, hormonal birth control, and combinations of those two items

Whether that entails insisting on condom use

Currently, a condom is a man's only birth control option and the only option he can confirm is actually being used.

If pregnancy occurs, whether or not to use an abortion drug early following the conception

Whether or not to abort if she has passed up the drug

Whether or not to relinquish custody to the father or another family member

Whether or not to opt for adoption instead of raising the child herself

Whether or not to use a safe haven abandonment drop off

With that many choices behind her, there is no excuse to portray a single custodial mother as a victim... or for that matter, anything but totally responsible for her circumstance. As such, nobody owes her anything for her situation.

She's not only 50% responsible for her situation. She chose it; she picked up that responsibility, she is 100% responsible, and complaints on her behalf are pitiful and sexist.

When custody was traditionally passed to men following divorce, women were not expected to pay them child support. Men were expected to maintain their households themselves, even while having to pay for childcare so they could work. The only reason why the requirement exists when a woman has custody is that in the past, women weren't expected to earn the wages a man earned and therefore weren't considered capable breadwinners for their families.

Today we know that women can earn a living just like men can. It is dishonest to pretend that the inability exists and justifies the need for a man to support her if she chooses a circumstance that makes supporting herself more challenging. She would only need that if she weren't capable of doing the work required to earn a living.

Further, the creation of the modern child support system was influenced by divorce, which in the early 20th century was perceived as abandonment of a dependent wife and children by an uncaring husband and father. A woman choosing to become a single custodial mother in the face of a host of other options is a totally different ballgame. She doesn't need protected. You're arguing for her to have the right to drag a man who does not want that circumstance along with her into it against his will; essentially, you're arguing that she has the right to demand that for the duration of the baby's childhood, an unwilling man be forced to work to financially support both her choice to retain custody, and her unwillingness to take responsibility for that choice by doing the work herself and earning a living wage. In other words, you've advocated enslaving a man if a woman wants to raise his child herself, against his will. And, I might add, you've used the very same arguments anti-abortion advocates use to tell women that it's not necessary for abortion to be legal or available to women at all. 

And let's be honest; the safety net you're trying to preserve is one of the reasons unwed single motherhood is so prevalent in societies where it's mandated. Women take advantage of the combination of welfare and child support to engage in bad decision making knowing that the potential consequences will be mitigated by making the man they chose to have sex with 100% financially responsible for the result of their entire series of choices.

On a side note, no, the pullout method is not as fool-proof as you claim. Precum can have sperm in it even when the urethra is clean. And your advice regarding what to do about a lack of trust is terrible. Women with entitled attitudes like yours prove that the best practice for a man is to avoid sex with women he can't trust. 
Now let me explain something to you about that narrative you're promoting. You've made yourself a tool in a dehumanization campaign against men; an effort by a political movement’s influential members and leadership to reduce the perception of men's humanity, not based on exhibited behavior, but based on generalized flaws insinuated upon them defined by the inference of a common trait or common traits. Men are violent. Men are abusive. Men are rapacious. Certain things are only bad when men do them. Treating destructive traits as inherently male traits allows influential feminists and feminist leaders to level a perpetual, consistent and ever-escalating attack on male society. The general public is slowly trained to view men only as a group and a set of characteristics, rather than as individuals with unique and broadly varied personal traits. This leads to a subtly and eventually overtly bigoted perception of and response to them. The result is a combination of ‘team’ loyalty, an unsupported us-vs-them mentality, and a distorted view and growing hatred and fear of men. That, in turn, leads to being disposed to accept legal, political, and social treatment of men and boys in ways the individual would otherwise consider unfair, unjust, immoral, unethical, and inhumane... such as imposing homeless with draconian child support laws, or legally and socially marginalizing male victims of intimate partner and sexual violence.

As I said, men's rights activism is not a response to feminism. It does include, however, response to prevailing attitudes like the ones expressed in your video which are harmful to both sexes. Acceptance of female violence and lack of accountability has created a host of issues that need to be addressed, and the discrimination they cause ended. Mischaracterizing those issues and the advocates who fight for remedy to them isn't helpful.

From the lowbar:

This is a response video to one by Brave The World, titled
"The Men's Rights Movement."

For more information about some of the issues I discuss in this video, check the following links. I've tried to include links to everything I mentioned in the video, plus some additional sources. Some of my sources are linked in other pieces of writing, linked below.

Domestic Violence:























In response to "testosterone causes rape"






Child Support







Great discussion about ways in which men are discriminated against:


Letter to Reddit's admins on the subject of #RedditRevolt

Sent using this link from /r/reddit, an archived subreddit for which the admins are moderators.

There are a number of reasons why I have been less and less active on Reddit during the past few years. Ellen Pao personified some of them, and I'm happy to see her go, but Reddit parting ways with her is only a step, not the whole road to recovery.   
I started using this site because I found it to be an effective and fun communication tool with which I could reach out to others who have similar interests. The ability to communicate openly and share information with a widespread user base was and is very valuable to me. Early on, under account names now defunct because I expressed political opinions someone didn't like, I made personal connections that never would have happened had the site not existed. I formed friendships with people all over the world. I discovered whole communities with a variety of interests and opinions, and a place for discussion and debate that helped me expand my knowledge and sharpen my critical thinking skills and as a result, evolve my whole outlook on life.    
And then something terrible happened.       
I watched you reduce Reddit's usefulness and comfortable openness with the addition of censorship tools armed and executed with political bias. I've seen you shadowban users for expressing disapproved opinions. I've seen you quietly eclipse or even delete discussions about disapproved topics. Simply put, I've watched the tools purportedly created to protect the site from spam get exploited as silencing tools to "protect" the site from open, meaningful discussion that might lead to conclusions which don't jive with a specific worldview.        
I've seen you selectively enforce rules of conduct depending on the political affiliation of the accused. I've seen you refuse to communicate with subreddit moderators, so that they cannot inform their subscribers on how to use the site without falling afoul of your increasingly limiting biases. I've seen you use arbitrary labeling to excuse banning links to small news sites based on whether or not they align with a specific worldview. Seeing you ban users for linking to news and research published on sites against which you have a political bias has been very disturbing. It indicates a sense of entitlement to manipulate public opinion by limiting what can be presented on a widely used discussion hub. You couldn't find a better way to destroy faith in site admins than these behaviors. This makes the site look unprofessional to the point of appearing as a fly-by-night operation.
Pao was a problem, but she wasn't THE problem. The censorship, the unequal application of site rules and site disciplinary measures, and the constant flouting of user interests in favor of arrogantly telling us what we should want and what we should like all started before she came to Reddit. Mistreating your users and mods is why #RedditRevolt exists. Firing one of your most popular employees because she wouldn't do something unethical was the last straw. Please ask Victoria Taylor to come back. She didn't deserve what was done to her and your consumers, the users of the site, are outraged at the way she was treated.
No matter who you put in the driver's seat, if your site stays on the road you've chosen there are many of us who will never be on board with you. We won't adopt a particular worldview if it becomes the only one permitted on Reddit. We'll abandon the site as the sinking ship it is, and go to one of many others which are available, or we will create our own, and because many of us have learned from #GamerGate's example, we can and will take the site's ad revenue with us.    
Political bias in site administration takes the social out of social networking. If you want to limit Reddit to just another of several social sites dominated by one small, ideologically restricted portion of the population, you're doing it right. You won't grow, but you'll have a nice, comfortable echo chamber in which to feel more influential than you can actually be in the environment you've created.    
If you want growth in user interest and enthusiasm, higher ranking, and to once again be the social communication hub that you started out as in the beginning, drop the political censorship and let people talk... even the ones who say things you don't like... bring back Victoria, and bring some transparency and consistency into your relationship with your consumers.     
State the site's rules clearly and make them unmistakable, so they will be easy to follow, and apply them evenly. Do not have or use "unwritten" rules. If it's unwritten, it's not a rule. It is unfair to all of your users and creates a hostile environment when you invent "rules" on the spot as an excuse to shadowban. And don't use your own rules against vote manipulation as a means of vote manipulation. We do notice when you do that.            
Don't feel that labeling some news & information sites "not journalistic" because they're small or you don't identify with their area of coverage justifies censoring links to them. That only creates an environment that is hostile to anyone wanting to discuss issues and concepts largely covered by media that isn't mainstream. People are capable of reading, assessing, and debating information presented with these links. Denying your users the choice is tantamount to treating us like we're too stupid to form our own opinions.     
Don't make yourselves unavailable to users who contact you, especially subreddit moderators. Don't make your subreddit moderators constantly beg for important information on site administration, rules, maintenance, and updates, especially given the amount of work many of them do without expecting anything in return. You are mistreating valuable unpaid volunteers. Nobody should have to tell you how unprofessional that is, or how unwise.    
That's it; all we're asking for is some transparency, and fair treatment of all of your employees, volunteers, and consumers. Those are not difficult requests to fulfill. Reddit doesn't have to sink because of this conflict. It can become better, stronger, and more stable. It's up to you, admins. If you tighten your grip, you'll choke Reddit to death. If you make it functional, unbiased, and open, you'll have the user base you want. We're all waiting to see which road you'll choose.
To be honest, for a long time I stopped bothering to write to Reddit's administrators because they have a long-standing habit of not listening, but right now they seem to be possibly inclined to it.

Am I holding my breath for a result?

Not at all. However, the only chance at salvaging the site is if even the most frustrated Redditors are willing to give it a shot, communicate our complaints to the administrators, and allow them a chance to fix things.
They're going to have to decide whether they want a social popular, influential bookmarking/networking site, or an echo chamber where they keep tight control on discussion while keeping their volunteers and their consumers largely in the dark about site administration. It's their job to try to fix things, but it's our job to communicate what we want to see, and whether or not the changes they're making are satisfactory. It's my hope that other redditors will also write to the admins, letting them know that the desire for transparency, fair treatment, and unbiased administration (and the reinstatement of Victoria Taylor) is a widely held interest.

The feminist derailing fallacy

Feminists abuse the term "derailing" as a tool to avoid information that contradicts an opinion, belief, or attitude they want to promote. While the term ordinarily refers to taking a discussion off on an unrelated tangent, feminists instead use it to describe any speech that contradicts one of their assertions. They rely on mislabeling relevant information as irrelevant and a distraction in order to protect disinformation from scrutiny and potential contradiction. It is like a line from The Wizard of Oz; "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

This exploitation of the term is rooted in a combined sense of ownership and entitlement to dictate public opinion. These ideologues believe, in all seriousness, that they own women and by extension, all gender issues. Therefore they feel morally exempt from being questioned or contradicted in assertions they make on our behalf, even when engaging the public in a dialogue led by an unsupported and potentially damaging claim.

One of the more ridiculous examples of this is their response to women who refuse to be fodder for the movement's ideological declarations. Feminists begin issue discussions with pronouncements like twitter's #yesallwomen, intended as blanket statements which generalize the experiences and beliefs of some women to all women. None of us are permitted under their worldview to disagree with their narrative about our lives, our experiences, our needs, wants, and beliefs. When we do we are silenced by a special brand of projection, accused of doing that which we're protesting. Feminists attempt to silence dissenting women by shouting us down with accusations that women who, in describing our experiences, question or contradict their dogma are "talking over other women to deny their experiences."

In other words, feminists are claiming that their experience of having ideological beliefs about women's lives is a more valid description of us than our own experience of living them. They use that claim to treat any resistance to their appropriation of our voices as an attack, rather than a defense against a presumptuous violation of personal boundaries.

Another example which is equally ridiculous is their response when their advocacy for a gendered government approach to a genderless issue is contradicted. The method is very similar to that used with women who refuse to be feminism's props. The accusation of derailing is used to shout down the voices of men and boys by treating their experience of conditions or circumstances, no matter how common, as an intrusion on what feminists want to portray as uniquely female experiences. The purpose in this case to sneak bigoted marginalization of men and boys past public scrutiny so that lobbying efforts for discriminatory law and policy will not be recognized for what they are.

This pretense has been a very effective tool for feminists desiring to enforce an ideological monopoly on gender issues discussion, especially, but not exclusively, in the areas of intimate partner and sexual violence. It has been used not only to shut dissenting voices out of feminist discussions, but also discussions involving the general public, discussions in academic and professional settings, and in the legislative process.

This is how American feminists manipulated the public and legislators into accepting a change from the genderless Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 to the female-specific, feminist research and training funding Violence Against Women Act of 1994. When men's advocates call for equal funding for assistance for men, feminists treat it as an attempt to siphon funds away from female victims they've convinced legislators and the public are more numerous and more in need. And to maintain that illusion, they accuse anyone offering evidence of female perpetration and male victims of "derailing" discussion about female experiences and female needs.

This tactic relies on two things: The fear of being seen as disruptive and rude, and the promise that diplomacy will result in some form of cooperative good will between these ideologues and the groups against whom they have used it. Feminists have demonstrated over and over that the former is going to happen regardless of when and where we speak, and the latter is simply a false hope. Believing they own these discussions, feminists invade and attempt to impose their ideological beliefs on any discussion about issues related to gender, and even many which are not. The only way for nonfeminists to have open discussion that is not dominated by feminist rhetoric and feminist sensibilities is to simply have it; to refuse to allow such accusations to shut us down. Speak up. Don't let feminists have a monopoly all discussion on gender issues.

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html