Don't let them silence us

Advocates for the human rights of men and boys, somebody wants to silence you.

They want to silence you so badly that they've lied about who you are.

They want to silence you so badly that they've lied about what you do.

They've lied about the goals of men's rights activism.

They've lied about the meaning and impact of our speech.

And now they've resorted to criminal threats of violence, with the intent to make gathering together too expensive for us to achieve.

Let them know that as a group, we are not intimidated, and we're not going to fold over this.

We will not be silenced.

The brutal rape of poor, innocent Mr. Creosote

Feminist claims which conflate seduction, persuasion, verbal pressure, and rape remind me of the Monty Python's The Meaning of Life sketch "Mr. Creosote." (for those who haven't seen it, here's a link. Warning: not for the easily grossed out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhbHTjMLN5c)
   
In the sketch, Mr. Creosote is obviously not in any condition to continue eating. It starts out with him vomiting all over the restaurant and some of the staff. It's so dramatic that it affects all of the other patrons in the restaurant - there's not a person there who is unaware of his condition. Still, he is served, and parts of the sketch indicate that he has gorged himself after all of that vomiting. He establishes that he does not want any more food. Repeatedly refuses, in fact, when the waiter offers him a complimentary mint. The waiter keeps asking, offering reasons why Mr. Creosote should accept and eat the mint. "But sir, it's only wafer thin!" and "Just - just one." Eventually, Mr. Creosote relents, and accepts the mint. The sketch communicates the waiter's knowledge of what this will do to Mr. Creosote in its portrayal; the waiter runs and ducks for cover behind some of the restaurant's decorations, just before Mr. Creosote explodes.

There are two ways of looking at this sketch, and both relate to the discussion on the persuasion/pressure aspect of feminists claims about date rape.

Even when Mr. Creosote knows he's too full to continue eating, it takes only a few seconds' persuasive speech and exposure to the sight and smell of the mint to for him to decide to ignore his condition, and eat it. Doing so is a decision he makes. Though it is in response to a persuasive effort, it's still his decision. The entire time, he has the power to refuse. In light of this, the consequence (his explosion) is a consequence of his own decision-making, not something inflicted on him by the nefarious, scheming waiter... though the waiter did nefariously scheme to persuade Mr. Creosote to blow himself up. Mr. Creosote is not a victim.   
    
Feminists would call Mr. Creosote a victim.

If one were to replace the restaurant scene with a date setting, the overeating with attention-seeking, and the mint with a sex act, they'd say Mr. Creosote was raped. Replace the explosion with any negative experience related to consensual sex (getting caught cheating on a partner, being judged for the behavior, getting pregnant, getting an STD, or simply regretting sharing oneself too lightly for one's own moral outlook) and you have a trigger for shifting blame from the person who decided to relent and participate in a sex act to the person who sought the decision-maker's sexual consent, even though the decision maker still had the power to walk away from the situation.

Instead of articulating the idea that women should be empowered to set personal boundaries and decide for ourselves whether to enforce them (up to and including the decision break off contact altogether if those boundaries aren't respected) or change our minds about them based on a guy's assertions, feminists treat women as powerless objects whose behavior is shaped only by external pressure.

This is one of the most misogynistic aspects of feminism; the imposition of artificial helplessness upon otherwise capable human beings, to the point where women are represented as having no free will of our own. This representation of women is used to paint any male effort at seducing a woman as attempted rape, and any success in that arena as completed rape. Women are portrayed as incapable of resisting persuasive speech, of rejecting continued requests, and of responding to actual pressure with outrage and abandonment of the date. Instead of encouraging women to feel empowered to stand our ground and control our actions, feminists use scare tactics to instill female reluctance to assert one's autonomy, falsely inferring danger upon the mere act of saying no. You can't be expected to do that, say feminists. It's too hard, and leads to such terrible circumstances - if you reject a man's advances, he might reject you right back! 
   
In this way, feminists do more to promote "date rape" than to combat date rape. This particular aspect of their ideology trains their female followers to ignore the range of choices available to them and then treat the choice they make as having been imposed, instead of their own, leaving them feeling victimized by the men with whom they've chosen to interact, when instead they've allowed ideology to limit the strength and independence with which they approach that interaction.

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;

• Feminist responses to MHRA postering, 
• Donglegate (http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/donglegate-vs-vaginagate/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhGRuSvWOc,) 
• the feminist protest of Canadian Association For Equality hosted events (http://22to28.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/247/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVuK44kWgxk,)  
• Doxxing Violentacrez (for being disliked by feminists), 
• Anita Sarkeesian's damseling incident (in which she falsely accused MRAs of threatening her) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp4lJLJwfLo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD6408gG6Ys&feature=youtu.be, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25o0EZiogw0, http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html.)

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

On how some women are never satisfied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why contract law is not justification for criminalizing drunk sex as rape

Feminists use treating consent as the signing of a contract to argue in favor of considering drunk sex rape.

Treating drunk sex as rape depends upon imputing malice upon the accused in conjunction with the accuser's withdrawal of consent following a return to sobriety, on the basis that a mutual and irreversible act which took place during the period of intoxication can be made no longer mutual by that later decision.

Treating drunken contractual agreement as a criminal act is contingent upon a second action taken by the accused following the accuser's withdrawal of consent upon a return to sobriety, on the basis that the second action constitutes fraud. That second action is the refusal to reverse a reversible action taken by the accuser while drunk - the surrendering of ownership of a financial asset in conjunction with the conditions of the contract. When a contract is simply considered void, and no second action has been taken by the holder to attempt to force the drunk signer to adhere to the contract, a crime has not been committed.

The thing that criminalizes signing a contract with a drunk person is not the act of signing the contract when consent was invalid, but the act of attempting to impose it after consent was withdrawn.
This is a condition which cannot occur in a circumstance of drunk sex, because once the sex act is over, there is nothing to return or enforce. There is no act of imposing an agreement after the agreement has been withdrawn. There is only mutual act which one party later determines to be a mistake made due to compromised inhibitions.

Taking an action due to compromised inhibitions and later regretting it is exactly like circumstances described in criminal law. It does not match up with circumstances described in contract law. The logic of applying contract law as being more analogous of the situation than criminal acts is flawed in its lack of consideration of the reasoning behind the involved laws.

Contract law holds that an individual cannot later be compelled to adhere to an agreement made while drunk, not that an individual is criminal for making an agreement with a drunk person. Treating drunk sex as rape holds that an individual is a criminal for making an agreement with a drunk person, not that an individual cannot later be compelled to adhere to that agreement - because following a mutual physical act, there is no further agreement to uphold. Where contract law criminalizes an attempt at imposition following a legally permitted withdrawal of consent, the feminist position on rape seeks to criminalize sexual activity that was not imposed after consent was withdrawn, but which took place before consent was withdrawn. It is an illegitimate attempt to impute malice where malice cannot be proved.

The feminist position on drunk sex is inconsistent with the analogy they are using. They could be correct in arguing that drunk sex doesn't constitute the beginning of a committed relationship, that it doesn't constitute an agreement to become parents (or owe child support - but they would never argue that), or that it doesn't entitle either party to expect future sexual contact with the other... but not that the drunken state of the participants makes one of them guilty of a crime, even if the other party later regrets her actions.
Criminal law holds that being drunk does not excuse an individual from responsibility for actions taken which affect other people. Treating drunk sex as not rape holds that being drunk does not excuse an individual from responsibility for actions taken which involve (and therefore affect) other people, even if the individual regrets those actions later on. Holding the accuser in a drunk rape case to the same standard as the accused in a criminal case involving drunk behavior is a correct and consistent analogy because both are contingent on dealing with the behavior of the individual at the time of the event, an area where the analogy using contract law fails.

*Edit to address an argument made in response to this point elsewhere, wherein an arrogant debater asserts that touching another individual is assault unless consent is given:

Not according to online sources of legal definitions.
Cornell  clearly shows intent, imminent harm, and/or injury as factors which must be present for an event to be considered assault. Consent is not mentioned.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault states the same criteria.

This is why, when person A threatens to hit person B, makes a motion as if to hit person B, or punches person B, those may all be considered assault, but if persons A and B bump into each other in passing on the street, while neither of them consented to the touch, neither is guilty of assault. One of them being drunk does not change that.

There is also the fact that an assault is not an act engaged in together by the victim and perpetrator, but one acted out by the perpetrator against the victim. A sex act is a mutually engaged action. Another example of a mutually engaged action is a boxing match. Person A and person B may engage in a consensual boxing match by donning the gear, entering the ring, and hitting each other until the match ends or one of them is knocked unconscious. If an individual drinks alcohol, then swings his fist and starts a fight, his participation in that fight is consensual even though he is drunk. If he is hit back and continues punching, he's participating in a consensual fight, not being assaulted, even if later when he wakes up with a massive shiner or messages on his phone about an embarrassing youtube video, he regrets starting the fight.
Were he female, and were the action she initiated a sex act instead of a fight, the result is the same: A mutually engaged interaction in which both parties actively participate, not a passive/helpless victim being acted upon by a perpetrator.

This is why cherry picking between contract law and criminal law does not justify feminism's position. In doing so, you're relying on treating women as helpless, passive objects without decision-making capability, and that's a wholly dishonest approach to the discussion.

Teach feminists not to lie

OP didn't get the desired response - so therefore he or she threw a tantrum and deleted the post. Nice... but I'm going to respond anyway, with two points.   
   
First, the "teach men not to rape" campaign is not designed to stop rape. It's designed to imply quite directly that rape is something men do - a flaw that exists in men that must be corrected. It does a terrible disservice to everyone by making it seem like rape is an accident. It's a social lie about men, a ridiculous misconception about the crime, and an insult to rape victims. It dilutes the crime down from "this person deliberately hurt that person" to "Oops, my bad. Sorry."

Saying the campaign is necessary because females don't understand that it's rape when they violate someone is just as ridiculous as saying the campaign is necessary because males don't understand. When a female rapes, she isn't doing that because she doesn't know it's wrong. She's doing that because she doesn't care, the same way as when a male rapes. Either she wants to hurt her victim, or she has a sense of entitlement (not the same as not knowing that abuse is wrong), or she has no moral compunctions against hurting someone to get what she wants, or she affords the rights and experiences of her victim less value and importance than she places on her own. The unvarnished, basic truth of rape is that you cannot violate the victim without violating the victim's bodily autonomy. You cannot violate the victim's bodily autonomy without knowing that you're ignoring the victim's right to say no, or ignoring the victim's circumstantial inability to say no.

An actual rapist, like any other abuser, isn't an innocent person who just stumbles past a boundary he or she doesn't know exists. The act of rape is a result of not caring about that boundary - deliberately contravening or ignoring another person's right or ability to refuse sexual contact. It isn't an accident, and it's shameful that feminism has begun using treatment of rape as an accidental behavior as part of their political agenda.

Second, even if such a campaign were justified by feminist logic, that same logic justifies starting a "Don't Teach Men Not to Get Falsely Accused. Teach Women Not to Lie" campaign.

Would you find it acceptable for the men's rights movement to start a "don't teach men to document their lives, teach women not to lie" campaign, complete with infographics, posters all over school campuses, social networking sites, and social clubs where men and women interact? Perhaps you could also assist in spreading the message that consent to social interaction is not consent to be dragged through the bowels of the legal system should one's acquaintance, friend, or partner decide that it's easier to make a rape accusation than to deal with some level of inconvenience... like fighting a custody battle, or even just paying a $13 cab fare?

Certainly, it should not matter that the majority of women don't make false accusations of rape or domestic violence. Based on the logic of the "Teach men not to rape" campaign, women who don't file false charges shouldn't be offended that such a campaign is being waged... they should be offended that society thinks so little of women's morals, toughness, and self-control that the problem of false accusations is so easily accepted and dismissed with excuses like "if you prosecute proven false accusers, female victims won't press charges."

Women should be deeply insulted by the assertion that we are so unable to differentiate between the truth and a false accusation that we'd fear prosecution too much to present evidence of any crime. Women should be horrified that society sees us as so weak and so incapable that compromising due process rights and incarcerating innocent men is seen as preferable to holding our accusations to the same standard of evidence that any other accusation of criminal assault faces. In light of the logic used to justify the "teach men not to rape" campaign, there really is no reason why women should object to the promotion of a related "teach women not to lie" campaign. In fact, since the "teach men not to rape" campaign encourages men to police other men's behavior, ethical women should should feel responsible for making sure the anti-lie message also gets heard.

So... when is feminism going to get to work on that?

Where are you, NOW?

Dear National Organization for Women:

For over a year, this story of abuse, scam artistry, malpractice, murder, and endangerment of impoverished women has stayed mostly under the mainstream radar... but it was originally highlighted by national news organizations.

It's on the topic of more than one of your pet issues. Surely, NOW, you haven't kept your silence on this.

Surely you haven't decided it's okay to scam women, taking payment for services not provided, have you? Or is that only wrong when the service in question isn't an abortion?

Surely you aren't approving the provision of substandard health care where women are concerned, are you? Or are you taking the position that any abortion is a good abortion... even one performed under unsanitary and questionable conditions?

Surely you're still pro-choice, as you claim, and not pro-abortion, right? Or is forcing an abortion on an unwilling patient acceptable to you? How about withholding information which would affect the woman's decision? Are you pro-choice, or pro-con?

Surely you haven't let your political position on abortion eclipse your position on rape, have you? Or is imposing penetration of the vagina only rape when it doesn't involve an abortion being performed against the patient's will?

Surely your abortion stance is all about bodily autonomy of the mother, and not simply about the opportunity to kill with impunity, right? Or do you approve of using a cutting instrument to sever the spine of a moving, breathing, crying baby, simply because he is unwanted?

The events of this story do not relate to any medical practice - what went on here is no less "back alley abortion" than that which would have been performed in 1970.

Ignoring this story is not a pro-woman act. It's anti-woman.

Talking about this story is not an anti-choice act. It's anti-exploitation, anti-abuse, anti-malpractice, and anti-murder.

Where is your outrage for these victims?

Does your capacity for human empathy really end at the doors of an abortion clinic?

Do you approve of making women a part of this barbaric practice?

Is your emotional investment in the issue really so heavy that supporters are willing to ignore and tolerate circumstances like this?

Are you so invested in defending abortion that you cannot differentiate between the horrors of Dr. Gosnell's "clinic," and the face you present to the public in the name of "a woman's right to choose?"

Do you have your heads buried so far up your asses that you seriously cannot object to heinous malpractice just because that practice is related to abortion?

Or are you simply afraid to admit that the problem is more widespread than just this one location?

Why should the women of America trust you to as women's leaders, if you're willing to tolerate such atrocity to support just this one issue?

Why haven't you spoken up for the right of women to be protected from unscrupulous, neglectful, abusive, and dishonest practitioners like Dr. Gosnell?

Did you miss the story, NOW, or did you just not care?

C'mon, now, NOW. I'd like to have heard for the last year what you think if this situation, but it's too late for that.

Wanna tell me, and anyone else who will listen, where your attention has been during the unfolding of this story?

Do you still claim to advocate "for women," or are you willing to admit that you only advocate for women whose issues fit your agenda?

Yes, All Feminists ARE Like That

Videos of feminist protests at Toronto University have apparently put on display some prime examples of a serious pest problem within the feminist community: an infestation of extremists who, according to other feminists, don't represent the movement.

We hear it after every action they take. As MRAs discuss the violence and vitriol, the attacks on free speech, the irrational statements and spewing of venom, feminist apologists trickle into these discussions to offer the same sorry, tired, worn-out old argument:

Really?

If not all feminists are like that, what are the other feminists like... and where the hell are they? Because all of the overt, effective action we've seen has involved feminists who are exactly like that.

We've seen feminists lobby for discriminatory law and policy.
We've seen how some of those laws and policies are abused, often up close and personally.
We've seen feminists advocate for discriminatory social standards.
We've seen feminists attack the due process rights of men.
We've seen feminists attack men's speech rights... and consistently, at that.
We've seen feminist violence, even attempted murder.
We've seen feminists attack and condemn discussion on ways to prevent boys from falling behind in education, and other men's issues.
We've seen feminists oppose the success of civil rights efforts unless they're allowed a free ride on another movement's coat tails, even at the understood risk of derailing the entire effort.
We've seen feminists fight to deny assistance to abused men.
We've seen that fight extend into an overt effort to deny facts and hide existing factors related to abused men.
We've seen feminists propagate a culture of tolerance for female sexual violence against men by denying its existence, denying its severity, and when all else fails, denying its significance in relation to its gender counterpart.
We've seen feminists actively, deliberately vilify the entire male gender, treating the dysfunctional behavior of some as if it were a gender characteristic.
We've even seen them use the slander of innocent men in their campaigns.

The one time feminists point to as an effort to promote equality, they didn't advocate to remove a discriminatory factor from impacting men, but instead moved to become equally abused: When presented with the opportunity to advocate for the abolition of the United States Selective Service's outdated and unnecessary mandate that men make themselves available to be drafted into the military, feminists instead fought to be included in it. It was more important to them to be included than it was for them to right a wrong. I have often seen this effort presented as an argument that see, feminists care about men's rights, too. In reality, it's an example of the solipsistic nature of feminism. Rather than realize how important it is to end this one remaining vestige of overt slavery in the U.S., their main concern was their own exclusion from it. This was not an effort at elevating the treatment of men, but instead an effort at removing an area where the discrimination was obvious.

On a side note: I bet most feminists who have argued for "joining" the "draft" haven't gone to the level of effort that this one did. I don't think MRAs should take any feminist assertions on women in the military seriously until feminists do this en masse. If they really, honestly are for this, then they should be expected to back it up with action. If they won't do that, then we're justified in assuming that their advocacy on this is completely hollow and meaningless.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic: As stated, we have seen various feminist group attacks on men, men's rights, masculinity, and the public's perspective thereof. We haven't seen feminists put any effort into curbing the rampant and blatant extremism in their movement.

Think about what feminists do when they have a cause to promote or a factor to oppose. They don't sit around and simply deny association with it.

They act.

They march en masse, in protest, with shouted slogans and carried signs.
Social media campaigns spread outward from the central effort like ripples in water disturbed by a dropped rock.
Their various activist groups organize media contact efforts to promote their position.
They execute email, phone call, and letter-writing campaigns to government officials.
Public influence efforts include blogging, vlogging, and extensive discussion in the comments under each.
If the issue is with an entity, such as a business, university, or other organization, there are social pressure campaigns targeting the entity, as well, using anything from stern criticism to threats of boycott and public shaming.
If legal action is an option, it is taken, as well.

So, if "nice" feminists are the mainstream... if "nice" feminists represent the majority opinion, the majority effort, and the majority of activists within the movement... why haven't we seen any action from the "nice" front?

Why has not one feminist from anywhere shown up to these events to stand up against this "extremist" position?
Why have none of the Feminists who are Not Like That raised a counter-protest against those embarrassments to their movement?
Why have none of the Feminists who Support Men's Rights shown up to escort men through these pickets, protect the human rights posters, shout down the vitriol, and assert their place as the mainstream of feminism?
Where are the feminist-written blogs condemning the acts of harassment, violence, and vandalism that these "extremists" have committed?
Where are the popular, widely viewed "mainstream feminist" blog and vlog posts arguing the right of men to address and discuss men's issues among themselves, and on their own terms?
Where is even the slightest public "mainstream feminist" criticism of this type of behavior?

Have any feminist groups created information campaigns to help correct this imbalance in their movement?

Where are the "Real feminists don't abuse men" graphics?
Where are the "Real feminists don't deny issues" messages?
Where are the "Feminists can stop male-bashing" campaigns?
Where are the anti-harassment posters with messages like "Hatred is not a feminist value?"
Where is the "mainstream feminist" statement to any major media outlet, condemning the choice of "extremists" to treat the MRM as an enemy force instead of a cooperative effort toward the achievement of social and legal equality?
In fact... where is the mainstream feminist end of that cooperative effort? Is denying association with the part of the feminist movement which effects change all these apologists are good for, or are they going to put their money where their keyboards are, and stand up to those they not-so-openly condemn?

We've seen feminist groups take dramatic action in response to causes they support, or issues they oppose. If "nice" feminists are doing nothing in response to "extremism" within their movement but denying association with it, that doesn't signify opposition. It doesn't even signify separation from it. It signifies tolerance, and acceptance. The lack of action is still a choice - the act of subtly condoning the behavior.

Dissociation of the self from that behavior is not a meaningful argument. It's not enthusiastic dissent. It's a way of letting someone else do the dirty work, so that one may reap the benefits when that work is successful, but have plausible deniability when the hateful nature of it is noticed by others. Denial of association doesn't make up for the continued tolerance by self-titled "mainstream" feminists for these displays of hatred, bigotry, vitriol, and abusive attitudes. It doesn't erase the willingness to continue using these so-called "extremists" as a means of attempting to silence or suppress resistance to the human rights abuses advocated for by feminist groups.

It only shows one's willingness to be unabashedly dishonest about it.


Relevant:  “Nice” feminists: grassroots of a hate movement