Let’s look at it from another angle though, the problems in the feminist movement are a really good reason NOT to get behind the MRM. The MRM will only harbor more bigots and sexists as it grows. The egalitarian types in the MRM won’t can’t deny the ass holes(I have witnessed some disgusting behavior from MRAs and feminists alike mind you)the title of men’s rights activists any more than egalitarian type feminists can cry NAFALT and make the misandrists disappear. Of course none of this is relevant to you if you are an MRA who is not inherently anti feminist and simply want both movements to get along. Which is fine but I really wish people wouldn’t lump egalitarians up with MRAs because they aren’t interchangeable and many egalitarians do not want to be associated with the term.

We’ve actually discussed two different aspects of this argument previously here and here.  The short answer is that the MRM and feminism are very different, particularly in terms of organization.  The MRM is self-critical in a way that feminism isn’t, and has much stronger roots in empiricism and data-driven advocacy.  Most importantly, it has largely avoided the Marxist and post-modernist leanings which have characterized so much problematic feminist ideology.

A second issue is that a huge number of the people who are labeled as “MRAs,” aren’t.  No, this isn’t just another permutation of “NAFALT,” nor is it a “No True Scotsman” argument.  In NAFALT, the point is to argue that the behavior of some subgroup (whether minority or majority) shouldn’t reflect on the image of the group as a whole, and that people can’t hold the wider group responsible for their actions done in its name.  A “No True Scotsman” is used to retroactively exclude otherwise viable examples by inserting a retroactive premise regarding group membership, rendering the argument circular and begging the question.  Both of these are very commonly used by feminists, but also appear frequently in the more general social justice community.

Here, however, the label of “MRA” is being applied by others to people who neither self-identify as MRAs, nor have any connection to the movement.  In short, it’s being used as a combination of a shaming tactic toward the individual and a smear campaign toward MRAs in general.  This behavior takes a variety of forms, from the banal to the ridiculous: on one hand, any anonymous hate or criticism towards a prominent feminist is usually attributed to MRAs regardless of any evidence (or, for that matter, whether the feminist managed to piss off a large and vitriolic chunk of the internet, *cough* Anita *cough*), on the other we see groups like the SPLC trying to label a mass murderer an MRA based on the fact that he once took a pickup artist class.

The reason feminists can’t cry “NAFALT” and make the misandrists disappear is that the misandrists are embedded in every level of their movement.  Indeed, they have a strong influence on the overall actions of the movement, and there are virtually no efforts by those “egalitarian-type feminists” to remove them or deprive them of power and influence.  After all, why would they?  Even most moderate feminists still take full advantage of the misandrists: they provide a scapegoat for feminist misbehavior, they produce a never-ending stream of questionable academic research, and they can get their hands dirty in a way that moderates can’t without damaging their credibility.

The egalitarian MRAs can’t deny bigots the label, but they can deny them power and influence.  They can self-police.  They can speak out against bigotry even when it comes from people who call themselves “allies.”  And the funny thing?  An awful lot of them do.

Kay but that’s not the reason feminists can’t deny misandrists the title of feminist.

No, that’s a completely separate issue.

It’s because feminist is a self label. And so is MRA. I’ve witnessed egalitarian feminists policing feminism. Saying that feminists or MRAs consistently do or don’t self police or that either behaves one way or another more often is largely generalization.

Of course it’s a generalization, but that doesn’t make it invalid when we’re addressing the situation at a movement level.

MRAs CANT deny misogynists the title of MRA. Even if you consider MRA an adjective rather than label, because misogynists can rally for men’s rights and therefore be MRAs.

No, they can’t, but we don’t claim they can.  What they can do is deny them power, influence and purchase within the movement, the exact opposite of what feminism has done.

It is exactly the same thing as NAFALT. I don’t see how you’ve actually disputed that?

No, it’s not.  NAFALT is “don’t judge my movement just because my movement is bigoted.”  This is “don’t judge a movement based on others’ inaccurate labeling of people who are not and do not claim to be a part of it.”  In NAFALT not only do the bigots label themselves feminists, they’re widely accepted within the movement.  On the other hand, the people we’re talking about don’t accept the label, nor are they involved with the movement in any capacity.

Basically, we’re talking about the purposeful labeling by others of misogynists as MRAs in an attempt to make the movement look bad.  We’re not arguing that they’re not “real” MRAs, we’re pointing out that they’re not any kind of MRA.

You can not predict or prevent self labeled or active MRAs from partaking in the behaviors you have deemed to make the feminists different from the MRAs. And even if they don’t display the same tendencies and behavior patterns as feminism it can and will be problematic.

No, we can’t.  That doesn’t make a difference, though.  Neither does it make your criticism here founded.  We may not be able to predict or prevent MRAs from behaving in such a fashion, but we can note from an observational perspective that by and large they do not engage in such behaviors.

But I think maybe you’ve missed that I’m against gender labels for equality movements altogether, I don’t need proof that an inherently bad thing pans out badly in the eyes of those who don’t think it’s inherently bad in order to stand against it.

But I’m sure your argument stands for those who’s problem with feminism lies with it’s behaviors rather than the principle of its behaviors.

We haven’t “missed” it so much as we don’t consider it relevant.  Your stance doesn’t change a thing when it comes to the validity of your arguments, because you haven’t yet successfully asserted or defended that stance.

You are so confused about what we are even talking about. My argument was not that MRAs do anything as a group. It was that the movement can and will be misused.

Every movement that has ever existed has been misused.  That isn’t enough to justify abandoning them all.  Movements should be abandoned when their misuse becomes a clear trend, the rule rather than the exception, and begins to derail the overall work or impact of the movement.

I have seen SELF LABELED MRAs displaying misogynistic attitudes and extremely flawed logic and arguments. The community is not without philosophical issue and if you think that it’s inherently any better than feminism than I really don’t know what to tell you or where you are coming from.

"Inherently"?  No.  Practically, yes.  The conditions in which the MRM exists and was created in make it less likely to “go bad” than feminism, in part because it’s developed in the shadow of a movement which has provided a stellar example of precisely what not to do.  The problem here is that you’re drawing a false dichotomy between “perfect” and “bad,” which in turn leads you to incorrectly equate “imperfect” (the MRM) with “awful” (most modern feminism).  There’s room for shades of grey: neither movement may be perfect, but that doesn’t mean that they’re equally problematic.

But the MRA is much less influential and respected than feminism and you can not discount that effect on how much of what it is we can see and predict. You can’t judge the MRA against feminism because they simply aren’t even on the same level.  But just as a can judge the feminist movement on what I see from feminists I judge the MRA based on what I see from people who call themselves MRAs. And they are toxic and problematic and they DO misuse the movement.

As the MRM grows, it will likely change.  If it changes enough, and in the wrong ways, that may eventually justify its abandonment.  However, our judgments regarding the MRAs we’ve dealt with run largely counter to yours, and we can pretty well guarantee that our experience with them outweighs yours by at least an order of magnitude.

But my assertion is literally just that gender bias is bad for an equality movement no matter what that movement does or has done. Because it can and will be misused. You still have made no argument against it whatsoever and continue to ignore what I’m saying entirely while you amuse yourself with whatever imaginary conversation you are having.

Do you really think focusing on certain kinds of inequality automatically makes you biased?  Is that really your assertion?  None of your arguments had anything to do with that idea at all, and that idea is so stupid that you’ll have to pardon us for not realizing that it was your entire point.

It was you who responded to me first,

Actually, no.  It’s you who reblogged us first (unless you happen to also run browsingmymind).  Not that it matters, of course.

and yet you are completely trying to change the issue we are discussing so that you can argue a different stance than one I ever asserted at all. I don’t even know what you think My point was. And you just admitted you literally consider my entire stance irrelevant to the conversation. Even though this conversation is in response to that very stance.

We’re arguing against what you’ve actually said, not what you think you said.  The fact that you seem to be confused about what you have written is entirely on you.

And you are really confused about the point of my statements about feminism and misandry where if you legitimately think that that’s a separate issue. Do you honestly think that being able to deny the title works different for feminists than it does for MRAs?

We don’t.  Please reread our responses and come back to us.

I am talking about MRAs misusing the movement and that has been abundantly clear from the beginning yet you continue to claim that because feminists mislabel misogynists as MRAs that that somehow means that self labeled MRAs won’t be misogynists or misuse the movement.

That’s not what we’ve been arguing, and if you actually read our responses, that would be clear.

You keep trying to pretend I at some point was talking about misogynists being labeled as MRAs when that was something you where trying to bring into a conversation it was never relevant to.

The original conversation was about two things: individuals being labeled as MRAs, and NAFALT.  You then butted in talking about misogyny within the MRM, while apparently thinking that you were talking about inherent flaws in gender-focused movements.  Everything that we’ve been saying has been completely relevant.  Your responses, less so.





I’m also majoring in sociology (I’m dual-majoring in sociology and gender studies) and I want to second the fact that the SJW definition of racism/discrimination isn’t used in an academic context - or at least, not commonly enough that I’ve ever seen it in sociology (though I believe I did once come across that definition in a gender studies class, the professor wasn’t necessarily endorsing that view, just presenting the argument for discussion). The basic definition I was taught was that racism = unwarranted prejudice or discrimination, often based on stereotypes, that may be direct or indirect, and may be personal or structural.

I think most sociologists would stress that we’re making an analysis at the level of social groups, not individuals, however, and some whites may be worse off than some blacks, so in that sense it’s completely contrary to the SJW definition, which typically overgeneralizes and oversimplifies the principle.

The (extremely basic) definition I found on a sociological dictionary online pretty much mirrors the common one:


The page also seems to make the point that anyone can discriminate, though it does add that some forms of discrimination are obviously more harmful or prevalent than others:

A more nuanced (and dry) discussion about discrimination that’s more typical of what you’d get in a non-introductory sociology class is here:

Suffice it to say, the SJW definition of “racism = privilege + power” is incredibly oversimplified compared to what you’d use in sociology.

Just trying to bring up what I learned in my fucking sociology class this year. But I’m so glad my opinion is ao fucking fascinating to everyone

Look, we’re going to try to break this down as much as we can for you in the hopes that it will make some kind of sense.  First, it’s not that your opinion is particularly interesting, it’s that we actually care about educating people.  Also, seeing someone walk into the Dunning-Kruger effect face-first is just painful.  (Just to be clear, we’re responding to ms-steeleyourman.  Rotmeat did an excellent job, and we’d recommend the last link to followers interested in a more detailed look.)

You posted a long and rambling monologue with an impressive array of spelling, grammar and formatting issues.  It contained no evidence to support the claim you were making (nor even a reference to it), and consisted mostly of you repeating the exact same thing over and over.  We called you out on it, pointing out the lack of evidence and doing out best to point out the flaws in the overall logic for good measure.

At that point, what did you do?  Did you go “whoops, clearly I fucked up and should think things through a little more carefully before running around condescendingly trying to ‘educate’ people”?  Nope.  You doubled down, coupling an appeal to your own authority with some impressive leaning on some very informed writing ability.  (You know, if ever there were a time to proofread a post, that would have been it.)  On top of that, you quite literally didn’t respond to anything we actually said while accusing us of having nothing to say.

Finally, you got snapped at, by one of our admins who is (while not an expert) vastly more qualified than you to comment, and has a particularly familiarity with these areas of theory due to his ongoing advocacy.  On top of that, a very nice passerby dropped in and gave a rather gentle and detailed explanation along with several sources that would help you to better understand the issue.  That was rather nice of them, wasn’t it?  Maybe you should thank them for that.

At that point you’ve got responses from not one but two people who actually have some accredited experience, and you’re pretty clearly in the wrong.  Your response?  ”OMG guise, I wuz just trying to show off this thing I lernd at college this year!!”  (Okay, okay, your spelling and grammar were actually okay this time.)  Thing is, there’s a big difference between “trying to bring up what I learned in class” and spewing out a long and condescending diatribe aimed at teaching people a “lesson,” then not even bothering to hit the “spellcheck” button.  Seriously, fail.  All you had to do, at literally any point in this process, was go “whoops, I messed up.”  You didn’t.  Hell, you still haven’t, which is pretty much why we’re writing this in the first place.  Is it really that hard to admit that despite getting a decent grade in an introductory sociology course you’re still sometimes wrong about stuff?

You fucked up.  It happens.  Learn from your mistakes….it’s worked out pretty well for us.

A, W, U, and N — Anonymous


A. If you could get away with one murder in your lifetime without any legal, social, or emotional repercussions, would you kill someone?

I probably would, but they’d have to be a huge scumbag that the world is better off without anyway.

W. The men’s rights movement, legitimate cause or laughable, and why?

I disagree with MRAs, because men’s rights is basically the social norm. But I think a lot of MRAs would change their minds if explained to what feminism actually is.

U. If you were old enough and not in a situation where it would be inappropriate, would you sleep with one of your (past) school teachers/professors?


N. What was the worst nightmare you ever had?

It’s hard to narrow down, but occasionally i’ll have nightmares about seeing friends/family getting murdered or dying and those always freak me out for a few days

How are men’s rights basically the social norm?  Just as others are, men are stuck in an incredibly restrictive gender role, and virtually every extant Western example of people being denied actual, legal rights based on their gender involves men.

Why do you think MRAs would change their minds if someone explained feminism to them?  First off, are you really entirely ignorant of how many MRAs used to be feminists?  For that matter, do you really think that MRAs are entirely unfamiliar with what feminism “really” is and does?  Do you have any idea how arrogant and patronizing you’re being?

The vast majority of MRAs know exactly what feminism is, and a surprisingly large portion of them used to be feminists themselves.  The difference is that they don’t judge feminism based on what people like you say, or what various different feminists claim feminism is, they judge it based on the visible results: the impact feminism has.  Unfortunately, judging feminism based on its behavior tends not to paint a pretty picture.

That’s not their fault.

The MRM isn’t inherently against feminism, but looking at feminism’s general failure at intersectionality with regards to men, constant attacks on anything remotely resembling men’s issues being addressed, and general flair for academic dishonesty and fact-fudging, can you really blame MRAs for getting a bit hostile?


I told my dad about the existence of MRAs and he burst out laughing sitting “talk about a pointless job” and keeps giggling to himself

What’s so pointless about breaking down restrictive gender roles, bringing attention to victims of violence and assuault that are constantly erased, and bringing about institutional change to create a more gender-egalitarian future?

This is my first post on this blog fuck.


This is my blog for equality and the like.

First thing’s first I’m a socialist, I kinda flop between Democratic Socialism and Libertarian Socialism. I don’t think that it’s something that will be achievable in my lifetime, but I feel it’s something humanity should strive for all the same.

Not a big fan of MRAs and other reactionaries. People have tried to halt the progress of women’s rights since the days of the suffragettes. The “League for Men’s Rights” was formed in the 1920’s, I feel like today’s MRAs have the same mindset as those gentlemen did.


What makes you think this?  Do you think fighting to break down restrictive gender roles somehow stands in the way of the push for women’s rights?  Do you think that it’s somehow “reactionary” to bring attention to victims of violence and assault that are currently being erased?

y forever17luke:

i’ve noticed that some people are still a bit fuzzy on the definition of feminism, so i made this handy dandy flow chart to help out

You’re the one that’s confused about the definition of feminism.  Feminism is a movement: it’s not synonymous with “women’s rights” or “gender equality.”  People can fight for equal rights without labeling themselves as a “feminist,” and disrespecting the labels people choose for themselves shows a rather clear lack of intersectionality.


i’ve noticed that some people are still a bit fuzzy on the definition of feminism, so i made this handy dandy flow chart to help out

You’re the one that’s confused about the definition of feminism.  Feminism is a movement: it’s not synonymous with “women’s rights” or “gender equality.”  People can fight for equal rights without labeling themselves as a “feminist,” and disrespecting the labels people choose for themselves shows a rather clear lack of intersectionality.




::sigh::Rubs temples:: i’m going to respond to whatever the hell I want, and given the loose structure of this website, I reserve the right to be equally loose in how structured those responses are.  I guess I forgot that a direct reblog can be taken personally, so i apologize for that ambiguity.  Either way, I’m done nitpicking this bullshit.  Same goes with the post you linked, where I simply pointed out how it was pretty fucked up to “love” what I saw as a blatant misdirection of a post.  If anything it further illustrates my habit of responding to things off the cuff.  Don’t see the hypocrisy there.

The hypocrisy comes in when you start complaining at someone for doing the exact same thing you just did.  Is it really that complicated a concept?

Me quoting or agreeing (as it were) with hooks’ particular passage as it is relevant to a given context in no way implies I agree with all of her opinions or politics.  For instance, I don’t agree with her recent writings accusing Beyonce of being a “terrorist.” 

You’re going to have to show me where the MRM have “evolved” as an intersectional movement, cause I’m finding it difficult to believe.

That’s not what we said.  We said that “the MRM has largely evolved in the post-intersectional context, whereas feminism did not.”  In other words, the bulk of the modern MRM showed up after intersectional theory, while the bulk of the modern feminist movement was already well-established long before intersectionality showed up.

"True intersectional thinking." Where and how did you arrive at that conclusion?  At least in regards to the reading i’ve done, including among some womanist writers/bloggers, the importance of intersectionality is to highlight the different experience of gender when it comes to race, etc.  So if one focuses on the experience of black men and gender without touching on, for instance, Asian or Latino men, is that person not exemplifying "true intersectional thinking?"

The problem isn’t focusing on a certain race/gender demographic.  The problem is looking at a race/gender demographic and drawing conclusions without understanding the situation of the race and gender individually.

The whole point of intersectional thinking is to acknowledge the ways that different demographics interact to create situations and perspectives that are more than the sum of their components.  To correctly identify the intersectional components of a situation, then, you first have to strip out the demographic components that aren’t specific to the combination.  To do that, you have to consider and compensate for how the component demographics work on their own.

To use your example, focusing on black men without giving equal attention to Latino men is not a problem.  Drawing conclusions about black men without understanding the individual situations of men and black people is.

I don’t have any issue with your comments about Crenshaw’s paper, other than of course it’s antiquated due to the passage of time.  Her points may be common sense now, but it wasn’t broadly so in the early 90’s, and that’s why the concept she coined is important.

Sure.  Recall what we said about the MRM evolving in a post-intersectional context?  That’s what we were talking about: the modern MRM largely evolved in a cultural context where those points had become common sense, and adopted them as exactly that.

Your explanation makes sense, now.  Do you think such an occurrence could happen (racist paternalism, I mean), if enough mrm members internalize that?  How does the MRM talk about racism in the context of their own movement and the world?  Have you found that racism (or other isms, for that matter) are a particular problem?

It’s theoretically possible, but we would tend to doubt it.  Unlike feminism, the MRM has generally resisted paradigms that directly tie credibility to demographics.  To illustrate, consider the treatment of women within the MRM to men within feminism.  Most of the MRM has historically treated female MRAs pretty much the same as male MRAs, and there are a number of female MRAs who hold prominent leadership positions within the movement.  On the other hand, we still see pretty regular debates within the feminist movement as to whether men should even be allowed to call themselves feminists, let alone inhabit places of influence or leadership.

The MRM deals with race on a pretty frequent basis, in part because of the way gender and race tend to compound.  That having been said, it’s less of a direct factor within the MRM than feminism because being nonwhite tends to have a very similar impact profile to being male.  In contrast, part of the reason feminism has had so much difficulty dealing with race is that the social issues associated with being nonwhite are often almost opposite the issues associated with being female.  Most discussions of race-related issues within the MRM originate from non-white people who do activism on both fronts, but the MRM tends to be open to such discussions and generally encourages them.

In general, we haven’t seen a huge number of issues with racism internal to the MRM.  That’s not to say that it doesn’t happen, mind you, but it’s generally not something people put up with and overt racism tends to get people shown the door.  It is true, however, that some groups in the MRM are willing to overlook problematic views so long as they appear only outside the confines of the movement.  While we don’t necessarily agree with this way of doing things, it’s also not entirely unreasonable.

And as to encountering toxic mra’s, I’ve only found them on tumblr so I’m not surprised by the picture I’ve gotten either.  I do follow just-smith and find his posts interesting, and refreshing! Especially as he calls out the particularly faulty statements of some feminists online, while identifying as feminist.  Generally we’re in agreement.  Unfortunately, I have a hard time getting through any of Girl Writes What’s videos, though they’re less infuriating than The Amazing Atheists posts.

It’s good that you feel that way about Just-Smith!  We’d also suggest following some of Permutation of Ninja’s members: Bluesigma, Lovelogicrainbows, Ponamona, and Grymmoire.

As for GirlWritesWhat, what exactly do you find problematic or frustrating? She does tend towards generalization, but do you find her generalizations not to be reasonable and justified?  Could you start by looking over her videos on Systemic Gendered Violence, Feminism and the Disposable Male, and her four-part series on Legal Parental Surrender (1, 2, 3, 4), and explain exactly what your objections are?  They’re rather long, we know, but in most cases you can speed them up to get through them faster.

Finally, we’d suggest reading Warren Farrel’s Myth of Male Power, although following the Tumblr blogs we suggested for a month or so should give you a decent picture of the material he covers in it.

If you’d like to give me more recs or discuss that further, I’d suggest starting a new thread. Your way of responding can make it rather hard to read once the conversation gets long.

As you used a link response, we snipped out the previous parts of the conversation, and will try to do so in future conversations with you.  Is this easier to read now?




Hello. Time to learn a lesson.

To be racist you mayst have the power if the other race. 

This is actually impressive: one sentence into your actual argument, and you’ve already managed two grammatical mistakes that render the point unintelligible to anyone who didn’t already know what you’re going to say.  When setting out to “clear up some confusion” about important topics, proofreading might be a good start.

As for the actual argument, what you’ve got here is a simple assertion.  No justification, no evidence, no citations, just an unbacked claim you expect to be accepted at face value.

You must have the institutional power over that race.

Note the bait-and-switch here, where “power” is traded in for “institutional power.”

Guess what in today’s American society minorities DONT have that institutional power over white people. So no minorities can not be racist.

Non sequitur; the first sentence is largely true (depending on precisely how institutional power is defined), but the second simply does not follow without the acceptance of your prior unjustified assertion.

Can they discriminate yes. Can the be ignorant? Yes. Can they be prejudice? Yes. Are they right for doing that? No.

Finally, you get something right (albeit with another slew of writing errors).  How the hell did you get into college?

But that can not actually be racist because for them to do that they would have to have the institutional power to do so.

Repeating an assertion does not lend it weight, no matter how many times you belabor it.  Consider it a gift, not a curse: if not, you’d have the Tea Party and religious fundies running things.

Same goes for women. Can some women be hateful against men? Yes. Can some women be discriminatory? Yes. Can some women be ignorant against men? Yes. (Should they? No. ) but women don’t have the power to be institutionally sexist against men.

This one is even worse which, while disappointing, is hardly a surprise.  Your assertion about institutional power is questionable at best, at least when it’s defined in any sensible manner, and your conclusion is yet another non sequitur.

Same for people who are LBGTAQ they don’t have the power in society to institutionally hold down heterosexual people.

All prior criticisms apply.  Additionally, your initialism is wrong: LGBT(+) and GLBT(+) both make sense, but LBGT(+) is both non-standard and rather odd when you consider what the initials stand for.

So stop saying minorities can be racist. Women can be sexist. And stuff because they actually can’t because they lack the institutional support to do that.

Yet your entire justification for this boils down to “because I said so.”  Well done.

Learn the definitions of words and what they actually me before you use them.

Yes, you should.  See, we (and others who use those words) aren’t the ones redefining them in ways that are convenient for an ideological worldview: that would be your department.

Racism and sexism are not interchangeable with discrimination. To be racist means to discrimination and to have power over the other race. To discriminate means to INDIVIDUALLY hate or be prejudice against some one based on a factor like race, gender, or sexual orientation.

As we were first reading through this post, we kept hoping that you’d actually get around to putting forward something, anything to justify what you’re saying.  Sadly, we were disappointed.  In over two hundred and fifty words, all you actually managed was to repeat the exact same bullshit claim over and over again, apparently in the hopes that would make you look something other than utterly clueless.  As you may have guessed by now, it didn’t exactly work.

Try again, this time with evidence.

It’s funny because I have a 4.0 in writing. was completely just going on a rant. Ands actually got into college quite easily. Aaaand if you took a sociology class you would learn all of what I said is true ( I took mine in college and got a 4.0 but that’s not important.) and if all you can do if correct someone’s grammar and construction it means you really don’t have anything to criticize

Ah, we see.  You’re not incompetent, just lazy.  We usually try to refrain from commenting on people’s grammar, even when it’s atrocious, but you were a special case on the simple basis that it was so abominable it outright impeded comprehension.

We’re very glad you took a whole sociology class!  Unfortunately, the professor apparently didn’t bother to teach you the importance of supporting your assertions with evidence.  (Or did they just forget to teach you the background on that definition the day they taught race?)  We weep for the education system.  That said, they also apparently didn’t teach you that completely failing to address the core point of someone’s response isn’t good practice, and has a way of making you look incompetent.  (We suppose we have to take back our earlier retraction there.)

It may also benefit you to know that one of our admins happens to be taking a concurrent second bachelor’s degree in sociology (alongside his existing one, a double major in software engineering and business).  He thinks you’re full of shit: the definition you’re referring to does not have nearly the widespread acceptance some would imply, even within sociology, and has a history marred by both considerable academic activism and general intellectual dishonesty.  Even if that weren’t the case, it would still only be suitable for theoretical application within the limited sociological fields in which it was created, and is not in any way suitable for application as a general definition.

Try again.  This time with evidence and without derailing.

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN at and/or about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.



Read More

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN at and/or about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.



Read More

RAINN Followup Campaign TODAY!

Hello, followers!  It’s DJ again!

Remember our campaign to contact RAINN on the 15th of March, and their response?  On June 15th, I mentioned preparing for another campaign; the text of that post will be more or less copied here.

It’s been quite some time since our last campaign, and they haven’t made any of our suggested changes.  Let’s remind them of what we want from them.

Please reblog this message, please try to get the message out as much as possible, and please e-mail RAINN about their erasure of male victims!

An example of a possible e-mail for this campaign is under the cut.  Please submit any responses to us.



Read More


mens rights? what rights do men not already posses? seriously someone explain to me why mras feel so butthurt about woman trying to push for some much needed equality. 

and why on earth do they love fedoras and libertarianism 

Your tags are especially interesting considering what you’re trying to say.  Who do you think is going to get more shit, a woman wearing a suit or a man wearing a dress?  Don’t bother answering: it’s really rather obvious.

Men are discouraged from not focusing on their career, and are often channeled into more dangerous and time-consuming occupations.  They account for virtually all workplace deaths, and there’s an obvious cultural prejudice against men who choose to be homemakers or care for children.  Men account for a vast majority of victims of violence, and male victims rarely get even remotely the same level of attention and support as female victims.  The judicial system itself displays a well-established bias against men, as well, to the point that prisoners are almost universally male.  Men are seen as less worthy of protection, and often need to “prove” their worth and manhood by going out and doing things.

Are you really so blind that you can’t see these issues?