Originally Published on Jun 16, 2016
Research on father involvement
Feminist crusade against fatherhood (contains more links)
NOW vs fathers
Custody and support
Poor laws (for basic reference)
Originally Published on Oct 21, 2015
This video was just a quick rant, much of which was condensed from or is similar to an article I wrote the first time I heard the term "enthusiastic consent."
Recent discussion got me thinking about the topic again, with this as the result.
Transcript for this video
Originally published Published on Oct 5, 2015
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.
In response to "testosterone causes rape"
Great discussion about ways in which men are discriminated against:
Added from comment by Women Against Feminism's youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ2saYEFUJoZI9pa17wMRmw):
Originally Published on Nov 14, 2014
Feminists responded to an extraordinary event by focusing on a completely ordinary and largely irrelevant detail, which they blew out of proportion to the point of making it seem, to themselves, bigger than the event itself.
Matt Taylor made history on Wednesday, November 12, with the landing of the Philae lander on a comet, an achievement which had never been done before.
Feminists in tech, in response to this historic moment, worked themselves into a maniacal, foaming tizz over imagery on Taylor's shirt, an item made for him by a female friend.
Because apparently, though people generally wear images of things they love, when the image on your clothing is a woman, that's misogyny, and it's so powerful that it's threatening to keep women out of science. See how strong and independent feminists are?
Originally Published on Oct 19, 2014
I don't usually let stuff like this get to me but lately it's been really pervasive and so I'm speaking up. Hope I get what I'm thinking about across without pissing too many people off. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, though I'm sure there will be other MRAs who can see how what I'm saying applies to arguments they've been involved in. If you do, don't take it personally, and don't take it as support for your individual side of your individual argument either, because this isn't about targeting anyone for criticism or siding with anyone's politics, social outlook, religion, or anything else.
It's just me asking you to consider some thoughts.
I know that there will be disagreement among us on politics, lifestyle choices, social behavior and so on, but we have so much work to do. We can and should have our own lifestyles, political and religious, nonreligious, or anti-religious outlooks... but none of that should eclipse the underlying goal. At the end of the day, we're just people trying to broaden society's view of humanity in hopes that doing so will lead to legal and social reform where men currently suffer discrimination.
Bickering can't take the place of that. It'll stop us in our tracks. I don't think any of us wants that.
Am I wrong?
Originally Published on May 31, 2015
The original video I'm responding to is on youtube, but I'm not going to link to it.
I'm going to link to TL;DR's teardown of it.
Yes, the video says "Dear Feminists."
The title tells you which ones.
If you're one of the rare few who has the decency to accept others' choice to reject feminist ideology, this video is not about you.
For the rest of you, I wanted to make this as plain and easily understood as possible, such as to require a sheer force of will to fail to grasp what it's about. To do that, I've put it crisp, clean black and white... and here it is again:
Because I advocate for equal legal rights, you say I'm a feminist based on a dictionary definition that uses the word equality. However, based on its history, I say feminism fails to live up to that description.
For example, U.S. feminists lobbied to replace existing gender neutral family violence law with a gender discriminatory version. In 1978, feminists described family violence to congress as a male perpetrated, female suffered behavior.
"As Susan Brownmiller wrote in her book, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, “As the first permanent acquisition of man, his first piece of real property, woman was, in fact, the original building block, the cornerstone of the ‘House of the Father.’ Man’s forcible extension of his boundaries to his mate and later to their offspring was the beginning of his concept of ownership.”
In fact, studies have shown that wife abuse has its roots in the very structure of society and the family where the husband is expected to play the role of leader. If this position is threatened, many men fall back on their ultimate resource of physical force.
The widespread existence of wife beating today underscores the fact that these societal expectations are still prevalent."
– page 60, hearings before the House of Representatives subcommittee on select education, 95th congress, 2nd session, on HR 7927 & 8948
They went on to petition congress to reserve victim's services and funding for only female victims and their children.
To that end, they lied about the prevalence of male victims and female perpetrators, including lying about Erin Pizzey's work.
They used statistics garnered from research that used creative framing to avoid evidence of male victims and female perpetrators.
Feminist researchers define the same actions taken for the same reasons differently depending on whether a man or woman did them.
A man who hit because he felt disrespected was a coercive and controlling abuser.
A woman who hit because she felt disrespected was a victim engaging in preemptive self-defense.
When researcher Murray Straus described this and other issues with feminist research on partner violence, feminists attacked both his work and his reputation, while using the same slippery framing as their argument against taking his findings into consideration.
The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 established and funded victim's programs and shelters.
This first non-discriminatory law was not what feminists wanted.
They continued lobbying for gendered family violence law until they got it in the 1994 Violence Against Women act, which reserved victim's services and shelters for women and their young children.
The law also created training for law enforcement, prosecutors, and court personnel to treat family violence as a male crime against female victims,
and funding for research on the now female-only shelters which would by design avoid finding evidence of male victims and female perpetrators to build a body of false "evidence" supporting keeping its application gendered.
In other words, feminists deliberately and successfully lobbied to marginalize male victims of female violence.
What part of that do you think constitutes equality?
I am not a feminist, because I oppose law and policy which discriminate against men on women's behalf.
Why don't you?
On April 2nd, Adèle Mercier, Associate Professor of the Queen's University Department of Philosophy, commented in reply to Alison Tieman's comment on a Queens University Paper letter to the editor. Alison had responded to the letter, in which the author argued that men's issues discussion shouldn't take place outside feminist oversight, with information and statistics that feminists ignore when choosing to demonize all men as potential rapists while denying female perpetration.
Adele's response specifically targeted Alison's discussion on sexual abuse against boys in juvenile facilities in the U.S., where a 2012 study found that 95% of them reported female perpetrators. Adele responded with exactly the same types of rape apology that feminists accuse the general public of using to excuse raping women and girls, quoting text from the study describing how adult staff at juvenile facilities engaged in sex with inmates as a REBUTTAL to the statement that the youth housed there were victimized.
Appalled at the way Adele, in her comment, had treated incarcerated youth as if they were able to give meaningful consent to staff in positions of authority over them, wrote about the discussion in A Voice For Men, and talked about it in a video on her channel.
Link to the original report under discussion:
You might also find this specific comment interesting:
One more thing:
Since the original making of this video, MRAs as a group had a response from Queens university feminists. You can see the honey badger response to it here:
The majority of the images in this video are public domain. A few are snapshots made for the video, with the help of my son Raven, who was nice enough to pose for me outside even though it was cold out there.
The following images are used under the creative commons attribution 2.0 license
as stated on the pages where the images' creators have them displayed.
Cindarella Slipper Damsel in distress by AnnieAnniePancake
All of the sound was created using my crappy old microphone, and stuff I have around the house.
That includes the sound of the ladder crashing.
Note - this video is not to say that women never do anything, but that men are often (and thanklessly) relied upon to do things that women can't or won't do.
Effeminition: Equal Work
This video is a response to The Day the Laughter Stopped. We discussed the story in a skype chat as we read it, and Jess Kay wrote an insightful review of it, both published on the Honey Badger Brigade blog in April of this year.
I kept thinking how ridiculous the portrayal of female hypoagency was, how melodramatic and stilted. How would that same behavior look - feeling averse, thinking about one's aversion, but saying nothing and allowing oneself to be acted upon - if it were applied to anything other than a story about sex? That's where the om-nom cake part of the skype discussion came from. When the subject is cake instead of affection, the ridiculousness becomes blatantly obvious.
Huge thanks to Alien Gearbox for the animation and composition. :)
In November of 2014, I spoke in front of the Dayton Municipal courthouse regarding the manipulative way area courts use misdemeanor status to avoid recognizing the due process rights of accused men facing serious penalty. This was my first public speech. It's not something I would normally choose to do, but the subject and the case were important enough to ignore the nervousness (and lack of chances to practice the speech I wrote) and do it anyway. In the end, I'm glad I did. you can't see it in the video, but people walking by stopped to listen. That was very encouraging.
The text of the speech is posted on my blog here.
To see more of Shawn Sutherland's work, visit his youtube channel