1. You originally said those countries “banned” it. Your words. Now you’re backpedaling. But it’s a moot point, because several countries have also banned or recommended MGM not be practiced.
South Africa has banned it except for religious reasons.
2. You still have yet to prove Feminism has made a concerted effort to include women in SS. So this or that miscellaneous congressman proposed something? Who cares? If you don’t back him or her up, it’s going nowhere.
3. Opposition to VAWA: Good for them, it’s unfair to men. Those links you provided have ample support for this contention. You might try reading them sometime. Once again, MRM’s were involved in getting VAWA passed, once certain changes were made.
You don’t bring this up, therefor you are SLANDERING.
4. Opposition to Rape Shield Laws: Good for them, the laws are unconstitutional, they deny due process, and are unfair since men already have their sexual histories examined when charged with assault.
5. AAUW’s study on wage gap refuted here, here, here, here, and here. The aauw.org link for “How Does Race Affect the Gender Wage Gap” suggests discrimination, offers no proof. The Nation offers a link about discrimination against black felons & a .pdf on race issues & wages. Race being brought into the mix only proves RACE, not GENDER, in any case. Classic derailing tactic. The IWPR study also offers no proof of discrimination.
6. Slate is dead wrong about bias against men in the courts. One needs to distinguish between physical & legal custody.
Last paragraph in the Slate article:
A father who never married the mother of his child has a much shakier legal status. Petitioning the courts for paternal rights as a father who had a child out of wedlock is complicated to do and much less likely to be successful. A legal system that has evolved to recognize equal, interdependent parents doesn’t really apply. As Cahn and Carbone have written, in this social class the women are generally better off and choose not to marry the fathers, precisely because they want to avoid future legal disputes over children. If that father is Jason Patric or Bode Miller, he can probably afford a lawyer and get sympathetic publicity. But if he’s not, the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.
I think it safe to assume that you don’t even read your own resources.
7. Paul Elam’s article about VAWA is correct.
8. Same with the Finley article.
9. This is from the comments section. Who cares?
10. Elam’s article on voting to acquit men accused of rape. This is NOT rape apology, the ACCUSED ARE STILL INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
11. This is from the comments section. Who cares?
You don’t bring this up, therefor you are SLANDERING.
13. More comments, who cares?
14, Screen shot of comments, who cares?
15. Huntsville, AL weather. Who cares?
1. I admitted to being wrong about the countries I mentioned banning it. I refused to use Wikipedia for a source on the issue.
2. Actually my comment about the draft was not about feminists in the draft. It was about how changes in the draft have been proposed, but that there has been so much opposition each time that nothing gets done. It was to show that the problem is not an MRA vs. feminism one so much as a Republican vs. Democrat one.
3. I actually have read them. I don’t agree with the NCFM or AVFM. I’ve also been told by Suzanne McCarley that the VAWA Act was completely misandrist in nature, so I’m guessing that when the Senior Editor of a major site for the MRM says that a law is bad that it can be interpreted as a key figure in the movement saying it’s bad. This means: NOT SLANDER.
4. Are you ignoring that rape shield laws can also be used against women and to help male victims?
5. Oh, yay. A link to AEI. Because that site doesn’t reek of a business=good, people=bad agenda. Op-eds. And, ooh, a letter to the editor? The point was that there is a suggestion within the sites I linked to that some level of discrimination exists, while AVFM and other MRM sites don’t even acknowledge it.
6. You didn’t acknowledge the statistics regarding custody cases. I actually do read my own resources. You missed this part in the Slate article:
Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts’ preference for the “friendly parent,” meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father’s involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts. In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.
Not only did that father get 50% of custody, the mother could lose custody if she didn’t try to get along with the father. The idea that the system is out to get all men kind of goes out the window with that.
You probably also missed the link to the Reuters article which said:
More than half, 56 percent, of divorce lawyers across the United States have seen an increase in mothers paying child support in the last three years and 47 percent have noted a hike in the number of women paying alimony, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
7. It’s just automatically correct? Because you agree with it.
9. If feminists are automatically held accountable for people who degrade men, then the MRM should be held accountable for those who degrade women. If these are the kinds of comments that are not “down-voted” by AVFM or even argued against by members of the MRA community, then it seems like silent approval.
10. He’s saying that in rape cases they can never be proven guilty. THAT is rape apology.
11. Refer to 9.
12. Ah, yes. I don’t say what you want me to say so it’s slander.
14. I was accused of making shit up. I was backing up my statement.
15. Further proof for 14.