Entering a new ERA

As Peter Wright (Tawil), recently penned so succinctly on the pages of this website, the men’s movement, after a hundred years of antecedents that were more anti-feminist than pro-male, has entered a new era.

We have, after many internal struggles, and much work to rise above the fog of social programming, finally ushered in a second wave, relieved not just of the dictates of ideological social engineers, but of the outmoded and archaic demands on men that led us to feminist governance and puppetry in the first place.

We have shaken ourselves from the trance of mainstream politics, from the shame and control of religiosity, and from the terminal, toxic propensity to measure our innate worth by the capricious judgments of women and costly approval of traditional men.

And it has laid a path of autonomy and self-actualization that was unavailable till now because we simply did not dare to imagine it.

This website, though I think the word website is no longer an adequate description of this place, is a place critical to that imagining. And while we have never pretended to speak for all men, our voice has caught the attention of a growing legion of men and women hungering for a better way.

It is with that better way in mind that I am pleased to make an announcement and to issue a challenge to all organizations that purport to support the cause of a just and fair society.

The Equal Rights Amendment, written in 1923, is a proposal to make freedom from discrimination based on sex a matter of Constitutional Law in the United States. Its wording is as clear as it is brief.

  • Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex;
  • Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article;
  • Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

After discussion with the editorial staff of this website, we have agreed that this proposed amendment, precisely as it is worded above, is in the interest of all citizens. It is our considered opinion that resistance to this amendment primarily stems from the desire to maintain the status quo of the disposability of men and boys. And indeed we find that the activism that prevented its previous success stemmed from political conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, who successfully campaigned to keep men in deadly servitude to their culture for the benefit and enjoyment of women.

With that in mind, we issue our support for the Equal Rights Amendment and pledge our activism to push for ratification. We also challenge all human or so called equal rights organizations to support this with their own redoubled efforts to demand ratification, as failure to do so will be identified as the supreme hypocrisy of the age.

With that, I am also issuing a request to the editors and contributors of A Voice for Men, and issuing an advisory to the same effect. From this day forward, it is the editorial policy of AVFM to refer to the movement of which we are a part as the Men’s Human Rights Movement, or MHRM.

That too is a simple idea whose time has come. While we are focused in the inequalities of law that have a disproportionally negative impact on the lives of men and boys, we do not claim the need to do so at the expense of any other group. This is, in one of its rare forms, a movement for human rights. It is only fitting that we identify it as such in our lexicon.

On behalf of the editorial staff of A Voice for Men,

Paul Elam
Dean Esmay

  • ssj4kevin

    This is a welcome development.

    • thefeministmra

      One that has tried and failed before. Womens groups also opposed it the first time around. I would be quite surprised if we saw any women’s group get behind this, this time around.

      “Everyone” is not an interest group, and this is not something that will make anyone, aside from a new interest group or committee designated to it’s enforcement, any money.

      It also endagers various groups funding (VAWA included) and sources of income.

      It’s sad that the obvious opposition to a bill regarding “sexual equality” is a reflection of the times we live in.

      • Paul Elam

        Actually, there are women’s groups behind it, including NOW, and the ACLU which is a de facto women’s group.

        • thefeministmra

          Good thing I didn’t say I would eat my own hat then. 😉

        • Loy Finly

          Mr Pelam,

          Once again you have shown yourself as an organ grinder’s monkey that gibbers and jiggles in wee red silk shorts. Yes, and as all bio-matter tethered to twine (worms on hooks, mongrels on leads or bears on ropes) you dance for your master’s desires.

          In this case the grinder, your true master, is your hatred for all things pink and twee and astonishingly gorgeous. Wimmin.

          Without them there would be phallic bullets, phallic bombs and phallic batons sold on every street corner, and you know this in your tiny Kelvin-Zero heart who’s only beat is for the loving of your disparate and empty soul.

          The MHRM is it now? The Male Hateful Recalcitrant Movement?

          You are hiding deeper into the maggot-festooned star chamber within yet another smaller chamber with a bigger name only.

          You disgust me.

          Loy Finly.
          Sr, Wrongarian,
          World Chapter to whit.

          • Suzanne McCarley

            If Mr. Elam puts those wee red silk shorts up for auction, I’ll bid!

          • Loy Finly

            Dearest Suzanne McCarley,

            At our Wrongarian meetings we look longingly upon our walls at the pictures of the wimmin we wish to reclaim from the MRHM. You dear Suzanne McCarley are there with Wimmin Writes What, Typhon Blue, Aimee Magee and others.

            As we speak there are right now, around the world, many Wrongarians kneeling in their local Wrongarian temples at the altars of the “Shimmering Double Globes” and the “Golden Womb Chalice”

            Do you not know that you are in possession of these wonderous sanctums as ordained by your incredible X-Chromo design?

            Please come home. This misspent time with these fellows has sent you spinning from your true destiny as a perfectly designed orb of light that can, and should darken our ugly male silhouettes.

            Please come home. We love you.

            Loy Finly.
            Sr, Wrongarian,
            World Chapter to whit.

          • Suzanne McCarley

            Gee, how sweet of you to ask! No thanks, I like it here in the light.

          • Bret Vanders

            Loy I am so hesitant to say so but you are mis-spelling “womyn” and “wombyn.”

            Otherwise you are spot on as usual mate!

        • Rog

          hey Paul we had womens groups involved in the equality clause here in Canada look what happened

          ” 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

          (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
          (the second clause only refers to recognized minorities “see women” when it talks about gender disadvantaged) the second portion of this law overrules the first section on things like practicing employment equity discrimination in a building already 95% female workers…

          be careful who you call friend because the only ones excluded in our equality rights are men….

        • 86

          Fwiw, I applaud the idea of rebranding/refocusing to the “Men’s Human Rights Movement”. Kudos!

          Also fwiw, I’ve heard it argued that contemporary feminism went off the rails about the same time, and possibly because, the original ERA failed. Apparently the argument goes, that 70s era feminists would probably disagree with much of the crap that 20xx era feminists love to spout, esp. wrt. child custody, or all the needs for special protections for women. Dunno, but it’s interesting to think about.

      • Dean Esmay

        I have come to believe you are right and that most feminist groups will oppose this, because feminist groups have proven time and time again that they do not want equality, they want superiority.

        But let’s have them prove us wrong then. This isn’t a game of “chicken” for us. We think it’s vital that we have such an amendment.

        • typhonblue

          It’s not a bluff if you’ll follow through.

          I don’t know what it is, but it needs a different word.

        • Adam Catalyst

          Very succinctly put.

  • JJ

    I’m not playing devil’s advocate; but I thought Phyllis Schlafly helped strike it down as it was worded by feminists? I am sure you know what you are talking about, and I will check on my own.

    However, as most all the laws feminists have had passed it has matter nil if the wording was gender neutral; the intent and out come of the legislation passed was anything but neutral.

    Also, in order to pass it ( I support it completely ), it will definitely not get the congressional bouncers nod of entry straight through all committees to a vote on the Senate Floor.

    So I guess I am wondering what the time line is? I suspect with the current environment the movement is in, we will not get much if any headway until we go to Congress with our balls in our hands, and pass it worded like a second VAWA act in the current political climate.

    Not detracting, just curious.

    • Paul Elam

      Fair question, I am not sure, though. The bullet points above are the complete text of the amendment as far as I know. If you are able to dig up info that points to what you heard about Schlafly, I would enjoy seeing it.

      • JJ

        Will have more later; also I could not get the link directly from the website, so Google crud it is.,d.aWM

        Sorry. There will be better links after I wake up. lol

        The gist of it is that feminists were piggy backing the gay rights movement in order to push it through. As I know you claim to be for homosexual rights; Schlafly’s point of view might clash with yours.

        However, mutual enemies make strange bedfellows. She struck it down in the early 80s I think? As I was too young I cannot remember personally. Yet I think what feminists were doing back then, different then now, is hooking up with every smaller group they could find; as we are doing now. Now they don’t need it as they are the establishment.

        They went for Gay rights, women’s rights, child support; anything, and everything to get the ball moving. Then keep it moving.

        Granted, our movement counts along side with SAVE and others more respectable than feminists; yet maybe history repeats itself?

        The MHRA acronym is a good one. However, steering clear of PS and crew is most likely necessary, I don’t trust them either. Yet back then, the white knights had enough clout on their own to strike it down.

        Now they are going to use us I feel. NC dads, to jilted MGTOWs. It should be interesting; but I think focus on getting negative politicians and judges out would be better. I think this because pushing a piece of gender legislation is great; but very much like the feminists. I like this, but is it creative enough? Or is this more of the same; with a male stamp on it?

        I guess we have to do something? It is difficult to say what that is; we don’t have a whole lot going for the movement at the moment.

      • JJ

        Here is her opinion itself supposedly:

        My interpretation is that it would be used to put a broad reach in a lot of government entities that have too much as it is.

        The current climate at the moment sees “Equal Rights” as a lightning rod for government pork contracts. I think after you get the bill pushed; you might get heartbroken to what the “glorious leaders” do with it.

        A piece of legislation with only three bullets or less has not happened since the founding fathers!

        • Dean Esmay

          Yup, and there you go. Despite the best efforts of feminist ideologues to deny it (some of whom have argued with me vociferously about this) Phyllis Schlafley more than anything wanted to preserve Female Privilege.

          Feminist Patriarchy Theory cannot admit to the existence of Female Privilege. Traditionalist conservative women have always known about Female Privilege and have desperately wanted to preserve it.

          This is why tradcon women are often both smarter and more dangerous than feminist ideologues. It is what is lurking underneath the feminist agenda: tradcon women who wish to retain their traditional privileges. They know the scoop. The so-called “Patriarchy” is the best deal almost any woman could ask for as long as she’s smart, as it leaves her responsibility-free for almost anything she says or does as long as she plays her cards right. Men hold all the responsibility in exchange for the “benefit” of being head of household to a “submissive” wife who really only has to submit so much and can make his life a living hell any time she wants to. Brother, I’ve seen it. It is -not- pretty. There’s no reign on female violence, female abuse, or false allegation. In fact, you’re every bit as defenseless against female abuse, with the added bonus that this is now recognized as her sovereign “right” as a woman.

          • typhonblue

            ” Traditionalist conservative women have always known about Female Privilege and have desperately wanted to preserve it.”

            Yes, but admitting it would mean sharing it with the femproles–women who don’t get it because they aren’t as smart in the same ways as the queen-bees.

            If I weren’t a petty and cruel individual I’d find this hilarious.

            Wait! I am.

            HAHAHAHAHAAHAAA! FUCK YOU ALL! **Runs off to burn down a barn.**

          • Ray

            Dean said above:

            ” Traditionalist conservative women have always known about Female Privilege and have desperately wanted to preserve it.”


            “This is why tradcon women are often both smarter and more dangerous than feminist ideologues. It is what is lurking underneath the feminist agenda: tradcon women who wish to retain their traditional privileges.”

            and below:

            “It is of no relevance who writes a bill or who sponsors it [Democrat, or Republican], what matters is how they VOTE.”

            Hmm, and does this hold true when Democrat gender feminists acquiesce and vote “yes” on Republican authored, traditionalist/conservative legislation that “privileges” females? I think it does, and is just one more aspect of “Males caught in the vise of political misandry.”

            I like the sound of that phrase and think it’s very relevant. It also sounds like a good title for an article, or a video, IMO. Please, anyone, go ahead and use it if you like. I’ll probably never get around to it.

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            @Dean: “It is what is lurking underneath the feminist agenda: tradcon women who wish to retain their traditional privileges.”

            Knap… you nailed it there. Feminists are all tradionalist princesses in disguise, which is why the FATS idea is apt. As the book title goes, Feminists are ‘The New Victorians’.

      • Ray

        Respectfully, I suspect you have the best of intentions, but what are they?

        If this passes, I hope there’s a team of lawyers ready to file lawsuits to insure the “Equal Rights of Males” (but there isn’t). There are, however, plenty of “women’s law centers” ready to file for every conjured up issue they can fabricate.

        The present administration, as evidenced by its interpretation of VAWA, sees males as not qualified for gender equality. Previous Democrat administrations have also perceived males as not qualified for “gender equality.” Have Capitalist/Republican administrations historically found the male slave a valuable (disposable) commodity necessary to maintain profitable production? Yep? That’s one big reason why they’ve worked so hard to maintain the traditional family, male role, IMO – trying to insure the male slave his historical/traditional/disposable place – the man often dying early at the end of his productive work life before getting much if any “Social Secutiry.”

        I suspect passage of an ERA will only lead to a spate of gender feminist filed lawsuits seeking to give more privileges to women. After all, how many “men’s legal centers” (fighting for men’s rights) are there, compared to “women’s legal centers?” Go ahead, Google women’s law center, then Google “men’s law center.”

        Sincerely, perhaps you could shed a little more light into your motivation for supporting an ERA and how you see it as benefiting males.

        In a fair and equitable world we know the idea of an equal rights amendment has merit, but that’s not and hasn’t been the gender biased world men have lived in – consistently drawing the short straw almost every time the issues of “equal rights based on sex” has been on the table.

        • Dean Esmay

          I can tell you one way the present administration is different from the last: the present administration cut VAWA funding in half.

          Other than that, what makes you think the present administration is any different from the previous administration in that regard? VAWA enjoyed wide bipartisan support when it passed, and it only lacks bipartisan support now because, if Republicans are to be believed, they just don’t want to include gays, lesbians, and immigrants in its protections. What kind of half-assed reasoning is that? If they opposed it for the right reason (it’s a civil rights trashing disaster) they’d have my support, but instead they give the dumbest imaginable reason for opposing it.

          Give us an ERA and these progressive groups will be hamstrung in any efforts to marginalize men’s human rights. I honestly suspect groups like NOW would start finding reasons to marginalize it as much as possible, because the implications for them are so negative.

          • Ray

            “it only lacks bipartisan support now because, if Republicans are to be believed, they just don’t want to include gays, lesbians, and immigrants in its protections. What kind of half-assed reasoning is that?”

            So are you saying Republicans don’t oppose it because they’re opposed to VAWA’s wasteful spending, and that that Republican’s don’t oppose it because it’s biased against men? Hmm.

            The last time I checked the author and originator of VAWA was Joe Biden (“It’s my baby”), and he’s solidly in the Democrat’s camp as are all the gender feminists who run VAWA.

            Also, it’s conservative groups like IWF, CWA, and The Eagle Forum who are strongly supporting SAVE in its lobbying efforts to reform VAWA in congress, without any support from from groups like NOW, or The Feminist Majority, etc.

            Please spare me your ad hominem attack/name calling epithet, i.e. “half-assed reasoning.”

          • Dean Esmay

            The present administration cut VAWA funding in half. That is a fact, not an opinion.

            And yes, Joe Biden wrote the act. Joe Biden also wrote the PATRIOT act, which had strong Republican support. So what’s your point? VAWA had strong bipartisan support from the beginning and has always had it.

            Republicans have stated what their opposition is about, and it is that they don’t want it extended to cover gays and lesbians and immigrants. That is also a fact. The claim that it’s about “wasteful spending” is a dodge since they’ve made it clear they will pass it as long as the stuff about gays and lesbians and immigrants is taken out.

            I work with SAVE. In fact I’m on one of their standing committees, and talk to them all the time. They’ll tell you that they get no support from Republicans on the civil rights issues from Republicans, whereas Democrats at least give them a sympathetic ear on the civil rights issues.

            I would support Republicans if they based their opposition to VAWA on the fact that it’s a civil rights trashing disaster. They do not base it on that, and they have repeatedly stated they will pass it as long as those key provisions on gays and immigrants are not put in.

            Those are the facts. Make of them what you will. If you think Republicans are our friends because they give you a tap dance about how they’re opposed to VAWA because it’s “wasteful spending” then with all due respect you, sir, are being fooled.

          • Ray

            I don’t see an “R” behind Leahy’s, or Moore’s, name.

            “Senator Leahy and Representative Moore need to stop denying the truth about partner violence and VAWA”

            “Congressional Democrats seek to reauthorize the expired Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a top priority for this Congress. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called it his first priority and legislation has already been introduced in both the House and Senate.”

          • Paul Elam

            You will see sufficient R’s when the vote comes.

          • Dean Esmay

            I’m not going to keep up a pointless partisan bickering. It is of no relevance who writes a bill or who sponsors it, what matters is how they VOTE. So let me repeat key facts for you:

            1) VAWA originally sailed through Congress with strong bipartisan support.

            2) VAWA has been reauthorized TWICE since its initial passage, including during times when Republicans controlled the Congress AND the White House. George W. Bush’s own signature is on at least one of those renewals, if not two of them (I’d have to double-check).

            3) Republicans have REPEATEDLY stated the ONLY reasons they have for opposing VAWA renewal are:
            a) They don’t want to include gays
            b) They don’t want to include immigrants
            c) They don’t want to include Native American tribes.

            4) Reason given for 3a, 3b, and 3c is money, not civil rights.

            5) The Obama administration slashed VAWA funding IN HALF during its first term.

            Now, do you dispute any of those facts? If not, why are you arguing with me? If you’re sold on the idea that Republicans are our friends on this, fine, but you’re not selling me on it, I’ve been watching politics for too long. They’re no more our friends than Democrats are.

          • Ray

            Paul said:“You will see sufficient R’s when the vote comes.”

            Dean said:“If they [Republicans] opposed it for the right reason (it’s a civil rights trashing disaster) they’d have my support, but instead they give the dumbest imaginable reason for opposing it.”

            …then assessment of education and/or lobbying efforts by conservative women’s groups and others have not been as effective as reported by conservative women’s groups and those hour long dial in meetings that I too have been a part of. Yes, father of daughters, G.W. Bush was a disaster in regards to his acquiescence to VAWA as has been the case by all “father of daughter(s)” presidents: Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama, although Clinton and Obama are more openly supportive of VAWA and all gender feminist issues. Hey, gender feminists live in the Democrat party and that is the source of all the gender feminist legislation the source of ALL of it.

            And “Yes,” Republicans do acquiesce to a terrible lot of it.

            Chivalrous, traditionalist legislation, “YEP” that comes predominantly (if not exclusively) from Republicans.

            So, it is men caught in the vice of political misandry. “Men caught in the vice of political misandry,” pretty much sums up the status of men in the Western world today, IMO.

          • Ray

            “Men caught in the vice of political misandry,”

            Make that: “Men caught in the vise (tool for holding an object immobile) of political misandry,” And yes, that a vice (immoral) also.

          • chris3337

            “Give us an ERA and these progressive groups will be hamstrung in any efforts to marginalize men’s human rights.”
            Absolutely agree with that. We need ERA first , then we can start the law suits to get men equality.

      • JJ

        Just read your comment below:

        Anyhow, we all know that FATS will cling to the old order of male burden and disposability, but if there were a Constitutional Amendment with the language cited above, that language could form a very, very compelling rationale for litigation on laws like VAWA, Title IX, Selective Service and possibly even rape shield laws.-PE

        I am totally on board with that. I just wanted to include this into this part of the discussion. I really like this idea of the ERA, and I love your POV on using it with this strategy in mind. I guess I am still curious how any of us can help you get past the barrage of BS they have in place?

    • Dean Esmay

      Phyllis Schlafley opposed that amendment exactly as worded in Paul’s article, and she opposed it because she believed women should have different rights and different privileges from men–and she recognized (and still does) that the old rules of inequality were stacked massively in women’s favor. She was very open about it: she thought it would result in women being subjected to the draft, and women being forced to share other resources with men. She viewed men’s job as to provide for women outside the home, and women’s job to stay home with the children. Never mind that historically only a tiny handful of elites ever actually lived that way, old Phyllis knew which side had the better deal of that bargain: hers.

      She opposed equality under the law for women and men. So far as I know she still does.

      The interesting thing to see is what this does to supposedly progressive coalitions that say they support the ERA. How serious are they? We are completely serious.

      • JJ

        I agree with you; and it sure seems she was right about what would happen.

        For me though I always try, if I can, to keep my emotions low at first and see things from my opponents POV (not saying you aren’t).

        I can see what she is saying; many of us got here believing the same thing. Female privilege in the traditional sense made a lot of things easier for everyone in the sense that we could potentially keep a balanced budget, raise healthier kids, and have long lasting traditional families to maintain themselves for generations. That time is over, here is your selective service card honey; now go to the restroom and change into your big girl pants.

        I get it.

        Yet I agree with Ray; we must be careful as they are still very good, and have the establishment to assure they get this, to co-opt our momentum and make it about themselves. I am also one of the crazies who thinks feminism is solely tolerated for its propensity to increase an ever burgeoning state power base.

        I AM NOT, NOT trying to deflate the balloon; I fear we are going to merely release it under a board of feminist nails and be surprised if it pops.

        My only intention is to act the engineer a-hole, and point out as many flaws in the design as I can; I relish the thought of being made to look like an a-hole. Because then the design is really functional.

        I guess I feel that in order for the design of any new ERA to work for us, and not get conflated with feminist BS, we have to get to a stronger support base before we really give it the necessary push. Most people I talk too don’t know us. Does not mean I don’t have faith. I’m here everyday. I guess I think I am being realistic in thinking that starting to refine it is great; but it is definitely not ready for market.

        • Dean Esmay

          My expectation is they will try to find some reason or excuse to oppose it. If so they are exposed as the hypocrites so many have said they are.

          If they continue to favor it, great, they have just lost any and all claims that we oppose equality for women.

          Will the amendment be ratified? We have no power to do that except we’ll work with anyone who wants to resuscitate it.

          • chris3337

            I ve always thought the ERA would be good for the MRA because it is simple and removes all discrimnation whatsoever based on gender without any room for interpretation,. ERA never passed, as stated elsewhere precisely because it removed discrimination which favoured women. Interestingly NOW has always supported ERA and also supported women being drafted if men were drafted (although they opposed the draft in general). They would make strange bedfellows now but I beleive they are still strong proponents of ERA. What really annoyed me quite recently was when the ERA was being rekindled some feminist senator tried to bring it forward again but under a new name, the Womens Equality Act (WEA), without changing the content of the Act. Changing the name to WEA would be a serious loophole to allow further interpretation of its contents being that the spirit of the Act now named WEA was for equality for women (and not necessarily for men). If ERA can be resuscitated we would have to be highly viligant of an attempt at a name change such as the one recently proposed. I see that NOW website still calls for ERA implementation as it is, without a name change. This is good news. It would be almost humorous to see NOW supporting any mens rights groups which want to push ERA again.Perhaps AVfM could recruit some support from them since this their advertised goal as well.

    • Ray

      Yep, Schlafly almost single handedly took on the feminist trying to pass the ERA.

      “Schlafly became an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s as the organizer of the “STOP ERA” campaign. STOP is an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.” Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security and the exemption from Selective Service registration.”

      Schlafly has also strongly opposed VAWA and written extensively about its misandry.

      Google “Phyllis Schlafly Violence Against Women Act” to see the many pages listing her articles condemning VAWA.

      • JJ

        Yup; although I don’t trust anyone but MRAs right now; I do have the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. As counter intuitive as it might sound; having these women with us is definitely better than having them against us. I can settle for the uneasy phase we are in right now where they are feeling the water to see how we react. As I sense that a strict MGTOW message will not get us where we want; old school marriage will very likely make a comeback. Does not bother me. However, making these women guess where we are at, like a player with the ladies; might be our best bet.

        As much as I want to go into DC like Achilles to Troy; like Achilles I know that I will only get shot down. Trojan Horse about to get dusted off the shelf boys. I think PE and crew are looking for some volunteers to get scuttled inside some old ship timbers; and wait to do dirty deeds when the “lovely ladies” go to sleep “safe” in their tax beds.

        What does concern me though is that our voice is always lost below the cacophony of women, and their mangina enablers shouting matches about where, when, and how they are going to kill us better. So, since we are silenced, lets make like a Trojan Horse and use a negative to our advantage. They will never see us coming.

        Eventually, we have to do this on our own; before we start co-opting.

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    The H in the following has us impervious to feminist slings and slag-offs.

    “From this day forward, it is the editorial policy of AVFM to refer to the movement of which we are a part as the Men’s Human Rights Movement, or MHRM.”

    It cleaves us from the first wave which has by all accounts been exposed as the bugged first version it was.

    This 600 word piece will be an attractant for the white-picket-fence picketers, the doped on god+MRA-only bible thumpers, the Old Glory salutin’ baccy smokers and the PUA Martini stirrers. Mr Elam has built it now, and from the corn stalks they’ll emerge talking about their old field of dreams.

    And so we press on anyway. This is what we do.

    • JJ

      Hehehehe, love the point. I hope for that too. We will need foot soldiers, that’s for sure.

  • Daniel Martinez

    It is a privilege to me to be a part of this movement. I already know that we are changing the world, little by littel we are getting things done.

    Adelante amigos!!!!

    Retroceder nunca, rendirse jamás!!! (in english is:
    “Never retreat, never ever surrender!!!!”)

    • Sting Chameleon

      Amén hermano! Nunca nos rendiremos, lucharemos hasta el final!

  • Suzanne McCarley

    All in!

  • Shrek6

    I fully concur and am so glad we have now come to this realisation.

    From this point on, I will now refer to the MRM as the MHRM and to this end I shall direct all my efforts.

    Thank you Paul and AVfM Team!

  • Codebuster

    Now we’re talking! This resonates muchly with what I had in mind. Americans don’t need a new plan or constitution. They just need to revive and insist on the old one. And in doing this, the MHRM draws attention to the toxic, destructive nature of those trying to destroy it. This is a brilliant strategy. Any attempt to deny, oppose or stall the equal rights ammendment and what the US Constitution stood for provides its own clear evidence of the hateful, bigoted agenda of its opponents.

  • PaperrepaP

    somewhat important:

    • greg

      I saw that. We just need to keep in mind that according to the Duluth Model of DV, Females are Never Violent.

      I remind Myself daily that my 18 yr old is a Batterer and Rapist.

      Thank You VAWA.

      Life is Grand.

  • Turbo

    Well I think this is perfect, the Mens Human Rights Movement. We have always been a Human rights movement, we might as well add that bit to the name.

    Curious though, while I think it is absolutely correct to support this amendment to the constitution as AVfM policy for obvious reasons, does anyone think that this amendment, even if passed into law would make any difference to what is happening on the ground?

    Have we not already trashed the US Constitution and every other constitution with the misandric laws over the last 40 or so years, such as VAWA. Have we not already brought dozens of laws which contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Can this really make a difference?

    I do love MHRM though.

    • Paul Elam

      The difference it can make is huge. Of course, we know that feminists and traditionalists…ohhhh, new term alert, lol, “Feminists And Traditionalists” = FATS.

      Anyhow, we all know that FATS will cling to the old order of male burden and disposability, but if there were a Constitutional Amendment with the language cited above, that language could form a very, very compelling rationale for litigation on laws like VAWA, Title IX, Selective Service and possibly even rape shield laws.

      • Turbo

        FATS, yeah, like the term, covers everything.

        I understand what you are saying, and agree, but do these laws not already violate much of the constitution, and if so, why has it not already been possible for litigation on these laws.

        I am not an expert on US Constitution. Is it that these amendments would tighten what may be a more subjective case otherwise? That would make sense.

        Anything to get rid of laws like VAWA, Title IX, Selective Service and possibly even rape shield laws.

      • Adi

        People vastly underestimate the power of a name. That’s why feminism will always attract misandrists. That’s why we rightfully aren’t masculists – because we’re not fighting for masculinity but rights of men as humans. That includes their right to not be masculine.

        And the best part of this move is that it makes it easier to lump the opposition (tradcons and feminists) together as essentially the same. Once that awareness has finally established itself, our adversaries will suddenly seem like the primitive fringe minority.
        That will be a major tipping point. We’re not there yet but it’s within reach – for the first time in recorded history.

      • Ray

        On a practical level, I’ve always hoped and envisioned that the MRM, or the MHRM if we prefer, would someday find “an army of Marc Angelucci’s” to file these very valid lawsuits, and of course willing litigants, and financial resources. Just filing fees and courts cost alone amount to thousands of dollars.

        The devil is always in the details when it comes to implementing even the best laid plans.

        “…filed a widely reported sex discrimination lawsuit against 10 Los Angeles County Domestic Violence shelters for refusing to accept male victims. “

        • Sandy0


      • chris3337

        Agree , ERA would give progressive women the constitutional equality they ‘ve always wanted (would they dare show their hypocrasy now) This great for the MHRM because it will also remove their special privileges and allow men equality with women.
        Bring on ERA exactly as written without any changes.

        • Sandy0

          Yaaay, Chris (except for the sarcasm)!

    • Sandy0

      Sorry to upset this lovefest to remind ya’ll to go to, click on ERA for Women and FIND JUST THE LIST THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE TO WOMEN AND MEN. Again, Yes, there IS a button marked “ERA for Men”; why wouldn’t there be?

  • Jay

    I love you guys, I bloody love you guys – Paul, John and Dean. Very good observation, and very true, Men’s Human Rights Movement it is.

  • Greg Canning

    I am pleased to refer to myself henceforth as a Men’s Human Rights Activist, belonging to the Men’s Human Rights Movement and endorse the objective for the ERA to be enacted in the USA and similar constitutional change to occur in all countries. There should be no barrier to full and equal rights between men and women under the law and any laws that currently madate different treatment on the basis of ones sex should be subsequently repealed as a matter of urgency.

    • Turbo

      Bravo Greg, and may I say as a Men’s Human Rights Activist, you are a hell of a good one.

    • Sandy0

      Yaaaay, Canning !

  • quolls
  • All Contraire

    May I suggest a further enlightenment to AVfM’s masthead:

    A Voice for Men…
    ‘A Voice for Mankind’
    Compassion for boys and men

    to declare that our movement’s work––for as you’re saying a ‘movement’ is what we’ve become––to assert and indeed return to basic human truths, rights and dignity on behalf of men and boys extends to everyone everywhere, men and women. That feminists would furiously object to using the word MANkind merely further exposes their own lying evil, one-sided view of the world that for over six decades now has sought with––UP UNTIL NOW!––unopposed license to demonize fully one-half of humanity. As it becomes ever more victorious, because true, our movement will never fall into the same inhuman power-mad dogma.

    People around the world understand that Neil Armstrong was speaking on their behalf when he proclaimed “one giant leap for MANKIND”.

    • Sandy0

      ARMSTRONG can be forgiven, for in his day mankind was ok. We prefer humankind as it includes everyone. That’s what we feminists truly desire, a fully inclusive humankind.

  • napocapo69

    brilliant ideas are usually pretty simple

  • Kristina Hansen

    I approve this message 100%.

  • andybob


    Genius. You have put Human Rights at the very centre of the Men’s Movement – literally.

    I think Amanda Marcotte just smeared her own excrement on the padded walls of her cell in the RegisterHer Bigot Wing. This is not a welcome development for those who assumed we would have long ago disintegrated into a squabbling shambles of contentious factions.

    The sistahood won’t be at all pleased by this proud affirmation of our innate worth. How will they ever succeed in conflating us with PUA/game hucksters if we start identifying so closely with human rights? So much for the Abuser’s Lobby, hey Amanda?

    Another sign that the AVfM leadership’s eyes have never left the prize from Day 1. Thank you for this.

    Proud to be a MHRA.

  • John A

    Great News, 100% support. There is nothing more frightening to our enemies than clear, unequivocal, equality.

    • Sandy0

      John: what “ENEMIES”? Aren’t we the ones who bore you, love you, sleep with you, feed you and raise our children? Since when are we so arrogantly, The Enemies? What kind of a sexist ugly group is this, anyway??

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    This article marks a pivotal moment.. The call for this movement to be referred to as the MHRM, and to fight for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment that traditionalists and feminists denied us, makes me proud to be, well, an MHRA :-)

    As Typhon and Dean recently summarised, “Feminists want equality, but only when it benefits women. Traditionalist women want inequality, but only when it benefits women.”

    In that case- down with FATS, up with MHRM, and on with ERA.

    • Astrokid

      Hey numbskull Sandy0.. you seem to be on a crusade today.. “rebutting” comment after comment for last several hours.
      Stop spamming this site with your comments, old hag! Check into a retirement home, before you collapse from exhaustion.

    • Sandy0

      Peter, another stupid (pardon me, it’s true). We feminists work hard for you guys to be accorded gender-equal treatment for males as well as females, thank you. I have been working for you, for ALL in 7 states for FOURTEEN YEARS, unpaid, 18/7. That also includes my shepherding my own co-created US Congressional bill For YOU as well as for women and girls, though we get the brunt of sex discrimination including the stalking, groping, harassment, rapes and murders we endure along with a long list of inequities to be seen at my own site,, click “ERA for Women”. ALL NATIONS CREATED SINCE WWII ALREADY HAVE CODIFIED ERA LANGUAGE!
      (AND , YES, of course there’s an “ERA for Men”,too! Go read it. )

  • Brodehouse

    I’m all in for this. I would hope they add orientation, race, etc.

    You would have hoped the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth would have been good enough… “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The thing to be concerned about remains the use of the judicial mechanisms of strict and intermediate scrutiny. It allows the government to act against the Constitution if it deems it to be in their best interest. This is what allows ‘benevolent’ inequality like affirmative action, and rather blatant inequality like Japanese internment camps. Even with this proposed amendment, do not be surprised if the government ‘deems it to be in their interest’ to continue pouring money into women-only resources. Canada is already screwed with the ‘amelioration of the disadvantaged’. I support social welfare based on economics, not on gender or race.

  • Bewildered

    ‘amelioration of the disadvantaged’

    In that case the men should be helped now.

    • Sandy0

      Men need help now?

  • Zerbu

    Even if a new ERA does get approved, there’s always the chance they won’t actually enforce it except when it benefits women. They already do that with Title IX, and other gender equality laws, so I wouldn’t be surprised.

    • Adam Catalyst

      There is a risk that anything we do will be ineffective. There is a certainty that doing nothing will be ineffective. We can’t know where success will be found, we can only keep learning, adapting and pursuing the best options we come up with. At this very moment in time, I hear no better idea than this course of action.

    • Sandy0

      Zerbu, what b.s. you live with. Why so paranoid about something so simply stated? see above for the simple language of ERA. sheesh, you guys are really paranoid.

  • Tim Legere

    Has anyone noticed that more real names and images are starting to appear here (as opposed to aliases)?

    This is not an option for everyone because of the possible negative reactions (e.g. at work, home, etc.) that result from challenging the “status quo”. Also, those who identify themselves on the Internet are keenly aware that any/all statements are “forever” linked to them. Perhaps others, who view what we say and watch what we do, will come to the conclusion that our concerns are simply too important for us to remain anonymous.

    Finally, before I found AVfM, I believed I might be “one of a few” that thought/felt the way I did about the issues of Boys and Men. Now I realize there are many others (e.g. Paul, John, Karen, Dean, Ian and Kristina to name a few) and knowing/seeing these “real” people strengthens my resolve and hope that we CAN make a difference.

    I am very proud to call myself a MHRA in the MHRM.

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      G’day Tim.

      Feminism has spoiled so much around us not any differently to acid rain beating on a forest.

      Changing the incessant monologue to dialogue is accelerated by self doxxing as the label of “guilty” by anonymity evaporates instantly.

      One by one the tired old tricks they wheel out before us are being shown for what they are. Tricks without any grace with good form and done as dispassionately as a bank’s accountant to a farm. All done with no glance sideways or indication of doing anything differently. That’s where me, you and some other of the second wave MHRA are doing things differently. We’re giving our names and and taking one more card-trick from them by doing it.

      You know how it is, first a trickle with some now then a river soon before the damn wall collapses.

      • Sandy0

        Dr? No tired old tricks here. Just gender-equal treatment, as it should be.

  • Mark Trueblood

    I agree in principle,but my understanding is that the current ERA contains a clause that allows for unequal rights where “historical discrimination” existed against a gender.

    • chris3337

      Mark, do you have any link to that.I hope you ‘re wrong. As far as I know there is no mention of “historical discrimination” . The ERA is powerful in its simplicity. Perhaps you are thinkong of the Canadian Charter of Rights which gives everyone equality then takes it away in an exemption clause such as the one you mention. I beleive the ERA does not have any “notwithstanding” clauses, if it did there would be no equality. If Equality is not absolute, it is inequality.

    • Sandy0

      Nope, mark. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states:
      “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”(gender)

      Nothing here about historical discrimination being allowed.


    I am very pleased about this new development. But one thing saddens me. What happened to the notion that the MRM should have nothing to do with politics? These principles do sound awefully “libertarian” to me.
    Does this mean that the MRM has transcended emotions and is now investing in clear principles of right and wrong? What if PZ Myers wanted to belong? What could we offer to someone as stupendously bright and complex as PZ Myers?

    • Suzanne McCarley

      I should thin PZ would be welcome if he could comprehend the nature of “equal” rights.

    • tallwheel

      I don’t see anything libertarian about asking for an absolute guarantee of protection from discrimination based on sex under the constitution of the U.S.

  • All Contraire

    Re: the concerns of “Rog in reply to Paul Elam” (expressed in an earlier ‘comment’ above) that the ERA might itself be amended with exceptional language similar to Canada’s to retain the feminist’s unfair advantages and exemptions such as VAWA and Title IX. But that can’t be done here without starting the amendment process all over again from scratch. Hard to credit in today’s sharply divided ‘at each other’s throats’ Congress.

    Actually, as set forth in Wikipedia, legal and constitutional authorities maintain that the original ERA *as worded* remains on hold for adoption; that, in effect, the earlier thirty-five State Ratifications out of the thirty-eight total needed are still valid. These scholars assert with sound precedent that the amendment merely remains in abeyance from where it stalled in the 1970s and only waits on passage by three (or six**) more state legislatures.

    In other words, if this argument is accepted, then the Equal Rights Amendment as currently worded is only three State Legislative Ratifications short of adoption.

    There is precedent in the Twenty-seventh Amendment which was originally passed out of Congress in 1789 but not ratified by the last of the three-fourths of State Legislatures required for adoption until 1992––202 years later!

    ** Three states rescinded their original votes to approve the ERA. But many legal scholars argue that the Constitution does not allow a state once it has ratified an amendment to rescind its passage.



    Apprently 2 people either fail understand sarcasm, or they hate truth & freedom (libertarian principles)


    There is no question in my mind that this development is a good thing. But the question that I want to raise is… Why did it take so long?
    The powers that be share a consensus. The consensus is that less freedom and less truth would benefit the average person and the society. Most people support agree with this consensus, but usually because they don’t think of themselves as being one of those ordinary people. Everybody thinks that they are special.
    The rejection of hypocrisy, subjectivity, lies, coercion, and demagogy, is a actually political position. To deny that is absurd.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      The answer to “Why did it take so long?” is “Everybody thinks that they are special.” It’s still a small minority who understand otherwise.

  • Falland

    Getting people to stay focused on our issues is hard enough. I think it is a mistake to begin to morph into something else other than who and what we are. Everybody who pays attention understands that we are about human rights so there is no reason to state the obvious. Besides, it does not roll off the tongue either.

  • dejour

    This is great.

    I think this is also a good page to link to, if you have to parry ridiculous charges that the “men’s movement is about keeping women in servitude.”

    • Sandy0

      The average decent man is not about that.

      It’s really the Republican politicians who seem to want that in the ERA-UNratified states. That’s the sounteastern and some rogue Mormon states and Lots of US Congresspeople from states still living in the 1930s etc.

      I keep trying to console myself when I’m confronted by racism and sexism and other isms in various American states, that This Will Pass. But am constantly riled by all those senseless statements out of certain Congresspeople that prove me wrong…. AMERICA IS STILL A WILDWEST, UNEDUCATED, AND SAVAGE PEOPLE.

      It IS.

      I am now 80 years old and have worked my whole life as a nurse practitioner, bathing every person lovingly and medicating them and rubbing their backs as is natural.

      I just cannot Cannot accept that Others wince at ideas of doing the same. Tennessee Williams once said, “I can bear most anything but unkindness to someone different from me.” That rings through my bones. Can I help it?

  • James Williams

    Men’s Human Rights Movement? – Yes especially the human element. The radfems are loathe to acknowledge men as having rights or being human for that matter.

    As for the ERA? Section 2 gives me most concern. “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article;” This is a ‘coat hanger’ statement that by itself is sound in principle. It is what may be hung on the coat hanger, that’s the rub. What is to be meant by ‘appropriate legislation’? Will it mean less proof that a man raped a woman? Will this be used to force equal numbers of women in board rooms?
    What ‘enforcement’ will be used and for what? Will it mean more severe penalties for men not paying child support?
    If men and women were already treated with equal respect then it would work fine, but I am suspicious about who would influence the finer details of how the ERA gets interpreted.

    • Sandy0


      Labelling those you disagree with as RadFems!!! not bright.

      I am a feminist and so is my husband of 61 years~. I believe that American and ALL males and females, who make up the planet AND the USA, should be equal partners in American dynamics. We are All humans , after all.

      IS THAT RADICAL? You see, everybody I work with for passing the ERA does not fit that category.
      Is Equal Rights for all humans a far-out Idea, a radical idea? Doesn’t sound to my 300 000 members as radical at all. Certainly we are not aiming to take over America or its fine men and boys.

      We are just talking about gender-equal treatment in the USA.
      Is THAT radical?

      Just seems democratic (small d as many are Republican) to us.

      What is your quarrel with That? Truly, we’d be interested in learning that, digesting it and seeing how that meshes or does not mesh with our goals.

      Seriously, am interested. PLEASE expound on how you feel about that:

  • http://none universe

    First thought after reading the article: will what is proposed as being supportive to lead us initially toward it further being more the same old a Some Are More Equal Than Others Clause.
    Advocating for the ERA to those with the influence to enact such measures requires their more being aware of men’s affairs first and therefore the imbalance that feminist advocasy brings. (more work)

    As one lone voice here among the many I’d be content in the challenge toward making men’s issues self-evident enough to negate the ill intent designed, possibly even by the at time founders of ERA but certainly, by the practitioners of the current ‘gender’ zeitgeist. Although that is likely to lead to an ugly protracted slug-fest with further widened divisions.
    But, one more law!?
    However, if one such Amendment reduces to near zero the costly, social/psychological/budgetary/economic/legal, cluster fuck we see now then maybe, just maybe.
    With life, governance, etc. being but a grand experiment with some outcomes unimaginable there’ll be a wait and see period for what happens if this time around this ERA is passed.

    Hey, who woulda thunk it? Whether it be from those dark days of 1923 and up to now – men equal to women? Gu-wan.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      An amendment to the Constitution is not a law, but it does restrict the nature of present and future laws.

      • http://none universe

        Thanks for the clarification Suzanne.

        And to Keyster for the insights.

      • Sandy0

        Nope, Suzanne. ERA just makes most Sex Discrimination justly a violation of the US Constitution.

        And ,it puts American females IN the US Constitution beyond the Right to Vote. Men are, discriminatorally, mentioned in that Contract with American People THIRTY-NINE TIMES (39 TIMES; females 1!) So, how do YOU like being second-class with the rest of America’s citizens???


    • Sandy0

      no NO, the goal is for all Americans to be accorded Gender-equal treatment. male and female alike!

      What’s not to Like ….unless you are a blatant sexist…there are plenty of Those rednecks. Are YOU one?

      If so, YOU lose.

  • keyster

    This is a complex area of Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court already believes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendement protects us, and therefore an ERA is unnecessary.

    The fight is with challenging the Equal Protection Clause on gender equality, not trying to re-establish the ERA…which would take unprecedented political will on the part of a coalition of DC political operatives. Be aware you need at least two-thirds of both the House and Senate to agree to propose an Amendment. Not gonna happen with this Congress.

    In essence you could challenge VAWA under the Equal Protection Clause by taking it to the Supreme Court, but this is obviously a huge and expensive undertaking…assuming they’ll even hear the case, just filing costs a few honeys large.

    Feminist Inc. lacks the political backing to bring back the ERA, and they certianly won’t bring up gender equality under the Equal Protection Clause – because that obviously cuts a little too much both ways. They’re already “skirting” around it through unchallenged legislation…and very busy fighting abortion restrictions.

    You’ll need a small army of very brave Roy Den Hollanders and money, but it’s possible.

    • Sandy0

      SORRY, YOU LOSE, keyster.

      You are outta’ the loop. You need to read more. you NEED TO GET OUT MORE!


      The 14 th amendment (written, for crying out loud, in 1868) was never meant to protect women against men’s greedy selfishness nor in any other way!

      The world has turned. So has America. Even if YOU haven’t and haven’t kept up.

      There is nothing that keeps little girls nor women today from Sex Discrimination except the proposed 91 year old Equal Rights Amendment, still waiting for passage until old goats like you die off. Please, soooon.

  • oldfart

    “you could challenge VAWA under the Equal Protection Clause by taking it to the Supreme Court”

  • Heisenberg

    Stop making so much sense! Don’t you know that common sense and true equality is feminist kryptonite?

  • AntZ

    ERA would solve a hunge number of the problems of men and boys.

    The feminists are now pushing for a new “modified” ERA that only applies to women. They are aware that ERA is a serious danger to their bid for female supremacy. They will fight against ERA with everything that they have.

    • Sandy0

      YOU LIE.

      There’s no “modified” ERA, you liar. I am proud to say I’m feminist, having been married lotsa yrs w/2 children to a fabulously sexy guy because he is objective and SEEs the need for less animosity and more understanding of how American Women AND Men are tortured by societal aims to keep the genders AT WAR!

      I am CRAZY ABOUT HIM. He helps write my feminist speeches before this state’s stupid legislators who believe THAT THE PATH TO MORE STATUS AND HAPPINESS IS BY SCREWING MEN WHO BELIEVE THEM THAT $$$,. STATUS and POWER are the Way to Happiness. !!! We women are wise enuf to know absolutely that The Only Key to Eventual Happiness is to know that A TRUE BLUE COMPANION WHO BELIEVES IN YOU AND SUPPORTS YOU is the Way!

      Everybody else is immature or too stupid until it’s too late! Yes!

  • Daedalus

    Just registered to say I’m 100% behind you on the ERA.

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Welcome Daedalus.

      Apparently in ancient Greek your name reads “Δαίδαλος”.

      That writing looks gibberish to me but your message is clear as it is wise.

    • Sandy0

      We 300 000 . ,members of the National Equal Rights Amendmendment Alliance Inc IS WITH YOU,Daedaus. even tho you post semi=anonymously.

      Can you be courageous enuf like the rest of us, to just post yr REAL name? Some of these jerks posting here Do NOT have that courage! (but blast off as is their fake-testorsterone courage is enuf) We women catch on to that, and LAUGH laugh laugh at them!

  • Jean Valjean

    This sounds like a beautiful idea but unfortunately I don’t think it will work like you want it to.

    There is already a Constitution with a 4th Amendment guaranteeing us equal protection under the law. This amendment is regularly ignored by the courts and law makers that side on female privilege. How will an ERA limit female privilege?

    Our struggle is and has always been in getting people to understand the systemic injustice and oppression that men face. We are a society that has thought nothing of forcing millions of men to their deaths to achieve political goals.

    That type of bigotry won’t be overcome by an ERA.

    Pursuing ERA will divert a great deal of resources towards a right we already have and will do nothing to stop those rights from being ignored than the amendments that already exist.

    Once achieved we will still be forced to prove to people that we don’t have equal rights. This has always been our struggle and an ERA will not be a silver bullet to achieve it.

    There is no deus ex machina.

    That said, I like the MHRM change, but I think it’s sad we have to remind people that men are humans too.

    • Dean Esmay

      It took almost 100 years from the passage of the 14th amendment for full civil rights for black citizens to be granted. The courts and state legislative trickery stopped much of what was needed from happening. We must thus be realistic.

      Despite widespread conceptions to the contrary, the courts are a terrible ally when it comes to civil rights, and most civil rights gains have historically come through legislation, not through the courts.

      An amendment forcing civil rights, however, would force all three branches of government to re-evaluate a whole lot of special privileges women get, and would force a badly-needed national (and international) conversation. It would not be a magic bullet but it would absolutely force a dialogue and force a number of hands.

      I doubt it would fix everything. Nothing will. There is no silver bullet.

      • Jean Valjean

        And what happens when the feminists amend this amendment to include a provision that allows them to keep all their privileges and which continues the practice of denying that men are disadvantaged?

        You can’t control the dice once they’ve left your hand. If they come up snake eyes then what?

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          “And what happens when the feminists amend this amendment…?”

          Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged…

          Does that answer it?

          • Jean Valjean

            No it doesn’t answer it. We already have those words in our Constitution and they are still being abridged.

            As Rog stated above, the feminist version is different. Do you think they won’t be able to make little additions to this amendment?

            And even if it passed exactly as written it will then come down to what is a “right.”

            Is it a right to have health care or even equal health care?
            Is it a right to have reproductive control?

            We have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and these rights shall not be abridged, and yet they are abridged by the use of a draft and the existence of selective service. Both of which represents the government’s right to strip every man of those rights and make him into a military slave so that women can be protected.

            These issues have come before the courts already by those who wanted to create a dialogue and the courts always found a way to take from men and give to women and call it equality.

          • Sandy0

            Sorry, anonymous valjean—Big Courageous Man!!

            THERE IS NO OTHER ‘FEMINIST VERSION’, YOU DOPE–THE ERA IS NOT A LOOSE SET OF WORKS–IT WAS VOTED FOR IN US CONGRESS IN 1972 but Everyone needs the US CongressMEN who vote with those Old, OLD military sexist birds to make Military Sex Abuse, Sex harassment and RAPE a crime adjudicated BY CIVIL COURTS, not your GoodOlBoys military guys!!!. YOU LOSE.!

            “WOMEN ARE NOT ‘PROTECTED’ BY MEN!” NO. WHO IS IT THAT RAPES 25000YOUNG WOMEN last year AT WILL IN THE MILITARY???? not other women!

            NOPE, it’s these guys afraid of women’s equal treatment under the US Constitution! These snivelling Military dogs are beneath Contempt by society AND MEN AND WOMEN WILL MAKE SURE THEY PAY FOR STALKING, GROPING, TRAFFICKING US LIKE SACKS OF FLOUR!, AND RAPING AND KILLING US!!!

            IF YOU believe that servicewomen could use your”protection”, then Go for IT!

            If you are ONE of those who rape servicewomen who put their lives on the line as you suggest YOU do, then STAND UP AND PROTECT them and stop dissing women everywhere.


          • A. Anthony Villareal

            The gender feminists will lobby for exceptions to the rule just as some lobbyists call for abridgements for most of the constitutional amendments in the US e.g. pro-censorship lobbyists, anti gun control, and so on. I foresee the ideologues to vigorously fight tooth and nail to get their exemption to that law if it ever gets ratified.

          • Paul Elam

            I feared there would be some who do not fully understand the value in the advocacy for the amendment. It runs much deeper than concerns on what feminists might possibly do with it.

          • Sandy0

            SO WHAT?


            IF not, then no way should be using taxpayer $$$$/yours TO “BRING DEMOCRACY TO YOUR country!!””

          • Peter Wright (Tawil)

            “It runs much deeper than concerns on what feminists might possibly do with it.”

            Right. And whether feminists win or lose individual battles takes nothing away from our ultimate aim. It’s how we respond to the ERA that is equally important, giving demonstration of AVfMs newly reiterated direction as a human rights advocacy movement.

            ERA is but one example of what is important to the MHRM, and there will be many other examples to come.

          • A. Anthony Villareal

            Sorry, if I came off that way, Paul. I’m all for the amendment because it is a good idea and supporting makes the statement that we stand for true equality regardless of what the media/fems/politicians say.

        • Sandy0


          There IS not amending allowed to US Congressional legislation that was sent out for the states to VOTE ON! !!

          ERA wording says, since 1943:


          That’s IT , guys. There is NO amending of the ERA now.

          Get Over it, Guys! You have tried most of the usual stupid arguments.

          All are now shot down. Just shut up and let
          ERA take its just course.

          You will love what it does to your sex life, to your wallet, to your partner and her self-esteem AND TO YOUR NATION’S GDP! I guarantee it.

      • Ray

        “Despite widespread conceptions to the contrary, the courts are a terrible ally when it comes to civil rights, and most civil rights gains have historically come through legislation, not through the courts.”

        A good approach is a balanced approach, IMO. That’s also the opinion of one of the most successful MRM attorneys ever, Mr. A. Arguably there’s no one best approach, although lobbying for legislation, and lawsuits, have very dramatic impacts, when successful.

        Advocacy journalism (is there any other kind these days) can influence the opinions of the masses. Street corner activism is also commendable, especially when given wider circulation by follow up reporting on the Internet (citizen journalists). Lecturing, writing books, even tabling all get the MRM word out. I even know a couple of guys who are college instructors, and due to the nature of their courses, are able to present information about male issues in the curriculum.

        Make your own custom bumper stickers at

        MRM Buttons anyone?

        As we used to say at NCFMLA meetings, “You don’t have to do it all, just do something [to advance the MRM].” :-)

    • Sandy0

      NObody of us has yet nor will EVER say that American males are less than Human, dopey Jean Valjean (too chicken to add his REAL name!!!, how accountable is That!)

      We sleep with you, love you, wash our dirty undewear and towels you drop to the floor!!!, keep house for you and are employed so as to add to the family income on top of everything else.

      So What have we American females you married /life with/ or purportedly LOVE, ever DONE TO DESERVE these caustic dismissals as equal human beings ! ? I mean REALLY, YOU BRUTES!

      • Astrokid

        you wash our dirty underwear? You old hag.. you just drop them in the laundry machine invented by men, installed in your home by men, repaired by men.
        You sleep with us.. just as we sleep with you. And you old hag.. I am sure your hubby stopped sleeping with you 50 years ago.
        Stop spamming us, and find a retirement home. YOU BRUTE. LOL

  • HieronymusBraintree

    This is fucking brilliant. Both supporting the ERA and adding “human” to the M(H)RM.

    Watching the feminist response to having their own amendment held against them is bound to be priceless.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      I do not worry about what Congress does with this. What I care about is that MHRAs become internationally known — above the fold — for the effort and that the effort causes the public to think through the question of “equality” and for them to be shocked that MHRAs are pushing the ERA. I want NOISE — lots of it, with great frequency, and of long duration.

      The decision to add the “human” to the label is a perfect one. After all, the word “men” is difficult for many people to differentiate from pack mule, so the redundancy of “men” and “human” helps the indoctrinated public realize:

      “Gee, you know, those men persons are actually, it would seem, human after all.”

      • Sandy0

        OF COURSE, “,MEN DESERVE EQUAL TREATMENT WHICH AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SHOULD ACCORD THE, TOO, ALONG WITH WOMEN”.. Seemingly unkn to them, Males already are mentioned in the nation’s Contract with them–the US Constitution–a full 39 TIMES! American females JUST once

    • Sandy0

      Why, oh, why would you be so incredibly cruel as to delight in finding some very unlikely way to “hold our own amendment–ERA BENEFITS GUYS, TOO, AS WE HAVE HAPPILY DONE FOR 14 F..ING YEARS!


  • Howard Gordan

    Here is what appears on NOW’s webpage. While the statements are laughable (women are discriminated against in healthcare for example), the bottom sentence gives a clue on how they will use and interpret an ERA amendment. They will want to make truck drivers earn the same as the secretaries that work there. We have already seen with VAWA that even though the bill is supposedly gender neutral, it is in no way applied that way.

  • gateman

    I support the ERA though I think it is probably just a clarification of the 14th amendment.

    However the good thing about this push is that it demonstrates that for the first time the MHRM and many women’s groups have found a common purpose (in principle at least). It may help to open up a dialog between the sexes.

    Look at all the women’s groups that are currently pushing for the ERA:

    Feminism has for so long been about creating a war between the sexes. The MHRM and the push for the ERA is all about reconciliation and equality of the sexes. It will force feminists and tradcons to face up to their hypocrisy and the privilege they now enjoy.

    Any person or group that opposes the ERA can only be classified as a bigot.

  • tallwheel

    I can see NOW making more provisions already. “The courts must take caution to avoid misuse of ERA. So-called men’s activists may try to misuse ERA for purposes other than those for which it was intended.”

    Might as well change it to
    “Rights under the law which men have shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of being female;”

    • Robert St. Estephe

      How about the marxist feminists start calling us “so-called humans.” That would work.

      • Sandy0

        STOP being trivialist. WE KNOW you guys are humans. We have married such. I married one wonderful guy 61 years ago, we are both in our 80s. HE UNDERSTANDS that more than half the citizenry being held as Less Than or 2nd Class citizens for eons is WRONG, despite what stale mediaevalism declares.

        What don’t you guys yet understand about democracy that includes everybody INCLUDING AMERICAN FEMALES, little girls, your wife and the rest of the female population which PREDOMINATES STATISTICALLY RIGHT NOW?????

        (I know I started off here trying to convey our Natl ERA Alliance and the Other mainstream femists say about of course including American males as we fight for our gender-equal treatment in supposedly The Exceptionalist (cough, cough) “America”! I am increasingly disgusted at the male responses here that purport to be SO Worried THAT WE AMERICAN FEMALES who are just trying to scramble to equal treatment under the US Constitution, are in some unstated way going to defile American Males. ! Get OVER IT. We LOVE YOU, we feed you, we clean your house and your laundry and bear your children (oo0oooo, the Pain).

        WHAT HAVE WE AMERICAN FEMALES EVER EVER EVER DONE to deserve your paranoid wrath against us declaring our rights to be partners with our males in everything? We are NOT declaring war via ERa. We are JUSt saying we need to be treated as gender-equals!
        HOW HARD is that for American males to accept and why? _it’s ONLY going to increase family income, the GDP BY 9%!!!!!!, cut America’s costs and INCREASE revenues. .,,at absolutely NO NO NO COST to Govt OR TO YOU!

        WHAT THE H…..can you find Wrong with That!~???? sheesh!!!

        • Astrokid

          You old hag.. stop spamming this website. Find a retirement home or something before you slip and fall, and that hip breaks.
          EDIT: Since you wont respond to my earlier comment here, I sent you an email at the address you mentioned only a 100 times.

        • Phillip Folkler

          The issue is simple. Take the VAWA… Women start more than 50% if domestic violence. Cops are instructed to always arrest the man. All in the name of equaLITY

  • Jean Valjean

    I fully understand the value of the amendment, but do you fully understand the risk?

    If we promote an amendment that gains a great deal of support to be passed and then the feminist (as they have wont to do) get it altered at the last hour to suit their purposes and then it gets passed we may find ourselves in a worse position than before.

    Laws are a lot easier to repeal than amendments. If they get an amendment passed that say that men are not a special class or that men aren’t being disenfranchised what are you going to do then?

    • Robert St. Estephe

      I don’t worry. The entire government is a beyond-the-pale corrupt Byzantine mess and we are in for a coming major economic crisis that will change the nation radically in ways hard to control from the top and hard to even predict in detail.

      This “fire with fire” gesture will change public awareness if it gets proper publicity. That is what matters most of all.

      It is gonna screw up the phoney “moral high ground” stance of the fake “war against women” promoters big time. Big time!

      I have started doing something akin to the ERA thing on a micro-level. Whenever possible when in a situation in which I can justify it I request to work with (or be assisted by) a person who has been educated in male issues by a “Male Studies Program” (there are none yet, of course) and if that is not available I request to work with a male. I explain my reasoning by stating that women have been given false stereotypes (backed by fake statistics and false theories, all of which are now definitively discredited or disproven) in their training and education and until the women who have been given faulty information get a chance to correct that error (no fault of their own) I will have to work with men since they at least are more similar (since male and female brains are different) and have a chance of overcoming the falsehoods more easily.

      This gums up the whole bureaucratic and cultural misandric agenda and stuns people who are not ready for it. The misandry machine will simply break down.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        I agree. Even if it were to be passed with pro-feminist alterations, the situation for men can’t get much worse than it already is – without open rebellion, at the very least in the form of a fast-growing male underground economy that further starves the Beast.

        Call their bluff. MHRA follow-through is not going to be the problem feminists think it is. And that is their greatest fear.

      • Sandy0

        Wow! I haven’t another word for your comment than blatantly sexist and assuming a lot of stuff without evidence

        IF I am wrong or if you see it to be a sexists, male-dominated response, then write me?
        I promise to be more level-headed and less bombastic and missing evidence than you and Still hoping you might be willing to put American females’ equal treatment in the US Constitution.

        PS Are you aware that those nations created since WWII that have ALREADY adopted a similary ERA, have already noted a GDP GROWTH OF THEIR NATIONS by BY 9%???a
        America salivates over that.

        …so, tell me Again Why America should not adopt the ERA??????????????????

    • Sandy0

      NO NO and NO! The Equal Rights Amendment CANNOT EVER IN ANY WAY BE CHANGED, AMENDED, ALTERED IN ANY WAY: IT was an amendment passed out by US Congress in 1972, as is, for 38 states’ legislatures to ratify. Now, only THREE states are required to pass the ERA. I am mentoring 7 states as they file ERA ratifications. THIS HAS TAKEN, SO FAR, NINETY=ONE YEARS! How much longer can the majority of Americans sit on the sidelines waiting for Republican legislators in just 3 more states to decide that American females require and deserve human-equal treatment with American Males??? That is all we ask. Not to do anything TO them, the male==WE Love them!

      ERA is just a CONSTITIONAL amendment to assure that American females have gender-equal TREATMENT under the US Constitution!

      WHEREVER did you get That idea? sheesh

      PLEASE, you guys and women, GET IT THRU YOUR HEAD, ERA IS ABOUT LEVELING THE GENDER-EQUAL TREATMENT FIELD FOR American Females as the guys now have it.

      NOTHING MORE! GET OFF YOUR PARANOID pulpit here. We are FOR you and FOR women; it’s NOT an EITHER / OR decision for 3 more legislatures. That is Plain Crazy, get with The Program for All Americans treated equally on the basis of GENDER EQUALITY. How HARD is That?????? email

      Since 1943, the EQual Rights Amendent has stated THIS:





      SANDYO@pASSera.ORG email me. But NO obscenities or Insults, please. We are Ladies trying to Work With YOU.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    If this new MHRA support for ERA story gets real traction (repeated media coverage) the ensuing public debate will have an enormous effect on all.

    The entitled middle (the vast majority sandwiched between gender ideologues and Schlafly traditionalists) will be forced to look at reality. They will shocked at what they learn. They will get upset. They will get confused (since they want their cake and eat it too). There will be rifts. It will be an agonizing five-hanky long term consciousness-raising cat fight. Glorious!

    All that discussion on the lady blogs will quite possibly undermine many — or maybe all — the now orthodox myths and lies and utopian fantasies. There will be desperation in those voices. There will be disunity.

    Divide and conquer.

    Personally I would have been happier had traditionalist approach worked out but we are now way past the mark to have any hope for that. So I embrace most camps of the MHRM [nature (biology) AND nurture (ideology) – and technology too — are the issues, not an either/or proposition]. We need unity — because the wild princess horde needs to be stopped from their looting and vandalism. Unity for us – disunity for the wild princess horde.

    Of course, this is just the opinion of a “so-called human.”

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      So-called human wrote: “They will shocked at what they learn. They will get upset. They will get confused (since they want their cake and eat it too). There will be rifts. It will be an agonizing five-hanky long term consciousness-raising cat fight. Glorious!”

      Yup, great strategy. Bring on the infuriation and noise!

      The ‘H’ fills in the blank space that feminists usually fill with MPRM (P=Patriarchy)… they have had a field day placing men’s “right’s” in inverted commas to make readers assume we want patriarchal oppressor rights. They succeeded. Traditionalists fill in that same blank space with MMRM (M=mule). Dropping the ‘H’ into MRM derails their game.

      Men = pack mule and patriarchal oppressor.
      Human = FTSU

      MHRM dovetails with the Second Wave idea…. in fact is the second wave. Here’s hoping the wave becomes a tsunami that will level the dominant structures of misandry.

      • Sandy0

        Love it! Bring on that ‘tsunami that will level dominant structure of misandry’….actually, I doubt it will be the hooha tsuanmi you anticipate. We do have as many level-headed people , female, as well as males do. YES, we do.
        We are Reallly not crazed idiots, we women!

    • Sandy0

      If you are a male person, so are wee. YOU ARE human, so let’s start there. In our fast-growing feminist groups around the American nation, we are NOT exclusionary. We are Reaching OUT to the average decent male with questions or angers against us to find out how we might find common ground. This is because America, as you may have noticed other, $$$’ed groups without conscience,(ALEC and the Koch Bros etc) are WORKING HARD TO DIVIDE MALE AND FEMALE IN AMERICA, along with promoting HARD other divisions that will work toward Their goals.

      These are NOT our goals in The Equal Rights Amendment Alliance (ERA Inc, for male and female ALIKE).

      I/we very seriously and with good humor ask you to connect with to see if we might join forces for the good of American male and female TOGETHER. We are NOT in this effort for $$$, status, nor power. WE ARE IN THIS TO PROMOTE A CONFLUENCE OF AGREEMENT THAT AMERICAN MALE AND FEMALE INTERESTS are so identical that WE CAN JOIN TOGETHER to bring our country together for the betterment of THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES in Such Large Numbers and Power that

  • Raykyn

    Given the atrocious and discriminatory practices that have flourished under the banner of “equality” to date, am I just being irrationally cynical to find this impending legislative victory underwhelming? It just seems that, rather than rectifying injustice, this will be one more nail in the crudely written Animal Farm dictum: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

    The ACLU endorsement of the amendment reminds me of a pig with a bucket of paint and a brush. It won’t even slow VAWA down, because such legislation is quixotically “equal” in our current political climate. It seems to me that a MRM should be more focused on clarifying what equality means, rather than more misguided appeals to a concept in serious definitional trouble.

    **EDIT: “misguided” above isn’t fair. I mean to say “ineffectual” I think. Apologies.

    • Suzanne McCarley

      Raykyn, that is possible; anything is possible.


      Bringing the debate out into the open will force the apathetic fence-sitting majority to actually *look* at what’s at stake. Feminists will no longer be able to hide the truth from public view, and the media will no longer be able to effectively spread feminist propaganda. And trust me, when advertisers face the possibility of losing control of the money MEN earn, they won’t hesitate to switch sides in a heartbeat.

      All we must do to call attention to feminist lies, is demand real equality. You saw the ruckus created by the Tea Party a few years ago. What do you think will happen when a “new” ideal appeals to roughly half of the population?

  • The Pigman

    A caveat – a couple of years ago i was involved in a discussion about the ERA and someone brought up the idea that feminists might make sure that, if it passes, current forms of sex-specific programs and initiatives would be “grandfathered.” In other words, VAWA and the White House Council on Women and Girls would stay but no male equivalents would be set up.

    • Adam Catalyst

      Interesting. I’d like to think that the “2 year” clause would be indicative of the limitation on any such grandfathering, but who knows what would really happen.

      • Sandy0

        Right! “no one knows what would happen”, BUT WE THINK IT WELL WORTH THE TRY!
        Do you?

    • Sandy0

      We of nonsexist Natl ERA Alliance would not stand still for that–sexism does not belong anywhere in this 21st Century, we believe, and would of course work against that. I /We are constantly working to make Sure that AMERICANMALES as well as Females ARE TREATED EQUALLY IN AMERICAN, in all societal spheres. Can’t see any valid reason why not. Do you? email us at, PLEASE. SO good to hear from you to make sure we are still “thinking outta’ the box” ,

  • Primal

    The ERA is great but not before the Equal Responsibilities Act. Women rape rights from men and force men to shoulder the responsibilities for providing those rights in the first place. Rights are earned through first shouldering responsibilities…and no human right comes for free.

    • Sandy0

      Primal. I can only guess at what you mean so would you be willing to Say to us what responsibilities we women/girls/feminists need to shoulder. We of NationalERA Alliance know, as any thinking individual must, that We Are NOT Perfect, soLet Us Have it, please, at (for which we fight HARD for males’ as well as females’ rights).

      (when we ask for this, we often get sexist antipathy toward us, we who are honestly seeking collaboration…so please do not insult us, but offer collaborative helps. Thanks, CHEERS

  • 98abaile

    I’d be VERY careful about the wording of this; it’s not a great stretch to imagine feminist groups insisting that it equates to equal representation or outcome, not equal opportunity or treatment.

    • Sandy0

      I and we understand that you folks may be wary. Does our theme, Gender-Equal treatment, resonate with you folks? If so, read on, please.

      We are a totally non-sexist, non-profit nonpartisan group. See Who We Are at, esp. “ERA for Men” at page-top. I, myself, have worked since the 1970s for men’s gender-equal treatment as well as womens tho most believe that women, girls take the brunt of sex discrimination. It was either AAUW or YMCA which did a study a couple of years ago that found 1) men did not recognize sex discrimination, even 2) their own.

      I , even though a woman, recognize that and have worked hard, for example, that prostate cancer receive the same $$$ funding that woman’s cancers do, among other discriminations. FAIR IS FAIR, we believe, and focus likewise.

      I,personally, am married to such a fine man that family refers jokingly to him as Sir Charles! I Love Him Dearly.
      It took him 25 years of marriage to me (poor soul) for him to recognize that American females were mostly stuck as 2nd Class Citizens (please, if you would, go to, click on “ERA for Women” to see the basics that American females are denied, though codified in every nation created since WWII acc. to SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). He is a pilot, champion sailor and motorcyclist, and the Light of My Life!

      We think that second class citizenship for Any American stinks! In fact, we think anything and everything that keeps American male and female as adversaries ALSO stinks. OUR belief is that ANYTHING that keeps Americans fragmented, adversarial IS NO GOOD FOR AMERICA’S QUALITY OF LIFE. We agitate Against that and FOR the People, the Voters–we think it is perhaps one of the Ways to Circumvent the Takeover of the Nation by ALEC AND THE KOCH BROTHERS, by the GOP in collusion.

      This is mostly due to my / our conviction that sex discrimination permeates Everything male and female alike. We think of the public as One Body, male And female, but we must fix the horrific Female Thing first. So happy to have your opinion on that so we can discuss it here, ok?

      If you take a tour of, we hope you will understand our Love for Humanity, no matter the gender, etc., and our wish for all to be recognized in the US Constitution for gender-equal treatment which is Really extant (for those who ?? that).

      We would esp. hope that some of you would email us to tell us how YOU feel re gender-disparity related to gender-equality for all, if you would care to do so. We will Not argue; just want to hear from you about that. AND WOULD YOU EMAIL US 300 000 at, PLEASE?

      • Astrokid

        whoa sandy.. what a flurry of posts. Calm down.
        totally “non-sexist, non-partisan” huh? good for you. I have heard feminists say that hundreds of times.
        You have worked since the 70s huh? Now.. what have you feminists DONE for men? You just say things like ‘Patriarchy hurts the menz too’.. and you list off various ways men are uniquely damaged by the gender-laws and social policies.. and you say the solution is Moar feminism. God that sickens me.

        Why are you asking us to email our issues to you? You have been at this since the 70s.. heck.. you website’s ‘ERA for men’ section even lists a bunch of things men uniquely suffer. for e.g

        Child custody: often traditionally goes to the mother in a divorce case just because she is typically assigned to be the better parent for a child, whether that is the case or not.

        Males often have little or no choice in becoming a father if they rely on a woman’s word that she is “on the Pill”.
        Women’s molestation of boys is sometimes not punished by the courts as rigorously. (e.g., Debra LeFevre case)

        And what have feminists done about ANY of these things? Nothing positive. They have opposed Fathers Rights Groups since forever. They work against rebuttable default presumption of shared parenting.
        And Re: women’s discounted sentencing for crimes? They are happy to leverage on ancient chivalrous tendencies (manifest in most men, and enormously so in the GOP that you seem to hate so much) and even lobby for elimination of women’s prisons.

        And what have you done to dissident feminists like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy who raised some of these issues? You hounded them out of the Sisterhood.

        Before you look for any meaningful interaction with us, we need to know what’s your stand on all these abhorrent stuff by feminism. And what exactly you have done about it, since you been at this since the 70s.

  • Daniel Martinez

    In my opinion, the future for men is based on two things:

    1) Into defeat our competitive instincts and to start to take care of each other men.
    2) To stop overprotecting the female gender. I remember the man who forgave Vanja Krajina. That is wrong (as John Theother said), it sends a message “antagonizing men is not a bad thing and has no negative consequences”. Well, it is a bad thing and it should have negative consequences.

    • Sandy0

      We are joyous that We May Actually Be getting Somewhere in attempting to Understand what male and female need to feel compasetic (sp?) Can you bring us closer by explaining what it is that you males need, in general/or specific? Thank you,

  • Astrokid

    I dont know what to make of this post at feministing, by Dani Pettas who has a few articles here at AVFM.
    MRAs attempt rebranding as ‘Men’s Human Rights Activists’
    It starts by painting a negative picture of the MRM with links to SPLC, manboobz, and usage of sensationalist words.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Saw that. At best the opening material could be a subterfuge designed to get members there reading. At worst he is one of them.

      Either way its a win because he introduces the ‘MHRM’ idea to the enemy, which will get the word out that feminists can no longer specify what kinds of ‘rights’ we are seeking… we have specified that ourselves.

      • Sandy0

        Heaven Forfend that we feminists or Women or Girls attempt to impose OUR own ideas on what YOU want to extend as the Rights YOU seek. WE ONLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND–CAN you tell us what those rights are? Please? Betcha we heartily Agree, but do share with us what they are from your point of view, to , as soon as you can, Please, as we believe YOUR point of view needs to be incorporated with OURS, which seriously includes what ever we can learn about YOUR NEEDs Seriously

    • Sandy0

      Please forward what you speak of, as we at Natl ERA Alliance, definitely MUST know of what you speak, PLEASE? Please? Sure do appreciate your help about this.