Rape Culture

At war with regard to rape on university campuses

Let me be clear, I believe we are now officially at war. While one can clearly argue that Men’s Rights have always been under attack in areas of family law and domestic violence, I believe there is a new threat emerging that takes on an even more sense of emergency that men, women in their families, and those concerned about Men’s Rights in general need to start preparing for. I also suspect that this message will be nothing new to regular readers of A Voice For Men (AVfM) and is intended for lurkers and new readers to the site who may still be on the fence about whether to  swallow the blue pill, or red pill.

In the areas of Family Law and Domestic Violence, I will be succinct:

  • For going on a century now, fathers (and women in their families) have been marginalized in their children’s lives via the family courts and seen more as visitors and payment providers that equal parents with equal access even though feminist and the government express than fathers need to get with the program. As many of you know first hand, when we do stand up, we are immediately forced to sit down by the courts, by many mothers, by ideological feminists, and by politicians hell bent on gender politics that drives funding and votes to their agenda. And with this, many groups and entities have found a way to monetize (Title IV-D) this issue for which they are now dependent on to drive programs in the social services arena and their state budgets;
  • Domestic Violence has become an industry, a$500 million dollar industry to be exact, and one that has evolved to an extent that agencies who get federal domestic violence money are dependent on domestic offenders so that said money will continue to flow and fund their agendas and non-profits. In short, professional feminist and politicians will never allow domestic violence to be seen as not a problem because how are they going to use victims to drive fund raising efforts, political agendas, and their ideology? In an effort to do this, a new federal law (VAWA) was enacted to decrease the definition of Domestic Violence so low that it is impossible to not have “victims” that can be used as props and  statistics to drive further funding. And of course, Domestic Violence, despite the fact that the latest reauthorization of VAWA has new gender neutral language, those that use this federal legislation as professionals will never actually let go of the notion that only men initiate violence.

Even with all of the data above, I think we are in a new war which is almost identical to the success of Domestic Violence and VAWA that is beginning to play out across college campuses in an almost simultaneous, coordinated, and planned fashion involving rape. But this new war is a clear step up in the pain that it will cause to men and women in their families. In family law, men have learned to push through their pain and live life, and many continue to live somewhat normal lives as labeled domestic offenders after either a false allegation conviction or conviction that resulted from raising one’s voice, slamming a door, or virtually ANYTHING that causes a woman to FEEL like she is in immediate risk of death or injury.

To be sure, many men on this planet are now considered domestic offenders thanks to VAWA’s lowered definition of violence and ability to gain convictions on “preponderance of the evidence” rather than “innocent until proven guilty”. But, under this new war, it is impossible to live life somewhat normally because the adjudication of rape will certainly require imprisonment.

How I see this Unfolding

Ever since the Department of Education Office Of Civil Right’s “Dear Colleague” letter, universities are scared. On one side of the spectrum, they have the federal government and power of the DOJ looking down their throats, and they have professional feminist on campus telling them that women are being raped by the minute. One cannot overlook the “War On Women” component as well that I believe is driving this war to secure women voters for the future of politicians who pander to women voters.

In short, Universities need to find some damn rapists quick to appease both the radical professional feminist, DOJ, and Department of Education’s Civil Right Division. And make no mistake about it, it will be unsuspecting Men (and your sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers) on campus who will never know this new war has begun until it’s too late unless we find some way of getting this message out in rapid fashion.

  • I believe that we are very close to removing “innocent until proven guilty” and adding “preponderance of the evidence” from University Honor Courts, and I think it is just a matter of time before it hits State Courts;
  • I believe it is just a matter of time before the definition of rape is lowered to include sex with a female while she had any amount of alcohol in her system (even if unknown) and consent was given, or for that matter anytime after consensual sex in which the female FEELS that she probably didn’t want to do that (even if it’s months or years later).

From just this, we will hear from universities, politicians, and feminists that VIOLENT rape statistics have skyrocketed and Congress will develop a “VAWA like” federal law that allocates some figure approaching a billion dollars a year that non-profits will eagerly form over in an effort to secure that funding. And like VAWA and these non-profits, we will need inflated rape statistics to maintain federal funding to continue programs and services that require services to women that most undoubtedly will mean serious employment for feminist.

Please, it’s time to step up your activism!

About Michael Sharron

Michael lives in Eastern NC and is new to the Men's Human Rights Movement. His contributions to AVfM will expose radical feminists in North Carolina and their attacks on Fathers and Women in Paternal Families.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Robert St. Estephe

    AVfM article on fake rape accusations as a literal weapon of war:

    “The original feminazis? Fake rape cases – 1945”

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    Yep, it’s about the money. Gender feminist women, and men, with worthless degrees from universities needed to find employment so Patriarchal privilege and a war on women was invented. Out of that came the Violence Against Women Act, a scam of such magnitude that Ponzi must be rolling over in his grave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

    • Never Blue Again

      “Gender feminist women, and men, with worthless degrees from universities needed to find employment so Patriarchal privilege and a war on women was invented.”

      Precisely ……..

  • http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ Pierce Harlan

    “I believe that we are very close to removing ‘innocent until proven guilty’ . . . .”

    I am sure that the usual suspects reading this blog in the hopes of finding something to complain about will roll their eyes and deem your suggestion to be ludicrous. In fact, it’s a model of understatement. Look at the facts: we are now just .0001 percentage points away from making your assertion a reality on campus. Under the “Dear Colleague” letter’s mandate, if the college disciplinary panel believes it’s even slightly more likely that he did it (which means they can be 49.999% sure that he didn’t do it), they must find him guilty. To change the law to give the parties equal standing would be very easy to do.

    I wish everyone understood this: the ONLY reason we have standards of proof that are not easy to meet when we are talking about depriving someone of an important interest is because it’s important to protect the innocent from being found guilty of something they didn’t do. The standards of proof are high to protect the wrongly accused.

    I also wish everyone understood this: there is no equivalence between finding an innocent man guilty and letter a guilty man go free. The latter is a terrible thing, but it pales in comparison to the former. http://www.cotwa.info/2012/05/barbaric-it-is-worth-risk-to-punish.html

    As for your other assertion — “I believe it is just a matter of time before the definition of rape is lowered to include sex with a female while she had any amount of alcohol in her system” — it’s already happening on some campuses.

    • greg


      Our Armed Fources, All 4 Branches, already teach that if their “If their is ANY Alcohol Involved, She cannot give True Consent”

      What does that mean??

      My Elder Son is 1st year at U of I, Urbana. I need to understand…

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        I trust Pierce will offer an answer when he sees your question, but I will offer my own answer anyway.

        Simply put, there is no longer any such thing for men as sex with a woman that cannot be somehow interpreted as a rape.

        It is just the way things are now. If I were you I would advise my son that any woman he sleeps with could send him to prison, or, if she really lacks anything resembling evidence, she can file against him in an honor court and the chances of his future being destroyed are high.

        I don’t envy you. I would hate to have to deliver that message as a father.

        • http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ Pierce Harlan

          I agree with Paul. And our armed forces make our college campuses seem like male safe havens.

      • Aimee McGee

        The hope is that a blood test would be needed to evidence this, but I suspect a witness saying ‘she had some drinks’ would be enough.
        Simply, tell your boys no sex with anyone who has consumed alcohol. If you are interested in a girl and she has been drinking, escort her home, avoid all come ons, give her your contact details and leave. Date in daylight over coffee…
        My eldest nephew is at a similar stage. It scares me

        • http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=451 dhanu

          “escort her home… give her your contact details…”

          What? That’s kinda like asking for A ticket for a jail-visit.

        • MrStodern

          If the past is any indication, I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that women accusing men of raping them will be required to furnish much proof of their intoxication.

          If I were a brewery, I’d be pretty concerned about such an expansion upon the definition of rape, because there’s no way that’s not going to impact sales of alcohol at some point. As soon as word gets around that fucking a drunk woman will earn you a warrant out for your arrest, if you’re a man, only the most blue pill saps out there are going to be buying women drinks anymore. I guarantee it. The jig will be up at that point.

        • Steveyp333

          not sure I approve of ‘escorting her home’ why would you need or want to do that? seems like some kinda white knight behaviour…

        • Sting Chameleon

          “Escort her home”? Fuck that shit, that’s asking for jail time. Just get out of the premises and ALWAYS BE RECORDING.

    • MrStodern

      It’s pretty damn obvious that the noose is only going to keep getting tighter, that the law is going to keep making it easier and easier to charge and convict men of rape, because it’s not like feminists are going to wake up one day and go: “Oh shit, look everyone! All the rapists are gone! We’re free! We’re safe!” The next logical step is the reversal of presumption of innocence of men accused of rape in state courts. May not be at a federal level right away, but it’s definitely coming, because the pressure feminists put on the gov’t to do something about all the rapists isn’t going to let up any time soon, regardless of conviction rates and such. It’s simply never going to be enough, so the gov’t has to get a lot more aggressive in its efforts to look like it gives a fuck, and, eventually, that means the overturning of the most important tenet of our legal system. It isn’t a ridiculous notion at all, it’s an inevitability.

    • MGTOW-man

      “I also wish everyone understood this: there is no equivalence between finding an innocent man guilty and letter a guilty man go free. The latter is a terrible thing, but it pales in comparison to the former.”

      —Not so fast! You might hurt their feelings! Hurting their feelings is to hurt them physically—so it goes when one’s perceptions of reality have been distorted by their irrational feelings.

      Thus, to them, one woman’s feelings is worth more than all the men in the world!

      Hence, the center of the universe!

      Just WHAT are we really opposing here?

      It IS time to step up our activism.

      We should know, but what can we do? I mean, just how many letters can we write? What more?

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    They’ve been witch-hunting innocent males for more than a decade, but their violence against innocent men is all about growing their power and control over them so they must escalate their witch-hunting – as shown in “Witch-Hunting Males” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu

  • greg


    Thank you.
    I’ve read and agree with all three of your posts.

    I’ve been Alienated from my Sons since 2007, due to False Accusations of DV. Mom says, and that’ s just the the way it is. I’m/ my Sons are well out over 6 figures to the court Whores.

    All men are perpetrators, as of today, of DV. Obama signed it into law. We can’t cause Emotional Distress, or use Unpleasant Speech. S47 can go Scratch.

    VAWA, Cripples every Mother of a Son in America. Their Sons are doing 50yrs, and they don’t know why. Due Process? Constitution?? Bill of Rights?? Myth. Propaganda. Let’s give an Unconstitutional law a great name, Pray that America is Sleeping, and pass it thru. And if your against us, that means that you are “FOR” Violence Against Women.”

    Today at my local YMCA, I ran into a Very Loving Dad, Bigshot in the Youth Baseball Program. He knows me, because my Son Excelled as a Pitcher. (div 1Recruit.) And I know that he has spent over 20 years on Capital Hill. I asked him, ” what does VAWA mean to you??” He didn’t know what the the Hell I was talking about. I spent the next 20 minutes “Educating Him.” I had no Fear or Shame, Despite the fact that these Criminals, who call themselves “Judges”, entered Orders of Protections against me in 2008.

  • Codebuster

    I also wish everyone understood this: there is no equivalence between finding an innocent man guilty and letter a guilty man go free. The latter is a terrible thing, but it pales in comparison to the former.

    Surely the question here has less to do with the moral worth of one over the other than with containing the power of administrations and bureaucracies to oppress the people. When you establish a system based on “preponderance of the evidence”, you set up a framework for unbridled manipulation and control by the state. Based on preponderance of the evidence, if a state or agency wants you, they’ll get you. By contrast, this is much less likely to happen with the presumption of innocence.

    Based on preponderance of the evidence, if feminist administrators at a university or union want you, they’ll get you. By contrast, the presumption of innocence sharply curtails the potential for this kind of abuse of power.

    From a moral standpoint, is it really better to let a guilty man go free than to find an innocent man guilty, or visa versa? To be blunt… who cares? This is a naive question. Shit happens wherever you look, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes you can “learn from the experience” (and I mean this in more ways than one). The moral worth of one perspective over the other is quite secondary to the unbridled oppression of the people that is unleashed when bureaucracies take control in the absence of constraints. “Preponderance of the evidence” provides the likes of Mary Kellett with vastly more freedom to prosecute at will. Forget about the nice, moral glow we get in the empty motherhood slogan “it is better to let a guilty man go free than to find an innocent man guilty.” Is it? Always? Surely that depends on the context, the crime and the culture. When a culture has abused its freedoms, perhaps its people deserve the consequences. Ultimately, what the presumption of innocence is really about is freedom versus tyranny and containing the power of those that rule over us. That’s what the US Constitution was all about, at least in the way that I interpret it… it was never intended as a schmatlzy motherhood statement designed to make us feel all warm and gooey inside.

    The moral question relating to innocence versus guilt is a personal one and a cultural one, and is not really relevant to the interests of self-interested, pompous, legal-eagle careerists… they can choke on their gavels for all I care.

    Yes, I concur with Michael’s article… we are indeed officially at war.

    • MGTOW-man

      “That’s what the US Constitution was all about, at least in the way that I interpret it… it was never intended as a schmatlzy motherhood statement designed to make us feel all warm and gooey inside.”

      —seems I am not the only one paying attention to those kinds of women placing their feelings over most everything else—even factual reality.

  • gateman

    Lets give them what they want.

    If 1/4 of female students on campuses will be raped (as they claim) then it’s high time segregated universities were created.

    Men can have there own place of learning free from distraction and free from the risk of false accusation.

    Moreover women will have their “safe spaces” free from male demons and predators.

    Oh, and these universities should not be funded by taxpayers.

    Bring. It. on.

  • http://ncfathers.wordpress.com Michael Sharron

    This just really scares me. I can see two college age kids at a bar, a few drinks, normal sexual attraction ensues, they leave, and the government puts every ounce of responsibility on the man and zero on the woman to say NO if she says YES. I can see how this will play out – “What do you mean NO, are you not man enough to do this?”, “Whats the matter, you not able to get it up”, “A real man would do this.” – This is way to much responsibility to put on someone that age, and then add imprisonment to the mix?

    • MGTOW-man

      You have encapsulated one of the biggest problems of the feminist movement. Thanks for the warning, I sure hope men heed.

      Why didn’t the men of yesteryear see this coming? DID THEY NOT KNOW WOMEN and how many of them are prone to act and think? Bull! What’s next?!!!!

      I guess one of our next measures of helping men and boys is to somehow get notification to all men of universities that the law has been against them before, but it has been ramped up even more now.

      They deserve for someone to teach them since they probably haven’t had any fathers…or if they did, any fathers with the guts to train their boys to be different and out-smart/circumvent feminist hatred of men.

      I bet fathers/society’s number one, unspoken, and underlying goal STILL is to teach men is how to get laid (get the girl), (so they can be “real” men). Their “worth” is at sake if they do not get them a woman.

      But now, dammed if they do!

      Thus, it is the father’s fault too. They DO know better! YES, they do!

      Perhaps we should have a father’s eye-opener facet to our MHR initiatives.

  • Kukla

    Looks like the Gynastapo have embarked on the Femreich!

  • Lutein

    Vermont is considering legislation to remove visitation or custody rights from rapists.

    “The similarly worded House and Senate bills would allow a family court judge to award permanent sole parental rights and responsibilities to the survivor of rape, if she can provide “clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault.” The rapist is then barred from petitioning the court for custody or visitation rights.

    The legislation would strip rapists of some parental rights, but not of all the responsibilities; they could still be on the hook to pay child support.”


  • SJR64
  • http://sportsdroppingsusa.blogspot.com Sports Droppings

    I’m on board with all that is said here, except the chronological premise. See I was one of the lone voices combating “Rape Crisis” feminism and other gender double standards as a student columnist at the University of Arizona Daily Wildcat in the mid-90s. Keep in mind, Dr. Mary was a UA professor both when she authored the study that is the Magna Carta for rape inflation, and when I was a Poli Sci undergrad.

    See Here http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/old-wildcats/spring95/March/March24,1995/03_1_m.html

    In the pre-blog and social media age if the internet I found few men take public solidarity with me, but some would approach me personally and commend me. That was all the gratification I could expect, and I sojourned for a year creating a record that I hope would inspire future activists who would take up the cause.




    It’s not easy now, but was much harder then.

    Now we are rapidly approaching a critical mass of awareness, and “feminism as flouride” as Dr. Farrell spoke of 21 years ago has an antidote.

    As an aside there was NO WAY I was going to align myself with the traditionalists oafs who constituted the vanguard of the men’s rights movement.Very few of them were like Warren Farrell. They had some ideas that I agreed with, but the undercurrent of their discourse revealed to me that they would jut as soon hurl a racial epithet my way behind my back as they would insult “dem women’s libbers” whose cause I supported (and still do) on reproductive sovereignty. I find no such presence here, and for that I am grateful, and am committed to advancing thought an contributing especially in the realm of sport, where these rape and gender issues often collide (See Duke Lacrosse, Brian Banks, Chamique Holdsclaw, Steve McNair)


  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

    When the situation at last gets as radically BAD as is suggested here, then our lives will be radically simplified. And that means that the imperatives will be radically simplified.

    And in a way that I find difficult to describe, this will be radically liberating for us.

    I only hope that enough men will have the wit and savvy to embrace the radical possibilities in a radically creative way.

    How can I say it? This is going to be fun!

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com ImNotMraBut…

    I keep spotting that two rather important sources/references concerning the Campus Rape Industry keep getting missed and not mentioned.

    Both actually go back to the same source – false rape figures published in Ms Magazine 1987/8 … it’s the origins of the false 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 figures.

    One excellent debunking can be found in:

    The Campus Rape Myth, The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys

    HEATHER MAC DONALD, City Journal 2008 – http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

    “The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

    This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding.”

    The second source is Christina Hoff Summars – Researching the “Rape Culture” of America


    “Across the nation, public universities are spending millions of dollars a year on rapidly growing programs to combat rape. Videos, self-defense classes, and full-time rape educators are commonplace. . . . But the new spending comes at a time when community rape programs-also dependent on tax dollars-are desperately scrambling for money to help populations at much higher risk than college students.”

    Both MacDonald and Summers provide references and Whithering critiques of the Rape Culture Fraud and how so much money has been appropriated by groups for finance and non existent problem. Both identify a pattern of false accounting, academic fraud, emotional blackmail and social hysteria which has been a massive financial fraud upon the US tax payer… and which is till being propagated globally.

    I recommend reading both in full.