Republican chickens come home to roost on VAWA

A future free of VAWA just eliminated.

As most of you would have predicted, The House has passed the Senate version of VAWA, and it will be sent straight to President Obama’s desk where he will undoubtedly sign it into law, maybe before you have a chance to read this.

There is no real story here. Once again the politicians have ignored the science about intimate partner violence, ignored most of the victims, including children, in order to pass a federally sized barrel of feminist pork. They have ensured that for the foreseeable future that the corruption of money and public perception continues, and that sexual ideologues can continue to finance an agenda to destroy families, exert unfettered legal power over men and wantonly enable female abusers of men and children.

Again, there is no story here; no new one, anyway. But there is a lesson, if we are willing to learn it.

For the last several years there have been activists hard at work, trying to lobby the Republican Party to intervene on VAWA insanities and bring the corrupt legislation down. The result has not only been failure, it has actually served to further demonize opposition to VAWA and subsequently etch it deeper into the cement of American political institutions.

The Republicans have inched us closer to making VAWA as American as Mom and apple pie. And it is long past time that we recognize that and act accordingly.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Senate and Congressional Republicans have been educated about the rampant corruption, the financial waste and lack of accountability that pervades VAWA. They have been informed of the sexual bias that runs through the legislation, and how that bias does grievous harm to children and anyone else who might be the victim of female perpetrators. They have been made aware of the lack of services for male victims and the pernicious nature of primary aggressor laws and mandatory arrest polices.

Make no mistake about it, the Republicans that help govern our nation are fully aware that VAWA is nothing more than a cash cow for ideologues and that it operates at the destructive expense of the citizens they have sworn to serve.

But what did they actually do in how they went about “attacking” VAWA? Well, they raised objections to the inclusion of provisions for the GLBT community, illegal immigrants and expanding Native American tribal authority in domestic violence matters.

In effect, they ignored the corruption, the sweeping bias, the Constitutional undermining, the disaffected children and men and instead claimed the three worst and most easily demonized objections to the new version of the legislation. That in part explains why they just dropped all opposition and helped usher in the new version of the bill.

They embraced a trivial trifecta of objections to be cast as their talking points in the media without a single objection. They never even pretended there was anything wrong with the old VAWA, when they knew damn well there was.

It was not a week ago I watched Senator Marco Rubio, the great new Republican hope, on Fox News telling reporters that he would have voted for VAWA without the changes.

Lest anyone forget, the feature image of this article shows an American president signing VAWA into law once before. His name isn’t Clinton.

Indeed, if you take a look around the media at the supposed detractors of VAWA, it reads like a who’s who list of social conservatives, all of whom are insanely intent on raising objections to VAWA so lame and off target that they would need to improve before we could dignify them by calling them laughing stocks.

From the Family Research Council, whose deepest concerns were about the extension of tribal laws.

From Concerned Women for America, who got so lost in echoing feminist rhetoric about domestic violence that I lost interest in reading before I got to any of their supposed objections. For pity sake, Penny Nance was even parroting the one in four rape canard by the time she got to paragraph 3.

Then there is Focus on the Family, who should rename their organization Focus on Abortion:

Now, of course I am not saying that the concerns raised by these organizations, or by some Republicans have no validity. For sure, I am concerned that VAWA incentivizes false accusations as a fast track to a green card. But that is just one of a boatload of other problems with the legislation that Republicans lack the political grit to face.

It is time to stop kissing their asses and recognize they have abdicated their responsibilities to their constituents and to the Constitution and are nothing more than proxy agents for the very ideologues they purport to oppose.

It is time that we wake up to the fact that if there is a political solution to VAWA and legislation like it, it will not come from either of the two mainstream parties.

I am fully aware of what an uphill battle that leaves us with. But an easier slope won’t do us a bit of good if it leads to the top of the wrong hill.

In some of the discussions I have had with Republican supporters, at least those who feel that the Republican Party might be an ally in this fight, I’ve heard it said that we cannot expect them to sacrifice political careers from efforts to oppose VAWA.

I cannot tell you how sick I am of hearing this impotent, mealy-mouthed excuse making. All it amounts to is asking us to rationalize that it is somehow in our interest to place the job security of career cowards ahead of the truth and ahead of the justice we are entitled to demand.

If it takes the sacrifice of political careers to hammer home the truth, then so be it. We have kids still dying for oil. The least we can do is expect the truth from someone whose worst consequence is returning to their fucking law practice.

I know I am speaking idealistically. I know that the men in government now bear no resemblance at all to the men who willingly signed their own death warrants so that America would have a chance to escape tyranny.

But the idea of surrendering to a path without ideals, led by gutless men who do not believe in anything strongly enough to pay a price for it has reached a level of offense in me so heightened that I can no longer stand it.

In the future, the next time VAWA comes up for reauthorization, you will likely see some noise again about ending the legislation. Don’t buy it on its face value. More likely than not, if it is not coming from AVFM, it is a pig in a poke.

We will be working hard here, as we always do, to continue to educate the public in the truth about domestic violence, and domestic violence law.

I will be asking our DV Policy Advisor, Erin Pizzey, to work more closely with us on this issue. Perhaps, though I am not holding my breath, we may find some allies involved in Libertarian politics.

But wherever we start, it will have to be with the truth.

History gives us many examples of where the truth, pounded incessantly into the public’s consciousness can eventually manifest in change. We are even starting to see some of that change in the mentality of people about men’s rights issues.

What we will not gain from, though, is obsequious, politically driven compromise and capitulation. The only result of that you are ever going to see is right around the corner, when President Obama, with the help of the Republican Party, signs VAWA right back into our lives.

  • Typhonblue (Asha James)

    “My sweet princess, Femme, might be a bit feisty son, but if you’re a real man you can handle her. But if you do wrong by her I’ll blow your damn head off with my shotgun.”

  • Me

    Once again the all encompassing and powerful Patriarchy attacks and holds down all women. Wait, what?

  • Mike Buchanan

    Paul, thanks for this analysis. Whenever I see MHRAs exhorting others to lobby their Senator / Congressman / MP / MEP / Whatever, I shake my head with disbelief. Existing politicians have long been a part of the problem – indeed, in some ways they ARE the problem – and can never be a part of the solution. We need to start deposing these damnable career politicians. How to do that will be different in every country. But let’s stop fantasising that these people will EVER willingly listen to MHRA’s reasoned arguments. It never has, and it never will.

    Mike Buchanan


    • Dean Esmay

      On this alone I disagree with you.

      Refusing to raise the issue at all with politicians makes it a certainty they will change nothing at all.

      What is necessary for a politician to do anything of substance is to make that politician fear he may lose his precious seat.

      There in the UK, you are doing the right thing by threatening to play spoiler in an election. If you do it right, even if you don’t win a seat, you will force the major party candidates to address our issues.

      In the US, other tactics will be necessary. But any fool who thinks tying our fate to either of America’s two major parties is a fool indeed; that photo of a smiling George W. Bush proudly signing the 2005 VAWA renewal surrounded by Republican allies who helped make it happen (and Republicans held majority in both houses of our Congress that year by the way) should serve as a stark reminder that anyone who tells you “be nice to the Republicans” is as stark raving loony as anyone who says “be nice to the Democrats.”

      No. Praise anyone who stands on the right side of civil rights, and damn anyone who doesn’t. No one who mattered stood up for men or their children here, and damn them to Hell for not doing so.

      But I won’t stop writing or calling my public officials, and I don’t think others should either. But that isn’t the only way we should make our voices heard. We must make them heard by any means necessary.

      • Mike Buchanan

        Dean, I accept – of course – your greater experience in calling and mailing / emailing politicians. I can only question the implied – but perfectly reasonable – premise behind such efforts, which I believe is along the lines of, ‘I’ve made an effort to provide serious evidence to Mr/Ms/Mrs X, so Mr/Ms/Mrs X will take it seriously’. My experience (as a former Conservative party consultant, 2006-8) of seeking to engage with a Conservative-led coalition government over the past 12 months tells me the EXACT opposite. Evidence which conflicts with an administration’s preferred policy direction – without high public exposure, anyway – has NO impact on administrations. None. Nada. Zip. Please email me at if you want my evidence for this assertion. Of course I accept AVfM has a far higher profile than I have, so maybe my analysis is flawed due to this.

        An off-message Conservative MP (a depressingly endangered species these days) informed me earlier this week that he receives 2,000+ letters and emails per week, and 99% of what campaigners send him is, in consequence, ‘utterly meaningless white noise’. He also said that he received vastly more material from feminists than from anti-feminists so even if he DID look at what campaigners sent him, we’d still be the losers.

        My hunch is that Americans politicians, more driven by the Protestant work ethic than British politicians (or French politicians haha – and I say that as a Francophile) rmust receive more communications from campaigners, and must therefore read a lower % of them, than British politicians.

        I think we’re in need of a reality check here. I don’t claim to have a solution for the US or other countries. But we’re starting to make waves in the curious old democracy that is the United KIngdom.

        Onwards and upwards!

        Mike Buchanan

        (and the women who love them)

        • John A

          Mike, it’s only one prong of the attack, but don’t just write, go in and see your rep in person. Here in Australia, you can make an appointment and see your Federal, State and local reps. If nothing else you plant a seed in their minds, not a quick fix or anywhere near complete, but it does contribute.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Thanks John, but I’m honestly not sure ‘it does contribute’. Politicians will make you FEEL it does, but my view is that until you threaten their livelihoods, by possibly unseating them, all they hear is, ‘Blah, blah, blah’. Before and after you met them they’d have not the slightest problem agreeing with feminist campaigners that they need to fight the age-old patriarchy. After their ‘working’ days career politicians go to wherever they go – a cave, in which they hang upside down? – recalling eight hours of ‘Blah, blah, blah’, and we’ve got nowhere.

        • Dean Esmay

          My last Congressman was very good about answering his email and responding to whatever I wrote about staking out his position clearly. One of my two Senators is sort of good at this, the other is atrocious.

          I do not believe letter writing all by itself is enough. At all. I just don’t believe it’s a complete waste of time either. I happen to know that politicians who are privately sympathetic–in both America’s parties–do exist. They need motivation. There’s more than one way to motivate. All are needed.

        • Aimee McGee

          Mike, my local MP (a conservative in a very conservative rural constituency) actively abstained from the vote on gay marriage. I know the ‘anti’ camp had put up a real protest effort to him, however there was a small group of us who wrote pointing out this was not just an issue of gay rights, it was also an issue of religious freedom as the faith groups who wish to celebrate same sex unions do not wish to enforce this on others.
          I’m looking to a blanket mailing campaign to the House of Lords next – arranging it within our Area Meeting.
          I suspect we swayed his vote – an abstaining was his way of acknowledging that he could not vote one way or other and represent his constituency

          • Mike Buchanan

            Thanks Aimee, but I’m sure all MPs got letters of the sort you sent, yet the vast majority of them voted on the Bill. My hunch is your particular MP abstained out of recognition of public feeling, regardless of any letters received. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there’s an ‘opportunity cost’ implicit in writing letters etc. The time spent could have been spent doing something actively political, which was one of our reasons for forming a political party.

      • TigerMan

        I’m kind of more on Mike’s take on this issue as it happens. All the mainstream political parties on both sides of the pond have consistently demonstrated their total lack of giving a fuck about men’s and boys issues. They continue to ignore our issues because men in general allow them to get away with it i.e. they keep voting these assholes in!
        I honestly think that since AVFM’s position is apolitical we go one step further and make it explicit by making it a goal to inform all men that none of the mainstream parties represent men’s interests. A series of factsheets could then be produced which highlights the track record (or lack of it) of the main parties and how they have trampled on men and boys rights.
        Our recommendation would be to still use the vote we are given but to spoil the paper in every election as a way of saying NONE of the parties on offer represent my interests. Of course this may be controversial with some existing members whom whilst they are happy to keep their politics to themselves to maintain our non partisan stance they might baulk at first at a more explicit denunciation of all mainstream political parties.
        Really though there is nothing to worry about as how one votes is a private matter and therefore our position (if adopted) would be as a recommendation that none of our supporters vote for any of the mainstream parties.
        I think sooner or later a men’s rights groups of some standing has to take such a position because somehow we need to break through the wall of ignorance and indifference that men’s issues count but not one of the mainstream parties that men are voting for give a fuck about our issues. As Fidelbogen might put it we need this fact to become ambient i.e. enough men to become concious of this fact that politicians start to perceive they will lose votes unless they take our concerns onboard and act positively to make the required changes.

      • tamerlame

        Engaging politicians is like begging your master for a favour. The party political system is a fraud, democracy is a myth. Politicians sprout empty platitudes to get elected and then ignore you when in power.

        People have to learn how to live off the grid and break away from the system. The capitalist system makes up compete for female access, it is time for the brotherhood to move past that sort of thing.

    • JJ

      Sorry Dean; though I agree we need to keep up the formality so they know we are here. I have to agree with Mike here.

      They have been tried, measured; and as usual found wanting. As PE said in the article, we have a long hill to climb since the established parties are of no use to us obviously.

      I had an idea a few months back; but I don’t have the ability like you guys do. I will email you and PE and see if you guys can make something of it?

  • Ray

    I mourn over the innocent lives (mostly men and children) that will now be destroyed at the hands of this renewed VAWA. VAWA is EVIL.

    Now more than ever:

    Los Misandry

    Witch-Hunting Males

  • Mark Trueblood

    The men’s human rights movement is best as a non-partisan interest group. And those of us who have one-sided political leanings must avoid putting on rose-colored glasses when looking at our own team.

    • JJ

      To true; we are as bi-partisan as our political opponents both fear. We would accept nothing they do.

      I think they realize that we are not putty in their hands if they actually started doing their jobs. You know they are only slotted to “work” 125 days or so this year?

      They must know that that does not appeal to us in the Men’s Movement. It makes me wonder why we are paying them anything at all with their massive insider trading.

  • Cultural_Expat

    Thanks for the update Paul and all the work you and the AVFM others do. This renewal of VAWA makes me sick. The way men are treated by society makes me sick. The work that you do is important but I sometimes get so very depressed reading about how bad it is (even though I am aware). So if I can’t read all the time and do my own personal communications of the issues then the least I can do is get on the monthly subscription plan which i just did. Keep up the good work no matter where it leads…it is truth and for that alone it is valuable!

  • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    Standing ovation.

  • donzaloog

    Fucking cowards in government. Never expect to do anything other than take the easy way out.

    • Ray

      I think the time has come for good men and women of all persuasions to make T-shirts, buttons, signs, etc. that say, “The Enemy of VAWA is My Friend,” then wear that saying in all political settings: left, right and center. The evil that is VAWA dwarfs most other differences.

      Perhaps another good slogan would be: “VAWA, disrespects all human rights.”

      I’ve had one friend tell me, “Nobody knows what VAWA is.” I replied, “then let them learn.”

  • Typhonblue (Asha James)

    Hmm… Here’s what SAVE has to say about it:

    “WASHINGTON / March 1, 2013 – SAVE, a leading victim-rights organization, is applauding the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act which includes a new mandate for inclusive services.”

    If the new version is inclusive, as SAVE seems to think, perhaps what needs to happen now is holding the government’s proverbial feet to the fire.

    • Paul Elam

      Pure hogwash. The only way men have been included in VAWA is if they are homosexual. It still denies the existence of female perpetrators, and since gay men are less likely than straight to have children, it leaves almost all the children out of protection when the victim is male.

      VAWA is no more gender diverse than it ever was. SAVE is just playing politics.

      Applauding the passage of this act is despicable.

    • Dean Esmay

      Small victory in that some violent lesbiand will cause some cognitive dissonance now and then. Small solace.

      • Paul Elam

        Not for long. This bill is a windfall for violent lesbians. Since only men are perpetrators, no one gets prosecuted. And the victim can still get services because she is she. How ya gonna beat that!

        • Ray

          Yep, as in L.A., prosecutors will continue to cherry pick cases prosecuting males so they can continue to say “95% of domestic violence is committed by males.” Even when there’s no evidence, police and their ride-along, feminist trained d.v. advocates will manufacture it to fit the gender feminist ideology.

          In the meantime, evidence of women’s violence will be overlooked, destroyed and excused.

          Men, families and children will be destroyed in the name of gender feminist ideology (gender based violence – man bad/woman good). The war on all things male has taken on ghastly ominous proportions.

        • JJ

          Yup, you hit the nail on the head.

          I have not bought any of it. Every single military families portion they pass has ties to this legislation through social security or at least reference the basic tenets of VAWA.

          Check portion (h) towards the bottom of this wonderful “Ex-Spouses” regulation.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            OMG! Does that mean what I think it means?

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    What. A. Surprise. Say it ain’t so, Joe! The Republicans passing up the chance to incarcerate more males in For Profit Prisons? “Tough On Crime” guys yearning to preserve The Vote? “If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime” rules yet again.

    Congratulations one and all!

    • Introspectre

      “The Republicans passing up the chance to incarcerate more males in For Profit Prisons?”

      Well said, after all they must preserve their favorite veneer of plausible deniability, in order to justify the fascism of corporations and government engaging in legally justified slavery yet again… sigh.

    • Ray

      “If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime”

      More like, “Even though you didn’t do the crime, you’re gonna do the time.” – Prison Nation USA

      Our politicians’ message to males is pretty clear, “If you can’t enslave them for profit, or kill them in wars, just jail them.”

  • Introspectre

    Big surprise, I guess those, “rightist’s”, claiming that only Republican’s care about men, have enough egg on their faces to bake a souffle right about now, hmm?

  • Mike Buchanan

    Thanks for this. Your analysis has led me to an inescapable conclusion. We need something that’s never existed in the history of the planet, but whose time has clearly come. Patriarchy. I expect feminists will moan but I, for one, can live with that…


      I agree, we almost need a guide on MGTOW, this guide should be a live and flexible document, on the how, what, where, who etc etc.

      Think of it as a 21st century scouts handbook.

      The day men stop throwing men under the bus is when feminism will be stuffed.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        “I agree, we almost need a guide on MGTOW, this guide should be a live and flexible document, on the how, what, where, who etc etc. ”

        I’ve been thinking along similar lines to this. A kind of guidelines for living MGTOW which gets men thinking about how to live a satisfying and sustainable existence whilst withdrawing energy as much as possible from feeding a corrupt military industrial feminist system.
        Going John Galt indeed.
        Now that’s an AVFM radio show I’d tune into pronto to listen to how other guys are doing it.

  • Steveyp333

    You just have to lol at how corrupt politics is sometimes. Not a care in the world about truth or justice just so long as the green keeps coming!

  • Acksiom

    I can explain why this happens, and suggest what to do about it.

  • Rad

    I really think you ought to stick to pushing on the Republicans anyway. There’s really no chance of a third party arising in any significant sense in my opinion, which is not to say that that support would be unwelcome.

    The Republican Party gets plunged into further and further chaos each day. Let them lose another election and see how it gets even worse. Whatever they are selling, people are not buying anymore. This leaves a hole that cannot be easily filled by the traditional me-tooing altruism which allows the Democrats to ALWAYS set the agenda in the USA.

    Just like individuals who have piled on the failure, the failure becomes pain that is the motivation to change. In that pain is where ideology becomes doubted, where approaches become re-considered from the ground up. In that pain, the right ideas can prevail — but that have to be there to be seen, and defended consistently.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Eight years ago the Republicans were steam rolling over Democrats to beat the band.

      Now they’re the broken crying wimps, just like the Dems were when smilin’ Bush II was reelected.

      It’s just one big game to these shitbirds.

      I think Americans must be inflicted with short term memory loss. They’re putting something in the water, I swear….

      • Kimski

        They don’t have to spike the water, ’cause they have something far more effective at their disposal.

        They’ve got more than a 100 channels of shit on the TV, which effectively brainwashes any notion of consistency or long term memory out of the viewers, to the point where they value the ‘endevours’ of the rich and famous above their own miserable mediocre lives, and what is happening to them.

        The romans had their games and gladiators, the greek had their olympics and war heroes, and the whole system has been tried out and perfected throughout history.

        The biggest problem with the concept of democracy is the fact that it seems to be attracting a certain type of spineless, snivelling, corrupt, and power mad people, who will rather lie and cheat their way through their careers, than actually attempt to live up to the promises their election were based upon.

        We had a danish entertainer a couple of years back who knew how little those promises meants, and set out to prove it to the average voter.
        He decided to run for office with a program promising broader bike trails, sunny wednesdays, and a variety of equally pointless promises. He actually got elected into the danish parlament with the largest amount of personal votes that year.

        His voters were all the people who are sick and tired of the lies coming from professional politicians, and who suddenly had this opportunity to show it to them in spades. But what is more ‘funny’, is the fact that the very few promises he actually made, that had any validity to them, were also the promises he delivered on.

        And therein lies the problem. The game you mention is not about delivering as promised, but about making sure you get reelected, while _seemingly_ giving the public what they think they want, but not what they need.

        Because if they actually gave them what they needed, you can be damned sure that they wouldn’t be reelected.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Kimski, that’s a very sound analysis. Particularly liked the story about the Danish comedian who got elected, and who’d promised sunny Wednesdays – priceless!

          We Brits look with envy at the weather in California, so promising voters similar weather in our manifeso is a must. We’ll promise to set up a Royal Commission after the election, to work out the finer details of how we’ll deliver on the promise. We’re going to be a ‘can do’ party…

          Talking of our manifesto, we’re engaged on a public consultation exercise, with a view to feedback and suggestions influencing our manifesto for the 2015 general election in the UK (and possibly the June 2014 EU election too). I invite all the good people who write articles for AVfM and/or comment on the articles, to contribute to the exercise (link below), anonymously if you wish.

          We’re asking for contributors to donate a minimum of £20 towards the party, but if you explain you’ve seen a reference to the exercise on AVfM, we’ll waive the donation, by way of appreciation for the amazing work done by AVfM. I find AVfM an education every day, both the articles and the comments.

          Donations, however small, would still be grealy appreciated. Political parties inevitably need funds if they’re going to progress, and I’m working full-time to fight the manifestations of feminism with no personal income (all donations go towards campaign costs).

          I look forward to hearing from as many AVfM contributors as possible. Thank you.

          Mike Buchanan

          (and the women who love them)

          • MGTOW-man

            “I find AVfM an education every day, both the articles and the comments.”

            —I couldn’t agree more. Even if one does not always agree or is accepted universally by the site, we are learning and we are educating. I routinely share the wonders of this site with many people, men and women.

            Personal activism: Little by little.

            I have actually overheard some “coffee shop” comments that reflect positive things about this site. I’ve also heard lies, misunderstanding, bigotry, and oblivion, but even those bad things they do and say about us bring attention to the site.


            Let the viewers decide, once they get here, which is exactly why “fembotulists” (to borrow one of your root words—which is sooo on-point) want us shut down, drooling over having us censored.

            AVfM is an education. We do not all say exactly the same things, have the same expertise, contacts, qualms, diplomacy and delivery, but we are on the same side overall, and we all share in passion for wanting things changed to be right.

            And it is an education! Hooray!

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Does anyone remember how aghast everyone was right after Obama was elected, when the Democrats came into power yet STILL rolled over with legs in the air for Republicans?

          Now Republicans are rolling over with legs in the air for Democrats.

          “No tax increases for the rich Republicans, renew VAWA for the pandering Democrats”.

          Puppets on the left, puppets on the right – same guy in the middle.

    • Paul Elam

      Oh, I agree. I just think we need to add a little boot to the push. :)

    • Ray

      I think a big problem for us is still our lack of numbers, and our lack of presence in the mainstream culture’s awareness. It would be nice to get our issues out to an even wider audience.

      I dabbled a little earlier this semester in screenwriting. Wouldn’t it be great if some TV network did a consciousness raising sitcom about some young kids in college and one of them was an MRA?

      It’s a situation rife with possibilities, i.e., MRA’s two roommates bring over their snooty feminist girlfriends for a V-day cookie bake, but mischievous MRA puts laxative in the cookie dough. Cut to scene of Women’s Studies teacher running in hallway for bathroom, but collides with the football coach and loses it. Football coach shouts out in disgust, “I never cease to be amazed at the new ways you come up with to drive men away.” Hmm.

      Or, feminists have a candle light vigil for rape victims, but MRA pulls a fire alarm in the building next to the candle light vigil, when a Chem lab experiment ignites. Fire dept. shows up and hoses down feminists and cites them for arson.

      Feminists then picket the firehouse, protesting it as a disproportionately male bastion of misogyny. Feminist are hosed again, when a fire call comes in and they refuse to get out of way of fire truck. Fire turns out to be in their college’s girl’s dormitory, where girls are shouting hoots and catcalls at the manly firemen coming to their rescue.

      You could certainly do several seasons with the issues and situations we’ve all seen.

      Imagine the exchanges between MRA and a wacky feminist propagandist.

      Feminist: Women earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.

      MRA: And exactly what’s holding your lazy butt back from earning the other 23 cents?

      Feminists: You said, “butt,” that’s sexual harassment.

      MRA: And getting paid the same as a man while working less isn’t? Thank you Karlita Marx.

      Feminist: One in 4 women will be the victim of rape or sexual assault in their lifetimes.

      MRA: One out of 1 men will be the victim of feminist lies in their lifetime, but hey, don’t let hearing the truth muffle your cowbell. At least we know where you are when your bellowing.

      Yea, I’m dreaming. It would never get on the air in PC Hollywood.

      I’ve looked for some good animation software, and have seen some interesting sites online, but would like to find one that works well, looks realistic, and is easy to script. Most of the stuff I’ve seen is kind of clunky in the motion of the characters and the words they speak aren’t very clear.

      • TigerMan

        This is something I positively LONG for i.e. to see TV shows openly lampooning feminists and preferably at the hands of a well informed MRA. Finding TV shows and movies that I can watch often takes a lot of searching as 99% of the output is distinctly pro-feminist and that includes shows that were once aimed primarily at men.
        I have a very low tolerance for shows that portray a twenties something female weighing say 104 lbs knocking the shit out of a guy weighing 180 lbs plus and often without breaking into a sweat. It’s like here ya go girls a nice bit of misandry for you because we can. I simply cannot lose myself in such shows because the pandering manipulation and the button pushing is just too fkn obvious to ignore! Currently I have nothing left to watch and reviewing all the new TV shows coming out of late there are even less than ever that are watch-able.
        The only refuge is “reality” shows like “Pawn Stars” etc but as for the rest almost all shows coming out are either targeted directly at women and even when not women HAVE to have dominant roles in there somewhere – we can’t let men forget their place can we?? (ughh).
        My TV sits unused most of the time except when I am using it as the monitor for my Nintendo wii console.
        So yes we need a few millionaires to step up and make some independent productions – not only male friendly but shows similar to the one you envisioned portraying feminists getting the comeuppances they so richly deserve. I am sure it won’t be just MRA’s who would watch such shows but also a vast army of men yearning for meatier broth than the pissed in soup they have been dished up for the last couple of decades or so.


    Your average stupid, gutless, male is the problem, busy throwing the next male under the bus so he can buy more stuff he does not need, get that promotion, get that girl, men are their own worst enemy.

    We really need a section on bad male behavior, time to start looking in our own backyard boys.

    • TigerMan

      The zetas and the betas need to overthrow the alphas and it could be done – the alphas have more power but zetas and betas are far more numerous! One way to engage in this would be to produce media mocking alpha male behaviour and showing how in fact this behaviour is encouraged and manipulated by the hypergamic portion of the female population. Alpha’s have to go anyway as they do not respect that every individual is a sovereign unto themselves. A zeta on the other hand has the courage to go against a toxic consensus in the pursuit of their individuality and humanity and thus they regain their natural dignity which is it’s own reward. :)

    • thenumberofthebeast

      This is my first time commenting and I just wanted to say that your comment about gutless men is completely true. I never gave those cowards permission to speak on my behalf as a man.The fact is “men” are as much to blame as women. They absolutely have thrown us under the bus. Government has done so as well. I live my life knowing that it basically has no value to society.

      • Ray

        Welcome. Hope grows with every new MHRA.

        • thenumberofthebeast

          Thank you for welcoming me! I am glad to be here!

      • thenumberofthebeast

        I am new to posting on this site but I have visited the site to read its articles before. I could tell everyone the truth about what has happened in my life but I really don’t think anyone would ever believe it in an eternity. There are some things that I know that I have learned in the last seven years but they are very deep. Deeper than anyone could imagine. I know that God cannot be brainwashed and that He listens to reason. The fact is many people don’t see what is happening right now. I’m sorry to say but there is a gender war happening. Men are committing suicide at an alarming rate. It is the 8th leading cause of death for men. For women, it is the 19th. We are dying. Feminism, it seems to me, may be to blame. Feminism benefits women alone. Any “man” who has backed up this ideology is willfully ignorant. I can tell you all that the fact is feminism is nonsense. I know this because a woman invented it. There is an equation to the whole thing that is essentially the same as 2+2=3. They are forcing something that does not work. The entire ideology is/was a house of cards. Yes, it was that fragile. I know that I have read the articles on this site comparing the fight to one man trying to move a mountain. That is not accurate. The whole entire movement can be blown away like dust in the wind with logic. I won’t get into how I know this. It’s basically a wrong equation. There also still exists male culture. At first when some people look, they don’t see it. It is still here. It’s not something that is talked about but in some places the past is still very much alive. The rat pack is immortal!

    • MGTOW-man

      “We really need a section on bad male behavior, time to start looking in our own backyard boys.”

      —Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have said this for a long time now. …and I do think it can be done in a way that men accept the scrutiny—which I think is key to getting and maintaining their attention.

      Change men and you change the world!

  • TigerMan

    Thanks for writing this Paul – not exactly pleasant reading but all the more valuable nonetheless for the home truths it contains. I fully expected VAWA would pass as none of the prior objections I heard about even mentioned men being excluded or victimised by this horridly biased set of programs.
    How many times will the “man in the street” put up with this two fingered salute from our mainstream political parties – every election is like watching herds of fucking lemmings jumping off the cliff!!
    What’s really pathetic is that for many many years I was one of them! :(
    That was then however and this is NOW. From now on all my ballot papers will be spoiled unless that is Mike Buchanon’s party has a candidate standing in my ward :)

  • Jack Day

    I would just like to add a little prospective to this post and the many great comments. While I find this very disheartening, and we may had achieved more than we had wish for regarding some of the points within VAWA for men and boys. I believe the efforts put forth by so many in this movement are very substantial.

    Never before has VAWA received so much delay and controversial opposition. The narrative today is in deep dismissal by many politicians and onlookers alike. This, because of you.

    Realistically, with so much weight and public consensus for what has been well established as the norm, not many who fought so hard against it would have bet it would never have passed in some form.

    I think its important to recognize the significant pressure the MRM has brought to the minds of so many, and while the MRM’s first kick at this can was not as successful as some would like, we should find great motivation in our ability to have achieved so much with so little so early in this game.

    In moving mountains, it’s important to recognize it cannot be done all at once. To do so, we need to find contentment in doing so one shovel full at a time. Today we are able to concede we have not yet moved enough to make claim that the matter moved is significant in terms of the job ahead, but I believe significant ground work and infrastructure has been established to acquire the future success of such monumental projects.

    For me at least, I am very proud of our achievements thus far, and this has only emboldened me to strive further, farther, faster to achieve the goals we have set forth for the future of all men and boys.

    Great job people…

    Now, pass me that pick, will ya!?

    We’re just not done… Yet!.

  • Agent Orange

    Yep..should only take a couple days for Obama to sign it…surrounded by a bevy of smiling female sycophants ready to service him like he is a sultan in a harem. Make sure you watch the press release of the signing….trust me…those feminists will be dripping wet watching him….

    For those of you who care to listen:

  • Stu

    Absolutely shocked, NOT.

    I told you so! And I’ll say that a thousand more times before the tide turns. I’ll say it when the man tax is introduced. I’ll say it when the castrations begin.

    Cheese covered wacky fry anybody?

  • aditya_x

    The passing of VAWA in USA is an ominous sign for things to come. Women in west (and to a large extent everywhere else in the world), are organized as a single coherent entity against a chimera called patriarchy. Feminism being an offshoot of communism ,uses dialectisism as it’s central tenet , where it needs an enemy to collect it’s followers. Paranoia is the lifeblood of any cult, feminism being one makes it a prime candidate. Success of feminists in drafting and legalizing bills like vawa, or the recent bill protecting women(only women , excluding men) against sexual harassment is testament of the level of organization these folks have achieved. They are indeed in an enviable position.

    There is just one problem in this picture, and that would be availability of capital. Like any other form of socialism, feminists need constant injection of capital, to ensure their survival. Communists , or their offshoots have not succeeded in generating capital in any known countries ruled by them. Most European countries are in a state of economic contraction (with the possible exception of Norway , and Germany). A couple of decades later, it truly would be impossible to sustain this Goliath of a machinery of top driven state support. As a citizen of a third world country (India), I have seen this happen before my own eyes, with countless government driven do gooder initiatives bite the dust everytime. Feminists could be mighty, but the laws of economics are even mightier.

    It is inevitable, what goes up , must come down. There is no escaping this. It is sad nonetheless, to see someone you love , or have affection for, to suffer like this, even if they belong to a different gender. Unlike feminists, we do have a heart, contrary to what they say.



  • Primal

    VAWA will die, for good, the moment one or more single-focus groups get serious about killing it. Notice in northern Syria, it’s the disciplined Islamic groups which seem to crack all the really hard nuts. Vision, discipline, and laser-like focus/ single-minded concentration of force get the job in the end.

    That raises the question of what to attack first since there is only limited power to apply. Is Women’s Studies more important than VAWA to shoot down first or vice versa? Are there other more important targets other than GWS or VAWA that need to be placed first in line? What one target is the best to knock down first…so that 100% concentration on that target is possible…that is with the 20% of resources allocated to all-or-nothing battles …while the other 80% is allocated for maintaining ongoing operations?

    After those policy choices are made, the strategic and the tactical games become relatively easy to manage.

  • Ray

    Here’s a little bit of good news on an otherwise dreary news day.

    Not guilty verdict for former Montana quarterback

    “MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) — Jurors deliberated for less than three hours before acquitting a former University of Montana quarterback in a rape trial that has played out amid NCAA and federal investigations into how the city and school respond to rape allegations on campus.”

    The former quarterbacks name is Jordan Johnson and his attorney was David Paoli. That’s funny, I couldn’t find the false rape accuser’s name in the article.

  • All Contraire

    Another large part of why the Republicans caved may be that the most important constituency these pandering male politicians all meekly listen to, and fear! is also their smallest: their mothers, wives and daughters. I’ve always believed most all Elite women identify with feminist aims even if they don’t wear the label sewn inside the back décolletage of their fashionable dresses. It’s not farfetched to imagine Laura Bush standing sternly behind her Texas polecat husband guiding his alcohol addled hand as he signs VAWA.

    Another example: the following first third of Ann Romney’s speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention is pure feminist hokum. Of course, none of the hardships this very rich and privileged horsey-woman aristocrat alleges to ordinary bills-strained workaday women in any way apply to her. Her phony attempts at self-identification with the distaff downstairs class approach ‘ludicrous screed’…

    Ann Romney: “…And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It’s how it is, isn’t it? It’s the moms who have always had to work a little harder to make everything right. It’s the moms of this nation, single, married, widowed, who really hold the country together. We’re the mothers. We’re the wives. We’re the grandmothers. We’re the big sisters. We’re the little sisters and we are the daughters. You know it’s true, don’t you?

    I love you, women!

    You are the ones that have to do a little bit more and you know what it is like to [work] harder to earn the respect you deserve at work and then you come home to help with the book report just because it has to be done. You know what those late-night phone calls with an elderly parent are like, and those long weekend drives just to see how they’re doing. You know the fastest route to the local emergency room and which doctors actually answers the phone call when you call at night; and by the way, I know all about that. You know what it is like to sit in that graduation ceremony and wonder how it was that so many long days turned into years that went by so quickly. You are the best of America.

    You are the hope of America. There would not be an America without you. Tonight, we salute you and sing your praises!

    I am not sure if men really understand this, but I don’t think there is a woman in America who really expects her life to be easy. In our own ways, we all know better. You know what, and that’s fine. We don’t want easy …” Lady Ann stops just short of adding “We are the victims, the abused and downtrodden…”

    Further in her speech she says this about her husband as a young suitor: “He was nervous. Girls like that. It shows the guy’s a little intimidated.”

    And, she adds, “In the storybooks I read, there never were long, long rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once.” Almost sounds like she would have gladly aborted her five Mormon sons for just one adorable ‘you go gurl’ daughter.

    Had Mitt Romney been elected he would have been the first president in over two decades to bring sons into the White House. Of the eight Presidents since JFK (leaving out the brief interregnum of Gerald Ford) all have had daughters, but only three have also had sons. Seems our rulers also exhibit the lower, less virile sperm count increasingly common among men in Western industrialized nations.

    One final point. The no-brain Republicrats shot themselves in the foot on VAWA. All their yearlong+ weak opposition bought them was further branding in the public’s mind of being ‘against women’, a label which they validated by finally passing the Democrat version of the Feminists’ bill anyway, thus further alienating independent women voters who must rightly ask “what was all the Republicans’ long drawn-out fuss about when they just ended up passing the legislation in its most liberal and misandrous form anyway?” And once attention has shifted elsewhere look for the VAWA budget to be furtively fully restored plus added funding…Can’t have any of the DV industry ogres not going about their jobs merrily ruining men’s lives and destroying our families.

  • keyster

    Once again it’s all the Republican’s fault for simply not trying hard enough to stop the The Party of Women from marching on to make America resemble Sweden.

    Both Chuck Grassly and Orin Hatch rather vehemently questioned oversight of the funds – to no avail of course. To oppose VAWA means potential political suicide – it’s like saying “victims of rape shouldn’t be able to have abortions”. At least 87 Republicans had the balls to vote no, (probably those evil Tea Party types). It was more contested and debated than at anytime in it’s history. Shouldn’t we be thankful for that much?

    Where exactly does “Women’s Rights” stand on the Democrat platform? Rather high up, since single women are their largest special interest voting bloc. I’ll say it again, they call themselves “The Party of Women” for a reason.

    Now execting the GOP to spontaneously adopt the moniker “The Party of Men” in response to this egregious inequity of representation – is insane. It’s like imagining the formation of a “white men’s congressional caucus”, even though a black and women’s congressional caucus exists. Oh the outrage!

    My point is, giving up on politics is giving up on the movement, because unfortunately EVERYTHING is political – the women’s movement knew that much. Just because one side doesn’t meet you’re ideal of MRA idealism, doesn’t mean you ignore politics. It’s a nebulous game, it’s not perfect.

    “See everyone, PROOF Rebublicans don’t care about men either, so the whole system is against lil’ old us” diatribes might strike a chord with certian left leaning MRA supporters, but it will also keep the MRHM on the fringes of internet commentary and exposé. Poltical activism is a marathon, not a race.

    • mstewart

      Newsflash, Republicans and Democrats are not the only ideologies. They are actually remarkably similar in their view of human beings as tax slave chattel who exist to die in their wars and enrich their elite banker donors. You are tying yourself to a sinking ship. Embrace voluntarism.

      • keyster

        Yeah, having a debate about the Illuminati and the House of Rothchilds will be really productive for men and boys too.

        • mstewart

          Burn your strawman elsewhere. Elite banks were recently bailed out in this country to the tune of many trillions. Do you know who is on the hook for that? Taxpayers. Do you know who predominantly pays/will pay those taxes? Men. Do you know who supported that bailout? Republicans and Democrats. It wouldn’t have passed without either and both presidential candidates last year supported it. If your understanding of politics is limited to Republicans, Democrats, and the Illuminati, then again, I say embrace voluntarism. Expand your mind past the tax slave system; the parties are helping each other and they exist to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

  • IrieDave

    “The only result of that you are ever going to see is right around the corner, when President Obama, with the help of the Republican Party, signs VAWA right back into our lives.”

    Um, what about all the Democrats in the congress who voted for the bill? 199 out of 200 Democrats voted yes on it.

  • Hf

    So what then, do we just kind of keep pissing in the wind? If we dont get political, then pissing in the wind is pretty much what we’re doing, right? Right?

    If its to be said that neither of the two largest political parties are good for men, can we at least agree that the Deminists are the worst of our choices?

    • Mike Buchanan

      As an Americaphile (and a Francophile… I know, few people are both…), it continues to baffle me that Americans – the most ‘can do’ people on the planet – haven’t yet set up a MHRA political party. Such a party might attract support from social conservatives, both male and female, and funding.

      Are the barriers on forming a party in the US too high? Too high for ‘can do’ people? You don’t need to challenge the parties on a wide front. You just need to challange politicians in marginal seats, where a loss of x votes will mean Democrat y will lose to Republican z, or vice versa. Am I showing a woeful lack of insight into the realities of the American voting system?

      Mike Buchanan


      • Mr. J

        Americans haven’t been “can do” people for decades…..they are people who obsess over other people who play “games”…

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks Mr J. In an effort to demonstrate some Limey ‘can do’ spirit, I’ve just written to David Cameron, our feminist Conservative (!) prime minister, stating our intention to contest the 30 most marginal Conservative seats at the next general election (May 2015):

          I’ve just emailed copies of the letter to all 300+ Conservative MPs. Hopefully some of them will be spluttering over their cups of Early Grey this afternoon.

          I can’t exaggerate how uplifting it is to start engaging with our political enemies – which means virtually all politicians, of course.

          Onwards ands upwards!

          Mike Buchanan

          (and the women who love them)

        • Mike Buchanan

          I’ve been reflecting again on the lack of a political party supporting MHRAs in the States, and a quotation from our wartime premier, Winston Churchill, suddenly occurred to me. Asked to comment on the reluctance of the US to fight in WW2 in the early days, Churchill remarked:

          ‘You can always trust the Americans. In the end they will do the right thing, after they have eliminated all the other possibilities.’

          An American needs to dedicate himself (or herself) full-time to launching and running a political party. Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or woman).

          I’ll even propose a name for the party (no need to thank me):

          A VOICE FOR MEN
          (and the women who love them)

          The website’s already well-established and respected globally…

          As the party gains support, the challenges you currently see will start to melt away, one by one.

          In the words of the Nike ad, JUST DO IT. What do you have to lose? More importantly, what do you have to win? Freedom from feminist supremacist tyranny, nothing less.

          Mike Buchanan

          (and the women who love them)

      • IrieDave

        We don’t need a political party, that’s futile, what the Men’s Rights Movement needs is a political *lobby*. Because that’s what feminism is and there’s nothing to counter it politically. And as long as there’s nothing organized to politically counter feminism it’s agenda will carry on unabated. What politicians care about is money and votes. It’s the way of the world. We have to let it be known that voting against the rights of men and for female privilege will cost them.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks IrieDave. So someone needs to commit to launching and running a political lobbying group (rathjer than a political party) full-time, free of other concerns (e.g. keeping amazing websites like AVfM going). Because when you live and breathe a subject full-time, stuff happens. People will rally to the flag. And the longest journey starts with a single step.

          I guess there must be more than 250 million American men. Is anyone telling me that not ONE of these 250,000,000 people is prepared to commit himself to this challenge? If so, I’ll burn my ‘Americaphile’ badge on a video I’ll ask Paul Elam to post on AVfM. Or maybe I’ll ask Girl Writes What? if she’ll take on the challenge. She’d kick feminist arses – sorry, asses – harder than 99.9% of us could ever hope to do.

          Mike Buchanan

          (and the women who love them)

  • justcasually

    Can someone please tell me where in the VAWA it says that male victims are not recognised? I looked at it briefly and found this description of domestic violence in the Act:

    ‘‘(6) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—The term ‘domestic violence’
    includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

    Doesn’t this mean there is no discrimination? Or is there another definition somewhere of what constitutes a victim?

    Ps not in support of either side at this stage just trying to find facts…

    • TigerMan

      The original language used in VAWA documentation was more obviously sexist and overtly anti-male – since then it was successfully challenged and it was ordered to make the language more gender neutral. Unfortunately that seems to be about as far as it goes. Funding still goes to feminist groups from what I hear and I have yet to hear of a group getting funding for DV shelters for men.

    • Perseus

      First of all, this ‘legislation’ is entirely redundant as everything in it is already thoroughly covered by existing assault laws. Assault is assault is assault, period. Realtionships are immaterial. This fact should be a burning red flag that the bill’s motivations are impure and nefarious.

      Second, see the ‘second set of books’ and the outcomes, dictating how this Jim Crow Law is actually enforced: agressor laws, primary where males are targeted, discriminated against and imprisoned based expressely on there genotype, their sex, for possession of a y chromosome resulting in there average larger physical size (whatever ‘size’ means) as compared to females.

  • Clarence

    Mike Buchanan:

    Yes, I’m going to say and be blunt about it: the procedural and financial hurdles to found a new political party in the US at this time are almost certainly too high unless there is a really, really rich benefactor or pair of benefactors to the MRM (MHRM, whatever) that I’m not aware of.
    Let me explain:
    A. In the US we do not subsidize elections.
    B. The amount of regulation of the broadcast networks when it comes to national elections is low and they are only required to do a very limited amount of reporting.
    C. The Democrats and Republicans (with the exception of a few Libertarian Mayors /congress people here and there, and the occasional ‘independent’ Governor , beholden to none of the recognized parties) are pretty much the only game in town and both are dependent on large donors.
    D. The Presidential debates are run by the two large parties and funded by private corporate sponsors. If they determine ahead of time that you are unlikely to get one percent or more of the nationwide votes, they don’t let you into the ‘debates’. These ‘debates’ are carefully scripted and negotiated as to who will be moderating and what questions can be asked.
    E. Pretty much every state government is dominated , or at least largely composed of one or both of the “Major” parties. Most states won’t let an independent candidate or a 3rd party candidate on the rolls unless they are registered. Registration for parties usually means they had to get at least one percent (and can be higher) of the votes during the last election, for a new party or single candidate it usually means you have to get a signature drive going where 1 percent or more of registered voters say they are likely to join or would vote for you. The rules for obtaining these signatures don’t usually allow for online petitions, and they are usually very stringent as to what types of signatures are required, what information the signers most provide and etc. It can cost alot of time and $ to get someone on your states ballet.
    The current system is set up to benefit the two major parties. Heck, they often do as much as they legally can to screw each other.
    F. Now I’ve talked about States ballot processes so you can run or your party can run for statewide office or governor or whatever. At the national level you have to do this for all 50 states. Yes, to be a Presidential candidate your party (or yourself) has to get you registered in all 50 states. This makes sense because everyone has to be able to vote for you.

    Ok, there are 5 parties in the USA from the last 20 to 40 years that have won at least once in some form of elected office, even if only at the state level.
    The Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and the “Constitutional” party.

    Of the three ‘third parties’ I believe only the libertarians have ever managed to get on the ballots in all 50 states more than once, though they’ve also failed from time to time. I think the Greens MIGHT have done it once. Ross Perot did it when he ran as himself in 1992ish, but he was a man who is almost a billionaire in terms of wealth, and the process has gotten tons more expensive since the early 1990’s.

    It’s hard. Now I agree we should take steps to START forming such a party -right now the two main parties force us to choose constantly between who is less abusive while our erstwhile allies (The Repubs) stab us in the back – but such a project will likely take years and maybe even a decade or two, and might not succeed at all. I’m even more pessimistic, in that I think within 20 years we might not even be having elections any longer.

    • Mike Buchanan

      Clarence, thank you for taking the trouble to provide such a detailed analysis. I am now even more persuaded that an American MHRA party could move mountains. In response to your points:

      A. The situation is the same in the UK, yet we’re taking on the major political parties. And we’re going to stop their anti-male agendas.

      B. Ditto.

      C. Ditto.

      D. Ditto.

      E. Chewing over this – the UK is different.

      F. I believe an American MHRA party would have not the slightest difficulty in attracting candidates for political office in EVERY American state.

      Come on, guys. You kicked our British arses (sorry, asses) about 240 years ago, and that proved to be a REALLY sound move. Does it really take a Limey to suggest you get political, and start to kick feminist arses/asses? Isn’t it time for a new American revolution?

      Mike Buchanan

      (and the women who love them)


  • Clarence

    Mr. Buchanan:
    if I didn’t make it clear enough for you, I’ll throw in a few more things.

    A. As to A, when I say we don’t subsidize elections , it’s also true we don’t put any kind of caps on spending as spending (even by corporations and political action committees) is considered free speech. Thus deep pocket opponents can outspend their opponents in terms of political ads by orders of magnitude.
    Personally there’s only two more things I’d subsidize for everyone: healthcare (with options to get more private insurance) and the voting system. The US does neither.
    B. Are you really claiming that UK TV is as mindless in terms of politics (I know both have things like ‘reality tv’ and such but ALL programming in total?) as American television? Short of the Presidential election night, the 2 to 4 televised election debates and the biyearly congressional elections, the only political stuff on mainstream American tv is two talking heads, usually from the two big parties (99 percent of the time) arguing narrow points over a narrow range of subjects, usually on Sunday morning before football. Libertarians (really except for that ONE election with the Greens where they ran Nader) our only 3rd political party might get an hour or two of coverage in a whole month on all the major networks online and off combined. Yes, it is that bad.
    E. Did I mention the cost of lawsuits if it is decided that you have not properly verified those signatures?
    The Libertarian party is an established party in Maryland, and the Greens are quite strong here too(compared to most states which isn’t really saying much about the Greens being ‘strong’), and the two parties cooperated with each other even though they are probably a good 80 percent out of ideological alignment on most issues. And yet neither ended up on the Maryland ballot in November.
    F. It’s not attracting candidates that is the problem. It is spending the $ and going through the hoops (and some states are much worse than others) to get your gal or guy on the ballet in all 50 states. You imagine people will just give tons of $ to an MRA candidate. Maybe you can ask the US Fathers Rights groups (some of whom have actual lobbyists now after 20 to 30 years) who have won *occasional* victories in local legislatures here and there how hard it is to get money.
    Please remember that no matter how popular a cause may actually be, if the people it appeals to are poor(as many divorced/falsely convicted/sex offenders for stupid or minor stuff are, then they can’t donate very much. Also, I’m trying to tell you: the message is hard to get out because not only does it take money to buy the press, but the press is largely sympathetic to the feminists and traditionalists and the meme of the helpless victim woman/bad man.

    On top of these things, the US has a larger and more problematic gerrymandering regime then you guys over on the pond. It’s bad enough the population is naturally split in terms of geography often by race and income and then you add 30 to 50 years of progressive (leftwing) indoctrination about victim groupings and privilege and how White Men Rule Everything and are All Evil. There IS a reason the Democrats get the “Party of Women” moniker after all – they have the only politically legitimized ‘gender movement’ ever in US history on their side and women (esp young ones) tend to vote SLIGHTLY more for them than for the Repubs. So anyway add all this up and add a loose gerrymandering regime( via the Supreme Court)where districts are redrawn by the winning party after each election and is it any wonder that a city with over half a million people like Baltimore hasn’t had a Republican Mayor(all Democrats) in at least 50 years or a non-Democratic council person(even a GREEN) in at least ten and maybe 20?

    You ignored the recent history lesson I’ve given you. Please do not, no matter what, underestimate the power the libertarians SHOULD have. They DO have wealthy donors, and they draw from two old American traditions: individualism and the ‘don’t tread on me, mind your own business’ outlook. They also have planks that appeal to both the left and right in part (and are often coopted by the two major parties largely for rhetorical purposes), PLUS they are for the decriminalization of large amounts of ‘vices’ that are very popular with people. YET: they haven’t ever elected a President or come close (though they might have, at the margins, affected an election or two, that’s arguable). They have town dogcatchers, some Mayors, and a few congress critters every now and again. I don’t recall their ever being an openly libertarian Governor of a state though I suppose it’s possible. Their real legislative influence is practically non-existent. If this was EASY it would have been done.

    I’m not counseling total hopelessness. I think, with some luck , it would be possible BUT I am cautioning you against expecting much in the next five years even if we started today AND possibly even if William (Bill) Gates was to donate half his fortune. There’s a tremendous educational campaign that still needs to go on (its only in the first stages) and , like it or not, the powers that be here keep making this HARDER to do, not easier.

    P.S. An Addendum. Was curious as to how the Greens did this year and in looking that up I found the Libertarians made it back on the ballot (despite my memory) after all:

    e had fun at the holiday party on December 6. Photos here.

    “As of December 31, 2012 we have 11,675 registered Libertarians in the state. The MdLP became the first “third” party in Maryland to exceed 10,000 registrations as of April 30, 2012.

    We lost the ballot access lawsuit that was argued in the Court of Appeals in early March (other articles: Len Lazarick, Baltimore Sun). Bob Johnston turned in 5,636 raw petition signatures on Monday, August 6 (the state’s deadline). The BoE validated 3,879 of those, bringing our total to 11,113 valid signatures — We are back on the ballot through December 2014!”

    To be fair, Maryland is a very “liberal” state and the LP *while established* isn’t very popular here. There are states where it is a real power in local and sometimes even statewide elections. It’s at the National level where it has never enjoyed any real success, as well as some states that have gotten increasingly ‘leftwing’ due to demographic population shifts.

  • Robert Sides

    A powerful, savvy politician once told me the way for men to create change was to show their numbers (provided their groups were big enough) and appear often in the media.

    By “showing numbers” he meant at big rallies. Pols need to see how many voters espouse pro-male positions. Today, that might mean having a website generating mega-traffic.

    As for media, he meant print and network TV. Now that includes cable news, twitter, etc. Pro-male ideas need to appear regularly on them. Not just to show numbers and keep issues in the public’s mind, but to attract new members.

    And funds.

    So… post-VAWA, what should we do?

    Get college guys involved? Solicit money from rich men wronged by fembotulism? Get donations from “men’s magazines” (the latter needing fundraising taskforces with people who know how to write grants)?

    I’m not sure.

    A big bubble has burst for me. I had at least some hope VAWA wouldn’t became law again. I’d hoped some politicians would have come to their senses. Instead, testicles again ascended. Politically powerful manginas chose to protect even violent women. So male taxes will continue to pay salaries for fembots to spend each minute-hour-day-week-year harming males. I suspect VAWAssholes will also attack AVFM now, for creating a “hostile environment” in the world and making Creampuffs “feel afraid.”

    So…what to do?

    Logic and reason lost out to lying feminists who cried on cue. Entering the new Dark Age, we’ll need new tactics. Stories and evocative images, not just facts and charts.

    For example, we need to SHOW America’s feminist future. The USA might emulate Japan, for example, where young males refuse to become disposable samurai-like salarymen. Instead, they hang out with buddies, play video games, and shag vaginates when the mood strikes. They have no interest in marriage or kids, letting 30-something “singleton” female tycoons take over Tokyo. Why sacrifice themselves for a society that discards them?

    With the latest rape hysteria in the military, Buttercups may not just fly drones in the military, they could do all the other dirty work. That is, guys could just opt out. Why should young guys risk their lives when women get the same pay, meet less (and lesser) standards, and are kept from combat?

    Misandry is pervasive and spreading. Some will fight back, other will withdraw. What should be obvious to all is that political parties are useless. So why bother voting? Governments do what bought-and-paid-for puppets get told to do by “the corporate combine.” Maybe if government shills learn males en masse aren’t going to vote, they may start paying attention.

    Then again, maybe not.

    Maybe if men 30-40 years had gotten off their asses, there would have been a huge MRM presence during the recent VAWA debate. But they didn’t. So the process was dominated by feminists. Just like it is in India and Australia. Like General Kutuzov, maybe we should respond by ceding misandric Moscow to Napoleonettes.

    That is, give up on politicians altogether and concentrate solely on media. After all, it’s said laws merely codify the way people have already agreed to live. Instead of trying to change things via law, we should change people’s minds. More accurately, reach neutral minds and speak to folks who already hate feminism but don’t know AVFM exists.

    Fembots will expect us to respond with anger. They’re like the woman who pokes a finger in her mate’s chest push-push-pushing him, hoping he’ll finally fight back so her VAWA-inspired call to cops will ruin his life. That’s why men should always leave such situations. Pronto. And dump ANY woman who even THINKS about starting emotional-economic-physical shit-tests.

    Instead of fighting back the expected way, maybe we should “feel the pain,” share it, and admit we’re taken for granted. The suffering and sadness might bring new awareness. And resolve. And strategies.

    In any case, talking to politicians is a waste of time. As is “dialoguing” with feminists. Both are lost causes. Both let VAWA pass. Both should be ignored.

    We need to stake out new frontiers away from Pax Femina. Urge men to take better care of ourselves. Rethink their jobs. See how much time is spent trying to impress females. Figure out the minimum needed to fund a good lifestyle.

    VAWA makes the dream of marriage and kids a nightmare. It alsa makes male-female relations dangerous. It will ruin thousands of male lives in college and the military. The question is: How bad will things get before folks wake up?

    The best we can do is to warn men of dangers. The way to do that is via media (mass and otherwise). At this point, IMHO, all other efforts are futile. We need to make politicians come to us, ask for our help. That won’t come until we’re better known, huge, better funded, sought out by reporters. Plus economies will probably need to tank further, marriage rates plunge, infrastructures collapse, and politicians panic. Perhaps the breaking point will only come when the powers-the-be look for men to ride to the rescue and they note millions of male and female MRAs continuing to fish and sew and eat sammiches.

  • gastirad

    Political leaders aren’t listening to the men’s plight in any country, since the seventies.
    And they won’t, as long as female voters will have an absolute majority, thanks to feminism.
    Because women tend to outlive men, there’s a “Voting Gender Gap”
    France: 2,25 million female voters more than male voters
    UK: 1 million
    USA: up to 7 million …. and this gap is increasing, probably by political choice.
    Women gave Obama 55% to Romney’s 43%, a proportion that was unchanged from the president’s lead among women in 2008.
    To get out of this mess, we must make it clear for women that feminism is nothing but a political system contrieved by a tiny bunch to stay in power and that they don’t care for anything, except making huge profits from the messy situation.

  • Robert Sides

    > “The former quarterbacks name is Jordan Johnson and his attorney was David Paoli. That’s funny, I couldn’t find the false rape accuser’s name in the article.”

    This is something we need to change, pronto. SOMEONE knows the accuser’s name. S/he probably doesn’t know about AVFM. So we need to let it be known that we will post an accuser’s name in every rape accusation/trial as a matter of fairness and free speech. That women’s names aren’t cited is a poonani-protecting Patriarchal construct.

    Both names mentioned or neither.

    Same with photos.

  • Stephen O’Brian

    It’s on the tin lid.
    It’s called the Violence against WOMEN Act.
    How didn’t you notice that?

  • TheSandreGuy

    A while back I commented on an article where I wondered about the neutrality about this site. However lately I’ve seen many articles criticizing both political sides and not just one.

    Good job AVFM, I hereby retract my criticism.

    • Paul Elam

      It is not “lately.” Not a thing around here has changed at all.

      It is just likely that your criticism was based on too small a sampling.

      • TheSandreGuy

        Of course that is possible.

        Anyhow, it doesn’t really matter.

  • MGTOW-man

    I am so frustrated with this passing. I wrote my congressman a total of 4 times trying to get him and others to see how wrong it is for them to deny men the same help that women get when attacked by violent people in their lives. Apparently, my efforts fell on deaf ears.

    But another 5 years from now, the act will be up for re-authorization once again. Let us use this time wisely to concentrate on either taking this beast down, or at least get it to protect males, even if there are already assault laws on the books.

    I really liked the comment above (so many, I “lost it”) that said we need to do extreme focusing on taking this thing down. Thus, in order to have the impact we wish for, perhaps a dedicated “committee” can be formed that is super-focused on this bad, bad legislation. We must be willing to change our tactics in order to accomplish our goals.

    And after reading many of the comments for this article, I am more convinced now than ever that WE ARE IN THE MESS WE ARE IN BECAUSE WOMEN ARE LIKE THEY ARE AND MEN ARE LIKE THEY ARE.

    Generalizing, (forgive me) but women clearly do not “get it” because they are constantly subconsciously evaluating and processing every thing in and out of their minds, forcing it through their feelings-“interface-portal”, thus, rendering them subjectively unfit for meaningful, public discourse.

    Also generalizing, but men are stuck in their time-warp, hard-wiring stupor that group-decides that all men must be alike and puts that of pleasing women in front of everything else regardless of how stupid it is and how much it destroys almost everything we know.

    So, we are not going to change women simply because they are too selfish, thus oblivious to know that they are wrong. That leaves us with changing men.

    I believe we can do this, if again, we focus on that specific goal. AVfM is doing excellent pioneering work in this area of badly needed education for men and boys, but we need more.

    So, talk to friends about the plight of men, continue voting and writing lawmakers, put up AVfM stickers and posters, recruit more and more internationally known big names, write books, organize grass root efforts…never, never give up.

    Finally, the greatest threat to our success on the VAWA catastrophe as well as other issues we defend here, is censorship. It is coming.

    Laugh now, weep later.

    Just like at work, where “hostile” work environments, sexual harassment, and other feminist reality-shuffling efforts dominate, so will censorship of our voices eventually prevail because it will be “proven” that men and women who speak out against women (even if they are absolutely correct) create a “hostile environment”.

    Think I am loony? Well, do not hold your breath, thinking that too long. Because by the time you decide to breathe again, censorship will be the law. We will be left with nothing but to take to the streets. etc. …and even then, we will be vehemently opposed…

    …because both men and women are like they are.

    Change men and you change the world.

    United we stand a chance; divided we WILL BE erased.

  • JGteMolder

    The US needs a third political party; a massive one that can compete with the Democrats and the Republicans.

    Without it; nothing will ever change. The Ds and Rs are in cahoots anyway.

  • gastirad

    in reply to MGTOW-man
    “Men and Women are like they are”
    I’m not so sure.
    I believe men are still more or less the same, but women are not. It comes from a change in laws, and particularly divorce laws.
    Since “No fault divorce” men are giving a good part of their wealth to ex wives, thanks to laws.
    In return, women cast their ballots to elect political leaders who give them that money.
    That’s why all political leaders are féminist, and will never listen to men’s rights.
    Men must understand they are a political minority.

  • Sheldonshells

    Well I guess the fight contiunes then. The efforts of SAVE and RADAR have done great work raising awareness and continue to, so that’s something we can look forward to. But it would be great if there were something more.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Mike Buchanan about forming a political party. One should startup somewhere in North America; It would seem to be the only way to bring a voice to male matters, at least with the current stock of reps. I don’t see why, with the proper consciousness raising and education spreading, we can’t get all the libertarian Ron Paul type people on our side. VAWA clearing tramples over core constitutional protections, civil liberties, and legal rights. With the right awareness spreading, we can reach at least a good number of them. And more people are learning about men’s human rights issues all the time, so awareness is likely to only grow in the coming years, thoughts of censorship aside. But there’s definate potential there for some kind of political party. Definately worth a try.

    • Mike Buchanan

      ‘Cometh the hour, cometh the man.’

      The hour’s cometh, I think we can all agree that. So where’s the man who will cometh? Or the woman, come to that? My hunch is that a woman could make more progress, faster, and be especially appealing to voters of the female persuasion.

      Let me put forward a crazy idea… what’s Sarah Palin doing these days? In February 2010 she uttered one of my favourite American political quotations in recent years:

      ‘President Obama has been in office for a year. I’d like to ask him, “So, Mr President, how’s the hopey, changey stuff been working out?” ‘

      I recall laughing out loud when I heard the lines on my car radio (in the UK).

      Must go now, to get a few hours’ sleep before starting a new day of fighting those pesky feminists.

      • JGteMolder

        >Let me put forward a crazy idea… what’s Sarah Palin
        >doing these days? In February 2010 she uttered one
        >of my favourite American political quotations in recent

        Way too crazy. Sarah Palin is a creationist idiot, a trad con so brainwashed she’ll give the average radical feminist a run for her money. Men are monkeys on the treadmill for her, and they better stay there because god said so.

        You’d have a better shot at Hilary Clinton.

        • Mike Buchanan

          Thanks for that. In my defence I did preface the suggestion with ‘Let me put forward a crazy idea…’ haha. But here’s the thing. Wouldn’t it be useful to have some high-profile person – not necessarily currently connected in any way with the MHRM – at least speak publicity about the scale of feminist lies about statistics etc. Does anyone come to mind? Does this put us right back into neocon territory?

          • JGteMolder

            “Only Nixon could go to China.”

            If you want someone that is high profile now; your best bet to change public opinion, to affect the average person in the street, is to get a liberal democrat to take the red pill. Get an all out feminist to start taking the red pill would be even better; in fact, the stauncher the feminist the better.

            If it’s someone from the conservative camp; the larger the change the average blue-piller will dismiss him or her outright as just the same guy/gal he always was.

            Another reason why I named Hilary Clinton; she would be the ultimate coup. Convince her to take the red pill, to tell everyone that feminism is actually hurting women as well as men; and feminism is just lies, you can’t ask for a bigger PR than that.

            Not that I would go after her even if I was convinced it could be done; that’s because you can’t trust her. Anyone high up in either Democrats or Republicans will not doubt rapidly change your fledging political party into just another puppet for corporations and bankers.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Interesting. Thanks.

          • napocapo69

            Mike, let’s be serious. Who cares of the truth in politics?

          • Mike Buchanan

            A good point, well made!

        • Dean Esmay

          You’re absolutely right. Another conservative challenging feminism? They’ve been at that for 40+ years now, how’s that been working out so far?

          There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative, I respect many conservatives, I’ve learned from many conservative thinkers and writers. But, even though I find the whole left/right dichotomy sloppy and not very precise, I must ask how anyone thinks a bird would fly using only its right wing.

          We need high profile people to take on the gender ideologues who are not already in the conservative camp, otherwise, no one will pay any attention. A conservative coming out against feminism would be a dog-bites-man story at best.

          • Mike Buchanan

            Thanks Dean, good points. Do any people come to mind as possible candidates? And maybe there’s a body of work to be started at some point, specifically explaining to Democrat voters their interests are assaulted by feminists as are Republican voters’ interests? They need to overcome their tribal loyalty, I guess. Maybe feminism impacts even more on Democrat voters than Repuublican voters, given how feminism is presumably a driver of male unemployment in the US, as it certainly is in the UK – almost two-thirds of public sector employees are women, out of seven unemployed people four are men, yet women are officially favoured in public sector recruiting and promotion!

            A final question. Would it be appreciated by you and your estimable readers if I stopped putting in my two cents’ worth about American politics? I probably exhausted your patience long ago, but you’re too polite to say haha!

  • canucanoe2

    Wow, what a bunch of inbred misogynists. I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you try increasing your population by eschewing women and fucking each other. See how that works out. This is a male dominated world and you idiots are whining and crying like petulant babies because THE WOMEN ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP, and that worries all of you little-dicked masculinists. Jeez…

    • Grumpy Old Man

      You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (general attack, ad hominem and general insult (particularly with respect to staff and authors)). [Ref: 3953]

      Additional remarks:

      adjective: disgruntled
      angry or dissatisfied. synonyms: dissatisfied, discontented, aggrieved, resentful, fed up, displeased, unhappy, disappointed, disaffected

    • driversuz

      Thanks for stopping by. Notice you didn’t have the guts to comment on a current article where your idiocy might be challenged. You go play with the other kiddies now, m’kay?