Anne Stevenson

Anne Stevenson: Huffington Post and Public Policy Bigot?

Anne Stevenson, a Huffington Post blogger and public policy consultant, wrote an article back in May of 2012 that I believe every man and every woman related to men needs to read.  I warn you, after reading it,  this article should be the reason you further dig your feet into the sand of the Fathers Right’s/Men’s Human Rights movement.  Anne Stevenson clearly represents the true vitriol that allows sites like the Huffington Post to influence public polices and agendas  clearly designed with gender politics centered around the “All Men Are Bad” mantra.

Before you dismiss this article as a angry, sexist woman who is just blogging to make money by writing salacious articles to drive people to the Huffington Post’s affiliate links,we need to understand who Anne Stevenson is and why she is so dangerous.

Here is her Bio from the Huffington Post:

“Anne Stevenson is a nationally acclaimed writer, policy analyst and advisor. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Tufts University and is in the process of earning her Juris Doctorate. Stevenson’s experience includes working directly with various international, national and local leaders, government offices, law firms, campaigns, and nonprofit organizations to provide support, strategic advice and grant writing services to leaders seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of various publicly funded programs. Her featured interviews and commentary on politics, health and human services, disability rights, gender, employment, housing, and the justice system have appeared in numerous national news outlets and publications, including the Huffington Post, Washington Times, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, US Conference of Mayors, FOX, NECN, and others. Email:


As you can see, Anne Stevenson is not just some blogger.  She is a up and coming star in the radical feminist public policy network that is bound and determined to drive misinformation that will have serious implications for your sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers. This is one lady that we need to keep our eyes on folks.

In compiling this article there were so many words and thoughts to express to A Voice For Men readers of just how insane Stevenson is that I could easily have written for days. Bearing that in mind, it’s not so important what Anne thinks, but that she, and future employers, hears from men and women around the world how her brand of gender politics is a dangerous, destructive game. Her use of  rhetoric and links  to cherry picked statistics, from websites that exist to only to supply “credibility” to her position, is beyond dangerous.

I am asking readers of AVfM to read the article linked at the beginning of this post and then comment with your 4-5 sentence response.  Say what you think the world needs to know about Anne Stevenson and her Huffington Post article.  I will add it to the body of this post. We especially want to hear from women in our movement who have genuine concerns for their sons, brothers, and husbands. Once you have posted your comment and verified that I have added it, please contact Ms. Stevenson at her email address and send her a link to this living, growing document.

Anne Stevenson, Huffington Post, meet the Men’s Human Rights Movement

To Anne Stevenson, the Huffington Post, and future employers of Ms. Stevenson;  We, the readers of A Voice For Men, along with our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers resent and reject the fraudulent claim that only men are perpetrators of domestic violence while only women are victims. This destructive and deceitful propaganda abandons those  men, women and children who are victims of violent women for the sake of gender politics and money.

Your agenda denies every child being hurt by a mother, every husband hurt by a wife, and every woman in a same sex relationship hurt by her partner  while robbing the ability to identify and seek help for all abusers.  For every sick father that gains custody of a child, there is just as likely a sick mother gaining custody of a child. For every male batterer, there is a female batterer. Building public policy around gender stereotypes and politics might help  drive funding or make a name for journalists like Anne Stevenson, but it unnecessarily and callously dismisses those victims who desperately need to see their struggles reflected in our policies and their pain addressed with our compassion.


The time for misleading the public about this very important issue must come to an end. The time for an evidence-based, solution oriented approach is long overdue.

These are the men and women of the Men’s Human Rights Movement, and here are their thoughts on Huffington Post journalist Anne Stevenson:

Greg to Anne Stevenson:

S.47, the VAWA just signed by Obama into law, defines Domestic Violence as “any that causes emotional distress and using unpleasant speech.” Consequently all males are now perpetrators of Domestic Violence. Tell your readers Anne.

Also inform them that females slaughter their children three times more frequently than males.
You need to stop your propaganda Anne, and start speaking the truth.

James says:

What this blogger will never reveal on the Huffington Post is that in regards to who is doing the most Domestic Violence, the object is to to do away with ALL violence, not just the ones that are doing it the most to make a political or public policy statement. To publicize the amount of violence occurring at the hands of Men while overlooking violence from Women tells me that possibly Anne is not about ending violence, she is more interested in politics.

Peter Wright adds:

Have we not seen enough of radical feminism’s program of estrangement and alienation of fathers from families? Anne Stevenson’s new attacks and recommendations for the nation’s fathers would see them estranged from their families at precisely the time when society is working to create more father involvement.

Stevenson’s feminist ideology runs contrary to the attitudes of today’s women and men who have largely disavowed the feminist label due to its more concerning goals. With that in mind I can only assume and hope that Ann Stevenson’s employers and society at large will be mindful of her retrograde mission.

James Huff:

I think it’s telling that Anne Stevenson’s collectivist ideology would actually denounce the Clinton era Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. She is obviously making the attempt to swallow any social justice movement under the banner of feminism, something her sisters-in-arms have been fairly successful with over the last 40 years.

The Feminist MRA writes:

Anne Stevenson’s questionable academic credibility can be summed up in her latest peace on the Huffington Post; “Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children.” Not because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services actually spends more on women’s issues and women utilize more social services and health care then men. Not because statistically the outcomes of custody disputes still favor women significantly more than men. Not because women receive lighter sentences and face less jail time than men. Not even because one of the stories she linked actually detailed that the foster *mother* was responsible for the abuse. Not even because doing away with gender-based funding incentives contradicts her position of supporting women against gender-neutral policies, but because her Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children only had 4 programs listed.

Declan Lyons says:

Having read your article ‘Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children,’ I’m astounded at your failure to not only recognize violence committed by women against men and children, but to also ignore the injustices which have arisen from myopic, gender-biased domestic violence legislation in a legal system which automatically favors mothers above fathers.

I’m talking about the kind of instance where Judge Lori B Jackson saw fit to remove Lt. Col. Joel Kirk’s children from his care and return them to their demonstrably violent mother, Tina Taylor Kirk.

You’ve made it obvious that you don’t hold Men’s safety as a priority, but if you truly care for the safety of children, as your headline suggests, you would be more concerned about violent mothers; who are the most likely people to kill their children.

From Grumpy Old Man:

As a child of the California family court system and father who endured this minefield years later, Anne Stevenson and the Huffington Post article projects a narrow one sided view which she backs up by dated references and Feminist bias. Fathers, mothers and especially children deserve better than what is portrayed here. If we truly want to get a better grasp on caring for our children we need to end this adversarial diatribe, get some people involved who do not have an agenda and move forward.

Says Knight Runner:

Finding an article full of misandry isn’t difficult. However this article wasn’t written by some anonymous blogger on some backwater web forum. This article was written by a person who is highly educated and well respected in her field and posted on the website of a well circulated publication. As such, I find it difficult to believe that she was unaware of her article’s high level of misinformation.

Disorderly Conduct writes:

For decades the feminist movement has held a monopoly over the politics of the left. While much of this power has been used to make legitimate strides towards gender equality, gender feminists like Anne Stevenson have abused it to advance women’s power without regard to the consequences; trampling Men’s rights, perpetuating gender stereotypes and silencing dissenting opinion that speaks out against this injustice. On behalf of all who believe in universal human rights, I urge anyone with the power to do so to deny Anne Stevenson and the Huffington Post the platform to spread her sexism and bigotry.

Suzanne McCarley writes:

I read it twice and I still have no idea what Stevenson meant to convey, beyond a very generic (and rather garbled) “Men are pigs.” I have seen better organized essays from grade school students, and I’m appalled by what Stevenson passes off as “citations.”

The strongest impression I got was that it was intended to test the theory that Huffington Post readers are gullible morons who gobble up any gibberish written by a ‘credentialed’ feminist with a keyboard.

This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel sludge, not remotely resembling journalism, and adhering to a pathetically low standard, even for HuffPo.

Andy Bob on the Huffington Post HHS Article:

A perusal of Anne Stevenson’s resume makes it clear that she is a professional feminist. This should serve as a warning to her readers that Ms Stevenson regards facts as nothing more than tools to be used to fashion a predictable man/bad; woman/good narrative.

Her feminist credentials also indicate that we can expect the usual chilling lack of concern for victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence. She will either haughtily deny the very existence of these victims, or dismiss their significance by relying on the well-worn feminist tactic of pretending that their numbers are negligible. This is a reprehensible lie.

The Men’s Human Rights Movement advocates for the fundamental rights of all people, regardless of sex, race, age, religion or orientation. In order to achieve our goals, it is imperative that the bigotry of feminist ideologues like Anne Stevenson be exposed, and its adherents sidelined from the public discourse on domestic violence as soon as possible, lest the issue be forever bogged down in the mire of corruption and self-serving political agendas.

AVFM Publisher Paul Elam says:

50 years of misguided governance by a system that fails to embrace documented research on domestic violence and instead serves an ideological and monetary agenda has resulted in families and lives destroyed.

Anne Stevenson is clearly on a career path to perpetuate and perhaps worsen the problem. Our families and our children deserve better than this.

The problems of family and intimate partner violence are complex and require thoughtful and informed attention.

Individuals like Anne Stevenson and her ilk are all but broadcasting their intention to exacerbate the problem.


We believe any organization that hires Anne Stevenson will not serve their image well given her efforts to be misleading  about serious public health issues in a way that ultimately brings harm to men, women and children. What her future employers need to realize is that gender politics is a double edged sword. Awareness of the accurate facts regarding domestic violence are finally starting to see the light of day, and a new, more encompassing paradigm, recognizing all victims and perpetrators, is beginning to emerge. We fully believe those organizations that continue to perpetuate destructive myths and ideologically driven agendas will fall on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of public opinion.

AVfM and its growing body of  supporters will be following Anne Stevenson’s work regarding family and intimate partner violence and monitor her public statements and future employers actions very closely. We are  prepared to provide  measured, corrective responses to any further disinformation  on behalf of those men, women and children ignored by her ideology.
A Voice for Men’s editors encourages readers to extensively share this article with others on the major social networking sites in an effort to bring attention to the issues discussed in this article on Anne Stevenson and the Huffington Post.

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

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • ImNotMraBut…

    I honestly am not sure how long it would take to respond fully in a detailed, rational and considered way to Anne Stevenson’s rambling, confused and poorly structured writing. My eyes were popping out at literally every sentence, and I couldn’t find one that was without error. She really is a hate magpie, picking up any shiny thing that catches her eye.

    I was SO “amused” when she started referring to the work of Dr. Robert Hare on Psychopaths, and she started attempting to quote statistical information. Just pulling numbers out of the air and putting them on paper can fool some occasionally – but it does show contempt for you audience (Odd that Stevenson is fully aware that her target audience is other women – so her contempt for them is significant and even clinical). It makes you look very silly taking unrelated stats and joining them up in the hope of inventing a reality. Some are kind enough to call such activity Conflation – but I’m not that kind, Deception is my take on matters.

    The one figure Stevenson failed to quote about Psychopaths is the gendered proportion – Men Vs Women. It’s 1 or parity. Modus operandi may be gendered and influenced by gender, but attempting to gloss over the existence of Female psychopaths by misquoting stats about males is disingenuous.

    It’s fascinating that Stevenson also makes the gross error of assuming and attempting to present the word psychopath as meaning physically violent. If she even looked at the Dr Robert Hare check-list of psychopathic traits, she would have noted that violence is not a diagnostic trait of psychopaths, and it’s only a fool who sees the issue that way. Are Corporate Psychopaths Violent and attacking everyone in the board room? She evidently lacks the capacity to concept check before writing her peculiar and unbalanced views.

    Amusingly, over inflated self worth and believing yourself to be always right and beyond questioning – an authority even on subjects you have no capacity to speak on rationally – those ARE traits of psychopaths, coming under the definitions of 1) Glibness/superficial charm and
    2) Grandiose sense of self-worth. That’s numbers 1 and 2 on the Hare check-list and professional assessment tool in use for 40 years.

    If she had looked up the basics she could have saved herself some embarrassment and even moderated her work to not identify issues.

    It does help to know the subject, and not just scribble dross for self aggrandising attention from sycophants. But then again, a low grade psychopath with a less than excellent IQ and reduced ability to assimilate information would make such mistakes and repeat them on many occasions. Failure to learn and adapt correlates with psychopathy too.

    Does anyone have petard handy that Anne Stevenson can utilise? A boy scout may be useful too as she is unlikely to know how to tie the knots needed for the Hoisting.

    • Michael Sharron

      Great comment, but I am going to keep this one out of the featured section due to length and readability. By not including it in the post is BY NO MEANS an indication of not being worthy as it clearly makes an extremely valid point.

      • ImNotMraBut…

        Oh I do agree with you! P^) I am looking at the rest of her scribbles. Her writing is so irrational and disordered as to defy pithy retort, without her and her defenders just screaming Foul and Nasty, Nasty Men! I’m sure she does not have the intelligence to achieve that deliberately – it’s just her innate way. Irrational and unstructured.

        I’m also looking for either sound recordings or better still video footage to check out her body language and use of intonation. In any event, what I keep finding is at best described as irrational and her resume is also most revealing – the growing gaps show just how professional media types are distancing themselves from her. One has to wonder why! It seems Huffington is to be her last stand.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Can it be shortened or edited? Love the “magpie” analogy, clever indeed.

        • ImNotMraBut…

          It’s very hard to reduce structured analysis of a serious issue such as Psychopathy to compete with an intellectual magpie with such a large nest. I do hope she never gets the option of building near power lines. Seeing a magpie nest short out and flambé the chicks would be tragic – wouldn’t it?

        • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)

          I thought of a dung beetle!

  • Kevin

    If Anne Stevenson is looking at a career as an attorney and possibly even a judge, I shudder to think what will happen if some poor individual winds up in in a courtroom she’s working in/presiding over. Fairness will be a commodity in short supply.

    If her Juris Doc degree is ever used for teaching, you can imagine the young adult minds that will not be equipped to deal with someone who has a few years experience over them in logic and rhetoric. Well, they obviously may very well not even know they should be critical of what they are being spoon-fed.

    Just looking over the comments, there’s quite the choir she’s preaching to. One woman who seems a bit Grammar-ly Challenged asks “how come we don,t just study why men are so in mature .men are allowed to act violent at sports work .why are there man caves?” (SIC)

    I see, so she thinks Men having their own space is a reason for alarm?

    And “Ms.” Stevenson does nothing to dispel such ignorance and myopia, only adds fuel to the fire!

  • Al Woods (TMOTS)

    Wow. There are so many discrepancies within her “report”, one wonders how in the world she could be such a person in demand; supposedly.

    For example, I randomly took one of her links to “a study” on “1000 CA foster homes matching addresses of known sex offenders – 600 being high risk”….

    That “report” shows no such thing. First off, it is a blip article – a really short piece – that call attention to the possibility of, maybes, and what ifs. Literally three paragraphs long. The meat of the supposed “study”? This:

    “The auditor’s office said that three years after it told Social Services officials to begin using the state’s sex offender registry to identify offenders who might be living or working near foster children, the department still wasn’t checking the database.”

    Sure, the claim she (Anne) made in her piece was in fact made in the original “study”, in the first paragraph.

    But nothing is substantiated or even explained. Just a broad claim that supposedly sex offenders may be able to stay at someone’s house that may also be a foster home.

    THE SKY IS FALLING! Daycare hysteria flashbacks anyone?

    Moving on, I took another random link stating that “This report talks about the 1.5 million mothers who say they were “coerced,” “manipulated,” and “duped” into handing over their babies for adoption. ”

    Following the link, I find that first and foremost, it is yet another chicken little-esque article that is so riddled with misinformation, outright bull, and ancient instances to support the pathetic claims made – going back to…. the 1940s. Yep, that’s right.

    But wait! Right in the second paragraph, the sentence states “From Australia to Spain, Ireland to America, and as recent as 1987, young mothers …”

    WOW! So 1987 was the best you could do – or should I say, the originator of the “study” could do. Seriously?

    So Anne uses a “study” on forced adoptions and children being stolen from their mothers (standard) that contains the apparently most recent case 25 years ago it all seemingly happening within an identified timeframe of 1940ish to 1987. NICE!

    Admittedly, other examples, pulled from other countries were dated from the 60’s and 70’s with all the makings of the evil Catholic empire meme thrown in for good measure.

    Eventually, in the original article Anne calls a “study”, remember? – Implying that it is some official governmental report of such nastiness – we do find AMERICAN examples. YAY! Oh wait, 1967? 1969? 1970… 1974?? WTH?

    OK. So Dan Rather is the boob with the antique stories of evil and Anne just used a little journalistic sleight of hand to get her readers into frothing saviors of all that is female. What’s new? Feminist types do that for a living.

    Oh, and I won’t even go into the way Anne is pushing the man=bad/woman=victim garbage yet seems to ignore that the Dan Rather piece appears to point to a good number of women who were executing the forced adoptions/kidnapping stuff that we are supposed to accept as fact because, well, she saw it on the interwebs!

    And that was only TWO LINKS from her cutting edge reporting!


  • ImNotMraBut…

    So she not only lacks the capacity to use statistics in any way recognised by academia, she also can’t count past 4?

  • knightrunner

    Finding an article full of misandry isn’t difficult. However this article wasn’t written by some anonymous blogger on some backwater web forum. This article was written by a person who is highly educated and well respected in her field and posted on the website of a well circulated publication. As such, I find it difficult to believe that she was unaware of her article’s high level of misinformation.

    • Bewildered

      ” This article was written by a person who is highly educated …. ”

      Doesn’t this show that the whole education system needs to be revamped, because she’s not the only one of these ‘highly educated’ people who can write rubbish with a straight face ?

      What can you say of those who regard her highly ?

      ” As such, I find it difficult to believe that she was unaware of her article’s high level of misinformation.”

      Hmm Looks like malice aforethought !

  • JJ

    Whatever planet this lady comes from would make all of Jamaica’s pot dealers jealopus. Because obviously there is no way they could compete with the stuff her planet or alternate universe has got her smoking.

    Where did she get this from:

    “Unlike the welfare programs for women and children which had restrictive income eligibility requirements, HHS Responsible Fatherhood program benefits are not needs based and are available to all fathers-even billionaires. Benefits from Responsible Fatherhood programs to abusers include:

    Child support obligations are suspended

    Free attorney representation in the family courts to fight for custody

    Free housing

    Direct cash incentives

    Free groceries

    Free car maintenance, gas, and other transportation costs

    Free healthcare and dental care”

    Only single mothers get this, not non-custodial dads. You have to be an outright liar, or horrifically naive to believe something like this.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      This sounds like a Parakeet in the Mine post – did she float that outrageous lie just to see if anyone would call her on it?

  • Falcor

    I just wanted to post this comment from the comment section. I find it hilarious.

    From Elizabeth Evely:
    ” how come we don,t just study why men are so in mature .men are allowed to act violent at sports work .why are there man caves ??? boys will be boys .men don,t get there brains together late in life…only reason they get married is because mom kicked him out or died .so they need someone to take care of him so he can go out with the other boys have no self control anymore .we woman let them get away with all kinds of really bad things .we trust them to much .if men could they want 4 girl friend s ..lots of money from them .we woman make it so easy for men to act like heartless creeps have to many un written laws .i could go on forever why men get away with many bad habits “

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Yes, and that was one of the more intelligent posts.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        From her or from HuffPo in general?

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Huffpo. Her article really brought out the loonie tunes.

      • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)

        I bet she is cute and really special! And remember spelln an grammur are tools of the Paytrearky!

        • Kimski

          Ehmm..It’s spesjul, not ‘special’.

          -Daire, fiksed it for yu. 😉

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    I guess the Muffington Post has a united spirit of gathering violent-oriented projection-holding fucktards in their editorial board.
    In the UK they have Inna Shevchenko (FEMEN violent thug) and in the USA they have this cunt (and yes, I will use the „c” word!).

    A worldwide boycott, that is what this publication needs!

  • Perseus

    :-T Atta girl Suzanne, you GO girl. Delivering the goods

    Ain’t no wrath…

  • Perseus

    Lmfao ……… bitch you are so fired

  • Disorderly Conduct

    For anyone interested in the details of her article’s BS, here’s a debunk of the statistics in her first example:

    Her first statistic starts with the outlandish claim that “abusive men win custody of their victims 70% of the time”. The link to her source was broken, but I found a near identical statistic in the “1989 Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts”. Funnily enough, the only difference was the original made no mention of the fathers being “abusive”. Here’s a paper published by the Florida State University College of Law that debunks the study as “reeking of gender bias”:

    I’m not sure how these statistics are relevant to child abuse, unless she’s actually suggesting all men are to be suspected of being incestuous pedophiles. (Wait, why am I surprised by that…) She says “men are raped by other men more than 93% of the time, and women are raped by men more than 98% of the time”, citing a CDC survey on sexual and domestic violence. Of course, it’s quite understandable how most rapists are men, when according to U.S. law it’s impossible for a woman to rape a man by forcing sex on him. The true percentage of female rapists lies hidden inside the ‘made to penetrate’ statistic under ‘other sexual violence’. We won’t ever know the real number until the U.S. government starts taking male rape victims seriously, and society stops shaming them.

    The other statistic, “95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male”, was found on a ‘domestic violence fact sheet’ from Unfortunately the source article is unavailable online, but a similar study from the sheet claims “90-95% of domestic violence victims are women”. The entire study was done solely on prison inmates instead of the general population. Ironically, the previously mentioned CDC survey has a figure on domestic violence as well that Stevenson “forgot” to mention – 53% male victims. Sorry Anne, I can’t say it speaks much towards the innate violence of men, but it certainly exposes a chilling number of abusive women who have eluded the justice system.

    • ImNotMraBut…

      @Disorderly Conduct – I knew nothing of this Anne Stevenson until this article. I’d now say she’s a “Wolf in Feminist Drag”! She is not a feminist – she’s a female Hugo Schwyzer: they have some many traits in common.

      I have had my curiosity piqued by the extent of her irrational world view – it is dramatically breathtaking. As I have read sources about her and produced by her, I see that she never uses any form of equality language as would be normal for an idealogical feminist steeped in political dogma. Stevenson is simply fixated on a 100% negative view of men.

      An ideological feminist would talk of such things as single parents – Stevenson only talks of single mothers. All her use of language is so gender polarised to be 100% positive about women, or casting the female 100% in the victim role due to men – something Stevenson seems to welcome and gain satisfaction from. After that her language is 100% negative about men. Oddly she has quite a hard time articulating anything positive about women in their own right. She can only write about women as an adjunct of men – an odd stance for a supposed academic feminist.

      She loves to be terrified and upset – it’s actually “Histrionic” and she keeps clustering Drama in her work to present a most distorted world view. The more I look, especially, back in time, the more fascinating and even clinical it becomes. There is no nuance, degree or balance. It is a striking level of polarity in someone who keeps claiming academic credibility. Her language and focus is not feminist and it appears she is hiding under the banner of feminism to pass off her own peculiar and aberrant fixations whilst seeking others who may condone or support her extreme and dysfunctional views. Hence, “Wolf in Feminist Drag”.

      There is a marked level of deception, both internal and external, in the modus operandi of such people. Everywhere you turn you keep finding it.

      I have been digging and have found copies of the original source that Stevenson was quoting. It’s in the Wayback machine – – it’s interesting that it got removed shortly after she started pointing to it. I’m not surprised – given that it’s more bizzarley inaccurate and unhinged than Stevenson’s own attempts at appearing academic and supposedly rational. That she found it attractive is part of her Magpie nature and fixation upon hate.

      Her source of supposed statistics and facts is itself a “Tour De Force” of mixing up and misconstrued academic sources from multiple studies used to construct and create multiple fictions and naratives. It’s either an amazing example of academic incompetence or an example of academia by emotion and emoted reality. I’m not surprised that it has been removed from the website – it could only be seen as negative advertising.

      Stevenson is evidently an addict if Urban Myths, Factoids and the Patron Saint of The Woozle Effect. It seems that she judges any publication by her own emotive response and not by it’s academic rigour, ethics or even basic relationship to reality. Again – She loves to be terrified and upset – it’s actually “Histrionic” and she keeps clustering Drama in her work to present a most distorted world view. The piece of May 2012 has so many dramas all drawn together its exhaustive and exhausting. It is Histrionic!

      I keep wondering why the Woozle effect is so dominant in the social sciences, especially when linked, directly or even tangentially, to feminism. I have been looking for examples of the Woozle effect outside of Feminist biased academia, and it is proving exceptionally hard to find examples. I believe that bias warrants academic study, especially in the field of psychology, to find it’s causes and relationship to other areas of reality.

      Stevenson evidently believes that if she can cite anything she create reality – or bolster and empower the reality she lives within and desires – a strange dramatic landscape (Histrionic again). Given her ongoing and long term fixations with supposed endemic and even pandemic gandered violence, rape, child abuse and institutional failure against women, her internal world must be rather a scary place to be. Paranoid would be an appropriate description if she was expressing fear, but she seems to express pleasure at the excesses which is why the Histrionic elements are so prominent.

      When I look at the number of unrelated but dramatic elements of her May 2012 Huffington post – the level of confused mixed up referencing used to create false drama – it is so excessive as to be…. clinical.

      You only normally see such extensive and repeated patterns in people with attention deficit disorders and in those with cognitive and memory impairments. Her pattern (which I now find to have been ongoing for years) is highly significant. It’s is not caused by recent events, it has been present for years and actually getting worse. It can’t be blamed upon recent stress at work etc – it has been present and manifest for far too long.

      She seems to have a demand for structure and fixity which is Normally only seen on the Autistic spectrum – She creates this structure by her negative fetishisation of the male. But here it is not just present it is treated as positive and life affirming – it’s welcomed. There is also a marked fetishisation of negative action upon any female – the negative is her desire and focus and the the gender issues just the vehicle she uses to drive herself into a frenzy.

      Her disorganised thinking and combining of facts reveals so many odd factors that it’s impossible to pin down just one or two that are more significant that the others – there is such a spectrum. But, overall it’s her fixation open lurid violence and it being grasped positively in her own life that comes across most strongly – hence the Histrionic and Dramatic elements of her interactions with the world – why she would see a report and why it would be filtered to be more negative, lurid and dramatic than others would perceive.

      The fact that she is fixated upon the male as the agent of violence is not the significant element of her aberrant views. She could just as easily be fixated upon danger by females – it’s the dramatic nature of her fixation – the violence that is significant. Hence, her reasons for the fixation are not caused by Feminism of Feminist thinking – they are just coincidental and Stevenson is either deliberately or unwittingly using the banner of feminism to cover up a far more troubling and worrying set of issues.

      She is not feminist – only hiding in plain sight under the banner, with many foolishly supporting her due to the banner and not for any other reason.

      I have never seen so many lazy, academically inept and basic errors in the work of one person. There is either a complete lack of or blockage of IQ, else there is a set of perceptual filters that require only a selective reality which she is expert in recreating at will.

      I was being alliterative when I said she was a hate magpie. I’m now happy to use that term and be 100% explicit as it is clear from study of her long term net profile that she is fixated upon distorted negative presentations of men as Violent- sexual predators – paedophiles – DV/IPV machines who all have massive Psychological issues and aberration.

      She of course is very negative in her output – but that is her default positive position – it’s all positive and supporting of her internal life, she thrives upon her negative views of the male. She’s happy with and welcomes her images of male violence and female victimhood and damage.

      Some would consider these patterns indicative of lesbianism. As A gay man with massive exposure to lesbians and even the most extreme forms of political and aggressive lesbianism, I do not detect the same patterns and cluster of attitudes. Stevenson is not political or social on her negative views of men, she simply verges on the pathological and narcissistic. Her conduct is so engrained as to be phobic and not just learned or adopted.

      This again indicates that her views are not learned such as Political Feminism or academic feminism, there is a deeper and more troubling root to her views which shows them to not be Feminist, just being hidden under the feminist banner.

      Given that she has at least one child, I do have to wonder how the child was conceived. Stevenson is so negative about men and all things male – presents such fear of IPV – rape – any exposure to the male, it does become a legitimate question. She presents as Male Phobic, so how could that level of Androphobia have been overcome to allow conception.

      I find it hard to consider that she was able to find a man who was not her worst nightmare to allow a biologically normal conception.

      It is evident that Stevenson has an overly developed attraction to lurid, excessive and inaccurate information as long as it is negative about men and links to violence in domestic settings. It appears she gains high levels of arousal from the more excessive and lurid which allows her to attain some level of internal stimulation. If her issues are not biological, there are generally two causes for such excess and focus – one is due to you being a long term DV/IPV victim who needs support for recovery, and the second is the misdirection stance of the abuser who is desperate to cover up their own abusive and aberrant behaviour. Again I have to consider her nature as a Wolf in Feminist Drag, and the second scenario is more likely than the first.

      After that the level of abnormal cognitive behaviour has to be seen as caused by either physical damage and neurological damage else long-standing personality issues and even disorder. Again if it is a personality issue, including personality disorder, her appearance is not sincere and again the Wolf in feminist drag is uncovered.

      Given Stevenson’s supposed academic qualifications one would expect her to be able to achieve balance in her world view, but you only have to look back to her earliest on-line ramblings to see the gross imbalance, selfishness and ego-centricity she displays. In May 2007 she was contributing to “College Mom Magazine” and her constant female only focus is clear as is her massive focus upon statistics, especially any lack of them. To quote just one reference “Because Tufts does not track moms, there is no way to know how many moms have had to drop out.”.

      There is clear imbalance in her activities and views even whilst at Taft University – single parents could not be male only female. She is blind to the concept that children may have a father, or that Single parents of both sexes having access to eduction improves the life opportunities of all children – not just those under the control of single mothers. The inability to extrapolate beyond a closed focus is significant and also academically limiting – and shows her fixation with the present and an inability to consider the future and long term reality. That is quite a handicap for someone who claims to be a policy analyst and advisor, since such activity in a professional setting looks at time periods of 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25+ years into the future. Having no grasp of the future (even for your own child) does not indicate any success in the claimed field of en devour.

      Again her fixation upon the female and not the equality and politically correct term of single parent shows how Stevenson is not part of Political Feminism or Equality, but only fixated upon the female over the male with a 100% polarity.

      I have to wonder at the level of qualification she received and her grades, as there is a high risk that during her academic career she was using the same misquoted and inaccurate ideas to emote and manipulate through emoting and emotional bullying. A person who is so fixated and polarised coupled with histrionic manifestations would be markedly willing to use emotive blackmail and manipulation to achieve their goals.

      She quotes the need for a student with a child to need at least “…$60,000 per year just to get by!”, but magically a male student – single parent father – would be able to get by due to magical beans and unicorns.

      All her claims for so long have been irrational, inaccurate, misleading and designed to cause emotion in certain groups for certain groups. She panders to pro-female prejudice in the most base of fashions, representing women as abused 100% of the time and men abusers 100% of the time. The extent and speed of the drama she creates leaves one breathless – and the mind reeling.

      When such a long term pattern is established, it is most unlikely that it’s manifestations are limited to only life at the keyboard, and I am concerned as to how such patterns would manifest away from the keyboard, especially towards children in her household.

      Now she self describes as “..nationally acclaimed writer, policy analyst and advisor. ”

      1) There is no record of any form of national acclamation or recognition – Conflation.
      2) There is no evidence that she has ever analysed a policy or that any analysis she has made has had any influence (Positive or Negative) – Conflation.
      3) She claims to be an advisor – and yet having trawled every reference I can find up-to and including the whole of the Internet Archive, I can’t find a single example of her having advised anyone – Conflation.

      That is three conflated claims in just 7 words. If she has such issues with her own image, how many more issues does she have with the external world?

      The egocentricity and gender asymmetry of her world views is so blatant and so prominent it simply can’t be avoided. That she is happy to display so much that is suspect shows she either is so egocentric as to not care, else she lacks the capacity to self reflect or grasp her own lack of mental clarity and social capacity. Neither pattern is normal in the general population – or even just the female population.

      It’s clear that she has been seeking-out media opportunities since at least 2007 – and when you look at and check her resume for validity you find a whole catalogue of one off appearances, mis-represented work (Claiming to have written for the Washington Post when you appear one in most un remarkable place in the Community Website/blog – is at best misguided and at worst just puff and conflation driven by excessive ego.)

      The last time I came across anyone on-line who has this pattern of Egocentric, lack of academic capacity – who cherry picks and can’t understand – and who demanded that what they said had to be swallowed and not questioned – and had very marked Histrionic elements … well it was Hugo Schwyzer. (So good that he dropped the falsely claimed academic pretension of “Prof” Hugo Schwyzer, a title he never had any claim to.).

      The similarity in media seeking egocentricity and inability to produce academically valid discourse is the same. It’s just co-incidental that both apparently share a focus on feminist ideology and seek make a career from it whilst also desperately seeking media opportunities which they both lack the capacity to utilise in any rational or coherent manner. Two similar people seeing the opportunity to hide under the banner.

      Stevenson also shares another trait with Schwyzer. When her errors and academic woozles are pointed out, just like Schwyzer, she ignores it all in the hope it will all go away and in the same modus operandi as Schwyzer she does not engage with critics or address her own errors (A Common passive aggressive pattern in academically inept individuals). The inability to engage and learn is a massive red flag for Egocentricity and Narcissistic mind sets – disordered personalities. It is of course also the antithesis of academic attitudes for collaboration and peer review.

      We have the same pattern of claiming to be part of a group to gain notoriety and protection whilst so many factors in behaviour, language and conduct are not the same as the groups core values. That of course has been a major issue with Schwyzer which so many feminist have raised, whilst others have pointed to him folding the banner and saying that makes him feminist. Schwyzer was a Wolf in Feminist Drag – and Stevenson shows the same pattern. As a female she will be more protected by other feminists simply because of her banner and genitals.

      The sooner Stevenson is consigned to the backwaters of the Internet and archived the better. She has nothing to contribute other than woozled aberration and pandering to her own histrionic and drama issues only adds to the damage that her own family unit faces long term. She really should not be encouraged to write anything ever again.

      Her level of negative views of the male are so excessive as to be pathological. If her child is male I would have long term concerns for the child’s welfare and emotional – social – psychological environment they are being raised in.

      In fact, the sex of the child is irrelevant and any child being raised in such an environment should be assessed for long term need and support – if necessary removed to prevent long term damage. It is an oddity that Stevenson seems so fixated on protecting children form the Aberrant, dangerous and Dramatic males she is fixated upon, and yet fails to grasp how such aberration is itself negative to children and highly damaging. If she was interested in the welfare of her own kids she would be less dramatic and self interested.

      She may have grasped that is she had any form of academic balance – and even balance without the academia would provide a better result for the child.

  • TigerMan

    The real problem we face here is with an establishment that doesn’t value humanity. For example at a recent conference in London the Women of the World Festival at London’s Southbank Centre March 10th 2013. Erin Pizzey and a couple of MRA’S from MRALondon were in attendence alongside several feminists involved in the domestic violence “industry” in one way or another. What struck me most was the sharp contrast between those activists speaking from their heart with love and those speaking from their minds behind walls of prejudice.
    In the speaking from the heart catagory Erin really inspired and humbled me at the same time when she was speaking about the more violent of the women that came to her shelter for help “those were the ones I loved the most” she said.
    Although Erin definetely isn’t lacking in the intelligence department (far from it!) it was this quality of compassion, humanity and understanding that really got to me. From what I saw in the video she also touched a chord with most in the room and most comments I heard were supportive of her view.
    That said there was also a cold fish in the room – a “sociologist” that insisted on trotting out the same old domestic violence is gendered crap as if Erin had never spoken and revealed from her front line experience that indeed DV was not a gendered issue but rather results from a “cycle of violence”.
    So the difficulty is – how do you ensure that those in official positions that deal with social policy affecting human lives are coming from a place of the heart and not of the mind?
    It’s a serious question because from looking at all the heartless ideologues wielding power over our lives of which Anne Stevenson seems to be a typical example, we don’t yet appear to have an answer.

  • Suburban Fieldsman

    Anne Stevenson is the type of feminist who uses terms like “fatherhood industry”. So, any program designed to help fathers connect with their children can be “othered” by using the term ‘industry’. In making her case, she highlights the exploits of a serial killer, so fathers separated from their children, in general, may be characterized by the exploits of one serial killer, who happens to be male, utterly ignoring the statistical fact that children are more likely to be murdered by their birth mother than any man. In short, Anne Stevenson is a policy wonk who works to inscribe into law the misinformation that man equals bad, and female equals good, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. In short, she is a governement produced, government sponsored, and government ensconced man- hater, working her special man hating magic to the best of her ability to hurt any and all men in any way that she can, and using the government and U.S. legal systems to do so.

    • Theaverageman

      One thing I couldn’t ever swallow about feminism was the vehement attack on fathers rights groups. If you do a little browsing around the internet you’ll find many pieces suggesting that all father rights groups are full of child abusers/pedophiles which is absolute bullshit.Feminists are always bitching about absent fathers while at the same time opposing equal parenting initiatives.

  • thefeministmra

    Ow… my eyes… I request paragraph separation!

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Sorry! My first attempt at editing!

      • thefeministmra

        Quite alright. Looking better every day.

  • TigerMan

    Hi Paul I just sent you a direct message via your twitter account :)

  • Kukla

    “For decades the feminist movement has held a monopoly over the politics of the left. While much of this power has been used to make legitimate strides towards gender equality”

    I disagree. Generally that power was used to privilege women above men and to bring men down for no reason. Feminism has only even focused on women, even though the vast majority of men did not have it any better. That isn’t gender “equality”. That’s a gender race for privilege.

  • napocapo69

    Dear Anne Stevenson,
    first of all let me introduce myself. I’m not human, actually, I’m an alien coming from the outer space. Yes, I’m what you’d call a “space scientist”, and I deal with alien species. Yeah, from my perspective the Human Kind is an alien species. Roughly 300 hundred years ago, I got my PHD with a thesis regarding the “Human Kind, nuclear families and society”. I was proud of my work, but I admit it is quite obsolete nowadays. Now, I’m a senior scientist, and as part of my duties I’ve been appointed for a review of my early studies, and this imply a field investigation of your planet.
    And I was very lucky in finding your article that examines with such an accuracy the family. Is still “family” the name? I noticed you use a new one: “mother and her children”.
    Anyhow, your article provides me with good material for my study, and I kindly ask you your permission to quote it in my coming scientific publication. I will acknowledge you as an outerspace contributor.
    I have a couple of issues in understanding a few points; I would appreciate your clarifications.
    – I understood that male abusers (I guess “father” is the proper name) cause a waste of resources, especially in prisons. Is there any good reason for not eliminating them? Sorry for being bold, but a similar question came to my mind in the past while researching the old “family concept”; why women were not killed after reproduction? What a waste of resources!
    – Given the picture you clearly exposed, why do people still pair bond? I find it non sense. Please give me an advice.
    – I assume, even if that was not clearly stated, that women still produce little abusers, “boys” was the name. Are they allowed to become adults? Are they given the chance to become adult abusers (I mean fathers) or are they steered directly towards the prison camps?

    Finally, one of my collegues sitting just near me has just reminded me that in few countries, such as Italy, the 19th of March is the “fathers’ day”. What’s the purpose? Is it like the DV awareness day on the 14th of February and the rape culture day on the 8th of March?

    Thank you in advance.

    An Alien

  • Eoghan

    Feminists trying to create myths that helps to keep abuse invisible – this makes them by their own definitions deliberate creators of abuse culture.

  • Dan Perrins

    After reading Ms Moore’s article I find the cherry picking and misandric rhetoric engaged in by her to be endless.
    Her examples are one sided, which points to an ulterior motive of propagating the feminists gender dogma of men bad and women good.
    If Ms Moore wishes to be helpful to society, she needs to get rid her feminist ‘rose coloured glasses’ and roll up her sleeves and do some honest reporting of issues.
    Dan Perrins

  • ImNotMraBut…

    I keep looking at this woman’s history and public comment. The Irrational and illogical content just keep on coming. Her take on father’s day and kids is irrational :

    “Father’s Day reminds us of the importance of strong, healthy male role models in our boys’ lives, but locating such men can be daunting task for single moms experiencing hard economic times.” – 06/15/2012

    Why is she linking a triangle of her, a male adult and her child to finance and economics? Most adults would asses that triangle with reference to such things as respect, love, kindness and even role model status – not bank balance. She has clear priorities, but not ones that are statistically normal.

    It’s clear that maths is not her strong point – and that she also has a problem with exaggeration and conflating reality. There is no better example than this –

    Corporate Lobbyists Discriminate, Declare War on Disabled (Show This to Your Legislator) – “As millions of disabled vets return home from ‘Gulf War II,’ corporate lobbyists and their legislative henchmen have declared war against the disabled. Suddenly, it’s OK for legislators to portray disabled citizens who seek equal access to education, employment, programs, and services as whores, parasites, or leaches. ” –

    So the USA is being flooded with MILLIONs of disabled vets from Gulf War II when less than one million service personnel served in the Gulf – or the whole theatre of the Gulf?

    A Force of 148,000 was drawn down to 50,000 prior to withdrawal – so I wonder how Ms Stevenson makes 50,000 into Millions and gets it all wrong by at least a factor of 20 or more. Math is not her forte that’s for sure – just exaggeration and conflation.

    That claim of the terms whores, parasites, or leaches really should be accounted for and attributed, but of course it’s not attributed – and I do have to wonder exactly how many legislators and which one’s have been describing disabled Vets as Whores?

    Why is so concerned about Disabled People being called whores, parasites, or leaches – and one also has to wonder is her concern for all people called whores, parasites, or leaches – or is it only the females called whores, parasites, or leaches.

    Stevenson wished to portray herself as having such concern about Vets (a group with a large male bias) returning from the Gulf – except that when you read on it becomes clear that their presence is just to create a dramatic opening and to exploit. Her concerns are financial and note even legal or rights based.

    Men, even disabled vets as revenue sources? She seems to be able to d math for her own bank balance, it’s just all other math that she has no rational ability with.

  • chris3337

    Ms Anne Stevenson is complaining that “The solution is to remove the middle class from the welfare roles and do away with gender-based funding incentives.”

    I see , so she wants to retain gender-based (female)funding. Great equality concepts for a budding lawyer/Judge. She wouldn’t even qualify for jury duty with her biases.

    In her last paragraph, she goes on to unashamedly complain also about the DV industry now using ambiguous Gender Neutral language. So she does not believe in using gender neutral language in law. Incredible.

    She complains about Mass. Law which is not a coincidence that it is the same state where a rare honest researcher, Prof Denise Hines of Clark U, works in the Dept of Psychology and has had a hand in local service policies. Her research articles can be found below and her ongoing project on male victims, if anyone wants to include their personal experience of DV in her research here……..

  • Suzanne McCarley

    Google search: Anne Stevenson Huffington Post

    Anne Stevenson writer:
    Page 3

  • D

    Can the people that support this site please start wearing “a voice for men” tee shirts and other visible paraphernalia so that I and others can claim “you were asking for it” when we meet?

    • Paul Elam

      This threatening post is from someone whose email address is

      And here is the rest of their information that I was able to dig up with an IP search

      Country: United States
      State/Region: Maryland
      City: Millersville
      Latitude: 39.084 (39° 5′ 2.40″ N)
      Longitude: -76.6157 (76° 36′ 56.52″ W)
      Area Code: 410
      Postal Code: 21108

      And Dimitry, since you are so hot on identification, why don’t you provide us a little more, like your full name, address and employer, you bottom dwelling, cowardly piece of shit.

      Somebody please ID this loser. Thanks

      • Paul Elam

        Hmm, the Linked-in profile says San Francisco, but his IP is Maryland.

        • napocapo69

          Hey Paul, let it go.

          After all it means the experiment succeded, the article has even reached the creeping animals of the underground life

      • napocapo69

        Leave him to his self sex therapy.

        move on

      • Paul Elam

        Well, it would not surprise me if the person that made that post was stupid enough to leave a trail like that.

        I think it is him, but I think I am going to napocapo69’s advice and lay off this guy.

        I am going to leave this data out here, though. I don’t much care for anyone coming in here with a threatening tone or language.

    • Cumbria

      Yes, we are asking for fairness. Thank you very much.

    • napocapo69

      paraphernalia … I wonder if you know the meaning of the word …

    • John Hembling (JtO)

      Hi Dimitry, here’s what I’m wearing, reading your comment on my android. I Live in East Vancouver, BC. Let me know when you’re in town. :) We can do an AVfM poster-run on commercial drive together, we might even encounter the local box-cutter armed thought-police. Most of the coffee shops on the drive are wheelchair accessible, so you should have no problems even if you come to town after your surgery. Cheers!

  • Robert Sides

    Arghhhh! This is why men continually lose.

    Note how each statement begins by reinforcing the douchery of males:

    > “For every sick father that gains custody…

    > “For every male batterer…

    There’s no need for feminists to ream us when men so aptly do the job themselves.

    It’s like father’s rights groups who say the rule should be post-divorce joint physical custody….EXCEPT when there is abuse.

    Who do you think folks will imagine the perp to be?

    It’s like a minority in the 1950s saying he should be hired because “not all blacks are lazy.”

    The stereotype gets reinforced by the victim’s words.

    Say “joint physical custody.” Period. No addenda. No hedge-words.

    If someone asks, “What if there’s abuse?” say: “Then she should be in jail.”

    Guys continue civil discourse with fembots trying to cut their balls off. That’s not being brave, that’s being stupid. And the price is paid by children, especially boys.

    The MRM should emulate Anonymous. That is, pick a target and go full-bore…guns blasting. Take no prisoners. FTSU. Feminists have had a half-century to show a jot of compassion for men and refused. So, eff them.

    Feminists dismiss men because most guys act like mice.

    Fine, if only their sorry selves get sacrificed. Too often, though, it’s other men who pay the price (like the techie fired for “allegedly” saying something “inappropriate” within earshot of a fembot who probably jokes about penises and roars “c-u-n-t” at Ensler Uber Alles rallies).

    Mostly it’s kids who suffer.

    Things toxified on campuses because decades ago men did squat to stop feminists. So their children now get indoctrinated by federally-funded tenured femizombies.

    Today, the grandchildren of passive men pay a huge price. Talk about the sins-of-fatherly-omission being passed onto subsequent generations….

    It ain’t brave or wise to make boys suffer because papas deferred to uterine idiots.