The new war on hate

Hatred in the Name of Fighting Hatred

How the Southern Poverty Law Center became a Hate Group

In the 1950s and 60s the war on racism and sexism rose to its highest level since the American Civil War. A movement for social justice gained momentum, coalescing around the young, liberal, anti-war college crowd uniting them with anti-racists fighting to liberate Blacks, and a growing women’s movement to eradicate institutionalized racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. The movement was so successful that within a couple of decades, nearly all vestiges of institutional racism and sexism were outlawed and racist groups in particular, were forced underground. By the end of the 1980s, the “southern man” debated and immortalized by Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd was all but extinct.

Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center were instrumental in waging and winning that war. There were still battles to be fought, but these were on a much smaller scale. They mostly involved crimes committed by individuals that indicated that the fires of racial hatred weren’t quite out. These crimes were dubbed “hate crimes” and organizations like the SPLC fought and lobbied to pass special legislation that dealt more harshly with “haters.” In fact, today organizations like the SPLC continue to maintain relevance by waging these small battles against alleged haters. But in its struggle to remain relevant, the SPLC appears to have forgotten its raison d’être.

Recently the SPLC published and posted to its website an article railing against the misogyny it claims to have found in the men’s movement. Arthur Goldwag’s Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement is everything the SPLC has opposed over the years. Goldwag uses scant evidence to argue that the leading bloggers active in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) support and glorify violence against women and other forms of misogyny. To accomplish this, he uses examples of the worst kinds of atrocities and attempts to paint a wide range of men who he associates with the MRM as being supportive and representative of all men involved in the movement.

He begins with Thomas Ball, a man who believed he had been wronged by the Family Court system after having abused his daughter. After ten years of fighting to remain in his daughter’s life, Ball self-immolated, leaving behind a rambling manifesto detailing his struggles and calling for revolutionary action. Although he is not the best example of fatherhood, nor of a man being wronged by the system, many in the MRM have held him out as a prime example of what can happen to a man whose rights have been consistently trampled. Ball has become their champion, not because he slapped his daughter, but because of the drastic action he felt forced into by an uncaring, unfeeling system that deprived him of his family the same way it has deprived a great many men of their families. Many men in the MRM have felt much the same way Ball must have felt before lighting himself on fire. By committing that act, Ball said the one thing that many men have wanted to say for a good portion of their lifetimes. What matters to these men is not whether or not Ball was crazy, not whether or not he was abusive, and not whether or not he was a misogynist. What matters is that he stood up and told the system to “fuck off.” But Goldwag doesn’t get this. Instead he focuses on Ball’s alleged defects and chooses to believe that the men of the MRM idolize an abusive misogynist.

He later moves on to Anders Behring Breivik who gunned down 77 Norwegians, mostly teens, at a summer camp in June of 2011. Breivik was primarily upset with Muslim immigration and this was given as the primary reason for the shooting, but Goldwag links the MRM to him because he was an advocate for father’s rights and quotes him as stating

““The most direct threat to the family is ‘divorce on demand,’” he wrote in the manifesto he posted just before he began his deadly spree. “The system must be reformed so that the father will be awarded custody rights by default.””

Never mind that the radical feminists of the 1960s explicitly stated a goal of breaking up families and pushed no-fault divorce as a means to that end. Apparently opposition to feminist ideology is equivalent to misogyny and that is more than enough to condemn an entire movement for the actions of a single lunatic who was apparently more concerned with immigration issues. Of course Goldwag doesn’t stop there. He throws in George Sodini, Scott Evans DeKraai, and the apparent father of the men’s rights movement, Mark Lépine, who he states fired “the first shots in this so-called war on feminism…”

Almost any movement could be condemned if all we examined was its lunatic fringe. With feminism, one doesn’t even have to look beyond the mainstream. As bad as the aforementioned killers were, I don’t recall any of them advocating for the extermination of half the planet’s population. But that’s precisely what Valerie Solanas advocated in her SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men) which she penned shortly before shooting artist Andy Warhol and another man approximately twenty years prior to Lépine’s founding of the MRM. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall a single men’s organization rushing to defend Lépine’s actions. However, Ti-Grace Atkinson, radical feminist and president of the New York chapter of NOW, called Solanas “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” and heralded her as “a ‘heroine’ of the women’s movement.” Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms Magazine, included excerpts in her book, Sisterhood is Powerful. Other feminist authors such as Amanda Third and Catherine Lord have credited her with creating radical feminism and have stated that the feminist movement would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for Valerie Solanas. The only person who thinks Mark Lépine started the MRM is Arthur Goldwag. Solanas may have been the lunatic fringe, but those who applauded, praised, excused, and condoned her actions are or were very mainstream.

Since Goldwag didn’t stop with Lépine, this article shouldn’t stop with Solanas. Goldwag enlists the assistance of Rita Smith, director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in discussing parental alienation syndrome (PAS), a mental disorder Smith believes doesn’t exist. Goldwag and Smith paint the disorder as way for men to get custody of children by making it appear as though women and children lie about abuse in divorce proceedings. Goldwag fails to mention that PAS is being reviewed for inclusion in the DSM by the American Psychiatric Association even though he does mention it isn’t included. The omission of this is evidence of the outright dishonesty of Goldwag’s article. The reason it is important to mention the opposition to PAS is the existence of women such as Andrea Yates who murder their children (and/or husbands) and then plead not guilty by reason of insanity citing post-partum depression or battered wife syndrome. While Yates may not be associated with feminism, mainstream feminist organizations such as NOW have advocated the use of these defenses by such women.

Another woman who used such a defense was Lorena Bobbitt, who severed her husband’s penis and tossed it into a field nearly twenty years ago. Like Solanas, she was heralded as a feminist hero. She claimed that he had abused her for years and had raped her. She was diagnosed with clinical depression and possible PTSD and found not guilty by reason of insanity, despite the fact that there was substantial evidence that the abuse in the relationship had been mutual and her statements to police indicated that she knew exactly what she was doing.

In a similar incident, Catherine Kieu Becker drugged her soon-to-be ex-husband before slicing off his penis and tossing it into a garbage disposal. Like Lorena Bobbitt, Becker became an instant celebrity. Mainstream feminists applauded, laughed, and joked. The Talk, a nationally televised program feature its all-female team of hosts giggling and laughing themselves silly over the incident. Sharon Osborne referred to the incident as “delightful” and the all-female audience roared with laughter. We’re not taking about lunatic fringe elements with somewhat vague connections to a movement here. These are examples of mainstream women, feminists, and feminist organizations applauding acts of vicious acts of violence against men. Where was Goldwag’s or SPLC’s outrage at the institutionalized misandry displayed following these events?

Goldwag also excoriates men’s rights advocate, Paul Elam, owner of the blog A Voice for Men for calling out a feminist blogger who wrote “about her discomfort with male adults helping female toddlers in the bathroom at her daughter’s preschool. The blogger conceded that she was being sexist, but wrote that “I’d rather be wrong than find out if I’m right.”” Yes, the blogger admits she’s a sexist, but Goldwag calls out Elam for being misogynistic for not accepting her apology. Does the SPLC support sexism against men? Apparently it does.

Another article composed a list of alleged men’s rights websites that it dubbed “Misogyny: The Sites.” While the term “misogyny” may apply to some of these sites (I haven’t visited all of them and don’t care to), the SPLC presents scant evidence to back its claims. For instance, The False Rape Society, a blog that discusses cases where women (and men) have falsely accused others of raping, sometimes with very disastrous consequences, the evidence that the site is misogynistic is an article “attacking a female supporter of… Michelle Bachmann” told a reporter that “It takes a woman to get things done.” The article at FRS pointed out the misandric nature of that statement. No further evidence of misogyny was presented. That was more than enough to place them on the list of misogynist websites.

MensActivism was included for copying headlines for news articles published elsewhere. According to SPLC these articles are meant to undermine “the myth that women are less violent than men.” SAVE Services is included for referencing a study that concluded that the best predictor of injury to women from domestic violence is the woman’s initiation of the violence. They also misrepresent SAVE’s position on services for victims of dv. Rather than advocating to “roll back services” as the SPLC claims, SAVE advocates eliminating the gendered nature of services and including services for male victims and female perpetrators. Obviously it takes very little for the SPLC to consider a website misogynistic.

Yet they leave off openly male-hostile websites such as radfemhub that openly advocate the extermination of men. One woman states “Even if we killed off 90% of men…” Another commenter states “The “magic number” to bring males under control is ~ 30% of the population…” Another suggests “a biological solution” to “men’s sickening behavior” and in a separate post that same commentor states “a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation…”

Obviously it is far more difficult to be declared misandric, though it is doubtful that the SPLC believes misandry even exists.

A third article, written by Mark Potok and Evelyn Schlatter, entitled Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women accuses MRM sites of spreading false or exaggerated claims about domestic violence and sexual assault committed by women. In fact, Potok and Schlatter do their own hatchet job by providing some very nicely cherry-picket statistics to support their conclusions. They completely misrepresent the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by citing some statistics that support their conclusion, but also ignore other statistics contained in that report that support exactly the opposite. This study found that 18.3% of women have been raped compared to 1.4% of men according to Potok and Schlatter. What they don’t say is that the study defined rape in such a way to ensure that almost no male could be a victim. Rape was defined only as a penetrative act. Being forced to penetrate was not included in the definition even though this is defined as rape in every state. They also failed to report that over the preceding 12 months, this same study found that had the definition included being forced to penetrate, men and women reported similar rates of rape and women comprised the majority of perpetrators against men.

Potok and Schlatter criticize the overgeneralization of a study by Deborah Capaldi that showed that women were more likely to be injured in domestic violence incidents when they initiated the violence. This may be a correct criticism, however, I have seen references to other studies that confirm Capaldi’s results with other populations that may be more generalizable (I don’t currently have those references to cite). Next they cite a DOJ study regarding violence in general as being committed by predominantly males. However, they ignore other studies such as the CDC study by Whitaker that indicate about half of all IPV is reciprocal (both partners are violent) while women commit approximately 71% of non-reciprocal IPV.

Finally, they criticize a study by Eugene Kanin that concluded that 41% of rape allegations ar false. They criticized his methodology stating that he did not provide the criteria used by police to determine that an allegation was false. However, Kanin did state that he only considered an allegation false if the woman had recanted the allegation. Further, the police department was said to have used or threatened to use a polygraph with the accuser and call this a “now discredited practice.” They cite no source for this statement and to my knowledge; it has never been studied empirically. That said, Kanin’s figures were probably quite high and there may be some validity to these criticisms. However, Potok and Schlatter go on to discuss the studies they believe to be “the most comprehensive” and “the best” without providing any support or reasoning behind these claims. Most likely, these were simply the studies that reported the lowest rates of false allegations that Potok and Schlatter could find. Typically, studies that find very low rates of false allegations use exceedingly restrictive definitions and are statistically more likely to contain more false negatives (in this case a false negative would be a false report of rape being counted as not false). Kanin’s study, by contrast probably contained a greater likelihood for false positives.

The Southern Poverty Law Center appears to be taking a stance against hatred and bigotry only when taking such a stance supports its prevailing ideology. In fact, the SPLC would now appear to be perpetuating hatred and bigotry by publishing intellectually dishonest articles that misrepresent an entire movement concerned with social justice for men and making it easy for hateful bigots, sexists, and female supremacists to marginalize and dismiss those concerned with men’s rights and to advance a hateful anti-male agenda. In what could be characterized as a desperate attempt to remain relevant, the SPLC has employed the same sort of tactics that it accuses the MRM of using to promote misandry; the hatred of men, and by so doing has become a hate group.


About Walter Romans (TDOM)

I'm a chef. I'm a shrink. For better or for worse, I'm married with 4 grandkids (that's the better part). Over the last few years I have come to believe that feminism is a hate movement, not the benevolent force I used to understand it to be.

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

  • Zorro


  • Paul Elam

    Sterling analysis, as always, TDOM. Glad you weighed in on this.

    • TDOM

      My pleasure.

  • Pierce Harlan

    Right, TDOM. It’s ideologically driven.

    The only offensive thing about that “southern” thing was when one of their writers suggested extremist blogger DAVID FUTRELLE was in any sense humorous.

    This once was an important organization, but now they are the far left’s version of the birthers. One need only look at the FRS “hate speech” they cite. I’ve shown it to no fewer than 20 people in person, including women who identify as feminists, and it’s laughable across the board. It actually undercuts whatever point they were trying to make.

    • TDOM

      Absolutely Pierce. What they identified as hate on your site and the way they misrepresented SAVE pretty much makes them the Rush Limbaugh’s of the left; hateful, nasty, ugly, and no one but their own kind will take them seriously.


  • FarmCat

    The SPLC, and other Tory Shepherd types, desperately want to “make” and put forth the image of the MRM being a solely “right wing” operation which it is not. But it’s not their call anyway. Neither is it the call of MRAs.

    People and/ or organizations who don’t know anything about us and are allergic to facts gleefully paint us this way because it’s the easy way to do “research” and generate fear (money).

    Someone who is incapable of doing honest research over at the SPLC “heard” we are all “just a bunch of straight white male Republicans” and jumped up and down at the chance to attach MRAs as such.

    MRA’s who consistently co-opt/ inject right wing politics as being the only way into the MRM are not doing us any favors. This is a significant reason why we have become such easy targets for those who don’t know any better and can easily write us off without hearing (comprehending) a word we say.

    This is not an echo chamber broken record comment about “the left”.

    Somebody had to finally say it.

    There’s the left wing, the right wing, and a BRAIN in the middle which is what we should be most concerned about.

    • Pierce Harlan

      “MRA’s who consistently co-opt/ inject right wing politics as being the only way into the MRM are not doing us any favors.”

      I am not sure whether I agree or disagree. Let me preface by saying this: the GOP has a dismal track record on issues of importance here. Bob Dole with Fed.Rule Evid. 413 is the best example.

      The Dems have an even more dismal track record.

      The problem is different than you paint it. The problem is that the Democratic Party is allied with women’s lobbies that are less interested in gender equality than in “victories” for women. Shared parenting seemed like a no-brainer a few years ago, until NOW and others decided women would lose leverage if it were enacted. Not one major initiative to protect false rape victims has been enacted in the past four years since we’ve started FRS. Not one. Do you want me to tell you the number of rape “reforms” enacted in that time to make it easier to convict or expel men and boys accused of sexual assault? And with the current adminstration, the reform effort is on steroids.

      It isn’t men’s righters who are opposed to the Democratic Party — many of us have been Dems all our lives and are otherwise allied with many of the issues important to them — its the Democratic Party that has made a calculated decision to court the “women” vote, which means not a single initiative for men’s health, or boys in school, for false rape victims, or the absence of fathers from inner city homes, or any other uniquely “male” problem. Obama’s most loyal supporters, other than black voters, are single women, so please know that if you vote for him this fall, nothing is going to change for four more years.

      The GOP? I fear if Santorum got elected, there’d be a law mandating men to stand up when a woman enters the room. Back to “Leave it to Beaver” times, with the “little woman” on a pedestal. Romney would be different.

      The difference between the right and left is that the people who are trying to shut down sites like this are invariably on the left. The tolerant, forgiving left. They want to paint us as Timohy McVeighs, clinging to our guns and religion.

      Of course, the left has its hate, too, but it’s politically correct hate. It’s Louis Farrakhan, Khalid Muhammad, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, The Weather Underground, the Duke potbangers with the “Castrate” sign, the Islamic fascists tacitly embraced by the left . . . . On and on it goes. There’s bad rage, and there’s politically correct rage. Timothy McVeight is, by any measure, bad rage. The MOVE black liberation group in my hometown of Philadelphia is not as bad rage.

      Maleness and traditional masculinity are not concepts held in high regard on the left.

      Somebody had to finally say it.

      • FarmCat

        Believe me. There is no way in hell I’m voting for Obama. Nor Santorum.

        I’m not defending the left. I wouldn’t be concerned about men’s rights if I was. It’s just that the right is very often made out to be the only way to go in the MRM and I believe it is harming the MRM.

      • Satanisafriendofmine

        Obama and the democratic party are part of the trendy left. They are sheep that follow whatever the media tells them is “cool and progressive.” They have no mind of their own.

    • ZenCo.

      ‘”This is not an echo chamber broken record comment about “the left”.

      Somebody had to finally say it.”

      I’ve been trying to say exactly this for months. I admit that I’ve not been as eloquent as you and have probably made some enemies around here.
      As I’ve said a million times – we need the Alec Baldwins of the world to embrace our core message. If/when that happens is when we truly start winning.
      There’s lots of blogs for political persuasions and beliefs – I don’t think this should be one of them. We are nowhere near the political stage of this movement and, right now, we need to win over hearts and minds to the truth. In other words, asses in the seats.
      Feminists really don’t care what it says on the voter registration card of the average man. Believe it.

      • FarmCat

        I knew I was going ruffle some feathers with this and it took some balls to hit send and I kind of pissed off Pierce Harlan on top of everything. That is definitely NOT something I wanted to do. Pierce Harlan is awesome.

        My response to this article seems a bit off topic but it was the first article (and an excellent one) on the SPLC that almost made it into that territory. In light of recent events I felt it was necessary.

        I’m sorry if it sounded like I was yelling at anyone here. I really wasn’t. I’m just frustrated to high Heaven.

        In response to your Alec Baldwin thing, I couldn’t agree more. Many men who need to see the light need not be clouded by pre conceived notions about what the other is saying in conjunction of what political spectrum they fall in. This clouds judgement as most people are awful clingy to their respective parties.

        • Pierce Harlan

          No, no, FarmCat, seriously, you did NOT piss me off. I think I agree with what you said, I just thought I had to make clear that the left has no interest in these issues, either. And I understand that you agree with that. (If I sounded intense in my response, when do I not?)

          I also wanted to try to state a case for the fact that hate is as likely to come from the left as the right.

          I agree about the Alec Baldwins of the world, too.

      • keyster

        “…we need the Alec Baldwins of the world to embrace our core message.”

        Don’t hold your breath on that one.

        “We are nowhere near the political stage of this movement and, right now, we need to win over hearts and minds to the truth.”

        I agree, but once we start breaking through on the cultural side, via this New Media strategy, the political fight will be against the Left/Democrat ideology…not women or SoCons or Republicans. You might as well accept it now.

        Establishing a moral equivalence between occasional “man shaming” from a few obscure SoCons and the strident march of feminist governance and entitlements in the Democrat Party, is like comparing a BB gun to Howitzer in the grand scheme of MRM activism.

        If someone can find a Conservative organization as powerful and well funded as SPLC, that feels the need villianize MRM as hateful, or even wrong, please let me know and I’ll cover it here as an expose. I’m not looking for bias, I’m looking for alliances.

        And you have no enemies here ZenCo.

        • TruthInAdvertising

          I agree somewhat, and I personally identify with the libertarian wing of the GOP.

          But the Alec Baldwins of the world will never back men’s rights, nor will their conservative counterparts. Wealthy Alpha Males benefit greatly from the status quo, whether they pretend to be on the Right or the Left.

          I hope you are not looking at the Right through rose-colored glasses. They have happily been the Right hand of female supremacy for decades. Most of the greatest minds on the Right stay conspicuously silent on these issues. And even when they talk about them, it is about making men serve women. Numerous conservative economists write eloquently about the wage gap myth and fatherless homes, but somehow can’t bring themselves to utter a word against Feminism. The best we can get out of Ann Coulter is “I don’t talk about Feminism.”

          And then we have the antifeminist braintrust: Phyllis Schlafly is mostly focused on wrapping her handcuffs for males in velvet so we don’t feel them as much. Suzanne Venker engages in “Man Up” shaming language on her National Review blog. Dr. Hoff-Sommers refuses to let go of the religious belief that Feminism is good, and often evokes myths about “the Patriarchy.”

          I agree with you that change for men is going to come from the Right. But it’s only going to happen if there is a near-miraculous change of heart from where they are currently at.

          • keyster

            Let me remind you again; the 60’s feminists were extremely apprehensive about aligning themselves with the Democrats. Many wanted to start a “Women’s Party” similar to what exists in Scandinavian countries. How stupid would that have been?

            In a culture war of ideologies with words as the weapons, within a free speech democracy, you’ll NEVER find perfect harmonization with the power base you seek to co-opt (or they seek to co-opt you).

            There will never be a “Men’s Rights” wing of the Republican Party, like there is a Women’s Rights wing of the Democrats. That’s not the goal. The goal is to take down “feminist governance” and get politicians to abide by the Constitution. Did you know VAWA clearly violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

            We can worry about the Schlaflys and Venkers later. Believe me they’re the least of men and boys problems.

        • ZenCo.

          Thanks for that Keyster. You are a gentleman, most definitely, worthy of heated debate. Perhaps we’re both right.

    • tallwheel

      Speaking as someone still new to the MRM, I think the problem is that many see the MRM as merely a reaction to feminism, in the same way that white supremacist groups are seen as a reaction to racial equality. I’ve heard it said that the goal of the MRM is “to turn back the clock on feminism.”

      Sure, the MRM seems to spend a lot of time speaking out against radfems, and public policy championed by them, but I think the MRM is also a reaction to ancient tradition that treats males as disposable. Correct me if I’m wrong, but fighting against outdated traditions that ought to be retired sounds like a rather liberal agenda to me.

      To be clear, I’m not saying that the MRM is necessarily liberal or conservative. I agree with Pierce Harlan that if either party has done more to aid the radfems, it would definitely be the democrats, but I also agree 100% with FarmCat that the MRM is not incompatible with liberal ideas either. I might even echo his most controversial point which is, yeah, the perception that the MRM is closely aligned to conservative ideas probably makes it easier for liberals to write off the MRM as another hate group run by white men.

      • TDOM

        “…but I think the MRM is also a reaction to ancient tradition that treats males as disposable. Correct me if I’m wrong, but fighting against outdated traditions that ought to be retired sounds like a rather liberal agenda to me.”

        You are absolutely correct. The old, somewhat tired feminist lines “Patriarchy hurts men too” and Feminism helps men too” are references indicating that men need to break out of traditional gender roles. Thus a men’s movement should have been welcomed by feminists. But rather than welcome it, feminists vehemently opposed it. They view any attempt by men to involve themselves in gender discussion as a “patriarchal” attempt to dominate the discussion. Therefore men’s voices must be silenced in order for feminism to succeed. The very nature of this places the feminist in a superior position and ignores the concept of equality entirely. Since this is foundational to feminism, it builds female superiority and male inferiority into the ideology and is a large part of the reason why feminism isn’t really about equality.


        • tallwheel

          I get the feeling (correct me if I’m wrong again) that some MRA’s would advocate a return to traditional gender roles as the ultimate goal of the MRM – and this is a goal which is in line with liberals’ image of the MRM as a hate group, and also one that I think conservatives are likely to support. But the issue is just not that simple. Personally, I don’t think it is possible at this point to return to traditional patriarchy (if you agree that the West has traditionally been a patriarchy, of course. Have to conditionalize that).

          What is happening so far is that women’s roles are undergoing change, and women’s rights are gaining too much protection; while the role of men is perceived to be the same, and their rights are being compromised in order to protect women. The majority of the populace in the West generally seems to agree that this is the correct strategy, and blame men for not being able to deal with this paradigm change (see William Bennett’s “Man Up” articles). But continuing to compromise the rights of nearly half the population is not going to work in the long run.

          If you agree with Esther Vilar’s argument in “The Manipulated Man”, then you would agree that patriarchy (read traditional Western gender roles) DOES hurt men. So, rather, the ultimate goal of the MRM should be to establish new roles and rights for men. It’s not about “turning back the clock on feminism” at all. (Though, again, I get the feeling that some would like to.)

          I think what I am getting at is similar to what this person is arguing:
          However, this person replaces those in favor of a return to traditional gender roles with MGTOW. Perhaps he is right. Sorry, perhaps I’m just too much of a newbie to fully understand the MRM.


      “There’s the left wing, the right wing, and a BRAIN in the middle which is what we should be most concerned about.”

      blog gold… :)

  • Bombay

    I have been searching splc and clicking on the links to articles about them being a hate group. Right now those links are on the second and third page. Maybe we can move them to page one.

    Very nice writing!

  • Ben

    You hit the nail right on the head, TDOM. This article came at a perfect time. I was just debating with my cousin. He says he supports my right to free speech but thinks that the MRM and the feminists are both hate groups of equal deviance and malice. I read this article in its entirety to him just a few minutes ago. Had problems with some of the last name pronounciations but afterwards he said that we might not be a hate group but he does not agree with our message. You can only guide people gently. This article was instrumental.

  • AntZ

    Brilliant perspective.


    A few comments:

    a) Thomas Ball slapped his daughter. “Abused” his daughter makes people think much worse things.

    b) false rape accusation frequency:

    it all converges onto 8% (6-12%)PROVEN OBVIOUS false rape accusations, enough to prosecute the woman

    40-60% seemingly false accusations, the police themselves don’t believe them and they think they are doubtful, but they are required to ONLY prosecute the man.

    4 out of 5 sexual abuse accusations are false (Austrian head of vice police) 

    • TDOM

      “Thomas Ball slapped his daughter. “Abused” his daughter makes people think much worse things.”

      Thomas Ball slapped his daughter and inflicted an injury in the form of a split lip. As a former child abuse investigator I can state unequivacally that this is an act of child abuse. Should this have been sufficient to keep him away from his daughter for several years, NO! At most the child should have been removed from his care, he should have begun with monitored visits that could be liberalized to unsupervised and overnights, he would have been made to jump through a few hoops (parenting classes, maybe anger management classes), and within six months had her returned to his custody.

      I’ve seen worse cases than his receive less than this, I’ve seen less severe cases be treated more harshly than what I described above. There are lots of factors to consider. But the bottom line is that a single incident resulting in a minor injury should NEVER be sufficient to destroy the relationship of a man with his child. What Thomas Ball was made to suffer was wrong.

      But make no mistake, “abuse” is the correct word to describe that incident.


  • JanSmith

    So well articulated I couldn’t have said it better myself. Southern Poverty Law Center is no longer about civil rights but deceptively practices hate mongering by attacking groups who oppose their civil and human rights being violated. They need to be shut down as they are doing grave public harm.

    • TruthInAdvertising

      No, they shouldn’t be shut down. Let’s not lower ourselves to the level of our tyrannical opponents.


      No wonder the U.S had such fiscal problems with the blood sucking trash like SPLC drawing on the tax of the common man.

  • keyster

    Well written TDOM!

    Be aware that SPLC has a hotline to the Dept. of Homeland Security in DC. In other words our federal govt has prescribed them with enough credibility to be a watchdog arm for “right-wing extremist groups”.

    And once all the “right-wing extremist groups” are vetted and exposed, where else are they to go to justify their existence? You guessed it. They start attacking ANY opposing ideologies as “extremist and potentially violent and a threat to “vulnerable people” and our country”, etc and so on.

    That’s how it works.
    That’s the plan of the NWO types and why Soros funds their efforts. It’s Crtitical Theory and a form of “soft censorship” at play. If you criticize this administration you’re a hater and potentially violent by default.

    • TDOM

      Yes, I am aware that the SPLC compiles lists to report to law enforcement. A few months after I began my blog I noticed that I was receiving the occasion visit for someone using computers at various government institutions including Homeland Security (I even think I wrote I post about it). The plugin could display IP addresses and I would sometimes look them up. It malfunctioned about a year and a half ago and I deleted it and never replaced it. But it was interesting to see that quite a number of my site’s visitors had been using government computers to visit the site. They probably still do and some are probably “watching” me to determine if I’m some sort of terrorist. I’ve ceased to care about it. In fact I should be honored to be on some sort of Obama “enemies” list in the same way many former hippy activists were honored to be on Nixon’s list.


      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Being on those lists never hurt Jane Fonda any.

  • donB

    An excellent rebuttal argument that uses the TRUTH to expose the lies and hatred of all those disagreeing with feminists. One can certainly tell you did your homework. Thanks for your bravery and diligence on matters that help men and boys.

    Men do not have to agree with all that feminists say in order to prove they do not “hate” women. Men are certainly allowed to use their wit to see and discuss what is straight in front of them without it being considered hatred. The task is to get mainstream men and consenting women to be courageous enough to join forces and put a stop to the real hatred that says we MRA’s hate.

    All we want is truthful justice—something that scares the hell out of feminists and many women in general, because they will not get their way all the time. You have to see it their way no matter how empty and transparent they are. Else you are filled with hate.

    The time will come when it is illegal to have websites like these. Femi-socialists have taken most of the cherished rights of free enterprise, democracy, and free peoples away with unaffected faces. They will not stop. They WILL come after MRM sites. They will censor us and remove our rightful ability to question and counter them. They will get their way too, due to the cowards out there that will not defend their own gender. Men and decent, true democracy-loving women, when they come to take away our voices in the name of “protecting women” what will we do? Nothing? Complain by mumbling under our voices?

    We had better get organized and fast!


      “The time will come when it is illegal to have websites like these.”

      So true thus my OFFLINE activities.


    This article alone PROVES feminism as a violent, murderous hate movement.

    Aren’t there still SCUM conferences in Australia, with the presence of government officials, and murderer Valerie Solanas still holds speeches at feminist conferences? Someone please confirm or disconfirm.

    About false rape accusations, we at Human-Stupidity consistently found that discrepancies have to do with PROVEN and seemingly clear false accusations, the former being 6-20%, the latter 30- over 60%. That in the opinion of investigators, not of men’s rights activists.


      Valerie Jean Solanas (April 9, 1936 – April 25, 1988)

      • Dr. F

        Verbose gibbering greasy hysterical ball of insanity (April 9, 1936 – April 25, 1988)


    I put this as a separate comment, because it might be very divisive and contested.

    In the racial hate crime issue, there are is a “race realists” movement, that clearly documents that black on white crime is very very common and usually always hidden.

    Rarely is race mentioned. A group of youth beat up people on the street almost always translates into “young blacks beat up Whites and Asians”.

    And even if the blacks yell racial epithets, “white boy”, or go “polar bear hunting” they never get prosecuted for hate crimes.

    So I thought the title referred to these topics, near and dear to splc.

    There are many parallels between race and gender issues.

    Whites get discriminated against at work, and in college admissions. Like Men do.

    Oh and lots of violence and race issues that women try to solve on fairly safe college campuses are rampant in poor downtown areas, which tend to be mainly black.

    Even though I will be called racist, statistics clearly show that blacks commit multiple times the number of violent crimes then whites. And to the dismay of white supremacists, Asians perform even better (Jews too, I believe).

    So what is the commonality: women (blacks) white-washing their crimes, getting legal privileges and quotas, having entire women’s (black) NGO’s and government departments coming to their aid, ……

  • Dose28

    You know guys, I hate to say this, but I don’t think any great strides will be made for mens rights unless we begin to employ political tactics, in very clever ways. I know that it would be great to just be able to tell the world the truth and have everything work out, but just as that obviously is insufficient I can not believe that “playing fair” and “being reasonable” is going to get us anywhere. I’m not going to say that we need to be dishonorable but dammit if oyur opponent can see that your about to turn left they’re going to block you. Political savvy, that’s what we need. I swear, I feel like we’re in a boxing match with our hands tied behind our backs. I’m not really sure that I can flesh out that kind of stategies I’m saying would be helpful here because I hate politics and thus know jack squat about it. You can’t be reasonable with unreasonable people, which are the people we are fighting against. You also can’t be reasonable with people that don’t know shit and that eat up all that propaganda that’s spoon fed to them by feminists. Even if the MRM can find a few shining examples of manhood that have never done wrong the feminist machine would still smear them to the public. I hate the idea of cheating to win but what if that’s the only way we can since our opposition is prepared to do anything to win this? Femenists will do and say anything to win. They would never think twice about cheating. We’re in extreme circumstances, does that not warrant extreme measures? I’m not talking aobut violence, I’m talking about good propaganda, it there is such a thing, I’m talking about getting OUR message into the schools, into the media, to get some real exposure. We can’t get anysignificant number of people on our side if they stay conditioned with feminist dogma. We need a PR campaign, seriously, a BIG one. We need to be more agressive, but cleverly so, smart, slick, and, I know this might sound lame, but we need to have some sex appeal to this movement, yeah, it’s gotta’ be sexy. “Perception is reality.” I believe that is a truism of politics and that is the sort of tactic I’m talking about, changing peoples perceptions, not just by telling the truth, but by making it appealing. I know that’s a tall order but there are organizations out there that are pros at this kind of thing, like marketing companies. If this movement doesn’t get exponentially stronger fast I cannot believe it will succeed. Sorry if I’m being a downer.


      Well said.Websites are not going to cut it alone.

      Below is what we MUST DO, by the container shipload.


    Well well, I have been doing the rounds of my local shopping center this morning, many of the young men have seen the posters and stickers.

    As I suspected my offline work is paying off.