Why feminists fear men's rights activists - we just keep winning where it counts!

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/

Every Wednesday at noon, the Governor’s Council gathers at the Massachusetts State House. The eight-member council is an elected but little-known body that serves as the governor’s advisory board; oversees things such as pardons; and approves or rejects appointments for state judgeships. That means it has a lot of influence on how state laws wind up getting interpreted and carried out.

Amid the smattering of lobbyists and state officials at council meetings, there is always a member of the Fatherhood Coalition, a Massachusetts-based organization that was founded in 1993 to steer state laws in a direction more favorable to fathers. Sometimes it’s Joe Ureneck, the group’s chairman, who attends. He’s a small-business owner who, while going through a divorce, became concerned with the system’s “sexist bias.” Other times it’s Patrick McCabe, a soft-spoken part-time accountant from Hyde Park whose divorce left him similarly disturbed. McCabe, in fact, is running for a seat on the council this November.

Ureneck and McCabe aren’t exactly shy and retiring at the meetings. Along with the rest of the Fatherhood Coalition, they do their best to shut down judicial nominees they view as insufficiently sympathetic to their agenda. A nominee, for instance, like David Aptaker, who in 2010 was up for a position as a Middlesex probate judge. As a bit of background, one thing the Fatherhood Council is particularly concerned about is restraining orders, which it insists are used in a way that’s biased against men. In fact, the group has been pushing legislation to change the system. That’s why the coalition was alarmed by Aptaker’s nomination—according to a post on its website, Aptaker’s “lack of understanding of the restraining order laws made it clear he was not fit for the bench.” So after discovering that the nominee had failed to disclose donations he’d made to two disgraced politicians, the Fatherhood Coalition showed up at a public hearing, registering complaints that he couldn’t be trusted because of his donations. Under pressure, Aptaker eventually withdrew his application. “Whether you agree with them or not, their point of view has become the elephant in the room,” says Mary-Ellen Manning, a council member from Salem. Watertown’s Marilyn Petitto Devaney, who’s been on the council for 14 years, says the presence of the Fatherhood Coalition has “changed the way we do business here.”

Aptaker’s story underscores a disturbing trend: Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence. And rather than just ranting and raving on the Internet, these men have been pulling political levers to change both state and federal laws. That they’ve done so with remarkable success ought to make everyone very, very scared.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/men-rights-unruh-act-women-discrimination

In April 2014, Stephanie Burns' company, Chic CEO, was gearing up for a networking event at an Italian restaurant in San Diego. Chic CEO hosts online resources for women starting their own businesses, and this spring evening it had teamed up with a local networking group to throw a mixer at Solare Lounge, where women could mingle over cocktails and appetizers while talking business.

During the event, Rich Allison, Allan Candelore, and Harry Crouch appeared at the restaurant door. They had each paid the $20 admission fee, and they told the hosts they wanted to enter the event. Chic CEO turned them away, saying that "the event was only open to women," according to the men's version of events, explained later in a legal complaint. Within two months, the three men had filed a discrimination lawsuit against Burns and her company alleging that the event discriminated against men. They are each members of the nation's oldest men's rights group, the National Coalition for Men, and Crouch is the NCFM's president.*

The lawsuit is a recent example of a trend that several men's rights activists have repeatedly deployed in California, one made more successful by their strategic use of the Unruh Act, a decades-old civil rights law named after Jesse Unruh, the progressive former speaker of the California Assembly. The law is quite broad, outlawing discrimination based on markers such as age, race, sex, or disability. In dozens of lawsuits, several NCFM members have invoked it to allege discrimination against men by such varied groups as sports teams and local theaters. And the strategy has worked.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ather_evolution_of_divorce_and_paternity.html

Men’s rights activists complain that despite the legal changes, mother preference still lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody still prevailed. But more recently judges have been catching up to the law. According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts’ preference for the “friendly parent,” meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father’s involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts. In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

^^^ Why I don't bother talking about custody wars in the context of today. MRAs have won this war, too. We had to wrench this one from the feminists' cold, dead hands in court. And we fucking did.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm

In almost a dozen states, men have won the right to use conclusive genetic tests to end their financial obligations to children they didn't father. But women's groups and many public officials responsible for enforcing child support are battling the movement, which they say imperils children.

Most states design their family laws to protect what they call "the interests of the child." That means siding with the child's financial and emotional needs and against supposed fathers who want to avoid paying for tricycles and braces.

Taxpayers also have a big stake in child support collections, which have grown to$18 billion annually and cover 20 million children. If men who are paying child support no longer have to and authorities can't find the real fathers, welfare agencies will get the bill for family assistance.

Many men who feel deceived by a woman are in no mood to accept a legal system that doesn't recognize DNA science in such cases. "It's like they are saying, 'Let your wife cheat on you, have children by other men, divorce you, and now you have to pay for it all,' " says Air Force Master Sgt. Raymond Jackson, 43. California judges won't consider tests he says prove that the three children of his former 10-year marriage were fathered by other men.

Since this story broke, even more states like Texas and, yup, California have fallen to our onslaught against gender injustice.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...assault-are-winning-lawsuits-against-colleges

While university sexual assault policies do affect male students more than female, the policies themselves aren’t to blame, as they are written to be gender neutral. The disparate impact on male students is not because colleges are targeting men, a number of courts have concluded, but because men commit and are accused of sexual assault far more than women. Two recent lawsuits against the University of Missouri and Augustana University in South Dakota were both dismissed for similar reasons.

The cases that have resulted in wins for the accused are generally built on claims that the disciplined students’ rights to due process were violated, not that they were discriminated against for being men.

Even lawsuits in federal courts are starting to have some level of success by focusing on due process. A recent lawsuit against Pennsylvania State University survived the university’s motion to dismiss, with a federal judge granting the accused student a preliminary injunction that prevented his suspension and deportation back to Syria.

In an analysis of the UCSD case, Erin Buzuvis, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies at Western New England University, said that institutions can still fulfill their obligations under Title IX without taking the shortcuts the University of California at San Diego and others seemingly have. When colleges fail to follow due process, it makes it easier for accused students to win lawsuits and reverse their suspensions or expulsions -- and that could mean letting predators back on campus, too.

Yet another case of men's rights activism resulting in victories for our side!


http://chronicle.com/article/At-Harvard-All-Female-Groups/236431

At Harvard, All-Female Groups Claim Collateral Damage in Crackdown on Final Clubs

After Harvard University announced plans on Friday to bar members of single-gender social clubs from leadership positions and scholarship endorsements from the college, many of Harvard’s women fought back.

The policy is an attempt to crack down on Harvard’s historic "final clubs," which are not officially affiliated with the university. The new rule, however, does not single out those groups, taking in the campus’s unaffiliated five fraternities and four sororities as well.

Students and alumni took their concerns to Harvard Yard and Twitter on Monday night, protesting the administration’s new policy and asking for women’s groups to be exempted. Many women expressed a need for safe spaces and wondered why they were being treated the same as the dominant and more-problematic male groups.

A Harvard spokeswoman, Rachael Dane, said the university stood by the new policy and will set up an advisory committee of administrators, faculty members, and students to put the changes in place.

Oh wait, nope, feminists shot themselves in the face here. NVM

There's little question, then, why Americans increasingly see feminism as NOT being about equality.

In 2012, 28% of Americans would call themselves feminists.
https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/05/01/has-feminist-become-dirty-word/

In 2014, that fell to 20%.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html

In 2015, it fell to 18%.
http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...ont-consider-themselves-feminists-poll-shows/

In each and every case, the people polled overwhelmingly want equality between the sexes, but yet they also overwhelmingly do not want to be called feminists. This means only one thing - they increasingly do not see feminism as meaning equality between the sexes. A problem that is entirely the fault of feminism's extremist behavior.

It seems even the British feminists have come to understand why people do not associate equal rights with feminism.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/7534...minists-doesnt-match-up-to-the-actual-numbers

Considering the evidence of the polls and the definition of the word feminism, it appears that the issue doesn’t lie in the basic tenets for which feminism fights, but with the connotation that the word seems to carry. Further polling in the U.K. by OnePoll about the public perception of feminism revealed that more people found it to be negative, as opposed to positive.

People viewed feminists as “anti-men,” “aggressive,” and supporters of women being better than men. Interestingly, these sorts of connotative concerns resonated even with the respondents who identified as feminists. Of those 36 percent of U.K. residents who considered themselves feminists, 31 percent “worry about identifying as one.”

A negative word connotation should not stand in the way of progress, though. These polls reveal that we’re hung up on how a certain term sounds and what it implies, rather than what it actually represents. Aside from that revelation though, these polls reveal something else that’s extremely important: Most of us do stand for equal gender rights.

What feminists do not realize is that this negative connotation associated with their movement was earned by their own movement.

The same problem explains their unpopularity in America.

Even feminists are turning toward sympathy for the men's rights movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/11/cassie-jaye-red-pill-feminism-mens-rights

A feminist film-maker has been criticised for deciding to make a documentary about men’s rights activists that takes “a balanced approach”. Cassie Jaye, who has previously directed documentaries about sex education and gay marriage, endured problems with funding and a backlash from other feminists after announcing The Red Pill.

“We weren’t finding executive producers who wanted to take a balanced approach, we found people who wanted to make a feminist film,” she told the website Breitbart. “I started to see the bias towards women’s films and against men’s. There are no categories for men’s films [when applying for grants], though there are several for women and minorities. I submitted the film to human rights categories, and was rejected by all of them.”

After funding was pulled, Jaye turned to Kickstarter where she has raised almost $204,000, more than double her target of $97,000.

Jaye initially planned to profile the men’s rights movement from a feminist point of view, but found her beliefs changing while filming the documentary. The Kickstarter page promises the film will document “a life-altering journey where she would never see the world the same way again”.

Women are also joining the Men's Rights movement, too.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/mens-rights-movement-women-who-love-it

When many people think of the men's rights movement, the image that springs to mind is lonely men lurking in chat rooms and railing against women. But in recent years, a group of brash, witty female activists has taken up the cause. It may seem counterintuitive that women would be helping drive the conversation about a movement that's fighting anti-male discrimination and campaigning fiercely against feminism. But according to Dean Esmay of the men's rights organization A Voice for Men, the fact that they shatter expectations is what makes them such good emissaries. "People want to believe we're a bunch of sad, pathetic losers who can't get laid and are just bitter because our wives left us," Esmay explains. "The very presence of women in the movement creates cognitive dissonance." Often, he adds, this dissonance makes people more receptive than they otherwise would be.

Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ent-who-became-a-mens-rights-activist/372742/

Karen DeCrow, the feminist attorney and author who served as president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, died of melanoma last Friday at 76. Although her passing was widely noted in the media, most the obituaries and tributes overlooked the more unorthodox aspects of her work. A lifelong champion of women’s rights, DeCrow was nonetheless skeptical about many key aspects of latter-day feminism, including its focus on sexual violence and male abuse of women. She was also, for much of her career, a men’s-rights activist.

DeCrow raised eyebrows in 1981 when she served as defense counsel to Frank Serpico, the former New York detective and whistleblower, in a paternity suit. Serpico claimed the plaintiff had used him as a “sperm bank” and lied about being on the Pill while knowingly trying to conceive, and asserted that he had a constitutional right not to become a parent against his will. (The family-court judge, a woman, ruled in Serpico’s favor, but he lost on appeal.)

DeCrow, by then a lawyer in private practice in Syracuse, New York, endorsed Serpico’s argument on feminist grounds. “Just as the Supreme Court has said that women have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, men should also have that right,” she told The New York Times, calling this “the only logical feminist position to take.”

Quite a few feminists disagreed. Marjory D. Fields, then co-chair of Governor Mario Cuomo’s Task Force On Domestic Violence and later a family-court judge, described the defense tactics in the case as “almost a classic antiwoman presentation: that women seduce and entrap men with their feminine wiles.” DeCrow was unfazed. In a 1982 letter to the Times, she wrote that since men have no legal power to either veto or compel an abortion, it is only just that they shouldn’t have to pay for a woman’s unilateral decision to bring the pregnancy to term: “Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”

And our diversity is increasing.
http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/...-usesites/all/themes/dailyxtra/images/dailyxt

The MRA group, SFU Advocacy for Men and Boys (AMB), invited Karen Straughan, an outspoken and charismatic men’s rights internet personality, to speak about “toxic femininity.” Weeks later, the university’s Gender Studies and Women’s Studies Student Union released an anonymously written open letter criticizing the AMB for the “offensive, hostile and aggressive” event, and accusing them of “using men’s issues as a way to attack feminism.”

The AMB shot back with its own letter, calling the student union “histrionic” and “superficial,” and accusing the feminists of demanding a monopoly on the conversation.

But here’s where the story gets interesting: The AMB’s indignant response was penned by the club’s president Theryn Meyer, a transgender woman.

So while you're raging at me for making this post, remember, MRAs are winning, and winning is what really counts!

Rage on!

 

[badbabysitter]

I stopped at this


Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence

if you think higher rates of domestic violence is a victory.. you're pretty fucked in the head

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I stopped at this


Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence

if you think higher rates of domestic violence is a victory.. you're pretty fucked in the head

Those same laws give male victims no rights at all. If a man is abused, he's the one who gets arrested.

That is why we slapped those laws down, and that's why we're going to keep hammering your asses and winning, until you feminists back down and admit that domestic violence against men is NOT a trivial issue.

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html

Do women use violence as often as men in intimate relationships?
When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence. Men's use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

Oh and your Duluth Model doctrine also hurts women, because women abuse each other as often as men abuse women, and female batterers can easily follow their female victims into shelters because feminists have the world believing that only men are violent.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/myths-ipv-lesbian-relationships/

After attending a training about intimate partner violence from my agency, staff at a local doctor’s office found themselves calling our hotline. They had a lesbian woman in their exam room who was terrified of her highly agitated abusive partner sitting in their waiting room. There had been significant emotional and physical abuse in their relationship.

When it was over, the survivor would be secretly ushered out the back door into a waiting cab to bring her to shelter, and law enforcement would become involved.

Of course, we then had to warn crisis line advocates who approve people for shelter to be extra cautious when screening. You see, some lesbian abusers have pretended to be victims of intimate partner violence so that they could gain entry into shelters and find their partner.

Cunning, isn’t it? Hard to believe?

The idea that intimate partner violence occurs in lesbian relationships may seem ridiculous. I mean, intimate partner violence only happens in heterosexual relationships, right?

Oh and actual rape is reported in 30% of lesbian relationships.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html

Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering.

Your culture of misandry hurts women.

 

[badbabysitter]

Those same laws give male victims no rights at all. If a man is abused, he's the one who gets arrested.




That is why we slapped those laws down, and that's why we're going to keep hammering your asses and winning, until you feminists back down and admit that domestic violence against men is NOT a trivial issue.

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html


Oh and your Duluth Model doctrine also hurts women, because women abuse each other as often as men abuse women, and female batterers can easily follow their female victims into shelters because feminists have the world believing that only men are violent.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/myths-ipv-lesbian-relationships/


Oh and actual rape is reported in 30% of lesbian relationships.

http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html


Your culture of misandry hurts women.

how exactly is defunding programs to curb domestic violence ..helping stop domestic violence

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

how exactly is defunding programs to curb domestic violence ..helping stop domestic violence

By forcing feminists to come up with a new program that recognizes women as aggressors.

Currently we have no such system in place. Which is why women can abuse their girlfriends/wives and then follow them into shelters unhindered.

And it is why police arrest battered men instead of the women who batter them.

Or, at least they used to... until the MRAs stepped in and took action!

 

[Pairaclities]

I stopped at this


Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence

if you think higher rates of domestic violence is a victory.. you're pretty fucked in the head

And I stopped at this:

When many people think of the men's rights movement, the image that springs to mind is lonely men lurking in chat rooms and railing against women.

I think you personify that statement quite nicely LJ Retarded, or at least you are magnifying the "image that springs to mind".

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That would be cute if it weren't so fucking pathetic. LeJackass thinks that someone is afraid of him and his woman haters club. Disdain does not equal fear, also he misspelled "whining".

 

[RoryN]

When many people think of the men's rights movement, the image that springs to mind is lonely men lurking in chat rooms and railing against women.

This isn't just an image - it's a reality.

 

[Pairaclities]

This isn't just an image - it's a reality.

Yes it is, and the imagery produces a facepalm.

 

[bronzeage]

I stopped at this


Men’s rights groups, convinced that men are the biggest victims of modern society, have been busy attacking, defunding, and repealing laws that have been very effective at protecting women and lowering rates of domestic violence

if you think higher rates of domestic violence is a victory.. you're pretty fucked in the head

Lt has to be a victim. Otherwise, he only has himself to blame for the miserable existence his life has turned out to be. First, it was his mother, then his wife, and now all of the female sex are the culprits, with special emphasis on women who only date tall bad boys who have a job that pays better than hers.

 

[lovecraft68]

This isn't just an image - it's a reality.

One that LJ proves beyond a doubt each time he posts, he's a detriment to his own cause.

 

[Pairaclities]

One that LJ proves beyond a doubt each time he posts, he's a detriment to his own cause.

Despite this being pointed out to him by virtually every person who has posted in his MR posts, he still just does not get that this is the truth, and reality.
It really is tragedy, reality just escapes him.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

This isn't just an image - it's a reality.

Ah, so that's why we're kicking your asses in the courts and legislatures, because we just sit around lurking in chat rooms.

You manginas take care of the trash talk. We'll take care of the winning part.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

We just keep on winning and winning and winning.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...k=cadd2fda1e0244b451d85877ac4bffc3-1466034806

New university research compiled from interviews with dozens of fishermen has exposed disturbing levels of inhumane treatment on foreign fishing vessels operating in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone.

The conditions suffered by 2000 mainly Indonesian men on 27 vessels were judged "appalling", with gruesome accounts of extreme physical violence and verbal abuse.

"Officers are vicious bastards ... factory manager just rapped this 12kg stainless steel pan over his head, splits the top of his head, blood pissing out everywhere...," one informant told the University of Auckland.

"I told the Master can't leave him cause he's bleeding all over the squid. He said 'Oh no no, he's Indonesian, no touchy no touchy'... Took him to the bridge and third mate said 'Indonesian, no stitchy no stitchy'. I ended up giving over 26 stitches ... bit of a mess."

Feminists didn't care jack shit about this. But Men's Rights Activists did.

MRAs called for action against this horrible shit by demanding that America stop supporting the enslavement and rape of male fishermen

And lo and behold what happened?
http://www.usnews.com/news/business...congress-bans-import-of-forced-labor-products

A bill headed for President Barack Obama this week includes a provision that would ban U.S. imports of fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh, closing a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law that has failed to keep products of forced and child labor out of America.

An expose by The Associated Press last year found Thai companies ship seafood to the U.S. that was caught and processed by trapped and enslaved workers. AP tracked fish and shrimp from people locked in cages and factories to supply chains of top retailers and restaurants, from supermarket chains like Wal-Mart and Whole Foods to restaurants including Red Lobster. The companies all said they strongly condemn labor abuse and are taking steps to prevent it.

As a result of the reports, more than 2,000 trapped fishermen have been freed, more than a dozen alleged traffickers arrested and millions of dollars worth of seafood and vessels seized. Thai Union, one of the world's biggest seafood exporters, says it has hired 1,200 workers from outsourced shrimp processing sheds into safer, more closely regulated in-house jobs with decent pay.

We won again!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

MRAs are taking ground from the enemy in their war against the draft.

http://ncfm.org/2016/02/action/ncfm-wins-ninth-circuit-selective-service-appeal/

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) is pleased to announce that on 2/19/16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the lower Federal District Court’s dismissal of NCFM’s and James Lesmeister’s lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the male-only Selective Service registration requirement.

The District Court had dismissed the case on the ground that it was not “ripe” (i.e., it was premature) because the military has not yet fully implemented the integration of women into all combat roles, and thus that the case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) is still valid. But the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the claim is “definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract,” in that “Lesmeister and the Coalition point to numerous specific changes in statutes, policies, and practices that have happened since the Supreme Court’s decision in Rostker v. Goldberg,” and therefore that the case is “ripe for adjudication.”

The Court of Appeal also rejected the Selective Service‘s argument that NCFM and Lesmeister lack standing to sue. Then Court stated: “the Selective Service is wrong to argue that the Coalition and Lesmeister lack standing because their alleged equality injuries would not be redressed if the burdens they challenge were extended to women.” The Court further pointed out that “the injuries the Coalition and Lesmeister allege could be addressed either by extending the burden of registration to women or by striking down the requirement for men.”

Let's hope this means the abolishment of Selective Service rather than its expansion to women.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

MRAs would get a lot more respect if they stopped at custody laws - men truly get a raw deal there. But the rest of it seems like a bunch of pointless whining but men who simply need to get laid.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

MRAs would get a lot more respect if they stopped at custody laws - men truly get a raw deal there. But the rest of it seems like a bunch of pointless whining but men who simply need to get laid.

Bah, we don't fucking care if you think we're whining men.

We're winning court and legislative battles and bleeding the fuck out of sexist colleges for their feminist nonsense. We're slowly finding ways around feminist indoctrination and culture, too. That is what we care about.