https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY

TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO:

In 2013, I decided to meet my enemies. I was a 27-year-old, award-winning documentary filmmaker and a proud feminist. And I was determined to expose the dark underbelly of the men's rights movement. At that point, all I knew of the men's rights movement was from what I'd read online, that it's a misogynistic hate group actively working against women's equality. Well, the vast majority of my previous work was about women's issues. I directed documentaries about reproductive rights, single motherhood, and the need for more girls to get into STEM education. So when I learned that no one had ever documented the men's rights movement in a film before, I saw it as an opportunity to continue fighting for women's equality by exposing those preventing it. So for one year, I traveled North America meeting the leaders and followers of the men's rights movement. I spent anywhere from two hours up to eight hours, interviewing each individual men's rights activist, also known as MRA, and I filmed 44 people total. And there is an important rule in documentary filmmaking. As an interviewer, you do not interrupt.

So I'm asking questions, and I'm getting their full life story. And in the moment, I didn't realize it, but now looking back I can see, that while I was conducting my interviews, I wasn't actually listening. I was hearing them speak, and I knew the cameras were recording, but in those moments of sitting across from my enemy, I wasn't listening. What was I doing? I was anticipating. I was waiting to hear a sentence, or even just a couple of words in succession that proved what I wanted to believe: that I had found the misogynist. The ground zero of the war on women. A couple of times, I thought I had it. There was one men's rights activist that said to me, "Just walk outside and look around, everything you see was built by a man." Oh! That statement felt anti-women. I felt my jaw clench, but I sat quietly, as a documentarian should, while removing all the space between my upper and lower molars. (Laughter)

After my year of filming, I was reviewing the 100 hours of footage I had gathered, replaying and transcribing it, which believe me when I say no one will ever listen to you more than someone who transcribes your words. You should write that down. (Laughter) So, I was typing out every word meticulously, and through that process, I began to realize that my initial knee-jerk reactions to certain statements weren't really warranted, and my feeling offended did not hold up to intense scrutiny. Was that statement about men having built the skyscrapers and the bridges anti-women? I thought, well, what would be the gender-reverse scenario? Maybe a feminist saying: Just look around, everyone you see was birthed by a woman. Wow! That's a powerful statement. And it's true. Is it anti-male? I don't think so. I think it's acknowledging our unique and valued contributions to our society. Well, luckily, while I was making The Red Pill movie, I kept a video diary which ended up tracking my evolving views, and in looking back on the 37 diaries I recorded that year, there was a common theme.

I would often hear an innocent, valid point that a men's rights activist would make, but in my head, I would add on to their statements, a sexist or anti-woman spin, assuming that's what they wanted to say but didn't...

...So here are two examples of how that would go. A men's rights activist, an MRA, would say to me, "There are over 2,000 domestic violence shelters for women in the United States. But only one for men. Yet, multiple reputable studies show that men are just as likely to be abused." I would hear them say, "We don't need 2,000 shelters for women. They're all lying about being abused. It's all a scam." But in looking back on all the footages I've gathered of men's rights activists talking about shelters and all the blogs they've written and the video live-streams they have posted on YouTube, they are not trying to defund women's shelters. Not at all. All they're saying is that men can be abused too, and they deserve care and compassion.

Second example. A men's rights activist would say to me, "Where is justice for the man who was falsely accused of raping a woman, and because of this accusation, he loses his college scholarship and is branded with the inescapable title of a rapist." I would hear them say, "A woman being raped isn't a big deal." It's as if I didn't hear the word "falsely" accused of rape. All I heard was, "He was accused of rape." Of course, rape is a big deal, and all the men's rights activists I met agreed it is a horrible thing to have happened to anyone.

I eventually realized what they are saying is they are trying to add to the gender equality discussion,

who is standing up for the good-hearted, honorable man that loses his scholarship, his job, or worse yet, his children, because he is accused of something he absolutely did not do? (Sighs) Well, I couldn't keep denying the points they were making.

There are real issues. But in my effort to avoid agreeing with my enemy completely, I changed from putting words in their mouth to acknowledging the issue but insisting they are women's issues...

...So here are two examples of how that would go. A men's rights activist would say to me, "Men are far more likely to lose their child in a custody battle." And I would counter: "Well, because women are unfairly expected to be the caretaker. It's discrimination against women that women get custody more often." Yes. (Laughter) I am not proud of that. (Laughter)

Second example. An MRA would say to me, "Men are roughly 78% of all suicides throughout the world." And I would counter with: "But women attempt suicide more often. So ha! (Laughter) Ha?

It's not a contest. But I kept making it into one. Why couldn't I simply learn about men's issues and have compassion for male victims without jumping at the opportunity to insist that women are the real victims...

...Well, after years of researching and fact-checking, what the men's rights activists were telling me, there is no denying that there are many human rights issues that disproportionately or uniquely affect men. Paternity fraud uniquely affects men. The United States Selective Service in the case of a draft still uniquely affects men. Workplace deaths: disproportionately men. War deaths: overwhelmingly men. Suicide: overwhelmingly men. Sentencing disparity, life expectancy, child custody, child support, false rape allegations, criminal court bias, misandry, failure launched, boys falling behind in education, homelessness, veterans issues, infant male genital mutilation, lack of parental choice once a child is conceived, lack of resources for male victims of domestic violence, so many issues that are heartbreaking, if you are the victim or you love someone who is the victim unto any one of these issues.

These are men's issues. And most people can't name one because they think, "Well, men have all their rights; they have all the power and privilege." But these issues deserve to be acknowledged. They deserve care, attention, and motivation for solutions. Before making The Red Pill movie, I was a feminist of about ten years, and I thought I was well-versed on gender equality issues. But it wasn't until I met men's rights activists that I finally started to consider the other side of the gender equality equation. It doesn't mean I agree with all that they've said. But I saw the immense value in listening to them and trying to see the world through their eyes. I thought if I could get my audience to also listen to them, it could serve as a rung on the ladder, bringing us all up to a higher consciousness about gender equality. So in October 2016, the film was released in theaters, and articles and critic reviews started to roll in.

And that's when I experienced how engaged the media is in group think around gender politics. And I learned a difficult lesson...

...When you start to humanize your enemy, you, in turn, may be dehumanized by your community. And that's what happened to me.

Rather than debating the merit of the issues addressed in the film...

...I became the target of a smear campaign, and people who had never seen the movie protested outside the theater doors, chanting that it was harmful to women. It certainly is not.

But I understand their mindset...

If I never made this movie, and I heard that there was a documentary screening about men's rights activists that didn't show them as monsters, I too would have protested the screenings or at least sign the petitions to ban the film because I was told that they were my enemy. I was told that men's rights activists were against women's equality. But all the men's rights activists I met support women's rights and are simply asking the question: "Why doesn't our society care about men's rights?" Well, the greatest challenge I faced through this whole process, it wasn't the protests against my film, and it wasn't how I was treated by the mainstream media - even though it got pretty disgusting at times. The greatest challenge I faced was peeling back the layers of my own bias.

It turns out I did meet my enemy while filming. It was my ego saying that I was right, and they were subhuman. It's no secret now that I no longer call myself a feminist, but I must clarify I am not anti-feminist, and I am not a men's rights activist. I still support women's rights, and I now care about men's rights as well. However, I believe if we want to honestly discuss gender equality, we need to invite all voices to the table. Yet, this is not what is happening. Men's groups are continually vilified, falsely referred to as hate groups, and their voices are systematically silenced. Do I think either movement has all the answers? No. Men's rights activists are not without flaws, neither are feminists. But if one group is being silenced, that's a problem for all of us. If I could give advice to anyone in our society at large, we have to stop expecting to be offended, and we have to start truly, openly, and sincerely listening. That would lead to a greater understanding of ourselves and others, having compassion for one another, working together towards solutions because we all are in this together. And once we do that, we can finally heal from the inside out. But it has to start with listening. Thank you for listening.

http://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/on-gendered-oppression/

the privilege/intersectionality model of how oppression works? Is a model. It’s an oversimplification that people use because the actual reality of how oppression works is way too complicated to talk about. It is not the Ultimate Truth Of How Oppression Works Forever and Ever.

Therefore, there are dynamics of how oppression works that the privilege/oppression model doesn’t talk about at all.

Basically, the (non-MRA, feminist) blogger seems to believe that though there is no oppression against men qua men, some forms of oppression do more adversely affect some men in part because of their gender. would you agree? Is the blogger failing to describe how the model is actually meant to be used? (say, interactive, not additive)

I used to get something out of browsing AMR... seeing the pro-feminism view of MRA discussions was interesting and occasionally educational. And call it "concern trolling" if you want, but I think both MRAs and feminists need a heavy dose of being called out on their bullshit when they say or support things that are ignorant and wrong. AMR was good for that, at least.

But now it seems like AMR lately is just looking for any way to bash a "mister" regardless of whether it makes any sense whatsoever. Let's look at some of the top posts of the last couple of weeks:

1. Women on Twitter are retweeting a message that says that men under 6 feet tall are unattractive. A man responds by changing the post to say "women" instead of "men" and "over 200 lbs" instead of "under 6 feet" to show how hateful and stupid the original message was, and is promptly attacked by women who support that double standard.

MRAs talk about double standards being unfair, especially since height is something you can't change at all. AMR somehow thinks this means "judging men for their height is unfair but judging women for their weight is totes legit!", missing the entire point.

2. University of Oklahoma has a quiz question in which two drunk people have sex. MRAs wonder why the quiz considers this to be a case of the man raping the woman, when both were drinking and both had sex.

AMR sees this as "literally just mister after mister not understanding how a woman being drunk and not giving consent during sexual intercourse has been raped. Mind-boggling."

3. MRAs discuss how gender equality means that violence should be equally intolerable among both genders, and that self-defense is should be allowed regardless of what is or isn't between your attacker's legs.

AMR reads this as "I think deep down some men just want to have a reason to hit a woman.

4. Some Google doodle "probably" made a bunch of MRAs angry, because they're all cartoon bad guys or something.

5. A moronic Missouri Republican is pushing for a law where women can't get an abortion without a man's permission. MRAs call it horrible and disgusting, so AMR pretends all the MRAs are lying and actually do support that law.

There's also a bunch of White Rights idiocy and purely misogynistic bullshit being held up to the spotlight in various posts, because "it was probably an MRA that wrote this". Any bad behavior in the world, even non-existant imaginary bad behavior, is attributed to these "probably" MRAs and then everyone laughs at the silly straw MRAs.

What is the point of that whole subreddit anymore? It's literally gotten to the point where people are imagining shitty behavior and then imagining that an MRA did that behavior just to have an excuse to attack others.

While browsing the web I came across this Tumblr post which apparently is meant to criticize the concept of "patriarchy." A lot of it seems like pseudo-intellectual nonsense meant to justify a reactionary position, but given there are people here who are probably a whole lot smarter than I am on these issues I'd prefer to hear your perspective before making a judgment.

Is this legit or is it just a load of nonsense?

I'm not a tech worker, I'm hardly even that "weird" (my weirdness is mostly about my gender identity, an Official Feminist Protected Class), but after having spent some time around the anti-tech/Tumblr circlejerk, I found the author's point of view refreshing.

https://medium.com/@maradydd/when-nerds-collide-31895b01e68c

The mainstream tech industry offers us money, status, and a stable (if weak) position in its idealised social hierarchy. The voices clamouring for change offer us no money, a social role reversal back to “disempowered outsider,” and a status demotion to “likely sexual predator.” (The polite euphemism for this is “creepy,” a pejorative applied indiscriminately both to those who actively transgress other people’s boundaries and to those with the unmitigated gall to be attracted to someone else while being funny-looking.) Given a choice between these two, which would you side with? It’s true that the one is confining, essentialist, and a far cry from the best of all possible worlds, but the other is all these things and a step backward for people who finally got to take a step forward for once when the internet took off.

Remember, you’re dealing with constructivists here — and not just any constructivists, but constructivists whose own lived experience yields proof after proof that they, and their outsider norms, will be first against the wall when the popular kids come. Over time, we internalise these lessons, so much so that at times we’re unaware that they’re in play. If someone offered us a convincing alternative, we’d take it in a heartbeat, but in its absence, we rely on the ways of being that have kept us farthest from harm. If we recognise a pattern of “put the outsider down,” we’re going to respond in the ways we’ve learned to protect ourselves from that: by closing ranks.

Because of this, leading with “there are more of us than there are of you, so you have to change to accommodate us” is, hands down, the best way to ensure that your carefully constructed appeal will fall on deaf ears.

Is it substantially correct? Does it need to be brought up?

http://ohsocialjustice.tumblr.com/post/90395236518/a-very-good-way-of-going-about-explaining-this

Note: oops, the blog that posted it is not so nice at all and in general I don't endorse the blog.

Just a few things I've reblogged and more or less agreed with over the past few months:

...if we’re targeting everyone who has been socially labeled as gross, we are going to deal a ton of collateral damage, and people are completely justified in asking for a clarification.

and if the clarification is that ‘if you automatically assume you are a gross dude, you’re probably a gross dude’ then we have a problem, because I would expect most people who violate boundaries to not think of themselves as ‘gross’ at all, and I would expect most people who think of themselves as gross or disgusting to be people who society has repeatedly told are valueless.

(http://queenshulamit.tumblr.com/post/102358128302/theunitofcaring-theorangecoco)

...When the norms of a community make you feel guilty for opposing bullying and abuse, that should be a red flag...

(http://multiheaded1793.tumblr.com/post/101657129921/rightnowbb-social-justice-norms-provide-such-an)

...I think the way Social Justice treats apologies is terribly fucked up...

(http://fierceawakening.tumblr.com/post/101286390760/sometimes-people-get-a-little-too-fierce-when)

(Sorry for accidentally plugging my shitty tumblr there, it's rather freaky.)

Any thoughts? I feel little need to take this to /r/FeMRAdebates (there aren't enough feminists there, and the ones who go there are pretty damn SJ-critical in their own right); I wish I could challenge a space like the Fempire with good criticsim like this, but I was banned a while ago for this very sort of content.

I found this sub scrolling through random like a schmuck, any way I am a male, and I'm not quite sure how "Mens rights" entails any of the things that are described in the description of the sub, someone please explain this to me, I consider my self reasonably well versed in feminism today and similarly to the problems which are often faced by men alone in todays society (although I'll admit that they are fewer) so I just fail to understand how Men's Rights entails the opposite of Women's Rights, Why does it have to be a Zero Sum Game?

http://zennistrad.tumblr.com/post/102258812398/satire-vs-satire

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but I decided to write down a few of my thoughts on the use of satire in social justice communities. What do you think?

Why is everyone in the world fucking fighting for control and power? "We are in charge"? How about equality? Be the change you want to see in the world. You want to see the world as it is now but with genders swapped? How about we move towards something better?

I was talking to my gf yesterday and she made the point that when an extremist group is unable to effect change through non-violent means, then often they will turn to violence. After Elliot Roger, #gamergate death threats, etc. at what point can we conclude that the MRM is indeed a terrorist movement?

If you're unfamiliar with the subreddit, it's a place where people post examples of absolutely insane feminist/SJW reasoning, and people point out why it's demonstrably stupid/laugh at how ridiculous it is in the comments.

I ask because I've noticed there's a lot of overlap between people who frequent /r/againstmensrights and people who frequent subs like /r/TwoXChromosomes, indicating that most of you would probably identify as feminist. I've also noticed a lot of overlap between the feminism represented in TiA and the the feminism represented in TwoX. Do you think the stuff that's posted there is actually usually pretty spot on, and the people of TiA are thinking about it wrong? Or do you agree that people who call themselves feminists say some pretty dumb shit with a steady degree of regularity?

http://theflounce.com/harassment-abuse-apologism-sanitizing-abuse-social-justice-spheres/

Every time I read something like this I end up wondering: Is there any effective way to condemn the misogynistic harassment and abuse that's been everywhere during GamerGate but still also condemn emotional abuse and believe it's important that such things be called out too (especially given I've seen this particular style of abuse happen to a number of people in relationships of varying gender combinations) ?

It seems like other than about three heavily intersectional feminists I follow, everybody seems to be too busy considering the entire thing ammunition in the ongoing GG thing and thereby condemning the people on the other "side" and defending those aligned with their own.

I'd like to be considered squarely against online harassment of all types, and substantially in favour of improving diversity in all media, games included, and still not need to ally myself with people who're acting as abuse apologists to do so.

A month ago I'd've expected that to be a no-brainer, but every time I've said something like "harassment is bad, and also abuse is bad" I've been told that by mentioning the latter I'm defending the former, or vice versa.

Sorry if this isn't particularly coherent; my current mental state largely consists of my brain repeating "what the fuck, internet?" over and over again on a loop.

(ETA: I'm trying to avoid having an opinion on the GG mess itself here; I do have such an opinion, but it's pretty much irrelevant to my also holding the opinion "harassment is bad and abuse is bad", and I strongly suspect both feminist and MRA commenters will dislike said opinion so let's please try and avoid derailing in that direction)

An oft made claim on mens rights is that laws requiring meaningful consent are part of a conspiracy to imprison more men and to get the female vote.

From an MRA perspective, what level of consent is needed, if any, to not constitute rape? Or is it anything goes until a no is expressed?

Can a 13 year old consent to sex with an older person, and therefore a very weighted power balance? 14?

Can it be withdrawn at any time during the act, with the requirement that the other party immediately cease sexual contact?

Lastly, should rape even be a punishable offense, since short of video evidence or a confession, fully proving rape is almost impossible?

Early on when this subreddit was created, I went on record saying that I was interested to see if this subreddit could dry up. MRAs often claim that they love debate and that they get kicked out of feminists spaces because feminists can't handle the clash of ideas. I suspected that this would prove to be untrue. It is more accurate to say that MRAs love to out-shout people online, which is done with brigades and persistence, rather than good arguments and evidence. I believe this subreddit has the distinction of being the only feminist space on reddit that isn't under constant siege by MRAs.

I believe this subreddit has demonstrated its purpose: the fact is, most MRAs do not want to debate, certainly not if they are going to lose (apologies to the few MRAs who do come here in good faith). When you ban the openly misogynist, racist, homophobic, etc, etc posters, along with the trolls, there are only a handful of MRAs left who can honestly argue their ideas, as much as they insist the opposite is true.

That being said, we did have some good discussions here. Ironically, often the best debates were triggered by the worst posters (thanks, /u/TRPACC!). Everyone would dig deep to make the best, most informative posts possible to contradict the horrible mess of misinformation.

I've been tempted to post a number of topics, but I haven't, because I think it's kind of hilarious that MRAs won't come here. Alternatively, we could re-purpose this subreddit or create a new one that focuses more on feminist discussion, or on building topics that are deep in content and sourcing. I think one challenge here is that it can be harder to have discussions on controversial topics. There's more at stake when you disagree with someone you like. But if there's no disagreement there's probably no discussion either.

Alternatively, I have been kind of interested in creating a mini-Wikipedia for MRA antics. Someone who wants to know what happened with Occidental or Gamergate could have a quick reference. I have seen a lot of people ask what the deal is with GamerGate, and I have really wanted to have a big thread here that laid out all the ridiculousness and outright lies. But at the same time, I feel that Quinn's privacy has been violated so much at this point, perhaps it's not a great idea to create a space for redditors to come in and do even more dirty work, even if that work is debunked.

Generally, most of the topics here have been a good jumping off point for me to learn more, and I would love to continue that in some way, shape or form.

Throwaway for privacy reasons, plus I'm actually quite nervous posting here... In the past, I have seen and been a victim of plenty of bullying and doxxing from especially militant feminists, and as a result am erring on the side of caution. I apologize for any offense this may bring; and yes, I'm aware that MRAs do this too, but I haven't developed that conditioned response to them for whatever reason. Anyway.

I just stumbled upon here, and was a bit confused by the fact that I can't flair myself as egalitarian, only "egalitarian" (MRA). I personally consider myself egalitarian/equalist/humanist/what have you; but also anti-MRM and anti-feminist, as I find both groups to be highly reactionary and there's so much fighting within and between them that it's turning the issue of gender equality into a "battle of the sexes and/or genders" when I'm not sure it needs to be.

That doesn't mean I necessarily would focus on the issues of each group equally, but rather proportionately to what is needed - although I also hold that, in first world countries, men and women have largely attained something like legal equality, although both laws and social standards are still different in ways that hurt both men and women alike, and this needs to be improved upon. Whether men or women are hurt "more" does not really have a place in the discussion of how to improve the rights of each group, and I feel like feminists and MRAs tend to fight about who has it "worse." (I wonder whether, with the above two paragraphs, you'd label me egalitarian or feminist or MRA and why?)

So my question is: what exactly makes egalitarianism closer to MR, and what are your criticisms of the movement?

I understand I probably sound uninformed and stupid and wrong but I'd appreciate your patience in answering this question, because I really do want to understand your point of view.

NPR: How to be a 21st century gentleman

There's a lot I like about this NPR segment but it wasn't enough to make me like the word "gentleman." I dislike the gendered implication that how you treat people depends on your gender or theirs. And I dislike the classist associations of the word. Polite guys are not their own special class and politeness isn't limited to people of higher income.

I mean, yeah, it's true, but like at the same time it's not. I dunno. I guess I just don't see myself as being that vulnerable. I read an article today that says a man's self esteem can suffer if his wife is successful. But wouldn't a logical person be glad to be with such a great person? I think I would.

This thread got me thinking.

We ban sex with children, because child abuse is traumatizing.

We ban distributing and possessing pictures of sex with children, because it leads to even more trauma.

We ban simulated child porn, because...why? Nobody gets traumatized. Hell, if a pedo looks at simulated child porn instead of real child porn, or even abusing a child, that's a net positive.

Where do we draw the line? I could go to Literotica (a site with erotic stories), take a story and replace every age with 17, should I go to jail? I write the sentence "A 16-year-old has sex with a 15-year-old", should that be illegal?

To me, that's the same breed of "zero tolerance" that has bred convictions of teenagers who sent naked pictures of themselves to their partner.

From what I've seen linked in r/againstmensrights, many posters in r/MensRights are using this situation to either deny that a horrible violation occurred, blame the victim, argue that women are narcissists, or a combo of all those reactions and then some. Seems more like woman-bashing than having anything to do with Men's Rights, no?

Bonus question: what do you think about the creeps trying to get others to donate to a prostate cancer charity on the backs of this violation?

For men struggling with things like depression, suicidal thoughts, domestic abuse, sexual abuse.

What are your thoughts on this?

http://i.imgur.com/6CVmKGf.jpg

One example I can think of is drunk sex. No I don't think all drunk sex is rape, but the reaction that people on reddit have to the topic makes it clear that in most situations, it would be better if everyone involved just didn't have drunk sex, and I see no problem with someone saying "drunk sex is rape" in that context. However, it leads to problems in that I may be hesitant to discuss the topic at all for fear of anti-feminists coming in and playing "gotcha."

Another example would be right now I have a question about objectification, but I hesitate to ask because I don't want to force other feminists to have to A) not answer B) answer in good faith and risk being misrepresented or C) troll proofing their answer so that they can't be misrepresented, which is exhausting and tedious.

The alternative is creating a space that bans trolls and people there in bad faith, but anti-feminists seem to enjoy presenting this as evidence that feminists are anti-debate, anti-discussion and only want an echo chamber.

What is the solution?

Edit: I think I should be more clear. I am not concerned with someone taking something I say and misrepresenting it in srssucks or the like. I really could care less. It is more in the actual thread people misrepresenting the words of feminists, what should be done?

This 2012 study of Science faculty at research universities (full text available at the link), performed by professors at Yale and recently gaining media attention again shows that Science faculty, who are literally trained to be objective and impartial, still rate women as less competent than male candidates with identical application materials. References 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 40 might be particularly interesting additional reading.

If existing as a woman requires that you be markedly better than your male peers to be considered equally good before you even walk through the door, let alone get an interview or attempt a salary negotiation, how can you keep pretending that the entire wage gap is a myth and down to women's different choices?

Are you counting "existing as a person that is recognizably a woman" as one of those poor life choices?

It's become obvious to me that class is and has been used as a weapon against men and women in the spheres of wages, salaries, relationships and the like.

The proposal of basic income (explained here) could deal a huge blow to this reality by removing the exploitation of desperation that keeps so many people in positions of poverty and in abusive relationships.

Could the adoption of basic income be a step towards a more gender-egalitarian society?

I recently came across this interesting and well-sourced Wikipedia article.

In summary, it seems that while there is a very small difference in average or mean intelligence between men and women, there is a large difference in variance.

That means that there are more male than female geniuses, but also more male than female mentally challenged people.

What do you believe does that mean for society and how should public policy react to this?

I see this mentioned from time to time, but I don't know if anyone actually does it. It seems there is a lot of MRAs that encourage it or justify why people should, but that's as far as it goes.

I'm interested in hearing from MRAs who practice this. What made you decide this type of life style was needed? How much do you actually record? Do you save all your recordings, or do you delete them after a while? Do you let people know you're recoding them, or is it in secret?

I'm also interested in those who support it but don't practice it. Do you think it's really needed? If so, how come you don't practice it? Why is this advice only given when dealing with women?

For details, see here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/men-punished-in-sexual-misconduct-cases-on-colleges-campuses-are-fighting-back/2014/08/20/96bb3c6a-1d72-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

EDIT: Also see here: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-campus-sex-assault-bill-flattens-due-process

Didn't you guys change the name of your "movement" recently to "Men and Boys Human Rights Movement" or something?

I wonder, since pretty much all MRAs are in support of legalized financial abortion: how does the MRM propose to help all the boys who would be abandoned by their fathers? Should the government have special funds to aid in their upbringing and care?

If you believe there ought to be some sort of government assistance specifically given out to children abandoned by their fathers, but you don't believe the actual father should have to contribute to that assistance, how do you justify increasing the burden on tax payers to pay for the children some dudes are too selfish / lazy / cowardly / immature to at least help pay for?

I'm posting this as its own discussion because of the frequent misunderstandings in the other thread and the need to keep explaining the same ideas, so I wanted to explain everything at once in one place.

A prenuptial agreement states "In the event of a divorce, we will not be following the standard set of divorce laws in which all assets are split 50/50. Instead, my obligations to you will be limited to such-and-such". The wealthier person states their wish to protect themselves from harm using this contract, and asks the second person to respect those wishes and sign the contract.

It is a completely voluntary situation, and I have never a feminist complain about this existence of pre-nups or say that it's wrong for any woman to enter a marriage without having the chance to keep 50% of the wealth if there happens to be a divorce.

I think that Legal Parental Surrender should work exactly like that. Just as a pre-nup is put into place before a wedding, LPS must be put into place before any pregnancy takes place.

The LPS agreement states "In the event of an accidental pregnancy, we will not be following the standard laws where you can choose to have the child and force me to pay child support for 18 years. Instead, my obligations will be limited. I waive all rights and responsibilities to any potential child, and you will have 100% of the rights and responsibilities. I will have the same legal status as a sperm donor and nothing more. If you choose abortion, I will pay 100% of all costs including travel costs if necessary."

The man states his wish to remain child free and protect himself from being forced into legal parenthood against his will, and asks the woman to respect those wishes and sign the contract. The contract is of course not valid unless both people sign it.

This form of LPS avoids all of the complaints and complications that other LPS ideas have. There's no "what if she hides the pregnancy from him", no "what if he doesn't notify her of LPS in time for her to get an abortion", no "what if he's hard to find and she can't even tell him that she's pregnant", and so on.

It solves all of those problems, and is completely fair to women in every possible way. No woman would ever lose access to the option of child support if she didn't want to. No woman would ever be pregnant with a child and expect to have child support to help out, and then suddenly find herself without that option.

And of course, it would now mean that both women AND men never have to risk being forced into legal parenthood against their will.

How do you feel about this form of Legal Parental Surrender? If you oppose it, do you also oppose prenuptial agreements?