I am covering a lot of bases on this one. Hold on, and I will likely get to you.

Thinking about attending ICMI 17 on the Gold Coast of Oz, but unsure or uneasy about the issues on the minds of the women and men who will be there? This article should fill in some gaps, but there is more.

This article is also directed at newcomers to Men’s Human Rights Advocacy who may have misunderstandings about a facet of the movement. There is not much new here but I also hope even experienced MRAs can mine this article for concise talking points when engaging those outside our ranks, be they feminists or neutral observers.

From time to time I hope to add other MRA 101 articles, but for now, let’s jump right into the meat of how feminists treat men’s equality issues.

In the 1970’s Erin Pizzey , the founder of domestic violence refuges in England was ejected from both feminism and the refuges she started after she insisted that domestic violence refuges should work with victims of both genders.

, the founder of domestic violence refuges in England was ejected from both feminism and the refuges she started after she insisted that domestic violence refuges should work with victims of both genders. In the 1980’s, Karen DeCrow , President of NOW, was ejected from feminism for advocating that men deserved reproductive rights the same as women.

, President of NOW, was ejected from feminism for advocating that men deserved reproductive rights the same as women. In 2014-2016+, feminists tried and mostly failed to block the production and screening of a film about Men’s Rights Advocacy entitled “The Red Pill,” made by a now former feminist named Cassie Jaye, who is being savaged by feminists worldwide.

And yet, people still insist that MRAs are somehow at fault for not wanting to work with feminists. MRAs reject feminists for the same reason that you don’t go to couples counseling with a lunatic who tossed you out like trash.

Both MRAs and feminists claim to be working for gender equality. Hearing this, newcomers to the gender wars will naturally ask, why don’t MRAs become feminists, or work as feminist allies, or otherwise try to get along with feminists? The animosity between MRAs and feminists can seem puzzling and gratuitous given the stated goals of each group.

But in the case of feminists, what they claim they do is not the same as what they actually do.

The answer I have heard most often is that MRAs tried to work with feminists for many decades but while women saw changes in the laws that seemed to favor women, men’s issues were either ignored or given short shrift by feminists. The latest example of this is the bogus “#HeForShe” U.N. campaign by Emma Watson, who used a classic bait-and-switch scam to get men to pledge to support women’s rights only. Watson pretended to support men’s concerns right up to the point where vows were made.

Eventually, men’s rights advocates became disillusioned with the loping feminists and struck out on their own. Those pathetic men who remained in feminism must endure endless abuse, from being called patronizing “mansplainers” when they attempt to contribute to a feminist discussion, to being suspected of being sexual predators hot after that all hairy landwhale feminist booty.

Concisely: after 40 plus years of frustration, rejection and abuse from feminists, MRAs decided feminists are useless at promoting equality for anyone.

In fact, when one looks at the record from the standpoint of gender equality, feminists are terrible at it – they promote women-only privileges under the guise of equality at the cost of men’s rights and even their lives.

Some example of areas where feminists reject gender equality and favor women over men are as follows:

Legal protection from involuntary genital mutilation. Forced parenthood after conception. Child custody. Domestic violence shelters. Obligatory Selective Service (military draft) registration. Anonymity and due process of law during cases of alleged sexual assault Prison sentencing. Platforms for men’s issue discussion.

Although this is by no means an exhaustive list, these issues alone make feminism’s definition as “a movement for gender equality” highly suspect, and indeed, defining feminism as a movement for female supremacy, NOT gender equality, would better reflect actual feminist practices and policies.

Let’s go over the eight items I’ve noted above so that we can enjoy in rich detail the supremacist antics of feminists.

Legal protection from involuntary genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is illegal just about everywhere, but the involuntary genital mutilation of infant boys is routine, and male circumcision is even promoted by feminist leaders like Hillary Clinton. To feminists, bodily integrity is for women only. Forced parenthood after conception. Whether through abortion, adoption or even just abandoning an infant into a hole in the wall, feminists champion a rasher of options whereby a new mother can reject parental obligations after conception. No notable feminist since Karen DeCrow, noted above, supports men having equal options to forego parenthood. (I did find one rogue feminist who does support a limited form of “financial abortion” that requires men to register in advance of a pregnancy, meaning her proposal is still not gender equal.) Whether one agrees with these options or not, one must logically concede that it is not gender equal to give parenthood rejection options to one sex and not the other. Child custody. In cases of disputed child custody, to be gender equal, the legal default should be 50/50 shared custody. The legal presumption that women are naturally better caregivers, used as a determining factor in the decision of child custody, is rooted in 19th century feminist activism…Over the years, this doctrine, originally intended to prevent divorce from keeping women from their children, has been pushed and twisted into an every case imperative, making maternal custody the default in divorce cases. Feminists jealously guard this special legal privilege of women, rejecting gender equality via shared parenting. Domestic violence shelters. Less than 1 in 100 DV shelters are willing to admit battered men, and under the feminist-inspired Duluth Model that drives laws around the world, when a woman beats up a man, it is the man who is arrested. Such men are the ideological prisoners of feminism. Obligatory Selective Service (military draft) registration. In the US, all men ages 18-26 must register for military service. Women are exempt, and feminists howl every time efforts are made to make draft registration gender equal. Anonymity and due process of law during cases of alleged sexual assault. Under feminist legal machinations the identity and sexual history of an accuser are protected, even if she/he has made false accusations in the past. She said/he said cases should at a minimum provide anonymity to both sides. That would be gender equality. Alternatively and in the interest of accurate justice, the entire identification and intimate history of each party should be fair game. That would also be equality. Favoring one side over the other? Not so much. Feminist-inspired special protections for alleged victims of sexual assault compromise legitimate defense measures. For example, if a woman has a history of lying about rape, this fact cannot be used in court by the next hapless man she accuses. Equal protection under the law should apply to everyone. Prison sentencing. Feminists are mostly mute on the lighter prison sentences given to women, except for the nutty UK feminists who want to close women’s prisons completely. And, of course, the idea of loosing murderesses on your kids has already jumped the pond. Your prison sentence should not hinge on your gender. That is not gender equality. Platforms for men’s issue discussion. Almost any attempt to discuss men’s issues is met with violent feminist protests, including the pulling of fire alarms and physical assaults on peaceful attendees. Venues are pressured into cancelling men’s rights events, often at the last minute so that alternate venues are difficult to find in a timely fashion. Feminists just cannot stand the idea that men have an equal right to speak for our rights.

There are many more issues in areas like education, child care, and so on where feminists fall short of advocating gender equality, but one thing is clear: in each case where we win gender equality in the future, the only place for feminists will be standing out in the cold, protesting it.

This is why, for equal rights advocates like me, the absolute destruction of feminism is the critical first step in securing equal rights for everyone.