The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Tahar Joblis]

Maybe. England also suffers from de facto discrimination - women who commit sex crimes are disproportionately not charged and disproportionately not convicted and disproportionately not imprisoned even if they are convicted.

I used an extreme example that, if were done to a woman, the world would scream it was rape.

But for a man... "meh".

It's more applicable to point out that a man who rapes a woman via vaginal sex - the most common way rape is performed on women - faces a maximum jail term of life without parole.

A woman who rapes a man via vaginal sex (sexual assault under English law) - the most common way rape is performed on men - faces a maximum jail term of 10 years via conviction in front of a jury, or 6 months by summary judgement.

Now, if she penetrates him with a dildo or something, she could, hypothetically, get life.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... ng/assault

I guess I have a better opinion of "the world" than you do. I suspect that most people would call such a crime rape, regardless of the official legal definition in the UK. Certainly most feminists I know would call it rape and allow bureaucrats to argue semantics.

Most people - and most feminists - would call it rape. However, of the very few people who do not call it rape and oppose altering the definition, almost all are feminists; and enough of them are well-placed enough that they've been pretty successful in that exercise.

I don't think it's actually coincidence that somehow, the same feminists that are in a position to block reform of the definition of rape are the same ones that act to do so. I think there are two ways in which these are related.

(1) Those taking the radical feminist perspective that rape, domestic violence, et cetera are methods by which men systematically subjugate women are motivated to study rape, domestic violence, et cetera. Feminists choosing to engage with this field as experts or lobbyists are selected primarily from the radical wing of the movement.

(2) When you confront the facts of the matter, you have two choices: (A) Abandon the feminist claim that this is primarily a women's problem and endorse action to help men or (B) come up with some reason why male victims don't really count and cling to it for all it is worth.

I think the latter factor is particularly important. If you endorse helping men, you are no longer a "real" feminist, and other feminists will turn on you. You must either fabricate a reason for discounting male victimhood or deny the facts themselves.

If we ever get close to implementing policy reforms that will class forcible envelopment as rape, I rather suspect that we would see a sea change in common feminist opinions. The arguments against acknowledging male victimhood and distinguishing between penetrator and penetratee would proliferate and be widely adopted by feminists whose other option is facing a reality filled with male victims. I suspect that if you surveyed Indian feminists ten years ago, they would have very different opinions than they expressed quite recently in responding to the passage of a law making rape gender-neutral.

[Forsher]

Imagine that our baseline is for a white middle-class women and that they have a 10% chance of being in prison. Say, if we make them lower class that goes up to 15% and down to 5% if they're wealthy. Also, say, that blacks get a 10% increase and all other ethnicities 5%.

So, using these hypothetical numbers, the chance of a randomly selected lower class black woman being in prison is 25%.

Now, there's also a male effect which is 10% as well. This means that for a lower class black male the chance that he's in prison is 10 (baseline) + 10 (male) + 10 (black) + 5 (lower class) = 35% (again, to reiterate, numbers are all examples), compared to 25% for his female equivalent.

That's one way of looking at it. But what if there's an interaction? What if being male means that the effect of being black changes? Could it be that this is the case? Maybe there's only a 5% main effect for men as a class. Imagine this effect is, coincidentally, 5. Thus:

10 (baseline) + 5 (male) + [ 10 (black) + 5 (male) ] + 5 (lower class) = 35% again.

However, in these two situations we've got a quite different interpretation.

Point is: you can't just look at the numbers... especially these made up ones.

I've looked at lots of numbers.

One of the interesting facts about the matter is that black females are sentenced less harshly than white males. The gender difference, when examined, is typically larger than the race difference.

Yes, if you look for interaction effects, you will find them. In fact, if you look hard enough, you can explain away the entire male-female sentencing gap in terms of a large collection of interaction effects - a "girlfriend effect," a "mother effect," et cetera. There's a long list of specific factors that are used to excuse women from responsibility (but not men). There is no "father effect." There is no "boyfriend effect." The logical explanation is very simple: The difference is an effect of gender; it is simply mediated by the opportunity to find material excuses through which to express the bias.

The point was that the numbers themselves don't necessarily mean everything, especially if, as you point out, one ignores victim status (e.g. an older data set makes it look like whites are more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks until you consider who it was that they were convicted of murdering).

The point was also that if the interaction exists one has to consider it and that with an interaction it is more difficult to say "the gender effect is bigger" because, as I am sure you are aware, "the scary black man around the corner" notion exists in a way that "the scary man around the corner" just doesn't. If you have an interaction it means, in terms of solving things, that you actually have to work with the interaction because the interaction effect is its own, ahem, man... and that means acknowledging race and gender together, as well as separately.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that if you factor in race when looking at a breakdown you'll see that it is, in fact, just the large number of black men getting shot which creates the men get shot more observation (although, this is possible as I have not looked at the data and I do not have time now either... this is the last thing I am doing today that I don't have to for some hours).

False rape accusations are not as uncommon as you think. Also, it's not that there are false rape accusation that we are angry at, it's that there is no consequence to them, and the law acts as guilty until proven innocent. And even when proven innocent, people say "just because they couldn't prove he didn't do it, doesn't mean he's innocent". Is this fair? Is this moral? No, and if you think it is, then congratulations, you are a reason for full scale MGTOW.

I don't think false rape accusations are the problem. The problem is that the misidentified (whether accidentally or, in the case of false accusations, maliciously) are identified and, frequently, run through the press gauntlet... blanket name suppression for victims and accused should be the norm. I don't think the accused's being anonymous discourages reporting or, at least, I haven't seen anyone suggest that.* Focussing on punishment for the false accusation makers is not a solution because, given the tendency of some to conflate wrong and false accusations (even using accusations as the term is loaded mind), that really would discourage further reporting.** And anyway, false accusation are, in fact, going to be caught by things like "wasting police time" and if the accused is wealthy (civil law helps those with money to sue) enough probably defamation too.

Rape is, in many respects, special. Those misidentified as murderers, in some ways, get it easier (perhaps even if put in prison, at least for similar sentences) because the morality of murder and attitudes to it are more nuanced... with rape you get two responses. Either "the incident didn't happen/the victim is to blame" or a, metaphorical, lynching.

*What I have seen is policy considerations... public safety, public interest, transparency etc.... but that was pretty much a blanket anonymous until conviction topic.

**Which from the raw policy angle of public safety is a bad thing, not to mention any other lenses through which the question can be examined.

[Valystria]

(2) When you confront the facts of the matter, you have two choices: (A) Abandon the feminist claim that this is primarily a women's problem and endorse action to help men or (B) come up with some reason why male victims don't really count and cling to it for all it is worth.

That's the structural problem of feminism. It's not equipped to handle issues in a gender-neutral way.

[Farnhamia]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-mp-jess-phillips-alerts-6734126

Any comment from the Misogynist's Rights Activists?

*** Warned for flame-bait and a touch of trolling ***

[Galloism]

Here's an interesting bit. It's a very small study, but nevertheless somewhat interesting. They wanted to do a study to see how pornography affected male sexuality. They attempted to create two groups - men who had never watched porn vs those who had watched porn. They hit a little snag:

Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.

Yep. They couldn't find a single man who had not seen porn.

Then they went on to examine sexual habits of all these men who watched porn:

Single men watched pornography for an average of 40 minutes, three times a week, while those in relationships watched it 1.7 times a week for around 20 minutes.

The study found that men watched pornography that matched their own image of sexuality, and quickly discarded material they found offensive or distasteful.

Prof Lajeunesse said pornography did not have a negative effect on men's sexuality.

“Not one subject had a pathological sexuality,” he said. “In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional.

“Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/67 ... -find.html

[Tahar Joblis]

I've looked at lots of numbers.

One of the interesting facts about the matter is that black females are sentenced less harshly than white males. The gender difference, when examined, is typically larger than the race difference.

Yes, if you look for interaction effects, you will find them. In fact, if you look hard enough, you can explain away the entire male-female sentencing gap in terms of a large collection of interaction effects - a "girlfriend effect," a "mother effect," et cetera. There's a long list of specific factors that are used to excuse women from responsibility (but not men). There is no "father effect." There is no "boyfriend effect." The logical explanation is very simple: The difference is an effect of gender; it is simply mediated by the opportunity to find material excuses through which to express the bias.

The point was that the numbers themselves don't necessarily mean everything, especially if, as you point out, one ignores victim status (e.g. an older data set makes it look like whites are more likely to be given the death penalty than blacks until you consider who it was that they were convicted of murdering).

The point was also that if the interaction exists one has to consider it and that with an interaction it is more difficult to say "the gender effect is bigger" because, as I am sure you are aware, "the scary black man around the corner" notion exists in a way that "the scary man around the corner" just doesn't. If you have an interaction it means, in terms of solving things, that you actually have to work with the interaction because the interaction effect is its own, ahem, man... and that means acknowledging race and gender together, as well as separately.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that if you factor in race when looking at a breakdown you'll see that it is, in fact, just the large number of black men getting shot which creates the men get shot more observation (although, this is possible as I have not looked at the data and I do not have time now either... this is the last thing I am doing today that I don't have to for some hours).

I have looked at the data.

I have also looked at some higher-level interpretations of police shooting data.

Something you might not be aware of is that in the US, a majority of prisoners, and a majority of police shooting victims, are white. (Numbers are quite similar.) The populations are disproportionately black in both cases (and also disproportionately Latino, for that matter), but the population consists of mostly white people in the first place, and the effect isn't large enough to swamp that.

The Guardian's interactive web page is actually pretty easy to sort through for patterns. You can see, for example, that 24 white women, 10 black women, and 5 women of unknown race / ethnicity were killed by police in that database, as opposed to 428 white men, 222 black men, and 101 men of unknown race / ethnicity.

Hunt through it and you wil find signs of an interaction effect crossing race x age x gender, where young black men specifically are being shot at a pretty high rate, but in the context of the gender gap, that's a footnote. About half of the black men being killed are under age 30; pull the young black men out entirely and you're still left with a pretty dramatic gender gap. Only 42 out of 957 police killings listed on that database are of women. Under 5%, in other words.

The main effect of gender on police shooting risk is larger. The main effect of gender on law enforcement / criminal justice outcomes is pretty much always larger.

[Hirota]

A certain charity has been busy trying to raise awareness about the biggest killer of men under 45 in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... le-suicide

A provocative campaign to highlight awareness of male suicide is to be launched amid concerns that it remains the UK’s single biggest cause of death among men under the age of 45, while the number of women taking their lives has fallen significantly.

Figures collated by the Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm) show there were 4,623 male suicides in the UK in 2014, the second highest number in 15 years and the equivalent of 12 deaths a day. Three-quarters of suicides in the UK are by men, but Jane Powell, chief executive of Calm, said there was “no effort to get a handle on the scale of the issue, no support for the suicidal”.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lying.html

Four out of ten men have considered killing themselves, according to a study.

It found that almost half of all men aged 18-45 had thought about suicide as a way out of misery caused by divorce, money troubles, bereavement, problems at work or bullying at some point in their life.

Of these, more than half never spoke to anyone else about their difficulties.

The main reasons cited were not wanting loved ones to worry, feeling ashamed of their feelings and not wanting to sound weak, found the YouGov poll of 2,000 men for suicide prevention charity CALM.

[Haktiva]

A certain charity has been busy trying to raise awareness about the biggest killer of men under 45 in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... le-suicide

A provocative campaign to highlight awareness of male suicide is to be launched amid concerns that it remains the UK’s single biggest cause of death among men under the age of 45, while the number of women taking their lives has fallen significantly.

Figures collated by the Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm) show there were 4,623 male suicides in the UK in 2014, the second highest number in 15 years and the equivalent of 12 deaths a day. Three-quarters of suicides in the UK are by men, but Jane Powell, chief executive of Calm, said there was “no effort to get a handle on the scale of the issue, no support for the suicidal”.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lying.html

Four out of ten men have considered killing themselves, according to a study.

It found that almost half of all men aged 18-45 had thought about suicide as a way out of misery caused by divorce, money troubles, bereavement, problems at work or bullying at some point in their life.

Of these, more than half never spoke to anyone else about their difficulties.

The main reasons cited were not wanting loved ones to worry, feeling ashamed of their feelings and not wanting to sound weak, found the YouGov poll of 2,000 men for suicide prevention charity CALM.

the only opposition to this as far as I can tell would either be people being strapped for cash or people going against it because it would take money, time and attention away from "women's issues", which is unacceptable to the kind of people who would do that because they consider it a zero sum game.

[Ostroeuropa]

AskMen Post on having to constantly placate the other gender to spare their feelings.

Depends on the nature of the criticism and the nature of the man. What's the subject? Is it literally any subject at all? Oh, then we are similar then. Except it's not all of either gender. Is it just some subjects? Well, how are you broaching the topic?
Do you want to have to constantly placate us, or would you like to learn how to communicate what you're apparently afraid to? If anywhere, this would be the place to bring it up.
Is it going to be to do with masculinity? Oh ok. Suppose your boyfriend told you he really likes your rolls of fat. (In a society that actively tells you over and over fat is unattractive.)
He might genuinely mean it. But you're going to be super upset over it, it'll start eating at your self esteem and such. You might start to worry he doesn't like you or will dump you and stuff. Your self-esteem is wounded by similar comments that build up over time and such. Suppose this kind of thing happens in every relationship for a while, and even outside of them. Maybe those relationships ended because you were fat. Society keeps telling you fat people are undesirable, and those relationships did end after all... Now suppose that because of these esteem issues you've managed to push yourself to an absurd degree of physical attractiveness that is unhealthy both physically and emotionally because it's never good enough, but it means the comments stop for a while. You manage to think it's over. You get in a relationship with someone you really like and begin to think everything can be ok. You've managed to sort your life out. Gone was the fatty mcfatterson you were before you became the real you, the you you were always meant to be, and now you have a loving partner too. In fact they're great. They really love you for you, the real you that you now are.

You decide it's safe to let your guard down and have a twinkie in front of them.
"Hey, nice fat." This is when the "FUCK YOU"s start flying.
This is sort of what it's like with the masculinity subject for men. It's a topic that needs to be broached pretty carefully, because women often don't understand how their choice of words is psychologically damaging, even if they don't intend it that way.
If you do something like criticize the way a guy does sexual acts without some preparation on how to word it, he's going to go a bit hysterical if he isn't well adjusted and you don't phrase it well, saying your exes were better or something and you might as well check in to the hotel for the night, he's vacated the building and is off pretending to be a superviking legionairre and that you're just an asshole who fucks too many people and that's why you said such things. You must have fucked like, twenty billion people to find one better than him, it's the only explanation. Being aware of the insecurities many men harbor can help you to phrase it in such a way as to be mindful of these hazard zones and actually be able to communicate what you intend to communicate instead of complimenting somebodies wonderful rolls of fat.
Similarly if you criticize him for displaying any kind of stereotypically womanly behavior or sentiments. He'll feel angry at the double standard, fearful of rejection or loss of status, an urge to deny he was ever doing the thing, etc.
Most of us are a complex fucking mess of insecurities and hysteria. Women are no different. There is a level of placation around these issues that is due to everyone. But the thing the guys are talking about here? It's not this shit.
It's that men are generally super polite to women compared to how they act around men. It's a separate issue.

How old are these guys out of interest? In addition, i'm afraid you'll have to get used to the fact that as a woman, your approval is extremely powerful.
The guy doesn't care about the other guys opinions. They won't effect his reputation or self-esteem nearly as much.
He gets angrier at you because he cares more about your opinion. It has more effect on his life. Not many guys are conscious of this at first, but they are all at least aware of it on some level.
That's just how our society is set up. Men are told that womens opinion about them matters more than practically everything else in the universe.
Not some womens opinion. Womens. In general. All women. Even ones they don't know.
Pointing this out to them and getting them to see how stupid it is can help break the effect. In addition, note how he argues with you. Watch him argue with men next time. Even in his argument with you, was he politer than he would be with a man?

If you want a really simple trick for how to give criticism to a man, always frame it as them being capable of doing better and you believe in them. It's stupid, but it works.
Just telling them their work sucks for varying reasons is going to leave them still gunning for that approval and getting increasingly panicked over a woman telling them they aren't good enough at something. (Even if they don't consciously register this as the problem.). You're basically subjecting him to his night terrors at this point, because what if he's not good enough for women!? THE HORRORS! This trick gives them that approval, but in a way that allows you to deliver the criticism.
Other men you might be able to be utterly professional with, that's different. Or you might be able to talk to them about the needing womens approval thing and get them to snap out of it. But for the others, the above will usually work.

[Haktiva]

so has anybody mention the White Feather campaign yet?

[May Mays]

Women are very much aware of exactly what their words mean and their effect.

Their greatest weapon is their tongue and their body.

[Alyakia]

so has anybody mention the White Feather campaign yet?

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

[Galloism]

so has anybody mention the White Feather campaign yet?

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

[Swith Witherward]

Hey Hirota, sorry to interrupt discussion here. I was wondering if this group had any links for male DV and rape victim support? We got a bit off track in the NSFT thread and, after a bit of discussion and searching, I found that it was really difficult to locate many sites (other than Reddit). Gallo and Ostro pointed me towards a few good places.

You should contact the national coalition for men. They usually maintain a list of organizations in your area. (If american.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... on_for_Men

The MRM reddit is also pretty good at this, though they're amateur and it's more of a survivors group sometimes.

If you're lucky, there will be a local NCM chapter.

Thanks Ostro.

The MRM reddit is something we avoid, if only because it's very amateur.

This brings to light a serious issue. Where does a male victim turn? We can sit here and calmly research groups or agencies, but somebody that has just been assaulted or raped won't be in a peaceful state. "Should I report it? Should I not report it? Was this rape, or was this just misunderstood play?"

I looked over Hirota's thread and didn't see anything.

I have a "MRA" spoiler on the NSFT, and I wouldn't mind providing resource links there. Perhaps we could pool NSMRT and NSFT participants' knowledge and come up with some beneficial websites for male victims?

If people DO have links handy (yes, MRM/MRA organizations are fine), please TG them to me. I'd greatly appreciate it. I don't check this thread very often, so I might miss anything you post here. Thanks!

[Valystria]

so has anybody mention the White Feather campaign yet?

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

If you're referring to this;

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk

Feminism was to blame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

A white feather has been a traditional symbol of cowardice, used and recognised especially within the British Army and in countries associated with the British Empire since the 18th century, especially by far-right nationalists and early feminists in order to humiliate men who were not soldiers.

[Alyakia]

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

If you're referring to this;

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk

Feminism was to blame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

A white feather has been a traditional symbol of cowardice, used and recognised especially within the British Army and in countries associated with the British Empire since the 18th century, especially by far-right nationalists and early feminists in order to humiliate men who were not soldiers.

yeah. that's what i mean. some early feminists did it. and? maybe we have a different definition of blame, because they didn't pull the entirety of the british empire and its culture for at least 100 years prior out of their asses.

[Conserative Morality]

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

http://firstworldwar.com/features/womenww1_three.htm

Paradoxically, most conservative anti-feminist women - of any class - supported the war though feminists like Pankhurst were also pro-war; in any case, it can be said with little doubt that practically all pacifist women were also feminists. To sum up: not all women supported feminism, and among those who did, lines were divided between pro-war and anti-war positions.

[Valystria]

If you're referring to this;

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk

Feminism was to blame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

A white feather has been a traditional symbol of cowardice, used and recognised especially within the British Army and in countries associated with the British Empire since the 18th century, especially by far-right nationalists and early feminists in order to humiliate men who were not soldiers.

yeah. that's what i mean. some early feminists did it. and? maybe we have a different definition of blame, because they didn't pull the entirety of the british empire and its culture for at least 100 years prior out of their asses.

You mean a lot of early feminists did. You mean it was especially early feminists who did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

http://firstworldwar.com/features/womenww1_three.htm

Paradoxically, most conservative anti-feminist women - of any class - supported the war though feminists like Pankhurst were also pro-war; in any case, it can be said with little doubt that practically all pacifist women were also feminists. To sum up: not all women supported feminism, and among those who did, lines were divided between pro-war and anti-war positions.

That doesn't at all distance the feminist movement from how the White Feather was especially supported by feminists.

[Conserative Morality]

That doesn't at all distance the feminist movement from how the White Feather was especially supported by feminists.

"Especially" implies greater-than average participation for the group in question.

Feminists were among the few groups of women which were split on the subject of the war; participation in the war was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the population, male and female. Therefore, feminists were actually especially likely to not support the war. See: WILPF.

Your point couldn't stand up to a gentle breeze, much less a detailed examination.

[Valystria]

That doesn't at all distance the feminist movement from how the White Feather was especially supported by feminists.

"Especially" implies greater-than average participation for the group in question.

Feminists were among the few groups of women which were split on the subject of the war; participation in the war was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the population, male and female. Therefore, feminists were actually especially likely to not support the war. See: WILPF.

Your point couldn't stand up to a gentle breeze, much less a detailed examination.

Yes it does.

Doesn't change that the two most significant supporters of the White Feather campaign were feminists and the far-right. "Especially" was in that context.

just looked it up, assuming we found the same thing

seems like a great men's rights issue. will be very angry if someone tries to blame feminism for it. *glares in ostroeuropas general direction*

This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary universal draft, which included those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

[Conserative Morality]

Yes it does.

Doesn't change that the two most significant supporters of the White Feather campaign were feminists and the far-right. "Especially" was in that context.

It's like you didn't even read the post.

Feminists were among the few groups of women which were split on the subject of the war;

This is as idiotic as arguing that, because prominent Stoics owned slaves, Stoicism was especially slaver-friendly, despite being one of the few schools of thought in the Classical era that had major currents which rejected the notion of slavery.

[Conserative Morality]

Breaking news: German Jews especially supported Hitler.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hey Hirota, sorry to interrupt discussion here. I was wondering if this group had any links for male DV and rape victim support? We got a bit off track in the NSFT thread and, after a bit of discussion and searching, I found that it was really difficult to locate many sites (other than Reddit). Gallo and Ostro pointed me towards a few good places.

Thanks Ostro.

The MRM reddit is something we avoid, if only because it's very amateur.

This brings to light a serious issue. Where does a male victim turn? We can sit here and calmly research groups or agencies, but somebody that has just been assaulted or raped won't be in a peaceful state. "Should I report it? Should I not report it? Was this rape, or was this just misunderstood play?"

I looked over Hirota's thread and didn't see anything.

I have a "MRA" spoiler on the NSFT, and I wouldn't mind providing resource links there. Perhaps we could pool NSMRT and NSFT participants' knowledge and come up with some beneficial websites for male victims?

If people DO have links handy (yes, MRM/MRA organizations are fine), please TG them to me. I'd greatly appreciate it. I don't check this thread very often, so I might miss anything you post here. Thanks!

Makes sense. But you should TG Hirota in case he doesn't see your post.
The MRM reddit maintains an exhaustive list of the mens rights organizations and groups who have an online presence, so that'd be the place to start, other than the NCM, which maintains more real life lists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes it does.

Doesn't change that the two most significant supporters of the White Feather campaign were feminists and the far-right. "Especially" was in that context.

It's like you didn't even read the post.

Feminists were among the few groups of women which were split on the subject of the war;

This is as idiotic as arguing that, because prominent Stoics owned slaves, Stoicism was especially slaver-friendly, despite being one of the few schools of thought in the Classical era that had major currents which rejected the notion of slavery.

You don't think it lent moral credibility to the draft it otherwise would not have had to have "Equality" campaigners in favor of it?

[Hirota]

Makes sense. But you should TG Hirota in case he doesn't see your post.

Swith already did so - great minds think alike (or fools seldom differ, whichever you prefer) ^_^

The MRM reddit maintains an exhaustive list of the mens rights organizations and groups who have an online presence, so that'd be the place to start, other than the NCM, which maintains more real life lists.

And I've added a few into the opening post.

What I didn't add was that a number of male rape victims, (some of them compulsory rape victims) are compelled by courts to pay for child support of the child they fathered against their consent.

A couple of things stand out here:

Does anyone believe that a convicted male rapist would ever be granted custody of their child from such a union if the genders were reversed? Obviously, I appreciate that it does no good for the child to be placed with neither of their biological parents, but I imagine if the rape victim in these instances was aware their attacker was pregnant, they would be seeking an abortion.

Secondly, does anyone believe the victim should be compelled to pay for a child the consequences of an act they did not consent to and were forced into against their will? Again, I appreciate the child is an innocent in this and deserves support, but it seems wrong to punish the victim.