"You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot."

— Hillary Clinton   (via onigiri85)

(Source: ceedling, via friendlycloud)

"

I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -

Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.

"

timemachineyeah (via ask-pauli-amorous)

Eat THAT, hormone-snipers!

()

(via feminismandhappiness)

"The reason women are turning you down for casual sex seems to be that, for one thing, a lot of you are calling them sluts afterward. Also, a lot of you aren’t bothering to try to be good in bed."

Terri Conley, professor of psychology and women’s studies at the University of Michigan ( link )

Terri Conley has done an incredibly thorough debunking of the 1989 Hatfield study claiming that women don’t like casual sex.

(via drnerdlove)

AMEN! Dudes stay bitching about how women make them go through an obstacle course, standardized tests and a credit check to get some pussy, but then shit all over and dog out the chicks who give it to ‘em easy. And WOMEN are allegedly the “illogical” ones.

WELP!

Straight up told yo asses. Get yo stroke game up and stop this bullshit about women who have sex.

(via sourcedumal)

(via feministcharacters)

slackmistress:

bethanysworld:

fightingforanimals:

Veronika Scott was a fashion student at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit when her teacher, Stephen Schock, challenged her class to create a product that filled a need, rather than satisfying or creating a fad. Veronika’s design was a coat for homeless people that could transform into a sleeping bag, since in her city, she says, “you are constantly faced with the homeless epidemic.” Not only did her design win a International Design Excellence Award from the Industrial Designers Society of America, it’s become the core of Veronika’s nonprofit organization, The Empowerment Plan, which hires people from homeless shelters and transition homes to help her make the coats. Now, three years later, the 24-year-old social entrepreneur expects that her team of 15 seamstresses will produce over 6,000 coats in 2014 — all of which will be distributed free of charge to people living on the streets. Veronika originally designed the coats seeking input from people at a homeless shelter. After receiving feedback from people who used the prototype over a Detroit winter, she refined the design to create her final version which, in addition to being a waterproof and windproof coat and sleeping bag, also transforms into an over-the-shoulder bag with storage in the arm sockets. When she started out, Veronika states,

“Everybody told me that my business was going to fail — not because of who I was giving my product to but because of who I was hiring. They said that these homeless women will never make more than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich — you cannot rely on them for anything. And I know my ladies enjoy proving everybody wrong.” 

And, their impact is growing — according to CNN, which recently honored Veronika as one of their 10 Visionary Women of 2014, “The Empowerment Plan expects to launch a ‘buy one, give one’ program that will make it sustainable beyond the donations and sponsorships that keep it running now. Hunters and backpackers who’ve asked to buy the coat will be able to do so, and the Empowerment Plan will still create coats for homeless people who need them.”Veronika is also excited to show other clothing producers that local manufacturing is possible: “I think we’re going to show a lot of people: you think it’s outdated to do manufacturing in your neighborhood, but I think it’s something that we have to do in the future, where it’s sustainable, where you invest in people, where they’re not interchangeable parts.”You can read more about Veronika’s organization on CNN, or watch a short video about her work here.To learn more about The Empowerment Plan or how you can support their work, visit http://www.empowermentplan.org/For a wonderful book about women’s great inventions throughout history, check out “Girls Think of Everything” for readers 8 to 13.For those in the US who would like to support efforts to end homelessness and help the over 600,000 people who experience homelessness on any given night, visit the National Alliance to End Homelessness athttp://www.naeh.org/ or to find a local homeless shelter to support in your area, visit http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/

Important in so many ways.

This is amazing and wonderful.

slackmistress:

bethanysworld:

fightingforanimals:

Veronika Scott was a fashion student at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit when her teacher, Stephen Schock, challenged her class to create a product that filled a need, rather than satisfying or creating a fad. Veronika’s design was a coat for homeless people that could transform into a sleeping bag, since in her city, she says, “you are constantly faced with the homeless epidemic.” 

Not only did her design win a International Design Excellence Award from the Industrial Designers Society of America, it’s become the core of Veronika’s nonprofit organization, The Empowerment Plan, which hires people from homeless shelters and transition homes to help her make the coats. Now, three years later, the 24-year-old social entrepreneur expects that her team of 15 seamstresses will produce over 6,000 coats in 2014 — all of which will be distributed free of charge to people living on the streets. 

Veronika originally designed the coats seeking input from people at a homeless shelter. After receiving feedback from people who used the prototype over a Detroit winter, she refined the design to create her final version which, in addition to being a waterproof and windproof coat and sleeping bag, also transforms into an over-the-shoulder bag with storage in the arm sockets. 

When she started out, Veronika states,

“Everybody told me that my business was going to fail — not because of who I was giving my product to but because of who I was hiring. They said that these homeless women will never make more than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich — you cannot rely on them for anything. And I know my ladies enjoy proving everybody wrong.” 

And, their impact is growing — according to CNN, which recently honored Veronika as one of their 10 Visionary Women of 2014, “The Empowerment Plan expects to launch a ‘buy one, give one’ program that will make it sustainable beyond the donations and sponsorships that keep it running now. Hunters and backpackers who’ve asked to buy the coat will be able to do so, and the Empowerment Plan will still create coats for homeless people who need them.”

Veronika is also excited to show other clothing producers that local manufacturing is possible: “I think we’re going to show a lot of people: you think it’s outdated to do manufacturing in your neighborhood, but I think it’s something that we have to do in the future, where it’s sustainable, where you invest in people, where they’re not interchangeable parts.”

You can read more about Veronika’s organization on CNN, or watch a short video about her work here.

To learn more about The Empowerment Plan or how you can support their work, visit http://www.empowermentplan.org/

For a wonderful book about women’s great inventions throughout history, check out “Girls Think of Everything” for readers 8 to 13.

For those in the US who would like to support efforts to end homelessness and help the over 600,000 people who experience homelessness on any given night, visit the National Alliance to End Homelessness athttp://www.naeh.org/ or to find a local homeless shelter to support in your area, visit http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/

Important in so many ways.

This is amazing and wonderful.

(via feministbatwoman)

panicacidide:

Apparently it’s not socially acceptable for a man to invite another man out just for coffee or to go out for a meal, in case it’s perceived as a date. Like it’s fine if you wanna go to the pub and drink beer and have a chat but make it non-alcoholic and suddenly you’re not straight anymore? You can go to the cinema together but ONLY if it’s an action movie. You guys can’t even just go shopping with each other. Oh masculinity, so fragile, so strange. 

(via equalityandthecity)

ivoryathena:

Badass women of the future:

  1. Malavath Poorna, the youngest person ever to reach Mount Everest’s summit at the age of 13 years, 11 months
  2. Ann Makosinksi, Canadian inventor of a flashlight powered strictly by body heat at age 16

  3. Mo’Ne Davis, first girl to throw a Little League World Series shutout in history, with fastballs reaching speeds of up to 70mph, at age 13

  4. Alia Sabur, youngest university professor in the world, appointed to Konkuk University in South Korea at age 18

  5. Asia Newson, owning and operating a candle sales business alongside her father, is Detroit’s youngest entrepreneur at age 10

(via gtfothinspo)

(Source: rapeculturerealities, via thebiobabe)

About the short summer break - psa

So I just realized that I wrote that there would be a ‘short’ summer break, rather than a summer break in my last update, and well that just wasn’t the case. The truth is that I’ve been spending large part of the summer at a fantastic location, but where alas I’ve had no wifi for my computer. 

I’m planning to make a proper come back with this blog sometime next week when I’m back to normal circumstances. The blog will be slightly less frequently updated (like my queue will be set at 2 updates a day rather than 7), but hopefully I will finally get around to posting some projects I’ve been working on (Women of the world) + more original content - stay tuned!

Tags: psa blog stuff


ATLAS Soared: Fabiola Gianotti and the Discovery of a Higgs Particle (Women In Science 19)
In a corner of a room, tucked unostentatiously away from the notice of the raving hordes of just barely contained school children using their field trip to Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science to wreak havoc, there lies behind glass a hundred year old circular object no bigger than a water canteen. It’s the world’s first cyclotron, held together by wire and wax, and built by Ernest O Lawrence in 1930 for about $25. It is a charming relic of a time when physics experimentalists could still work profitably alone, and the ancestor of today’s multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, maintained and operated by a staff of thousands of scientists and engineers.
We are going to talk about one of the scientists who worked on one of the experiments performed at the LHC. She is Fabiola Gianotti, famous as the spokesperson and coordinator for the ATLAS project which, working in tandem with its competitive sibling, the Compact Muon Solenoid, announced the discovery of a Higgs particle in 2012. ATLAS alone employed three thousand physicists, with about as many on the CMS, each one of whom deserves as much attention and thanks as we can muster as a civilization, but we begin with Gianotti.
If you’ve been reading this series for a while, parts of her early life will sound familiar. LikeEllen Swallow and Rachel Carson, she had an early love of rambling through nature and stopping to wonder about the unique creatures her father would point out to her along the way, but, like Sofia Kovalevskaya and Margaret Mead, this curiosity was balanced by a strong attraction to artistic expression. For Gianotti, that manifested itself in the study of ancient languages, philosophy and, most importantly, music. Trained in piano performance at the Milan Conservatory, she will often end a day of physics and administrative detail by settling down to her piano at home and getting lost for a while in the elegant puzzles of the early nineteenth composers whose music integrated structure and emotion in a way that physicists and mathematicians seem to find particularly intoxicating.
read more

ATLAS Soared: Fabiola Gianotti and the Discovery of a Higgs Particle (Women In Science 19)

In a corner of a room, tucked unostentatiously away from the notice of the raving hordes of just barely contained school children using their field trip to Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science to wreak havoc, there lies behind glass a hundred year old circular object no bigger than a water canteen. It’s the world’s first cyclotron, held together by wire and wax, and built by Ernest O Lawrence in 1930 for about $25. It is a charming relic of a time when physics experimentalists could still work profitably alone, and the ancestor of today’s multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, maintained and operated by a staff of thousands of scientists and engineers.

We are going to talk about one of the scientists who worked on one of the experiments performed at the LHC. She is Fabiola Gianotti, famous as the spokesperson and coordinator for the ATLAS project which, working in tandem with its competitive sibling, the Compact Muon Solenoid, announced the discovery of a Higgs particle in 2012. ATLAS alone employed three thousand physicists, with about as many on the CMS, each one of whom deserves as much attention and thanks as we can muster as a civilization, but we begin with Gianotti.

If you’ve been reading this series for a while, parts of her early life will sound familiar. LikeEllen Swallow and Rachel Carson, she had an early love of rambling through nature and stopping to wonder about the unique creatures her father would point out to her along the way, but, like Sofia Kovalevskaya and Margaret Mead, this curiosity was balanced by a strong attraction to artistic expression. For Gianotti, that manifested itself in the study of ancient languages, philosophy and, most importantly, music. Trained in piano performance at the Milan Conservatory, she will often end a day of physics and administrative detail by settling down to her piano at home and getting lost for a while in the elegant puzzles of the early nineteenth composers whose music integrated structure and emotion in a way that physicists and mathematicians seem to find particularly intoxicating.

read more

(Source: selfrescuingprincesssociety)

veganvibez:

found the best twitter 

(via official-mens-frights-activist)

DEBUNKING THE MEN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT

plansfornigel:

DEBUNKING THE MEN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT

POSTED BY
DEBUNKINGMRAS

POSTED ON
MARCH 12, 2014

What follows is a response to a popular list of claims and arguments made by men’s rights activists.

1. SUICIDE: Men’s suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than that of women’s. [Dept. Health & Human Services — 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]

Not for lack of trying: women attempt it three times as often. [1] Men are more likely to succeed because we are trained for violence, trained for emotional detachment, and trained to deal with problems ourselves rather than seeking help from others. Moreover, we are socialized with a sense of self-importance that can lead men to believe family members would be better off dead without them or to use suicide as a form of revenge against people close to them. The statistic given here also masks that many of these “suicides” were actually murder-suicides. In the United States, an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 people died in suicide attacks each year. [2] More than ninety percent of the offenders are men; nearly all the victims are female. [3]

2. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men’s life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women’s [National Center for Health Statistics — males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.

This is a curious statement. If women live seven years longer than men, it should be obvious why they receive more health support: because the oldest people in society are those that most need subsidized health support, and the oldest people are predominantly women. Furthermore, the insurance industry charges $1 billion a year more to women in health insurance each year for the same coverage plans men receive [4], and up to 53% more for the same individual coverage plan [5], despite women’s overall better health and despite receiving 23% less income then men. [6]

3. WAR: Men are almost exclusively the only victims of war [Dept. Defense — Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women]

The first thing to say is that if trained soldiers sent to engage in imperial wars of aggression can be called “victims” at all, then they are victims of those responsible for the wars in which they fought. And those responsible are men. All Presidents and Vice Presidents have been men. All members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been men. Both branches of Congress have always been dominated by men. Polls since Vietnam show that men have been the ones to support going to war, and the ones most likely to support wars currently in progress. [7] On every level of analysis it is men who are responsible for war, and to somehow blame male combat deaths on women is not only absurd, but insane. If we want to stop these deaths, we need to stop those who are responsible for them: the male politicians, male military personnel, male war contractors, and male warmongers who perpetuate them.

The second thing to say is that this is simply a lie. A study by researchers at the Harvard Medical School looking at wars in 13 countries, including the Vietnam War, found that of the 5.4 million people violently killed, more than 1 million were female. [8] This figure does not account for those women killed less directly through aerial spraying, inflicted poverty, or as the result of sexual torture by men. This also ignores male sexual violence during wartime. In Vietnam, for instance, it was common and accepted practice for soldiers to gang rape women and young girls, as well to kill a female following a rape. [9] Such was the frequency of the latter that the term “double veteran” was coined to refer to such perpetrators. [10]

4. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of all workplace fatalities.

The figure is 92% as of 2012. One important reason for this discrepancy is that men are inclined to select work that is dangerous in order to prove their masculinity to women, to other men, and to themselves. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the most dangerous professions in the United States are construction, transportation, and warehousing, all of which are male-dominated professions. [11] Men’s relative risk of danger is further increased through a relative lack of safety compliance. [12] Tellingly, the most common way for a woman to die in the workplace is to be murdered. [11]

5. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women. [Dept. Health & Human Services — 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]

Men also murder at a rate more than 9 times that of women. That men are often killed by other men is not a problem that women are responsible for. I can hardly imagine why that even needs to be said. In the United States in 2010, 1,095 women were killed by husbands or boyfriends, accounting for 37.5% of female murders. By contrast, only 241 men were killed by their female partners. [13] The smallness of this figure is particularly striking when we consider that 200,000 women in the United States suffer serious violence from male partners each year. [14]

6. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive physical custody of 92% of all children of separation, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]

91% of the time, custody is agreed upon or settled by parents themselves, usually without outside mediation. Mothers are more likely to receive custody because both parents usually understand that it is in the best interests of their children. In married two-partner households, women spend nearly twice as much time doing child care as their male partners. [15] Only 4% of custody cases go to trial and only 1.5% are resolved there. [16] In disputed custody cases, fathers win custody 70% of the time, [17] despite abusive men being among those most likely to fight for custody. [18]

7. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics — 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]

This is not a matter of “bias”: women are sometimes acquitted of murdering their husbands because their husbands abused them or their children. It is estimated that 1.3 million women are beaten by male partners in the United States every year, putting them in fear for their lives. [18] Every one of these women would be justified in killing her spouse or partner and receiving an acquittal. It is exceptionally rare for any man to experience a comparable level of terroristic threat from his wife.

8. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics — men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]

As per above, many women receive lighter sentences for killing their husbands because their purpose in doing so was to stop physical abuse against themselves or their children.

9. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Women are assessed for Child Support on average at half the rate of men, yet are twice as likely to default on Child Support payments. Ninety Seven (97%) of all child support prosecutions are against fathers. [Census Bureau]

Women are assessed less often than men and default more often because women aged 18-35 have on average $0 in net worth. Many mothers simply have no means to pay child support. By comparison, white men of the same age have a median wealth of $5,600, and men of color have $1,000. [20] This wealth discrepancy also pressures young mothers who care for the welfare of their children to prosecute men for child support.

10. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Numerous credible studies from independent researchers report that women are the initiators of domestic violence in 58% of all cases, and cause physical abuse in almost 50% of all cases, yet women only account for 6% of all criminal proceedings in such matters.

It’s telling that you speak of “numerous credible studies” and carefully avoid citing any of them. I tried to find studies from any source making such claims, with no success. What I did find is the most recent report by the US Department of Justice, which found women suffer 805,700 physical injuries at the hands of partners each year, compared to 173,960 men. Moreover, the injuries suffered by women were more than twice as likely to be considered “serious”, defined as including sexual violence, gunshot and knife wounds, internal injuries, unconsciousness, and broken bones. To put that another way, partners inflicted 104,741 serious injuries on women, compared with less than 9,400 inflicted on men, a greater than 11:1 ratio. [14] Even those men who have been subject to partner violence have usually not taken it seriously. According to a study by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin, they were “significantly more likely than were women to laugh at partner-initiated violence”, while women “reported more fear, anger, and insult and less amusement when their partners were violent.” [21] It’s also worth noting that a number of these male injuries were incurred by male rather than female partners; according to a 2000 Department of Justice report, men living with male partners are at nearly twice the risk of “serious” violence as those living with women. [22] If women really are criminally prosecuted in 6% of domestic violence cases, then that figure sounds eminently reasonable.

11. CHILD VIOLENCE: Mothers commit 55% of all child murders and biological fathers commit 6%. NIS-3 indicates that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households. Despite these compelling figures, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors.

The first sentence is unsourced and not credible. According to one group of filicide [child murder] researchers:

Although some studies have noted that mothers commit filicide more often than fathers, other research has shown that paternal filicide is as common or more common than maternal filicide.

Reports of a higher proportion of maternal filicides most likely reflect the inclusion of neonaticides in some studies. [23]

In other words, there is no agreement as to whether mothers or fathers are more likely to kill their own children, but when mothers are seen as more likely, it is likely because infanticides are included in the results. According to the above researchers, the main motivation “may be the undesirability of the child,” and mothers under the age of 20 with a previous child are among those most likely to engage in such a murder. Young mothers without sufficient economic, family, or medical support may find there are no better options for themselves or for their other children. By contrast, fathers who kill their children are “often perpetrators of fatal-abuse filicide”, meaning that they batter their children to death. Some of the most common motivations for father filicide are “attempts to control the child’s behavior, and misinterpretation of the child’s behavior”. [23]

I’ve recently obtained a copy of the NIS-3 study, and while Table 5-4 does indeed provide data indicating that “Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households,” the provided footnote also says explicitly that the difference is either statistically insignificant or marginal, with p-values above 0.10. What that means is that the numbers, while provided, are statistically worthless and cannot be used to even hint at inferences. Meanwhile, the data from the NIS-3 regarding parental households that is statistically valid paints a very different picture. In every category, father-only households put children at a higher risk of harm than mother-only households. Risk of abuse is 71% higher, including a 68% greater chance of physical abuse. Risk of neglect is 28% higher, including a 32% rise for physical neglect, 67% rise for emotional neglect, and 14% rise for educational neglect. Risk of both moderate or serious injury is 40% higher.

That this is true is particularly exceptional when we pair this with data from the more recent NIS-4 study which found that households with a lower socioeconomic status were nearly 7 times more likely to involve neglect, including a nearly ninefold risk of physical neglect. Overally the safety of children in these households was classified as 5.7 times more severe than those of a higher socioeconomic background. [24] Single women with children are far more likely than men to live under conditions of severe poverty: both black and Hispanic women with children under age 18 have an average median wealth of $0, compared to $10,960 for black men and $2,400 for Hispanic men; white women with children have an average median wealth of $7,970, compared to an average of $56,100 for white men. [20] If economic justice for women was sufficiently advanced, we would expect the safety of mother-only households illustrated by the NIS-3 to increase still further. Given this information, to call fathers the “most effective protectors” of children is a hateful turn of phrase, suggesting that mothers wish harm on their children and only fathers can protect them. This in spite of the reality that children are far safer in the custody of their mothers than their fathers.

12. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the total wealth in the USA [Fortune Magazine]

This is a ridiculous lie, and to their credit I can find no evidence that Fortune Magazine ever made such a claim.

Contrary to this claim, one Harvard University researcher found that men have an average net worth of $26,850, compared to an average of $12,900 for women. [25] That is to say, men on average hold more than twice the wealth of women.

References

[1] http://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/21/murder-suicides-are-in-a-class-by-themselves/2572133/
[3] http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/371.long
[4] http://www.nwlc.org/press-release/new-nwlc-report-discriminatory-health-insurance-practices-cost-women-1-billion-year
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/health/policy/women-still-pay-more-for-health-insurance-data-shows.html?scp=1&sq=women%20insurance%20costs&st=cse
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/07/the-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-has-grown-during-the-recovery/
[7] http://www.gallup.com/poll/7243/gender-gap-varies-support-war.aspx
[8] http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7659/1482
[9] Nick Turse, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam, pages 164-171
[10] http://www.waywordradio.org/double_veteran_1/
[11] http://pro.sagepub.com/content/41/2/1283.short
[12] http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf
[13] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain
[14] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvav9311.pdf
[15] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/06/15/a-tale-of-two-fathers/
[16] http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm#fn%201
[17] Joan Zorza, “Batterer manipulation and retaliation compounded by denial and complicity in the family courts” In M.T. Hannah & B. Goldstein (editors), Domestic violence, abuse and child custody: Legal strategies and policy issues
[18] http://www.nnflp.org/apa/issue5.html
[19] http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipvbook-a.pdf
[20] http://www.insightcced.org/uploads/CRWG/LiftingAsWeClimb-WomenWealth-Report-InsightCenter-Spring2010.pdf
[21] http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/11/1301.short
[22] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf
[23] http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/1/74.full.pdf+html
[24] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf
[25] http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/2/6/pages109260/p109260-1.php

This synopsis was written by Owen Lloyd, a stay-at-home dad living on the Oregon coast. Hate mail can be addressed to him at owen.lloyd@gmail.com.

http://debunkingmras.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/debunking-the-mens-rights-movement-x/

(via field-notes-on-feminism)