Groups like RADAR fall under the broader umbrella of the men’s rights movement, a loose coalition of anti-feminist groups. These men’s rights activists, or MRAs, have long been written off by domestic-violence advocates as a bombastic and fringe group of angry white men, and for good reason.

But lately they’ve become far more polished and savvy about advancing their views. In their early days of lobbying, “these guys would show up and have this looming body language that was very off-putting,” says Ben Atherton-Zeman, author of Voices of Men, a one-man play about domestic violence and sexual assault. “But that’s all changed. A lot of the leaders are still convicted batterers, but they’re well-organized, they speak in complete sentences, they sound much more reasonable: All we want is equal custody, for fathers not to be ignored.”

One of the respectable new faces of the movement is Glenn Sacks, a fathers’ rights columnist and radio host with 50,000 e-mail followers, and a pragmatist in a world of angry dreamers. Sacks is a former feminist and abortion-clinic defender who disavows what he calls “the not-insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers’ rights movement.” He recently merged his successful media group with the shared-parenting organization Fathers and Families in a bid to build a mainstream fathers’ rights organ on par with the National Organization for Women. Many of Sacks’ arguments—for a court assumption of shared parenting in the case of divorce, or against child-support rigidity in the midst of recession—can sound reasonable.

But do any of their arguments hold up? Many of the men for whom Sacks advocates are involved in extreme cases, says Joanie Dawson, a writer and domestic-violence advocate who has covered the fathers’ rights movement. The great majority of custody cases, in which shared parenting is a legitimate option, are settled or resolved privately. But of the 15 percent that go to family court—the cases that fathers’ rights groups target—at least half include alleged domestic abuse.

However, here on Earth, the Feminists have long ago convinced themselves that the only way they can achieve domination (i.e. what they call “equality” or “equity”) is to band together in formal associations and informal networks and work towards that goal.

If you’re on the receiving-end of this sort of activity (i.e. if you’re a man), you might tend to call this a conspiracy. That seems to be as good a word as any, in the circumstances!

The fact is they are sure and can see through the ulterior motives of feminism like the back of their hand.

Your attempt to put forth feminism as something benign is futile.

You may be mistaking accurate observations about feminism for a belief in conspiracies. Feminism is by definition the pursuit of rights and privileges for women, at the expense of men. The pursuit of this is simply the definition of being a feminist; there is no conspiracy. Similarly, Muslims do not “conspire” to face Mecca for prayer several times a day; this is simply a part of being Muslim.