How do MRA S propose to...?

As far as I can tell they think feminists should do it in the name of equality. Bunch of comedians they are.

From what I've seen most of their goals are a matter of addressing policies that discriminate against men, more than fund raising for certain issues.

Regarding domestic violence shelters, the funding is already in place. At issue is whether all victims of domestic violence should have access to these services or whether males should be denied access. In both California and West Virginia the MRM has challenged this discrimination as being illegal and won in both cases, though how or if this ruling will be enforced remains unclear.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/embedded/20091...

They've also had some success in reducing the bias in child custody in some states.

Such changes must include hiring lobbyists and legal council. I really don't know the process by which they have done that. The linked article does list a specific men's group, so looking them up specifically may yield how they funded their effort.

The simple solution is we need to create laws that say that any money spent on women's protections, the same amount has to be spent on men's protections. So if women get $500 million in tax dollars for women only shelters then $500 million also has to be spent on providing men only shelters. Or we can simply slash the $500 million in half and women get $250 million for shelters and so do men. This country (the US) was founded on the idea of "No taxation without representation". So why are men not demanding equal representation under the law? VAWA is highly unconstitutional. For one, there's already laws to protect women and men the same. VAWA is just more laws to protect only women yet men get taxed for it. Men are the biggest tax payers in America and women are the biggest beneficiaries of the taxes. 50% of single mothers in the US are on welfare. And men are the ones funding it. We're paying for women to be single and have our kids while we have to pay them child support on top of welfare. It's completely wrong. Men are being fleeced in America BIG TIME!

Less than half of the shelters in the us are funded by the state and federal cuts have reduced the number further to the point where it is practically a national crisis.

Contrary to what commonsense says, there are not enough funds to go around. Further, a minute percentage of male victims actually seek or require shelter according to men's charities.

Also gender neutral language is not actually helpful because male victims and female victims have different needs. Male victims are more likely to perceive gender neutral as targeting females. Studies have shown they respond better to language targeting men specifically.

Mras need to fund more private shelters, as women do for women.

State shelters should operate on a proportionate basis based on the percentages of victims of each sex requiring assistance. It is the only fair way to do it.

Mixed shelters are not the answer. Not for women anyway, particularly as they are likely to have suffered sexual abuse.

But, as usual, MRA supporters such as commonsense do not care about female victims. They only care about their version of equality, regardless of the consequences.

I am saying this because he is well aware of these facts, but chooses to ignore them in order to perpetuate the idea that men are unfairly discriminated against and that existing shelters should operate on a 50/50 basis.

Bake sale.