I have long subscribed to the newsletter of the National Parents Organization, but I unsubscribed when I saw the article Heforshe; Emma Watson's UN Speech, because of its incompetence and anti-male bias.  The author of the above article, Curtis Vandermolen, has obviously found a woman and sold out to Feminism.  He says that his views on Feminism have changed because of a woman who is now his partner. 

That is exactly why Feminists, at one point in their history, deliberately decided to exclude men from their meetings and (at not necessarily the same time) that is why some Feminists recommended Lesbianism as the only true path for Feminists.  Elizabeth Meehan (1990 "British Feminism from the 1960s to the 1980s", in Harold Smith (ed.)(1990): "British Feminism in the Twentieth Century", University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 191-2), referring to Radical Feminists, states that "Radicals demand that lesbianism be considered not merely a matter of freedom of choice but as essential political practice for feminists."  That exclusion of men from discussions and even from the double bed is what has allowed Feminists to exclude Men's Rights, the men's point of view, and any consideration for men at all from their single-minded power-grab for women.  Men will never acquire any rights in Western societies until they adopt similar tactics -- refusing to accept input from women when discussing Men's Rights.

As we can see from the example of Curtis Vandermolen, discussing Feminism with your female partner has dire consequences for your grip on reality!  He has now decided that there is something called "feminism" (with a small "f"), which is the theory, and "Feminism" (with a capital "F"), which is the "vocal political movement."  He says that "feminism" is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities."  For a start, that formulation excludes any consideration of responsibilites and duties.  As I describe it elsewhere,

Feminism: The State Ideology whereby:-

• women have rights,

• men have responsibilities, and

• children have their lives ruined.

Men are routinely conscripted into the front line in wartime, and this has never happened to women in recorded history, as far as I am aware.  That is men's "responsibility."  Women don't have any responsibilities -- only rights!

Two more of Vandermolen's delusions is that "feminism" is clearly defined and that it is sufficient to define a theory.  Actually, he is not talking about defining a whole theory here (which you can't do anyway) but just a word!  In fact, Feminist themselves differ as to their definition of feminism.  "A central problem within feminist discourse has been our inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of unification. Without agreed upon definition(s), we lack a sound foundation on which to construct theory or engage in overall meaningful praxis." (Bell Hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, Boston: South End Press, 1989, p. 17). 

It is not sufficient to define "feminism" as having something to do with equality and then proceed to ignore men's rights, needs and interests altogether, which is what feminists/Feminists have always done.  If I want to say x = y, or to make x equal to y, I have to find out about both x and y -- yet feminists/Feminists know nothing, and care less, about men's rights, so they don't even know what equality between men and women would even look like -- let alone be aiming at achieving it!

So Vandermolen's creation of the separate entities "Feminism" and "feminism" is a fiction, created as a result of the fact that he has found a woman.  He will not be the first Men's Rights Activist to have sold out in this way.  Since women are useless thinkers but very good at playing the man instead of the ball, we have to bear in mind the possibility that Feminists are deliberately targetting Men's Rights Activists in this way.  Beware the Honey-Trap!