Preface: this post is based on my reply to the Singapore student whose paper critical of feminism was rejected. Here I've added more content and links.

For scholarly and debate purposes, Internet resources outside of mainstream media are unreliable and often misleading or completely false. Just as HuffPo, Cracked, everydayfeminism, etc. are biased or heavily editorialized platforms, so are AVfM, The College Fix, The Blaze, etc. for the same reasons. They may be entertaining and informative, but they're unlikely to convince skeptics unfamiliar with the issues. Fortunately, there are more than enough reliable sources to demonstrate that men's rights deserve attention (or that feminist claims are false/overblown):

Official Laws and Policies

  • Rape definition in UK (Is there a list of nations with biased definitions? I know there are many others)
  • CDC NISVS rape definition
  • National Domestic Violence website featuring "male privilege" as criterion for abuse
  • Official records of fatalities among Vietnam conscripts

Scientific Studies

Mainstream Internet Sources

  • Politifact on Obama's wage gap claim
  • News reports about male students expelled without due process successfully suing their colleges

Other Compendia of Reliable Sources

[rant]It's alright to care about men's rights based on anecdotes, hunches, and blog posts; but it's far better to understand the scientific evidence for men's issues, including its limitations. For example, NCVS data vary considerably from year to year despite the huge sample size - citing any one year commits a cherrypicking fallacy (so, look at several years using the analysis tool). It is also picking cherries to cite only the 12-month NISVS stats (although they have certain advantages over the lifetime stats). Overstating claims makes one look desperate. There's no need to feel desperate with so much science on your side.[/rant]

Feel free to criticize my list (it is far from comprehensive) or offer your own.