A great article on "Watts Up With That?"

Here

Attend:

America needs decisive leaders who understand what government can (and cannot) do to stop the Gulf gusher, clean up the mess, and get business, jobs and prosperity back on track. Instead, President Obama sounds like an anti-business Community Organizer in Chief – pointing fingers, making baseless claims about ending our “addiction to oil,” and leaving no crisis unexploited to promote job-killing cap-tax-and-trade and renewable energy agendas. His June 15 “vision” raised more questions than it answered.

...

America is not running out of oil. It is running out of places the government allows us to drill. China is creating renewable energy jobs, because it mines the lanthanides, lithium and other minerals that are essential for wind turbines, solar panels and hybrid cars, while we lock up our prospects; burns coal to generate cheap electricity to run its factories, while the White House, Congress and EPA try to drive US coal-based power to extinction; and pays its factory workers a fraction of what American workers receive.

Companies have been drilling in deep waters, because most onshore and shallow water areas are off limits. Will we now open the ANWR, Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, Rockies and near-shore OCS to drilling – where access and development are easier, and accidents (that we hope, and industry must ensure, never happen again) can be fixed and cleaned up far more easily than in mile-deep waters?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/paul-driessen-asks-some-inconvenient-questions/#more-20953

New Editorial Direction:

Well folks, I'm almost sad to say, Issue 6 is the last issue of MRm! magazine. The reason I started it was primarily to document, and illustrate, in a persistent format, the writings of the Mens Movement.

It has since become clear that this magazine represents a very real possibility of being a gateway into wider social acceptance. But to do so, requires a shift in approach.

Aside from my goal of trying to 'freeze' for a bit longer articles that eloquently state the reasons the MRM exists, I also want this magazine to further the goal of highlighting injustice, double standards, etc, that men face daily...and effecting the desire and will to change this.

This last bit, it seems, has become more important to me.

So, with a hat tip to our friends over in the Mens Studies crowd, I officially announce the death of MRm!, and the birth of something new. I will remain Editor and such, but Paul Elam will now be joining me as Contributing Editor. His enthusiasm and intelligence are welcome additions to the effort.

The new magazine will talk about mens issues, much in the way MRm! does, in a 'non-confrontational' manner. Sort of like outlining a problem by shooting around it. But there will hopefully be so much more. I would like to include cartoons, of course. But I also want articles on music (perhaps interviews with musicians, etc). I want profiles of artists' work sensitive to mens issues. I want interviews with politicians. Lots of them.

The focus is still men's issues, minus the elements that make the MRM unpalatable to many. But make no mistake. Far from diluting the effectiveness of the magazine, I believe this will only increase it, if done correctly. For instance, outlining the position of Feminist politicians, and the injustice to men, can easily be done without ever painting men as 'victims' or once saying the word "feminist". For inspiration, look to "Lone Nut".

When you convey a point without actually making it explicit (Game anyone), it's FAR more effective.

And with that, I invite any and all who wish to step up to the plate, to do so. I'll continue to troll for gold as well.

Anonymity for Rape Defendants - Make Your Voices Heard in England!

"I have published 2 or 3 posts at the Counter-Feminist, concerning a proposal now before the UK Parliament to extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants. This proposal came hard upon the heels of a recent electoral upset which unseated the Labour government that had formerly ruled the country—and had made itself widely hated through its corrupt, abusive, tyrannical behavior.

The new regime in Great Britain is a coalition divided between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

So. . the anonymity proposal of the Lib-Con coalition has been attacked by feminists and Labourites (the two are somewhat synonymous), and a motion in Parliament, called the Early Day Motion 150, has been put forward. This motion attempts to block the anonymity proposal and preserve the status quo—in which men who are merely ACCUSED of rape may have their identities published to the world at large in spite of any adverse consequences, and despite the fact that the accusers are shielded by law from such publicity."

http://littlewhiterapelies.blogspot.com/2010/06/t-he-frsf-blog-has-gathered-lot-of-dust.html

How the Internet is Changing Advertising

I recommend every MRA watch this video, and internalize it. It's sort of 'business communications - ey', but it's still sound advice I intend to try and take.

It's about Goddamn time!

The UK actually has real political will to help men in some way? Ok sure, it's only one person, but if this woman were anywhere near me, I'd MOVE if that's what I had to do to vote for her:

THE COUNTY’S newest MP used her maiden speech in the House of Commons to highlight domestic abuse and the lack of provision for male victims in Oxfordshire.

She also praised a county initiative to make it easier for all victims to access help and support.

Nicola Blackwood, who won the Oxford West and Abingdon seat by just 176 votes in last month’s General Election, told the Commons that domestic incidents accounted for 16 per cent of violent crime and added: “Despite the fact that most people still think of it as a women’s issue, a third of victims are men.”

The 30-year-old Conservative MP said: “Although roughly a third of victims are male, only one per cent of refuge space is available for men.

“In Oxfordshire, there is no provision for male victims fleeing domestic abuse.”

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/abingdon/8210661.New_MP_makes_her_maiden_speech/

A post I believe I want to share...

The following is a post on Reddit regarding the Abortion for Men debate. many of the Feminists there argue that men SHOULD have this right - an interesting development. Some, or rather MOST, see the current situation as not going far enough, or 'just right'.

Here is my response:

Legal rights are legal rights. You either have them, or you don't.

Men don't.

The majority seem to be arguing that this state of affairs is neither remarkable, nor unjust - that men are jerks if they don't 'step up' to support the mother's sole decision.

Most of these issues inter-relate, all of which add up to some pretty dire consequences that precious few of you Feminist types give ANY consideration to, which baffles me to no end, since it would explain a lot of stuff to you...

For instance:

Men have no choice in Reproduction, unintended consequences of which mean at least 18 years of poverty (yes, the child support tables in Canada specifically give the lion's share of 'disposable income' at nearly all income levels to the 'custodial parent'. Commonly referred to as 'indentured servitude'.

Sexual harassment laws are skewed HEAVILY toward discouraging men's normal 'overtures' in a work setting, using lecherous bosses as the excuse...all the while championing women's 'right' to be 'sexy' at work (the female form of sexual harassment - if you choose to recognize such things). The very act of introducing yourself as a man is becoming criminalized (see: attempts to criminalize the 'male gaze' and 'catcalling').

The ever-expanding definition of 'rape' (yes, I know this is a political sacred cow), coupled with an 'always believe the woman' mindset, has led to demonstrable risk of imprisonment with every single sexual encounter. The current legal stance of 'guilty until proven innocent' (her word is gold until proven otherwise) as evidenced by Duke, Hofstra, Tailhook, etc. ad nauseum - coupled with the publicity and social ostracism even in the face of an 'innocent' verdict (which most people equate to 'he got away with it'), make the very real possibility of mistaking a psychopath bent on imprisoning as many men as possible for an amorous invitation likely (like recently in the UK - one accused killed himself, so she did it again to another guy), if not inevitable. There is never, in a man's entire lifetime, a single sexual encounter that he can be assured he will not be prosecuted for at some time in the future, since it's been shown repeatedly that he does not actually have to have committed this particular crime to 'pay' for it anyway.

DV/restraining orders are another source of concern, and for much of the same reason rape laws are so unfair. The decision to 'err on the side of caution' directly translates into 'treat the man like a criminal'. These are routinely used in divorce situations for legal advantage, as readily admitted to by nearly every Bar Association. But they are also used as sympathy ploys, or one means to harass a man through the legal system. Conversely, consider for a moment all the women doing things like shooting their husband in the BACK, while he's sleeping, claiming 'battered WOMEN's defense' and then not only serving less than 6 MONTHS for murder (hey, it's only a man after all), she GETS CUSTODY of the kids to the applause of Feminists everywhere! (I know that sure makes ME feel safe at night. But she 'would NEVER do that! Right...?)

Which brings up Family Court. Here in Canada the 'primary residence' for children is with the mother 93% of the time.

93%

Can anyone seriously attempt to explain away this bias? Oh yeah sure, it's Teh Patriarchy's fault and all that nonsense...if so, where are the Feminist voices trying to Stamp it Out?

All of these things, taken in part, are serious problems in need of study at the bare minimum (from a non-Feminist perspective...I'm afraid Feminist 'scholarship' leaves much to be desired). Taken together, all you women, ask yourself this...

Would YOU be happy with the situation? Want to jump into relationships with both feet would you? Knowing all this, would you EVER trust someone who could do that to you not only with society's blessing, but HELP?

Me either.

MRm! So far...

MRm! Issue 1, or The Counter-Feminist Issue, is indeed a summation of some of the criticisms the Mens Movement has for Feminism, and Feminists.

Articles that decode commonly heard Feminist phrases, analysis of the laws and policies implemented at Feminist behest, and some of the consequences, are also outlined.

The phenomenon of Men Going Their Own Way, and the Marriage Strike are also explored and explained.











MRm! Issue 2 introduces some Game into the mix, with articles on both ends of the Sexual extreme. Pick Up Artistry is explored, with the attendant analysis of female sexuality. Abusive women are another topic within.










MRm! Issue 3 builds upon the themes of the previous two issues, and delves deeper into the reasons why many issues related to male sexuality are so deeply held in suspicion. There are also articles that deal primarily with the negative effect Feminism has had on males, as well as society in general. This issue also introduces some criticism of the men who enable this state of affairs.













MRm! Issue 4 speaks to the Sacred Cows in these Politically Correct days: Domestic Violence by women and the deliberate cover up of same; the overbearing sense of entitlement of many women is criticised; the criticism of the 'traditionalists' might surprise you; and of course, resounding criticism of Chivalry.









MRm! Issue 5, as you may have guessed, deals primarily with Female sexuality and the public celebration of it. The effects on men, as well as the reasons for, of the constant display of female flesh is the subject of one article. Exploration into some of the more extreme reactions to sexual betrayal, and the somewhat 'grey' area of 'understandable' reaction can be found here, as well as possible explanation why women seem to have NO IDEA what men want in a long term partner.











So far, that's the whole line up. It seems these are coming along at a rate of one per month, so expect to see Issue 6 sometime around the end of June.

All of these issues are available for download at:

avoiceformen.com/mrm/mrm.php

If you choose to, you can also subscribe and be notified with every new release. That's the way I'd do it, 'cause I forget stuff all the time.

A Feminist walks the talk (sort of)...

Nothing highlights the hypocrisy of Feminism (and Feminists) quite so much as when they endorse or support in any way, the circumcision of baby boys.

Bodily integrity is a central tenet of Feminism, encompassed by the words 'my body, my choice'. Which is why I have always found it ironic the Feminists of all stripes have repeatedly defended male infant circumcision to 'prevent disease', because 'it's easier to keep clean', and incredibly 'women like the looks of circumcised penises better'.

That last one is really popular...honest to God.

In nearly every instance, what is good for the Goose, is not good for the Gander when you're dealing with a Feminist, especially when talking genital mutilation.

Which is why it was quite surprising to see this:

http://community.feministing.com/2010/06/feminism-and-male-circumcision.html

"I am now firmly on the side against circumcision and only wish I had actually looked deeper into this before my sons were circumcised. I honestly went along with the crowd on it and thought it was just one of things you do to your sons, get them circumcised.

If one of our rallying cries is bodily autonomy and we'd raise all hell when AAP briefly decided to allow "nicking" of female newborn genitals, does being against male circumcision become a feminist issue on the grounds of bodily autonomy or is it the universal right of a parent to SONS to do with their child's genitals as they please?"

Of course, this is something our newly found 'egalitarian Feminist' only realized after it was 'too late'...

"Unfortunately when I made up my mind about it, it was already too late. He was getting circumcised at that doctor's appointment."

It seems from this line, that rather than cancelling an appointment to mutilate her son, she just 'went with the flow'.

While I would like to congratulate this woman on finally realizing that her son (a male) is an actual person too - she did so too late to avoid being responsible for her son's loss of approximately 28,000 nerve endings, a potentially crippled sex life (including erectile dysfunction - though we all know the Feminist 'sympathy' for men experiencing sexual problems), and a time in the future when her son is possibly going to hate her for what she did to him. Frankly, I hope he does. I can't think of a single instance where cutting up your son's genitals is anything but an evil act, and there is not one parent alive that does NOT know that circumcision is painful, debilitating, and medically unneccessary.

And yet, they still do it.

It's good to see Feminists actually having some integrity on some issues like this, though with the number of arguments supporting male genital mutilation in evidence, I'm also more than a little taken aback with the outright hostility to anything male...especially penises.

In my view, there should almost never be an instance where this type of procedure is allowed to be carried out. And under NO circumstances should it be done to 'make him look like his father', or 'keep clean'. And the WORST POSSIBLE reason to do it is to make it 'aesthetically pleasing' to women. Unless you don't mind slicing off clitoral hoods and inner labia to make women more 'aesthetically pleasing' to men...

53 of the most vile sexists in UK politics...

Mactaggart, Fiona
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Griffith, Nia
Phillipson, Bridget
Green, Kate
Blears, Hazel
Hodge, Margaret
Jones, Helen
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Osborne, Sandra
Coffey, Ann
Curran, Margaret
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Flint, Caroline
Abbott, Diane
Begg, Anne
Twigg, Stephen
Walley, Joan
Winterton, Rosie
Hodgson, Sharon
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Engel, Natascha
Johnson, Diana R
Keeley, Barbara
McCarthy, Kerry
Seabeck, Alison
Glindon, Mary
Alexander, Heidi
Greenwood, Lilian
Berger, Luciana
Hilling, Julie
Jones, Graham
Creasy, Stella
Onwurah, Chinyelu
Reynolds, Jonathan
Umunna, Chuka
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
McKinnell, Catherine
Fovargue, Yvonne
Ali, Rushanara
Skinner, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin
Glass, Pat
Vaz, Valerie
Kendall, Liz
Edwards, Jonathan
Mearns, Ian



And here's the reason why....