Hunting for Archetypes

The Dynamics of the Mens Movement

2011-11-30T18:04:00.001-08:00

I'm a bit of a visual thinker, so I'll try and illustrate my take on the way ahead.

Imagine this if you will:

Before you is a canvas on an easel, filling your vision. Imagine taking a wide brush, and painting a thick stripe down the left side of the canvas, the paint thick and gooey and running off the bottom of the canvas all over the concrete floor. Lets say the colour is a rich blue. This stripe covers about one fifth of the canvas, and represents MRAs/MGTOWs of the world. Immediately adjacent to this stripe, imagine painting another stripe, again about 1/5th of the canvas wide, only this time it's a thick dripping layer of lipstick red paint. And beside that, another stripe, only this time, the stripe is yellow. And again beside that, pink. And finally, black.

Standing back, in order you'll have 5 sloppy, dripping messes of, in order, blue, red, yellow, pink, and black. Now, imagine walking up to the canvas, and taking your hand palm first, fingers spread wide, and pressing your hand hard into the canvas...then wiping your hand toward the black on the far right edge.

That hand, is our message. The path it took, started in MRA circles and then passed through, in order, the PUA sphere, the Traditionalist camp, then to women, and finally to feminists. And the mess, with the mingled colours and blurred edges and chaotic blotches of colour are the various blogs, forums, and articles addressing mens issues. And by and large, that is exactly the trajectory nearly every mens issue has taken on the way to public awareness. More to the point, the return fire from the Feminist side of the canvas makes a far bigger splash than our initial foray - just like the black overwhelms the other colours.

Someday, enough people will notice that all that blackness is turning the world grey.

Hateful Bigot Exposed

2011-11-09T16:13:00.000-08:00

Ah, Register-her.com does it again! Vile femi-supremacist "Vliet Tiptree" has been identified as one Pamela O'Shaugnessy

Thank you Paul and JTO and Keyster and all the rest for your fine work.

The Debate Begins

2011-10-30T11:28:00.000-07:00

The storm brewing on the horizon –the 'stand off' between the MRA and PUA branches of the Manosphere –is the most exciting development in years, if you ask me. I believethis signals the growth of public awareness of these issues, and thepushback is valuable input, whether recognized as such or not.

Both PUAs and MRAs are hearing advicethey need to ingest, and carefully, in order to grow and be moreeffective. There are practical concerns and applications bothmovments face that the other has advice on. And I believe it likelythere will be more of these curious intersections as time goes on,and likely not from anywhere we currently even regard as relevant.

Mommy bloggers, for example, may turnout to be more in favour of us than feminists on balance. Strangerthings have happened. Traditionalists might even start taking whatis presented to them with some seriousness as well, as time goes on. And that doesn't even begin to cover the racial (yes, including theWhite Rights folks) and sexual (homo-, hetero-, etc) issues that Ibelieve will eventually intersect here as well.

The real distinction here is that weare standing on that strange spot called "Zeta Masculinity",which may come to be known by other names by other cultures, whereall sorts of interests converge. And none of us, not one, isentirely comfortable here.

We have to figure out the rules as wego, and the punishment for failure to comply is swift and sure. Wehave to bring new rules into existence, even in the face ofbiological imperative and perceived social good. And we have to dothis while under constant fire from those who wish to thwart ourefforts.

PUAs and MRAs find themselves herefirst for a few reasons I believe are important, and a few thataren't. First and foremost, PUAs got here first due to the dollaragenda so many MRAs find objectionable. The PUA movement grew out ofthe Self Help Industry, which means better analysis and betterresults meant more money. And better marketing meant more earslistening, and more money. And it means a lot of men with a hungerfor knowledge and success, both with women and at life in general.

I believe to some extent, that cynicalCapitalist seed is what many MRAs object to. This is because MRAstend to have an activist mindset, and activists tend to be motivatedby their sense of justice and 'right n wrong' – activists tend tobe moral absolutists, which can make them a pain in the ass atcocktail parties. But they get, and keep, the ball rolling.

Not mutually exclusive in any way.

These two movements are not mutuallyexclusive in any way, indeed they offer new insights to each other onnearly every subject where relations between the sexes is relevant(in other words, most of the time). MRAs make the imbalances facedin Family Court and the very real risk of Rape allegations, and thebest likely means to defend oneself and strategies to get a betteroutcome in Family Court, a topic within PUA circles. PUAs helpexplain the reasoning behind why women do things the way they do. And let's be honest here, I don't know a whole lot of men happy witha celibate lifestyle, and unless you're so mind-boggingly attractivewomen will bend to fit YOUR expectations without you trying, a betteroutcome with women is sure to hold value.

In many ways, the PUA approach and theMGTOW approach are virtually identical, other than the outlookchosen. PUAs fiddle while Rome burns, while MGTOWs look back at theburning buildings with detached resentment. Both have given up onsociety utterly, but PUAs have decided it's better to deal with thereality you're given, and swirl down the drain while riding a Yacht.

Personally, I can't fault thatreasoning. But there are pitfalls which MRAs can point out that PUAsmight not be aware of.

Much of the Pedestalization of women isvia 'sexual divinity' type thinking. Without pussy being used as awhip and a carrot, most men wouldn't do shit for women. This is acommon refrain throughout ALL of the sites analyzing these issues. And men will continue to want to get laid, and have families. TheMRA tendency to demand men 'walk away' is functionally identical to aradical lesbian feminist demanding all sex be considered Rape.

In fact, PUAs provide fantastic weaponsagainst the real enemy we face: Chivalry. They strip the facadewomen present away, laying bare the reality underneath, andmercilessly exploit weakness – mocking the belligerent (andcelibate) White Knights while they rail the girl he's 'Protected' allnight at the Bar – demonstrating the emptiness of female promisesused to control the Average Frustrated Chump. And their acronyms aresuitably derisive as well...who wants to be known as an AFC afterall?

Without the support of this Chivalricimpulse, without the masses of White Knights that still believe being'gallant' will get him laid, Feminism is dead in the water. Withoutrudder or sail. Or strong backs to row the oars. Get rid of theWhite Knights making the rules, and Feminists are reduced to thesqualling babies they are. Demonstrate to men that White Knights getlaughed at, not laid, on a big enough scale, and voila, it's all overbut the crying.

Men will not stand up to women untilthey realize that doing so will get them laid.

And MRAs will not teach that lesson,and can't even if we tried, because by and large PUAs are right aboutus. A good portion of the MRM is made up of older folks, or guys whohave, ...limited, social skills, or guys who have been fucked overone too many times. Guys who are determined to not be of use.

You know - the guys that societyusually gets rid of via war, famine, and ostracism...

We take an outsider view for areason

When you apply Fidelbogen's analysis ofFeminism to the Mens Rights Movement, you realize that here at AvfM,we are near the center of the swirling maelstrom. We are the oneswho inform the ones who get things done directly. We assume theposition the radfems assume within the feminist movement. This is avalid, if irrelevant, statement.

We will not be listened to directly bythe general public...ever. Like it or not, applying MRA theory tothe real world will be possible only through other vectors. Influencing the articles written by journalists , who then pass onthe message, is the main strategy we have employed so far. But thereare other avenues, and frankly the PUA community is a perfect market,and vector, for MRA analysis. Moreover, since much of what we haveto say is simple common logic, and makes sense to employ/be aware of,by and large PUA writers have enabled this.

Thus far the MRM has been the dudesticking his head up, showing that it won't be cut off. We espouseunpopular ideals in the PC sense, and we speak truth to power. Lotsof people may admire the guy who takes those risks, but no one wantsto actually hang out with him. We are Pariahs, and we took thatmantle in order to accomplish a greater good.

It's selfish to expect everyone else tomake that same sacrifice. It's naive to be astonished not everyonethinks it's a good idea, or even the right thing to do. Attackingfeminists is nothing more than conditioning people to acceptopposition to female interests on some level. PUAs apply the samepressure to the Golden Pussy mythology, which is the very basis ofFeminist power, remember.

We have positioned ourselves where weare in society for a reason. You get away with a lot of shit outhere on the fringes, and we're interesting to watch for a lot ofpeople because we push the envelope even now. But this leads to theage old debate over mass appeal vs. Integrity. And PUA/MRA. And awhole bunch of others.

Over the course of this coming debate,I believe the value in the PUA/MRA relationship will become apparentto nearly everyone (I'm not holding out hope for Alek, for example).

Another lesson from the past...

2011-10-11T23:48:00.000-07:00

Here's an eye-opener for ...well,pretty much all of us. It's a Sociology Thesis on the Mens Movement,and it's seprarate ideologies, and it's pretty accurate in a lot ofways. It's also a tad depressing, since it's so accurate, and it waswritten in 1989.

Yes, 1989.

It's a long read, Hell, even the quotesI included here (and Adobe Reader does a shit job of maintainingformatting, I can tell you) make for a long-ass read. And it'sbiased as Hell.

But it's fascinating stuff thateveryone involved in this movement should read at least a littleof...

From: IDEOLOGIES OF THE MEN'S MOVEMENTa Thesis by LARRY S. WILLIAMS

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/jspui/bitstream/1794/6972/8/williams-thesis.pdf

In this paper I shall argue that ashift in state ideology has contributed to greater visibility for oneideological segment of the men's movement whom I call the"masculinists." The masculinists join with restrictiveliberals to argue that feminism has gone too far and that radicalfeminists, in particular, are demanding too much. I contrast themasculinist men with pro-feminist and traditionalist men in theirrespective ideologies, their relation to state ideology andpatriarchy, and their ability to attain public visibility.

...

Fistly,I use "masculinism" torefer only to the faction that Clatterbaugh calls "men's rights

masculinism." I do so because thisfaction claims to represent a parallel to feminism.

Whereas feminists seek women's rightsand equality for women, masculinists seek men's

rights and equality for men. Incontrast, the conservatives (or traditionalists) don't seek

gender equality at all and theanti-sexists (or pro-feminists) begin with their support for

feminist goals

Secondly, I combine some of thecategories. Because the only national profeminist

organization (The National Organizationfor Changing Men) includes socialists and

proponents of New Age spirituality, Icombine these categories with the liberal and radical

anti-sexist men. I agree withClanerbaugh that these positions are theoretically distinct and

that New Age men differ considerably intheir ideological focus. However, neither the

socialists nor the New Age advocateshave found a home in other national organizations

and tend to associate themselvesprimarily with pro-feminist men

....

Ehrenreich (1983) develops theideological roos of men's liberation and men's

rights, which are primarily associatedwith the liberal masculinist men's movement. Her

study attempts to derive the source ofa "male revolt" against the bneadwinner ethic and the

family wage. This so-called revolt isdubbed the "flight from commitment." She does

reveal some of the contradictions inliberal thought that provide women with both

inspiration and constraints. However,her study fails to distinguish beween the ideological

positions of the various organizationsin the men's movement and thus provides little point

of reference in assessing the relativevisibility of the liberal masculinists as opposed to pro.

feminist men or traditionalist men.

...

As a consequence, hrenreich opposeseconomic inequality but also bemoans the abandonment of thebreadwinner ethic, which encouraged married women to stay out of thepaid labor force. The increasingly service economy, while it may havedisplaced part of the housewife's traditional role by

providing more services, has alsoemployed more married women. And many men (according to Blumstein andSchwartz) would provide for their wives if they could.

...

Astrachan notes that most of the trendsthat Ehrenreich establishes "preceded ... and

helped shape male responses to thewomen's movement( Astrachan1 983: 199). The

organized men's movement, however, didnot emerge until after the resurgence of

feminism and after the founding of theNational Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966

(the exception is the conservativedivorce reformers whom Ehrenreich doesn't mention).

In fact the masculinists refer to earlystatements from Friedan and NOW when they

condemn the breadwinner ethic as nolonger beneficial to men. Rather than focusing on an

unconscious and unorganized "malerevolt" against the commitment to protect women, we'

should be concerned with men'sresponsibility for their privileged positon in society. This

includes a social and politicalresponsibility for the oppression of women. As Astrachan

points out, men "have seldominitiated demands for independence or equality between the

sexes." lnstead, they "wereusually tying to have it both ways, privilege but no

burdens..." (Astrachan 1983: 199).What Ehrenreich does accomplish, however, is to

raise the issue of the ideology ofmen's liberation, which (as we shall see) is how the

masculinist men's movement fits intothe state's attempt to solve the crisis of liberalism and

remystify patriarchal relations.

...

The first national Men &Masculinity (M&M) Conference was organized in 1974

"by the Women's Studies P rogramat the University of Tennesseein Knoxville" (Interrante

1982: 5). Subsequent conferences wereheld at PennS tate,P ennsylvaniaD; es Moines,

IA; St. [.ouis, MO; Los Angeles, CA;and Milwaukee, WI. A national organization was

launched in Boston, MA, at the seventhM&M Conference (brother, winter 1983). This

organization, which was to become theNational Organization for Changing Men (NOCM),

is the only national organization ofpro-feminist men in the U.S.

...

A year later, because Sidney Siller hadalready incorporated his taditionalist men's

group as the National Organization forMen in New York state, the pro'feminist group

opted to change its name. Although onlyone-third of the membership (182 people) voted

on the name change, there were 104votes for the National Organization for Changing Men

and 58 votes for the NationalOrganization of Men Against Sexism. Joseph Pleck, writing

in brother, noted that there was againcontroversy over the chosen identity. Pleck argued, however, that thenew name (NOCM) would seem "more accessible to'mainstream'men"

than would have the other option(brother, surnmer 1984). The liberal reformers, then,

still had greater organizationalstrength at this juncture. Accordingly there was a concern

not to turn away men who were ready forsome personal change but weren't ready or

interested in political action againstsexism and male privilege. Stoltenberg (1977) has

criticized this approach, writing *Weneed to be clear that we're not talking about a market

strategy for the men's movement; we'renot talking about how to package the men's

movement so that we can run it up theflagpole and all the men in America will salute"

...

The gay affirmative aspect of thechanging men's movement is important for several

reasons. Two of these are that 1)because gay men do not abide by the heterosexual norm

of masculinity they are alienated fromthe dominant culture, and2) men are reluctant to be

physically and emotionally intimatewith one another for fear of being labelled a sissy or a

"homo." These are deemedheterosexism and homophobia respectively. Both of these

concerns are related to attempts totransform men's identification with traditional masculine

attitudes and behaviors. The liberalconcerns of men's liberation and a corresponding gay liberation,though, are limited in their challenge to patriarchal relations. JohnStoltenberg

(1977) wrote that "the dilemma ofgay men... is how to get cultural confirmation of their

masculinity, how to come out and be oneof the guys, how to have full access to all the

powers, prestige, prerogatives, andprivileges that other men have over and against

women" (78-79).

While the concern with homophobia,then, is important in changing how men can

and do relate to one another, it doesnot usually address directly men's relationship to

women in our society. One benefit forwomen that's usually expressed in having all-male

groups, for instance, is that men willlearn to not rely upon women for emotional suppoft.

By iself, though, this is paradoxicalas it may reduce both women's emotional burden and

intellectual influence on the goup.

...

The pro-feminist Activist Men's Caucushas just recently begun to focus on the

problem of child custody and has formeda task group to address the issue. The concern

with custody is, in part, a response toefforts by the masculinist men's movement( in

conjunction with the Joint CustodyAssociation) to enact legislation establishing mandatory

joint custody.

John Stoltenberg( 1987) argues that"voluntary joint custody is not the problem,"

but that mandatory joint cusrody wouldbe (Acrivist Men's Journal vl #3 Decfan lggT_

88). Stoltenberg cites studiesindicating that fathers still do nor assume as many child care

responsibilities as do mothers, and hesuggests that custody is more vigorously contested

when boy children are involved."Mandated joint custody," writes Stoltenberg, ,,intersects

issues of sexual justice, sexualviolence, and economic class." Mandated joint custody, he

further asserts'" has also beenused to guarantee that an abusivee x-husband/father

continues to have court-protectedaccess to the woman and/or children he has abused"

(Activist Men's Journal vl #3 Dec[an1987-88).

...

The traditionalist men's movementfocuses primarily on the loss of patriarchal

privilege associated with the breakdownof the nuclear family. Meanwhile, traditionalist

men criticize liberal reformers fortheir acceptance of the diminishing role of the father and

husband. Unlike the masculinist men,traditionalists don't talk about personal growth

(though they may both talk about men'srights).

...

Two national organizations that canpresently be identified as belonging to a

traditionalist men's movement are theMen's Rights Association (M RA) and The National

Organization for Men,Inc.( NOM). TheMen's Righs Association(17854Lyons,Forest

Lake,M N 55025) was formed by RichardDoyle in 1973. Doyle remains the president of

MRA and makes decisions autocratically. MRA claims to have served more than 6 000 "members" overthe past decade and relies upon $20 membership fees to support itswork.

Membership numbers seem to be looselydefined as providing some financial support and

the primary activity seems to bedisseminating information about divorce law and providing

legal referrals. MRA works closely withMEN (Men's Equality Now) International, which

is described as an internationalcoalition. MEN International was also formed by Doyle in

1977.

...

Doyle, for instance, is described byWilliamson as being "a disciple of Charles

Metz" (Williamson 1985: 318). Mezwas a member of the United States Divorce Reform,

who in 1968 wrote a book entitledDivorce and Custody for Men: A Guide and primer

Designcd Exclusively to Help Men WinJust Settlements. According to Williamson,

"Metz believed that men were toblame for female domination of men. As he saw it, men,

who were in positions of power, wereusing that power to oppress men via a perverse

chivalry which tried to win the favorsand approval of women" (Williamson 1985: 317).

Doyle does, in fact, continue this lineof thought.

...

The traditionalists are the onlyfaction of the men's movement that attacks the

welfare state. According totraditionalist men, the patriarchal family has been undermined

because l) the courts and the rest ofgovernment have been too chivalrous and 2) the

government has replaced the husband andfather as the protector and guardian for women

and children. As Doyle expresses theprocess, women are filing for divorce and the courts

view women as being in need ofprotection. The courts then give wives large portions of

their husbands' property and custody ofthe children while requiring the husband to pay

alimony and child support. This rewardswomen for seeking divorce.

...

Doyle discounts the significance ofviolence perpetrated by men against women.

He claims that there is "evidencethere is more battering of husbands than of wives (the

foregoing refers to physical battering;men usually can't hold a candle to women in

psychological battering)"Doyle1987: 13). The image seems to be one of a domineering

wife and a henpecked husband. How thisis resolved with the notion of paternal authority

is not clear. In any case, Doyle arguesthat "men must cease accepting blame for the

alleged subordination of women"(Doyle 1987: 15

...

The traditionalist men's movement haslacked a broad-based grass-roots and has

tended to rely upon founding fathers.More importantly, the traditionalist men have failed

to come to terms with the role ofmarried women in the paid labor force. Their frame of

reference is the patriarchal nuclearfamily while more U.S. families now have dual income

earners or have only a single parent.Furthermore single parent households are rarely

headed by a man (see Pangborn 1985).

...

The masculinists,like thetraditionalists are concerned with mens rights and

criticize the pro-feminists for blamingmen for social oppression. Like the restrictive

liberals, masculinist men warn againstacting out of guilt. Instead, men must create their

own agenda for action.

Unlike the traditionalists, though,masculinist men stress that men have much to

gain by women's legal equality.Masculinists draw upon the liberal human potential

rnovement and counter culture inabdicating the role of protecting and providing for women

and instead assuming a new involvementin fathering. These concerns are similar to the

cultural issues addressed bypro-feminist men.

...

While the masculinists combine theconservative men's rights issues and the liberal

men's liberation, the emphasis isalways upon an agenda for men with little concern about'

how it affects women. The feministspresumably will take care of themselves, and the

masculinists don't want the interestsof men to be subsumed by feminism. One prominent

interest of masculinist men is theright to be active fathers.

...

Both the pro-feminist andtraditionalist groups criticize the masculinist focus on

joint custody. Pro-feminist radicalsadvocate a primary caretaker rule, and traditionalists

support paternal custody arrangements.When the National Congress for Men was formed

in 1980, the masculinist groups forgedan alliance with fathers'rights organizations. The

National Congress for Men reportedlypublished a directory in 1985 that lists "more than

one thousand... men's organizations"(Williamson 1985: 320).

Father's rights and specifically childcustdy have become a central focus of the

masculinist men's movenrent. Haddadexplained that "the dominant issue of the women's

movement has been employment, thatsphere has always been man's domain. The

corresponding domain for women has beenchild-rearing, and that is where men must and

will muscle in on the action"(Haddad 1984: 50). They argue that, in the interests of

fairness and equality, joint custdylegislation should be adopted nationwide. This has

contributed to a conflict with manyfeminists. The Wall Street Journal in 1986 wrote of

"an increasingly bitter fight withwomen -- in the nation's courts and in the state legislarures

-- over the issue of joint custody ofchildren in divorce cases" (Wall Street Journal, Aug.

21,'86: 54).

...

When toward the late 1970's NOW opposedjoint custody legislation, argued

Williamson, "the women's movementlooked more and more like just another special

interest group" (322). Accordingto Williamson, Watren Farrell had viewed the early

NOW "as a voice for human rights"and "expected from them more encouragement for

males" (322).

...

Women are free to pursue careers somasculinist men are now pursuing their own

liberation. As was discussed earlier,the masculine mystique consists of being limited to

the roles of provider and protector.Now men are turning to a concern with their own

individual gowth. While they attack thepatriarchal family for demanding that husband s and fathers act asinsensitive pocketbooks, masculinist men tend to accept socialpatriarchy.

This follows from their view of powerrelations. Women, acting in their own interest, are

pressing for greater equality in thepaid labor force. Masculinist men, though, don't want

their agenda to be set by the needs ofwomen. Rather, these men are concerned to promote

their interests as emotionallyexpressive individuals and active parents.

...

Unlike pro-feminist men, who focus onmale violence against women, masculinist

men stress the male victim. Baumli(1985) includes a section on "violence and the male

victim," which is divided intomaterial on battered and murdered husbands and mass media

portrayals of men as legitimatevictims. Masculinist men frame the issue of "domestic"

violence in pluralist terms. Feministwomen, they assert, have fostered a concern with

violence against women. This,furthermore, detracts from services for men who are victims

of violence in the home. Thetraditionalists express a similar concern, although one would

suspect that traditionalist men wouldattribute the phenomenon to the man's loss of

authority. For masculinist men, as forthe researchers they cite, the concern is to

demonstrate that violence in the familyis less an expression of man's patriarchal privilege

than of a culture that encouragesviolent solutions to conflict. In pluralist politics, further,'

masculinist men represent the interestsof men.

...

Men's Rights activists agree withfeminists that sexist language is a problem, but

they are specifically concerned aboutdisparaging remarks about men. Tom Williamson of

the Coalition of Free Men, forinstance, dislikes the terms wimp and macho: "I don't like

the way wimp makes a judgment. Andmacho is just another way of saying'male

chauvinist pig."' Warren Farrellrebuts arguments about the male pronoun associated with God by notingthat the Devil is also referred to as male, which is unfair to men(New York

Times, January 13, 1986, B52). Aspecial issue of The Universiry of Dayton Review on

men's studies is advertised asincluding topics such as "anti-male bias in English" and

"institutionalized sexism againstmen" and is available from the chair of CFM's committee

on men's studies (Network, v.1, n.2).In fact, "activists in men's rights organizations are

entering the fray with talk showappearances and angy letters over language and innuendo

in advertisements, movies, newsbroadcasts,women's magazines and television

programming" (New YorkTimes,January 13, 1986, B52).

...

Survey data indicates that generalsupport for gender equality has increased since

1970. Fergusona nd Rogers( 1986) note,for instance, that feminism is among" the policy

areas in which the public has shown thesharpest increase in liberalism since World War II.

The rate of increases lowered duringthe post l973 period, but at no time did the public

actually become more conservative onthese issues" (Ferguson & Rogers 1986: 16).

Writes William J. Gmde, "Throughmen's eyes, at least the principle of equality seems

more acceptable than in the past. Theresistance is not set against that abstract idea"

(Goode 1980: 189). And for that reasonthe masculinists can be more useful to policy

planners than other wings of the men'smovement. They do not oppose equality and, in

fact, they complain about sexismagainst men and about women's continuing dependence.

They do, however, often resist the"conscete application" of equality, as Goode calls it.

The rhetoric of men's liberation and ofmen's righs fits in well with a restrictive liberal

agenda that wants a color-blind,gender-blind approach to equal opportunity. It fits in well

with claims of reverse discrimination.

...

Because much of the pro-feminist men'smovement (like the feminist women's

movement) has been dominated by aliberal ideology, it has been unable to adequately meet

the challenge represented by therestrictive liberals and the masculinist men.

Battered Men's Hero, Patricia Overberg of Lancaster, CA, Passed Away Today

2011-08-11T20:51:00.000-07:00

"Patricia Overberg, the first known domestic violence shelter director in the United States to help male victims along with female victims, passed away today (August 11, 2011). Patricia is being honored by men's rights activists as a hero and civil rights pioneer, similar to the shelter director Erin Pizzey in England."

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17062

Questions for David Cameron

2011-08-09T12:24:00.000-07:00

Hey Mr Cameron, I've got some questions for you.

You say youth violence is the fault of absent Dads. So, can you tell me this:

What about government policies that stand in the way of fatherhood? Are there any efforts to enforce the visitation Dads are legally entitled to? Why are you not trying to find out what is behind this rise in Fatherlessness? For that matter isn't it time we started holding women accountable for their own choices? Isn't it about time men had reproductive choice to mirror women's, or do you want to continue to put the financial burden for women's choices on individual men – to enable more Government money for vote-buying programs for 'single mothers'?

Why does government do nothing to assure that Paternity is only assigned to the actual father? For that matter, why is there no policy in place to assure men, as a matter of course, that the child they are signing the Birth Certificate of is actually his? How can we take your 'fatherhood is important' type bullshit shaming language seriously when you don't even care if it's the real father yourself...any old man will do for your purposes after all. If you define fatherhood as 'any man who takes responsibility for a child', why is it not fair to say that since Daddy Government is taking 'responsibility', that Daddy Government is freaking responsible...for Daddy Government's own choices.

Accountability, it works on the National scale too.

What about government's role in education, the failure of boys for the last 3 decades and the utter disaster that was the political non-response to this impending crisis. Why are there no 'outreach programs' for boys, particularly white ones? Why the lack of scholarships and why do they still mostly exclude white males? Why is there no effort to hire and train more male teachers, and why are there no safeguards being put in place to make sure they don't lose their career and freedom to the first kid with a grudge and a willingness to accuse him of impropriety?

How much policy is geared towards understanding, and actually easing, the concerns of young (and old) men? Why is it that Government can't focus on 'men' as a Demographic, and how much is that near-Religious aversion to particular modes of thinking affecting what is happening today? More importantly, why should that particular ideology hold sway over any other?

What about the rank-and-file folks? How is their attitude and what are their policies, official and unofficial? Why has Government not used it's vast sexism-seeking apparatus in BOTH directions?

And finally, you cowardly little pissant, why the hell don't you talk to Fathers Rights groups when you 'investigate' these things?

Answer me these things with any kind of satisfaction and I'll shut up forever.

A safe bet, I'm sure.

I'll Tell You What About Teh Menz....

2011-08-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not usually the kind of guy that writes whole articles in response to an author. That's what comment sections are for after all. But the blog in question, No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? , purports to be a serious feminist attempt at addressing real mens issues. So, in the interests of progress, I hereby open my own little section of 'dialogue'.

Ozymandias' post "Who Cares About Men’s Rights?" at that site does a fairly good job of outlining the issues men face. The article even takes feminism to task for failing to live up to even the letter, let alone the 'spirit' of their own ideology. All in all, call it a good start.

Obviously the wheels came off though, or I wouldn't be writing this now would I?

The first place to start is, of course, in the criticism of the Mens Movement offered: that women experience sexism as well, that women are not evil bitches out to get us, mating difficulties are 'not issues', and MRAs are totally ineffective as a political movement.

All fair accusations. I'll respond thusly:

There is no doubt that women experience sexism. We have vast government apparatus designed to 'root out sexism against women', whole arms of government dedicated to 'women's equality', etc. It's impossible to grow up in the West without having sexism against women waved in your face constantly. But you will note, nearly all of those agencies and dollars are devoted to 'WOMEN'S equality'...men need not apply. And THAT is what 'institutionalized sexism' looks like. I just thought I'd explain that to you, because you've never seen it before.

And that is where the MRA objection on this particular issue lies.

Next up, that women are not all evil bitches out to get us. Which is obvious, and quite true. And also irrelevant. As in, you can be the nicest, sweetest, most caring woman in the world, and you will likely still be treated like a poisonous viper ready to strike at any time. And yes, it's unfair. And it's your own damned fault for not speaking up while men's legal rights were being trampled to 'protect women'.

Because there is no way out once a man is trapped in that web. Society, the Law, Human Nature, all line up to chuck you away once accused. Deadbeat Dads, Rapists, Paedophiles...that is the public image of men today, as a result of decades of Feminist misinformation through DV channels, 'Child Protection' rackets, and Government funded advocacy agencies. The risk associated with even asking a woman out (which can lose you your career if she happens to work at the same company you do) has become so great that men are deciding – en masse – that a life of porn and celibacy is preferable.

This is obviously not natural. It is also NOT the fault of men...who would obviously far rather they didn't have to live that way. Yet Feminists routinely blame men for this, and so much more.

And 'regular women' say, and do, nothing.

As for the issues facing men in the Sexual Marketplace being 'non-issues'....well, only a woman could say such a thing. Well, a woman, or a man with no concerns about trying to find a good woman and settle down. With the legal and financial minefield dating and marriage has become, knowing the 'lay of the land' is FAR more important today than it ever has been in the past. Understanding the nature of women, and more importantly shaking off the illusions installed by women themselves, is of critical importance to avoid future heartache and penury. The only safe alternative is MGTOW/avoidance. Learning Game, improving oneself, and making correct choices is a learned skill, and one that no one else is willing to teach. Most definitely NOT Feminism. That Game and PUA's success reflects badly on women as a sex is hardly of concern to me...I suggest women stop acting like that if they don't want to be treated like that.

Which brings us to the effectiveness of the MRM.

This subject makes me laugh so much when it comes up. There is no shortage of people who accuse us of being ineffective. No popular uprisings or public protests, no budget of any kind, no real organization. What you are not looking at is the RESULTS we are getting. This is almost always because you lack perspective on the difficulty we faced getting to this point.

I've been in this for a long time, and I'm positively ecstatic at the progress we are making in almost no time at all nowadays. 5 years ago, we were posting 'victory' messages to each other on blogs when we got a Letter to the Editor published in the Des Moines Register. There was a total media blackout of anything even remotely related to mens issues. We consisted of one or two guys with some cash/clout (Glenn Sacks, Marc Rudov) and mostly a bunch of broke dads with nothing else to do with their time but hang out on the internet.

Fast forward to today, and the most glaring victory we have had is the breaking of the Feminist Hegemony. We are developing a new understanding of masculinity and relations between the sexes, without funding of any sort. It has become acceptable to question Political Correctness and Feminism in public, with diminished possibility of career damage for doing so. We got a hateful talk-show host to resign and an important issue finally got some airtime. We have issues like Child Support, Father Custody, DV on men, Cultural Misandry, Male Genital Mutilation, and Male Suicide on the national RADAR.

Something Feminists have never even attempted to do by the way.

We have made STAGGERING progress, and when you consider the vast majority of it was done by a few dozen guys, on their own time, for free, it's fucking miraculous!

Needless to say, I take issue with Ozy's characterization of the MRM.

So much for the defense part. Now to the helpful criticisms I have for Feminists who want to 'help men' (suddenly...although it was not in response, at all, to pressure from a burgeoning MRM...oh no, that would be another demonstration of the effectiveness of the MRM, and the point here is to DISCREDIT the MRM, not 'support' it, or men)...

My first point is perhaps best illustrated using your very own words...oh 'concerned feminist'...

And the problem is that it wasn’t actively hateful and it did contain… actual points… of a sort, so there was really no valid way to delete it according to the comment policy.

I suggest we ignore him.

And therein lies the real rub we have with Feminists, if you don't want to hear what men are telling you are the issues, how the FUCK can you then turn around and claim to 'represent' men in changing those injustices? If your main, and nearly only, concern is making sure Feminism isn't trarnished by the measures taken to improve mens' rights, to the point where you DENY that Feminism had anything to do with such issues as No Fault Divorce, Restraining Orders, unbalanced understanding of DV, and wildly overbroad 'rape' definitions...what value do you have to men, and the issues they face?

You have money? Is that it? You have clout, and if men 'shape up' you might be prepared to use it for men? Well gee, ain't you a peach? Feminists, and Feminism, has proven itself to be the devout enemy of men and masculinity since it's very inception. There are very specific criticisms of Feminism leveled by MRAs every time a 'dialogue' like this comes up, none of which are ever addressed by feminists. In fact, the very next 'concerned' feminist to come along will make the very same arguments, ad infinitum.

Feminists do a very bad job of updating information among themselves, it seems. Either that, or they believe in that Nazi Propaganda maxim 'A lie told often enough...'

The criticism of the anger in the MRM is even more laughable, in my humble opinion. The anger is what is GROWING the MRM...not 'diminishing' it. The speed at which angry young men are clumping together in this movement terrifies the shit out of a lot of people, feminists included. And it should. It really should.

But you are not, EVER going to get them to 'tone it down' unless real change happens. And the more you spend your time defending yourselves, the more of your attention directed towards making sure you come out of this smelling as much like a rose as possible, the more anger will be built up. We are not oblivious to the fact that, when addressing mens issues, you Feminists spend nearly 100% of your time and energy trying to make sure that any dirt that gets thrown doesn't land on you. In brilliant example after another of narcissistic attitude, absolutely NONE of you admit to being wrong, about anything. It's always 'no true feminist would do that' and 'none of my friends are like that, and neither am I'....

So let's see, either none of you are like that, and all of these anti-male aspects of society, many of which specifically reference feminism as inspiration, simply popped up out of nowhere, or;

A good portion of you are lying your sick fuckin' asses off. And there's no way to tell which, until it's way too late....

Hmm...

Let's use Ozy's words again....

We are people, just like everyone else, and some of us are bastards and some of us are saints and most of us are just muddling through. Some feminists thought that this whole “sexism” thing was the fault of evil rapey woman-hating men back in the seventies, but as it turns out with a few shining exceptions men don’t hate women. Sometimes they have mistaken beliefs about women, and sometimes incentive structures are set up so that sexist behavior is rewarded, and sometimes a lot of other stuff that’s nobody’s fault, but very rarely is someone like “aha! I will go oppress women today!”

Feminists, and women, are finding themselves in the beginnings of what faced men in the late '80's and early '90's. ALL women are facing the blame for what Feminism has done to men, because women as a group stood behind feminists while they disemboweled the men around them. Because women as a group are still following the practices and taking the attitudes that repulse men, and damage relationships. Because we still live in a 'you go grrrl' society, and the average woman doesn't even blink at the most appalling sexism if it's perpetrated against men, since she's been conditioned to not only accept it, but feel that way herself.

Pay attention to this line of your own text Ozy:

"Sometimes they have mistaken beliefs about women, and sometimes incentive structures are set up so that sexist behavior is rewarded,"

I want to leave you with that particular quote, and I want you to flip that around. I want you to consider that it is quite possible that you're wrong about a good deal of things. I want you to consider that you are so immersed in a Misandric culture, that you don't even notice 90% of it. To use the title of another Blog, I want you to Own Your Shit.

Because if there is one single thing that Feminism and feminists fail to do, every single time, without fail, it's to own up to their mistakes. And until you can do that, you have no business asking for our attention, at all.

NAFALT!

2011-06-19T16:01:00.000-07:00

NAFALT!

(yawn)

edited to clarify:

This is how an MRA hears that argument...

"Hey, I know we feminists are all on the same team, and wear the same 'uniform', and even moderate feminists tacit approval via silence (and strength in numbers) is a given politically, you can't hate us all. I mean, I know some of us are busy shooting your fathers, sons, and brothers in the face. I know some of us are busy taking away your basic legal rights, dehumanizing you and demolishing your future. I know some of us are setting up all the systems they can find to benefit your S/O if she leaves you and takes you for all she can get, and I know there are a whole bunch of us cheering on that entitled mentality.

but not all of us are like that.

Some of us stand around and do nothing."

Step up to the plate folks, here's your chance...

2011-03-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

From Paul Elam at A Voice For Men:

Mary Kellett’s professional conduct in this case breeches virtually all canons of legal ethics where it concerns prosecutors, from intentionally misleading jurors to avoiding pretrial discovery to actually asking a law enforcement officer to refuse to comply with a valid subpoena in order to help her conceal exculpatory evidence.

All of this, and many other similar cases, have been conducted under the supervision of Bar Harbor, Maine, District Attorney Carletta Bassano, leading to the almost unavoidable conclusion that the problem is not just one rogue prosecutor, but one in which District Attorney Bassano is an enabling accomplice.

Additionally, all of these events have transpired without so much as raising an eyebrow in local news media.

Given the complicity of her supervisor and the lack of attention by local media, Kellet appears emboldened to continue this reign of terror on the life of Vladek Filler, his children, and other innocents who reside in the community Kellett is supposed to protect.
After having Filler’s first conviction overturned by the Maine Supreme Court, due to her own prosecutorial misconduct, she is coming after him again, putting him through another trial on the same slipshod evidence.

Kellett is not pursuing justice; she is making a mockery of it in ways that border on criminality. She is out of control and no one with authority over her is doing anything about it.

And given the hubris demonstrated by her actions, it is clear she feels free to proceed with impunity.

We cannot, must not, allow this to happen.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/29/the-movement-to-disbar-mary-n-kellett/

The Doctors: Daytime Talk Show Disaster

2011-02-19T08:27:00.000-08:00

I want to know what you're doing!

2010-11-30T17:44:00.000-08:00

No, this isn't an accusatory "what have YOU done for the MRM lately" sort of thing. Nope. I want to know what you've done, if you've got a group of links on Divorce law in Tunisia, or a library of Feminist Hate Speech, or Videos of opions, or collected examples of Misandric Media...

I want to know what kind of little mini-resources there are out there, so I can publicize them for you in MenZ! How cool is that?

Here's how it works:

Post a comment telling me what it is, and how I get to it to see.

That's it. 12 seconds of your time could change the course of someone's life. That's good trade in my books.

So c'mon...let's hear it.

Why I sometimes hate where I live....a lot.

2010-10-26T16:41:00.000-07:00

The view from my deck, 10 minutes ago...

Male depression and suicide commercial...

2010-09-25T21:15:00.000-07:00

OK, the production quality is pretty low...but it's a start...

Pass the link on everyone, lets give these guys some exposure.

REGINA — A television commercial made possible by fundraising done in memory of former MP Dave Batters aims to raise awareness of mental illness among men.
The 30-second production is now airing on television in southern Saskatchewan and is also available on YouTube.
It’s part of a campaign by the Saskatchewan division of the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) to encourage men aged 30-50 to get help for anxiety and depression.
Donna Bowyer, director of the Friends for Life program at CMHA Saskatchewan, said money raised at the first annual Dave Batters Memorial Golf Tournament in June was used to produce the ad and pay for air time.
Batters, who was twice elected in the Palliser riding, went public in September 2008 with his battle with anxiety and depression, in the hope it could encourage others with the conditions to get help.
Despite his efforts and support from his friends and family, Dave took his own life in June 2009, shortly before his 40th birthday.
His family, including his wife Denise Batters, has spoken about his death to help remove the stigma that surrounds depression.
Bowyer said the advertisement is meant to help men realize that mental illness can affect them and it is OK to seek help.
“Men are often overlooked when it comes to depression,” she said, adding men are sometimes diagnosed with health issues such as high blood pressure while depression is overlooked.
“There’s also that idea of denial ... because the whole stigma of mental illness.”
People struggling with depression sometimes feel they are weak, which simply isn’t the case, she said.
“People need to recognize that there is help. I think that’s the biggest message we want to get out there. If you’re struggling, get help. Ask for help. And you may need to be your own advocate to get the help you need,” Bowyer said.
“Depression is not a weakness. Depression is something that’s treatable. Depression doesn’t mean that it’s the end of your career or any of those things. What we need to do is get you treated, get you back into life again.”
The commercial was produced in Regina with local actors. It shows a man admitting to a friend that he is not all right, while words on the screen tell viewers: “You are not alone. There is help. Please reach out

The Right to be a Father - Amnesty International disagrees.

2010-09-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

There is, apparently, a group of teenagers in Göteborg, Sweden, who made a film for a festival sponsored by Amnesty International. The film, entitled "The Right to Be a Father", apparently pissed off some Feminists at a DV shelter in Uppsala. AI dutifully not only pulled the film from the festival, but also from their YouTube channel for the festival.

Stephen Baskerville wrote an excellent article about it here.

The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. “But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty’s YouTube channel,” says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators. Further, the students claim they obtained an email from the Uppsala feminists bragging, “Thanks to the protests Amnesty did not show the film at the festival and they also dropped it from their website.”

Since this pisses me off to no end, and saddens me that I have to add another organization I previously respected to the list of verifiably Misandrist organizations I oppose, I've decided to do whatever I can to promote this film. If, in the process, I can help to blacken the reputation of what was once a noble organization, I will do so. In the hopes that this negative publicity will help them see the error of their ways, and failing that, to lessen the damage they can do by lessening their political standing.

So, here it is.

And a healthy "Fuck You" to AI, for being such sexist assholes.

The Right to be a Father:

A cartoon...

2010-09-11T13:01:00.001-07:00

Thought I'd share this...next time you get in an argument about anything to do with reproduction with a Feminist, here's your argument for you...

An appeal to fellow Canadian MRAs.

2010-08-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

I am looking for other Canadian MRAs to connect with. As we all know, here in Canada nothing matters unless you're majority Canadian owned, or the info you use is Canadian-sourced. At least, when it comes time to ignore you.

For this reason, I am asking. No. BEGGING anyone who is Canadian, and an MRA, to contact me immediately.

I want to gather statistics from you, I want to know what specifically Canadian things are going on, I want to know where the websites are for Canadians...anything really.

Honest to God, there have to be some...stop letting the typical Canadian "I'm not important" shit come out, and show yourself! Here's why:

I want to put together a 'press pack' of sorts, for various mens issues. I'm also a Canadian. Which means U.S. Statistics will be ignored as 'irrelevant' since they're not Canadian stats. (For those of you in the US, it's cause we Canadians are 'different', and 'we don't do things like that in Canada'.

Seriously, unless you can show it happens here, we just assume it's particular to the States (a totalitarian, Right-wing police state to many Canadians).

It is absolutely VITALLY important that I get in touch with some of you (at least from my perspective), because frankly this job is too big for one guy.

Once I get the Press Pack done, I will distribute it freely to all who want it...and move on to the next issue.

But please, I cannot stress enough that it is vitally important that you show yourselves. I can't do this alone, and American/British MRAs might have the info too (in which case, sharing is appreciated)...but they have their own countries to worry about.

So what do you say guys? Are there ANY other Canadian MRAs?

Reasoned response, deserves same.

2010-08-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

Wonder of wonders, I stumbled across a Feminist website discussing Paul's 'Jury Nullification' article, and doing it relatively hyperbole-free!

Colour me shocked.

But, as usual, there do seem to be several areas where they 'misunderstand' the intent, or underestimate the effects...

Since commenting has been disabled, I will add my commentary here. Just mentally tack it on...

Jessie Powell:

Jesse initially looks like she's (he's?) in agreement with the concept itself, but disagrees it's needed in this instance. By way of proof, she offers up the National Crime Victimization survey, in which 200,000 rapes were reported in 2008, but 'only' 160,000 men were in jail for the crime in 2006.

Apparently, she doesn't believe innocent men get convicted. There actually ARE a large subset of people out there that believe FRA's involve not much more than 'having to go through being in a line-up'. Maybe Jessie is one of these people?

Problem is, many FRAs result in conviction. Also, wouldn't it make sense to apply the False Accusations to the 'reported rapes'? Given estimates as high as 60% (FAR more likely than the Feminist created 2% stat), if there's 200,000 reports of rape, that would mean only 80,000 are true. Which put up against the 160,000 men in prison for the crime means basically that potentially, 1 of every 2 prisoners serving time for Rape is an innocent man.

But really, that was a piffling part of her argument, so let's move on...

She then goes on to defend the existence of Rape Shield laws by recounting their initial intent...to keep women from being unfairly smeared as 'loose'. Essentially, that Rape Shield laws were enacted to prevent happening to women, precisely what is happening to men. She has no word on whether or not men should be afforded this same protection.

A couple of quotes to show her intent, and a couple responses:

"It may well be that the bias against believing the promiscuous woman compared to the chaste woman in a rape trial is entirely justified and that excluding a woman’s sexual history does indeed deprive the jury of relevant knowledge that they should know."

It's gone way beyond that, including such 'irrelevant' details as a past history of making misleading and false Rape Accusations...even when the last guy killed himself as a result. And maybe, JUST MAYBE, the inherent sexist bias of giving the accuser anonymity, while shining a spotlight on the accused, is a source of a great deal of injustice (including things like, oh, tainting the Jury pool?)...nah, couldn't be.

"Have skepticism about a woman’s accusation. Demand a convincing level of proof that the accusation is true. Punish the woman who makes a false accusation. However, to go to the extreme of jury nullification regardless of the evidence is totally unreasonable and uncalled for by the circumstances of false rape charges today. Ultimately it is man’s highest duty to protect women; the protection of women must come first."

Uh, what? "Protection of women must come first"?

Talk about entitlement...

Oh yeah, and what do you think MRAs have been calling for the Legal system to do? Heck, we can't even get Feminists to agree on a definition of Rape, let alone the Law...how do you even tell a guy what not to do?

Oh yeah...wait for her opinion. I forgot.

Laura:

Well, Laura basically takes the tack that yes, these things are serious and important....and not happening enough to care about it.

"While the number of false accusations appears to be extremely high, Elam does not prove that the number of innocent men convicted is extremely high or represents an “epidemic.” Nor does he prove, by citing instances of procedural wrongdoing and of feminist prosecutors, that the entire system is corrupt and cannot be reformed."

That's a pretty tall order for one small article, wouldn't you say? Given the fact that he writes with an assumption of knowledge on the part of the reader, reinventing the wheel every time you write an article would turn into a pretty damn boring site. Funny thing is, my simple (and admittedly horrible) math above is one small example of how this is most definitely NOT 'rare'.

Thankfully, Feminists can only point to a lack of research in an area as argument against action for so long before someone, you know, studies it....and maybe even honestly, for a change.

Vanessa trots out an interesting version of NAWALT:

"That is a valid point. It might be that most FRA are not brought to trial or result in a “guilty” verdict. The false accusers should be punished, anyway, for damaging the man’s reputation and putting him through such a nightmare.

I’ve read some work done by the Innocence Project (which uses methods, such as DNA evidence, to exonerate the innocent), and that actually seems even more common than FRA. In those cases, men have been put in prison for rape, and the evidence used was faulty (false witness reports, lack of scientific evidence, etc.) In those cases, the accuser is not acting maliciously, but in error."

Except Vanessa misses the point. We are not here to point fingers at women and blame them. Some women are using the system like they would a big, tough, dumb boyfriend....to fight her battles for her and to keep her amused. Some women are 'convinced' by their friends that they've been 'raped'. Some women actually have been, but by someone else.

And sometimes, the Prosecutor railroads innocent men into Prison to please the Female Vote.

Note, in all of these cases, the innocent man is still in Prison. Jury nullification isn't a way to get back at women (even though all the posts here suppose that from the onset). It's a way to destroy a System (that WAS set up to appease women's fears) that exists to 'get convictions', rather than 'mete justice'.

If you want to blame 'women' for that, blame their propensity to vote in ever more intrusive Governments.

And I would add my voice to Stephen:

The Religious Right, and Conservative Politicians, are just as much an enemy of men as Democrats and Feminists are. Seeing as how Feminism is essentially Chivalry 2.0, there's not much difference at all between the two viewpoints, only the means used to get to the end.

The Mens Movement is doing precisely what it needs to. Redefining Masculinity and maleness, on our own terms, without apology. If the PC crowd, Feminists, and Social Reformers won't listen to us....well, I guess they won't hear us coming then.

To coin a Feminist phrase, "The time for debate is over".

5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist things expected of men - redux

2010-07-27T16:18:00.000-07:00

In Greta Christina's article for AlterNet, she posits 5 things she views as sexism men have to put up with, and the unfairness of it all. Which, of course, SOUNDS good, until you read the article, whereupon the reader discovers yet another, tired rehash of the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too argument, or PHMT.

This tired old trope gets brought out every once in a while, when the Feminist du Jour feels a bit too much pressure from the outside world regarding her man-hating, Female-supremacist movement, and needs to show Feminists "Like Men Too". Of course, any man reading this crap will know just how many ways she's got her head up her ass. But it's occurred to me in the past that the reasons for this might not be quite as painfully obvious to her (and her Feminist male friends) as they would be to someone who is not only comfortable with being male, but feels absolutely NO guilt or shame for it at all..

See, unlike the eunuchs in Mens Studies courses everywhere, I see nothing "hegemonic', or nefarious, in Masculinity at all. To an MRA, there's nothing at all 'wrong' with being male, or masculin. No, the 'wrong' is in the social expectations and treatment of the Masculine in our society. In this aspect, and likely ONLY in this aspect, does the MRA and Feminist analysis of Masculinity converge.

In order to effectively address the arguments presented, I will refer in order to Greta's points. Rather than the traditional Fisk, I will attempt to summarize her point, then continue. I say this only to illustrate the spirit in which this article was written, namely in the hopes of clearing up some serious Feminist misconception when it comes to mens issues (assuming, of course, the 'misconceptions' aren't simply deliberate misrepresentation).

Point 1: Fight, fight, fight!

In this section, Greta outlines the masculine imperative to be physically ready and capable of fighting, at a moments notice. She contends that men's 'need' to be ready for aggression is 'weird':

"Even if conflicts never get that far -- even if you never actually have to pound anyone with your fists -- being both willing and able to do so is a weirdly high priority in the Penis Club."

And I do not, in any way, disagree with the assessment that men must be, at all times, ready and willing to fight. Sometimes, simply because another dude decided it was time for you to fight. But there's another aspect of this that Greta quotes a friend outlining in the very next sentence:

"And Damion told me this story: "I'm in the passenger seat when my (relatively butch) sister-in-law flips off some guy in Baltimore traffic. He jumps out of the car, enraged, and my first thought is 'Great, now I've got to beat the shit out of this guy.'"

Which brings to mind, exactly how much of this aggression is actually men being aggressive, and how much is forced upon them by the female next to him? It's pretty common knowledge that women get off on aggressive guys. The whole 'Bad Boy' thing has been discussed to death, it's neither a secret, nor a small influence on female behaviour. There's a couple of ways in which male violence could simply be female violence by proxy. I find it interesting that Feminists have very little to say on this topic, including in this article, where the section is closed off with this:

"So men are expected -- indeed required -- to avoid and deflect confrontation, and to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

And when they do, they get called pussies.

Nice."

Which leaves one with the impression that it's masculine society, or other men doing the name-calling. But another possibility is that it is women, not men, passing negative judgement. Indeed, given the sexual selection criteria, and preferred method of violence, of the vast majority of women, it is highly likely that the name calling and sexual shaming language is almost exclusively doled out either by women themselves, or for their benefit (as means of eliminating male sexual competition via drop in status).

But, rather than rant, let's move on, shall we?

Point 2. Be a good husband/partner/lover -- but don't care too much what women think.

Here, Greta curiously tosses out this line:

"Being a good husband and father -- a good provider who cares for his family and treats women with respect -- is central to the male mythos."

then completely drops that line of inquiry by sliding into a quite accurate description of the pressure put on men to perform in bed. Not only does a man have to be a sexual dynamo, but he has to be so with every woman he is with, AND he has to have a lot of women. As a 'double standard' she presents 'not caring too much what a woman thinks' as the impossible situation...then goes off on a tirade that men are supposed to (er, not supposed to) care what they look like, making the assertion that this whole thing smacks of homophobia....

(sigh)

Here's a public service to all you Feminist types...

Men DO view being a 'good provider' as central to the male ethos. But it is not the sexual proclivities of women, nor is it any kind of pressure to 'look good' that makes this impossible. It's pretty easy to see why Greta dropped that as quick as she did, considering it's the Family Law system, and the "Feminist Utopia" types, that have created the inability for men to realize this role.

Should a man actually be able to secure employment well-paid enough to 'provide', it's still next to impossible to find a woman who would view this as anything more than 'normal entitlement', and more than likely he would be viewed as an 'oppressor'. And when she gets bored with him, she can take it all away and continue to make him pay. Men cannot have this role without the woman's permission, and should she rescind his 'headship' of the family, he will quickly find the power of the State forcing him into indentured servitude.

This fact is behind MGTOW's and the Marriage Strike. Which is exactly what was intended (and openly stated as such) when Feminists lobbied for No Fault Divorce.

The rest of her assertions in this section all amount to men trying to appeal to women, and women changing their minds repeatedly. See, unlike women (according to them anyway), men don't dress up to feel good, or impress his friends. We dress up almost exclusively to gain the attention of women. So when you see men flopping around fashion-wise, that's 100% the fault of women voting with their feet (in the air), and their reliance on gay men to determine what's "hot".

Point 3: Be hot to trot. Always. With anybody.

Her initial point, about men not wanting to introduce 'fat chicks' to their friends, is quite accurate in my estimation. It's true, no one wants to be a 'chubby chaser' since dating a bigger woman pretty much screams to the world "I can't get a hottie, this is the best I can do!". The unending pressure to 'perform' pops it's head up here too, in that men are expected to be up for it, no matter when, and no matter with who (provided they're female).

Of course, this is a wild exaggeration at best. I don't think I can recall a time where I have either been, or heard of a guy, talking about some fat troll who made a pass at him, and had another guy demand I should have had sex with her. No, I'm afraid Greta is betraying a fair bit of sexism of her own here, buying into a stereotype any guy out of high school would laugh at...

But here's a question...

How many rich women proudly introduce the convenience store clerk they're dating, and are so in love with? How many women go to the bar hoping to snag an unemployed dude? How many short women insist on men over 6 feet tall?

Greta, it's not just men that are 'superficial'. Hell, our 'list' tends to be WAY shorter than yours...

Point 4: Stiff upper lip.

Here, Greta details with several quotes, the need for men to 'man up', to never complain, to bear the pain silently, etc... She says:

"I, personally, might be able to manage a life where I always had to be willing to fight or fuck; where I had to walk an impossible tightrope between caring what my partner thought without caring too much; where I had to twist myself into knots to avoid any hint that I might be attracted to people of the same sex. (See below.) But a life where I had to deny my most basic animal emotions -- love and fear, passion and grief -- just to not get treated as a gender freak? That would send me screaming 'round the bend."

I want to give you a kewpie doll for that one Greta, I really do. Problem is, you are still outright avoiding admitting one, small thing: it is WOMEN doing that to men, not 'society'. It is the very act of trying to please both Feminist dictates and Female sexuality that men find themselves twisted up into knots, both socially AND legally. Moreover, it's getting worse by the year, not better.

Point 5: Fear of being perceived as Gay.

Again, right on the edge of 'getting it', close enough that it begins to look more like misinformation than analysis, if truth be told.. But here, she posits that straight men must walk a fine line between being a hairy bush man and a creamed- and manicured- metroman. Somehow the Murse became acceptable, and here, Greta argues that men shouldn't be perceived as 'Gay' simply for using such accessories.

She then goes on to detail the social taboo for most men to experience anal sex as recipient (which, apparently, Greta is a fan of), and finally, to lament the fact that male sexuality isn't as 'fluid' as women's.

And you know what, I can't argue with this all that much. No, I've never had the desire to shove an object in my anus, but if someone else wants to put something in his, more power to them. Frankly, I don't know a whole lot of guys that care one way or another if a guy is gay (aside from the change room type stuff, and considering the sexuality, it's a valid concern...sort of like allowing straight men to change in the women's locker room).

But you know who I do see using the word "Gay" as perjorative? Women. More specifically, Feminists. In this day and age, as Greta has pointed out, homosexuality has very little stigma attached (returning us to the level of acceptance of 200 years ago)...except one main area. Shaming language.

And you can't shame a homosexual by calling him a 'fag'. Ask Scott Thompson.

In the final section, greta writes:

"I've skipped some of the biggest and most important gender expectations of men: the expectations of competition, of status consciousness, of financial success, strength and athleticism, leadership skills, mechanical skills, easy erectile functionality, a dehumanizing attitude towards women, giving a crap about sports. Heck, men get a clear social message that, in order to be manly, they have to be tall. What the heck are you supposed to do about that?"

Read that list again Greta... Every last single one of those pressures is instilled by women, not men. They are all among the criteria women look for in a 'real man'...at least, they SAY they do... And the height thing? 100% completely, utterly, and without any division of guilt the fault of women's sexual preference.

So really, what's the point of the article if you're going to get it all so wrong?

A clue:

"Admittedly, because of my own personality and proclivities, the men in my life tend to be -- how shall we put this? -- outside the mainstream of conventional American society. ("Big nerdy pinko freaks" would be another way to put it.) And a lot of them are gay or bi, which skews the sampling even more. But just like lots of feminist women are able to laugh off the sitcoms and billboards and women's magazines and live however the frack we want, lots of feminist men are able to unload the John Wayne/Cary Grant/"What kind of man reads Playboy" crap they got loaded with -- or, depending on their generation, the Rambo/Tom Cruise/Maxim magazine crap -- and just get on with their lives."

Lemme see, most/all of her friends that are male are social outcasts (either by choice, or not), many are gay or bi, and there's a conspicuous lack of mention of marriage / parenthood...

While there is definitely a good percentage of people like this in the world, I hardly think it's even close to representative of most of society - a fact Greta herself admits readily. Given this skew in her close relationships, I can see where some of the divergence from reality in her article came from...

But that's the PHMT argument in a nutshell. Largley consistent of 'issues' which only Feminists and certain interest groups care about, along with the inevitable lack of analysis of cause.

While I appreciate the attempts of Feminists to 'understand' the plight of men (while, of course, minimizing it in the process), I think the days of men being told what to care about are over....

So, hang on to your panties, ladies, you chose a pretty wild ride.

MenZ Promotion

2010-07-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

A quick note...

All of you out there that want to see MenZ succeed, if you have a blog, there is a real quick way to embed the library in your page... That way, you can help support us, without ANY real effort... It's a simple cut n paste job...

Simply go to the library linked (menzmagazine.blogspot.com works too), click on the "Embed this library" link, select the # of columns and rows (I suggest 2 and 1), and paste it in the section you like...

A little bit here can go a LONG way...keep in mind, this site hosts mainstream magazines too, and the more views it gets, the higher up the search rankings it goes...

So....

Little help???

MenZ Magazine, Issue 1

2010-07-22T15:12:00.000-07:00

Click to launch the full edition in a new window
Self Publishing with YUDU

21st Century Equality

2010-07-12T11:42:00.000-07:00

10 gorgeous women, in no particular order....

2010-07-06T02:25:00.000-07:00

Facets.

2010-07-02T13:29:00.001-07:00

Unlike many of us MRAs, I happen to see the many facets and divisions of the movement as a positive thing. Maybe even essential. These different aspects of a social change on the horizon all, in their own right, have contributions to make to our overall understanding of people, relationships, and social structure.

And, like many MRAs, I firmly believe that understanding, knowledge, and realism are absolutely essential to the survival of our society, if not species.

What we are facing is a collective rejection of objective reality, and it's replacement in all things material with subjectivity and moral relativism. Even our most dire opponents - feminists - claim these things as defense, and women in general employ the methods as well, in the form of the NAWALT argument. If nothing has an objective center, it becomes impossible to 'break'. This attempt to squirm past logic has a long history on MRA BBS's the world over.

This same mentality is behind the 'it's the System that's broken' and 'I was only carrying out orders' mentalities.

They allow one to avoid personal responsibility for actions carried out by, or supported by, themselves, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of said actions. Or so they hope...

Now, how does this relate to the Mens Movement, it's facets, and the general 'possibleness' of real change?

To start with, the Mens Movement is, by nature and from it's inception, a 'grassroots' movement. It is quite literally composed of people whose shared common experience was so jarring, so oppressive, so unfair, so demoralizing, or so clearly dangerous for the future, that they sought each other out.

On their own.

With NO central authority, or agency, or group to turn to for guidance.

Given the evolution of the movement, one must be struck to at least some degree by the consistency of the message, no? The movement would not be possible in an era without the ability to freely communicate on an individual basis with total strangers on the other side of the Planet. Period. It would just be a bunch of complaining men otherwise.

The fact that we can, and have, formed relationships and had arguments and refined ideas with people that could be next door, or across a Continent, has led inexorably to clumpings of people with the same interests. This is no more true for Mens Issues than, say, Birdwatching. But it is, nonetheless, true.

The strength of the Mens Movement is based nearly entirely on each individual's passion in response to the injustices faced. Every MRA that writes, gets an audience, perhaps of hundreds, perhaps thousands. That audience is sympathetic to the message...in the face of massive social conditioning towards the opposite.

Given the reaction of men I know who have read my magazine (including, by the way, the Gay ones), which is typically "It's about fucking time someone said that!", I would say the general sentiment out there in the real world is quite in line with ours, they just don't know it yet.

If any blame must be assigned to many MRAs for being 'ineffective', it's in the 'they just don't know it yet' bit. We as a group MUST vastly improve our 'marketing' skills....

So that may explain the strength, as well as ponderous progress, of the Mens Movement...but still, what's with the 'facets' thing already?

Well, I'm going to be a bit of a Heretic here and say that I don't think the MRM is always right. Furthermore, I think that given the chance, coming directly off this unjust world, MRA's would gleefully mirror Gender Feminists worst excesses. I truly think that the MRM and Feminism balance each other out (ideologically), and the 'need' to be radical is only dictated by the extremes of the other 'wing'.

The same principle applies to the MRM itself. Game, while interesting and useful, is also chock-full of pussy beggars. People whose entire existence revolves around being able to get, 'play', and dump, women better than women can men. A one dimensional existence, which I have seen with my own eyes on many occasions.

MGTOWs don't get off easy either. There is no way you could POSSIBLY convince me that this is a healthy, or desireable choice. If it was, it wouldn't have to be forced upon the majority of Muslim males. A certain amount of independence from women is a good thing, however.

And on and on it goes, from Fathers Rights activists, Reproductive Choice activists, Intactivists, etc...each individual little corner of the 'manosphere' contributes. It's the nature of the beast, given the fact that clumping around common interests, rather than political ideology or some other social classification (and here, by the way, I include 'race'), was the impetus behind it's growth.

In that manner, the MRM is about as 'egalitarian' a movement as you're ever going to get. Without somehow telling people, for instance, they will have NO way of knowing your race, your sex, your weight, your attractiveness physically, your height, etc. This, right here, is a forum where your IDEAS truly do get considered on their own merits, without regard to -isms.

Some have asked what the Mens Movement is. From within, this is an easy enough question to answer, which we've done several thousand times each, of that I'm sure. But spin it around for a second...

The Mens Movement:

Has no 'Political Centre', no source of funding to attack, and no Political allies.
Has clearly defined goals based on easily understood concepts of Justice.
Utilizes concepts and memes planted in the social consciousness by Feminists against them.
Is composed almost entirely of 'regular guys' with not a lot to lose.
In many cases, merely explains the processes currently destroying society.
Offers clear, simple, and usually far less costly solutions.

Kind of looks like a Guerilla War in a hostile nation, doesn't it?

When people ask what we're about, or argue over the relative merits of PUA vs MGTOW, calm and reasoned vs 'kill em all', legal vs social avenues for redress, etc.... what I think they don't understand is that WE don't know.

I tend to picture all these aspects of the Mens Movement as swirling 'galaxies', relative in size to each other, interacting regularly as their gravity pulls on each other. I don't for a minute think any one of those 'galaxies' have The Answer.

I think the answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle - we just have to let things balance a while to find the center. Within the Movement, as well as in society.

How typically Canadian of me, eh?

A great article on "Watts Up With That?"

2010-06-26T14:51:00.000-07:00

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:

2010-06-17T14:28:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-15T11:35:00.000-07:00

"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

2010-06-14T12:33:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-11T09:34:00.000-07:00

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...

2010-06-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

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...

2010-06-07T14:03:00.000-07:00

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)...

2010-06-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

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...

2010-06-02T14:51:00.000-07:00

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....

A plea to Canadian MRAs...

2010-05-29T12:25:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I'm having a bitch of a time trying to find good quality Canadian MRA websites. Either they're not putting their nationality on the blog anywhere, or it's a mishmash of shitty HTML and disjointed ravings, or the commentary is largely about American issues (which I freely admit is also a problem I have with my own writing/videos).

Actually, that's why I want to get a bunch of links..

The MRM is largely seen as an American phenomenon here, and as Canadians, we 'naturally' feel far more sensitive to Social Issues, and therefore 'things aren't as bad here as in the States'.

This bullshit reasoning is damned tough to combat when all the stats and info you have to counter are all U.S. stats...

So please, could anyone who knows of a Canadian website or blog they admire PLEASE leave a link in the comments section?

I think this is, right now, THE most important issue I can tackle personally. I want to raise the silhouette here in my home country as well as Internationally. I also think at some point in time I will have to do a breakdown of the 'top ten', and explain the Editorial thrust, for the general public to consume...

I'd like to have some Canadian stuff in there too...so far, it'd be purely US and UK. And that's not even CLOSE to the real makeup of the MRM...

So please, take 5 seconds, cut n paste a couple of links - ESPECIALLY if you yourself are the blogger - I need your content!

Male Studies survey

2010-05-27T22:12:00.001-07:00

Dear Male Studies Supporter,

We are contacting you because you were interested or may have participated in our April 7 symposium on Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline.

In order to help The Foundation for Male Studies with its grant requests and fund raising efforts, and to increase its support channels, we've created a brief yet important survey on the need for Male Studies.

Please take just a few minutes and provide us with your feedback by visiting:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9TH97BP

Your participation will be greatly appreciated and beneficial to the Foundation for Male Studies and its endeavors to create programs at colleges and universities.

Sincerely,

Joseph Notovitz
Director of Communications

OK, I admit it...

2010-05-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

I watched American Idol almost religiously. Frankly, I thought the group this year was the closest to actual 'artists', what with all the singer/songwriter/musician combos they had.

And I have to say, although I think it's great that Lee won (he really is a lot better than even HE gave himself credit for), I'm still kinda disappointed that Crystal Bowersox didn't win. She was by far my favourite...mostly because of the type of person she seems to be.

And that's my 2 cents.

FYI

2010-05-19T14:30:00.001-07:00

RADAR ALERT: The "Scalping Politicians" Email Is Not From RADAR

It has come to our attention that an email that was neither composed nor approved by RADAR is being circulated over the signature "RADAR." The email states, "When our target politician loses on November 2, we wave around the person's scalp, to send an indelible message to other politicians that they'd better get serious about VAWA reform."

Inflammatory language like this is anathema to RADAR's philosophy. In order for a demoracy to function properly, it is essential that people who hold different opinions be able to talk to each other and try to convince each other with solidly-backed, reasoned arguments. We cannot expect politicians to listen to us unless we respect their right to their own beliefs. RADAR never threatens to "wave around" anyone's scalp.

Was RADAR's name attached to this email by a misguided supporter or by someone who wanted to discredit us? There's no way for us to know. But just in case it's the former, we'd like to ask our supporters to refrain from attaching our name to anything we haven't approved. Any email whose "From" header doesn't contain the domain mediaradar.org is most likely not from RADAR. If you have any doubts, check with us at info@mediaradar.org. Thank you all for your support.

MRm! Magazine - A call for Content

2010-05-15T13:35:00.001-07:00

I've been getting a few requests for info regarding contributions to MRm! There's actually a lot more I want to do with this magazine, and frankly it's hard to get noticed these days as an artist of any flavour...

So, here's what I would have at my disposal in an ideal world:

Article Subjects:
DV
Custody/Parental Issues
Crime/Prison Issues (incarceration rates, sentencing disparity, etc)
Journalism/Media Bias
Political Issues/ Politicians selling out men for profit / naming and shaming
Health Issues
Sexuality / Dating / Demonization

Outside of those, anything that's interesting is, er, of interest.

I have to say, looking around for this stuff on the blogosphere has opened my eyes as to how many great writers there are out there.

As to other stuff...

I also want to have a regular one page feature called "Activist Corner", where a worthy project gets a full page article to explain their thing. Issue 5's is already set (FRTF), but I need some in the hopper as I'm already halfway done Issue 6, and I need to keep the monster fed.

If you are a Cartoonist, I REALLY want to speak to you. I hope to have at least one strip in the mag, plus I would love to have one or two people good at one panel cartoons. There have GOT to be a few of you who either do this, or did at one time...so contact me. It could be fun, and more importantly any success MRm! has will be yours as well.

I also want to find a designer or two, AND photographers would be most welcome. I know these careers are Image-conscious, so alias' are fine...of course.

If you've got one of these skills, and you've been sitting around thinking "You know, I should really figure something out to help this cause out"...well, here's a chance.

And the more popular this mag is, the more likely it is that people will follow the links to your website...

The contact email is: mrm.magazine@gmail.com

Manhood Academy: Special Ed at Best | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

2010-05-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

Manhood Academy: Special Ed at Best | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

Game is for Assholes?

2010-04-19T10:17:00.000-07:00

This post will actually come a little too close to TMI in spots, be forewarned.

I have never really had all that much trouble attracting women. For whatever reason, I have constantly had women tell me they "felt comfortable" with me, for example, for as far back as I can remember. And I was 31 before I first "asked out a girl", which was me trying something "new" after my split with the ex.

Because I have had such fortune with women, I have indeed had many sexual partners. It's not uncommon for me to go to a bar, and have some woman make the thinnest of pretexts before trying to lean in for a kiss...

Again, not sure why. Maybe it's because I'm regarded as attractive physically (this much has to be a given, I would say), maybe it's because I'm not a very intimidating guy physically (I'm 5 foot 8 - maybe 160lbs soaking wet).

But here's the thing. Like I said, I have VERY limited experience "dealing with women" because I have NO idea what to do if they don't throw themselves at me.

I imagine that's a bit of an uncommon state for a man to find himself in. I imagine there would be a lot of men that say "boo hoo" to all of this, and are even now unclenching a fist...but consider:

Even I, a guy who has had way more success with women than he has any right to expect, could benefit greatly from Game. Because even though I have no problem at all getting "women", getting a QUALITY woman is not easy.

A couple of personal examples to show what I mean.

The other weekend, a friend called me up, and suggested we hit a bar we hadn't been to in years. This bar is a meat market pick up joint, and not a high class one at that (the last time I was there some chick bit me...at random...just walking by, and I guess I looked tasty. No, she didn't break the skin, and yes, it hurt).

While there, I ran into one of the women who has done some modelling for me (I'm an ex commercial and advertising photographer that does digital art now and again), and as it turned out, she was interested in "partying" after the bar..

I take her back to my place...

Where she proceeds to make out with BOTH of my roommates!

So, attempting to rectify the mistake of taking this obviously crazy woman home, I call her a cab and wait for it with her outside. Which is when she tells me she doesn't want a "cheap night" with me, she wants me to COMMIT to her (if you can believe it) and go on "dates" before I "get any".

I didn't have the heart to tell her she was such a screwed up slut, she wasn't even going to get the one nighter, let alone the relationship she wanted. I was still sort of in shock that she thought I wanted Thing One to do with her, to be honest....

Another one....

A few months ago, I was seeing (OK, FWB type seeing) a girl 18 years my junior. This was an on and off, over the course of three years casual kind of thing. One night I was at her place when a friend called with an invitation to go see another friend play in a band. She and I went to said bar, where she at the end of the night proceeded to go home with another guy...and I mean RIGHT at the end of the night.

Now, don't get me wrong, the "no strings" thing is fine by me, and if she wanted to go home with this guy any other day, get his number and call him later...whatever, I wouldn't have cared.

But no, she ditched me right there, publicly. Then called me the next day hoping to apologize.

I'm no idiot, this was a huge diss, and both of us knew it, but what blew me away in this case was not that she ditched (I've been the guy ditched FOR way too many times to get angry when it happens to me), but that she genuinely couldn't understand why I tossed her, since we weren't "dating". Apparently, common courtesy is an alien concept.

Needless to say, while I mourn the loss of pussy half my age(-ish), it was the only acceptable solution to tell her to go fuck her hat.

So why the public self-flagellation?

If nothing else these experiences have taught me this simple truth:

You can have all the "natural advantages" in the world, and still fail due to lack of knowledge/training. This is as true for the dating/mating world as it is for Professional Sports or your Career.

AND

Without a clear idea of where you would like to be, all the forward motion in the world cannot guarantee you're not headed in circles.

I have had, oh, well over a hundred sexual partners I would imagine. I got married and Divorced (and had numerous "partners") before I ever "asked out a girl", and to this very day have 19 and 20 year old women literally throw themselves in my lap (it's happened more than once this year - and I'm OLD now). Yet not once, never, have I had any real control over my own "dating destiny".

And that's what it's really all about, isn't it?

Taking control of one's own destiny? Deciding what you want, and then finding a way to get it?

There is no one that cannot benefit from at least a basic understanding of "Game". There are very few men that would not benefit from a little more self confidence, and for many men, self confidence is really all Game instills...

We all have our troubles with the opposite sex (even same in some cases). The point is, learning Game does not make one "weak". It doesn't turn you into a "manipulator", although it will initially likely drop women quite a few pegs in your eyes, to see how vain and easily led "astray" they are...forewarned is forearmed.

But it does, to some degree, give men back some autonomy. If nothing else, it shows the games women play for what they are.

For example, I know EXACTLY what went on in those two examples given. I know what it says about their regard for me, and their expectations. And while I may not have had enough of an interest to "play the game" to ensure these scenarios never took place, I do at least have an idea of how to avoid this in cases where I actually care.

And that's something you can't take away from Game...once you see these things for what they are, you see them that way forever. And this knowledge has at the very least given me the backbone to tell these life-sucking harpys to piss off...

Because in my younger years, I would have put up with it.

On Male Studies, White Knights, and other ways of Completely Missing the Point...

2010-04-10T17:50:00.000-07:00

You know, sometimes a guy just wants to rip out his (thankfully still full) hair in frustration. The sheer pettiness, the mealy-mouthed petulance, and sometimes outright lunacy displayed in the MRM astounds me.

And I'm a longstanding MRA!

Consider: The On Step Institute sponsers a symposium on Male Studies, an offering of courses intended to reach a better common understanding of issues affecting males, and uniquely male viewpoints. This panel represented some of the most influential, and outspoken, mens advocates in the known Universe (yeah, the whole damn thing)...oh yeah, and one Mens Studies professor that seemed largely to have been there to serve as contrast only..one who stands next to no chance of ever teaching a Male Studies course, I may add.

They spoke about the myriad issues men and boys face in society, and asserted at least some of those issues existed purely BECAUSE they were male, then called for areas of study, research papers, etc.

In short, these guys and gals are serious about addressing these issues, in a male friendly yet academically rigorous manner. They are NOT activists, so much as Academics. And this is the beginning of a long, likely contentious “dialogue” between the sexes. One that Feminists are fearful of, and have done as much as possible to avoid.

One they can no longer avoid.

The reaction from the MRM?

If you can believe it, anger. And mistrust, cynicism, and petulent accusations of not enough being done (the latter typically from people not heard from before a couple of years ago).

And, like the whiny little boys some of these people are, they do nothing themselves, but demand others take the initiative, which they will follow...provided it's done the way HE wants it done, and on his timetable...

(Sigh)

The thing is, even this is nothing new. Many of us have been hearing the exact same arguments for literally years on end. Many of us were the people making those same arguments when we first got here too, to be honest.

So as frustrating as it is, even this crap is little more than an annoyance.

What truly frustrates me, is the seeming obtuseness of MRAs when it comes to social dynamics. I can't possibly be the only person who understands this to some extent...the place is full of PUAs for crying out loud!

The MRM has been in existence for years, this much is technically true. In exactly the same way the Feminism never went away between the Suffragettes and the “sudden” explosion of Feminism in the 60's. Do people REALLY think Feminist thought didn't exist before these Feminist authors came out with hundreds of pages of text? In all that time, do people really think Feminism wasn't a bubbling topic of conversation among women, for literally decades?

Feminism simmered away until the right conditions existed, from the ability to communicate and disseminate ideas, through fundraising and latching on to other movements that were similarly simmering away for years until then.

This economic downturn is OUR chance. Do you think people would give a rat's ass about mens issues if there weren't so many men unemployed? Seriously?

The decades of MRA-dom before this served unguessable hours of preparation, honing of ideals, refining of arguments, development of philosophies... There really ARE defining characteristics of being an MRA...did you think they came from nowhere? That they were self evident? That rational, easily understood, smoothly delivered arguments in all these issues just popped out of someone's ass?

The MRM is poised to succeed right now, BECAUSE all of those “ineffectual” MRAs laid so much groundwork, coupled with the inevitable collapse of Feminism itself. If MRAs weren't out there for years already talking this stuff, you can bet you'd be hearing little to anything about men's issues even now.

The MRM has a solid core of ethics and beliefs, one that is based firmly not only on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but also those that formed the original basis for the societies we live in:

Equality under the law, both in word and deed.

Identical legal rights and responsibilities between men and women

The importance of Family, and the rights of both parents as well as children

The list goes on, perhaps better explained in the Mens Manifesto than here.

The point is, we have all these things, a coherent “movement” to present to the public after all the “insignifigant” work done to get us here, so let's bloody well use the opportunity!

Maybe all the "newbs" can show us old guys where we've been "going wrong" all those years...

Mainstream media proves their Feminist bona fides, as expected.

2010-04-09T10:54:00.000-07:00

So the initial reaction is in on Male Studies from several media sources, such as Newsweek, as well as online sources such as Salon and the like...

You know what I see in these articles?

Bigotry. Fear. Ridicule as argument against. Etc.

In fact, I would bet these same sorts of things were said about Feminism right at the early stages. Not that I care..

It's obvious these people do not want a Male perspective on anything to become well known, or widely accepted. Only Feminist-filtered thoughts can be taught to men about themselves (Men's/Gender Studies).

Want proof of the last?

Every single argument against Male Studies has included the existing Mens Studies as reason why Male Studies is superfluous. None of these arguments address why men themselves might find Mens Studies to be little more than re-wording Gender Feminist Man Hate into PHMT arguments. None of these arguments even acknowledge, let alone address, ANY of the main issues men face.

In fact, MOST of these articles describe blatant inequality ("Feminism is fighting to expand PARENTAL leave, you know - including MEN") without once admitting MEN HAVE NO PARENTAL RIGHTS, and MEN HAVE NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, and furthermore, that Feminist ideologues ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.

Ahem.

Needless to say the transparent hypocrisy and sexist hatred and contempt are so thick as to be choking at times....

Yeah, there's need for a Male Studies department...and to the multitudes of men who thought this sort of course was "silly"...read these responses again. Read what these women are saying about men, their lives, and what "should be"important to men. Read what the editorial stance is of the newspaper or magazine you're reading...do you agree with their assessment of who YOU are?

Do these people REALLY speak for you?

If not, take a Male Studies course...support the foundation, anything...

Just get these bigots out of a position where they feel ENTITLED enough to tell men what they should care about...

New Academic Discipline To Take Shape at Staten Island’s Wagner College | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

2010-04-08T15:24:00.000-07:00

New Academic Discipline To Take Shape at Staten Island’s Wagner College | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

Check out this site if you want to help someone who has been wrongfully convicted...

2010-03-26T12:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.exonerated.org/content/

Issue Three, MRm! Magazine

2010-03-26T11:41:00.000-07:00

Hot off the ...er....DTP program.... :)

Hate Male Post: --- Meet Your Oppressors

2010-03-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

Hate Male Post: --- Meet Your Oppressors

BWAHAHAHA!

2010-03-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

A (very long) conversation...

2010-03-08T13:17:00.000-08:00

"M":
I consider myself a feminist, not because I think that places like North America really needs a viewpoint like that anymore, but because there are plenty of other places that need female rights to be championed. The treatment of women in some middle-east contries, the laws that lead to the woman being jailed/executed for being raped, the abortion of female fetuses because of their gender, and FGM (female gentalia multilation) in places like Africa NEEDS TO BE STOPPED. Anyone who wants to demonize me for thinking things like that are wrong seems not quite right in the head. To the people who say that I should avoid this name because of some of the stigma attached to it, would you ask a Muslim to call themselves something different because of the few extremists that call themselves Muslims? Also, I cannot entirely condemn a movement that allowed me to vote, work, support myself, and choose who I want to be with instead of being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

I consider myself an equalist (egalitarian?) because men and women should be given equal opportunity. Women shouldn't be treated as sex objects and men shouldn't be treated as criminals and animals. There's quite a bit of balancing out to do in North America, and I will admit there's a large number of cases of sexism against men that get less attention than they should. Too many men are demonized and treated as second-class citizens in Western culture. Women who falsely accuse men of rape and abuse should be dragged out into the street and shot, because not only do they ruin an innocent person's life, they make it that much harder for women who have actually suffered such horrible acts to come forward and be believed. However, I have a few issues with the way that MRm is going about doing it.

Calling someone a 'sensitive male' is in no way equated to calling someone a 'good negro'. Some guys are more likely to express more 'feminine' emotions, like sadness, than others, and they should have a right to do that. Just as feminisim shouldn't only promote strong buisnesswomen and condemn housewives, MRA's shouldn't proclaim that males should only be 'real men' who wrestle bears and keep all their emotions bottled inside. Don't get me wrong, forcing someone to become more sensitive if they are more of a 'real man' is not right, but men should have the right to be as masculine or feminine as they wish to be, just as females have the same right.

Aside from a small blurb at the beginning of MRm issue one, there seems to be nothing that appeals to the female gender for understanding or aid. The blogging article specifically called out male bloggers for not addressing issues having to do with male discrimination. Why do you think that women are completely uncaring about basic human rights, just because it affects people with penises? Further on, you generalize women and moderate feminists as people who may not actively take rights away from men, but they at least sit back and enjoy the benefits reaped by such discrimination.

Such generalizations seem to reflect some 'feminist' views like "ALL men are rapists.' So long as you resort to these sort of tactics, you seem to be treading the same path that the 'feminists' you so hate have used before. A little over half the population is female, and I imagine that your movement would be able to make much larger advancements if you had some of those numbers on your side as well.

Factory:

Even if it "accomplished" all those things by browbeating men into giving it to women? Even if those "accomplishments" were DESIGNED to disempower men, rather than "empower" women? And moreover, are you really sure you want to associate with an ideology whose very foundation was designed by the likes of Andrea Dworkin, or Mary Daly...people who are canonized in Feminist circles to this day?

I'm glad you take issue with the rampant human rights abuses perpetrated daily by the government in the name of women, but I can't help but notice you STILL place a good portion of the justification for getting mad squarely in the "because it hurts women" category.

When women start caring that men are being hurt...because MEN are being hurt...well, that's when you get to call yourself "egalitarian"....not until.

We think women do not care about human rights abuses because...well, there has been next to ZERO evidence that women...er, care. Where is the famle outrage at Women-only food lines in Haiti? Where are the women demanding men be treated fairly in Family Court? Where are the women demanding equality for men?

Are they absent because men never did anything for women's rights? Any chance in hell of trying to prove that?

Women have literally SHOWN men, by example and deed, that they not only do NOT care about the rights and lives of men, but that they think men outright DESERVE the treatment they're getting, and furthermore men should just "man up" and take it even more. More and more men are getting this message...and the marriage rate is dropping, men are turning off of society, and walking away from women.

And your sex has the appallingly large nuts to BLAME MEN for this reaction.

What I, and others like me, are trying to do is really twofold:

One: To wake men up to the situation they're in, and to give a name to the anger they feel, and a pathway to effect positive change - for MEN, and men alone.

Two: To show women that men feel this way, that these things ARE happening, and that women ARE losing men's protectiveness - whether you choose to deny it or not - in the hopes that there are at least a few women out there with both a shred of decency left, and the motivation to avoid women fully absorbing the hateful reputation they are so quickly gaining. These women, of their OWN accord, should be doing something. There ARE a few, by the way. Christina Hoff-Sommers, Teri Stoddard, Barbara Kay, Anne Cools...just to name a few.

It's the rank-and-file women...the VAST majority of them....that perpetuate the hateful ideology of Feminism.

Which in a way, makes the "but I'm not like that" Feminists a WORSE problem than the man-haters.

Sorry, you take on the title, you takes the lumps that go with it...and yes, if you take on the mantle, you most assuredly DO deserve the negative feedback.

When someone displays a stunningly effective tactic, you are faced with a choice:

Do I adopt the tactic, thereby "sinking to their level", or do I "take the high road"?

The MRM has been "taking the high road" for decades...it is only after a significant shift in tactics to more closely mirror that of Feminism that we began to gain traction. As for the effect this approach has on women, and relations with them?

I couldn't POSSIBLY care less, which is a 100% direct reflection of the concern women have shown men.

Yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. But then there's the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

"A":

Factory, what I don't think you seem to get is that feminism is not a monolithic block. I am a feminist, and I don't agree with Mary Daly or Andrea Dworkin. I think Mary Daly was transphobic, had a black-and-white view of genders, and was pretty much a self-parody. The problem with Andrea Dworkin was that she had a lot of personal issues with sex and she projected them onto everyone else. Daly and Dworkin only speak for a small subset of feminists (second-wave radicals, although Daly would also be considered a separatist feminist). I've known feminists who haven't even heard of either of them, and others who disagree with them. There are multiple schools of thought in feminism. Saying that Andrea Dworkin is representative of all feminists is like saying that the Patriarch of Serbia* speaks for the entire Christian religion.

I consider myself a third-wave, sex-positive feminist, and third-wavers and sex-positive feminists are vastly different from second-wave and radical feminists. Anybody can be a feminist, regardless of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, occupation, gender identity, ethnicity, or religion. There are even - gasp! - male feminists, such as Kurt Cobain, Joss Whedon, Magnus Hirschfeld, Tim Wise, Barry Deutsch (the writer of Alas, A Blog and the webcomic Hereville) and Hayao Miyazaki, and that's just off the top of my head.

Oh yeah, and the reason why women get custody more often is because of sexism. Women are traditionally expected to raise the children, so they usually get custody. The remedy for that is...feminism!
* no offense to any Serbian Orthodox members, I just chose a random Christian leader

Factory:

Any person who says the phrase "Men have oppressed women for thousands of years" is parroting the words of these women. Patriarchy Theory, the underpinning of ALL of the various forms of Feminism, is a construct of these women, and like-minded others. They also continue to be held in high regard today, both for their place in history AND their "unique views on men".

To say these women have nothing to do with whatever brand of Feminism you espouse is a gigantic lie, either to us, yourself, or both.

You cannot be a modern Feminist, and not agree with their most basic, man-hating lie. A lie codified into Patriarchy Theory.

I'm quite well aware that there are male feminists. Any woman with a half decent body knows EXACTLY what kind of guy a male Feminist is too... you know, the one his female "best friends" complain to about the guy they're boinking, because "big meanie" treats her like dirt (which, of course, is why she's with him in the first place)? Just because there are men out there that genuinely believe maleness is a sickness, does not mean they're right. There's guys out there that loathe themselves so much, they castrate themselves. Do these men also speak for me? Preclude the need for my input? Occupy higher moral ground?

You don't have to be female to ascribe to a man-hating ideology...I believe I make that point every time I correct some Feminist when she mistakenly conflates "Feminist" with "Woman".

As for child custody, as is typical with Feminists, you think we have no memory? Until women (ie, "Feminists") had the laws changed to reflect the "Tender Years Doctrine", default custody of all children of marriage went to the Husband, NOT the mother. In short, Feminists were DIRECTLY responsible for the "Fatherectomy" everyone is so "shocked" about these days, from the very first act, right on up to 5 minutes ago...

"M":

I would say that giving women the right to vote (which was basically the main objective of first-wave feminism, I think they wanted to be able to work, too) wasn't disempowering to men in the least. After all, your right to vote wasn't taken away in order to achieve this. I suppose giving women the ability to chose their own lovers, instead of being treated like the property of their fathers or husbands would take away a few men's rights over the control of their wives, though. But I don't think anyone should have the right to own another adult (very small children might be considered to belong to their parents/guardians), so I don't think that was a big loss either. So yes, since feminism accomplished this, I will associate myself with it.

I'm not saying that you should stop hating on feminists that oppress people because of their sex. Have at them. I'm not even saying that you should stop critising me. I'm just pointing out that it might be helpful if you had a sentence or paragraph that suggested a way for women to change their ways of blaming men. It's like yelling at someone who puts out 8 bags of trash every week without pointing out the recycling bins a few streets down. Yes, maybe they've seen them and ignored them, and they might ignore you too, but at least you tried and there are surely some people who would listen to you if you brought it to their attention. I can understand you not wanting to waste time and resources, though...

I was just pointing out that it seemed a bit hypocritical to rail against feminist generalizations of men, and then make your own generalizations against women. But if this tactic works for you and gains you support for your cause, then I guess it works. *shrug* Hypocrisy doesn't appeal to me, but I'm not really your target audience, and it's the internet, you can say what you want.
...

The thing is, whenever there's a case of discrimination against women that comes to light (in North America, not places like Saudi Arabia though) there's a huge backlash. Whenever a male is discriminated against, people tend to ignore it or laugh it off. There's a case of a man being arrested because he was naked in his own house at 5am when a mother walked by and happened to look in the window. And he was making coffee, not standing up against the window hoping someone would come by so he could flash them. No, I'm not making this up:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/1 ... es_charges
And you can bet if it was a guy walking by who happened to see a woman naked in her house, he's be the one arrested then too.

Guys are always assumed to be the culprit in a domestic disturbance, and it's rare for a father to get full custody of children, where it happens fairly commonly with women. Men who are abused or raped are rarely paid any attention to, where there are multiple shelters for abused women in North America.

So I can understand Factory wanting to focus on men's rights, since women's rights are very well established in North America, and most people assume you're fighting for equal rights for women when you talk about equal rights.

"A":

Thing is, most cases of domestic violence are against women, and when men are victims, it's rare for them to come forward because it's seen as a sign of weakness. And the reason why women are usually awarded custody is because of sexism - it's assumed that women do all of the childcare. Both of those problems can be solved by feminism.

Factory:

In cases of Domestic Violence, it's rare for men to come forward because due to "Primary Aggressor Laws" (Thanks again, Feminism) if they do then THEY will likely be arrested. To wit:

But a problem immediately arose - scientific studies showed that Pizzey was right. DV was in no way confined to the "male perpetrator/female victim" narrative preferred by the growing DV industry. So they beat a strategic retreat. That consisted of redefining violence to include almost any form of conflict that might occur between intimates. That agreed nicely with their political view that DV is all about control of women by men.

So things like "angry stares," attempts by a husband to get his wife to spend less or stop seeing untrustworthy friends all qualified as "violence" because they were "controlling." Many people recall the instructions provided by one DV shelter in New York that risibly informed women that a man's "failure to give gifts or compliments" constituted DV. Silly as that was, though, at present not a single state requires an act of physical violence for a violation of its DV laws to occur.

The idea that domestic violence didn't have to be actually - you know - violent, satisfied certain ideological precepts, but it too had a downside. Given that definition, police began arresting women for DV. Numerous states and municipalities reported DV arrests of women increasing far faster than those of men.

So DV advocates devised a new doctrine that would maintain the absurdly broad definition of violence but still not arrest too many women - the "predominant aggressor" doctrine. That allowed police to analyze an alleged scene of DV and arrest only the aggressor they considered to be the "predominant" one. As DV researcher and former police lieutenant, Richard Davis has written,

Mandatory arrest and “dominant aggressor” policies were implemented only after interveners believed that far too many females were being arrested for domestic violence incidents after violence was legally redefined as a push or shove.

The document linked to is the State of Maine's effort to "educate" police about how to decide which is the "predominant" aggressor."

...

Not a single one of the eight presents a situation in which the woman would be the person arrested. In every case, the conclusion is to arrest the man. Whoever created the materials couldn't even imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to arrest a woman. And that includes this one:

6. Self-defense #1 (Man Hit in Head with Ashtray)
Man said:
• They were arguing over money/dress.
• She started going off and hit him in the head.
Woman said:
• She was not injured.
• They were arguing and “I hit him with an ashtray.”
• He did not hit her.

So the hypothetical case consists of "they were arguing; she hit him with an ashtray; he did not hit her; she's not injured."

At first, the training manual doesn't draw a conclusion about this one. Why not? Because what's important is not that she committed an act of physical violence against him but that he may be exercising "power and control." It continues:

What about Power and Control tactics that you observed?
• Man came to door.
• Woman was hiding until man called her out.
• Officer had to call her out of the room.
• She seemed very frightened and scarred (sic). Why?
Possible Crimes: Assault, Criminal Threatening, Criminal Threatening
with a Dangerous Weapon. Remember who is predominant
aggressor.

See how it works? When a man uses physical violence, he's the "predominant aggressor," even though the woman did too. But even when he doesn't use physical violence and she does, he's injured and she's not, he's still the "predominant aggressor."

Article: http://glennsacks.com/blog/index.php?paged=3

Why would a man feel safe reporting a violent female partner to the police?

"A":

Um, for thousands of years, women were denied basic rights by men. Do you also get offended when someone says that white people have oppressed black people?

Neither Dworkin nor Daly came up with the concept of patriarchy. And like I said, not all feminists agree with Daly and Dworkin. That's like saying that all Christians agree with the Pope because he also believes in the basic tenets of Christianity.

Factory:

I do when it's a total fabrication at worst, and warped misrepresentation of reality at best. The concept of "men" keeping "women" down is utterly laughable. It's a fiction that has NEVER EXISTED, that can only be maintained by continuous failure to examine the lives of the other sex in context...the "priveleged class" Feminists complian about are "priveleged" in ANY context. When all you do is look at the rich and powerful, I suppose it's logical to assume all are rich and powerful. It's dead wrong, but there you go.

Dworkin et al didn't come up with the notion of "Patriarchy", no. They came up with the basic tenets of Patriarchy Theory. The concept of Patriarchy goes all the way back to a time when men were actually respected in society, and were heads of their households. Patriarchy Theory (aka, "Women have been oppressed for thousands of years") is a product of those nutjobs, among others no less man hating and vitriolic.

And all Christians might not agree with the Pope, but they damn sure DO agree with all those Clerics of old who DECIDED WHAT GOES IN THE BIBLE.

But hey, thanks for illustrating my point so brilliantly.

"A":

So women have always been able to vote, have always been able to have control of their own bodies, have never been relegated to third-tier jobs with minimal pay, and are never sold into sexual slavery, and were never at any point considered property. Good to know.

Do you also complain about how there are no political organizations specifically addressing the needs of white people?

Factory:

So, you hate white people like you hate men? Or is there some other reason why you think the colour of your skin determines your worth? In point of fact, for example, White women receive the most lenient prison sentences (for identical crimes), followed by black women, then white men, then black men (on the harshest end of things). These are not small variances either, in fact Sex is a greater indication of sentencing than Race...by a considerable margin.. In ANY case, white women have the absolute LEAST reason to complain...yet, those are the most vocal... hmm...

Women got the vote on average 3...THREE electoral cycles after men in general got the vote...prior to that you had to be "rich"...ie, that "ruling class" you Feminists have taken to simply mean "men". Men do not have control over their own bodies TO THIS DAY...no sympathy there AT ALL. Men are currently undergoing a severe devaluation of their worth...in the workplace and out. On thing I might add though...women have never "supported their familes" as a group, and generally resent the hell out of "supporting her man" instead of the way things are "supposed to be". There's a ton of articles out there to that effect, if you'd care to look.

So, while women may not have had unfettered career opportunities 50-60 years ago, this is most definitely not the case today...and while men may have earned the big dollars in times past, they used it to take care of their families for the most part, as was expected. Women today?

How many "Who are the Wimminz going to marry with all these "loser" men around" articles do you need to see?

And what I illustrated using your own analogy, is that people don't have to agree with an idea if they're given little choice... Patriarchy Theory IS man hate...for any of your various flavours of Feminism to even APPROACH "egalitarianism" is if there is no hint, however small, of the "Men have Oppressed Women For Thousands of Years" mantra. Because "men" did no such thing.

"A":

First of all, I don't hate white people or men. Second of all, I agree that it does suck that black men are fucked over in prison sentencing. However, the reason why women get off easier isn't because of feminism. It's because of holdovers from chivalry, which is still sexist. And just because women have an advantage in one area doesn't mean they have advantages in general.

I'm from the US. Our country became an independent nation in the late 1700s. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920. In Switzerland, women were finally able to vote in 1971, and Kuwaiti women didn't get the vote until 2005.

As for reproductive rights, abortions and birth control are outlawed in some countries, and some women actually DIE from pregnancy complications or from undergoing back-alley abortions. Please show me the proof that men's reproductive rights are being controlled.

"M":

Are you saying that men in general didn't opress women, but society as a whole did? Are you saying that *cough* not all men were like that, and only a select few oppressed women? Are you saying that only priveledged classes oppressed women, and poor women had just as many rights and freedoms as poor men did? Or are you saying that women were never treated as mere property and tools for producing sons?

"A":

Factory, in all of my times reading your posts, I've noticed this:

You constantly pass judgement on all women based on your ex-wife and women you actively seek out, and act like feminism is worse than Nazism, but if someone calls you out on your misogyny or points out that men have oppressed women for centuries and that not all feminists hate men, then the person is horrible and must be an evil feminazi man-hater.

Factory:

The thing I continually fail to understand is this focus on the individual's feelings as opposed to objective reality.

In point of fact, there is one sex that has both legal inequality, and socially condoned discrimination carried out against them. There is one sex that is failing in nearly every conceivable objective measure, the same sex that receives not only no assistance, but is actively derided for complaining. There is one sex whose views on "Gender Issues" has been consistently silenced unless they agree with the other.

And that sex is the male one.

These are simple facts.

Now, I know it might be new to you guys, but merely asserting that "women were oppressed" does not make it true. And even if it WERE objectively true, "men" were not responsible.

The assertion, for example, that women had no vote CONSISTENTLY fails to mention that men (in general) were ahead of this curve by approximately 3 electoral cycles...instead, it's proof that "Men oppressed women for thousands of years"... The concept of women being "owned as chattel" is also typical of Feminist mischaracterization. Men were held legally responsible for the actions of their wives, just as they were their children. Women could not get loans, for example, because banks could not legally collect the money from women in case of default...women had NO legal liability. Sound like oppression to you?

It is not the wildly inflated statistics, nor the "studies" that are completely devoid of scientific rigor, that has totally undermined the credibility of Feminist thinking... It's the complete and utter failure to have clue one what the average man's life is like, and simultaneously claiming expert status on all things Gender.

Feminists literally have no idea what they're comparing your "equality" to, since they have no idea what the other half of the equation looks like. Moreover, it's not only obvious Feminists don't care...it's becoming increasingly viewed as "irrelevant to the discourse" as far as they're concerned.

As to my assertions regarding the relative worth of women in general, and the continued assertion that "NAWALT", I still respond thusly:

Such a massive swath of women that are indeed "like that" exists that literally millions of men have had their lives destroyed, their emotions used to hurt and drain them, etc, that there's now this thing called a "mens movement" that is no longer about getting "sensitive" in the woods, and is now about saying "we're not gonna take this shit anymore!" Again, the proof is in the pudding as it were...if I'm wrong, then there'll be nothing to worry about...right?

And no, I don't think women suddenly began to hate men. I think there's a baseline mistrust a lot of women have for men...given the length of human history and the brutality of it, I can understand why... But what I AM asserting, with plenty of evidence to back it up (indeed, if there's a need to "prove it" to you, it's likely an impossible task), is that Feminism has endeavoured for decades to drive a wedge between men and women. From the push to "deconstruct the family" to "sexual liberation" to DV / Child abuse hysteria, etc...all of these things were designed primarily to make women fear men, make children fear men, and make governments more able to remove men from families.

Because they've certainly succeeded in that, now haven't they? And if it really WAS about the stated aims, why "forget" that the vast majority of child abuse comes from Mothers, not Fathers? Why "forget" that women initiate DV equally or MORE often than men, or that hiring a hit man is still spousal homicide? Why rig "indexes" into equality to make female privelege read as "equality"?

Couple that with the increased educational achievement women are enjoying (yet still retain all the special programs, considerations, bursaries, etc because women were "oppressed"), the reduced earning potential of the typical man, and the speedy pace in which value-added industries are fleeing the Feminist West...and all of a sudden there's a "crisis" because women are finding it difficult to meet men who make more than them? How can anyone NOT see the extreme bias in there?

The PUA thing quite nicely explains what women will actually DO in a given situation, as opposed to what they SAY they will do. Whether you like it or not, being conversant with Game overcomes damn near any obstacle. And frankly, when you consider the main objection to Game is that it makes the man SEEM more "Alpha" than he is...well, all I can say is those women complaining about it should strive to be a LOT less shallow than they currently are. Oh yeah, and stop putting on makeup, bras, control top pantyhose, dying your hair, etc...you abusive liars you...

Now, not all men are comfortable with the PUA thing, they retch at the mere mention of Game, but not out of some misguided sense of Chivalry. No, those guys tend to be MGTOW's more based on disgust at modern female behaviour, coupled with complete and utter lack of legal protections for men. This seems a bit extreme, almost "conspiracy theory-like" as has been said...so I'll elaborate:

In the Province where I live, a few years ago they introduced a new DV law... What it says is that if a complaint for DV is made, in order to avoid poor little dear running out of money, the complainant gains power of attorney over all the accused's assets until the matter is closed. Furthermore, the law specifically states that co-habitation, or relationship length, shall not affect application of the law.

So, start dating a girl...realize she's made a call to the cops when they come to your workplace to arrest you on DV charges (which, keep in mind, doesn't have to involve anything more than her saying she "felt afraid"), and when he gets out on bail, finds out she sold all his stuff (including his car) and it's all perfectly legal...even if he's proven innocent.

Or is that too far out there for you to believe?

How about another fav subject of Feminists? Let's talk about Sexual Assault for a second, shall we? The first thing I should say here, is that the main MRA objection in this area is that Feminist lobbying and -jurisprudence have rendered ANY contact between a man and a woman that involves sex a potential rape charge for the man involved. And with the inversion of "innocent until proven guilty" in these cases, he may as well resign himself to a couple decades in the slammer...and lesson learned. All it takes is for her to "change her mind"...this is black letter law again, this is NOT an interpretation..

So, "All men are rapists and that's all they are" really DOES inform some circles, now doesn't it? So much for those "nutbar Feminists no one listens to" having no effect on the real world...

At this stage of the game, MRAs are trying to have serious injustices corrected...this is why you will likely have a hard time finding an MRA that will give you a "vision of the future", and we ALL damn sure know better than to try and tell women what they should be like....we know how much men liked it from Feminists. When I criticize "women" it is indeed a generalization, and should be taken as such. Rest assured, when I mean all women, I promise to say "all women".. Do we know what will happen? No. Do we know for a fact that both Canada and the US at least have continuously violated both the letter and the spirit of their Constitutions, and committed innumerable human rights abuses in the name of "Feminist Equality"...the reckoning for which cannot be avoided, but CAN be mitigated - all it would take is some of this "compassion" women are supposed to ALL have.

Most of the inequality that exists stems very directly from the original failing of the Feminist movement... the continued female hegemony in the family, and over reproduction. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if men weren't then forced by government to finance the filching of his own children.

Marriage was what we used to call social programs to support the needs of children. Feminists killed that off, and want you, me, and everyone else to be "responsible" for the kid (read: pay the bills) - whether it be through unrealistically high Child Support orders (incidentally, decided upon by a guy who OWNS A CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION AGENCY) based at least in part on Feminist "research" which to this day has never been allowed to be examined (Lenore Weitzman). Meantime, women continue joking about "starter husbands" as if the men involved don't have their lives and future utterly destroyed via the Family Court system. How compassionate.

The only possible solution is to extend to men the exact same rights and priveleges women have, INCLUDING reproduction and Parental. How?

Mandatory Paternity testing at birth for all children, regardless of desires of the parents. Additionally, a requirement that the father be told the results of the test in the absence of anyone else. I know, a lot of women say this shouldn't happen because then the men will kill their cheating spouses...to which I say that detrimental consequences to women should not ever, under any circumstances, merit differences in rights. We go through extraordinary measures to ensure Mom leaves the Hospital with the same child she got there with...why not the men? If this means a cheating wife will be "found out" and her life made more difficult as result of Divorce PLUS a bastard child? Tough, keep your legs together next time, I say.

And this next one will kill ya....

I believe men should have the exact same obligations as regards children and fetuses as women do. This means that for the length of time a woman is legally entitled to opt out of Parenthood, so should men. This means "abortion" time frames AS WELL AS adoption / abandonment. Effectively, this means that unless and until a man formally takes on the role of Parent, that man is held to the same standards as a pregnant woman...meaning if he wants out, he walks away, no harm, no foul, no money. The basic legal presumption should be he doesn't want the kid...until he says he does. Meaning unless you're Married, he can walk away any time...just like a woman can.

This infringes in no way on women's right to choose...it merely removes women's "right" to make men pay for their choices.

And I truly think the addition of the Male Pill is all it would take to start getting some respect around here (Apologies to Rodney Dangerfield).

And you know what? Not one bit of it is anything other than affording men the same rights as women have had for decades.... Some "oppressed class" women are hey?

"A":

I actually gave you some facts and I've tried to reason with you. Your rampant misogyny and double standards are what's pissing me off.

Do you know why you have problems with women? You actively seek out the types of women who hurt you in the past. I'm sorry about your ex-wife, I truly am. But instead of becoming a pick-up artist and actively seeking out women like your ex, learn from the experience and move on to a woman who you can have a healthy, honest relationship with. You're only digging yourself deeper.

Factory:

"A", you haven't supplied one single fact anywhere in this thread. You make a lot of baseless assertions, true...but no facts. Everything I'm saying can be easily substantiated, and in fact I bet a good portion of the readers can recall at least one recent article in the mainstream media that said pretty much what I did...er, without actually coming out and saying it.

That said, you might want to cut out the pop-psychology and save it for a guy young enough to fall for it. I take the "blame" for the women I meet about as much as you do for ...well, ANYTHING it seems...
Which is, of course, to say I don't.

You seem stuck on this loop that these are all my own personal views, and moreover that very few other men feel this way...

I'll make this about as clear as I can...

This is a run-down of the basics of the mens movement, along with general info on each main "stream"...it is NOT a guy sitting here complaining about past relationships, no matter how much you would like that to be the case. It is an outline of the things Feminists and the Media don't want women to know...

I know it's easier to take this information if you can convince yourself it's not going to affect you, or that it's men you wouldn't want anyway, or some other rationalization. People like you, "A", will clutch fiercely to the victim-mantle Feminism gives you until they pry it from your cold, dead hands.

The real question though, is just how many women are willing to go down with you?

"M":

In 5th century BC Athens, one of the birth places of democracy, women were disallowed to vote for the running of the entire democratic system, from it's conception to eventual downfall. And I guarantee you that was more than three electoral cycles. Granted, slaves, children, and foreigners who were not citizens of Athens were also disallowed the vote, but it only shows that women were considered to be second class citizens, on the same level as slaves and not to be trusted with responsibility any more than foreigners or children. Who decided this, if not for the men who could vote in the system?

I fail to see how your second point disproves the oppression of females. Women were not considered to be indivuals with their own thoughts and minds, and thus responsible for their actions, but instead property or extensions of their husband. It sounds like oppression to me.

{as regards choice for men] there should be some responsibilties to even such a thing out. If the man wishes the the child would be aborted, he must pay half of what the cost of abortion would be to the mother. Sounds fair. If he wishes to go the route of adoption, he should have to stay with the child (and by extension, the mother) until the time such that the child may be put up for adoption, and if the mother chooses that this route is also for her, he must help with the paperwork. And if he wishes to avoid all these resposibilities and go the route of abandonment, he must face the same charges against him as a mother would if she left a newborn in a garbage can. That would be fair.

Factory:

Since Wikipedia seems to be a favourite of the "Progressive" crowd:

Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.

Hmm, there seem to be a whole lot of men in that disallowed group...now why would an oppressor do that, you think? Maybe it was that "military" requirement that led to all those women..AND men...to not get to vote. Hmmm.

I'm not aware of any woman facing charges for leaving a baby in a garbage can, and though that's not to say they don't exist anecdotal evidence at least points to the opposite. For example, in Prince Albert SK a couple years ago, a woman delivered her baby into a toilet full of blood and feces in a WalMart. She then left the store without saying a word to anyone.

And the world fell all over themselves with Understanding for her...not charges. Considering we have legal baby abandonment centres both in Canada and the US, I'm not sure how she could have been.

"N":

But the problem with that is that women COULDN'T get into the military. At least the men had a choice, the women had none.

Factory:

True. I suppose that's a good reason to lobby for women to have to die right alongside the men...for the first time in history.

You're not seriously suggesting that keeping women from having spears thrust through their necks is somehow "oppression" now are you? Would you get shot at JUST for the right to pick out the next haircut that runs the country...along with 300 million other people?

Don't be absurd.

"M":

I'm not saying that the ancient greeks oppressed only women, nor that the oppression of women was the worst of their offenses. But women, even native athenians, were not allowed to enter military service, and thus prevented from ever being able to vote. They were assumed to have opinions that were the same as their ~~owners~~ husbands or fathers, or to have no worthwhile opinions at all. Granted, neither did they pay taxes or really contribute to Athens in any way other than popping out sons, but this was because they were never allowed to act as autonomous human beings instead of property.

Factory:

I would think that the ONLY way a vote can be justified is to contribute to society.

Well, the ideology of Feminism says that men, as a class, oppressed women, as a class, for thousands of years. In fact, it was your assertion of this very thing that led to Athens in the first place.

But then it morphs into SOME men oppressed women...er, and other men so PHMT!

But it's all a lie. It's a "ruling class" and the "common folk", just like always. Feminists would just have you believe ALL men belong to the "ruling class" so you won't feel pangs of conscience while your gleefully stripping all value you can from him....

"M":

I was making that point as well. In Athenian society, you can only vote if you contribute to the nation state and women neither wage war nor pay taxes... Following this logic, it seems natural to assume that women shouldn't be able to vote.

However, women were never given the opportunity to be useful to society. I'm not saying that the athenians should have gone 'oh, the women should have a say too, poor things!' but that the athenians could have said 'if you want to vote, join the army, after you retire from military service pick from one of the many job you may work in, and pay your taxes'.

But your point is that 'not all men were like that'? Yes, of course only men in the ruling class were able to oppress people. They held all the power. The point is that even the women who belonged to the ruling class had no power, and were basically used as bagaining chips to form alliances and such. And the men of the common class did nothing to change this fact, even when they rose up against their oppressors. (see: French Revolution, October Revolution)

These budding governments didn't bring any women into their councils, or made much of an effort to change the state of women in their society. Seems to mirror the 'Feminists and regular women who are more than happy to allow the repression of men' issue you keep bringing up, doesn't it?

And I was just pointing out simple history. I see nothing in the annals of history that should make me hate everyday men who had nothing to do with the treatment of women hundreds of years ago, no more than I hate everyday Germans.

Factory:

I still fail to see your point How exactly does not having the vote make women oppressed? And for that matter, how does the existence of the vast majority of men in the same boat count as "Patriarchal Oppression", and more to the point, how did this somehow lead to pervasive privelege that I am supposed to have, but see no evidence of?

In short, how does this history in any way justify one damn thing Feminists are screeching about?

"M":

Over the course of history, until the last several decades, females have been given less rights and opportunities to decide their future and government than their male counterparts have. The disparity is more obvious as one examines the higher rungs of a society social ladder, but the generalization held true for all but the most impoverished of society (in which case, women were slightly better of since they could become prostitutes). This indicates oppression of the female gender. It doesn't excuse the oppression of the male gender that is taking place today, but it has happened. It doesn't mean that males today have more priveleges then females today, at least in North America and Europe. But it does mean that such oppression happened, and it should not be ignored. People should learn from such lessons, and see how to avoid such pervasive repression today (against males, this time). It doesn't nessecarily lead to being reactionary.

Factory:

This does nothing at all to support that women, AS A CLASS, were oppressed by men, AS A CLASS...via an all-pervasive Patriarchy that served not only to give men - again ALL men - unfair advantage while simultaneously using the "instruments" of Rape, Domestic Violence, and whatever other bugaboo they can think of at the time to "oppress" women.

Not one damn bit. Yet that is precisely the contention made with Patriarchy Theory(tm).

"M":

Yes, not all males had power and not all males oppressed women. But all the people who did have power, who did oppress women, as a class, were men. Therefore men (albeit only men of high standing in society) did oppress women over the course of history. It was wrong, and it hasn't stopped, not all places. Plenty of places hold rights for men far above rights for woem, like in Saudi Arabia were women can be imprisoned for adultery because they were raped:

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... ome.regcon

This in no way excuses the treatment of men in North America, and only reveals the hypocrisy of many feminist movements of the area, that say how horrible the oppression of women was and rally around legislature that will do similar things to men. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, especially if you're not very cautious about whose eye you take out in exchange for your own.

And I'm not saying that it was because men were in power that women were treated unfairly, but that because women were treated unfairly, only men were able to come into power.

Factory:

You do realize that you just explained away the moral basis for Feminism by blithely admitting it's making ALL men suffer for the excesses of the elite, right? Not only that, but it's ridiculous to assert that there were no women in the ranks of power in the past, let alone the present. The irony of you pointing to a society so obviously enthralling to Feminists as "bad" has not escaped me.

Margaret Thatcher, Maybe QE the First? Victoria? I know, I'm coming off as an Anglophile...

How about the power of having the ear of power? That counts for nothing?

This of course doesn't even BEGIN to delve into your definition of "unfairly" which, to me, means rules set up to advantage someone else...yet, we can clearly show LOTS of advantages women had, and disadvantages men had. I'll grant you that women had Civil Rights issues to deal with...but you have a LONG way to go before you can get away with telling me women were treated UNFAIRLY....that would neccessitate an understanding of the male experience of the same time.

And I've still yet to run across someone who says what you do, that knows anything at all about The Male Experience (Coming Soon to IMAX)...

"M":

I'll point you to the first post that I made in this thread, in which I stated that feminism is totally unnecessary in modern-day North America and Europe. In these countries, females can already vote, work, choose who or if they want to be with someone, and can even join the military. To push this cause any further is just switching who is empowered and who is oppresssed in society.

I consider myself a feminist because I appreciate the fact that this movement, in the beginning, corrected many of the civil rights abuses that had been commited against women over the course of history. And also because there are plenty of places in this world where females do not yet have civil rights.

My definition of unfairly is: 'Not allowing someone the same opportunities to improve and control their lives as another person.' And this was true for the vast majority of women over the course of history. It doesn't mean that there weren't men who were oppressed and treated unfairly for things such as being uneducated, poor or disabled, but rarely was there a situation in which the reason they could not participate was because they were male. Just because a few women were able to claw their way up into power doesn't mean they weren't oppressed. Joan of Arc managed to gain command of an army, and she was burned at the stake because of it. Women were still lacking in civil rights when Queen Victoria was in power.

I'll draw a paralell to modern society, if I may. Just because the person who runs a country is male (such as Steven Harper), it doesn't mean that there hasn't been legislation passed that is clearly unfair to males.

I'll admit that no, I don't understand the male experience because I happen to not be male. This doesn't mean that I cannot care about males because they are human beings and as such deserve the same rights and opportunities as any other human being, be they male, female, hemaphrodite, or transexual.

Factory:

But the very underpinning of your chosen ideology depends upon the notion that men as a class oppressed women as a class, then you turn around and not only admit that nothing could be further from the truth, but that traditional sex roles are STILL being exploited to this day when it comes to men.

Now, something to keep in mind is that at the beginning of this whole trek, we MRAs looked at Feminists as natural allies, and were - to put it mildly - quite dumbfounded at the reaction we got. This was over a decade and a half ago, mind you, so it's understandable if you don't see MRAs as particularly accommodating to Feminists anymore, since our understanding of your ideology has changed so much.

In fact, we think of ourselves in much the same way as SOME early Feminists.... some of whom, to think on it, are still espousing equality as opposed to hate. The problem lies in the need to differentiate between multitudes of "flavours" of Feminism to weed out the ones that are less man-hating. This dialogue that you and I are having right now represents nicely what has been missing from the agenda for decades...namely, BOTH perspectives.

Something Feminists have been eagerly AVOIDING for years.

As for men as a class not being able to participate because they are male, I suppose your contention that "rarely was there a situation in which the reason they could not participate was because they were male" holds water if you studiously avoid the fact that men are to this very day limited by their sex, PURELY because of their sex, in many areas outside the professional.

Or did you not notice the lack of male Child Care workers, Teachers, Stay Home Parents, etc? Please, PLEASE don't drag out some tired saw about "not enough status" and that crap, I'll destroy the argument and you seem like a nice person I don't want to embarrass. Feminists point to very specific areas of "power" and studiously avoid talking about anything that doesn't fit the Paradigm for a reason... it supports anti-male bias, confirms the basis for their sexual power, and cements their place at the top of the Hierarchy.

Which is why, when MRAs approached Feminists thinking they would, for example, wildly support the idea of more men at home with kids, or more involved Dads, or Male role models in education, they were utterly taken by surprise.

At one time, we had a taste for the Kool Aid too...

P.S. Don't you Feminists always point to the top and say you're oppressed? Isn't the most common argument against doing something, ANYTHING to help boys and men "you're kidding right, men run the world and always have"? Which argument strategy is it OK to use then? Just so we both play by the same rules...

"M":

...You're right. I never really thought about it that way. In the past, both sexes were pinned down to the jobs that were 'acceptable' for their gender. Both were suppressed by society as a whole, and while women in North America and Europe have managed to wiggle out of those stereotypical roles, they have been less than willing to help their male counterparts, most of them forcefully shoving the guys into their roles and complaining about how much power they hold...

Damn. I conceed the point to you, Factory. I don't agree with everything you say, but on this topic, you're completely correct. Thanks for making me think.

Hey everybody! The Catholic Church hates men too!

2010-03-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

Watch this commercial, see the portrayal of men...does this differ in any significant way from the portrayal of men that man-hating Feminists like so much?

I'm not a Religious person, but frankly, I find this commercial EXCEEDINGLY sexist, and I strongly urge every Catholic to contact these people and tell them you're not "coming home" to someone who obviously hates you....

Click on the link, read this article, pass it on.

2010-03-01T11:32:00.000-08:00

The OFF THE BOARD article accuses RADAR of attempting "to take funding away from 'discriminatory' women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment". Had the writer done her homework, she'd have discovered that people have been "fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence" for decades, and for just as long it's been the people running the women's shelters who've been playing the role of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. Since the late 1970s, women-only shelters have used their huge political clout to prevent the allocation of any resources for male victims, and have made it impossible for men in need of help to find any help.

One example of this is the experience of Pat Overberg, who ran the Valley Oasis Shelter (VOS) outside L.A. for much of the 1980s and 1990s. In a 2002 affidavit¹⁸, she recounts the hostile and unprofessional way she was treated by directors of other shelters for the transgression of offering help to men as well as women. VOS was the only shelter in the nation that offered help to men, so many men traveled great distances to get help. Overberg states, "During my tenure as director of VOS I was subjected to continuous abuse by other directors for sheltering battered men." At a government-sponsored fact-finding meeting, the chairwoman, who was also director of a battered women's shelter tried to silence Overberg whenever she raised the issue of the need to provide services for battered men. And although every other issue discussed in the meeting made it into the minutes, the minutes contained no indication that the issue had even been raised."

http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20100301.php

What he said...

2010-02-25T14:15:00.000-08:00

Reidgate: Where Did Harry Go Wrong? | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

Great bunch of videos...here's one to get you started...

2010-02-23T16:57:00.001-08:00

A list everyone needs to see...

2010-02-18T21:22:00.000-08:00

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/02/18/meet-your-oppressors/

"After facing terrible injustice, you can’t imagine who would ever create this monstrous, oppressive system that has driven you to ruin and despair. You look around, but you have no idea who is to blame.

Look no more, because The Spearhead has come upon a neatly compiled list of people who are directly responsible for your pain and suffering. Yes, the people listed below are proud to be the source of your affliction, and broadcast their efforts to ruin the lives of more men from their lecterns in our nation’s institutes of higher learning. They write law, indoctrinate students, influence judges, serve as legal advisors to organizations such as NOW, and generally put a great deal of effort into beating down men with the law."

Click this link, see what Male Studies is all about!!!

2010-02-07T10:24:00.001-08:00

The Mens Rights Movement, and going public...

2010-02-04T12:38:00.000-08:00

There's no longer any doubt about it. The Mens Rights Movement needs to develop a branding message.

I know, it sounds crass and high-falutin' at the same time, but it's true.

We have entered an almost propaganda-war stage of our evolution, where our issues are ignored and mischaracterized, our members cast as villians.

This is to be expected, of course, but that does not mean we can't deal with these things more effectively. For starters, we can stop responding to them in their own frames of reference (which we have largely done...it's been a long time since I've seen someone begin a statement with “I don't hate women but...”). Second, we can start defining ourselves as a movement (which we have more work to do on, obviously).

Third, and the part I am specifically addressing here...we can recruit.

Which is, of course, the point of branding.

When people have no idea what you're about, or they hear false information louder than factual, they tend to form an opinion based on what they “heard”. It's the “everyone knows” factor, and ignore it at your peril.

Case in point? “Everyone knows” not all men are rapists...

We cannot sit back, let the Feminists cast us in a bad light, and believe people will investigate for themselves, and come around. That kind of thinking is EXACTLY why things got as bad as they are, and shouldn't even be on the MRM's RADAR.

Nope, it's time to bring the message to the public – in a cohesive, purposeful manner.

What do I suggest we do?

Well, as I understand it, Argus Eyes is setting up a site for central gathering of material. I propose we add a database of people with location, email, and skills (job, hobby, etc) known – regardless of what they are. These people would be available to take part in a task as they are able – from developing marketing material to making signs...

I also suggest a series of short YouTube “commercial” spots, both detailing what an MRA is, and what our issues are. As a possible addition, “attack ads” against those who stand in the way would garner a bit of attention I would think...

One page ads, and “billboard” ads, could be developed, and stored at full res on a server for use in whichever city someone wants to pay for a billboard in.. Come to think of it, a database of anti-male rhetoric spewed by politicians would be good to keep (video, text, etc)... That kind of thing would be most effective to be circulated via Facebook and the like whenever an election is called...

Anyone who knows cartooning could pitch in too.. :)

I would also like to see the “Mens Rights Manifesto” officially endorsed at the OnStep conference as the guiding principles to any male studies programme, which MAY forestall attempts to co-opt this program into “Gender Studies” programs.

We also need a logo, instantly recognizable as MRA in nature. Graphic Artists are worth their weight in gold. I simply refuse to believe there's not one GA in the whole MRM, there's no way that could be possible.... So step up, we need you!

It goes without saying that the aforementioned efforts MUST be of the highest professional caliber. We cannot afford to present an amateurish facade if we expect to be taken seriously.

These efforts are absolutely VITAL to be taken care of now.... actually, not now, but RIGHT NOW. The twisting of the MRM is already happening, and we have done nothing to counter it... an EXACT repeat of how Feminism got us in the first place. We can NOT allow it to happen again.

So...get off your ass, and help out. We can do this.

Another new issue of MRm!

2010-01-19T18:21:00.000-08:00

New and improved, now with Beta-Carotene!

OK, 50-odd pages of MRM-goodness. Enjoy!

The new Gender Paradigm?

2009-12-14T17:03:00.000-08:00

Recently in a debate, the argument was put forward that MRA's want to put women "barefoot and pregnant, back in the kitchen" or some such nonsense. At which point the woman then pointed out a new double-bind that is beginning to take form...only this time, it is women who are going to "enjoy" it.

Namely, MRA's don't generally want a "traditional" wife, nor do we want a "co-husband" to make each day extra challenging! This person asked, essentially, "if you don't want this, and you don't want that, what the hell are women supposed to be?" Her inference was that MRAs are being unreasonable and therefore our concerns had no validity.

This argument is showing up more and more, as women begin to come to terms with the fact that the party's over...the sleeping giant has awakened...and he's out of Folgers.

Women's behaviour is coming under increasing scrutiny, and time and again it is found wanting...although this is itself often minimized at the same time as it's talked about. Men's issues are becoming more mainstream and people are beginning to ask why the double standards, and beginning to say things like "yeah yeah, rape is bad...now, are you going to answer my question?"

And they demand to know the new role they're "expected" to fill? The traditional, or the Feminist?

Here's the irony...why the hell should we MRAs care? I mean at all? It's YOUR role, you choose it. If you choose wrong, you're not going to do well. Have fun, let me know how it all works out for you.

Seriously.

Did these people forget about the last 40 years, when men repeatedly asked what they were expected to be? Notice the expectations and actions of women didn't mesh too well? Asking someone else who you should be as a person is a really Bad Idea(tm), I think men's experience with Feminism illustrates that quite nicely.

More to the point, it's not our responsibility as MRAs to decide these things. It's YOUR turn to flounder around figuring out how to avoid criticism, and fulfil the expectations placed on you. YOU figure it out.

It's not our job.

Sea Change anyone???

2009-12-08T23:07:00.001-08:00

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/08/new-academic-discipline-to-take-shape-at-staten-islands-wagner-college/#comments

A post to another blog...

2009-12-04T16:45:00.000-08:00

As is traditional when an MRA puts some time into a post at a feminist blog, I'm mirroring a post I made here:

http://brandonwalsh.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/mens-rights-activists/

Since I feel that there's a couple good points to be had from the exchange..

Let's see if you agree... (quoted lines are from the OP)

"What I think is great (really, I mean that) is how perfectly this article illustrates how men and women have been stuck in a centuries-old patriarchal system that harms both sexes. From the tone of the article, I’m sure it’s unintentional, but it is there."

What most MRAs object to here is not that there are centuries-old sex-roles, but that they are "patriarchal". This mainly sprouts from a general tendency to regard Patriarchy Theory as rather thinly veiled man-hate "justified" by a made-up history, twisted via the exclusion of the male viewpoint almost entirely. An opinion I happen to share.

"This system tells us that “real men” are expected to act a certain way: tough, macho, strong."

The people I hear using the phrase "real man" are nearly universally both women, and feminists. More on this in a bit...

"When the patriarchal system says that women are the tender caregivers and not men, is it really any wonder why the courts are biased in favor of giving women child custody?"

Actually, back a few years ago, when women were "owned" (you know, The Patriarchy), child custody was nearly universally granted to men, not women (this was because the children were legally considered his property, I know). That alone makes your contention that it's head-patting condescension leading to this imbalance tenuous at the very best. You also conveniently ignore such Feminist inspired (and implemented) gems as "no fault Divorce", the Duluth Model (only men abuse, only women are victims) - and the sorry state of the DV industry as a result - which consistently bombards the public with messages that men are dangerous, paedophiles, and incompetent parents at best. We also talk about "father figures" in children's lives as if they're somehow equal with "father"...when do we say "mother figure"?

ALL of that, and more, factors quite heavily into the Family Court decisions, of that you can be quite sure...

"Both men and women should be allowed to choose for themselves what they want, not have it dictated to them by an oppressive system."

On this, we both most definitely agree. Enthusiastically on my part, and on many others.

We all know there's no putting toothpaste back in the tube, and many of us would NEVER choose that path if given the option. What seems to rub you guys the wrong way is our motivations differ strongly on which changes should take place.

You seem to want men to be either exactly where they are now, or even more feminised. This betrays strong sexism, as a stance, by assuming "female" quite literally equals "superior"...what else can the goal of an ideal be? Feminists may talk of Patriarchy...we talk of Feminism. We don't want to roll back the clock at all. We don't want "helpless" housewives (by and large...we ARE international in scope after all), we want to get rid of the expectations men have placed on them...

If you want to get a better idea of what the MRM is, look at Feminism in the very early 60s. I mean that. To us, you look exactly like a slave owner asking another what the slaves are complaining for, they're fed and sheltered after all.... And no, that is not an exaggeration in most cases.

Which means OUR idea of an "oppressive system" and YOUR idea of an "oppressive system" will differ signifigantly, both in the definition of "oppressive" and the changes in the system desired.

That's the long of it.

The short of it, is we demand literal equal protection under the law, equal rights (including the right to parental self determination you hold so dear), and an end to systemic discrimination against men. That might sound familiar to you since it's nearly identical to early feminist goals, and most of the discrimination in place was put there by feminist ideologues to correct "past injustice" and "promote empowerment".

The results are in...you're ahead. Now it's time to give up the special considerations.

"The machinations of a system don’t have agency- it’s like blaming god for burning down a wooden house after a storm."

That's the "only following orders" approach in reverse. Systems are made up of people. Systems are defined in part by commonality. For example, what makes you a feminist? (It's a rhetorical question, I know you're all completely different from each other). There HAS to be commonalities, or the definition is rendered meaningless.

We have identified many of those commonalities to not only reside in feminist rhetoric, but also in legal text, etc. In my own Province, the "task force" looking into the poor performance of boys in Education BEGAN their working paper with the declaration that the whole proceedings were to be carried out in light of their "commitment to Feminist Principles" (and no, I'm not making that up). Needless to say, the report found that boys were the problem, and more socialization (read: feminisation) was needed to help them change to fit the current system....

But hey, Feminist ideology doesn't oppress men...People do.

"But instead of playing the who is really oppressed or who is really privileged games, it makes tons more sense to be working together to dismantle a system that has institutionalized the notion that women should be the delicate protected and the men the macho protectors."

I find this bit hilarious. I've been around for a long time, on BBS's, then blogs and forums. I've interacted with feminists online for nearly 15 years... Know what?

Until about a year ago, none of you had any time for us. ...Told us that if we had problems as men, then men should go about fixing it...why should women be involved...?

So, we went off and started doing stuff, and getting more effective, and now we get vilified for speaking up for ourselves (as if I didn't know it's because what we're saying doesn't agree with what you THINK we should be fighting against - a perfect example of how Feminism can NEVER be of benefit to men). Strangely, over the years I've not seen a whole lot of Feminists who've done much for men. In fact, given the goals MRAs have, I think we were quite right in being a tad perplexed at why Feminists told us off in the beginning. Now that we understand you better, it's not surprising at all that Feminist posts at our sites consist largely of ad hominem attacks, and an unyielding desire to maintain the status quo.

Hell, we even have a dictionary to classify the various tactics used.

It's the last 4 pages in the first issue of the 'zine I do, called the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics. Getting back to that bit about telling men to be "real men", or calling them "gay", you know, forcing those "rigid gender roles" on men.... Wanna guess what over 90% of the feminists posting are saying?

As MRAs, we believe Feminism has a LOT to answer for. That's something that is central to the MRM, in fact, and many of us define ourselves as "counter-feminists" instead...which implies exactly what it means...once the damage wrought by Feminism on men -and society- is fixed, we're gone. This is a reactionary movement, one that cannot exist with nothing to react too. What you would call a "backlash".

But, if any of you ever actually cared to listen, you might be a little shocked at what men are deciding for themselves.

The posting continues:

All right, I’ll dig in one more time, since you seem sincere…

“Do you honestly reject the historical fact that the people in power, the people controlling the wealth and the land and the laws, were (not all, but almost exclusively) men?”

No, I do not “reject” that fact. What I reject, is some silly idea that ALL men benefitted from this, or that ALL women did not. Women have historically MARRIED the ones in “power”, and thus established their own power base. This still goes on today, although I will admit SOME men have been able to “marry up” like women have been doing for generations.

I also contend, that your ideology does not help the downtrodden, it looks enviously at those in power and demands some for itself. Not very many Feminists even notice men below them in status, let alone assign them importance…I COULD actually say “women” here, but it’s not germaine to the argument.

““Faggot” is another popular one. Fidelbogen suggests the term “collaborationist” for men like me, which equates me not with women but with Nazis, an equally inane and idiotic enterprise.”

Much as you may not like it, Fidelbogen, myself, and many others look at Feminism in EXACTLY the same light as NAZIism. You may believe it’s farfetched, or asinine, or a mischaracterization in the extreme, but I don’t. I fully, 100%, totally view Feminism as an evil ideology, bent on the destruction of men.

And this is an opinion formed over the last 35 years, virtually the entire “lifetime” of second-wave Feminism. The thing you guys continually miss, is that you don’t get to define yourselves as what you see yourselves as any more. WE are defining you now, by what you do, and the results of your actions. We hold you accountable (as a feminist) for the wrongs done by “misguided” Feminists (Glenn can be way TOO nice as far as I’m concerned), and we note with increasing anger your refusal to address or acknowledge men’s issues as valid, and pressing. We also note Feminist refusal to allow men equality in areas they themselves view as sacred cows, and the hypocritical nature of the arguments used to “justify” current sexist practices.

“Perhaps if you’d given her a shred of credit, perhaps if you’d come here without already assuming we were enemies, you would have seen what she meant instead of focusing on what she said”

I came here to give a civil response, and a response as to why MRAs find Feminists so repugnant. If you wanted to bash us without response, then I suggest you simply say so in the post somewhere, and I will refrain from interacting. I get enough bullshit argument and crybaby “What about Raaaayyype” type crap every day, I don’t go looking for more. I simply thought you had a sincere desire to understand why we hate your kind so much. It seemed like a genuine article, but then, one can never be sure.

“We can’t be enemies because you don’t know me. Read what I say. Talk to me. Fuck the feminist movement, fuck the Men’s Rights Movement, if that’s what it takes. But if you come to my blog, remember you’re talking to me.”

Of course I am talking to you. But your self-identification as a Feminist indicates agreement with certain principles…

Here’s the rub, if you really want to get right down to it:

Feminists believe women are systematically disadvantaged, and demand special consideration as reparations for “past wrongs”.

MRAs not only think “past wrongs” should have no bearing on Today, but that Feminist History is a gross distortion of reality, at the very least completely lacking in the male “side” of the story. And that’s a valid criticism. Feminists have “analyzed” women’s past living conditions without making reference to the average man’s life…THAT is the source of many of Feminism’s misconceptions. How exactly can one be sure they are “downtrodden” without once looking at a similar man’s position?

Answer: that wasn’t the point. Patriarchy Theory is 100%, completely about justifying shitty behaviour towards men, and morally justifying their subjugation. That’s it…nothing more. A tool to whip up hate and indignation….not a “Theory” at all.

“What the fuck do you mean by “feminised?” Because that reeks of—no, that is sexist language based on the assumption that one’s gender determines what men and women should and should not be.”

Sexist language my ass…it’s reality. There is a common perception among the “intelligentsia” that holds the Feminine in a superior light. Men as superfluous articles have been flooding the media for years now, and Education at every single level fails boys BECAUSE they are not Feminine enough. Masculinity, and male behaviour, is marginalized and demonized, and in many instances CRIMINALIZED, as a DIRECT result of Feminist thought, and teachings, and -inspired laws.

Feminists are the ones determining outcome and advantages based on sex, not men, or MRAs. Feminists are the sexist assholes, not us.

“I’m glad you went off and started doing stuff yourself, but that’s not why you get vilified. You get vilified because you twist feminism into an ideology of hate and you respond with hate in kind.”

We “twist” nothing. We simply talk about the effects Feminist ideology has had on our lives, and find it to be a detrimental ideology (to put it mildly). What you CONTINUALLY seem to miss, is that very little in life gets to “define” itself. A member of the Aryan Nations, for example, would not describe his ideology as “white supremacy”….no, he/she would more likely describe that ideology as something quite a bit more palatable to the general public. Yet, somehow, we all know the true nature of this movement… How is that exactly??
OH YEAH, it’s because we define them by what they say and do, not by what THEY say they are…

Apply that same principle to yourselves, and you will see why you are viewed in that light.

“Was there ever a time during the posting of that or the reading of any of the subsequent comments when it occurred to you that you were creating an environment that perpetuates the sexism that you claim to abhor?”

I am out to further the rights of MEN, not “eliminate sexism”. My concerns do NOT overlap much with those of women, and I could give a rat’s ass if women lost the right to do a damn thing. In short, I will show women the EXACT SAME regard they have shown men. I have the exact same moral imperative to “safeguard” women as they have shown in “safeguarding” men.

Which is to say, none. And that’s assuming I don’t enthusiastically throw them under the bus for a little personal gain…which is what has happened to men for decades, and women (most DEFINITELY feminists) do not deserve more consideration than that. And the conduct of those confronted with clear evidence that men are being unfairly hamstrung only reinforces my ambivalence towards the welfare of women. I doubt VERY much I am alone in this….

“And, if you’d bother to open your eyes, you’d see that I am a man, and I’m a feminist.”

I’m aware of that. I’m also aware of the many men who have written laws that reduce or remove Constitutional rights from men, and the Judges and Police who act as thugs for the Feminist state. Your genetalia does not earn my distrust (a common problem feminists seem to have, conflating “feminist” with “woman”), your beliefs do.

Feminists have done nothing to help men, a LOT to hurt men (openly declaring awareness of this fact often enough), and have done NOTHING to “reach out” to men. I said it a while ago to a few feminists, and they (predictably) laughed at the idea, but your kind is about to “enjoy” a seriously bad reputation….and it’s not US that made you deserve that reputation.

The truest possible condemnation of your movement is that, when shown institutionalized sexism, massive disadvantage and diminished opportunity based SOLELY on sex…ALL of you denied, then minimized the importance of, then dismissed any personal responsibility for, every single instance. You are all OBVIOUSLY far more concerned with protecting the reputation of your precious ideology than actually addressing these issues in a meaningful manner. If you had genuine concern for men, you would be fighting for change there, instead of whining to us MRA’s that we simply “don’t understand Feminism”.

I say, PROVE you care about men, or STFU.

It really is that simple.

I'm actually liking this conversation....

[Jan 18}

I've been a tad busy lately, and haven't done much posting, but I was recently reminded of this blog. Just in case anyone cares, yes, even these "open" and "caring" Feminists have proven, once again, that Feminism cannot withstand open debate. To wit:

Ha. All “my kind” (well, me and Chris, anyway) wants is for you to drop your hostility for second and spreading of misinformation. What you just wrote? What you just claimed that I “talk of” is false. You’re stuffing words in my mouth on my own site! Your blatant disregard of what I wrote about my views indicates you’re so wound up in your own hateful, misogynistic crap that you’re not interested in thinking, let alone, understanding that yeah, I was actually writing that sexism hurts men, too.

We’re done with you. Stop commenting here.

...And so it goes....

Feminists, what a bunch of nincompoops!

The Making of a Men’s Rights Activist: A Letter to a Departed Friend | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

2009-11-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

The Making of a Men’s Rights Activist: A Letter to a Departed Friend | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

A call...

2009-11-08T16:01:00.001-08:00

As some of you may already know, I have begun to create a series of "magazines" centered around men's issues, the first issue of which was entitled "The Counter Feminist Issue". The second issue is being (slowly) put together right now, the theme of which is Marriage, Divorce, and Child Custody.

The purpose of this magazine is NOT commercial, but rather a quick and easy resource to point to when questioned about our issues. The sheer enormity of what faces us is working against us, and while the web is an excellent resource, it doesn't take the place of a quick, prepackaged (no searching) magazine.

With this in mind, I am putting out a call to anyone who fancies taking a crack at tackling some of these issues in an article. Anything from the prospect of marriage to the average guy, through Family Court injustice, through child custody hell, including false assignation of paternity...hell, there's a whole book in those subjects alone..

The point is, I want issue- and solution-driven articles, that outline clearly the actual mechanics of the process. I hope to show through the entirelty of the magazine that all these "punishments" that many women seem to be OK with men suffering are seriously going to affect them, and it doesn't matter if they're "like that" or not. I want to show the injustice, and the effects of such.

I have been asked if this is an ego thing, the answer is no. Is this a commercial thing? Hopefully, but right now it serves a purely informational purpose. Also, I am not asking for new work, just anything you may have that's germaine, or anything you know of that struck you as a good article.

If you would be so kind as to email these links and articles to my Gmail account, mrm.magazine (a) gmail.com

This is not to be a feminist bashing magazine (fun as that is), I want to keep it purpose driven, but the odd crack is no big deal. :)

I know this is "spam", but I'm hoping given the cause that it'll be ok to post...

MRm! magazine information, and direction.

2009-10-20T16:29:00.000-07:00

I've been getting quite a few enquiries into a wide array of things, through multiple email accounts and channels...it's getting hard to keep track so I'll answer what I can, in the form of an article here....

Those of you who are familiar with my posts in other areas already know this, but I say again...

We ignore the successful methods Feminism employed at our peril. There is a reason why it is as wide ranging and deeply penetrating an ideology as it is. So much so, that even those who make a face at being called a feminist will readily repeat Feminist propaganda without ever checking the facts.

In the magazine, these people are referenced metaphorically in the quote from Mein Kampf, and that quote was deliberately placed there to remind people of those facts while they read the articles. It is also directed at us, to remind US what we are dealing with.

The very reason the magazine exists is to package men's issues in such a way as to be an interesting, enjoyable, and informative read. It is aimed specifically at those who have had absolutely no exposure at all to MRA writing. It is not, I repeat NOT a "newsletter" for MRA's or any such thing. We have forums and websites that are much better suited to that kind of thing.

This is one of hopefully many "public faces" of the MRM. And in response to one question, yes indeed I think this publication, or one similar, will serve as the "Ms Magazine" for the MRM. It was successful then, and we definitely can be today. Moreover, the reason it was introduced then (the need to get the message out to the general public) is the exact same reason this type of thing is needed now.

Yes, there is a huge explosion in media since then...there is no diminishment of the relevance of this publication, given the paucity of available competition and the (I believe) vast, unrecognized market for this type of thing...

As to the manner I want to go forward, and what you can do to help, I'd like to start with this:

Download the high resolution version
Print 10 copies at the local Kinko's or whatever (it's a bit of cash, I know and I apologize)
Distribute sparsely in areas likely to be trafficked by college aged men, preferably with as little female traffic as possible
email a link to all your contacts

That should be enough if enough of you do it.

As for helping in the production of the upcoming issues, I need the following:

Graphic Designers (from people willing to draw things like pie charts, to those wanting to help with overall design)
Photographers
People with "sales skills"
People who can write
***People who can research available information***

People in or closely associated with:
Law Professions (Family especially)
Health Professions (from Medical through Psychological)
Marketing / PR firms
Social Services
Government / Politics
These people would be needed more for perspective than anything resembling advice, for instance a lawyer would help understand immensely the accuracy of an article on Family Law. Better yet, that lawyer could write the article. :)

Don't see your skillset? Not to worry, I also need:

*People to gather contact info for morning radio shows in your local market*
Computer / Technical people for hosting/distribution issues
Someone to help me organize all this info so I can use it when needed
People to forward on interesting articles they come across

I'm sure more will occur to me as time goes by....

As for the Editorial direction I want this to go in, I want you the reader to understand that this is a Men's ISsues magazine, not an anti-feminist one. Feminism as an ideology will doublessly crop up quite regularly in the articles, but I would like to take a male-centric stance on these issues (ie. falsely accused male IS the "real victim", not any fictional woman "afraid to come forward"). I also want as much fact as possible, with as many citations as possible. Inflammatory language is encouraged, but I'll edit out anything that is slanderous (obviously) or belligerent (ironically).

Each issue will ideally be devoted to, well, an Issue. The next one is Marriage, Divorce, and Child Custody. Articles can (and hopefully will) encompass imbalanced custody laws, Child Support (history and current practices), no fault divorce (and related issues), the breakdown of the family / single motherhood...you see the panoply of articles possible....

This is not an ego thing, this is about making a difference...and quickly. We have a worldwide talent pool to draw from, so this shouldn't be hard. It doesn't pay (yet), but the idea of taking this magazine commercial (don't worry, everyone will get a share if that happens, including past contributors) has definitely crossed my mind.

I also very much want to get a PUA perspective in the magazine, along with MGTOW, etc. If this is aimed at college aged men, it wouldn't hurt to have stuff they probably read online in there...

Anyway, I'm out of Gas for now. More when I think of it I suppose....

Oh yeah, the email you should use to get in touch is mrm.magazine@gmail.com

MRm!

2009-10-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

Here it is, the first issue. This is the lo res version for viewing on your computer:

And here is the high res version in case you want to print a few copies to share with your friends (hint hint)

MRmagazine hi res.pdf

Allaboutcounseling.com is All About Hating Men and Exploiting Women | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

2009-09-27T00:10:00.000-07:00

"ALL ABOUT MANIPULATION OF CLIENTS

I recently stumbled upon a mental health information and referral website

operating at allaboutcounseling.com. In it, I discovered several misleading elements, including the dissemination of fraudulent statistics on several social issues, including, but not limited to, domestic violence. Most disturbing, however, was the way the site publishers used the misleading information as an invitation to radical feminism, a political ideology. It was a bait and switch with a horrific paucity of ethical values mandated for the professionals they represent.

Most of the mental health related “helping professions” e.g., psychotherapists, social workers, psychologists and counselors, have a code of ethics that guides their professional conduct. They are sworn, supposedly at the risk of their professional licenses, to follow the ethical mandates of that code in how they conduct their practices and in their relationships with clients.

The rules require them to maintain objectivity, to offer accurate information to the best of their ability and to act in the clients best interests at all times.

Failing to do that is considered professional abuse and is subject to sanctions. In most places, professionals are admonished to take all this into account regarding their professional affiliations as well.

In other words, aligning themselves with other professionals or organizations that act to the detriment of those ethical standards is strictly forbidden.

Why then, one must wonder, are there so many therapists that get client referrals though the website that operates under the name ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM?

ALLABOUTCOUNSELING.COM is on the surface a simple referral resource for helping people find mental health services, and for connecting mental health professionals to possible clients."

The rest at...

Allaboutcounseling.com is All About Hating Men and Exploiting Women | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

2009-09-19T15:03:00.000-07:00

Danmell Ndonye

Lying whore, false accuser, menace to society.

GREAT article...great site...you should check it out...

2009-08-19T22:01:00.000-07:00

OK, so the tone is a bit harsh, and no man likes to be scolded like that, but it's real wisdom...and much as it hurts to read (and see your own behaviour castigated), I hope all of you give it some thought.

Excerpt:

Personally, I have seen enough of this crap from men to last me a lifetime. There are men out here right now, fighting an uphill battle you can’t imagine just to give you a fair shot at justice when the wife calls in the lawyers and the state to dissolve your marriage and your assets; to dissolve your life.

You don’t owe them or me anything, but you might, if you can pull your head out of your ass for five minutes, think about what you owe your sons.

Many of you who have already been destroyed by family courts are still raising your daughters to be overly entitled little princesses, and your sons to be the mules that will carry the weight for them through life, only to be discarded when they are used up.

And you are still more interested in big screens than the big picture. It’s fucking pathetic.

This chosen ignorance is fatal. Men die more frequently of all the top killer diseases than women, though women get the lions share of gender specific medical research money. Women outlive men by seven years, and though they have had a national office for women’s health for decades, we are just now hearing the first inklings that we might have one for men. It hasn’t happened yet.

Maybe you don’t give a shit if you die of heart disease or prostate cancer before you are sixty. But if you have a son, at least give him the honesty to turn to him and tell him you don’t give a shit if he does either.

The site is Here.

More pictures! Yay me!

2009-07-20T22:37:00.001-07:00

Yeah, I know. But I`m a sharing kinda guy.

Beat me to it...

2009-07-20T22:34:00.000-07:00

I was going to do a post on the similarities between Feminism and NAZIsm, but Angry Harry has beaten me to it.

Shameless self promotion

2009-07-10T00:16:00.000-07:00

Finished another image...thought I'd post it for opinions...

An open letter to accusatory feminists (or, a man refuses to keep writing the same responses).

2009-07-04T00:26:00.000-07:00

A) If you think I'm single issue you haven't been paying attention.

B)Your feelings on a matter don't make them laws, and currently women enjoy the right to parental self determination while men do not. Pregnancy is a biological state, which women rightfully can decide if they wish to continue. The Law, however, holds men to standards women are NEVER held to (ie, you have to support this kid for the rest of your life, like it or not). Biology means women have choice. The only thing FORCING men into parenthood is - the law, again, never applying those same standards to women. (you will note, by the way, that I use the term "women" when it applies, and don't when it doesn't. You may wish to pay attention to the usage before you go off accusing a guy hey...?).

As for men taking off...you're contending that they are not pursued for child support? Telling me they walked away consequence free forever (legally speaking), and no one can ever make them pay for a kid they don't want?

Hey, I have an idea you might like (since you appear to be pro life)...how about we allow legal abortions, but we tax the patient the equivalent of one child support check every month for 21 years, adjusted for changes in income (upward) whenever necessary? Sound like a good idea? Then we can finally fund all those DV shelters that are forced (FORCED mind you) to deny services to men due to lack of funding. See? 2 birds with one stone!

C) I'm here advocating for men. I'm an MRA for fuck sakes! Telling me I need to care about your issue is like bitching at Greenpeace for not talking about anti-taxation laws.. I am here to draw attention to these specific issues, so you must forgive me if I don't give a fuck about maternity issues when men are losing out in jobs, income, and education. They're refused parental/reproductive rights. They have a whole host of health issues not addressed in any meaningful way, and that's because society doesn't care. How many women's health commissions to ...what...ZERO men's health commissions? DV services for male victims? HAH! "Here's a hotel voucher (maybe), the batterer's program is right down that hall there (you abusive prick)"

The point is, I have enough to bitch about that I actually think needs serious attention...and frankly if there's anything underfunded in this world....women's medical care is CERTAINLY not one of them.

D) Just because I don't conform to your world view, or act in a manner YOU deem polite (or whatever) does not mean I am a woman hater. People without coherent arguments nearly always fall back on that one. Well, that one and the "women have problems too...we're all really equal, so let's just get along and leave things more or less like they are now" bullshit.

NO. Your problems as a gender fucking PALE in comparison to these inequalities in basic human rights, and you damned well know it. You just hate feeling so fucking selfish, so you equate stubbed toes with broken legs.

You might fall for that shit, but I'm not gonna. If that makes me an asshole, well then so be it.

Funny (and accurate) intro video.

2009-06-29T17:41:00.000-07:00

Check it out:
HERE

New ranting video...

2009-06-24T10:43:00.000-07:00

I'm in agreement with several others in the community...

2009-06-24T09:26:00.000-07:00

This is one hell of a good essay. You should check it out. It spells out the anti-male hatred involved in feminism, from the point of view of one who researched his/her way out of the ideology.

I draw particular attention to the repeated statements of a belief in the equality of the sexes...a notion I happen to share wholeheartedly.

I just think women are going to be quite surprised when they find out what REAL equality is going to mean for them...

Again....the essay is here:

http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluated/

Rambling...

2009-06-22T12:36:00.000-07:00

Seems to me there's a lot more actual questioning going on in the media. Seems to me there are a lot more men standing up and saying "screw you, this is wrong and I'm gonna do what I can to stop it". Seems to me there are a lot more people listening to these men, and agreeing with them, if not always for the right reasons.

For example, men and boys faring poorly is an international tragedy...but not because women will find it harder to snag a "good catch". That's selfish in the extreme, and any woman (or man) presenting that as an argument should be placed firmly in the "man-hater" category.

And they frequently are.

Hell, a lot of newspapers refuse to allow comments on stories they present from their traditional PC-Leftist viewpoint....because otherwise they get lambasted by the general public, with support only from a few obvious man haters.

But some of the media is listening now...and paying attention...and sometimes even trying to be "balanced and fair"....a novel concept for them of late.

Even the Obamessiah is being criticized for his view of men and boys...openly, by non-MRA commentators.

Hey.....maybe we're getting somewhere.

Edit: Will wonders never cease. Here's a letter to the National Post (Canada)...check out the title of the person writing this letter....

Wonder if THAT can be written off a "some crackpot woman-hater"...?

As an Albertan, I was brought up to believe in equality of men and women. So I was appalled to learn that the government of my home province has created a website that publicizes the pictures of dads who have missed spousal payments for six months or more. They are made to look like criminals.
They are not. Family courts across Canada, instead of helping families stay together, are openly biased against men. They act on perjured evidence, refuse to allow cross-examination, make orders against men who are not present or order unrealistic payments that violate the principles of justice and equality.
The courts don't care about whether the woman is responsible for the breakup or whether she is a wife or a live-in or whether she cleaned out the bank account before demanding support.
The result is destruction of families. Some men resort to suicide. Some disappear or are in and out of the legal system constantly. Many men lose their children and many children lose their fathers forever.
We can do better. Governments should use these funds for qualified advisors to identify the problems and help work out better solutions. The family courts have failed completely.
Marguerite E. Ritchie, president, Human Rights Institute of Canada, Ottawa.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1726993

Conservative humour?

2009-06-18T11:09:00.000-07:00

Interesting vids.

For some, Father's Day is a sad and bitter occasion

2009-06-10T12:22:00.001-07:00

For some, Father's Day is a sad and bitter occasion

Shared via AddThis

Catharsis?

2009-06-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

One year ago, my best friend of 26 years died.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about him.

Brad was a hulking huge man (at least, in comparison to me), easily topping 300 lbs, but he had the demeanor of a little boy. He was forever curious, and took visible delight in the smallest of things. We used to sit and talk for hours about subjects like Quantum Physics, Politics, Art, Literature and the like, subjects he was curious about, but had little understanding of. In return, he educated me about Sports, Ethics, and in an odd sort of way, Spirituality as well (Brad was an Atheist). Please bear in mind, he was no "Tweed Coat intellectual", he hated school with a passion and his marks reflected that. But he was smart as hell when he was interested in the subject.

But the thing about Brad that really sticks out in my mind was his ability to enjoy the little things. Everything could be turned into a game with Brad, and frequently was. With nothing but a single six sided dice, we would entertain ourselves for hours "rolling for punches" or somesuch.

He was a singularly devoted father, with 4 kids. He really wanted more, but the break up of his relationship ended any hope of that. He sent every spare dollar he had to his ex, for the kids...on top of his child support. He worked on the railway (a job he hated) in part because there were sometimes overnights in the town his kids lived in, and he couldn't afford the gas to see them otherwise. Until the day he died he remained single, refusing to stop loving his ex. He wanted his family back more than anything else in the world.

Brad spent most of his days tremendously depressed, and he had a drinking problem, and a gambling problem (he would frequently need to borrow money to pay rent and buy gas), but he refused to allow his kids to go without...he believed he was old enough to "handle it".

One day Brad asked me what he could do to help himself feel better. I suggested buying a new car, which would not only make him feel better but would also be cheap enough on gas to make visiting his kids possible. His ex even agreed to lower his "payments" so he could afford the car (she isn't heartless, she wanted him to be happy). So, at my urging, he bought a used Chevy HHR.

A week later, he rolled that car, and died.

At the viewing, I found myself envying him. At least he had release from his pain, even though he died in the manner he most feared. He was, after all, "destined" to a life of loneliness and poverty, and escaped it early.

But Brads lessons keep right on giving apparently, because I still hear him saying things like "Man, you can either enjoy life or hate it. Money has fuck all to do with it." That's Sage advice right there if you ask me.

Brad always wanted me to do a picture for him, since about Grade 11 actually, of a spooky moon through denuded trees "Halloween" type shot. He was forever pestering me to stop doing the bullshit jobs I was doing, and go back to the Photography I love. Just before he died, I promised to do that shot for him.

A few months after the funeral, I went taking pictures, so I could do that shot. I would like to make this the "official unveiling" of that shot, even though it's been done for a while.

So Brad, this one's for you. I love you man.

Blaming ALL Feminists is baaad...

2009-05-27T15:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a response of mine to a private message. In fairness it would be rude of me to post her missive, so I'll summarize: "Real" feminists (from the early 20th century) would vomit acid if they knew what would happen to "their" movement. The people calling themselves that today are usually vile people who hijacked a noble cause. Therefore, it's unfair to label all feminists as being the same.

Here is my response:

Well, it's "actual Feminists" tough luck then, because present day Feminists are female-supremacist manhaters, and their reputation is well earned, and will only get worse (I hope and pray)।

The ideology, and more importantly the RESULTS of the ideology, are destructive, divisive, sexist, and morally repugnant. Adherence to feminist principles has led to laws and policies which have almost completely succeeded in sundering society right down gender lines, with two-tier citizenship in all but name.

I don't care one iota if hundreds or even thousands of "good feminists" are "unfairly" slighted by inclusion. If they were such "good Feminists" they wouldn't have allowed this to happen. Failing that, they would be ACTIVELY supporting men's rights organizations, rather than submitting them to a tortuous propaganda smear job.

The proof is in the pudding, and quite frankly NONE (and I'm dead serious when I say this), absolutely none of you have shown any way in which women are actually "oppressed", and I can show inequality ENSHRINED IN LAW against men....and you say "that's justified" by Patriarchy Theory. Fair enough, I say "prove it" since all these things were done in the name of this theory.

Know what?

NONE of you ever have. Not one of you can even explain what it means beyond a vague "men are in charge" definition. None of you can show a single benefit of any importance to men as a result of societal bias, let alone socially condoned behaviour or even law. There's PLENTY of evidence of it going the other way though.

So do I think every single person who self-identifies as a Feminist deserves to be lumped in with the "extremists"?

You bet your ass I do.

Office of Men's Health...

2009-05-27T12:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to a form letter asking for the establishment of an office of men's health to mirror the functions of the Office of Women's Health already in place. I understand the legislation is currently going through review, so please, fill it out AND pass on the link...

Link Here.

The Lie.

2009-05-09T21:35:00.000-07:00

Here is one MRA's view of Gender Relations today:

The Men:

Inconsistent messages are bombarding men daily, with calls to "man up" conflicting with demands to be more sensitive and nurturing (suppress your feelings while embracing those of others). Men are told that their sex is an inferior form of the female sex, and the default social position is increasingly that men are defective women (witness the education establishment's response to boys crisis in education), and must be educated into humanity. Male sexuality has been stigmatized and criminalized, with every stage of the normal courtship ritual exposing the man to possible arrest and imprisonment, entirely dependant on the woman's feelings about the encounter. Should a successful pairing occur, social pressure (including legal and financial incentive) seeks to tear the couple apart, and affords men in particular no protection from abuse of the system, either from within or without.

The Women:

They have been told their whole life that they can be anything they want to be (message to boys? Better make sure you get a good job, or you'll never get married), and furthermore deserve nothing but the best. They are told their life is MUCH more difficult than a man's, from childhood on, and need special protection and benefits to balance the odds of success. They work hard in their chosen endeavors, by and large, and seemingly succeed in much greater numbers than men. Their instinct, as well as social expectation, demands a "good provider", and the disdain of her friends typically restricts the available dating pool of men. This is especially true given the ever dwindling number of men throughout her education. She is told that even though she worked this hard, men will make more than her simply because they're male. This clashes oddly with her daily experience of meeting ever fewer men that did not make significantly less than her. Her impression of men as "losers" solidifies with time.

The result:

The lack of attention to what is happening to males, and indeed the wholesale acceptance of Feminist characterizations of men and maleness, has created unrealistic expectations of men by women, and insurmountable obstacles for men to retain her interest. The unrealistically supportive atmosphere around women and girls (in relation to that surrounding men and boys) causes distorted expectations of men. After all, if it was that easy for her to accomplish what she did, and life is even easier for men, how bad of a loser do they have to be to end up like that?

Here's something for the guys to remember...

It's OK to see a gorgeous apple-bottom ass, and fantasize about diving deep between the cheeks. It's not criminal to be interested in talking to a girl ONLY because you want to fuck her. It's OK...you want to know why?

Because women look at men's crotches and visualize the penis they usually can pretty easily see. They also talk to men purely for the purposes of wanting to get him naked, and furthermore, they have the exact same motivation as men, and by and large in the same measure as well.

We have entered a new Victorian Age, where men are saddled with ALL of the responsibility for repurcussions of sex (continued from the original Victorian Age), and the woman has ALL of the choice (a product of the new one), should there be need. Where being sufficiently socially awkward can land you in jail, and casual attitudes toward sex (if you're male, that is) can lose you your job, your friends, your freedom, or even your life. As a man, you are expected to trust the woman to act kindly towards you, and if she does not, you are blamed for failing to properly discriminate, or you somehow deserve it. In short, you are increasingly at the mercy of her (collective) good graces.

Now, I can see how women might not object to this (especially given it's close parrallel to the cartoonish view of history most feminists have), but I ask you...how healthy do you think this is? Do men seem happy with you?

A while back, I made the point that the constant struggle and castigation has made women increasingly undesireable to men. A poster responded by saying that only by competing do women win the respect of the men they want, and that they are largely only doing what "works". To that poster, I urge you to rethink where you are getting this impression from, because it bears no resemblance to my experience as a man. A partner is a cushion to the vagaries of life, the other half to "Us against the World"....not the competition perched on chairs on the other side of the boardroom table. You want men to love and respect you? The song hasn't changed much.

Make a choice to love a man.
Do so even when presented with "better" opportunities.
Repeat.

That's pretty much it.

More lunacy from the "fearless leaders" prepared to do our thinking for us...

2009-04-29T23:45:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Top Gear is too popular to be an all male cast, and old Harriet HateMen is out to make sure the show tanks, forthwith.

Thankfully, Top Gear is having none of it...

"

The statement below is written by Andy Wilman, the Producer of our favorite hit TV show, Top Gear, regarding a recent plan unveiled by Britain's ruling political party, Labour, to ensure diversity in state-funded organizations. This includes the BBC and, by extension, Top Gear.

---

I was going to write about how the new series is getting on, but that'll have to wait, because Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, obviously completely happy with the way the economy is going, has decided instead to turn her attention to the massive issue of women and Top Gear.

Under her new proposals we'd have to boost the number of women on the show to reflect the make up of the population. That means mathematically one of our three presenters would have to be a transsexual, so James is firing up the bandsaw and digging out the Kate Moss Top Shop collection as we speak.

And just as we duck to dodge Harriet's missile, in comes a two-inch mortar from Dr Louise Livesey of Oxford University, who claims Top Gear is shot through with "entrenched institutional sexism," and that the show has a "boys' club" production team.

Interesting that last bit, since this woman has never spoken to us, or been near our office, but never mind: if it's more women in the office she wants, I've already put the call in to Spearmint Rhino."

Continued Here

Self worth and the men of today...

2009-04-21T12:39:00.000-07:00

I had a conversation today that got me thinking about the concept of self worth. Specifically, what is it about a person that makes that person feel "valuable" enough to be worthwhile being around. In this specific case, one argument stated without financial success, little else was seen as worthwhile. The other stated, put simply, that self worth should be internal, and not dependent by and large on external determination, although external judgements should factor in to some degree.

Seen from the outside, the "only money matters" argument seems rather trite, and maybe it is...but it still got me to thinking, since there is more than a grain of truth to this statement. In our increasingly materialistic... and narcissistic... society, income uber alles does indeed seem to be the message. Especially in the realm of relationships and mating. This specific topic is best left to another post, but suffice it to say that in these times, low wage earners are typically single.

In relation to self-worth though, this only represents a small portion of the whole. Sure, romance might be a bit tough to come by, but what of everything else? Does economic hardship reduce the worth of a person in other areas? Or is it a crucible, producing diamonds as well as coal?

Is it hardship, or opportunity to prove one's "worth"?

Relationships outside of the dating world do indeed suffer if money is needed to facilitate those relationships (as in the case of a Dad having to travel to see his kids), sometimes leading to the complete breakdown of those relationships. Professional relationships suffer as a result of lack of money as well, for instance the inability of a salesman to afford to "schmooze" with high-income clients leading to competitors taking over the accounts. Indeed, threadbare clothing or a shabby car can lead to loss of sales income as well...all through loss of status via economic hardship.

So finances play a part in wider social acceptance and relationship building of many kinds. So? How does this then affect one's self-worth?

Well, this is where society as a whole comes in...

External forces (ie social disapproval for "lazy bums" and "losers") isolate those with limited finances, almost as if they were diseased...and this cannot help but affect the self worth of the individual.

So it seems there's more validity to the "money is everything" argument than first blush would suppose. But what of the other argument, that worth comes from within? That it is intrinsic to every human life? That one doesn't need so much to "prove" self worth as to recognize it?

Is there truth to that?

The Bible certainly says so. So does every major religion for that matter. Or more to the point, they say that everyone has the chance to attain greatness (Nirvana, Heaven, fame through the ages, etc), and that all one has to do to attain this is to believe that it's possible and work toward it.

Even Deepak Chopra agrees with this train of thought..

Anything that universally accepted (and frankly, anecdotally at least, shown to be true) has to have some validity to it.

From a Psychological standpoint, it's tough to get up and run when you've chained yourself to the floor...so to speak.

But we all know and love some people who are quite "flawed", do we not? Sometimes we're even Married to them, we love them so much. Sometimes we even support them through tough times, even financial ones.

What is it about them that makes us help? They don't have money, so they're "worth"less, right? No?

It's because we've taken the time to know the person, and that obviously means that persons worth is not completely attached to his/her income, maybe even not at all....

Many of the great luminaries of history were poor, from great composers and musicians, to great artists, and scientists. Their worth was certainly not determined by income...

I suspect the "truth", as always, lies somewhere between the two viewpoints. But the lesson is there for me, for MRAs and even men in general...

Don't let the bastards get you down, keep what's important to you in sight at all times, and if you can't move forward at least try not to go backward. Because ultimately, self-worth is gained through conquering adversity, or knowing one is capable, in a much more meaningful way that simply being told so..

Misunderstood my ass - Redux

2009-04-21T11:53:00.000-07:00

Bullshit in the MRM....

2009-04-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

From a post at Glenn Sacks' blog...

Usually I find the posts there interesting, if somewhat milquetoast at times. Imagine my surprise at seeing Feminist dogma taken as moral imperative....

If dad earns $70,000 a year and mom earns $67,000 a year, it's definitely the solution. But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000?

In this case it would neither be fair to the woman nor productive for the children for there to be no financial support from the father to the mother. In effect, the mother is being punished because she diminished her earning capacity to be the children's primary caregiver. Also, her ability to care for her kids and provide for them when they're with her is compromised.

First of all, I was a stay home Dad in my children's early years, and my ex continues to make substantially more than me to this day. I had 50/50 custody of my kids, and lost them because I couldn't afford to keep them anymore.

Where was the need to be fair to me, or productive to my children? No one, not even once, no one ever suggested I should be getting money from her, or offered gov't services. Not even me.

The assertion that he would somehow owe her for supporting her for those years is totally disgusting, when used as a generality. There are certain instances (such as him leaving her for selfish reasons) where some sort of compensation for breach of contract (which goes BOTH ways) may be in order...

But as a default stance? No freakin' way!

If she doesn't make as much as him, and hates the disparity...well, then I guess they should have stayed together eh? As for the kids, frankly an education on how the "other half lives" would likely prove beneficial.

The whole argument is essentially paraphrased feminist dogma.

She is NOT "giving up her earning capacity for him", she IS doing what she would rather do, or as close to it as possible. Staying home with children is a LUXURY these days, not a sacrifice...the idea that it should be compensated for after Divorce is anathema to the very concept of sexual equality.

She can work hard, and get ahead...just like he did.

Showing off.....

2009-04-13T18:30:00.000-07:00

I like to do artsy things in my spare time. I make "paintings" out of pictures. I figured, what the hell, why be serious all the time? So, I share...(hoping this works....)

Go easy on me though, I've only done 5 of these...

Misunderstood my ass.

2009-03-19T12:13:00.000-07:00

What a lot of the feminists that come on these MRA boards and sites miss, and what is also paradoxically the most important thing for them to learn, is that MRA's are not "leading" anyone. We are the bleeding edge of a much larger social attitude, we're simply more vocal about injustice.

Maybe that's because many of us have nothing left to lose, maybe it's because we have children that we want to see in a happy, healthy relationship. Maybe it's just because we're really fucking tired of the abuse heaped upon us daily.

But we are not telling anyone what to do, or supplying men in general with anything for that matter...(we don't have that kind of political reach). We simply say out loud what most men are thinking...

Feminist man-haters come here and elsewhere to try and argue against many of the issues MRA's have raised. This is all fine and good, since any political position is, and should be, assailable. The fact that these selfsame feminists accuse men and MRA's of "misunderstanding" feminism, given their collective (lack of) grasp of Men's Issues, betrays their desire not to engage and understand men and MRA's, but to misdirect, muffle, and otherwise frustrate efforts for reform.

We understand it all right. We understand it just fine. It is a movement dedicated to removing every last vestige of male power (leaving men, obviously, powerless)...i.e. "The Patriarchy". It is a movement that has continuously, and vocally, denigrated men...and continues to do so to this day. It is a movement that has promoted a negative male image consistently, and looks at Masculinity as a social disorder, and testosterone as a poison.

It is man hate.

As to the feminists who would "never act like that" (and neither do ANY of their friends..of course), the inability to admit even ONE thing done to men, in the name of women, by feminists, betrays their moral position.

The inability to admit men have a serious image problem (created via feminist rhetoric), that we are aggressively put down in every area, we are routinely denied opportunity while women get incentives, our problems are ignored or diminished, and resisted at every turn when we try and balance things a bit...and all the while they blame lawmakers, and society, and ad execs....as if these people came to these conclusions all by themselves...

It's the sheer refusal to believe women have had it much better than men for decades, if not for history...

In other words...these feminists who care for men so much, betray their hatred of men every single time they minimize men's suffering, every single time they try and steer the conversation away from men and onto women, every single time they defend not funding men's initiatives because "there's already not enough"...(lady, there will NEVER be enough for your type to share...).

If you want to see a man hater...bring up men's rights.

If they laugh, or deny, or misdirect, or place women above men....well, you have your answer.

It really IS that simple.

Excellent summary:

2009-03-19T01:07:00.001-07:00

Amfortas and Christian J. debunking feminism by Christian J.

I agree with Marc...

2009-03-16T23:15:00.000-07:00

I just read an interesting article by Marc Rudov, and it's one that I think every man needs to take to heart. I know, both by personal experience and through observation, that women are very much just as horny, if not more so, as men.

No really, it's true.

I've worked in sex shops (ever notice how many more dildos and vibrators there are than pocket pussies and molded asses? And lots of them aren't cheap either! Some of those vibrators were over a hundred dollars for crying out loud).

Anyway, Marc basically made the point that women are using sex as a method of control over men...or rather the promise of sex. What he wants men to understand is if they stopped doing the bullshit for a little while, women would get so horny they'd start to pursue rather than manipulate.

And mutual pursuit is far healthier than a relationship founded on manipulation and denial in my books.

MGTOW, the Ghost Nation, those guys are the extreme of this approach. The rest of us can still pursue women all we want (obviously), but please for God's sake stop buying women stuff. ESPECIALLY gifts to impress or apologize. That behaviour really does beg for manipulation, and more importantly...YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

That's right. You don't have to apologize when you know you're right. She doesn't either, even if she's wrong, but what does that say about her character?

It's time we started judging women's behaviour, and calling them on their shit. It's time we stopped playing the game their way. If enough of us wake up, it'll be over before you know it.

Things women don't want to hear...

2009-03-06T13:55:00.000-08:00

Here's a thing that makes me laugh. More and more you hear about the concept of "going John Galt". If you haven't heard of it yet, the concept is simply working less to pay less taxes. It's a cost / benefit analysis where the increased free time is worth more than the paltry after tax financial return. And it means a lot of high achievers are becoming less and less ... high achieving.

Granted, this will have the effect of fathers being able to spend more time with their children...but I doubt very much that was intended.

But all that aside, I find it funny that the very same type of person to feel affront at the idea of working less to avoid punitive taxation also misses the boat on why "men won't commit".

Look at it this way:

A relationship is work. Everyone knows that. And sometimes the workplace carries risks that go beyond the typical (like death or disfigurement). The people that do those jobs choose to do so for the higher pay (otherwise no one would do it...too dangerous). So, when increased risk, or harder work, result in greater rewards men will step up to the plate and do what has to be done. Those who "go John Galt" do so because the rewards have been diminished to the point where it's no longer desireable to continue working so hard.

And here's the "giggle"... The same principle applies to relationships. Women listen up....

If you wish to continue to increase the cost of being in a relationship, as in increased risk of ruin at any potential ending, or blindsided by accusations, or taken to the cleaners for 18 years, or abused with zero public sympathy, you will find fewer and fewer men interested. To simultaneously demand more of your partner, and demand fewer requirements on yourselves.....well, you're pretty much dooming yourself to an old age alone in a house full of cats.

The part you need to take note of here is that it doesn't matter ONE BIT that neither you nor anyone you know would ever do "that sort of thing". What matters is that these things are not only possible, some of them are legal strategies! Your silence, your acceptance of this atrocity is directly analogous to NAZI Germany and all those citizens that did and said nothing. If you like men, and you want relationships back, then you absolutely MUST start looking at Feminism objectively, ask why things have gotten the way they are, ask who and what are responsible, and ask who stands in the way of changes to address the issues men face.

You will find a Feminist standing there each and every time.

These people are destroying your relationships, your families, your happiness....all for a few bucks and the thrill of telling other people what to do. You're casting away happiness to enable purveyors of narcissistic emotional junkfood to make money by destroying society.

Stand up to them! Speak your mind, knowing there are others who agree with you. If you love men, if you believe in Gender Equality, if you see no reason for the hatred and demonization of men, if you want your son to have as much success as your daughter, if you can't stand the injustices men face every day based solely on the fact they're male....then for God's sake SAY SOMETHING!

MRA's sometimes tell me that I shouldn't get so ....vehement...in my arguments. That we need to enlist women, be nice, blah blah blah. I think this is bullshit.

I personally think that women in general should be encouraged to speak up and oppose Feminist injustices, but after an awareness period, I believe silence is support. So what is it, do women care about men, or are they throwing us under a bus?

I guess we'll see...

Dealing with Feminist "contributors"...

2009-02-03T11:47:00.000-08:00

I'm sure by now it's become obvious there are essentially two forms of rebuttal to the Men's Rights Movement. The frontal assault, in which MRA's are characterized as Patriarchal Cretins out to enslave women "once again". The other is the "Many Feminists actually agree with you" argument, also known as the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too argument.

...So, how to respond?

In the first instance the response is rather obvious I would think... Attacking the messenger is only ever used as a distraction tactic, so simply asking for specifics as to what is wrong with your argument should suffice. This approach may lead to a "battle of the studies" type of debate...which is boring and no one wants to read those (which the Feminist agitator will be aware of). In that case, I would suggest keeping the conversation on "big picture" stuff (ie, why shouldn't men have Reproductive rights? Doesn't that mean that you then indeed DO advocate one set of rights for men, and another for women? Four legs good, two legs bad?).

The PHMTers, and the sister-group the "concerned Feminists", are tougher to deal with (and discern from genuine curiousity/concern). This umbrella also covers the NMBOF (not my brand of Feminism) approach in my view. For them, I would ask what Feminism has done, specifically, for men? If men's issues are "up to men to solve", what exactly qualifies THEM to even comment on men's issues, let alone claim expertise? Another qualifier would be their belief in Patriarchy Theory (do they think men oppressed women for thousands of years?) - a belief that requires the elimination of male power of all forms. This is man-hatred, and cannot be viewed otherwise.

The main thing to remember is that Patriarchy Theory (and the idea of historical oppression and the need for compensation) runs throughout Feminism. This will often be used to justify current injustices.

Of course, not believing in Patriarchy Theory(tm) essentially means your next question could easily be "How are you a Feminist then?" It's quite possible she's actually an MRA and didn't know it.

:)

It seems almost too easy, but that's really all there is to it. Don't get bogged down in studies and statistics, appeal to logic and "common sense" whenever possible, don't be ashamed of saying your piece and don't hesitate to make sure it's heard, and insist that actions speak when words only promise.

A final note. The use of the "rape Card" is becoming more and more common, and it's destructive to the current thread, but I do not believe there should be much cause for concern here. It's already becoming sort of background noise, with the vast majority of those who comment on these subjects sick to death of the topic. But more importantly, this is an area where we can wedge a couple issues in. Prison Rape as consequence of imprisonment for CS debt,or false accusations in custody cases meaning innocent men railroaded into Prison being raped....well, how do you defend these things happening to good men, especially if you're "eager" to display that you really don't hate men....despite what 80% of the world thinks..

So you see, we can do much the same thing back....if we're so inclined..

Dusk in Autumn: Don't leave your young wife unattended for a moment

2009-01-30T15:15:00.000-08:00

Dusk in Autumn: Don't leave your young wife unattended for a moment

Passing on another excellent article on IthacaSkinHead's site...

2009-01-30T14:08:00.000-08:00

Here

A great overview of certain aspects to current society and Feminism's role.

A worthy post for recommendation...

2009-01-23T09:54:00.001-08:00

Fidelbogen has a link up on his blog the CounterFeminist in which he quite neatly defines Patriarchy Theory(tm). I suggest a read.

Here

What if Feminism disappeared?

2009-01-20T09:51:00.000-08:00

It's a simple question with a really long answer. Ready for my take?

This question is likely best approached by looking at spheres of influence. For the sake of keeping my brain inside my ears, I'll keep it to big picture stuff..

Social Sphere

It's no secret that Feminist theory depends on the blaming of men for society's ills. "Patriarchy" is a term used to denote the male sex, without actually making a blanket statement outright, but it is a blaming of all men nonetheless. There are few alive who have never heard the phrase "Oh yeah, well men have oppressed women for thousands of years, it's your turn now".

Which might be all fine and good were it true, AND you believe in visiting the sins of the father against the son. Unfortunately it's not true, and punishing one for the misdeeds of another is anathema to the legal foundations of the West.

Additionally, without the continuous blaming of men, boys may actually grow up with healthy self-esteem, men may begin to have respect in society (along with the attendant drop in negative portrayals in the media, etc).

But most importantly, without the gradually increasing demonization of men, it would be impossible to justify and gain public support for the increasing incidence of forcible transfer of power and civil rights to women, let alone force men to pay for it as well.

Political Sphere

As the general populace goes, so do politicians. Of course, political manipulation of public opinion is nothing new, and it's a game anyone can play, in this case the only way it was possible was to HIDE it from the public, and present a false face to the public.

Without Feminism whipping up public hatred of men, Government would not be able to seize the power it has. Countless pages of legislation were written from a Feminist perspective, by Feminists, and foisted upon the public on a bed of lies. Government has used Feminism to achieve greater control over the lives of it's citizens, it just hasn't occurred to the useful idiots that it may come back to bite them in the ass...(none of them seem to believe actual, real misogyny could be manifested through an actual oppressive Patriarchal society - as evidenced from the curious Feminist tendency to support Palistinean causes and the like).

The removal of the political incentive to "punish" men for "irresponsibility" (especially in cases where women are not held to the same standard) will quite naturally lead to more egalitarian laws/services.

Workplace

The removal of Feminism would not eliminate Affirmative Action. What it would do, however, is allow men to push for jobs in Healthcare, and Education, and other female dominated industries.

It would smooth relations among staff members, and maybe people would be OK with socializing with co workers again (without fear of a "sexual harrassment" suit), removing the power of a control-freak few who believe they should be able to dictate the behaviour and even thoughts of others.

It would also diminish greatly the male bashing and sexist jokes rampant in the workplace today, ironically enough.

Workplace deaths would not be affected in and of themselves, but the removal of impediment to actually admitting it is men dying might speed improvements.

Education

Every single country in the West has the same problem... Disaffected boys faring terribly in education at all grade levels. Decreasing enrollment, higher truancy, lower grades...

ALL of that would disappear damn near overnight with the abolishment of Feminist thinking from schools. This is not a surprise to anyone, although dyed in the wool Feminists will still deny, deny, deny. But when your local School Board "studies" the problem, and the report opens with Preamble expressing support for Feminist principles (now why would THAT be necessary when speaking of BOYS education I wonder?), and then goes on to blame the socialization of boys as culprit, and recommends "awareness campaigns" and programs to CHANGE THE BOYS, not the education system, well....denial gets a little harder now doesn't it? When they suggest spending $40,000 (yup, 40 Grand) on non-fiction books for school libraries is a significant improvement, it kind of seals the deal.

Coupled with AA practices to fill teaching positions with men until they reach proportionate amounts of teaching positions, and the freedom to teach reality, rather than dogma, Western education systems will improve by leaps and bounds...especially once you consider the resources freed up when parents are once again allowed to provide moral guidance for their children without competition from the schools.

Perhaps most importantly, massive numbers of little boys who have irresponsible mothers (aka Single Mothers) will at least get SOME male role models that aren't bad boys that fuck Mom real good.

Health

Men die earlier than women, everyone knows this. What many don't know is that at the turn of the century men and women lived roughly the same length of time. The removal of Feminist Dogma from the public discourse would allow increased attention to Men's Health. Opposition to Men's Health Commissions would vaporize, misinformation about medical spending (both research and practical) would stop, and the public could see just how unfair the current situation is, and call for change (or at least volunteer some time to male specific causes).

Public support for such things as entire hospitals being reserved for women, or "screening programs" not mirrored for an equivalent problem for the other sex would be lessened.

Men would live longer, healthier lives.

Legal Sphere

The treatment of men from all sides is abominable when it comes to man vs woman cases. Removal of Feminist jurisprudence would be quite likely the single largest benefit to men to be realized, should it come to pass.

No longer would men be thrown out of their homes on nothing more than the word of another.

No longer could the Government strip him of his possessions, children, and basic civil rights.

No longer could a man be incarcerated, slapped with a felony on their record, be condemned to a life of poverty, lose their livelihood via removal of licenses, and spend YEARS in Prison without criminal conviction - simply because they slept with the wrong woman and don't make much money.

No longer could men be forced into Parental responsibility unwillingly, no longer would men's children be given to others with impunity, no longer would men have ZERO right to custody of their child, unless married to the mother.

No longer would men have their lives ruined, their name dragged through the mud in the media, their bank accounts depleted, their relationships strained or shredded...all on the word of one woman. And no longer could that woman enjoy immunity from prosecution for such wrongdoing.

No longer would prejudice against men be so encouraged that men routinely recieve harsher sentences, and more frequent convictions, than women.

Perhaps most important of all, men would no longer be blamed for all of these problems.

Sure, there's a lot more to be said. I missed a LOT of stuff, but I think I've made it fairly clear that Feminism is a harmful force on society in general, and men in particular - elsewise why so much benefit to men in it's absence?

It's a good reason to keep the eyes on the prize. Because all that, and much much more, could very easily happen. If we work hard enough.

Excellent Article

2009-01-04T21:30:00.000-08:00

A little taste:

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell.” Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000—only half of what the court claimed he “owes.” In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years’ worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial.

Here

PUA? MGTOW? MRA? Oy, the acronyms!

2009-01-03T15:15:00.000-08:00

There seems to be a bit of debate over whether the PUA (Pick up Artist) "community" is a friend of MRA's...

Now, getting over the sheer inanity of this question's face, it does expose a bit of a conundrum.

Do men REALLY want to understand women?

Many former PUA's will tell you that after a while they began to ask themselves "Is this all there is?" The ease of manipulation and shallow relationships, combined with the prevalence of women who respond quite willingly to this, tends to jade a guy.

Myself, I firmly believe that every man should read at least a few pieces from these "shysters" selling the Pass to the Golden Valley to the masses. They've got a lot of wisdom in them.

Mostly because they take a "What women DO, not what women SAY" approach to relationships, and many men need to get their heads out of their asses in these regards...and right quick if possible. I confess, I read and listen to many of these guys, and have utilized some of the techniques...frankly, they're generally right in my experience.

And you do get jaded quick. In my case, it was simply from watching my "mentor" do his thing...and he did it well. I almost immediately lost confidence in women's ability to "keep it in their pants" - ESPECIALLY when they are married or in a long term relationship.

As the saying goes..."Rings don't plug holes".

At any rate, the point is that once the majority of men are onto women's motivations, and call them on it, the more likely social pressure curtailing said behaviour is. Being angry about other's success with women, or refusing to do anything from lack of success on your own part, is counter-productive.

Knowing the wiles of the opposite sex has been taught to women since time immemorial, and lacking enough proper fathers out there to teach boys how to do this, PUA's will continue to proliferate.

One point made about PUA's is totally valid though...there are FAR too many of them that make getting laid the centre of their Universe. That comes from not listening to the rest of the advice, or failing to internalize that becoming your own man, with his own life that she can come along on if she pleases you enough, is the goal.

Not being an attention whore.

If I had to sum my position up, it would be that the quicker men internalize PUA stuff the better, but the more they follow the MGTOW attitude the better too.

Make women prove themselves to men, needing exceptional qualities in order to get laid / have kids, and you'll see a RADICALLY different society.

Passing on an excellent manifesto...

2008-12-07T15:40:00.000-08:00

Via Counterfeminist:
PRINCIPLES AND GOALS: UOMINI 3000 - MENS MOVEMENT (Translated from the Italian by R. Randazzo)

Uomini3000 is a movement of opinion characterized by the following principles and objectives:

• PRINCIPLES Uomini3000 recognizes and affirms:

1. The existence of natural differences between the genders.

2. The extreme immorality of certain social forces, and at the same time, the very real opportunity that these forces have to deny, ignore, compromise, and repress these differences and any expression of them.

3. The necessity of cooperation between the genders, and at the same time the inevitability of opposition between them.

4. The scientific inconsistency and dubious morality of any claim by one gender to describe the state, condition, needs, experiences, or the value of the other gender.

• THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

Uomini3000 defines the current situation in the following terms:

1. For two generations masculinity and the male gender have been subject to an all-out attack covering every sphere, from the world of images and symbolism to that of common everyday existence, applied systematically and consistently in every manner and through all means of communication and cultural diffusion.

2. The term male-bashing extends itself to aesthetics, opposing their attainment by men which includes the male body and men's physicality.

3. Every level and gradation within contemporary culture, and every unit that elaborates on or transmits that culture, without a single exception, is a tool of this program.

4. This phenomenon is the fundamental cause of psychological/emotional harm in individuals and social dysfunctions of an ever-increasing gravity, hindering the entire male gender and in particular the younger generations.

• THE VALUE OF FEMININITY

1. Uomini3000 rejects any kind, however indirect, of denigration, of offensiveness and devaluation, of the ethical, aesthetic, and intellectual worth of the female gender; it repudiates any diminution of the symbolic importance of the feminine, and of the historical importance of female endeavors visible and invisible, past present and future.

• UOMINI3000 PURSUES THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES:

1. The promotion of the essential value of masculinity, specifically with regard to personal dignity and the irreplaceable role of the masculine in the world of image and symbol and of the male gender in every area of life, spiritual and material, for the benefit of present and future generations.

2. The identification and condemnation of any instance of malebashing in every context, form, or style, and any expression of malebashing, direct or indirect, open or veiled.

3. The moral opposition to male-bashing—to the denigration and demonization of men, the denigration of male sentiments, attributes, opinions and needs, the denigration of male contributions and comportment—in the media, literature, the arts, political discourse, historiography, scientific tracts, text-books, advertising, and in every form of expression and means of communication.

4. The restitution of the value and dignity—as well as the historic role—of past generations of men, by means of the deconstruction of feminist historiography.

5. The struggle against the cultural ideals of a Feminist Society and its basic values— therefore against the following:

6. the principle of the moral, aesthetic and intellectual superiority of the female gender;

7. the denial of the existence of anti-male hatred;

8. the criminalization both direct and indirect of the male gender;

9. the planned inhibition of the development of male consciousness;

10. the psychological and chemical emasculation of the younger generations;

11. the domestication and docility of men;

12. the use of the male libido for purposes of speculation,manipulation, intimidation and blackmail;

13. the demand for reparations, material and moral, for the wrongs, real or imagined, sustained by the female gender;

14. the legal commercialization of sexual relations and relations based upon affection;

15. the presumed permissibility of an autocratic imposition of behavioral rules upon the male gender;

16. the principles of political correctness and the imposition of its vocabulary.

• TOOLS AND METHODS the movement operates through:

1. Devising creative ways of protest, for the purpose of denouncing the politics of male-bashing and anti-male discrimination, and then implementing these ways of protest.

2. The use of every means of communication, both new and old, to oppose male-bashing.

3. The publication of essays and books of an historical, sociological, psychological, ethical, and philosophical nature for the purpose of moving forward our objectives.

4. The promotion of activities, measures, and political organization in order to spur male consciousness with regard to the moral conflict underway.

5. The development, either independently or in combination with public organizations and private entities, for the study, research and elaboration of statistical data for the support of these goals.

6. The organization of conferences, exhibitions, courses, seminars, and other cultural activities as well as projects and educational programs both in and out of the school system, with the aim of divulging the knowledge of tools to fight male-bashing, together with an independent view of statistical data, historical data, and news items. ................................................................................... ~~ U3 singlemindedly pursues a political objective. It does not engage in any kind of commercial activity or any other form of profit-making either directly or indirectly. ------------------------------- I can get behind this 100%