PRINCIPLES AND GOALS: MENS MOVEMENT

(Translated from the Italian by R. Randazzo)

WE PURSUE THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES:

We recognize and affirm:

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.

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 malebashingto the denigration and demonization of men, the denigration of male sentiments, attributes, opinions and needs, the denigration of male contributions and comportmentin the media, literature, the arts, political discourse, historiography, scientific tracts, textbooks, advertising, and in every form of expression and means of communication.

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 We define the current situation in the following terms:

1. For two generations masculinity and the male gender have been subject to an allout 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 malebashing 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. The restitution of the value and dignityas well as the historic roleof 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:
The principle of the moral, aesthetic and intellectual superiority of the female gender; The denial of the existence of antimale hatred; The criminalization both direct and indirect of the male gender; The planned inhibition of the development of male consciousness;

The psychological and chemical emasculation of the younger generations; The domestication and docility of men; The use of the male libido for purposes speculation,manipulation, intimidation and blackmail; of

4. This phenomenon is the fundamental cause of psychological/emotional harm in individuals and social dysfunctions of an everincreasing gravity, hindering the entire male gender and in particular the younger generations. THE VALUE OF FEMININITY 1. We reject any kind, however indirect, of denigration, of offensiveness and devaluation, of the ethical, aesthetic, and intellectual worth of the female gender; we repudiate any diminution of the symbolic importance of the feminine, and of the historical importance of female endeavors visible and invisible, past present and future.

The demand for reparations, material and moral, for the wrongs, real or imagined, sustained by the female gender; The legal commercialization of sexual relations and relations based upon affection;

The presumed permissibility of an autocratic imposition of behavioral rules upon the male gender; The principles of political correctness and the imposition of its vocabulary.
-UON IM I 3000

The Real Reason We Do Not Have a Male Pill

In This Issue:

6 8 10 11 12 14 22 24 31 20

Editorial:

Suicide: Men's Dilemma The Nonviolence Lie Suicide Among Men and Boys
And This Person Wants to Transform All of you Men!

VAWA: A Pure Government Evil Masculinity Redefined? The Myth of Women's Oppression
Men's Studies: The Complete Freak Show How Long Can They Pin it on 'Fringe Radicals"?

Contact:

Cover Illustration: anonymous remake of scene from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" slightly modified.

Letter from the Editor:

This round of articles are perhaps the strongest examples yet of what we, as MRAs, are up against. Many people question why the Mens Movement seems so bent on criticising Feminism, and distrusting Feminists. The reason is simple, if you're willing to admit that Feminism has become the De Facto State Religion in much of the Western World. In '60's parlance, Feminism is the Establishment, man (pass the bong). Actions are carried out every single day in Canada, the United States, the U.K., Australia, India...essentially everywhere Feminism has taken hold. Actions that are entirely consistent with Feminist ideology, and in many cases are endorsed or initiated by Feminists, or Feminist organizations. Actions which, in any other context, would be condemned as gross violations of basic Human Rights, as well as UnConstitutional in ALL of those countries. Much of the defenses thrown up in favour of Feminism have centered around, essentially, the NAWALT argument (Not All Women Are Like That). They just substitute the word "Feminists" in place of "Women". As MRAs, our response to that tends more toward "Bullshit they're not" than "Oh, OK then". With the advent of Male Studies, certain academics want to study, and understand, both the situation of men and boys, and how best to ensure a productive, happy life for as many as possible. This has sparked much criticism, nearly all of it kneejerk sarcasm, with nothing but Feminist Shibboleths for 'support'. Here are some of the issues that need addressing, along with some of the culprits in creating and perpetuating these problems. Hopefully, you will agree these fine examples of literary craftsmanship convincingly paint a picture far removed from what the Mainstream Media, Government, and Academics want you to see. And hopefully, it motivates you to end these injustices.
Factory

Quotes:

Personally I will not marry because of the devastating consequences of forfeiting my body and the fruits of its labor to a woman and her children unconditionally. I refuse to be a part of a system that does not value male enfranchisement as part of the family and in social policy. "Dear Undesirable Men : Yes, my surgically enhanced tits are hanging out like a babboons labia in heat, and my shorts are so short you can see my cooter, but YOU ARE A PERVERT AND A RAPIST if you do not provide for my safety, my comfort, and my right to feel sexy. Dear Sexy Thugs : Hey, you wanna hit this? You dont have to wear a condom, Im cuckolding my husband."

Man who set himself on fire, dies another Family Law victim

A 39 year old man had set himself on fire outside of Brisbanes Supreme Court complex yesterday, after a devastating and heartbreaking family court decision, according to witnesses at the scene. The incident happened after the man had been sitting in front of the marble Law Courts sign for some time, in a distressed state after the outcome of his family court matter earlier in the day. Disturbingly, no support was made available to the man despite his state of mind, as he lingered in a state of turmoil on his own.

Witnesses reported hearing a bang and seeing flames as wouldbe rescuers eventually ran to the mans aid. When emergency workers reached the man he was in a critical condition with burns to 90 per cent of his body. Two witnesses, Kylie Pannel and Kylie Beard, who were both close to tears, said they could not believe what happened just 3 metres from them.

Catherine Comins on Rape:

He said absolutely nothing, Ms Pannel said. He was so quiet it wasnt funny.

"'To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him.'"

The incident caused innercity traffic chaos for more than 90 minutes as up to 15 emergency vehicles crowded into George St to get near the scene. Paramedics stabilised the man before taking him to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. The man was in a critical condition with burns to 90 per cent of his body. He has since died overnight.

The practical effects of Catherine's viewpoint:

Norman Heffernon, Health care worker and volunteer single fathers support mentor, has called this incident another disgraceful display of the disregard that Australia has for its young men, often leaving them to deal with lifes catastrophies completely on their own, and stigmatising any men that dare to ask for help. Heffernon claims that the hypocrisy of the current Rudd government is that it has been lavishing funding to extensive preventative campaigns, while limiting the programmes almost exclusely to women and womens issues. Heffernon claims that Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon, a longtime misandrist with vocal sexist ideologies against men, needs to accept that the Federal government should be doing more to prevent so many of our young men committing suicide. With Australia experiencing gender genocide unparalelled in our history he says, we need real genuine leadership in mens health and a parity in health spending in order to reverse this alarming but often ignored tragedy.

articlesaboutmen.com

The Real Reason We Do Not Have a Male Pill

by: Robert O'Hara
thespearhead.com

On Sunday, May 9th 2010 women everywhere celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the introduction of the female birth control pill. In those fifty years no equivalent for men has been developed. Why?

Every five years or so, and you can almost count on every five years like clockwork, we hear news concerning the development of a male internal fertility control drug or device whose side effects are tolerable and whose fertility effects are reversible. In fact, men in many parts of the world already enjoy the benefits of such methods. Why do we have not one single method in the U.S., the U.K, Australia and Canada? Ten years ago a drug called Nofirtill was introduced for testing in Brazil and was purported to be 95% effective, have very little side effects and completely reversible. In China and France men have enjoyed the option of hormone treatments rendering them temporarily infertile for years now. In the U.S. and U.K. there are studies being conducted as I write this that hold tremendous promise for the male pill.

Who or what is keeping them from taking the plunge into what could be a very lucrative market. It seems to defy common sense doesnt it? But common sense has very little to do with reproductive issues in the western world.

Unfortunately, and to our tremendous discredit, men have been almost entirely silent about the male pill leaving the entire debate on reproductive control methods, and for that matter reproductive rights as a whole, dominated by a chorus of female voices. And also like clockwork, this chourus starts chiming in just around the time mention of a pending internal male fertility control method comes up. Many of these voices support the idea of a male pill citing fairness and the desire that men carry more of the contraceptive burden. The most energetic and pernicious of these voices, however, come from a hoard of columnists writing from a womans perspective who oppose the idea of a male pill.

The tambre of the commentary ranges from the condescending to the appallingly bigoted. In January of 2010 HLNs Joy Behar discussed research developments with, of all people, Ashley Dupre, AKA Eliot Spitzers rather over priced companion on her show. Along with discussing the G Spot with this supposedly renowned expert on male fertility issues Ms. Behar also discussed with Ms. Dupre the inability to trust a man when he says he is on the pill. Also discussed was the fragile male ego that we hear so much about and how rendering ones self infertile might just be too much for a mans pride to take. Predictably mentioned as well was the idea that men simply do not possess the intelligence to realize we can get an STD without the use of a condom. Hmmm, whodave thunk you could get somethin that AJAX aint gonna wash off by not wrappin it up first? Not nobody ever told me that!

Standing in the way of this whole thing coming to fruition, however, are the drug companies themselves who are very sketchy about putting up money, not only to develop methods of mass production, but also to market these methods in a cost effective manner. Why are they frightened?

Other commentaries include a particularly offensive one written by MJ Deschamps from the University of Ottawas Centertown Journal called Give Them the Remote Not the Pill in which she paraphrases the concerns presented on the HLN interview stating:

What Im worried about are all the other men the unmarried, uncommitted, casual daters who

can walk away from a situation if an accident happens because they forgot to take their birth control, or just lied about taking it altogether. Never mind the large increase in STIs and AIDS that would probably arise from the inevitable decrease in condom use.

Walk away? Yea right, men are NEVER thrown in jail for failure to pay child support and we are all just an ignorant bunch of jackasses, as I have pointed out above, (sarcasm) who have no idea how STDs are spread.

It was imperative the female had to give some assurance to the male the children he was to protect and provide for were indeed his. This was achieved, admittedly, through strict social enforcement of female chastity before and strict loyalty after pairing with a male. Neither she nor society could rightfully expect the man to support her and her children if this was not the case. Just as imperatively, the males status and prestige were almost solely based on his ability to protect and provide for his family. Failure to do this has always resulted, with every society and culture, in total chastisement of the male leading to the diminishing of this Family Name the value of which determines the offsprings ability to find viable mates in the social group they lived in.

would seem to benefit in this respect too, but they would have to rely on the word of the women they had relations with as men still had the same responsibilities that come with a pregnancy.

But this was ok right? Pregnancy is so treacherous and the ordeal of taking care of an infant so daunting no woman would ever want to be anything but honest while disclosing her fertility status. Right? Unfortunately for men at that time there was no equivalent solution to the problem of controlling their own fertility. To be fair, it was a hard nut for scientists to crack. (Pun intended) Surely though, science would work its wonders and make available in good order the same type of option for mensurely.

No doubt, pharmaceutical company executives in lieu of very expensive market research will take note of these voices and conclude that spending the money to develop and viably market such a method might pose more a financial risk than its worth. If there are so many opposing voices and not much observable support for these methods why put up the money? So why is there is so much opposition to this idea of male fertility control? Surely enabling men with the option to control their fertility would be good for them as well as society. There would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and couples and single men would have more control over their futures. But keep in mind the operative word here is control. What does this word mean when talking about reproduction? In times past, rules were developed to ensure that fertile women were paired with men that could protect and provide for them and any resultant offspring. Men, taking on the burden of providing and protecting, were also guaranteed certain sayso as it comes to their mode of life as well as access and control when it comes to raising their offspring. Both sexes were given roles, rights and responsibilities in these systems of reproductive code and similarities are ubiquitous throughout all of human civilization.

This arrangement was by no means perfect, and some even call it oppressive. But make no mistake, it has supported thousands of generations, each producing healthy well kept homo sapien offspring who were much better off than their counterparts in other primate species. Also, one has to conclude, that without this system of rules not one red brick would have been laid atop another foregoing virtually every single feature of civilization as we know it. In the Late twentieth century medical advances and changes in the law regarding reproduction, parental rights and responsibilities changed this paradigm forever. Also changed were how we would bring children into the world and raise them. In 1960 the female oral contraceptive was brought to market, to be followed in subsequent years by a plethora of effective and relatively inexpensive methods through which women could control their fertility in a safe and reversible manner. This truly freed women to seek sexual affection without fearing the consequences they would have suffered prior. Ostensibly, men

Years went by and the pill became safer. New methods were being tested as well with the promise that if women could not or did not want to take the pill there were other options to be made available. Also on the horizon were rumblings of a totally different form of birth control, separate from a medicinal form. Soon, the use of the operative word birth would take a whole new meaning in the phrase: Birth Control. Abortion had been available illegally for some time but in 1973 the Unites States Supreme Courts decision in Roe v. Wade declared that the imposition of parenthood on an individual was just too much for the state to impose on somebody given that they were female. This meant that even after conception women would have a right to decide whether or not the pregnancy would come to term. Males however were not to enjoy that same option. Consequently, men were given the burden of someone elses choices as far as parenthood was concerned. Congruent to this legal development were the expansion of parental responsibilities for men and the diminishing of those for women. It is
(Cont. on Pg 9)

Suicide Men's Dilemma.

by: Vargen "How fortunate for us that the people cannot think".
Adolph Hitler.

http://menunited.blogspot.com

The fact that men are so vastly overrepresented in the death statistics comes as no surprise to me. I am acutely aware that the society I live in is heavily stacked in favor of women despite what the media says. This feminist inspired myth of female oppression is not only a lie it is the polar opposite to the truth. For me there is no doubt that women are extremely privileged in this society and it is men who are forced to pick up the tab. Hence men's increasing over representation in the death statistics. In order to hide this reality from the public the western media needs to spin the truth 180 degrees to lie and deceive us basically. Their tactics, when forced to look at the death statistics, are therefore always the same. For example;

at the Social Services have never bothered to take up as far as I know. Namely why are women in Sweden 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide but men are 4 times more likely than women to actually succeed?

online article entitled:

"Androphobia The Respectable bigotry" (April 1996). He says that there exists nowadays a tension in many men that Psychologists call a "Double Bind". In his important research on this phenomena the Psychologist Gregory Bateson described a double bind as follows; An impossible situation that
cannot be avoided.

But more importantly;

A social rule that forbids the

verbal communication impossible situation. of this

How does one seriously attempt to explain this discrepancy?

When it comes to the subject of suicide and men's obvious over representation in the statistics, the media tends to talk about "persons". When a gender breakdown is ever made (and this is something the media try to avoid at all costs), so that we can easily see that it is indeed men who are 4 times more likely to commit suicide the fact that women are 5 times more likely than men to attempt suicide is always quickly added on afterwards. I get the distinct impression that men's over representation in the suicide statistics is politically very embarrassing indeed.

One could say that men use more violent methods in their suicide attempts and are therefore more successful than women are. But this explanation would only make logical sense if men and women attempted suicide at about the same rate and because of their more violent methods, men succeeded maybe twice or three times as often than women.

Wilson says that it is ironic that we nowadays live in a society where homosexuals, women, immigrants and other minorities can freely demonstrate and protest their situation publicly, by for example, marching in the streets and this is of course a good thing. However for a man to even talk privately about feeling discriminated against, is not only politically incorrect, but unthinkable a taboo, according to Wilson. He says that it is because of this double bind that literally thousands of men and boys stagger directly from depression to suicide every year.

But this only leads to more questions, that the mainstream media and the so called "experts"

No this rather vague explanation cannot explain such a huge discrepancy namely that men are a staggering 9 times more effective in their suicide attempts than women. A very logical and interesting theory, that seriously attempts to explain this phenomena, was forwarded by the Psychologist and author Robert Anton Wilson in his

I am not trying to imply that women who attempt suicide do not suffer in any way. It is not my intention to cheapen their suffering and neither do I wish to give the impression that suffering can be measured in any way. However if one looks at Batesons model of the double bind one can easily see that a woman who finds herself in an

impossible situation can "attempt suicide" in order to draw attention to her particular situation. This has been called a "cry for help". This is achieved by the suicide attempt which acts like a kind of warning signal to her surroundings.

("Male Pill" Cont.)

The tragedy is, according to Wilson, that many men would also presumably like to send out a warning signal to their surroundings, but because they live in a society that either doesn't care or wouldn't listen, they go directly to suicide. Wilson makes the profound comment in the article that "No group can feel well in a society that hates their guts".

now, for all intents and purposes, legal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy as well as abandon or give up for adoption a child without the consent of the father. Men, however, will get thrown in jail for not being able to write a check out to a woman who has no accountability as to how that money is spent simply because they are the mothers of the child(ren) of said man. This can happen even if the child is, in fact, not that of said man and said man can prove it. Furthermore, in our society a fathers parental rights are based in most part on the good will of the mother. There are armies of social workers and lawyers on the government payroll who will assist her in taking the child out of his life if she so wishes. Reread the last three paragraphs above and let it sink in before reading further.

Contrary to popular belief there is no evidence of any real long term or broad opposition to the female birth control pill after its introduction. The pill was, in spite of anything you might hear from feminists, handed to women on a silver platter and the development for the male equivalent was simply left in the doldrums. Just what will it take for men to assert control of their own reproductive processes? A fight. Yup, you heard me right! There are too many agencies and interests representing the female genders total control over reproduction for their not to be a fight over it. Whenever a woman says you men have birth control its called a condom or keep it in your pants or just get a vasectomy the response should be equivalent to the cynical and bigoted verbal spit in the face that that statement is. Men also need to get vocal as a group concerning the male birth control pill. Writing pharmaceutical companies and encouraging them to develop an internal male fertility control method is a good start. Most importantly though, we absolutely must wrestle the male fertility control debate out of the hands of women and take ownership of it. This may sound extreme to exclude women, but they are free to support the idea if they want. They should not feel free to oppose it. The male pill is about men, not women, not children, not the government MEN and MEN alone. Gentlemen, let us get busy and start doing something about this.

I believe that this subject needs to be seriously addressed and discussed. I have a son as well as a daughter and I don't like the idea that he is growing up in a society where he will be, statistically speaking, 4 times more likely to commit suicide than her, just because he is male. I would of course be equally concerned if I lived in a society where she was 4 times more likely to commit suicide than he was especially if this phenomena was also being deliberately hidden by the media for political reasons. And therein lies the rub you see. If it was women who were committing suicide 4 times more often than men, then the subject would be discussed at great length and no cost would be spared to address the problem. Or, on the other hand; Would society's media and politicians choose to not look at the problem and when forced to do so chose to instead fixate and focus their attention on the fact that men were 5 times more likely than women to attempt suicide? You decide....

Ok, having done that, lets draw our attention to an article written by the UK Daily Mails Leah Hardy entitled Of Course Women Dont Want a Male Pill It Would End All of Those Happy Accidents. This particular article enraged me more than any other commentary on the subject concerning a mans right to seek control over his own fertility and future. In light of the fact that there have been millions of men jailed because they didnt hold up to the state imposed responsibilities as parents the assertion that children for men are nothing more than happy little accidents I find abhorrent as any right thinking person should. This article illustrates perfectly and unabashedly the REAL reason that so many women and womans advocacy groups demonstrate a fierce resistance to the male pill. That reason not being they are afraid that we will lie or forget, as if women never do those things, rather, it is the fear that we will actually use it.

The Nonviolence Lie

by: Welmer
Feminists and their satellite organizations like NOMAS always pretend to deplore violence. They consistently claim to be striving for a nonviolent society, and to be opposed to all forms of physical force. Usually, they take a stand against violence against women, but sometimes they suggest that a peaceful society in general is their goal. This is a snow job. It is not really nonviolence that these people want, but power. Whether raw or distilled, they crave the intoxicating rush of power. Solanas, perhaps the only truly honest feminist out of the entire lot of them, openly advocated murder and slavery. She exulted in the idea of murder and destruction, and was and still is cheered on for it. But one need not read Solanass SCUM Manifesto to see that the claims of peaceful intentions are false; the facts on the ground bear witness to the violent intent of feminism. To achieve the power they lust for, feminists and their allies have passed laws that result in a great many men being imprisoned for anything from grabbing the wrist of a woman who was hitting them to losing their jobs and being unable to pay child support. Imprisonment is a form of violence, and is recognized as such by law. Not only are men imprisoned, they are beaten or arrested with excessive force every day. Witness the case of the man

thespearhead.com

set upon by dogs at the behest of his exwife in Tennessee. Every year, scores of men are shot and killed by police responding to domestic disputes. In many cases it is the police response, mandated by feminist law, that precipitates the crisis. Men who couldnt afford child support orders are beaten and raped in jail and prison. Some have died there. Untold thousands have been driven to suicide. This, to the nonviolence. feminists, is

Achieving domination by turning uniformed men with guns on their enemies is the means by which feminists pursue their aims. Throwing men in jail is how they do it. Forcing confessions from men who are under threat of imprisonment and losing their children is another method. Shooting people works for feminists. Beating people is OK. Attacking men with dogs? Just fine.

brutality to the same degree as the United States, but others, such as Australia, Canada and the UK, are catching up. What we have to recognize is that men have paid an enormous price for so called womens liberation, which has brought the world little more than Oprah, Hillary Clinton and the worn out, skeletal old hags of Sex and the City. Oh, and lest I forget, rampant illegitimacy, hundreds of millions of victims of broken families, and enormous, incalculable social welfare costs.

Men have lost a great deal of liberty. Men have lost a great deal of property. Millions of men have lost their children. Many men have lost their freedom, and many their lives. If there is such a thing as a human rights crisis, this is one, and yet the feminists make the rounds as though they have halos floating over their heads. Youd think they are all clones of Mother Teresa from the deference they are shown in public and the mainstream press. Its time to call a spade a spade. Feminists are not nonviolent. They are not good people. Their vision for the future entails, to paraphrase Orwell, a stiletto heel stamping on a mans face, forever. Feminism barbarism. is barefaced

Confiscating property is considered benign from a feminist point of view.

Shocking and gassing people to subdue them is all in a days work. Caging impoverished fathers like animals is justice.

10

There is no country in the world that practices this

Suicide Among Men and Boys

equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com

by: Kim

A 17 year old boy from my area went up into the woods a couple of days ago with three guns. The search party found his frozen body the next day. He didn't die from exposure but bled to death from a selfinflicted gun shot wound.

managed to instill in our daughters. Our daughters aren't dying. Our daughters aren't going out into the woods and putting guns to their heads.

Several months ago, a neighbor's son, also 17 years old, got into a fight with his older brother, went downstairs and shot himself in the head in his closet. About a year and a half ago, another neighbor's son got in a fight with his parents and jumped out of the car as it was still in motion. The car wasn't going very fast, but his foot got caught and he was dragged across the pavement. Those few seconds from the time he jumped and his parents were able to stop the car cost him his life.

No matter how much love and support we give our boys, we can't stand as a barrier and protect them from the constant barrage of negative, antimale stereotypes. We can't protect their hearts and minds from the pain and disillusionment they're sure to find in a world that simply doesn't care about them any further than as a means to an end; a way to move forth industry, bodies to send to war to further political causes, or, should they fail to prove constructive, to fill our jails. From ages 10 to 14, the rate of suicide among boys is twice as high as among girls. From ages 15 to 19, four times as high and from ages 20 to 24, six times as high. Where are our emergency measures to combat this crisis? Where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern?

of women who were killed by intimate partners in the U.S. in the same year. Because of the 1200 or so women who are killed by their partners each year, we have massive campaigns addressing violence against women. What do we have to address the 25,907 lives of men that were ended needlessly? Again I ask, where are the commissions, the funding, the programs and the public concern? Why do we stand idly by while our boys and men flounder in emotional pain, despair and hopelessness? Life is precious and I am heartbroken and angry for the loss of these lives. I am angry that nothing has been done to address this crisis. I am angry for the growing number of lives that will be lost because they won't be deemed important enough to do anything about. Why don't we do anything? Because to do something would mean admitting we've been wrong. It would mean taking a long, painfully honest look at the hatred and disdain that we have so willingly and thoughtlessly infused into our society. It would mean addressing the horrible, destructive neglect and damage that has been wrought upon boys, men, fathers and husbands.....apparently, it's simply easier just to look away.

A man I knew, a really good, nice man, a kind and devoted father, son and husband, hung himself some months back when his business failed. And a very, very dear friend of mine, despaired by hurts and losses he could no longer stand to bear, tried to kill himself recently. Everywhere I look I see the deaths and blood of men.....the tragic and untimely demises of beautiful, precious lives. Incidentally, I don't live in some poverty stricken area where hopelessness and despair are so thick that they hang palpable in the air. I live in a conservative, religious, small town, middle class America, where all our kids know they can look forward to going to college should they choose, where we still eat dinners as a family at night and we know each and every one of our neighbors and their children by name. Yet, even here, we can't stop our boys from dying tragic, unnecessary deaths. We can't infuse them with the same hope and selfworth that we've

William S. Pollack, the director of the Centers for Men and Young Men at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School has noted, "Theres no doubt that in relation to suicide, boys and young men are in a crisis," said Pollack. "And almost nothing has been done to remediate it from the gender perspective."

So while we spend millions on programs empowering and furthering the interests of women and girls, hardly a finger has been raised or a dime spent to help boys and men that are in crisis. Instead, we devote our time and resources to telling boys that they are all potential abusers, rapists and murderers......frightening, violent things that women and children need to be protected from. In 2005, in the U.S., 25,907 men killed themselves. For perspective, that is roughly 21 times the number

It can be especially hard for men who are alone; who have been alienated from the lives of their families and children. We need to remember the worth and value of the lives of men; to remember the little boys and young men who need nurturing, care, kindness and understanding; to remember that the lives of these men and boys are invaluable and irreplacable, Remember how important it is to show that they matter....especially in a world that doesn't.

And this person wants to transform all of you men!

by: Mark Richardson This is a story with an extraordinary ending, so please bear with me and read all the way through. Therefore, there cannot be transformative change until the hegemonic masculinity is deconstructed. But Connell recognises that a sense of masculinity is embedded in the male personality and that it is formed in part through bodily practices (such as sport). So what's required is not just a change in patriarchal institutions. What is needed is a change in the male personality and bodily practices. Men need to be degendered in body and in personality.

ozconservative.blogspot.com

It begins with a man named Robert Connell. Back in 1995 he wrote a book called Masculinities. There wasn't much that was new in the book. It consists mostly of standard patriarchy theory: the idea that masculinity is a construct and that it provides men with a "patriarchal dividend" at the expense of women. Therefore, social justice requires the deconstruction of masculinity.

Throughout the organization, we will base our work on a common understanding that gender equality is key to overcoming poverty and suffering.

But how to do it? Connell argues in Masculinities that there are many masculinities but that one is "hegemonic". This is an idea borrowed from Gramsci. It means that there is one form of masculinity which manages to get itself accepted as authoritative and that through this the existing values of society are upheld.

Connell's book was highly successful. He became the world's leading theorist of masculinity. The charity Oxfam, for instance, believes that its role is to secure gender equity by transforming masculinity throughout the world. The information on its website is clearly drawn from Connell's work:

[this requires a consideration of] the invisibility of gender issues to most men and the notion of the patriarchal dividend (i.e. the privileges that all men draw upon simply by virtue of being male) ... the dominance of specific forms of (hegemonic) masculinity; how masculinities are actively constructed; the costs associated with masculinity for both men and women; and the dynamic nature of masculinities over time. Hegemonic masculinity is a concept that draws upon the ideas of Gramsci. It refers to the dynamic cultural process which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.

"When we are constantly told lies about each other's daily experiences...

When women think men have things much easier than them...yet women are given promotion after handout after special consideration...how much like "losers" do men look if they're not as successful? When men are told everything is easy for them, that the world opens like a flower at their feet simply because they're male... and then opportunity after opportunity dries up or goes to women... who then call him a loser.... how does that man view women?"
Factory

Again, just to illustrate how serious Oxfam is about transforming masculinity here are some additional ideas from its website:

Oxfams approach to poverty the importance of gender analysis

12

The study highlights the importance of coherent gender analysis Gender analysis is central to Oxfams understanding of the root causes of global poverty if

gender relations transformed

are

to

be

Changing masculinities, changing men

masculinities are actively produced by individuals, rather than being programmed by genes It is sometimes argued that being natural masculinity is impervious to reform. But our research demonstrates the reverse Clearly there are risks involved in attempts to reshape masculinity

But this is where we get to the dramatic twist in the story. In his book Masculinities Connell anticipated that the aim of degendering men in their bodily practices and in their personalities would arouse opposition. In particular, it would arouse the fear that a process of degendering men would turn men into women:

Below is a photo of the radically transformed Robert Connell.

Again, Connell is the most frequently cited authority in this document written for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The document reminds readers that the UN has called for a "transformative change" to achieve gender equity. Masculinity, it is claimed, stands in the way of "progress" toward a new world order of centralised, global government and increasing ethnic diversity:

If the problem is basically about masculinity, structural change should follow from a remaking of personality. (p.230) ...emotional turmoil and guilt feelings ... are a measure of the resistance even in favourable circumstances. In other circumstances the project will be rejected out of hand as an attempt to turn men into women. It follows that a degendering strategy, an attempt to dismantle hegemonic masculinity, is unavoidable.

Given that Robert Connell took this drastic step, I think we're entitled to ask some questions.

In effect, masculinity becomes a rhetorical currency by which opposition to global integration, state centralization and increasing ethnic heterogeneity can be mobilized. (p.4)

It is Connell who is again looked to as the expert authority on the matter:

Typically, as Connell notes (1998: 17), hardline masculine fundamentalism goes together with a marked antiinternationalism. (p.4)

The degendering strategy applies not only at the level of culture and institutions, but also at the level of the body the ground chosen by defenders of patriarchy, where the fear of men being turned into women is most poignant. (p.232)

Did Robert Connell always feel conflicted in his own masculinity? Does this help to explain his feeling of estrangement from mainstream masculinity? Or his repeated claims that men needed to change their bodily practices to more feminine ones of nurturing babies? Or did the theory itself push Connell to view masculinity as so malignant that it had to be physically cut away? Or did the theory, with its emphasis on the bodily transformation of men, lead Connell to arrive at the radical solution shown? At any rate, the idea that the great project of liberation is to degender men's bodies and personalities, is associated in the case of its founder with a result that won't appeal to too many men.

What we are moving towards is indeed "something rich & strange"; and therefore, necessarily, a source of fear as well as desire. (p.234)

So Connell managed to become an international authority on masculinity, or at least the deconstruction thereof.

The reason I highlighted these passages is this: Robert Connell is no longer legally a man. He has, it seems, had sex change surgery, legally changed his identity, and transformed himself into Raewyn Connell.

VAWA: A Pure Government Evil

by: Anonymous laid a hand on a woman, including my exwife, nor my four children. The nightmare of my divorce was a simple but common one. I was served on a Thursday by her attorney and by the following Tuesday I was in jail for domestic violence. After being served with the papers, I made it a point not to contact her until I was properly represented by an attorney. Tuesday, January 30th, 2007, however, would change my life forever, beginning what can only be described as a descent into hell.

Dear Senators Leahy, Sessions and Honorable members of the Committee:

14

I am writing regarding the May 5, 2010 Judiciary Committee hearing on the Violence Against Women Act. I find it interesting that the only individuals and groups who are invited to testify in front of the committee are ones who directly benefit from the billions given out via the continued refunding of this act. This funding, since 1994 has been granted through halftruths, fear mongering, one sided testimony and outright

deception. I have also mailed my story to one newspaper for every state in our union since all working Americans fund this program via tax dollars that are destroying men, children and families under the guise of protecting females from abuse. I am college educated and also an honorably discharged veteran and a firm believer that strong families equal a strong society. With that said, I have made mistakes during a 10 year marriage and I will be the first to admit it. But let this much be clear, I have never in my life ever

At the time, I held the title of director of sales for a national company with over 200 individuals under my direct supervision. That morning at 9:30, I received a call from my exwife that admittedly turned very bitter on both sides of the conversation. The thrust of her call was that through her attorney she was going to make me pay and ensure she got full custody of our children and then she would make sure I would only be able to see them when she lets me. At some point she hung up the phone or we lost the connection.

I tried to call her back, with no response, so I set my phone feature to autodial that would call until she answered. I left the phone on my desk to take care of another issue at work and turned it off about a half an hour later. At 11:30 AM, 3 police officers showed up and took me into custody in front of my employees and my supervisors.

Previous to this day, I had never been in trouble with the law, but still I was arrested, booked and thrown into a holding cell with men wearing both the blue and orange jumpsuits. Thinking this was just a misunderstanding, I tried to reason with the officers at the jail but was immediately taken, stripped naked in an another open cell right in front of two women; not police officers, but detainees. Standing there naked, embarrassed and scared, I was given the green suicide jacket and left under loose supervision in a holding cell. The door later opened and another inmate wearing a green padded suit was let in. After talking with this individual for a bit, I found out he was in custody for felony assault and aggravated robbery. Then he stood up, defecated in his hands and wiped it all over the floor and his body. Needless to say, I begged to be let out of the cell and finally, 7 hours later, about 11 PM, after promising not to hurt myself, I was taken out of the suicide watch and processed into general population. I was locked into a cell and told that I would see the judge in the morning. Putting into words the desperation and sadness I felt is not something I am able to do, but I can say with absolute authority, it was not only the longest but also the darkest night of my life.

praying, begging in my mind for that door to open. After what seemed like an eternity, we were ushered like cattle out of the cell and ordered to put our nose on the wall and then kneel on the bench that lined the hallway. We were then administered shackles around our ankles, waists and wrists. Walking with shackles is not easy, but I knew in my mind that the judge would see how silly this situation was and everything would be back to normal in no time. It was clear I was going to learn the realities domestic violence enforcement the hard way.

officer that drove us down to the courthouse came in with papers for me to sign. I was, from that point forward, restrained from having any contact with my ex wife, but more importantly my own children. I asked why I was not able to defend myself when this was decided; the officer replied that it was decided in a hearing that took place while I was in jail the day before. No opportunity to respond, no chance to defend myself, no right to be a father, until otherwise ordered.

I was loaded into a van with 5 other domestic abusers and we made our journey to the courthouse. We were locked into a cell down the hallway from the courtroom and waited our turn

I was out of jail but would later find out that I had to prove I was a good father, rather than just be one. Good enough to be a dad every day before this day, but now I was in the position of proving I even had any right to be with my own children, stemming from an argument between two parents.

"female 'independence' is financed and enabled by male bondage"

for justice. We were all brought to a table where a District Attorney offered us a fast track program that would drop all of our charges if we went to DV classes and fulfilled a two year probation. I knew I was no abuser so I refused the offer and said I wanted to see the judge. We were walked into the courtroom and one by one, each individual I took the van ride with stood and took the DAs offer. I was called to the podium and when asked what my plea was, I retorted,This is just a divorce situation, you can see that cant you? When I asked what I was charged with, the reply was menacing and harassment. Of course Im not guilty of that I said. So I was given a personal recognizance bond with my not guilty plea and sent back to the cage down the hall. About 20 minutes later, the I checked my voicemail when I got home and found out that I had been fired. It turns out that having three officers arrest you at work over a phone call is a pretty embarrassing thing to happen. So, no children and no more $70,000.00 per year position either. Once I had a chance to explain the truth to my boss, I was offered a sales position but not my old one back as a leader due to the perception in the office. I turned it down. I had to focus on the permanent restraining order hearing coming up and I had to find an attorney to represent me in those proceedings. Having paid a total of $10,000.00 to an attorney, I would go in now for round two. That hearing was postponed and the magistrate, knowing I had not been convicted of a crime, and seeing I had no prior criminal

In the morning, the cell door opened and I was ushered into another holding area in preparation to be transported to county court. In this cell were approximately 45 other individuals waiting as well and it was another mixture of the orange and blue, or more accurately, those accused of felonies and misdemeanors. I remember standing against the wall. (Actually trying to melt into it) minding my own business,

record, a solid work history and hearing testimony from all sides, decided to let me see my children, when her parents were around to watch me.

girls first day of Kindergarten. I was able to see them, but was restrained from the school per the exparte hearing.

Its called supervised visitation, or, being innocent and treated like a criminal that needs to be watched, and evaluated based on your exes parents watching the contact and reporting back to the magistrate. This, honorable Senators, is what is happening to innocent fathers in this country each and every day.

Again, I cant articulate the pain associated with that day, but I know many other Fathers out there are going through the same thing. It is cruel and unusual punishment, without so much as a crime ever having been proven. I sucked it up and did what I had to do. I went back and forth to court and finally was granted unsupervised visitation. Its a shame to say that in todays America a father would actually be proud of that; would see it as a victory, but this is the America that VAWA brings us.

This supervision went on for months. I showed up, played with them, had dinner with them, got them ready for bed, brushed their teeth, and read to them from books. Most of all I can remember kissing them on their heads goodnight and then getting into my car, tears streaming down my face, only to go home alone, unable to sleep, unable to eat and unable to find any semblance of happiness. Being restrained from the kids also meant that I missed my little

As part of the divorce decree, in which I was given unsupervised access to my children, I had to show her parents a house with a bedroom for each of them. I had to get an SUV, as my children were all too young to sit in the front seat, and I also agreed to a $2,400.00 per month Alimony/Child Support arrangement, per my past three years of income potential. And the best part, I was told to pay her attorney over $10,000.00 for her decision to divorce. Nevertheless, based on my past performance, I thought No sweat, on any of those issues. Im a proven winner in the corporate world. At least I get to be a father to my kids!

Eventually, I ran out of money for legal representation. This is what happens when courts and attorneys drag things out, bleeding people of their resources. So, I had to represent myself at the end of both the divorce and DV cases.

After this fantastic performance on my own in the divorce (so I thought), I knew that defending myself in the DV case would generate a similar victory. So I went into the pretrial portion of the case and made motions to dismiss based on: Violations of Due process of law I argued that No person shall be

To find a shelter in your area that accepts men, please visit our Google Map project at: http://tinyurl.com/DV4men

16

deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Arrest without a warrant, the officer must first witness a crime being committed. Violations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Keeping in mind that under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, citizens are guaranteed due process under the law; throwing out evidence as Fruit of the Poisonous Tree; Violation of a speedy trial; we were approaching a year, and the whammy, her 911 tape/impact statement. So I went in and every single one of my arguments was thrown out. VAWA, I learned, trumps the constitution. I did get the Menacing charge dropped, proving no imminent danger was present, the basis of the entire case, but they were still going forward with the harassment charge.

Model, I had to admit being a perpetrator of violence against women. What? Are You kidding me? I have to admit what? That was the first and only class I attended.

Then the economy happened and I was one of many who were hit hard by the downturn. I was unable to keep up with my court ordered payments. As I write this, my legal bills and court costs and support payments sit at $48,000.00. My father passed away this year and my mother is on her deathbed, so my small inheritance, all of what my parents worked for, will go to satisfy that. After the divorce was final, my ex made it a point to make it very difficult to allow me to see them at their location and she would not have them brought to me. The final conversation I had with her was this: We are divorcedyoure not invited over here. Your trick in court was nice with the 911 tape, but all I need to do is make another call.

One thing that comes with a DV charge on your record is that finding a job becomes all the more difficult, compounding all issues associated with this situation. I have been told, We dont employ wife beaters, and, HR said your too much of a risk due to your violence issue. With no income, I was evicted from my town home, lost all of my furniture, defaulted on the SUV, but above all and most important, lost my children.

I have not seen them in over 2 years and every single day that goes by takes another piece of my soul along with my hope. I often wonder how I can get back the chance of being a father. The sad truth of it is I cant. You see, the agenda today is intentional propaganda that a man does not want to be part of his childs life. We are called deadbeats, abusers, selfish and uncaring. As the VAWA implies by its very name, All men are violent. All women are victims. Any lawyer today knows how to ruin a man in the divorce process, using this silver bullet to undermine what it means to be a father. Jobs by the thousands are created under this act and more are created via the biased testimony given on Capitol Hill,
"I have 15 years experience dealing with feminists on men's issues. Dealing in the full range of diplomatic approaches. The overwhelmingly vast majority of you have had ZERO time for these issues, until we started getting mad.

The thing about the harassment charge is that they were still attaching a domestic violence tag to it since we were intimate partners. So I was out of money and soundly beaten by the DA in the pretrial hearing. I went in the day of the trail and with no other options, forced to plead guilty to harassment. This case too was changed to another Judge at the last minute, so my options were limited. I had no attorney and no preparation done to defend myself in a trial, so I took the plea and was put on two years probation, with 24 domestic violence classes mandated. I went to the first class and listened to men talk themselves through why they were there. Then a guy stood up and said he was there because he set his daughter on fire for turning off the football game he was watching. What? Are you kidding me? He set his own daughter on fire? Then I find out in order to graduate, under the Duluth

That stopped me in my tracks. Spending a night in that cell, courtesy of VAWA, and a false allegation, literally scared me out of trying to see my own children. Especially knowing first hand that my ex is right. Thats the world now, and another call is all it takes. In my mind there was only one choice to be made: My Freedom Or My Kids.

She remarried within the year after the divorce. I wonder to myself daily, are they told to call him Dad? Is he a good guy? What are they told about me? Are they healthy? Happy? Do they miss me? Do they think about me? Can my little one ride a bike yet?

Now, we're getting effective, and you want us to WORK for feminist approval? Fuck you. No seriously, fuck you."
Anonymous

Yes, the women all want the swaggering guys, and mostly the guys at the top of the pile. The issue is what to do with the rest of the men. The answer: marry them, then divorce them (or stay married to them but unfaithfully so) and have the state make them into slaves for the women they married for much of their lives. That keeps most of the men occupied providing for women, while

that Being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition.

from only those that have something to gain when its re funded.

freeing up women to have their romantic and sexual liasons with men they prefer. NovaSeeker

Think about how many individuals are employed through Domestic Violence industry. The more arrests made, the more funding a state gets from the Federal Government. The more fathers that fall behind on child support after not being able to find good employment from this act, the more enforcers are needed to track them down. The more the VAWA is manipulated, the more Police Officers, DAs, Attorneys, Jails, Corrections Officers, Shelter Workers, Victims Advocates, Judges, Case Workers, Defense Attorneys, Therapists, Lobbyists, Politicians and Feminist positions are created and funded. Millions of stable homes are turned into millions of single mother homes creating millions of fatherless children. Since 1994 that is what this act has given America under the premise of protecting women.

Make no mistake, violence against anyone is always wrong . So is, however, the heavy handed destruction of men, boys and families based on the ever expanding definition of what violence is.

Taking Billions from taxpayers every year to continue to fund this act is shameful, sexist but more importantly a clear violation of the Constitution. It does little to help those that need it; rather it funds the destruction of the family on an ever increasing scale by lining the pockets of groups that desire the family unit irrelevant, and they are succeeding at an alarming rate.

I understand that the billions of dollars generated from taxpayers via this act is a hard thing to turn down. Then again, the choice is yours to make. Billions of dollars, or both loving parents after divorce. Billions of dollars or families. Billions of dollars to keep the Silver Bullet alive and well for divorce attorneys to use to destroy a man, since it has been made so tragically easy to do. To make it simple: Billions of dollars to continue the destruction of our society. At the end of the day, Im not a fool and I know the choice will be money.

Since I know nothing will change, I would ask that you take a small portion of those billions we as working taxpayers give to this act, and put out a national PSA telling men to walk on eggshells at home, never raise his voice (rather whisper), ask them to say yes dear, you are right, I am so sorry on every occasion. Dont ask her to slow down her shopping if you cant afford the mortgage payment. Never direct negative comments toward her about anything and never, ever, give your partner an angry stare. If nothing will change, that is the least our government can do to make men and boys aware of the enormous danger they face in any relationship as a result of this act. It would be a sad day in America to keep everything the same and allow even more men and fathers to walk the same plank to Hell that I was forced to walk, via a now standard divorce strategy that works to perfection. Then again, its not morning in America anymore.

Having my fundamental, God given right to be a father taken from me for monetary/political reasons is not American, nor is it right, and it certainly is not the constitutional values I served honorably to uphold in the military.

President Obama will lecture men this Fathers Day that we need to be knocked over the head once in awhile. Vice President Biden will still call this his greatest achievement. Senator Reid will get up and let everyone know that when men lose jobs in this economy, they beat their women. Senator Boxer will let us all know

Its midnight, for men, boys and families. Sincerely, A Father.

It doesn't have to end like this...

Suicide is the second or third (depending on age) leading cause of death for men under the age of 65 - a rate between 4 to 9 times the rate for women. Suicide kills more men aged 15 - 44 than Cancer, Stroke, and Diabetes

Combined!

This is not "normal" in any sense of the word. Suicide rates for men have risen sharply in the last 5 decades, from almost parity with women in 1960 to the glaring crisis among men we have today. Please, contact your MP / Congressmen - tell him or her this is NOT acceptable

Masculinity Redefined?
by: John Hembling
www.youtube.com/user/johntheother

Ive heard feminist apologists declare that feminism is a social movement dedicated to the promotion of equal rights between men and women. Im sure youve heard this too, and if you werent paying close attention when you heard it, you might have believed it. You might think, if unfamiliar or unimpressed by mens movement literature, that any statement to the contrary is nothing but reactionary, anti woman patriarchal atavism. If thats the case it puts you in common company.

assumption of prior offense by the male victim of an assault in such a case, western law does not operate on an eye for an eye dictum. Prior insult or injury is not legal justification for personal violence. A man who assaulted another man because in the past, he was assaulted by that man would find no sympathy at all from either the police, or the courts.

women in any dealings with men.

The tenets of the feminist movement are, for the most part, accepted by most people living in the western world. Feminist ideology now holds a majority share of public perception of reality. Feminism informs the policies and decisions made in our law courts, it controls the climate of the workplace, it rules with absolute fiat in our family courts. It also informs the difference in the way police treat male and female citizens. If a man is assaulted by his female spouse and calls the police, he will be arrested. If a man is assaulted by his female spouse and attempts to defend himself without doing any violence to his attacker, he will be arrested. The assumption informing this bizarre outcome is that he must have committed some offense against his assailant, thus justifying her attack on him, and his subsequent arrest. One problem with this is that even granting the

When a parallel situation involves a woman committing violence against a man, not only is she excused based on her being a victim of who she is now assaulting, the victimization is assumed by the police and courts regardless of whether any such prior event occurred, and with no inquiry. A narrative of victimization and justification is fabricated to support the ideology that women are good, and men are bad. Men are assumed to be aggressors and villains, and women are characterized as poor, cartoonish victims, regardless the actual behavior of either party. Do gender feminists recognize that in promoting this social pattern, they are casting members of their own sex as perpetual children? An ostensibly adult woman for whom violence is excused based on a real or imagined prior injustice is not really an adult.

This pattern works for the reality divorced, which is to say that it works for the culture at large. The monopoly on force held by the government inflicts a standardized profemale outcome ignoring the perverse marginalization of men necessary to maintain the gender feminist narrative. Thats the narrative that claims women have always been oppressed, and men, through some sinister conspiracy are the ones oppressing them. Debunking this fantasy is beyond the scope of this article, and would in any case be redundant. The question which does bear consideration is what is the logical outcome of continued normalization of a fantasy which equates masculinity as crime, and femininity as innate superiority, while also needing steeply tilted playing field encompassing continued affirmative action, public funding of historical revision, thought police, differential treatment by law enforcement and so on. Do gender feminists really want their fathers, brothers, sons and husbands to be caged, hobbled, and enslaved as bipedal beasts of burden? How long can the illusion be maintained that men laboring as legislated nonpersons in a tiered society are in fact the sinister oppressors of that society?

20

How far does this fantasy go? Apparently, a long way as the female centrism dominating so much of modern life is incongruent with a concept of personal accountability for

Alternately, are we all now ready to adopt a public ethic that the real or imagined crimes made by members of some antiquarian historical patriarchy should be revenged on half our population, based on their sex? Are we to systematize hereditary imaginary guilt?

No. Even assuming actual guilt by past generations, culpability is non transferable. This is a basic foundation of ethics, both legal and moral, at least as I understand it.

anything which fits into the traditional social hierarchy. It is, in my own shaky grasp of the concept a wholly self determined and self defined man. Elam is one, I am one. I am proud to be. Detractors of masculinity, of the mens rights movement, and apologists for gender feminists will be quick to define men forging this new role as losers, malcontents, failures and so on. Some of the pejorative will sting, because malcontent is true, but its incomplete, and patently misleading. There is more to this than just some sour grapes redefinition of failure as success, and there is a fundamental difference between simply being an entitled malcontent, and the experience of anger at institutionalized and organized discrimination. Out of that anger, many mens rights advocates are redefining masculinity and success using a yardstick in defiance of the definitions gender feminists use to exert control.

Do Gender feminists want to enslave and scourge half the population based on their sex? It sometimes seems like it, when you listen to gender feminists. But I really dont know the answer to that. What I do know is that a small segment of the male population are no longer willing to play this game according to the established rules. I count myself as a part of this small group.

I get that in my YouTube channel email with regularity. The thing is I have a job, a pretty good one doing something I enjoy and which challenges me. I happen to own the company I work for. Were making a profit and expanding. In spite of this apparent material success, I am an invisible man, and I mean to remain one, at least to the forces that threaten me as a man.

things about my own motivation and aspiration. I will never be married. Is this because Im a loser who cant get a woman?

That does not mean that we in the mens rights movement hate you feminists. We certainly dont hate you as women. We dont even hate the male apologists for female supremacy who foolishly seek to ingratiate themselves with women through some form of public self flagellation and self loathing. We are simply finished with being vilified, criminalized, marginalized and stripped of our earnings, our homes and our children. The Zeta male is inventing a new path, and we are leaving you behind. You are, of course, welcome to join us, because as I said, we dont hate you; but we wont be following the rules as you understand them anymore.

What should be interesting to an alert observer is that the traditional concepts of reward and punishment that have, for thousands of years been used with great success to curb self actualization in males who would chafe in the class bondage of traditional society are increasingly ineffective as a means of social control today. Paul Elam some time ago wrote an article in which he coined the term Zeta male. This is not an alpha male, and its not a beta male, and it isnt

Before the full catalog of shaming language can be unlimbered and brought to bear, let me mention a few

John Hembling is a Canadian writer and social commentator. His videos can be seen on YouTube on the JohnTheOther Channel.

The Myth of Women's Oppression

by: Bernard Chapin
bernardchapin.com

One of the most impressive ideas Ive ever heard was put forth by Christopher Hitchens in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. He believes that we always profit from debating our opponents as the act of responding to one another propels us towards the ultimate truth. Based on my experiences, Hitchens is absolutely right. Just as doing sets of bench presses cause our muscles to grow, the mind is strengthened by the process of intellectual exchange. Interaction with our enemies makes us fitter. All of this is undeniable and essential to the marketplace of ideas, but, sadly, the situation today is far different than it was in the past.

Only by labeling their foes with a namesuch as hater, racist, homophobe, sexist, and/or misogynistcan leftist antiliberals win the moral high ground allowing them to overlook the arguments made against them.

The tossing of isms is a horrific replacement for logic and accuracy because they are rehearsed and tell us nothing about real people. Resorting to such a tactic only illustrates weakness; a weakness of which we on the other side have long been aware. Their strange perception of the world is rarely an outcome of reality or reason. I think that a lot of their positions satisfy psychologically for one reason or another. Their skewed predilections supply them with a crutch throughout life. Spinning webs of conspiracy and fable alternately stimulate and sooth, and also are a way in which to control their environment. For this reason, we can never hope to convince them of anything at all. Our battles are chiefly of indirect benefit alone. They are a way in which to persuade intentional or unintentional observers as to the rightness of our cause. Hearing us or seeing our words may be the only intellectual diversity which some students ever encounter. We should not blame younger people for repeating mindless nonsense if mindless nonsense is the only information they have ever received. We offer them an alternative; without it, theyll think that submission to white guiltists, female supremacists, emotioniacs, socialists, racists, and those who think that Majdanek is a synonym for America is their only option.

In no area is debate more tenuous than with the feminists and their coveted myth of womens oppression. Their privilege renders them far above any fray. We make logical arguments while our foes brand us as woman haters and sexists. Our responses to isms are ignored as they continue to go about the business of remaking the justice system, society, and our personal relationships.

Political correctness has eroded both civility and the possibility of dispassionate contention. Should one contradict the inflexible views of the cultural Marxist, then one is dismissed as a spouter of hate speech as opposed to someone who may have a legitimate pointofview. Theres little likelihood that this will ever change as unfettered response negates the possibility of indoctrination which is exactly why PC became practiced in the first place.
TheEntitledWomansPerspective: "If I dont work, his money is mine. If I work, my money is mine. If I work and my husband works, two incomes belong to me. If i work and my husband gets laid off, my money is mine and Im married to a pathetic chump

Yet, like most other situations, there are always deviations from the set pattern. One such irregularity occurred today when I got a response to a piece that I wrote about the ridiculousness of regarding women as oppressed. I have no idea who or what the person is, but one of the guys termed him a mangina[i] which is probably true enough. At any rate, I thank him for his rejoinder because his words helped crystallize my positions and Ill respond to him momentarily. Ironically, the idea that women are not oppressed received independent confirmation from the Baltimore Sun. If there were any truth to the idea that men sit atop the social hierarchy then one would not expect them to have published Ms. Dombrowskis scathing criticism of the patriarchy, but they did. My response, however, was rejected. The editor told me, Thanks for the offer, but I cant use this on the oped page.[ii] Shouldnt my genitalia have opened the door to privilege? Are Women Objectified? Lets go over this again: women are not objectified by menperiod. We know this to be true as men do not gaze or interact with women in the same manner they do objects. Allow

."

Why would we want to marry these bitches??? Baphomet

22

me to ask my brothers reading this as to what objects they affix their male gaze as they do women? I am sure the answer is none. Men behold women in a fashion unlike anything else on earth. One examines the fairer sex differently from the way one studies a monitor, an oven, a refrigerator, a hose, a book, a building, and a car. No, women are clearly not objectified by men. No object absorbs a mans attention like a woman. One becomes habituated to many things but never women. Objectification is an argument so poor that it cannot even stand up to a puppys first breath.

patriarchy is not an oppressive system in any of the traditional meanings of the word. One made mention to me that we do not live in a Planet of the Apes society but remain a patriarchy nonetheless.

The argument was raised that women looking at pictures of themselves in magazines is also a form of objectification [I know, I cant believe it either] but this is false as well. Those women who gaze at other women are perfectly aware of their being flesh and blood as opposed to objects. For whatever reason they may come to ogle a picture, their eyes do so with the realization that whats on the page is a person and not a thing. Being a compulsive shopper or consumer certainly is shallow in my estimation, but one does not become an object by participating in such activities. If we define objectified as meaning appreciated for then we can find some common ground on the topic. Men appreciate women for their youth and beauty, but they are not dehumanized by our doing so; no more than men are dehumanized by women appreciating them for their wealth, status, and security at any rate. The Comfy Patriarchy Means

If the patriarchy commits crimes that we cannot see, hear, or catch then it isnt much of a patriarchy at all. One cannot be oppressed in a society in which one has been given an infinite number of rights and benefits. If it looks like the good life, feels like the good life, but ones own internal inadequacies prevent them from enjoying it, then it remains the good life. These feminists should learn to be more critical of themselves and take it easier on those around them. Theyll be much more happy and productive if they do. Some, like Susan Faludi, have argued that men are harmed by the patriarchy, but this cannot possibly be true for the reasons she outlined. Pressure to conform to the standards of masculinity is something that troubles few men. What we really long for is the right to be ourselves which is exactly the opposite of what Faludi and many others hold.

to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[iii] Things havent changed since she died and they wont for as long as we remain humans. Linda Hirshman wrote Get Back to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World in which she insists that women stop putting their own needs and desires before her leftistsocialist ideals. Here we see once again why feminazi is such a rich and valuable term of description. When women, or anybody else for that matter, disagree with these totalitarian types they are quick to dismiss their opinions as arising from false consciousness. Its their way or youre an ism. Why cant they just respect other peoples diversity?

Competitiveness, vigor, valor, and responsibility are manly virtues even if they are found in women as well. With therapism and emotion celebrated over bravery, honor, and effort, our society has become the complete antithesis of a patriarchy. That our society is closer to being a matriarchy than anything else is a very real cause of frustration to many men. The Real Misogynists: That women wish to raise children is not a social construct. It is an effect of biology shaping personality. This was known to Simone de Beauvoir who said: No woman should be authorized

Thinking that women dont know whats actually good for them is the height of condescension and misogyny. That they need imbalanced feministas to make their decisions is absurd. In this way, feminists, the self proclaimed protectors of women, are the oppressors. Free men, who only expect women to be no more or less responsible than ourselves, are falsely accused in the hopes of obfuscating the issue. If women want to stay home or work they should make the decision for on their own, and not out of a concern for what the media, society or some pathetic harpies think.
Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

That there is no patriarchy. Radical feminists pathologically refuse to acknowledge how blessed and easy their lives are, but, when pressed, they occasionally admit that the

Men's Studies: The Complete Freak Show

by: Paul Elam A disgraced shyster. A male feminist comedian that admits to being sexist and prone to violence. A transsexual. A grandiose, pathological exaggerator. A supporter of domestic violence perpetrators. A McCarthyesque academic thug out to get anyone around him that doesnt have their mind right. And a gaggle of puffy, self loathing, pseudo intellectual neer do wells; the inhabitants of a picaresque house of postmodern freaks. No, this isnt the set up for a work of comic fiction, but rather an unblinking look at a real life cadre of laughable gender activists in the world of mens studies. And by their stranger than fiction behavior, they amplify the meaning of Jonathan Swifts famous words, When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: That all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. guardians of misandry in academe. It is fitting, then, that they are now introduced to the larger world of men; that they be seen, even as they sit on their stools in the corner, for exactly who they are, right up to the very tops of their pointed hats.

avoiceformen.com

including, get this, how the courts abused these women for seeking help.

All of them belong to, or are in some way affiliated, with two mens [sic] organizations called the American Mens Studies Association (AMSA) and the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS). Those are the new age fig leafed boys clubs, so lets meet their versions of the alpha dogs. Barry Goldstein

But even aside from the idea that courts discriminate against battered women, theres a credibility problem here. Goldstein had his law license suspended by a New York appellate court for deceit, fraud and misrepresentation. The laundry list of charges against him stemmed from two cases. One was misappropriation of funds involving his representation of a notforprofit tenants housing resource center. The other was from his involvement in the Gina Shockome divorce case, which was a feminist cause clbre in New York just a few years back. In an internet article he wrote about the case, he accused the presiding judge of denying his client due process and of causing her to suffer PTSD, among a slew of other accusations he leveled at the court. None of it turned out to be true, or at least provable, and that was added to the charges against him.

In this case, the genius isnt a man, but an idea. Male studies. It is admittedly radical in that it is a proposed discipline intended to further scholarly investigation that would actually benefit men and boys without feminist permission or approval. In another time, perhaps, this would only be sensible. But in todays world, it is genius.

And the mere mention of it has set these less than relevant academic autocrats, this Mens Studies Confederacy of Dunces, on the warpath. And so they have appointed themselves the defenders of feminist orthodoxy; the male

Well start with Barry Goldstein, JD., who is listed on the NOMAS website as their co chair on child custody. He is also an expert witness on domestic violence and has written a book on the subject, Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths from Family Violence to Safety. The book chronicles the experiences of ten females, alleged to be victims of domestic violence,

Perhaps the most comical of Goldsteins antics was to claim to the court during the Shockome case that he had a seen a video tape that showed a court appointed supervisor had slept for 1520 minutes during a visit. When the court demanded that Goldstein produce the tape he claimed to have lost it. During one court appearance, he claimed the video tape was in his car, and later, at another appearance, he denied ever having had the tape in his car or anywhere else.

Well, apparently, to Goldsteins misfortune, his dog didnt eat the tape, which was about the only excuse he didnt offer. Officials eventually acquired it, and after viewing the video, the court stated, Anyone looking at that video will see that there is nothing on that video that suggests that [the supervisor] was asleep for 20 minutes.

It seems that Goldstein was caught lying like a, well, like a crooked lawyer. And misappropriating money like one, too.

Perhaps his presence there is actually funnier than that of another council member that touts himself as a professional comedian. Any sense of ironic metaphor notwithstanding, Ben AthertonZeman, hyphenated surname and all, is the designated spokesman, excuse me, spokesperson, for NOMAS. He lists among his primary qualifications that he is an actor and a comedian; that he does impersonations and that he is a feminist. Impressive credentials, but given the circumstances in the organization, its probably good that they dont require a license.

have a problem with condoning and enabling domestic violence. Seriously. According to information reported on their website, the young male recruits in his basic training have made reports of their hormone driven mates sometimes using them as a punching bag. Gertners answer to the abuse? Well, there isnt one. After all, if a young soldier cant take an ass kicking with his mouth closed, who can? He sends them home with a new sense of confidence. Perhaps it is from their reeducation. No intervention on the violence. No protection. No concerns. Gertner just ignores the assaults and issues marching orders for his young men to go home and take it.

Among some of the other complaints was that Goldstein repeatedly a you court Howdefied well do know that girl anyway? many notable directive to refrain from calling Among attributed to the father in the case, who was statements eventually awarded custody, the AthertonZeman is that he abuser as there was no proof to identifies himself as a recovering sexist and believes that every support such a statement. man should challenge sexism and violence, in the world, and in Imagine that. themselves. Additionally, in the last 60 days, the Supreme Court of Let us hope that there is a neighboring Pennsylvania mental health professional on the disbarred attorney Barry board at NOMAS. Perhaps with some counseling, Bens Goldstein. projection of his personal Despite all of this being a matter struggles with sexism and of public record, NOMAS retains violence onto the entire male sex the now legally defunct Goldstein can be resolved. Or, if he can the women he as an elected member of its identify discriminated against and people national council. he battered before getting into recovery, he can make amends Ben AthertonZeman to them as a part of the healing. He might from referral Because if you benefit go home withaher, and to trust her that she's Doug Gertner , "on the Pill", you've just given her the power to decide if you're going to be aanother Daddy or not. NOMAS National Council Member. Gertner, it seems, has

National Organization for Men Against What? Also, NOMAS President Robert Brannon penned a piece on their site, Does Consensual Prostitution Exist?, in which he implies that female prostitutes are not competent enough to make informed decisions on what to do with their own bodies, and tacitly implies their male customers are raping them. Men Against What? Perhaps the best explanation for NOMAS as an acronymic misnomer can be found in their motto, Pro feminist, gay affirmative, anti racist, enhancing mens lives. As you take a trip through their website, you get a sobering dose of what they mean by enhancing mens lives; they demonize anything masculine and further every anti male

In fact, if she wants, she can considerable experience empty a condom into herself, and counseling men, particularly STILL collect 30% of your young fathers for whom he runs paycheck for 18 years. So flush a Boot Camp for New Dads. it.

But there is a concern about that one, too. The boot camp looks to

Lone Nut The Thought Crime Comic

www.lonenutcomics.com

26

sexist stereotype imaginable, including a wholesale endorsement of the New York Model for batterer programs. That program explicitly sees all domestic violence as male perpetrated, despite the overwhelming proof that it just isnt so. And with that endorsement they embrace a proscription on any notion of counseling or treatment for batterers in favor of criminal consequences. Do you hear that Mr. Atherton Zeman? There is no recovery. You are unfixable. Please turn yourself in to the nearest authorities. And bring the rest of the male sex with you. The NOMAS mission is enhancement through sexism, bigotry and incarceration. And they are steadfastly working to further those ideas. AMSA, a similarly misnamed organization, with a similarly misleading mission, turns out to be just as misandric as NOMAS, with a crew no less motley than their abhorrent brothers. But they are significantly more dangerous if taken seriously, which an unfortunate few in the mainstream media have done. Robert Heasley After the recent conference on male studies in April, AMSA president Robert Heasley was spotted in places like

new discipline wasnt really new, but actually an unnecessary redundancy. Regarding male studies he told Forbes Their argument is that theyre inventing something I think already exists.

Kimmels assertion of the fields vitality and Heasleys call for male studies to be surrendered to mens studies, here is the track record. After thirty years of Kimmels personal work and AMSAs group contribution, the field has yielded the following degrees awarded in mens studies. Ph.D. 0 Masters 0

That sentiment was also expressed by Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland, which is basically an attack manual for use against almost all men and on women who dont subscribe to feminism. Kimmel admonished me personally not to think that male studies was anything new, and informed me that a robust and healthy field of Masculinity Studies already exists, and is well institutionalized in the US and abroad. He also went on to boast, I myself have been working to build this field for nearly thirty years. Michael Kimmel These would seem to be two of the authorities on mens studies, such as they are; The President of AMSA and a well regarded

Bachelors 0

Associates 0

That is correct, after three decades of effort, begging for (and then spending) money, and the current territorial, defensive reaction we are witnessing from the mens studies leadership, we are left with a discipline that for all practical purposes does not exist, except in a handful of publications and in the minds of an intellectually incestuous group of ideologues seeking their fifteen minutes of fame. I think I understand Kimmels thinking very well now. Exactly squat = robust and healthy. No degrees = well institutionalized. A man could run for elected office on the tricks from academe. And win.

Forbes.com complaining that the

author on masculinities. Both are touting the idea that any new approach to studying men is unnecessary, but perhaps, as Heasley suggested, Why not just add some new classes? [to already existing studies] The question becomes where to add them actually. Despite

The lack of substance in Masculinities is apparently in direct proportion to a lack of substance in those who supposedly study it. It isnt just Kimmel and Heasley. And a quick look at AMSA conference literature reveals even more. At one of their more recent conferences, all of which appear to float on paper submissions from grad students and even some undergraduates, the focus of mens studies is revealed in all

its irrelevant glory.

Here are a few of the topics presented:

Octavia Butlers Fledgling

Kindred

and

Contemporary Queer Cinema in a Mens Studies Curriculum

Black Gay (Queer) Masculine Studies: Insights from Richard Bruce Nugent

Masculinities in Play: Examining Hegemonic and Technomasculinity in Actionadventure Video Games

And

Differently Straight Guys: How Did That Happen?

A Queer Greenwood Beyond the Cricket Pitch: Queer Sporting Masculinities in the writings of E.M. Forster, D.H. Lawrence and Edward Carpenter Foucalt and Parenting: A Feminist Essay of Personal Reflection and Application What are You? Transvestism in

Setting an example for such scholarly pursuits relevant to the average man is Dr. Christopher Kilmartin, a former comic (yes, another comedian) who recently presented the master lecture, Guy Fi: The Fiction that Rule Mens Lives

How they have avoided a wild proliferation of university courses and degree programs in this discipline is mind boggling, unless you consider that the mens studies group is actually representative of, and obsessed with, about 4% of the male population, while condemning and attacking the other 96%.

Paying attention to the issues of homosexuals and the transgendered has its place in modern culture, but to use that agenda to play a part in hoodwinking people into believing you are addressing the lives of men in general demonstrates a deficit in integrity and a pathological drive to ensure the problems of the great majority of men and boys are either ignored or exacerbated, or both. Its bullshit. And not just bullshit that helps a bunch of middle aged, meagerly accomplished men get together once a year to feel important and mark the progress of receding hairlines, but crazy, mean spirited bullshit that draws attention away from some very serious problems in our society. Raewyn Connell Masculinities Guru

And how could we ever have expected a different outcome? The circus of mens studies has gone so far astray that they have coalesced around an ultimate masculinities icon, Raewyn Connell, who is a tranny. He opted to have his balls cut off and started wearing dresses, at

28

least publicly, about four years ago. And note that Connell isnt just an icon for mens studies, but the icon. The widely published and acclaimed Connell is roundly regarded by the entire mens studies community the erudite harbinger of forward thinking modern masculinity, sans the penis and testicles, of course. Theres your study of men, men. And if you dont like it, theyll sure nuff don a strap on and take care o bidness. Harry Brod

MND publisher Mike LaSalle posted a brief, but courteous dissent in the comments section of Brods article, as follows:
The kernel of your argument against Male Studies is revealed here: Mens Studies scholars are primarily concerned with Justice, not Science.

James Doyle

Male Studies assumes knowledge comes before justice, not the other way around.

The comment was posted, and then promptly deleted.

And that is the very least of their efforts at censorship. MND contributor and Wagner College professor of psychology Miles Groth, who hosted the recent conference on Male Studies, is a former member of AMSA. He is also the co founder and former editor of Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies which became a part of the Mens Studies Press (MSP). Recently AMSA board member Harry Brod (no, not even in this gender bending train wreck of a true story did I make that name up) wrote an editorial on the AMSA website in which he departed from the notion that male studies was a repeat of mens studies and opted to just paint the entire new discipline as bullshit, using that exact word, though with not the same credulity as when it is used to describe his own arena. He invoked the surgically altered Connell, though, to vilify the new discipline as just another excuse to ignore gender injustice. It was the first of what will sure to be more salvos aimed at publicly ridiculing the proponents of male studies. Some time into his involvement with AMSA, he grew concerned with aspects of the organization that he described as out of touch with the current concerns and needs of most males, especially young males. Groth went on to express concerns with the nature and quality of literature being featured at AMSA conferences.

MSP director James Doyle became aware of Groths unfortunate propensity for independent thought, and didnt take to the idea of such intellectual diversity with much enthusiasm. In an email he wrote the following to Groth: Over the past several months, it has become clear that you believe the field of mens studies in all its forms to be a pointless, if not harmful, pursuit. As disseminating mens studies research, serving mens studies scholars, and promoting a positive image of mens studies to a broad readership are the central purposes for the Mens Studies Press and its publications, it seems clear to me that you current involvement with the Mens Studies Press is antithetical to your new found philosophy for the study of mens lives. Therefore, it is with regret that I must terminate your editorial duties with the Mens Studies Press as of this day, April 29th, 2010

Some presenters at the last conference were undergraduates. At such events [annual conferences in a major discipline] it is customary to hear the work of senior researchers.

In short, when ousting Groth for not having his mind right, he stripped him of his editorship of Thymos, the journal that he co founded and edited all the years of its existence. Booted, berated and burned, all

for having an actual concern for men and boys in defiance of a group of bigots that seek to undermine the same. There is no greater demonstration of the kind of people we are talking about here. And all my attempts to add levity to this situation aside, it is clear they are capable of the most pernicious kinds of fascist bullying.

anonymous, Doyle reveals his personal feelings about Kimmel while acknowledging the sacred adherence to ideology. Says Doyle:
I have no problem with people being turned off by Kimmel (I am also) but only in terms of his arrogant and self centered personality. As for social constructionism, I think this an extremely useful theory.

It now seems they are gearing up to exert the same, if they can, on anyone else interested in helping men and boys, especially those furthering the idea of male studies.

are interested enough in those policies to have read this far into this article, then you are likely all too aware of what those policies are and in how they are harming our men and boys. When the intellectually carcinogenic on this level operate under the blanket of political and social denial, their work eventually becomes cancerous and starts to metastasize. It is time to gear up for treatment. This is especially true now, as we watch these frauds broadcast their intent to start a campaign of bullying and strong arming against anyone who disagrees with them. The mens studies establishment does not pursue knowledge, but a program of wholesale skullduggery, all to fit a political agenda whose only connection to education is to corrupt it.

After a decade old split between the organizations, that by their own account demonstrates that slash and burn politics are no stranger to this crowd, there is a lot of kissing and making up. Kimmel, who has operated more or less independently since the split, is returning to give the key note address in 2011. This had to happen for a reason that overcomes the petty divides that sent them on their own separate paths. In an email from James Doyle provided to me by someone within their ranks who wishes to remain

Aside from the fact that neither social constructionism, nor narcissism, begin or end with Kimmel, Doyle tips his hand on priorities quite nicely, and along with his treatment of Groth solidifies his ideology over values, truth and scholarship mentality.

This entirely sordid matter would be far funnier if it were not so serious. We might even expect a punch line or two from Atherton Zeman or Kilmartin. We might even laugh. But we are, in some of the most serious ways possible, talking about the future of our sons in this culture. These fascist pigs are part and parcel to a system that helps shape government policy. If you

After all, if youll lie to a court of law about domestic problems, about men being abusers when they are not, is there anyone you wont lie to, about anything?

30

How Long Can They Pin It On 'Fringe Radicals'?

remasculation.blogspot.com

by: Snark

Surprisingly resilient is the claim of earnest feminists, that they don't hate men at all, and that those socalled feminists who do hate men are not really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong.

This would be no discussion, but then Gudrun Schyman is no lady. She is a wouldbe petty dictator, and the word she was looking for is 'dictation'.

Where the fuck are the egalitarians? Where the fuck are they? Where's the fucking 'equal rights' feminists?

There are so many examples to the contrary of this, which show that the misandrists who wave the flag 'feminism' are not only the loudest voices, but the most powerful, most wellorganised, most determined to affect change, and arguably the most numerical, of all those who claim the tag feminism. That is, the feminists who most give a damn about feminism, are absolutely unrelenting manhaters!

And by the way, a year before making this disgusting proposal, she had been charged with misleading tax authorities, for attempting to make illicit tax deductions. You just could not make this stuff up. No matter how low you set the bar for feminists, they always manage to limbo right underneath it.

That's a great show, by the way.

Example #1. Gudrun Schyman, who cofounded the Swedish political party Feminist Initiative, was responsible for the idea of a 'man tax' that is, taxes levied against men for having the gall to bear a penis.

To quote this disgusting pig,

"we have to have a discussion so that men understand that they have a collective financial responsibility."

So tell me, those of you who claim that selfidentified feminists like Gudrun Schyman are just 'fringe radicals' where were the organised and powerful feminists opposing this? Schyman was a member of the Swedish parliament when she proposed the 'man tax'. That makes her pretty damn powerful in my book. So where were the other powerful feminists? That's right they were backing her up, nodding in agreement that all men shall pay for the crimes of a few, titillating at the thought of making men suffer even more. If these are the fringe radicals, where were the genderegalitarian majority?

Example #2. Ruth Hall, from feminist organisation Women Against Rape, nearly has a hemorrhage over the new UK coalition government's plans to extend anonymity to men accused of rape. Note that's not men convicted of rape of whom plenty are in fact innocent, as recent events have shown in sickening detail it's men who are only accused, a large number of whom are falsely accused. That Ruth Hall could come out in opposition to such a proposal in the same week that a story ran about a serial false accuser who ruined one life and caused another man to commit suicide just shows how black her heart really is.

Just a 'fringe radical', is she? Well, one thing led to another, and fiftythree Members of the UK Parliament signed a motion opposing anonymity for defendants. Let's be clear this is radical misandry. The arguments put forward in justification of the motion are so flimsy that a child could see right through them. Of course, the language used centres around 'the victim' meaning, 'the woman', whether she is the victim or in fact the criminal. According to the motion, defendants in rape cases should not be

Interesting what kind of discussion begins with its conclusion as its very premise? What kind of discussion rules out compromise altogether in favour of the other party having to simply "understand" the terms set out on their behalf?

I feel like D'Angelo Barksdale at the end of season one of The Wire when I say this.

afforded anonymity because it will prevent women from coming forward.

Um, what? How are the two remotely connected? There is not even an attempt made at connecting cause to effect the two are breezily conjoined without the slightest regard for the men whose lives have, and will, be torn apart by vicious lies. When Prime Minister David Cameron broached the subject of the falsely accused during a parliamentary session, and mentioned the fact that men's lives are "blighted" by false accusations, some going so far as to kill themselves, do you know what the Opposition did? They shook their heads and booed.

Organisation of Women, one of the most powerful women's advocacy groups in the United States of America, has publicly celebrated Valerie Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights," and "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." And by the way, the latter quote is taken from her trial, where NOW was defending her character after she went on a shooting spree, targeting (you guessed it) men.

That should tell you all you need to know about the Labour Party the party of feminism, currently led by one of the country's most spectacular misandrists Harriet Harman, and the source of most of the signatures against the extension of anonymity to rape defendants. This all brings me back to my question where the fuck are the feminists who "don't hate men"? Where the fuck are they? The support for this Bill has come from all manner of people across the political spectrum, from conservatives to liberals but certainly not from feminists. Example #3. The National

Ask yourself, would gender egalitarian feminists really support this woman? I quote her at length, from her most popular work (and, apart from her shooting spree, the only thing anybody remembers her for):

32

To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples. SCUM will kill all men who are

not in the Mens Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Mens Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing pall with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Mens Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUMs goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to deman themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a womans primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: `I am a turd, a lowly abject turd, then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, cleanliving male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex; makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom,

will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.

Are NOW just 'fringe radicals'? What about the Feminist Initiative? The 53 members of Parliament in the UK opposing anonymity for rape defendants? Women Against Rape? For fringe radicals, they certainly hold a lot of power in setting the terms of the discourse, don't they?

you blame me? The actual movement is not comprised of college undergraduates who have yet to be exposed to the ways of the world. The actual movement is out there, embedded in the institutions of the state, pushing for greater punitive measures

examples for this post, but a cursory glance around the 'manosphere' will provide you with many, many more.

'Fringe radicals', my foot you don't get much more radical than the woman who wrote tracts about the need to exterminate all men, and subsequently attempted to murder several. How surprising that one of the most powerful feminist lobbying organisations in the world celebrated her and defended her at her trial.

Useless, piddling, powerless feminists will state again and again that feminism is about equality and that any woman who so explicitly hates men is not really a feminist. Really, dear? Because you're referring to the driving force of the movement itself. The actually organised, well funded lobby groups, who have the power to affect change, who are in government, in academia, in the legal system and in the media, all proudly working to institutionalise further abuses of men.

against men, all the time.

Nobody cares that you don't personally hate men although I will always find that claim suspect from one labelling herself 'feminist'. Can

Where are the organised, wellfunded 'feminist' lobby groups fighting for equality and fair treatment between the sexes? Simple answer: there aren't any. I chose only three

That's because, like fascists, feminists don't care in the slightest about due legal process. Like fascists, they categorise all human beings according to their demographics, and like fascists, they demand collective retribution. Like fascists, they support a command state model with their own interests institutionally embedded and unbound by any kind of constitution. And like fascists, they aim to ratchet up the abuse, more and more, until their chosen scapegoats are enslaved or simply disappear from the face of the earth.

Hateful Feminist Post of the Month:

How to End Rape: Deuces Law

rageagainstthemanchine.com

Ah, modern day Feminism. What follows is a post from a blog called "Rage Aginst the Manchine", and this is one Feminist's thoughts on rape and the law.

The spirit of Valerie Solanas is positively THRIVING in the Feminist community. Attend:
Section 1: The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of nonconsent, as per Twisty Faster v. Patriarchy, which will replace Coffin v. United States as precedent in determining burden of proof for sex crime cases. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished. life was in danger, the added penalty of life in prison without parole will attach. Prison sentences are to be served at specially constructed facilities at which offenders will perform uncompensated labor in service of women and children. What such labor will consist of will be decided by the administrators of individual facilities, but the result of the offenders labor must meet two criteria: 1) it must provide tangible benefits for women and/or children, but 2) offenders shall not come into direct contact with any women or children at any time. Section 4: Offenders may appeal their sentences one time only. Appeals must be made on grounds other than women are emotional and unreasonable and so we shouldnt let them define rape and decide whos guilty. Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate mens rights through rape accusations than men are to violate womens and childrens rights through rape. This is not up for debate, and is thus not sufficient grounds for appeal.

Section 2: Rape will be broadly defined as intentionally taking advantage of a persons physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes, including creating fear in order to coerce a victim into performing or submitting to a sex act against her/his will. That includes fear of any kind, not just of violence. Thats right. Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them, and will have to eschew highpressure tactics, emotional and financial manipulation, as well as physical force if they want to avoid rape charges. Section 3: Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.

Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but

If a weapon is used in the commission of the crime, or if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his

THAT is what a Feminist looks like...

Recommended Reading:

Men's Issues Websites:

www.mensnewsdaily.com www.glennsacks.com www.standyourground.com www.mensactivism.org www.angryharry.com www.thespearhead.com www.avoiceformen.com www.mediaradar.org falserapesociety.blogspot.com counterfem.blogspot.com antimisandry.com

PUA: Pick Up Artist good with women, usually a practictioner of Game in one form or another.

Terms and Definitions:

Game: Practical understanding of the base natures of women, and what they respond to. MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way men who have decided women aren't worth the trouble. MRM: Mens Rights Movement MRA: Mens Rights Activist

The Men's Rights Movement is largely an internetbased activist movement. It is a movement that is growing all the time, and it seems likely that in the near future it will be larger than any other sociopolitical movement in history. Never before have men been able to bypass their rulers and their mainstream information outlets in order to develop their own ideas without interference from the powersthatbe. The internet, however, is now allowing this to happen. Furthermore, it is enabling men to unite and to engage in various forms

of effective activism designed to undermine all those forces that seem to them to be incompatible with their own values and their desires. The Men's Rights Movement is here. It is growing. And it is unstoppable. If you want to understand more about the Men's Rights Movement, then MRm! magazine will keep you well informed. Download the PDF at: avoiceformen.com/mrm/mrm.php or many of the sites listed inside.