MRm!

A magazine for, and about, the men of today.

http://avoiceformen.com/mrm/mrmlist.php

Issue 4

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

In This Issue:
Conservative Misandry Training Boys to be Dogs

Editorial: 6 11 12 14 17 19 24

Fairness is a Disease To Man Up or Stand Down Abusegate: a generation deceived

White Woman's Burden

Contact:
Marry Him! (Really??)

Cover Illustration: Factory

Letter from the Editor:

With the recent announcement of a Male Studies curriculum, came a firestorm of "protest", claims that History IS "Male Studies", that "Men's Studies" is really the same thing, etc.. ANYTHING, it seems, to keep people from looking at these issues from a Malefriendly perspective. And while I would like to say that these voices were universally those of ardent Feminists defending thier turf, I cannot. Many of the protests came from men themselves. The question of "why?" has been popping up in the Manosphere. Why do these people laugh at the idea? Why the resistance to even LOOKING at this stuff? For an answer, one among many I am sure, have a look at the following articles. In them, several authors outline the myriad of ways that people lie to themselves, ignore realities they find ugly, or flat out "justify" thier poor behaviour. As you will see, the atttitudes of "old white men" line up PERFECTLY with that of mainstream Feminism. And this is neither unintentional, nor innocent. Feminism IS Chivalry, with a modern twist. Chivalry used to be about those with power curbing the abuse of same, through a strict moral code. Traditionally, people have taken this to mean "defer to women". Politicians certainly do. And this bastardization of an honour system has been not only seized upon, but made into a legal mandate. It is no longer powerful men who are held to the code, but Joe Average, whether they have power or not. And all women benefit, as do the tiny minority of Alpha Males they adore so much, whether they deserve it or not. It's hardly surprising that those who benefit from the current system would fight tooth and nail to keep it in place. Unfortunately for those people, it's time to knock that Knight right off his White Horse. After reading more, I'm sure you'll agree. Factory

The Eternal Bachelor Quiz The RealityFusion Reactor.

(or, the longest runon sentence in history)

by: Kestrel

"You see, what you do is you take two completely opposing realities I dont know hmmm . Say on the one hand, you could claim that Gender is a Social Construct, and you roll it all up into a tight ball of hate. Then, on the other hand you also claim that since you are lesbian, you were also Born Gay. You take this Born Gay concept and as well roll it up into a tight ball of hate. Then you take the two opposingthesis balls of hate and supercharge them with victim status, and fling them at each other at near the speed of light. When they collide (because gender cant be a social construct if you are born gay), a gargantuan victimhood bureaucracy will flourish all throughout the land, sprouting up in places one would never even expect it, forever sucking nourishment from society, allowing splittailed parasites to gorge on victimhoodpie until they burst with diherretic foam, more commonly known as Feminism (The fusion of Gender is a Social Construct and Lesbianism/I was Born Gay!) which, as a waste product of the Reality Fusion Process, looks and smells like sickly sweet rainbows after all, anything is possible in the Matriarchy." Snark

1. Do you only want a woman who isn't batshit insane? 2. Do you want a woman who appreciates the things you do for her rather than treat your efforts as an expected entitlement? 3. Are you only interested in committing to women who are honorable, loyal, trustworthy and true? 4. Are you rejected by women who would rather date bad boys that treat them like crap? 5. Do women who use sex as a weapon and tool of manipulation turn you off? If you answer YES to any 2 of these, then chances are you are an Eternal Bachelor.

Hateful Feminist Post of the Month:

Who on EARTH would want to be a heterosexual male? The rest of us pity you. As most of you are pitiful.

Heterosexual men boost their fragile egos at the expense of fellow human beings and care not who they hurt in order to do so. Indeed, the heterosexual male is responsible for nearly every crime against humanity ever committed. We tolerate you. Because we need your seeds to procreate.

But we really dont care for you or your little boy blue fragile egos and fake macho B.S. all that much. It tends to destroy everything in its path. But thanks for the sperm. I love my baby!
Jill Jones April 14th, 2010 at 4:02 pm Death+Taxes online magazine comment

Conservative Misandry
by: Hestia
thecomingnight.blogspot.com

Men As Wallets
The evils of misandry and feminism are oftentimes believed to come packaged in one particular way, the leftist branch feminism that immediately pops into mind when the topic is mentioned. While this may indeed be the most visible type of antimale streak running through our culture today, this is not the only form, nor the type of misandry that is most harmful. There is a strain of feminism, one I've dubbed "conservative feminism" that typically comes packaged in sparkles, ribbons, and bows. At first glance, this form may seem innocent, but upon pondering certain ideas and stereotypes floating around out there, one will quickly realize that something sinister is flying around the conservative religious world that proclaims their hatred for feminism. Any belief system or idea that attempts to elevate women above men or proclaim femininity better than masculinity is feminism. In both leftist and conservative feminism this is done, often using the same wrongful ideas about men, just spinning them a bit differently for their intended audiences. As you will see, in conservative feminism we find hatred of men in many ways: In every part of society, men are now treated as walking breathing wallets. It is their job to hand over money to the State through child support (usually without DNA proof of paternity) and alimony when marriages go wrong. Men are still expected to cover the bill for dating and they typically bear the burden of breadwinner even in two income households. In the conservative world, the burden of work takes an even more troubling turn as women are taught they have a right to stay home with their children and if their husband cannot afford to provide the standard of living that makes this necessary, then he is out of God's will, a sinner, or backslidden. When the talk turns to Titus 2 or other other verses used to support this women's right, there is not an admonishment to wives to be frugal, to be industrious and start a home business, a garden for cooking and canning, or so forth, just a strict requirement for men without a rule of cooperation on the part of women. Staying at home is simply her right, with no responsibility to aid the burden of breadwinning. Men are not allowed to express their anxiety, anguish, or upset about this rule and expectation, but are made to suffer in silence, carrying their burden alone. In fact, men's fear is so poorly tolerated that should a man express genuine concern over

not being able to have more children, for fear of feeding them in tumultuous economic times, his worry will be brushed aside and said to be the sin of "not trusting the Lord". The poor man is simply to worry himself to a heart attack, work more hours and miss out on the lives of his children, or risk having his worst fear that of being a financial failure come true. Men As Expendable Our culture sees men as disposable. We have yet to establish an Office of Men's Health (though one is possibly in the works), do not provide the same amount of funding for diseases that primarily effect men as we do for women, and we collectively expect men to perform the most unpleasant and dangerous of jobs, from coal mining and logging to law enforcement and serving in the military, without so much as an ounce of appreciation for putting their lives on the line for the enjoyment/protection of us all. Conservative feminism takes this a step farther by expecting men to take on the responsibilities of modern day chivalry. Some ministries have publicly expressed contempt for men at Virginia Tech who did not take bullets for their women classmates when the tragic shooting occurred on the campus. Others preach that it must be husbands who do the dirty and

gross jobs around the house, that is must be husbands who check for the bumps in the night, and that should there be an emergency of some sort, it better be the husband who is operating the fire extinguisher or hammering the boards before the hurricane arrives. There is no talk of women humbling themselves and learning to help alongside their husbands, if this is what their husbands would like, or being prepared to be their own heroes should a situation warrant this. On the contrary, in many instances, anything labeled as "mans work" will be considered a feminist activity and thus inappropriate for a wife to do, even if she must (as in the case of the wife of a deployed soldier like myself), or if her husband encourages her to help him with such tasks. There is not even admonishments to be appreciative of men for taking on chivalrous duties, but rather an expectation of such special treatment is taught. Fathers As Optional We all know in what low regard fathers are held in today, and sadly this reality does not end at the church door. The contempt had for fathers may not be as open as it is in mainstream society, but it's well and alive despite being a bit more hidden. We often hear talk about how much small children need their mother at home, how they cannot grow and thrive without them. We'll see motherhood elevated to the highest levels, being considered the most important and difficult job in the world. While this isn't a bad thing, the lack of high praise for fatherhood, or even mere mention of a father's

importance, is striking. Yes children of all ages need their mothers, but they need their fathers just as much, from the bittiest baby to the teenager entering adulthood. When conservatives bemoan women being in the military, the typical reason named is because the children miss and need their mothers. The reality of fathers deploying and leaving behind children is absent, not thought of at all. This is the same when the Titus 2 mandate is discussed. The importance of having mothers spending quantity time with their children is raised to the highest level, yet the reality of fathers perhaps working two jobs or more than a 40 hour work week, and thus hardly seeing their children at all, does not warrant a mention. If fatherhood was being held in the high position it needs to be, this stunning disregard for daddies wouldn't be uttered without objections and dissent. Men As Perverts "All heterosexual sex is rape" the leftist feminists proclaim, and while the conservative feminists may take the gross crime of rape off the table, a respect for healthy male sexuality they do not bring. In

Women are being advised they need to be intimate with their husbands not because they love them and desire to be close to them, not for the bonding experience, not to celebrate this special gift God has given to married couples but rather to prevent their husbands from straying. What could be a beautiful expression is lowered to the level of deceit and manipulation just like that. Perhaps not quite as sinister but still problematic is the contempt had for the male sex drive. A man's sexual desire is at best merely tolerated and at worst, looked at as a perverted dysfunction he is not "normal" like a woman. Cruel jokes are often made by women, both in mixed company and not, about a man's sex drive, remarks about how husbands always want it, laughter about denying one's husband, and many other words to pathologize healthy male virility. Men As Immoral Uncivilized Brutes The Victorian "angel in the house" is still alive and well in today's world and nowhere does this appear to be more true than in the churches today.

Feminists only have power to inflict harm and misandry upon society and upon men because the vast majority of women readily grant them that power.
schopenbecq

the conservative world, there are numerous harmful stereotypes floating about when it comes to sex. For starters, all men are not seen to be potential rapists but potential adulterers. There exist books and advice is shared that encourages wives to use sex as a means of manipulation.

Never pausing for a brief moment to consider that the cherished idea of chivalry and men as soldiers allows women to live in a civilized world with special perks, the declaration of women as the more civilized & moral sex is shouted from many a pulpit today. (And nevermind that it is women who have initiated 70% of divorces and

by: Welmer

Young Veterans out of Luck

prosecutes divorced and single fathers, the sister shouldnt be surprised, but few people are aware of just how bad it is due to media apathy concerning the subject. Not only are military wives notorious for fooling around on their husbands while they are overseas, they are given clear incentives to divorce, all the while courted by attorneys who hover around bases hoping to get a cut of a divorce settlement. In conjunction with their attorneys, military wives can often put such a financial burden on a young veteran that he has no choice but to sleep on the streets or in his car, even if he is lucky enough to be employed. Persecution and abandonment of young veterans has had dire consequences before. In some countries, it has been enough to tip the balance in favor of revolution. While this appears unlikely in the United States (for the time being), disgruntled veterans have options for expressing their dissatisfaction in manners beyond the capabilities of most others.

killed millions upon millions of precious babies, neither of which are moral or civilized by any definition...) Typical male traits, such as courageousness, justice, fairness, and take charge initiation are denigrated so that female nurturing, passivity, openminded love, and modesty can instead be elevated as the correct way to be moral. The reality of an important balance existing between these two types of morality, making both worthy of celebration is never mentioned and becomes all the more downplayed as churches feminize further, pushing men from their pews. Men At Fault Men are blamed for much in today's day and age, both in and out of the church, but the most disturbing fault I have ever heard placed on men is that of their wife's willful rebellion and self chosen sins. There are people preaching the heresy that if only men led their wives better, these women would never sin, commit adultery, or do anything of this sort. If men were taking charge correctly, their wives would submit to them and never do wrong. In some denominations and churches, this is taken a step further, not merely placing the burden of a wife's sin on a husband here on earth, but for all eternity as well. Lessons are being taught that state a man will be held accountable to God for the decisions his wife made, including those that went against his wishes and directions. Actions of which the husband had no part. This is outrageous and heretical.

Young men returning from war are finding themselves without many prospects in the current job market. The youngest veterans those under 24 years old have an unemployment rate of well over 20%. Compounding the problems these young men face, many veterans wives left them while they were on tour, taking advantage of the generous benefits the armed forces provide to soldiers exwives. Out of work and owing child support, a number are finding themselves on the street or forced to check into homeless shelters. Older proveteran activists have expressed surprise at the number of young, homeless veterans who have children. Sister JoAnne Talarico, of Des Moines Iowa, has been protesting war and helping veterans since the Vietnam War, but even she was shocked by the preponderance of fathers of young children amongst the young, homeless veterans. Given the ruthlessness with which the state

Men As Unfeeling Robots This final idea about men should be perfectly obvious with all the terrible ideas that are allowed to circle around about men and masculinity, for if we cared about men's feelings, these lies would not be allowed to spread. In our culture, we have a very narrow view on male emotional expression and are quick to judge a boy or man who does not fit into this stereotype. "Man up" and "boys don't cry" starts on the tot lot playground. We expect men to be able to hear the most cruel of words and not take them to heart. Men are expected to put themselves on the line for others with no appreciation and no way to seek emotional support to ease the many burdens placed upon their shoulders. All men are expected to handle trying times without help or support and some menespecially law enforcement, firemen, soldiers, and others we'd see as "tough guys" are expected to hold in all the terrible sights they have seen, man up and keeping going on. Men from all walks of life are told to toughen up all the way to a suicide, heart attack, or breakdown. And even then, we'll collectively feel for his family more than we will for him. "Oh his poor wife and children, I wonder how they are handling this tragedy."

provide the paycheck, the discipline for children, and all the hardwork around the house while the wife stays home with the children and doesn't truly work at home. Wives are not encouraged to ask their husbands what they need to best help them, to form a healthy type of cooperation in which a marriage and children can thrive, to help bear the load with the men with whom they are supposed to share and build a life with. The talk is most often exclusively on privilege rather than responsibility, leaving husbands with a lopsided bargain which adds far more the his plate of responsibility than to his wife's. If we are to claim to be opposed to misandry and feminism, we must be opposed to these evils in all forms, including the one with which we might be most comfortable, or even blind to. If we seek to "take back womanhood" we must be ready to rise to the challenge of being capable helpmeets, be ready with moral strength & courage, and humble enough to strip away privileges which may not be biblically supported or ideas which truly bless your husband. We must also appreciate why many men are weary of marriage, or outright opposed to this commitment, for there are very good reasons for their feelings and choices, even inside the church.

We also expect men to express their anger at real slights in a feminine way, so we women feel most comfortable. Women seek to tell men how to feel. They seek to own the experiences of men. They attempt to tell men how masculinity should be lived and what they experience. Men are not allowed to own their emotions, life experiences, or masculinity, for this makes women uncomfortable. Our culture attempts to silence them, to appease those who are scared of men being men on their own terms. Woman As Children Just as is the case with leftist feminism, the conservative strain does not seek to help us mature into capable adult women who can be true helpmeets to our husband and mothers to our children. Instead, it seeks to keep us as children forever. Male headship is often twisted to mean that women do not need to take responsibility for anything in their family for this falls in the husband's duties. A husband must

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

Training Boys to be Dogs

thespearhead.com

by: Welmer

them if they continue to behave in this manner, but what might actually be dangerous is that some will take offense, and in an academic environment that could have serious consequences for the young men. Feminists may take offense when men do such simple things as open the door for them, and if a guy attempted to take a feminists pack or item of clothing theres a good chance shed cry harassment. A young man accused of harassment at a university will probably face some stern disciplinary action from the school, as women and their feelings are sacrosanct on campus. As for conservative vs. feminist women, I think theres a good way to look at their approaches to men. Both in fact demand chivalry, but in different ways. Left feminists want socialist chivalry, in which men in aggregate support women, whereas conservative women favor the individual man (i.e. husband) bearing the burden. In the current situation, we have a mix of both, but there is still a fight over resources, as some of the working married mans money goes to support single mother feminist

types, but perhaps not as much as feminists would like. Neither left feminists nor conservative women favor easing mens burdens, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference concerning how best to extract male resources. For men, neither system is favorable, as we will simply be paying more for women through alimony on the one hand and taxes on the other. Note that conservative women are just as likely to divorce as their liberal sisters. For todays young men chivalry is not a choice: it is a mandate. Therefore, we must look at men such as Cord Ivanyi as supporters of an oppressive system. If Mr. Ivanyi wants to be a servile, Quixotic fool, he should do that on his own time. But given the fact that young men will undoubtedly be forced to support women in one way or the other eventually, forcing them to do so at a young age is simply robbing them of the few remaining years of freedom left to them.

Some time ago, an Arizona schoolteacher made the news by forcing the male students in his class to bow and scrape to the females. This guy, who is doing serious damage to these boys by forcing them to act like supplicating beta white knights, thinks the world would be a better place if only men did even more for women. Cord Ivanyi, the misguided or sadistic, I dont know which teacher, has forced his male students to seat girls, open doors for them, take their backpacks, stand when they leave the room, etc. He might as well have them wear dog collars, too. Of course, Ivanyi is not having the girls make sandwiches for the boys, wash their clothes, take notes for them or anything at all to reciprocate. Inevitably, when these boys get into college, girls are going to laugh at

11

Fairness is a Disease
by: Jordan Woodward
mensnewsdaily.com

So, a school wants to create a Male Studies program to look into the welfare and psyche of the modern human male. Not a bad idea, eh? The lives of males have changed a lot in the past one hundred years. Suffrage, the womens rights movement, contraception and consumer trends have all created a male completely alien to the Victorian male that "Are you a feminist?

ground. When I passed this news along to political acquaintances on the left, the response was a resounding why?. Might as well have white studies too, one said, since men and whites have dominated the world since time immemorial. We cant be studying the male since the male has had his place of privilege for so long!

The idea that we cant study the male, especially the white male, out of some antiintellectual ideal of fairness spits in the face of every honest educator in the world. Not only that, it spits in the face of real equality between the races and sexes. Babying a broad, monolithic class, in this case women, because another broad, monolithic class, men, has had their day in the sun is beyond idiotic. Its an idea based on racism, sexism and class warfare. Its an idea that goes against the root ideals of this country and of its history of higher education, going all the way back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Its as if the creator of this anti intellectual ideology couldnt actually come up with an original idea and just flipped the worst views of the worst people of the Civil Rights Era and said, Ta da! Open mindedness! And if you dont like it, youre a racist! SIRIUS/XM radio host Andrew Wilkow has a very apt analogy to explain this view. Imagine two people walking down a street. A white guy with a shirt that says, White Power and a black man that has shirt that says Black Power. For the last half century, weve been told (trained, in some

Do you subscribe to the principle "My body, my choice?" On the subject of male circumcision: Shut Your Fucking Mouth."

If you answered 'Yes' to both of these questions, then here is a word of advice:
Heretic

brought in the 20th century. Today, there are concerns of the loss of masculinity to an ever increasing feminization of Western culture. Shows like Everybody Likes Raymond, where the husband is always wrong, bumbling and submissive, promote the idea that the Western male is no longer the head of the household, but the laughing stock of it. Of course, this is just one of many theories about the modern male and these theories should be researched and reviewed and published, as is the right of any researcher.

Its the females turn! Thats the atmosphere I got from them. When did education go from finding the truth to promoting fairness and alleviating the guilt of leftwing white males? When Plato thought and wrote, it wasnt to make sure the trans gendered anarchist had a voice. It was to find the truth about humanity and its soul. When Voltaire thought and wrote, it was to explain the world and the mind, not find a new niche market for a womens studies book about anti antidisestablishmentarianism in the male dominated Greek world.

12

Thats if Male Studies get off the

cases) to look at the white mans shirt and deride him for his ethnic hatred. Yet, when we turn to the black man, we are told (trained) to congratulate him on his progressive ethnic pride in his culture (black culture, another broad, monolithic idea). How is THAT not racism? Hate whites for being proud of their race while encouraging blacks to be proud of theirs? That isnt equality, thats overcompensation. Thats anti intellectualism. Thats anti American. Period. This obsession with extralegal fairness in all things, especially education, is a disease. You cannot change history by buying off your guilt. You cannot change minds by denying education sectors for the crime of going against politically correct dogma. It strikes at liberty, intellectual discourse and our nations self esteem. A nation cannot remain free if its taking from one class and giving to another over events that happened preindependence (or prehistory, for that matter). A nation cannot have honest intellectual debate if charges of racism, sexism and all other words of total insignificance now (thanks, Leftists) are used to put down legitimate criticisms of an antiintellectual ideology. A nation especially cannot remain powerful and unified when its too busy making sure every nook and cranny of leftist created trans class, crossgendered, bottomup

race injustice is being sated by economy destroying programs promoted by people who arent touched by them, but who somehow feel the tinge of racism from a crowd not saying a word. John Adams said, Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. And the facts are, dear leftist friends and contacts, that your objections to Male Studies tells a lot about you and your inability to think critically, let alone dictate what others should think. You cannot stop racism with money, sexism with government or bigotry with indoctrination. The best we can do, the best any free nation can do, is make sure that under the law no one is discriminated against. After that, its up to the individual to find the truth themselves, not by government fiat or ivory tower poopoohing. The past 60 years have shown your idea of fairness has created one of the most antiintellectual and bigoted mainstream ideologies in America. And that has led to a world where leaders call citizens racists, teabaggers and fascists for simply opposing policy the leaders themselves have tainted with the stain of racism, sexism and anti religious bigotry. Give yourself a hand. Oh, wait, you already do.

"The

sexual double standard arises from the reality that getting sex is easy for women but hard for men. The reason studs are respected and sluts are derided is because being a stud requires skill, talent, and practice, while being a slut merely requires a pulse and a lack of impulse control. The unsung flip side of the double standard, however, is that female virgins are cherished whereas male virgins are ridiculed. A man who cant get laid signals to the world that he is a loser, while a woman who resists spreading her legs for every scumbag who winks at her shows herself to be a sober, selective person. Because a females primary goal is getting the highestquality man available to commit to her, women who cannot or will not stay in a relationship are poor sources of information on men. The male virgin and the female slut are mirror images of each other in terms of attractiveness to and knowledge of the opposite sex."
http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/ 10/06/eternalsolipsismofthe femalemind/

Ferdinand Bardamu

14

To Man Up or Stand Down

avoiceformen.com

by: Paul Elam

Among the many emails I get that dont support mens rights or dont support my take on them a hefty number of them are from men who take issue with the idea of other men shedding traditional masculine expectations and going their own way. The common theme among those emails is a short lecture on what men are supposed to do; replete with sonnylemme tellyawhatitmeanstobeareal man instructions. Most of them are written with enough swagger and brio to make John Wayne sport a proud, if grossly posthumous smile. And curiously, many of the concordant emails I get from women totally miss the point. I just read one from a woman who lauded my work against feminism because she lamented the loss of days when a man knew how to treat a lady. Apparently she thought my objection to feminism was because it kept me off a white horse.

She assumed I am engaged in a fight to protect my right to sacrifice, like a real man. A glaring misunderstanding, but she did provide an opportune segue for the correct question. What if a man doesnt want to? When all is said and done, this is the question that speaks to the heart of a growing voice, not just in the world of Mens Rights Activists, but in the world of men collectively. And it is the first of many questions that are sure to form tempests of debate and ire in the coming years. Should men tradition? break with

world where women no longer need such protection? Indeed, we now live in a world where it is men that increasingly need protection from women, as is clear in family courts, the workplace, universities think Duke and frequently their own homes. The answers to these questions which are, like it or not, relevant now require some intellectual scrutiny that wont be found in myopic edicts like Be a real man. In fact, Id argue that anyone issuing such proclamations needs to take a more lucid look at the world in which they live. Women dont have roles any more, except as they choose to take them on. Even then, they can change that role fluidly depending on whether they are vying for a promotion or sitting with a man in a restaurant when the dinner check arrives. Feminists and flat tires are seldom in each others company, so women dont really so much have roles as they

And in that should they quit expecting themselves to be the financers and custodial protectors of womens lives? Should they quit paying for dates? Should they refuse assignment to the role of breadwinner? Are men supposed to be congenital bodyguards, socially and biologically indentured in a

have a choice as to which role benefits them at the moment. Perhaps carte blanche for opportunism is a better way to put it. It is the new, but no longer sparklingly new social doctrine of equalityplus. Women now enjoy a range of options that men could not possibly dream of.

By practicing chivalry like a crack habit, and by excoriating other men for not doing same. In fact, were it not for men engaging in this mindless form of collective patricide, feminism would have been deservedly quashed at least thirty years ago. Real men would not have tolerated all this nonsense for a minute. The catch22 of this affair, however, is glaringly obvious. The traditional mindset, previously more tempered by reason, has served as the foundation of stable families and adjusted children for countless generations.

the modern morass of traditions in a world largely stripped of them. But it is a gamble with Las Vegas odds and therefore should be a choice, and one that doesnt include a license for risk takers to place a proscription on alternatives for those more survival minded. As long as we deny men choices that women are allowed to take for granted, we will continue to see men marginalized and exploited. As the New York Times just reported this the first time in American history that women outnumber men in the workforce. It is a picture consistent with mens drastically decreasing presence in higher education and punctuated by their suffering the lions share of job losses in the bad economy. And men are to continue to sacrifice for women and protect them? There are still plenty who say yes. But then there are plenty who think Elvis is still alive. When enough men find themselves paying for dinner with a gainfully employed woman with money from their unemployment checks, there will likely be a lot more men, at the very least, saying: Hey, wait a minute. That would be one giant step in the right direction.

They have been granted equal and often preferential entrance into the realm of financial opportunity and independence while social mandates still leaves the door wide open for them to do what they have historically done, e.g., draw sustenance and enhanced lifestyle from the sweat and labor of men. Its the net result of feminist doctrine and mens complicity in it; a paradigm not of parity, but of parasitism; a Kafkaesque realm for men where they are bludgeoned with messages of their uselessness to women, often while being bled dry by them. This isnt to cast men as victims of women. All this is enabled, lock, stock and barrel, by men rigidly maintaining their traditional roles, giving women whatever they ask for by rote.

It is indeed an area where expressions like the fabric of our society and backbone of our civilization are not just tired and overused metaphors, but spot on descriptions of reality. That, in and of itself, might appear to be a sound reason for men to just shut up, shovel the fuckin' gravel, and sacrifice; to labor for what has worked in the past as though the last 40 years never happened. But that is the problem. The last 40 years actually did happen. That toothpaste is already out of the tube, and much more likely than not trying to squeeze it back in is a noble and pathetically fruitless task. It is not that traditional roles cant work. They can for a waning few; those willing to find their way to each other though

16

trudywschuett.homestead.com

Abusegate: a generation deceived

by: Trudy Schuett liberate women from the socalled oppression of marriage and family. few academicians pushing feminist law, and feminist psychology, the general public had little interest in a movement that was so clearly designed to create antipathy between not only the sexes, but between career women and those choosing more traditional paths for themselves. It was about the same time that the issue of partner abuse began to emerge as an issue on the public radar. In 1971, Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for abused women in the UK. There were also a few shelters for women developing independently in various places in the US.

The story of Abusegate is as much about the attempt by feminists to obscure their real intentions as it is about feminist attempts to conceal the reality of partner abuse, in order to claim the issue as their own, and possibly the only issue available at the time to keep this essentially destructive philosophy alive. What feminism is supposed to be about is the definition provided by MerriamWebster.

The above quote is important because it addresses the politicization of science and research. Dean Esmay, the owner of Deans World where I blog occasionally as part of a group, has often commented that politics and science dont mix. While I havent been in the field of research myself, its fairly wellknown that going after grants and funding has become a difficult process, often fraught with politics and cronyism.

Ive followed the issue of Climategate with great interest, especially as it has seemed for years that the issue of global warming, climate change whatever you choose to call it has mirrored what was going on in the field of partner abuse. Both issues have a lot of money, political power, and careers at stake. There is also plenty of name calling, dirty dealing and outright hatred expressed by the opposing camps for the other.

This is a current popular definition, however, and has little to do with the goals of feminism, which has its roots not only in Marxist ideals, but also in antimale hatred and a desire for power and control over society where it is most beneficial to feminists themselves. According to Erin Pizzey:

This did not escape the attention of the zealots of the feminist faith and other opportunistic women. Surely there was profit and power to be gained in promoting this cause. According to the Herstory of domestic violence:

Where Abusegate is concerned, however, there is one more element the life or death of feminism, and its determination to

In the 1970s, and into the 1980s, feminism was still an emerging movement. Except for the halls of academia, which began to offer womens studies courses, and a

A theory regarding abuse was formulated, relying almost entirely on feminist supposition and the input from selfidentified abused women. There has never been any kind of formal research or investigation of the feminist theory of abuse; it has simply been presented as a fait accompli and seldom, if ever, questioned.

17

A look through the Herstory, (on the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse website, (funded by your tax dollars) reveals a stunning lack of mention of research of any kind behind the feminist concept of domestic violence. Del Martin, a lesbian activist, wrote one of the earliest works on the issue in 1976. She says;

This statement appears on the main page of the website for the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, also funded by your tax dollars.

Lenore Walker, author of "The Battered Woman";

This is probably the most astonishing fact of Abusegate: While Climategate has at least some basis in research and scientific theory, there is none whatsoever behind the myriad programs and laws established since the 1970s by the socalled, Battered Womens Movement. Even the term itself was created for its impact by feminists whose goals had very little to do with providing aid for women.

Since the early days of the Battered Womens Movement, nearly everything that has come after has been based on feminist principles devised out of thin air. Even today, in the US there is no standard definition of what domestic violence is or is not. Yet thousands of men are incarcerated, families destroyed, and women and children thrown into a permanent condition of life in turmoil because of nothing but the aberrant personal beliefs of a few women a generation ago.

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Sorem Kirkegaard

As radical activist Susan Schecter said;

While the feminists of the 20th Century are dying off or retiring, their ugly legacy of opportunism remains. Legions of divorce lawyers, shelter advocates, and organizations providing feminist education all benefit from the multibillion dollar industry that now forms the basis of societys approach to partner abuse. The real tragedy of Abusegate is that victims of genuine partner abuse are still left without hope and support. They have been doubly victimized by a society that has been too willing to accept answers without first considering the problem.

Ellen Pence, Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project:

The White Woman's Burden

remasculation.blogspot.com

by: Snark

Feminism is an ideology which purports to explain the entirety of the universe with a few simplistic maxims. Feminists have often spoken of their need to detach from male ways of thinking, bourgeois values and the like, so that they may invent, from scratch, their own thought system. I find their arrogance comic and tragic in about equal measure; feminism is constituted of the same conceptual building blocks as the male ideologies predating it by centuries. It is a product, and a result, of male thought. It exists in, and perpetuates, the same framework of ideas which sustain maledriven ideologies. Example: socialism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one social class by another.

Example two: fascism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one cultural group by another. Riding on the coattails of these, using the very same premises, and reaching a result that was utterly inevitable: feminism attempts to explain everything which can be seen, by a handful of maxims connected to the unjust domination of one sex (females) by the other (males). Given that feminism is a total explanation that is, it attempts to address and answer every phenomenon, not even limiting itself to human interaction it automatically sets itself up in opposition to absolutely everything in the universe, known and unknown, which is not feminist. Even those things which are not explicitly anti feminist, but are nevertheless, nonfeminist, are

19

explained by feminism as the oppression of one sex (females) by the other (males). Thus, if feminism is to achieve its stated goals, there cannot be one square inch of nonfeminism in the universe. Feminism must swallow up everything, no matter how small, no matter how seemingly insignificant. To grant permission to one square inch of nonfeminism in the universe would be to accept oppression, according to their simplistic maxims, and the purpose of the ideology is to root this out and destroy it. Feminism is a gigantic, pulsating mass which expands indefinitely; it is a tumor, the only purpose of which is to spread itself ever wider. Nonfeminist spaces are absolutely impermissible, let alone actively antifeminist spaces.

genital mutilation on the grounds that it is an affront to individual liberty and dignity, they oppose the practice on this second ground, which becomes more clear if we take another example. Think, for instance, of a culture which strictly mandates different social functions for men and for women. Both their spheres involve burdens, and both involve benefits, though of a different sort. Most likely, the majority of men and women would continue to live this way by choice, their happiness dependent on factors other than what we might term their gender roles.

that, once the egg hatches, the traditional society will be destroyed from within. This happens underneath the guise of female empowerment: that this is A Good Thing is a commonsense assumption, challenges to which shall be met with the post modern equivalent of pitchforks and torches. It is a linguistic sleight, operating through the widespread fallacy that women are victims a priori. Supplying goodies to women overseas, while their male counterparts must still earn their keep, is not intended to segregate the sexes. This was not ever the goal of feminism. The goal, broadly speaking, is to drive a wedge between the sexes. It is to create the conditions in which women will want to abuse men and to make them suffer. Women, as a class, have been historically oppressed, their maxim goes; so men, as a class, must pay. It is an ideology of vengeance; empowerment not from, but at the expense of, and over men. The feminist utopia is one in which she can get a man locked inside a dirty cage and gang raped at her whim, just by picking up a phone. For feminists, this is known as 'justice'. Cultural diversity, by necessity, involves a great deal of non feminism and antifeminism. Feminism is a culturally specific phenomenon, so we should not expect anything else. The opposition to cultural diversity, apart from on feminist terms, reveals that white, Western cultural imperialism is alive and well, now spearheaded by women.

This would not by any means be an affront to the individual liberty or dignity of women, yet it would be opposed by feminism, because it is not the same as it. It is not consistent with feminism a particular set of assumptions which originated "Those who can make you believe out of male thought in absurdities can convince you to the West, commit atrocities." and which -Voltaire were brought to prominence So too are nonfeminist practices. by a relatively small number of There are surely good reasons wealthy white women. for opposing certain cultural practices; particularly, those The way that feminism works to among us who respect the rights destroy nonfeminism can be of individuals to live as freely as is likened to the life cycle of the consonant with the demands of spider wasp. The spider wasp is society made necessary by our one of nature's most brutal creatures. Capturing and proximity will attest. paralysing a large spider, the But feminism's opposition to wasp lays a small egg atop it, other cultures, traditions and before sealing the nest. Once the practices stems from the fact of wasp larva hatches, it feeds those cultures, traditions and slowly on the stillliving, trapped practices not being the same as spider. it. That genital mutilation should be confronted is not a matter of The mission of Western feminists feminism, it is a matter of has been to plant their small, eggs within individual liberty and dignity. inconspicious Although feminists might oppose overseas cultures. The goal is

How well do you know that girl anyway?

Because if you go home with her, and trust her that she's "on the Pill", you've just given her the power to decide if you're going to be a Daddy or not. In fact, if she wants, she can empty a condom into herself, and STILL collect 30% of your paycheck for 18 years. So flush it. Men have NO reproductive rights, but plenty of responsibilities (mostly financial). Conduct yourself accordingly.

But this is resolutely not a change. It is the logical next step in an imperial project stretching back centuries. Feminism, as thought, does not break from the past. It unwittingly tributes it by carrying its projects on. We have heard much about the white man's burden, a term which is today used, almost always, mockingly. I quite agree that it should be, but it is only half the picture. The title of this piece is a joke: white women have no burdens. Only benefits to be received in exchange for existing. This is the other half of the picture. Rich white women benefited from the exploitation that rich white men were carrying out, without ever having to get their own hands dirty. Whether it was the products of slave labour, the curiosities from the third world, or simply the power of life and death they held over men of other races, the truth is this: white women benefited from imperialism and exploitation, without ever having to take the attached risks. Given that they received benefits without the worry of risks, while imperialist white men received benefits but faced risks, it is quite clear that the greatest net gain belonged to women. As chivalry dictated, women should not have to lift a finger to receive rewards; simply for existing, they were granted prizes and presents on the broken backs of slave labourers, and were protected from facing the consequences of their acts. It is interesting to see how this state of affairs has persisted, even intensified, now under the name of feminism rather than chivalry. Rewarded for existing, protected

from consequences, rich white women became nothing more than large children, never comprehending the magnitude and moral awfulness of their acts. When we think of lynching, we perhaps picture angry mobs of racist white men. Again, this was half the picture. The majority of lynchings carried out in America in the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted from false rape accusations made by white women. Lies which had no need to be told, but were anyway, perhaps as some small amusement to herself, resulted in black men being beaten, mutilated, deformed, dismembered, tortured and murdered. Time, and time, and time, and time again. There is some mistaken belief that women are the kinder, or the more tolerant of the two sexes. Yet, as evil and unforgiveable as the actions of racist white men were, their motivation was the protection of their women, from what they genuinely believed was a credible and serious threat. Tell me, what was the motivation of the women who told these lies?

the driving force of rich white women's activism. From the lynching of black men, to the prohibition on alcohol, to the destruction of cultures from within, their goal is to enforce their monocultural values upon the entire universe, with every square inch of nonfeminist space crushed and grounded down into submission. Even historical facts must bend to this mission, and I do suspect that feminists will continue their long silence on the horrendous roles that their own sisters played e.g. in the Ku Klux Klan. If they could, they would simply brush these facts under the rug, as uncomfortable as they are, and more importantly, as inconsistent as they are with the maxim that it is men who oppress women and not the other way around. Ultimately, rich white women cannot succeed. Like a tumor which feasts on living tissue, it relies upon the life support system which it systematically destroys.

freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. Dean Steacy
Let us not forget that the Ku Klux Klan had its own Women's Auxiliary. The women who joined often did so to leverage their own political power, connected with women's suffrage. So let us not look back on history and see only men who were racist and women who were heroic. Let us recall feminism's own dirty history of racism and support for the murder of black men. The need to exert control over the behaviour of others is apparently

Investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Feminism, utterly reliant in practice on the products of men's labours, alienates more men with each new regulation it places on their behaviour. The white woman's burden is that she may have to powerlessly watch as people and cultures do as they please, without regard to her complaints.

23

Marry Him! (Really?):

by: Obsidian These days its common to hear of the newest/latest books and the like aimed at Women, to help them find their Mr. Right.

A Clear Example Of The Eternal Solipsism Of The Female Mind

theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com

moment, as well as the gist of Ms. Gottliebs book. But before we do that, lets consider one little thing, shall we? Gottliebs book no doubt will be viewed as dating advice; perhaps even as selfhelpand in any event, such books are marketed in droves to Women, *for years*. All kinds of truly dehumanizing language and allusions are made to Men, such as the very title of the

The Rules to Hes Just Not That Into You, to now, of course, Marry Him!. Yet, one of the biggest complaints and charges by those who decry Game almost, but not always Women, is that it is not only disrespectful to Women and trades in dehumanizing terminology to and about them, but it suckers in unsuspecting guys too, on the grounds that the Game/PUAsphere is chockfull of hucksters21st century snakeoil salesmen who rake in the dough while their clients and customers get feeble, at best, results. And to be sure, for my part at least, I dont deny that the Gamesphere has its share of hucksters and shady types. But the sheer hubris it takes on the part of many Women to actually fix their mouths to make such charges, in the face of scads of books and the like, such as the one were examining today, really takes the cake.

Ms. Lori Gottliebs Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough is no exception; in fact, it appears that her missive has started quite a backlash among her fellow travellers. It seems that all of the Usual Suspects of the Femosphere have kneejerked their disapproval at Ms. Gottliebs sisterly betrayal: what, actually *settle* for some lowly Man? Women need Men likeoh, well you get the point. Not only has Ms. Gottliebs book been the talk of the town on the Web, but apparently its been optioned to be made into a feature length film, by none other than Tobey SpiderMan Maguire himselfwhich, when one thinks of his Peter Parker persona, really makes sense.

Thats because only a non Venomnized Pete could ever, ever even consider such a thing. Not only is the very premise that a Woman, any Woman, has to put up with a guy because shes simply run out of options but the Y chromosome yammering over the whole thing once again, leaves out one crucial element: US. But, well get to that in a

book were discussing; were rated and objectified, ranked and given the heaveho for the slightest imperfection, infraction or just the misfortune of being *human* a necessary evil all in the name of the Precious Ladies search for Mr. Right.

24

Moreover, none other than the High Priestess of Relationship & Dating Advice herself Oprah Winfrey is known for her pricey workshops and seminars as she is for her long running tv chat show. And of course, she endorses everything for Women from

It, along with the other points that need to be raised and presented in the light of day for all to see, counts as just one of many examples of what fellow Game and allaround blogger Ferdinand Bardamu called the Eternal Solipsism of The Female Mind. But wait, theres more! Not only is Gottliebs screed a halfhearted attempt to sound like shes gained some wisdom

in her more than a *quarter century of frutiless dating*, but she has the nerve the unmitigated gall to suggest that she still has every right to be picky, because, afterall, she has a son to think about. Thats right. Ms. Gottlieb is a Baby Mama. The question becomes, *how* did she achieve this monumental feat, without so much as a hubbie, boyfriend, or even a Hookup?

something the likes of which Ive never set my eyes on beforeand believe you me, I done seen a lot of stuff. She honestly thinks that her stuff dont stink and shes by no means alone. More and more, both here in the States and across the pond in the UK, Women are being seen as increasingly demanding, narcissistic, unrealistic and haughtywith average, at best, cred to back it up. Consider the recent London Daily Mail article that talks about this very problem, the one written by American homegirl Kay Hymowitz, for example.

about how all the guys she passed up in her life have moved on to have families of their own you know, the one you make with someone you actually know and doesnt require a petrie dish? Men, in case no ones figured it out by now, are just simpler, more pragmatic and are much, much more likely to settle than are Women, and when they decide that the dating game aint for them, they find happiness elsewhere. Which explains why for every Game or PUA website, blog, book or seminar, you can find easily dozens of the female versions in any direction you want to go.

The answer comes from Gottlieb herself. In her March 2008 article of the same name of her book in "The Atlantic" (which is still available online), she makes it clear that she took a trip to the local fertility clinic with time running out on her biological clock so she could get knocked up the good old fashioned way with the Turkey Baster because, well, there just wasnt anybody out there good enough for her to make a baby with otherwise. Let that sink in for a moment. OK, so let me get this straight: she cant find anybody good enough for 25 YEARS, then finally, at the fag end of her fertile years, decides to get the Butterball Treatment. Then, STILL expects to find Mr. Right, and failing that, will grudgingly settle for Mr. Good Enough. Is this Beeyotch out of her everloving mind?!? Oh yea I can just see the swarms of Men now, who cant *wait* to lineup to take to one knee and humbly beg for this Middleaged Maidens hand in holy matrimony, Test Tube Baby in tow, no less.

Thats another thing that burns me up about Women like Gottlieb which, I am very sad to report, are the coin of the realm in our times: they not only want, or expect, but DEMAND the tiptop absolute best Man in the Universe, but give little if anything in return. They surely arent offering equal value, thats for certain. Ever took a peek at Craigs List, or Match.com, or eHarmony, and looked at these ladies ads? Their lists of the ideal Man are yay long, but notice something: They never, ever, offer what the guy gets in return.

Happiness for Men is a heck of a lot easier than for Women for the simple reason that we expect a lot less than do Women. And once Women,

It just makes life easier if I let her have her way.

Insufferable Pussy

for all their vaunted brainpower, finally figure this out, they too just might get a freaking clue.

Its almost as if these gals are doing such sought after guys a favor just to be in their hallowed presence. Whats in it for me? Not a whole lot. Gimme, gimme, gimme. No, screw that. It aint almost as if it IS as if.

The ASSumptions this book and attendant squawking by the Femmetariot makes very, very dangerous ones is that the guys will simply go along with whatever the ladies eventually decide to do, assuming thats even humanly possible in the first place. It doesnt occur to them that Men have minds of their own, connected to their own ideas of what theyd like to have and do and be in life, and who to do that with. Moreover, they assume that the reason why they havent found Mr. Right, is

The sheer arrogance, hubris and out and out megalomania, that this Woman exudes is

Nor does it surprise me one little bit that Gottliebs supposed cautionary tale talks

25

because, well, they just havent found Mr. Right.

Parting Shot:

It never occurs to them that the real reason why they havent found Mr. Right, is because theyre NOT Ms. All That and the Mr. Good Enoughs of the world arent exactly beating a path to their door either.

They cant seem to make the connection between what goes on in their heads and what goes on outside it, and line the two up accordingly.

As if I couldnt be more pissed off by reading Ms. Gottliebs crocodile tear laden cautionary tale, her constant rejection of men for congenital features (among a great, great many things), such as lack of the height she wanted and so on, really got me to thinking you know, Women do not hesitate to call a man a Misogynist usually because he disagrees with her and some men have tried to answer back by charging some women with misandry. But it doesnt work, in my view. Why? Because the word is too esoteric, and besides, it smacks of a kind of loserdom; they call you a Misogynist, you call them a Misandrist? Nah. But as I was out talking a walk to cool off after reading Gottliebs mad ravings, something else occurred to me; Bigotry.

In fact, Gottliebs book, stands as an A1 case study in perhaps thee most pernicious form of discrimination around, and thats the kind that Women of her ilk visit on Men all the time.

bachelor (n.) a selfish, inconsiderate cad who has deprived a woman of a divorce settlement.

In fact, now that I think about it, I have been discriminated against MORE by Women and in this case, Black Women than I EVER have by job employers, banks, landlords and the like. In other words, being an unacceptable Male has been the cause of my being discriminated against, by BLACK WOMEN, more than my being discriminated against, simply because Im Black. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate, and I call on all my Brothers and Sisters of Good Will to begin to call such people like Gottlieb for what they are: Woman, thou name art Bigot. And Hypocrite. And just plain ole Cwazie. And like Archie Bunker, well laugh AT you, too.

And they cant seem to understand why anyone with any modicum of options, self respect or just plain ole sanity, would be out of their mind to even give one nanosecond, or one spark of brainpower towards even considering standing in the same room as such a Woman, let alone dating or worse, mating with her. Once again: Feminine Solipsism, anyone?

The intense dislike of another, just because of how they look.

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 undermine all those forces that seem largely an internet-based activist to them to be incompatible with their movement. own values and their desires. It is a movement that is growing all The Men's Rights Movement is here. the time, and it seems likely that in the near future it will be larger than It is growing. any other socio-political movement in history. And it is unstoppable. 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 powersthat-be. The internet, however, is now allowing this to happen. 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/mrmlist.php

Furthermore, it is enabling men to or many of the sites listed inside. unite and to engage in various forms of effective activism designed to