(Part 3) Top products from r/MensRights

I feel a bit of trepidation posting here, especially with a different view point, but I am going to give it a go anyway. I think in regard to the idea of free speech that you run into the same sort of problems that any opposing viewpoints do, whether it’s democrats vs. republicans, atheism vs. religion etc.. The people that do the most of the talking fall to the extreme of both viewpoints and the people who are willing to actually debate and listen fall silent because they don’t want to get involved in the crazy rhetoric. So when you talk about “the kind of feminism that dominates” you are really talking about the people who have a platform and have an audience. Those of us who are willing to debate feel like it’s hard to go against the grain, against the thought leaders. They don’t have the support of their own side, so it makes it hard to go up against the opposing side.

Also I feel like this is a problem that comes from BOTH sides. I’m sure both of us could point to example of the other group shutting down debates or creating a really hostile place, where the other side is attacked. I think both sides don’t focus on the good that comes out of the other side. We just focus on the things that prove us right about how bad the other side is.

When talking about patriarchy and the theory of patriarchy, I think one of the most important things for feminists to remember is that MOST men are affected negatively by patriarchy as well (which you talk about, but I just wanted to add my own thoughts on). Maintaining patriarchy mean maintaining the ideal male’s position of power (white, able bodied, straight, in control of the means of production etc.). Even men who fit these particular descriptions have to police themselves intensely to make sure they don’t appear to have any sort of “other” characteristics and these characteristics often are seem as feminine. There are token members of people who have been accepted to prove that it is not a hard and fast rule, but they have to maintain the basis of the archetype as well. Since women are seen as “the other”/secondary/lesser they are allowed a larger freedom when it comes to expression but men are expected to live up to the archetype, even if it is not in their best interest.

Many feminists that I come across understand that men are affected by male privilege and the patriarchy. Do you feel like this isn’t being emphasized enough? I’m wondering if it’s hard for me to see if it is enough and would like to understand how you feel about the acknowledgement of that.

I think this is where intersectionality becomes important as well, because I can see that as a woman I am treated a certain way, but as someone who is white, educated and from a middle class background I have certain privileges that are not given to everyone. To me it seems that some men get caught up in the fact that they can’t see a direct benefit from being a man, so male privilege can’t exist. It is not about the anecdote and it is certainly not that simple. But gender is a component of how you are treated in society. What do you think is the best way to address this?

I disagree with you for the most part about rape culture, that it is challenged regularly for women, but I don’t want to focus on that now (it’s so complicated and this is already getting long). When you talk about men affected by rape culture, for a lot of the cases (saying men can’t be raped, the fact that we have no idea how many men are raped in prison and that no one sees this as a serious issue that desperately needs to be addressed) is because the men it affects have qualities of the “other” or do not fit the archetype promoted by patriarchy. In that sense, these men are “less than” women because women are expected to have the “other” characteristics, while men have not.


Lastly in regards to rape culture, I think we haven’t found a good way to talk about the complicated issues of consent and sex and its role in rape culture. I know feminists want to completely separate the ideas of rape and sex, but I think it’s time now to change that. Obviously both sides know that the “getting attacked in a dark alley” sort of rape is bad, but that we get confused when it comes to talking about anything else. (A lot of these ideas are explored in Yes means Yes! An amazing book by Jacyln Friedman and Jessica Valenti http://www.amazon.com/Yes-Means-Visions-Female-Without/dp/1580052576)

A part of this whole mess is we still aren’t giving agency to women and girls when it comes to their own sexuality. We are still teaching that sex is bad and dirty, and perhaps not as implicitly in some places, but that good girls don’t want sex, and that it should be saved for marriage etc. etc. When it comes to giving consent, we go with the idea of “no means no” because it follows the stereotypes that boys are sex crazed maniacs and women need to be the voice of reason and police sexual behavior (thanks a lot Victorian ideals). If we could implement the idea that it’s ok for women to feel desire, and that there is nothing wrong with someone who has sex on the first date, people could have much more honest conversations about what exactly they want and how they want it. The idea that sex just suddenly happens wordlessly and perfectly, like in the movies, makes the idea of having to discuss the details of a sexual encounter seem unsexy and awkward.


I think this is where a lot of men get angry because they feel like feminism is calling them all rapists when they know they would never do the dark alley scenario. They have been taught to look for the implicit no, instead of really figuring out the yes. Women, on the other hand, are conditioned not to be direct, not to ask for what they want and to be afraid of their sexuality. It is the onus of both genders, to encourage and not shame people over directness and for both parties to stop and explain if they don’t want to continue/feel uncomfortable.
There still will be cases where people take advantage of people when they are intoxicated or when people take advantage of others who are unwilling to speak up because of social norms, but it will be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately there is a direct and passive acceptance of the way things are now in regards to sexuality, but that doesn’t mean that individuals can’t start to change things.

Hopefully that all made some sense and it wasn’t too rambly or off topic. It’s been a couple years since I focused on this topic, so I am a bit out of practice explaining these ideas.

Again, I disagree. Feminism was never truly founded on noble principles. All the same bad ideas we're fighting against now were present from the very beginning.

A good place to start learning about the true history of the feminist movement is reading about the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. That's more or less where feminism got its "official" start. Of particular interest is the [Declaration of Sentiments] (http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html) presented at same.

To be fair, there are some reasonable points there, particularly the one about women being seen as essentially morally blameless, but the oppression narrative it's trying to weave rings rather hollow when one considers the socioeconomic status of the attendees (hint: they weren't poor), and most of the items listed are couched in terminology painting men as big meanies who simply want to keep all the goodies for themselves^1 . Never mind the fact men were the ones held legally, financially and socially responsible when things went tits up.

Another good historical source is [The Fraud of Feminism] (https://smile.amazon.com/Fraud-Feminism-E-Belfort-Bax/dp/1533387095/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496102290&sr=1-3&keywords=E.+Belfort+Bax) by E. Belfort Bax, first published in 1908, in which he authors many of the same criticisms of the then-fledgling movement as are commonly voiced over a century later. Of additional note is [The Legal Subjection of Men] (https://smile.amazon.com/Legal-Subjection-Men-Perfect-Library/dp/1515039730/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1515039730&pd_rd_r=DQJPTVT7Y0SYSTHPXFA9&pd_rd_w=3bgPe&pd_rd_wg=Vcfzw&psc=1&refRID=DQJPTVT7Y0SYSTHPXFA9), which was published the same year and seems to have been a response to J.S. Mill's The Subjection of Women published roughly 40 years prior.

All of which doesn't even touch on the ugliness to be found in many of the "founders'" personal views regarding race and ethnicity, to say nothing of the rather cozy relationship between the suffragettes^2 and the Ku Klux Klan. Granted, said views were generally fairly common for their time, but hey, if social justice activists want to tear down monuments to significant historical figures who owned slaves or held what are now seen as regressive views... "What's sauce for the goose" and all that.

I'd also recommend watching [Karen Straughan's] (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg) early videos on YouTube, where she covers much of what I've mentioned above in greater depth.

Point being, the principles behind feminism at its inception and those espoused by the ideology's modern contemporaries are so similar as to be virtually identical. It was never really "about equality." There was always an unspoken asterisk affixed to the word denoting the retention of women's social privileges and eschewing the shouldering of men's responsibilities.

Feminism has always been an ideological shell game. The only difference between then and now is more people today are willing to point it out.

---
^1 "As a teacher of theology, medicine or law, [woman] is not known." Nary a word about more women in coal mines or on sailing ships. I'm shocked.

^2 Not to be confused with the suffragists, who, despite the best efforts of feminists over the intervening century to conflate the two, were not at all the same group. The suffragists wanted the vote for more or less everyone. The suffragettes wanted the vote for wealthy white (Protestant) women only.

That is a repost or Churnalism derived from Daily Mail (A UK based news paper with a readership bases of >50% female and was started with women in mind, often equated with the same practices as fox news.) which is a repost or Churnalism from 72Point (News, PR and Survey Specialists, in other words marketing firm), they did a survey on behalf on NPower (a central heating company) for a cash back incentive. The "study" was of 2000 customers, no details are given about how many customers were male/female, no ages or any other demographic information can be found, and as far as I can tell the "study" has not been made public.Your link at least does not claim that Emily Stag is a researcher, in fact when quoting her, it does not point her name out at all. Daily Mail claims she is a researcher, the original very short Press Release that was given by 72Point simply lists her as "Emily Stagg, from npower hometeam 50".
She is however according to her Linkedin the Campaign Planning Manager(which means marketing) for NPower.

I have no idea as the validity of all the sources listed above by ENTP, but the
>80% of wealth is spent by women

Is a rounded down number from the figure 88% coming from the following book.

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women

Written by the late Bernice Kanner Her Amazon books

TLDR: Your link Is nothing but a marketing ploy by Emily Stagg to get her company some national news time, I've never read or heard of Bernice Kanner, thats the source of the 80% number, but the book is their to check for source info.

My god... Is krosen going to ... buy a book?

Support the free market?

http://www.amazon.com/Tampa-Alissa-Nutting/dp/0062280546

or for childs play charity (like they do at /r/GameDeals)

http://www.amazon.com/Tampa-Alissa-Nutting/dp/0062280546?tag=childsplaycha-20

Point her to articles written by Cathy Young.

Cathy Young's articles are always well researched and exceedingly balanced acknowledging the positives and negatives.

Here are some recent ones:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/31/who-hurting-men-rights-movement/HmoV7KuZdAMk9q8HSICglO/story.html
http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/women-against-feminism-blog-misses-the-mark-cathy-young-1.8909937

Her book Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality is available used for $.01 at Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Ceasefire-Women-Forces-Achieve-Equality/dp/0684834421

>So according to you there is no difference between men playing around with their friends, and corporations exploiting men by depicting them as idiots at our expense to sell products to women.

Oh look, a straw man.

I said, to the observer. And it's true. If you can manipulate the observer's opinion, you create the opinion. This is psych 201 and sales 101.

And let's look for a moment at your distinction without difference, shall we. Assuming the man cares what his audience thinks, then he is in fact exploiting men (himself) by depicting himself as an idiot at his expense to sell humor to other men in return for friendship.


>Anyhow, the woman is making the statement that she can dress how she wants, and its not inviting sexual assault, and reclaiming the word slut, she isn't a company commodifying, commercializing and selling products with her sexuality.

Disingenuous assertions.

Women dress in sexual attire to attract a mate. They know this. They do so at the risk of inviting unwanted sexual attraction. Women know that women call each other sluts, as a sexual strategy/competitive strategy.

Further, anyone with half an understanding of politics, ideology, and economics (and honestly, reality) understands that there is always a commodity, always a product. Entertainment isn't a product - fun is an emotional state. But entertainers sell it. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to suggest that simply because she's not producing a physical thing, nor actually produced the idea, that she's not selling it.



In this case she's selling Feminism.

>There isn't actually anything wrong with us having a grasp of the things we are taking about, beyond that of the casual observer.

If only you had that grasp. If you'd like it, start here

Okay! So I have done some digging. And apparently, it takes a lot more digging than I realized. My local library has almost no progressive feminist books and actually no masculinist works. I was disappointed.

However, I was able to find a few books by snooping online that I believe fit the bill of "remotely not pitting masculinism and feminism against each other." I am not positing that they are things that you would necessarily like if you read; I haven't even read them myself. But they appear to be a step in the right direction.

• Men and Feminism by Shira Tarrant. She also wrote Men Speak Out, which looks like it would be an interesting read.
  
• The Gender Knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy by Allan Johnson. I don't know much about this work except from a summary found here:
  
  >A powerful approach to gender inequality that empowers both men and women to be part of the solution instead of just part of the problem. We are all living with an oppressive gender legacy called patriarchy. (...) He explains what it's got to go with each of us and reveals how both men and women can see themselves as part of the process of change toward something better (not matriarchy). (...)
  
  
• Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality by Cathy Young.
  
  Hopefully that's enough to answer your question. I'm sorry that I didn't find more; they are hard to find, and I have trouble sifting through things.

> As time went on I realized that one could hold irrational ideas but not be an irrational person

It sounds like you've read Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas.

I see a lot of parallels between religion, politics, and the feminist movement because they are all ideologies that are only concerned with gaining more followers than about finding the truth and making the world a better place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=germiane+greere+said+she+awnted+to+light+a+fire+in+older+women+for+teen+boys&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=germaine+greer+book+boys+13+to+16+lust+older+women

https://www.amazon.com/Germaine-Greer-Beautiful-Boy/dp/0847825868

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautiful_Boy

>Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."[4] She was criticized for these comments with some writers labeling her a paedophile.[5]


Don't visit the amazon link if you're easily nauseous at seeing teen boys on display in pseudo-erotic manners...

Pretty easily. Ernest Belfort Bax was was of the earlier MRAs we know about.

Social Justice Warriors Always Lie: Taking Down The Thought Police by Vox Day <== A really important work

Propaganda by Edward Bernays

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

SJW attack survival guide drawing on the work of Vox Day

How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Getting Your Point Across with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense

Google "verbal self defense" and a lot will pop up, if you are talking about 1-on-1 and small group contexts.
Google "influence" or "persuasion" or "propaganda" or "social change" if you are talking about large groups or society as a whole.

Psychopaths, in addition to not having much of a conscience, also tend to be impulsive and not that interested in long term planning.

There's an interesting book on the subject "Without Conscience" by Robert Hare. Here's the link if you're interested.

Germaine Greer should know better, since she's an ephebophile herself.

Not just a blog or forum, but someone made an actual BOOK about how men see women as dogs to be trained. Here it is right.......

...oh, sorry. This is actually a book for how women should train men like dogs...

Hmm...maybe it's just me, but as far as what feminists claim men do, there seems to be a lot of projection involved...

I don't know of a single place that has compiled all of the relevant information through history, you have to look on a smaller scale and combine all of it. I guess you could start with these:

http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963

http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056

But you have to go so much further back before you see just how many whites were enslaved, mainly in Europe. You also have to be specific with how you define "white" people. In America, anyone with white skin is white, and if you expand on that it's pretty obvious there have been more white slaves throughout history than blacks, there are simply more white people. But if you get more specific and only include English/British people, then probably not.

Oh my god. Did none of you get the part on the amazon page that says it is satire?! This is NOT supposed to be taken seriously, it says so on the first line on the back of the book. Check for yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Girls-Guide-Depravity-Without-Getting/dp/0762444878

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women

by Bernice Kanner

McGraw-Hill; 1 edition (April 9, 2004)

From the back cover:

>Women control 88 percent of all purchases.

>Women handle 75 percent of family finances.

>43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.

>One out of every 11 women in America owns a business.

>Women influence two out of every three of the 3 trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year!

TIL that author Bernice Kanner is a "scumbag MRA who makes generalizations about women".

I am currently reading John Gordon's "The myth of the monstrous male, and other feminist fables", printed in 1982.

In regards to the OP, Gordon does the following exercise: make four columns on a piece of paper: M+, F-, F+, M-, representing positive-male, negative-female, positive-female, and negative-male traits. Under each column, list traits which come to mind for each. For example:

• M+: strong, reliable, independent, adventuresome, analytical
  
• F-: weak, flighty, dependent, timid, superstitious
  
• F+: gentle, responsive, supportive, prudent, deep
  
• M-: brutal, inflexible, selfish, reckless, legalistic
  
  Feminists claim the first two columns, M+ and F-, are learned traits imposed by the patriarchy (nurture), whereas the second two columns, F+ and M-, are innate traits resulting from biological differences between men women and men (nature).
  
  Notice how some traits have both positive and negative descriptors for essentially the same trait (eg: independent / loner, group-think / consensus). Gordon also points out that feminists reserve the right to choose how a given trait is interpreted based on the context and which interpretation is most favorable to women. Which is why a trait viewed as negative in men (eg: aggressive) is simultaneously viewed as positive in women (eg: assertive).
  
  Gordon's entire book is filled with gems like this. I strongly recommend it to everyone here.

$95, yes that is crazy. But if you buy it as a used (like new) paperback it is only $19.46.

The Predatory Female <-- I'm starting to think this book should be required reading for all boys once they reach the age to start dating.

Thirty years ago, John Gordon's seminal MR book, Myth of the Monstrous Male, pointed out how middle/upper-class white women have usurped programmes (positive discrimination, affirmative action) rightly meant for blacks.





https://www.amazon.com/myth-monstrous-other-feminist-fables/dp/0872237583

Sally Miller Gearhart, "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female," Reweaving the Web of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence, New Society Publishers 1982:266–284.

Edit: https://www.amazon.com/Reweaving-Web-Life-Feminism-Nonviolence/dp/0865710163

Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us

Sounds apt to me. I recommend reading that book, knowing your enemies helps you be on the lookout for people that will put a knife in your back the first chance they get.

It reminded me of the book The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar.

>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.

>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.

It was in those days.

>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man

When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.

>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved

And much more than that, of course.

>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.

This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.

>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.

What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.

In addition, it has a 4.5/5 rating on Amazon; most saying either it's "good advice" or female sexual empowerment. Sadly, it's one of the millions of examples of female-on-male abuse / sexual violence treated as either comedy and / or "poetic justice" for men supposedly screwing people over (which really just translates to "it's bad when men do it, it's good when women do it")

>My problem is why can't you be a feminist and a supporter of men's rights?

Sorry I'm a day late to this party. I'm also too lazy to read 125 comments, so I apologize if I repeat anything that has already been said.

The problem is that feminists come in here for the sole purpose of telling us we're wrong, and that everything is the fault of the patriarchy. And if men would just stop being so sexist, then men wouldn't have issues either.

The issue is that feminism has become an ideology. And ideologies are primarily concerned with being right and spreading the ideology. The world's major religions are also ideologies, as an example. Feminism has brainwashed lots of good people into believing their pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-science BS, and they've had decades to perfect the double speak required to convince smart people to believe their biased interpretation of the world.

I recommend Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas for further reading.

I don't really know how to edit it at all but I'd include a bunch more references such as:

http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv81757/pdf

http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv81757

https://library.uoregon.edu/special-collections

her essay where she talks about wanting all the men to die is included in her book

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865710163/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0865710163&linkCode=as2&tag=theamericanre-20&linkId=NB64LM5XL2PUF6GU which was already referenced previously.

Title: Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
Link: http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628/ref=pd_sim_b_4

Title: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Link: http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991

Title: The Manipulated Man
Link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/0953096424

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

We've had this picture posted before, and just like that time I refer to this book (just look at the god-damn title), as a sign that this girl is totally confused/or unclear about feminism.

I can only assume she is trying to refer to something people have called 'Grey Rape'- which is where you give in to pressure or coercion. In that case what the person did is not illegal but leaves you feeling uncomfortable and a bit violated.

> Give everyone shit, or give nobody shit, or you breed resentment.

This is true. We have lived in extremely egalitarian societies for about 95 percent of our history, so it's not surprising at all that human beings become extremely dysfunctional in hierarchical/unequal societies. The more inequality the more dysfunction. More unequal societies fare worse on every single quality of life indicator.

The right is fighting biology, essentially, a doomed mission that will probably end in extinction. The modern "left" -- also steered by billionaire psychopaths -- is no better, as they also support extreme hierarchy. Though the "left" at least talks about class and war, they reduce the most important issues to an afterthought, and focus relentlessly on ID politics.

From UK Perspective:

Peter Lloyd (7 July 2016).
Stand By Your Manhood: An Essential Guide for Modern Men.
Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84954-852-6. - Kindle

Dan Bell; Glen Poole (28 September 2015).
insideMAN: Pioneering stories about Men And Boys
Troubador Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78462-533-7. 9Electronic Purchase(http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=3553)

Neil Lyndon (1992).
No More Sex War: The Failures of Feminism .
Sinclair-Stevenson. ISBN 978-1-85619-191-3. (Buy Second hand)

Neil Lyndon (2015)
Sexual Impolitics: Heresies on sex, gender and feminism,
See Kindle Unlimited

Glen Poole (2013),
[Equality For Men],

On a More Global Perspective

Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (16 October 2001).
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture.
McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-6969-0.

Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (21 March 2006).
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men.
MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-7789-3.

Katherine K. Young; Paul Nathanson (2010).
Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man.
McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-3615-9.

Paul Nathanson; Katherine K. Young (1 June 2015).
Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men.
MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-8380-1.

Wendy McElroy (2015),
Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing, ISBN 978-1533629401

John Davis BA JD LLM,
Rape Hysteria: Lying with Rape Statistics (Foundations of Modern Feminism),
CreateSpace Independent Publishing

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply! Every once in a while someone from a feminist perspective will come here and make a post like yours inviting discussion, but it is frustratingly exceedingly rare that the person ends up being genuine and actually responding to the responses.

> men have increasingly been given a platform to attack the dignity of women and their rights

I strongly disagree. Your example of Donald Trump is perfect here — Trump wasn't lauded for his comments; he was immediately harshly criticized and attacked for what he said, and he remains on the defensive about those remarks. My experience is that women are free to criticize, humiliate, degrade, and attack men not only freely but with support and praise for being so "empowered," but that men are not allowed to criticize women even slightly lest they be called a misogynist. In fact, research suggests that when men don't treat women better than they treat men, they are considered misogynists. This integrates nicely with research showing the natural bias that both women and men have towards women and against men.

In fact, I'd like to make an addendum to my original comment: I believe the single biggest issue facing men and boys is the acceptance and proliferation of misandry. It is not acceptable to publicly attack, ridicule, and demean a gay Muslim black man because he is gay or because he is Muslim or because he is black -- but it is perfectly acceptable to do so because he is male. Hate men? Train your husband. (Dumb dad; he can't even use soap right. laugh track)

Overall, I think you may have missed the gist of my question: Do you believe that the consistency with which feminists smear MRAs and the MRM ("racist sexist anti-gay! MRA! go away!," claiming The Red Pill promotes violence against women, etc.) is out of ignorance or out of malice?

> There are a lot of theories as to why violence is such a problem here - one of the most prominent being that if you actively disempower or dis-enfranchise people at a structural level, especially (but not exclusively) men, then they seek out other ways to exert dominance. Interpersonal violence becomes a way of re-establishing power.

I'm familiar with how bad it is in South Africa. Thank you for trying to make a difference there. I'm curious why the belief is that men are particularly likely to become violent? Doesn't that seem sexist? After all, women are the majority of perpetrators of nonreciprocal domestic violence and violence against children. People, in general, victimize those they have ready access to and can overpower.

> This I think also relates back to why it is dangerous for feminists to deny men a platform for expressing legitimate concerns about violations of their rights, because the rejection and alienation will make it more likely for men to gravitate toward malevolent collective counter-action like the alt right movement.

This is wrong, though. Look around. You are talking to the people who are being denied a platform by feminists. It isn't radicalizing us or changing our political views. In fact, you would probably be amazed by the spectrum of views in the MRM, from far left, to libertarian, to far right. We are united not by politics but by our shared commitment to human rights.

Is there any evidence that feminist censorship causes political changes?

> What would you say are the most important mens issues in a setting like mine?

I won't pretend to be an expert on the issues that men face in South Africa, although I agree with a number that you mentioned. One thing that you may consider, though: Feminism did a successful job of freeing women from their gender roles, but failed to address men's gender roles at all — treating them, depending upon the wave, as either something to aspire to become, or later something "toxic" to be "deconstructed." (Nice way to talk about people.) How have the gender roles of men in South Africa changed, much less opened up or become freer? How might less strict gender roles for South African men lessen the violence?

> Suicide: Almost every one knows someone, or has a family member, who has died by suicide. That an overwhelming majority of these deaths are male, makes for an extremely compelling case that we should be concentrating more on men's mental health and interrogating the reasons behind the epidemic.

I totally agree. My experience is that nearly always, when bringing this issue up to a feminist, it is dismissed with the excuse that "women attempt suicide more." As though it's a contest. (See also this short talk by Cassie Jaye where she touches on this.)

> IMO don't touch the abortion debate, we fought too hard for that right, unless its perhaps for the right to a legal/financial abortion.

I have personal moral concerns regarding abortion, but from a legal perspective I think that it should be a medical option available to a woman; I think again you'll be surprised how many people aren't in disagreement with you here. Yes, I would agree that there needs to be a "paper abortion" option for men for the playing field to be level (and that men should be able unilaterally to demand a paternity test if they are named as the father). The typical argument against that is that child support is issued for the child's welfare, not the mother's. Of course, abortion is for the mother's welfare, not the child's, so....

> Not really, especially because of the movement away from dogmatic liberal white feminism toward a more fluid, intersectional approach.

I think you misunderstand me. Take patriarchy, for example. What would you say if I told you I don't believe it's real? That viewpoint is verboten in feminism.

> As for "phony rape statistics" - I'm really not sure about what the situation is where you are

Here, people honestly believe that "1 in 4" women will be raped on a college campus, and men are being thrown out of school and permanently marred in the court of public opinion over false accusations and kangaroo courts.

> I don't think advocating for tolerance of sexual/gender diversity and non-nuclear family arrangements is necessarily an attack on or leading to the destruction of heterosexual relationships.

Gender or sexual diversity and non-nuclear families are good examples of issues that feminism has strangely claimed ownership of. Again, you may be startled to learn that I don't care about any of that. What I mean is that feminism's messaging includes a sustained attack against heterosexual relationships, from Andrea Dworkin's claim that all heterosexual sex is rape, to attacking sex workers and their customers, to attacking shared custody arrangements for men, to turning "cis het white man" into an epithet, to denigrating maleness and "toxic masculinity," to spreading unhealthy fear of men that is not based in reality, to attacking International Men's Day -- leading to a suicide, to denying men's groups, to demonizing male sexuality, etc. I could go on all day but I won't.

(Addressing your second comment.)

> How is anyone going to feel if all you seem to do is criticize them and go on about how shitty they are?

Just, shit like this.

> I think a lot of the feminist buzzwords you mentioned are over used and can be confusing.

I'd call them hate speech. Do you think that "blacktaking" is a good word for dark skinned people who steal? How about "shebabying" to describe the high number of women (vs men) who kill children? This goes back to recognizing misandry and how readily people hate men. Isn't "#menaretrash" trending right now?

> As for manspreading/splaining/terrupting - I think in the upper echelons of political and social power (as per the apex theory every one has been referring to) those phenomena do exist and should be called out. I don't think those terms should necessary be applied to ordinary men though - again, counter productive and alienating, especially in the context of intimate relationships.

I don't think we need words that target people because of their gender and seek to demean and ridicule them.