Top products from r/againstmensrights

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these crimes.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be ironic and educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS. This deeply sexist attitude must cease.

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf


"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.shortLike male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

Ain't THAT the truth.

I'm almost finished with this book called Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, by Kathryn Joyce. It's simultaneously wonderful and enraging. Almost every single page I read gives me another insight as to how the MRM took off, how this nutso concept that men are "disposable" took root in "secular culture", how the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority essentially hijacked and then politicized Christian doctrine to make it palatable to men (making the men little gods in their own homes and unchallenged rulers in their churches and political parties).

What I once believed was a marginal belief system that applied mainly to cult-like fringe Christian sects I now realize undergirds mainstream conservative politics and policies. It's really terrifying to realize that an entire generation of men and women has been poisoned by this ethos. I see it most clearly in arguments like this one, where women's worth is judged by her sexual proclivities or actions.

I plan to write a review of the book and post it here once I'm finished, but I'll show you a couple of quotes that made my blood run cold. With regard to religious theology becoming politicized:

>In a movement guided by religious literalism, theology matters. Or, as proponents of the patriarchy revival like to say, "Ideas have consequences." They're quoting the title of conservative philosopher Richard Weaver's book, which presents and antiegalitarian argument for hierarchical social roles and communitarian norms, where majority morality trumps individual rights. When members of the patriarchy movement quote Weaver, they mean all the particulars of his book: the universal truth of biblical literalism that informs his community sensibility, the prizing of agrarian family independence, and certainly the disdain for egalitarian ideas like feminism. But they also mean more general point: an all-purpose "I told you so" to a society that has embraced, even to a limited extent, modern notions of women's autonomy, broad definitions of family and love, and a high valuation of individual rights and fulfillment that, as they see it, can threaten the good for a community at large. When the lumbering conventional wisdom of centrist politics gets around to registering the effects of these ideas - sexual revolution ideas, in short - Weaver's fans smile ruefully: they could have told you that feminism would lead to nothing good.

I don't know whether or not the neotraditionalist, socially conservative, retrogressive members of the MRM fully realize what stooges they are for the religious right, but the fact remains that the twisted religious ideal the religious right has injected into the culture have informed the MRM completely.

Next quote, about how society at large tends to undervalue feminism and take for granted the social breakthroughs and rights that it has engendered, but the religious right and like-minded groups take feminism VERY seriously:

>In a way, to that minority of American women who actually do claim the title "feminist" - a rarity bemoaned by both feminists and antifeminists alike, who both see the majority of women living out feminist ideals without recognizing or acknowledging their roots in the women's liberation movement - this heated attention and estimation of feminist power is strangely flattering. Nobody has taken the feminist threat to decency and order this seriously since the 1970s. But it's less amusing to realize that the movement against feminism, including all its unacknowledged aspects, such as the acceptance of women's careers, the expectation of pay equity, a greater degree of sexual freedom and bodily self-determinism, more equitable divisions of housework and childcare, and shared decision-making between husbands and wives, is being undertaken on a large scale by a coalition that goes far beyond the homeschooling community with its separatist ethos, yet which has echoed the ideas of men and women as extreme as Doug Phillips and Mary Pride with surprising fidelity.

I would add to this statement names like Warren Farrell and Paul Elam, who echo the same ignorant, anti-feminist worldview and are precisely as hateful toward true egalitarianism as any of the most conservative and rabid fundamentalists in the Christian Patriarchy movement.

Anyway...lots more where this came from. Like I said, this book is an eye-opener. :/

No. The MRM's sole tenet from it's very inception is to be a backlash to feminism.

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a social movement and part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s over its rejection of feminism. The MRM is considered to be a backlash to the feminist movement.

In the Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements By Michael A. Messner , the creation and motivating reasons for the creation of the MRM (as we know it now) are discussed and substantiated with multiple sources. see pages 41 42 43 44 and 45


Further suggested reading would be

Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity: Men, Women, and Politics in Modern Society by Kenneth C. Clatterbaugh



(FTR Feminist can be and often are men, also feminists have and continue to work with Men's Liberationists as they are not anti-feminist. )

> “Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and preactice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.”

>― bell hooks

I suggest Kimmel as a starting point. People tend to take him as being unbiased about feminism due to being a man (he even brings that up in one of his sociology texts).

The Gendered Society is pretty good as well. He's got a good talent for explaining why gender issues do not just affect women, and how they affect men as well. The Reader goes into some case studies about Men's Issues (Male Nurses, for example) as well as race and class issues.

Textbooks can be a bit pricey, but those are definitely worth it. If you are buy a University you might be able to pick up a 2000 copy on the cheap as well.

I have to admit, my favorite part was where this self-professed savior of feminism confided in her peons:

>I agree the word [feminism] is tarnished. I just wrote a little monograph called Freedom Feminism in which I tried to rescue the term from the hardliners. http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Feminism-Surprising-History-Capitalism/dp/0844772623 However, the term may be unsalvageable. Most women and certainly men reject the label. It's associated in the public mind with male-bashing and humorlessness. So maybe we do need a new word, but I'm not sure what it should be. I, too, welcome suggestions!

Lol, less than four months after her book is published, Sommers' gives up on feminism! (mark you calendars)

> I remember the most popular feminist book of the 80s was ''The Politics of Women's Spirituality'', a hilarious title.

>http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Womens-Spirituality-Founding/dp/0385172419

>It instructed young women that choosing to be a feminist made one a spiritual goddess leader of eternal infallability. It is one of the most influential books in the history of feminism.

How strange that the most popular feminist book of the 80s, and one of the most influential books in the history of feminism, has only three reviews. Must be a feminist conspiracy.

> My family and ancestry are all from Ireland.

I stopped reading. I didn't ask for the oppression olympics and, back then, the Irish were not considered "white".

Now, why don't you go look up how you all got welcomed into the "White" race and get back to me?

It's not a pretty fucking story. So no, the Irish were not oppressed for being white. They became White and now fully enjoy White privilege. Sorry but I am good and fucking tired of the Irish card.

I recommend you read this book if you want to understand why your words are earning the Side Eye.

Also just the latest instance of "All the Women are White, All the Blacks are Men" when OP thinks that statistics showing that women and minorities get a good amount of grant money proves that funding dedicated to girls and women of color has been appropriately counted.

I wish these guys would get their heads out of their asses and actually try to do what Gloria Steinem is trying to do (hahaha I think I just blew a gasket laughing at that statement!)--that is, actual activism. When you can't prove that any sort of My Brother's Keeper initiative exists for girls of color, you talking about all of the scholarship and grant programs that allocate money towards the advancement of women really doesn't prove anything but how bitter you are.

It's only $20.68 for a whole pound and is eligible for Amazon Prime. That's plenty enough to share!

I was so excited when I discovered you can do a similar, but subtler, version with amazon! :D e.g.

1. Full support.
   
   
2. I saw above you don't know what Privilege means. Which means you don't know what intersectionality means. You know that's worriesome right? Here's an exercise: Define racism for me in your own words as you understand it.
   
   
3. "It does happen to me, on a weekly basis." I find this hard to believe. How?
   
   
4. Got some cash? Pick up this book. (No seriously. Buy it. Hell, torrent it if you can) Not for the written material itself but the heavily cited sources in the glossary. That should be what interests you. Secondly
   
   Custody statistics are warped by the fact that most fathers don't even fight for custody. They move on. Statistically, often to start an entirely new family. This has been counted in the MRA stats as women "winning custody". When Father's actually fight for custody they get full or partial 70% of the time.
   

>Africans sold each other to white people

Totally legitimizes slavery done by white people!

>Irish people were slaves and stuff

Irish people were not considered "white" at that time (http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095).

>the first slave owner in the US was black, I think

Nice anecdote you got there, cracker, totally puts the whole slave trade in perspective. How could I not see it before? Black people were the villains all along!

>And all of these things totally vindicate all white people.

Nice revisionism you got there.

EDIT : Just noticed you post to the Blue pill, SRS subreddits and yet are still a white defender? Wow.

I hadn't heard of the organisation, and when I read a little bit into it I presumed it was another "opinion" piece. Usually when I read official reports, or documents put out by respected organisations I don't expect to find it written in such a petulant tone, like the following:

>The Swedish approach is not practical or reality-based. It envisions a time when all men who purchase sex are either in prison or are so afraid of being arrested that they no longer seek commercial sex, at least not in Sweden.

Perhaps it is a legitimate organisation, if it is though I would certainly take what they put out with a large pinch of salt.

A little while ago my particular hobby-horse was prostitution (I had just read this powerful book by Irish ex-prostitute Rachel Moran), and ended up reading a lot about the Swedish model. There are some criticisms of it, one I remember asserting that it actually caused an increase in violence towards sex workers, but when you read it closely it had manipulated the data by changing the parameters of what constituted "violence". These sorts of things always make me especially weary of criticisms by non-official bodies, which I suppose is quite the personal bias all right.

Send that article my way though, I'd love to give it a read!!

This has been a repetitive thing since I don't even know how long. There's a fucking book on a case from the 90s that's the same damn thing.

WHEN WILL ENTIRE TOWNS STOP RALLYING AROUND GANG RAPISTS?????

She lays claim to that Rene Magritte thesis on her site here. And of course, the original abstract is up online. It doesn't say anything to do with men, so it's pretty unclear to me where she gets all these credentials to practice dealing with men's issues.

She has nothing in any academic article. In fact, she's only linked in one book that's selling woefully - When Women Sexually Abuse Men: The Hidden Side of Rape, Stalking, Harassment, and Sexual Assault - but all they do is reference the "Shrink4Men" website. Which is kind of pitiful for a book that purports to be shedding light on a subject. Particularly since the article itself that they quote merely goes to a lot of long-winded defining of the issue - reiterating over and over what stalking actually is. In anything actually informative, you move past the definition pretty fucking quickly. Most of the definitions of stalking are pretty much the same too.

But the biggest things I found was that she's tried to make a bit of a name for herself all over the web in various fields - it just looks like the manosphere has paid off for her. I have her as a virtual therapist in the self help field and as a life coach for college kids - which seems to basically mean she's selling them a program to work out how to use their money.

According to zoom's cache, just a few years ago she claimed that she specializes in psychotherapy and life coaching that aims to improve the overall quality of her clients’ lives and professional and interpersonal relationships. She has recently begun consultancy work in organizational systems. Dr. Palmatier has a strong interest in the application of psychoanalytic theory to the Arts. Which is not manosphere, but why the fuck would Mister care when she's saying what they want to hear, and it's all STEM and logic!

It seems to me that like many manosphere icons, she chopped and changed until she found something lucrative. Say what you will about the manosphere, but if you tell them what they want to hear, they will cough up the dough. For poor guys, they've certainly sold the hell out of Dr. Helen Smith's book, and other pet websites all with ad revenue. Like all the PUA shit out there sells a fair amount of books - so too will this sort of thing.

The best bit about selling to them is, that the manosphere hates academic rigour - so they will actually buy a book rejected by anyone well-versed in the subject, on the basis that "feminists hate it". Even negative publicity feeds the frenzy to buy and stick it to feminists everywhere. All you basically have to do is repeat back to them that they are the victims of everyone, noble men, women are crazy bitches and it's all easy money.

Paul Elam makes a living out of this - and so do many of the writers at AVFM. I would imagine that TJ Palmatier is no different. It's a lucrative market, and you don't have to try that hard. You don't need to scrutinise your work for its veracity, and you don't need to do anything more than build a narrative around shit misters have shared with you on a website. I'd totally do it if it didn't require me to say that men are noble victims and women are crazy bitches.

None of these people are ever asked to pony up with financials, even though they ask for donations. I think - based on how much money they could quickly gather up to fund that private security for their rally - that it's probably a fair chunk of money, where advertising costs you absolutely nothing. The manosphere does it for you.

OK, y'all, I apologize if this comment runs long, but this shit is in my wheelhouse.

I still consider myself to be a Christian, but that is a difficult label for me to wear with anything resembling comfort. Mostly because back when I was an extremely damaged, needy, and spiritually wounded young woman I got mixed up in an evangelical movement that closely resembles Driscoll's particular flavor of anti-feminist, misogynistic, Calvinistic shitbaggery.

I'll spare you the details, but suffice it to say that I was lucky enough to have some very perceptive, mature people of faith in my life who gently made me aware of the manipulative and abusive tactics that particular church/cult was using on me, and I got out. I was one of the very fortunate ones; though that time in my life left me with a lot of scars, it also woke me up to the fact that "wolves in sheep's clothing" are not a myth. There are a multitude of unscrupulous shysters out there who call themselves "pastors" but who want nothing more than to prey on young, wounded men and women. For power-mad men like Driscoll, the church is an easy target.

So. For those of you unfamiliar with Driscoll but who want to know more, I'd recommend you read this post and also poke around on that entire site. Another good site is Mars Hill Refuge (and the fact that Driscoll's church empire has spawned a fucking RECOVERY GROUP should tell you quite a bit).

For those of you that are more familiar with this Hugo Schwyzer of Christianity, I suppose that his posts on this forum (TW - abusive language and spiritual abuse), under both the assumed name William Wallace II and - disgustingly - his own real name, will likely come as no huge surprise.

But to those of us who have been watching Driscoll from the sidelines, seeing the bodies pile up and the wounded pouring from his cult, this is sort of a minor miracle. One cult-watcher compared it to the Mitt Romney "47% speech", such is the magnitude of this unmasking.

For those of you who have been fortunate enough to never have suffered any sort of spiritual abuse, it's difficult to convey the particular sort of violation that such abuse entails. I noticed as I was reading that horrendous forum dump that one of the members of the forum called Driscoll out, said that he "knew" that "William Wallace II" was really the young pastor himself, and said that what he was doing was tantamount to rape. I found myself nodding in agreement.

What that vile piece of shit has done is dress up the worst MRA/RedPill rhetoric in clerical robes and parade it around as "sound theology". He's managed to dupe and hobble thousands upon thousands of young men and women, roping them into a cultlike "complementarian" lifestyle where women have no power and where men are not just "head of household" but in control of every aspect of the lives of their children and wives.

Driscoll took a seat on his iron throne at Mars Hill (apt name, that) and proceeded to shred the gospel of love and twist it into his own image - a homophobic, misogynist, "masculinist", Driscoll-centered theology where he is a pope, a prophet, a judge, and a tyrant.

If there is any justice in this world - and I have lots of reason to doubt that, in this ethically impoverished age - he will be forced to resign his "ministry" and retire in infamy and shame. Unfortunately, I think his cult of personality is strong enough, and his rule over it firm enough, that he will escape this by circling the wagons, hunkering down, and waiting for this media cycle to blow over.

Not all damage from the misogynist MRM gospel of hate is evidenced by men like Elliot Rodger or Marc Lepine. The sad truth is that Driscoll is what happens when you combine narcissistic sociopathy with ambition, arrogance, ruthlessness, and - the magic ingredient - redpill/MRM "theology".

If the Dark Enlightenment is real, I think it has its first real prophet in Driscoll.