Excellent Janice! Another chapter for your new book.... <hint hint>
Gilmore and most feminists have zero idea of what it takes to find support or funding for anything related to helping men. Here's a clue for Gilmore: finding support and funding for women is a downhill journey, but getting funding and support for men is a steep uphill journey. Anyone who has tried both will understand this immediately.
Some time ago now I was doing research in a university on factors that influence academic outcomes for students. This study focused on students from non-english speaking backgrounds and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and there was an underlying expectation that these were the students who would prove to be disadvantaged. What became clear from the data was that the students who were actually most disadvantaged were the young male students who had gone straight onto university from elite private boys schools. When I presented the results it seemed impossible for anyone to even hear what I was saying. They all kept talking about the disadvantage experienced by students from non english-speaking backgrounds even though the data showed that these students typically did better and most of them had been through Australian high schools and spoke English very well. The whole thing was bizarre.
"The rest of Gilmore’s article sets out to delimit the allowable sphere of men’s activism. Such activism must not say anything that could be perceived as negative about women or about feminism. It must not contest feminists statistics, whether on intimate partner violence or anything else. Proper men’s activism, Gilmore makes clear, should focus only on those problems of men that can be seen as arising from damaging male behaviors and male qualities—in other words, on problems in which men are victims of themselves."
In other words, men are to accept the role assigned to them by feminists, and must never question their authority in any way.
Of course the truth is that the feminist successes have been to persuade men to mandate and fund their desires. Certainly in the UK the vast majority of the "women's " sector is funded by tax payers.
In truth boys and men would be hugely assisted by simply having equal rights with girls and women. Certainly in the UK the actual application of the Equality Act as written would mean huge strides in education, health, social care and family courts. Recent experience in Australia shows the feminist agenda has nothing to do with equality. For in that land after decades of a laudable law stating the principle of equal parenting, their current feminist government ended this legal presumption of equal rights and responsibility to a presumption of children as the chattels of the mother! Yet supposedly feminists are against such presumption that women have the main "burden" of caring.
As I'm sure ICMI will show, with different perspectives from very diverse cultures, there are all sorts of initiatives to help boys and men, and often very damaging effects of an essentially "western" ideology applied to other parts of the world.
Many years ago remember a Psychologist advising men, when a women says she wants you to be "emotional" and "share feelings" it isn't an invitation to actually share your feelings as such, but in fact an invitation to express positive feelings about her or her value to you. "He for she" being much the same thing and reflects the essentially selfish mindset of feminism.
In my dreams a philanthropic millionaire in the UK will one day simply set up a fund to publicise and support males or females taking forward legal cases under the Equality Act to actually get the equality promised in the act.
If nothing else the "TERFs" constant refrain about "protecting women's rights" reminds us men have no special rights!
But when their activism is only discussing men’s rights and masculinity in reference to feminism or violence against women, it’s not acting for men, it’s acting against women.”
There is a saying about "Men commit suicides, women most affected." Women who think this can't ever understand how men think. Women have been programmed to think that men are violent monsters that only want to rape and impregnate them. They don't consider men to have feelings but have been trained not to show them.
Of more consequence has been the decision by the American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to take an entrenched anti-male position on all men’s rights activism even while admitting that some of men’s problems are real.
The SPLC is not a neutral organization, as they even declare churches, hospitals, and state agencies as hate groups. So, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
It is interesting looking at the developing "moral panic" about Andrew Tate. Who it seems has singlehandedly created a huge increase in skepticism about feminism amongst young generations of men in "western" countries. Older buffers like me, are it seems, far more feminism friendly than younger cohorts. Now though the focus of the moral panic appears to be teenage boys. In fact the swing is shown in young men below 30. Just the age range that have lived through the triumph of feminism and the widespread application of discrimination against them, the obvious result of discriminating in favour of females. And the under 30s also had the "benefit" of feminist ideology at school, college or University and indeed in training in work. So the horrible truth may be that their skepticism is based on their "lived experience" and the obvious misandry of being labelled "toxic" as well as the obvious double standard of claiming to be for equality while demanding special rights and privileges. I have some hope that this process will continue as feminism becomes far more exposed as the establishment ideology it is. On a humorous note apparently teenage boys spout about Andrew Tate to simply wind up their teachers, given he's "triggering" to teachers. In my day it was having a "skin 'ead " crew cut or turning up in eye liner.
As for my generation, our need to be nice to women and mind our language and manners etc. means most are still thinking of feminism is just being nice or the fairer sex (apart from the ones dragged through family court).
Reminds me of the Iron John movement of the early/mid 90s, when I was in my late teenage/early adult years. I can't remember exactly where I had first heard of it, except in the context of being ridiuculed already in the strictly Leftist media allowed in the house at the time. Pre-internet there was no way to go searching for it on my own to make my own assessment, alas.
Ironically I was heavily into Joseph Campbell at the time thanks to an anthropology class so I picked up similar ideas, the importance of stories to figuring out one's masculinity. Though I dare not say that part out loud, nor was even allowing myself to recognize it at the time. Even more ironic Cambell was encouraged because it was a mental vaccine against the big bad evil patriarchial Christianity and organized religion in general, or so it was believed. Leftys aren't very good at putting 2+2+2 together, I've observed over the years.
The conflation of men's rights and antifeminists movements is common. But technically these are not the same thing. Here's a snippet from the introduction from my book on the history of the MRM where I tackle this conflation:
[Quote] The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) consists of groups or individuals fighting for improved human rights for men. Historically these groups have consisted of men and women agitating for corrections to anti-male customs and laws, for the right of men to live traditional or alternative male roles as they wish, and to challenge the forces attacking that freedom of choice via manipulations of the social and legal environment. The accompanying and no less important of its aims has been to challenge mainstream culture narratives that have reinforced misandric attitudes.
In the absence of a reliable overview of its history the MRM has also been vulnerable to annexing by ideologues who claim the first men’s movement was launched in the 1970s by second wave feminists in an effort to deal with ‘destructive masculine norms,’ and that the Men’s Rights Movement only later branched off from it as a kind of misogynist backlash. Among sources furthering this myth, for example, is the current Wikipedia MRM entry which has suffered repetitive censorship of the now century-long tradition of men’s rights activism – a tradition that proves the ‘feminist origins’ theory non-credible. In place of that long tradition the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:
“The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s.”
Few serious researchers accept that the MRM began in the 1970s, there being numerous examples of well-organized MR activism extending back into the 1800s (see Parts 1-3). Moreover, the ‘men’s liberation movement’ cited in the Wikipedia article was in fact a feminist initiative that arose within the National Organization for Women to foster pro-feminist ideology among men. The Wikipedia misinformation derives from American sociologist Michael Messner who restates popular feminist factoids without having surveyed literature by or about the men’s rights movement over the last 150 years.
The longevity of the MRM has often been overlooked due to such efforts to distort or censor its existence. That censorship is not new, being already described a century ago by men’s rights advocate Ernest B. Bax who wrote about efforts to block the circulation of his pamphlet on the legal disadvantages and discrimination suffered by men entitled The Legal Subjection of Men. Bax referred to censorship from “the influential feminist sisterhood” as being well known among publishers:
“[Socialist-feminists say] the pamphlet The Legal Subjection of Men – in which the present state of the law and its administration between the sexes is given – should be suppressed, and also in the representations made to the Editor from a “Women’s Committee” of the body that I should be muzzled and any statement of mine adverse to Feminism be excluded from the party organs.” [Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol.13 no.9, September (1909), pp.385-391]
and,
“The apostles of feminism, being unable to make a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [The Fraud of Feminism, (1913), pp.1-2]
As in the examples provided by Bax, the effort to censor men’s voices has continued through all three waves of feminism. It was witnessed recently, for example, with the release of the MRM documentary The Red Pill, which saw groups of feminists threaten and intimidate venues worldwide that had agreed to screen the documentary - venues which later backed out of their agreements due to fear of reprisals. Fortunately The Red Pill went on to become a huge global success, a testament to the hunger of both men and women for fair treatment of their brothers, sons, fathers, male friends and colleagues.
In order to secure free speech there has always existed a tendency within the MRM to push back against feminist-driven censorship of men’s issues, and indeed censorship from other sources. Attacking feminism however has never been the main goal of the movement despite claims by some that the MRM is synonymous with antifeminist backlash. To suggest equivalence is to confuse purely antifeminist movements with the much broader portfolio of the men’s rights movement.
A survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, legal discrimination, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few.
Janice, that is an excellent blog pointing out the hypocrisy of the dreadful Australian and other feminist commentators who never let the facts get in the way of their ideological rants. Thanks for telling every one about my efforts to expose the feminist attack on Men's Sheds! I hope some of your readers will watch the talks at our exciting Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference, on June 1. Looks like we will be able to offer live streaming for those unable to attend the Sydney event.
I found the entire article hilarious, as a Man. 🤷 Dear Lord, I swear, the SECOND that I rely on a Gov't programme because I'm a bloke, I automatically, magically, become a sheila! Because the mere THOUGHT of purple haired, HR Wimmin, earnestly and diligently protecting my "maleness"(?) ( my WHAT?) SHRIVELS ME MANHOOD! AHAHAHAHA! Lezzo, seperatist, NSW Tearchers Union reps & local Council Admin Specialists to the rescue!!!
Having recently moved to the Mid North Coast, having forever abandoned (Babylon)Sydney I had the opportunity to visit the Mens Sheds at Taree, Wingham and Old Bar. Let's talk about a Feminist Dream of Mens Corrals, I mean ... sheds... let's...
Fact: Mens Sheds are full of Machines that are tools. Wood tools. Metal tools. Tools for tools, for "tools". The inverted commas "Tools" are the blokes. Men NOT wanted in the retirement houses slash villages, that they thought that they worked towards, all their lives. "Get out! Do something", cry the Harpies. Screech. Screech. Wimmin louder than the cockatoos.
Needing some French bar caddy wheels turned, I visited these Centres of Ancient Wisdom, these Druidic Contemplation Temple Sheds, for some Wisdom 🤔.
"Jeez, lovely work. French. 1920s, look at that, no nails & they hand turned those little, spoked wheels..."
So, ya can fix 'em?
"NAHHH! Maybe me dad, well, me granddad, maybe he knew"
Dead, huh?
"Yeah"...
Each shed, 40 blokes without a C.L.U.E. They can't even turn half the fkn machines ON! 🤣 Gov't programme that allocated old sheds, some old machines, designed by some broken down Mandarin, for this lame arse window dressing. This con.
I walked into the Old Bar Manshed. There were 20 blokes at a table, taking notes... from a WOMAN. I walked out and asked the blokes outside if they found it ironic. I think they were on their wives' valium.
Instead of a multi million dollar mental health programme, to help Men in Retirement, after 40 years in harness, 40 years a wage earner, we got a bandaid solution and some dusty sheds. Where Wimmin tell us how to be Men.
OK. Here is another out of left field. One New Year's Eve, I was in church and we were praying about New Year's resolutions. A prayer came into my mind that was a very unusual prayer. I don't know where it came from but I prayed for it as my New Year's resolution. The prayer was "To believe for men as the spiritual heads of their families."
My relations with men, as a single divorced woman for some years, had been very poor and I would have to say sordid. The result of praying that prayer was stunning. It turned my whole life and my relationships with men right around. Since that day I find that men relate in a way that could only be regarded as excellent with me. While I am not unaware of problems around male behavior, I have to think now that women's attitudes to men and how we approach them have a stunning influence on how men behave.
I have mentioned this prayer to some leading feminists and they react as if I had burned them. I fully understand that it is an extraordinary prayer in today's context however I think it gets right at the heart of the problem. If women started to treat men as people highly worthy of respect and looking up to I think we would see a massive turnaround in the whole male-female situation.
And women's behaviour in relation to men can be stunningly appalling.
FRA's flourish by denigrating and maligning all men, spruik [white] male privilege for all of their woes, by being dismissive of all men, etc and project (gaslight?) their abhorrent thoughts, behaviours and actions onto MRA's as a means to deflect well founded criticism of their self-serving misandry.
Sadly, I see much of my own experience in this piece. The reality is that feminist women seem absolutely petrified at the thought that ANY attention to the needs or rights of men. It goes beyond fear that men's needs will take from a limited pie, thus "depriving" women of all the spoils. It appears to be directed at the notion that the conduct of women as it impacts men is subject to criticism and punishment. The core belief of feminism seems to be that women have all the rights while men bear all the responsibilities and how dare anyone suggest anything otherwise.
Even when efforts are made to address an important issue in a gender neutral fashion, such as protecting the due process rights of the accused and proper accountability for false accusers, invariably the feminist objection is that such policies will negatively impact women. Ironically, this is actually an admission that, contrary to feminist propaganda, women not only commit unethical, unlawful and abusive acts, but that they also systemically lie about such acts. Claiming that objective due process procedures will prevent women who have experience abuse from coming forward makes no sense unless women on some level realize that many of their complaints simply won't pass muster (or are outright fabrications).
The history of the right to due process and to confront one's accuser in the US Bill of Rights is worth noting here. The Salem witch trials were a massive tragedy and scandal that, let's be honest, was primarily caused by women seeking to exert power over others they disliked, followed by covering up for their own lies and misconduct. The scandal of the witch trials was known throughout New England in the years leading up to the American Revolution and played a big part in the Founding Fathers attempts to protect the rights of the accused. It should be noted that nearly 250 years later, it is STILL women via feminism who are attacking these same rights because they undermine the ability of false accusers to bully others with their crimes of "victimhood". This is certainly conduct engaged in by male and female feminists, but the pure hatred that one sees whenever a man attempts to raise issues regarding the mistreatment of men or misconduct by women such as false accusations is coming from feminist WOMEN. It suggests that all the evils ascribed to male patriarchy are actually a projection of the psyche of women, far more than descriptions of the conduct of men. Indeed...the misandry of feminism appears to be a key characteristic of the female sex generally. I do not like generalizations of that sort, but observations suggest that this is a women's problem that can only be addressed if we call it what it is.
Fathers! Before you go to bed tonight commit to turning your boys into men. We can sit here and moan about feminists, mean women, bitches, witches, ho’s or whatever catch word you think works, but nothing and I mean nothing works like one on one, or two or three time, with your male children. If you’re lucky enough to have the time and resources, maybe you can include some fatherless child.
And as you warm up the convo, don’t spare them the truth. 10 year olds can be spoken to like adults. Their teachers, women on the street, female (and even male) doctors, little girls at school or religious leaders never tire of ‘cutting them down to size’, so you do the opposite. This doesn’t preclude time with your female offspring but thats a different conversation.
Not promoting our team under the guise of ‘not wanting to raise a toxic male’ is bullshit and you know it. Regardless of what hemisphere you live in get out there with your kid. He needs the ‘tools and language’ to combat this formless blob of feminist tyranny and you’re the only game in town for this.
Do it right and he may never need the protection and inclusivity of a ‘shed’ or a tent or a ‘yurt’ in the great beyond, and anytime he reads or hears one of these feminist hags, blather on, he’ll know that a hardy laugh is the best and only response to this drivel!
We and only ‘We’ built Western Civilization, and because we have allowed howling, domineering feminists to take over the narrative over the last 60 years, look where we are. Time to take back the controls before the train leaves the track!
Excellent Janice! Another chapter for your new book.... <hint hint>
Gilmore and most feminists have zero idea of what it takes to find support or funding for anything related to helping men. Here's a clue for Gilmore: finding support and funding for women is a downhill journey, but getting funding and support for men is a steep uphill journey. Anyone who has tried both will understand this immediately.
Some time ago now I was doing research in a university on factors that influence academic outcomes for students. This study focused on students from non-english speaking backgrounds and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and there was an underlying expectation that these were the students who would prove to be disadvantaged. What became clear from the data was that the students who were actually most disadvantaged were the young male students who had gone straight onto university from elite private boys schools. When I presented the results it seemed impossible for anyone to even hear what I was saying. They all kept talking about the disadvantage experienced by students from non english-speaking backgrounds even though the data showed that these students typically did better and most of them had been through Australian high schools and spoke English very well. The whole thing was bizarre.
This paragraph is key:
"The rest of Gilmore’s article sets out to delimit the allowable sphere of men’s activism. Such activism must not say anything that could be perceived as negative about women or about feminism. It must not contest feminists statistics, whether on intimate partner violence or anything else. Proper men’s activism, Gilmore makes clear, should focus only on those problems of men that can be seen as arising from damaging male behaviors and male qualities—in other words, on problems in which men are victims of themselves."
In other words, men are to accept the role assigned to them by feminists, and must never question their authority in any way.
Of course the truth is that the feminist successes have been to persuade men to mandate and fund their desires. Certainly in the UK the vast majority of the "women's " sector is funded by tax payers.
In truth boys and men would be hugely assisted by simply having equal rights with girls and women. Certainly in the UK the actual application of the Equality Act as written would mean huge strides in education, health, social care and family courts. Recent experience in Australia shows the feminist agenda has nothing to do with equality. For in that land after decades of a laudable law stating the principle of equal parenting, their current feminist government ended this legal presumption of equal rights and responsibility to a presumption of children as the chattels of the mother! Yet supposedly feminists are against such presumption that women have the main "burden" of caring.
As I'm sure ICMI will show, with different perspectives from very diverse cultures, there are all sorts of initiatives to help boys and men, and often very damaging effects of an essentially "western" ideology applied to other parts of the world.
Many years ago remember a Psychologist advising men, when a women says she wants you to be "emotional" and "share feelings" it isn't an invitation to actually share your feelings as such, but in fact an invitation to express positive feelings about her or her value to you. "He for she" being much the same thing and reflects the essentially selfish mindset of feminism.
In my dreams a philanthropic millionaire in the UK will one day simply set up a fund to publicise and support males or females taking forward legal cases under the Equality Act to actually get the equality promised in the act.
If nothing else the "TERFs" constant refrain about "protecting women's rights" reminds us men have no special rights!
But when their activism is only discussing men’s rights and masculinity in reference to feminism or violence against women, it’s not acting for men, it’s acting against women.”
There is a saying about "Men commit suicides, women most affected." Women who think this can't ever understand how men think. Women have been programmed to think that men are violent monsters that only want to rape and impregnate them. They don't consider men to have feelings but have been trained not to show them.
Of more consequence has been the decision by the American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to take an entrenched anti-male position on all men’s rights activism even while admitting that some of men’s problems are real.
The SPLC is not a neutral organization, as they even declare churches, hospitals, and state agencies as hate groups. So, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.
It is interesting looking at the developing "moral panic" about Andrew Tate. Who it seems has singlehandedly created a huge increase in skepticism about feminism amongst young generations of men in "western" countries. Older buffers like me, are it seems, far more feminism friendly than younger cohorts. Now though the focus of the moral panic appears to be teenage boys. In fact the swing is shown in young men below 30. Just the age range that have lived through the triumph of feminism and the widespread application of discrimination against them, the obvious result of discriminating in favour of females. And the under 30s also had the "benefit" of feminist ideology at school, college or University and indeed in training in work. So the horrible truth may be that their skepticism is based on their "lived experience" and the obvious misandry of being labelled "toxic" as well as the obvious double standard of claiming to be for equality while demanding special rights and privileges. I have some hope that this process will continue as feminism becomes far more exposed as the establishment ideology it is. On a humorous note apparently teenage boys spout about Andrew Tate to simply wind up their teachers, given he's "triggering" to teachers. In my day it was having a "skin 'ead " crew cut or turning up in eye liner.
As for my generation, our need to be nice to women and mind our language and manners etc. means most are still thinking of feminism is just being nice or the fairer sex (apart from the ones dragged through family court).
Notice yet another double standard in feminist thought here.
but then this is to be expected.
Feminists INSIST that NO MAN can ever DARE speak for any woman because we cannot possibly know what we are talking about.
But devoid of principle or consistency they dare to speak for men at any time, and are completely blind to the hypocrisy.
some channels on video platforms i look at are somewhat misogynist, for they put this down to the evil of women's intrinsic nature .
But I prefer to think that this evil, which is real , is more to be described by whole generations of women being, pampered, indulged and spoiled.
The old dictum "abusus non tollit usum" springs to mind. Look it up"
It's important to remember that feminists unite because they have made an image in their minds of a common enemy.
If the enemy vanished, they'd turn on each other.
Misery loves company
Reminds me of the Iron John movement of the early/mid 90s, when I was in my late teenage/early adult years. I can't remember exactly where I had first heard of it, except in the context of being ridiuculed already in the strictly Leftist media allowed in the house at the time. Pre-internet there was no way to go searching for it on my own to make my own assessment, alas.
Ironically I was heavily into Joseph Campbell at the time thanks to an anthropology class so I picked up similar ideas, the importance of stories to figuring out one's masculinity. Though I dare not say that part out loud, nor was even allowing myself to recognize it at the time. Even more ironic Cambell was encouraged because it was a mental vaccine against the big bad evil patriarchial Christianity and organized religion in general, or so it was believed. Leftys aren't very good at putting 2+2+2 together, I've observed over the years.
The conflation of men's rights and antifeminists movements is common. But technically these are not the same thing. Here's a snippet from the introduction from my book on the history of the MRM where I tackle this conflation:
[Quote] The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) consists of groups or individuals fighting for improved human rights for men. Historically these groups have consisted of men and women agitating for corrections to anti-male customs and laws, for the right of men to live traditional or alternative male roles as they wish, and to challenge the forces attacking that freedom of choice via manipulations of the social and legal environment. The accompanying and no less important of its aims has been to challenge mainstream culture narratives that have reinforced misandric attitudes.
In the absence of a reliable overview of its history the MRM has also been vulnerable to annexing by ideologues who claim the first men’s movement was launched in the 1970s by second wave feminists in an effort to deal with ‘destructive masculine norms,’ and that the Men’s Rights Movement only later branched off from it as a kind of misogynist backlash. Among sources furthering this myth, for example, is the current Wikipedia MRM entry which has suffered repetitive censorship of the now century-long tradition of men’s rights activism – a tradition that proves the ‘feminist origins’ theory non-credible. In place of that long tradition the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article reads:
“The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s.”
Few serious researchers accept that the MRM began in the 1970s, there being numerous examples of well-organized MR activism extending back into the 1800s (see Parts 1-3). Moreover, the ‘men’s liberation movement’ cited in the Wikipedia article was in fact a feminist initiative that arose within the National Organization for Women to foster pro-feminist ideology among men. The Wikipedia misinformation derives from American sociologist Michael Messner who restates popular feminist factoids without having surveyed literature by or about the men’s rights movement over the last 150 years.
The longevity of the MRM has often been overlooked due to such efforts to distort or censor its existence. That censorship is not new, being already described a century ago by men’s rights advocate Ernest B. Bax who wrote about efforts to block the circulation of his pamphlet on the legal disadvantages and discrimination suffered by men entitled The Legal Subjection of Men. Bax referred to censorship from “the influential feminist sisterhood” as being well known among publishers:
“[Socialist-feminists say] the pamphlet The Legal Subjection of Men – in which the present state of the law and its administration between the sexes is given – should be suppressed, and also in the representations made to the Editor from a “Women’s Committee” of the body that I should be muzzled and any statement of mine adverse to Feminism be excluded from the party organs.” [Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol.13 no.9, September (1909), pp.385-391]
and,
“The apostles of feminism, being unable to make a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [The Fraud of Feminism, (1913), pp.1-2]
As in the examples provided by Bax, the effort to censor men’s voices has continued through all three waves of feminism. It was witnessed recently, for example, with the release of the MRM documentary The Red Pill, which saw groups of feminists threaten and intimidate venues worldwide that had agreed to screen the documentary - venues which later backed out of their agreements due to fear of reprisals. Fortunately The Red Pill went on to become a huge global success, a testament to the hunger of both men and women for fair treatment of their brothers, sons, fathers, male friends and colleagues.
In order to secure free speech there has always existed a tendency within the MRM to push back against feminist-driven censorship of men’s issues, and indeed censorship from other sources. Attacking feminism however has never been the main goal of the movement despite claims by some that the MRM is synonymous with antifeminist backlash. To suggest equivalence is to confuse purely antifeminist movements with the much broader portfolio of the men’s rights movement.
A survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, legal discrimination, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few.
[End quote]
Janice, that is an excellent blog pointing out the hypocrisy of the dreadful Australian and other feminist commentators who never let the facts get in the way of their ideological rants. Thanks for telling every one about my efforts to expose the feminist attack on Men's Sheds! I hope some of your readers will watch the talks at our exciting Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference, on June 1. Looks like we will be able to offer live streaming for those unable to attend the Sydney event.
https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/restoring-the-presumption-of-innocence
I found the entire article hilarious, as a Man. 🤷 Dear Lord, I swear, the SECOND that I rely on a Gov't programme because I'm a bloke, I automatically, magically, become a sheila! Because the mere THOUGHT of purple haired, HR Wimmin, earnestly and diligently protecting my "maleness"(?) ( my WHAT?) SHRIVELS ME MANHOOD! AHAHAHAHA! Lezzo, seperatist, NSW Tearchers Union reps & local Council Admin Specialists to the rescue!!!
Having recently moved to the Mid North Coast, having forever abandoned (Babylon)Sydney I had the opportunity to visit the Mens Sheds at Taree, Wingham and Old Bar. Let's talk about a Feminist Dream of Mens Corrals, I mean ... sheds... let's...
Fact: Mens Sheds are full of Machines that are tools. Wood tools. Metal tools. Tools for tools, for "tools". The inverted commas "Tools" are the blokes. Men NOT wanted in the retirement houses slash villages, that they thought that they worked towards, all their lives. "Get out! Do something", cry the Harpies. Screech. Screech. Wimmin louder than the cockatoos.
Needing some French bar caddy wheels turned, I visited these Centres of Ancient Wisdom, these Druidic Contemplation Temple Sheds, for some Wisdom 🤔.
"Jeez, lovely work. French. 1920s, look at that, no nails & they hand turned those little, spoked wheels..."
So, ya can fix 'em?
"NAHHH! Maybe me dad, well, me granddad, maybe he knew"
Dead, huh?
"Yeah"...
Each shed, 40 blokes without a C.L.U.E. They can't even turn half the fkn machines ON! 🤣 Gov't programme that allocated old sheds, some old machines, designed by some broken down Mandarin, for this lame arse window dressing. This con.
I walked into the Old Bar Manshed. There were 20 blokes at a table, taking notes... from a WOMAN. I walked out and asked the blokes outside if they found it ironic. I think they were on their wives' valium.
Instead of a multi million dollar mental health programme, to help Men in Retirement, after 40 years in harness, 40 years a wage earner, we got a bandaid solution and some dusty sheds. Where Wimmin tell us how to be Men.
Oh. The Irony. 😑
OK. Here is another out of left field. One New Year's Eve, I was in church and we were praying about New Year's resolutions. A prayer came into my mind that was a very unusual prayer. I don't know where it came from but I prayed for it as my New Year's resolution. The prayer was "To believe for men as the spiritual heads of their families."
My relations with men, as a single divorced woman for some years, had been very poor and I would have to say sordid. The result of praying that prayer was stunning. It turned my whole life and my relationships with men right around. Since that day I find that men relate in a way that could only be regarded as excellent with me. While I am not unaware of problems around male behavior, I have to think now that women's attitudes to men and how we approach them have a stunning influence on how men behave.
I have mentioned this prayer to some leading feminists and they react as if I had burned them. I fully understand that it is an extraordinary prayer in today's context however I think it gets right at the heart of the problem. If women started to treat men as people highly worthy of respect and looking up to I think we would see a massive turnaround in the whole male-female situation.
And women's behaviour in relation to men can be stunningly appalling.
Another great article Janice.
FRA's flourish by denigrating and maligning all men, spruik [white] male privilege for all of their woes, by being dismissive of all men, etc and project (gaslight?) their abhorrent thoughts, behaviours and actions onto MRA's as a means to deflect well founded criticism of their self-serving misandry.
Sadly, I see much of my own experience in this piece. The reality is that feminist women seem absolutely petrified at the thought that ANY attention to the needs or rights of men. It goes beyond fear that men's needs will take from a limited pie, thus "depriving" women of all the spoils. It appears to be directed at the notion that the conduct of women as it impacts men is subject to criticism and punishment. The core belief of feminism seems to be that women have all the rights while men bear all the responsibilities and how dare anyone suggest anything otherwise.
Even when efforts are made to address an important issue in a gender neutral fashion, such as protecting the due process rights of the accused and proper accountability for false accusers, invariably the feminist objection is that such policies will negatively impact women. Ironically, this is actually an admission that, contrary to feminist propaganda, women not only commit unethical, unlawful and abusive acts, but that they also systemically lie about such acts. Claiming that objective due process procedures will prevent women who have experience abuse from coming forward makes no sense unless women on some level realize that many of their complaints simply won't pass muster (or are outright fabrications).
The history of the right to due process and to confront one's accuser in the US Bill of Rights is worth noting here. The Salem witch trials were a massive tragedy and scandal that, let's be honest, was primarily caused by women seeking to exert power over others they disliked, followed by covering up for their own lies and misconduct. The scandal of the witch trials was known throughout New England in the years leading up to the American Revolution and played a big part in the Founding Fathers attempts to protect the rights of the accused. It should be noted that nearly 250 years later, it is STILL women via feminism who are attacking these same rights because they undermine the ability of false accusers to bully others with their crimes of "victimhood". This is certainly conduct engaged in by male and female feminists, but the pure hatred that one sees whenever a man attempts to raise issues regarding the mistreatment of men or misconduct by women such as false accusations is coming from feminist WOMEN. It suggests that all the evils ascribed to male patriarchy are actually a projection of the psyche of women, far more than descriptions of the conduct of men. Indeed...the misandry of feminism appears to be a key characteristic of the female sex generally. I do not like generalizations of that sort, but observations suggest that this is a women's problem that can only be addressed if we call it what it is.
Fathers! Before you go to bed tonight commit to turning your boys into men. We can sit here and moan about feminists, mean women, bitches, witches, ho’s or whatever catch word you think works, but nothing and I mean nothing works like one on one, or two or three time, with your male children. If you’re lucky enough to have the time and resources, maybe you can include some fatherless child.
And as you warm up the convo, don’t spare them the truth. 10 year olds can be spoken to like adults. Their teachers, women on the street, female (and even male) doctors, little girls at school or religious leaders never tire of ‘cutting them down to size’, so you do the opposite. This doesn’t preclude time with your female offspring but thats a different conversation.
Not promoting our team under the guise of ‘not wanting to raise a toxic male’ is bullshit and you know it. Regardless of what hemisphere you live in get out there with your kid. He needs the ‘tools and language’ to combat this formless blob of feminist tyranny and you’re the only game in town for this.
Do it right and he may never need the protection and inclusivity of a ‘shed’ or a tent or a ‘yurt’ in the great beyond, and anytime he reads or hears one of these feminist hags, blather on, he’ll know that a hardy laugh is the best and only response to this drivel!
We and only ‘We’ built Western Civilization, and because we have allowed howling, domineering feminists to take over the narrative over the last 60 years, look where we are. Time to take back the controls before the train leaves the track!