The Men’s Movement

Featured

What is the Men’s Movement?

We are a group of men distributed around the world with a common purpose. Our mission is:

  1. To put men’s issues on the political agenda.
  2. To raise awareness of the vast differences between men and women and to bring about political and cultural change recognizing these differences.
  3. To bring an end to the negative stereotyping of men in the media and by politicians.

To whom is the Men’s Movement open?

  • To men with male issues they want government to address.
  • To men who feel discriminated against or who have been victimized by successions of gynocentric governments simply for being men.
  • To men offended that their gender is routinely being cast under a negative light by media and by politicians.

How do I join?

The MM is not a club at a specific location. We are all over the world. If you are aware that rights for men are thin on the ground and believe that men should have equal rights to women then you are already a member. That’s it. Done.

Welcome.

What could I do?

Our mission is in the first instance to bring about political change that upholds our rights as human beings equal to women’s. Secondly, it is to jolt governments into acknowledging that we are different from women. This means that all policy decisions from governments must take into account the strengths and weaknesses of each gender.

There are many possible actions you can take. These can be easy or they can be more involved. I’ll only be suggesting a couple of easy ones here.

You can convince a friend or acquaintance in a bar or on Facebook that the media is feeding us a diet of feminist nonsense.

Or you can join an online discussion. There are newspaper talkboards you can take part in, such as the Guardian, the Telegraph or the Huffington Post. You can use Twitter.

How do I find out more about the MM?

There are many superb men’s sites to read and enjoy. I will re-direct you straight to these.

Read Rich Zubaty. Rich is one of the founding fathers of the MM. His classic book What Men Know That Women Don’t goes into the details of what it is to be a man or a woman, why we are different, why men invented everything, why men are drawn to risk and adventure, why women prefer the comforts of the home, why men love women despite, in the modern world, receiving comparatively little in return and why this need not be so. Above all, how the feminization of western culture is intricately linked to the current sinister world order. Rich has appeared on the television and on many radio shows.

Read Angry Harry. Harry is a leading proponent of the MM. His site is full of enjoyable detail with nooks and crannies lambasting feminism and its political consequences that make your life at best uneasy, and at worst a looming disaster.

Watch ManWomanMyth. MWM makes engaging documentary videos for men that make the BBC appear little different from Murdoch’s tabloids. He attacks putatively sophisticated news programmes purporting to be impartial, while exposing their sensation grabbing and blatant lying grounded in shaky feminist ideology.

And there are many many other sites that are linked from these men’s above.

Good luck.

Feminist Dystopia

If it looks like a date, feels like a date and passes like a date then it’s rape.

Get used to it Gentlemen. The future is grim.

Of course, I don’t mean the immediate future. Nor do I mean it will necessarily happen at all either.

But I do mean this. Whether it happens or not is up to us. Or to put it another way, it means that if we do nothing, it will happen.

Feminist Wish List

Feminists seek:

  1. Ever broadening definition of rape
  2. Curfews for men
  3. Compulsory DNA testing for men (and women to be exempt)
  4. A women’s word in a courtroom case to be sacrosanct, of higher value than a man’s
  5. Life sentence for sex-related crime (where men are the accused only)
  6. Women-only buses and train carriages.
  7. Bank holidays for women only

Gentlemen, have you ever wondered what life would be like in a feminist utopia (or rather dystopia, as all utopias turn out to be)? I examine this in today’s piece.

Professional feminists are pushing for ever more new laws in an already over-controlling state. These laws have different purposes for those seeking them. Government is considering them because it will help enhance their control over the public, and thus secure their own jobs. (See my earlier piece Why A Men’s Movement?) And, of course, feminists seek them because they will make men’s lives a misery while expanding women’s freedoms to an irresponsible whimsical level.  (Not just selfishly, but rather stupidly as well. Women will ultimately be hit by such laws as well. But they will bring obviously horrendous consequences onto men.)

It couldn’t happen? Here are some facts:

  • 30 years ago, the concept of rape within marriage would have been laughed at. Now, the definition of rape has been expanded to include the ultimate circumstance of consent: marriage.
  • And this gets worse. The consent element in any relationship-based or one-off sexual encounter around 20 years ago meant consent. Now, even if consent has already been given or acknowledged it could still be interpreted as rape. If the woman changes her mind during sex and her partner does not withdraw on demand, this now constitutes lack of consent; this scenario now falls within the definition of rape. (But what if the man changes his mind but she refuses to get off? Hmm. Nothing has been said about that one.)
  • 10 years ago, legally forcing businesses to take on women into management positions would also have been laughed at. Well, this is “not quite law” yet. But British prime minister David Cameron, for example, has warned companies to take more women on into senior positions or he’ll make it law. (I mean, get this. It’s not law, but he’ll make it law if they don’t conform!) In Norway, they’ve already put such a practice into effect.
  • Divorced fathers now have no access to their children even if they have been granted such access by courts. (A misbehaving mother not complying with a court order is never punished.) Fathers are usually forced by the courts to leave their homes. Some end up homeless. Either way, they still have to go on paying the mortgage on the house their ex-wife who has dumped them is living in, sometimes with a new boyfriend, while she legally calls it her own. See Baskerville and Harris (both summarized below).
  • Domestic violence statistics show that cohabiting women and men to be equally violent towards each other. Yet, governments and the press never cease putting out the lie that DV is uniquely male instigated. American sociologist Murray Straus has carried out a detailed and scholarly study.  The magazine Psychiatry On-Line draws the same conclusions.
  • Claims are made by UK politicians and sensation-seeking media there are 12,000 rapes in the UK a year, but that only some 6% of these (around 700) result in a conviction. The fact is, most of these accusations are retracted and have no evidence to start with. They are typically retracted when contradictions are discovered by police at the time the accuser is making her report — and then admitting she lied. This Home Office report put together by an organization with the rather ugly misandric name of The Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit gives clear and unavoidable evidence this happens. (This is while the same people swerve away from making any reference to reasons in this rather biased report of theirs on rape case attrition rates. Notice how this latter report fails to even try explain the high attrition rate for rape accusations — referring to “Cases Lost” — thus implying by innuendo the accusations were genuine. And it fails to link the fact that the attrition is down to a similar number of rapes 30 years ago. Of their two reports, this is the one aimed at public consumption.)

In view of these facts, how can anyone dispute that the laws on the dystopian feminist wish list will never be put into effect?

The issue facing you as a man is straightforward. And, as you’ve seen, it’s grim. We are evolving into a new age of government control. The kind of action you face is this.  You have a sexual encounter with a woman – or not – and she claims you made an unwanted advance involving sexual contact. You will go to prison. A woman’s word in this age of feminist ascendancy far outweighs a man’s. Under such a law (currently under construction by feminist groups), a rape accuser will not even be present in court. She will give her evidence over a video link so as not to “face her rapist”. She will be free from being cross-examined by the defence in order not to “repeat the trauma”. This will be part of the effort to ensure “the victim” is always believed.

And, of course, as anyone with an I.Q. above double figures can see, this set-up will make even Santa Claus or Jesus Christ look guilty.

You won’t come out for a long time. You will be mistreated there to public elation. When you are released, you will struggle to find a job. You might have to accept one well below your intelligence and which pays barely a hand-to-mouth pittance.

You will have to tell the police your whereabouts every time you budge.

The question you need to ask yourself is this. Does such a destiny appeal?

Or, perhaps one evening you want to go out to meet some friends for a serious conversation in a pub over beer and a curry. You want to discuss the politics of feminism, how it is affecting you adversely, and what you might be able to do about it. Uh-oh. Can’t. It’s Friday. Must be indoors by 7 p.m. Women’s night out only weekends.

You are travelling to work but you mistimed things today. You’re running a little late. You march your fastest pace to the bus-stop. But nothing arrives. You wait a long time. Crazy. Then you see one coming. Fantastic. You’ll soon be on your way. It arrives. And it’s not a busy one either: might mean getting a seat today. But no! This one’s for women only! Luckily you spotted the sign before you stepped on.There’s a massive fine on a man entering a woman-only bus. No excuses. Zero tolerance.

But this could never happen, right?

Here’s the result of a feminist-inspired law put into effect quite recently. A man in Italy was convicted of the heinous crime of — wait for it — staring at a woman!

And here are some books. Take a look at how the secret — and corrupt — family courts have destroyed the lives of many thousands of men by lodging feminist ideals into their procedures. It’s horrendous.

  • Family Court Hell  by Mark Harris (UK).
    • Mark Harris gives a detailed account of his own harrowing experience of the corrupt British family courts. Another horror story left out by the papers.

Yet the public by-and-large respects the family courts.

Chilling. And you’re next. Not today, and maybe not tomorrow. But one day this abhorrent utopia will stealthily take shape and steal its way into our social structures to make life for men and boys a nightmare.

You’re next unless we stop this tendency.

How? Get involved in public on-line discussions. Use Twitter or Facebook to discuss it with your friends and other associates.

This is all we can do for the moment.

Feminist Nonsense

“I have no doubt that the distortions of the truth by the radical feminists of our time will, someday, be seen as having been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the 20th century. Meanwhile, we still live under the aegis of that crime and to call attention to it is an act of great moral courage”.

Professor Howard S. Schwartz, Oakland University, Michigan USA.

The sinister problem we face today as men (and that less directly women face as people) is that government’s driving ideology in every befitting area of policy-making is feminism. But upon what strength? None. Feminism has no strength. It has no logical stream of reasoning and pays scant regard to fact.

So why does government take feminism seriously? I will examine this question later on in this piece. But first let us take a brief but revealing look into the central plank of feminist ideology that forms the basis of modern government’s policy-making: the presumption of equality between men and women.

The quote from Professor Schwartz takes us straight to feminism’s central brain-piece:

If they look different, sound different, behave different and think different then they’re the same.

The fact is, men and women are not the same. Or, to put it another way, they are not equal. Yet feminists tell us that men and women are equal. (Except, of course, when they want to venerate women and demonize men. Then they’re as different as chalk and cheese. More about that in another post.)

First of all, women and men look differently, otherwise you couldn’t tell them apart. Secondly, you can recognize a woman’s voice and distinguish it from a man’s in far more cases than not. Men and women just don’t sound the same. Indeed, a woman’s whole attitude to life is reflected in the manner in which she speaks. A man’s too.

Men and women have clearly different behavioural patterns. Men eat more and drink more. They work longer hours. They take on work that’s more complex or more pressurized or riskier. They do the ugliest jobs that women won’t go near.  They are at-the-ready to risk their lives to protect their loved ones and provide for them.

And, of course, behaviour patterns are linked to the way men and women think. This is the only one possible sticking point in all this. Feminists claim that women can reach the same great academic levels that men have succeeded in doing in every period of history but that they have been held back by one serious barrier: social conditioning.

Yeah right. Makes me wonder how stupid women must be to let themselves fall foul of such obvious tricks (presumably from men?).

Well, I’ve got news for you feminists (although this will not be news for anybody else). Men’s and women’s brains are as different from each other as their bodies are.

The findings of Doreen Kimura of the University of Vancouver, behavioural psychologist and world expert on sex differences, demonstrate that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses for different cognitive brain functions.  Typically, women showed a greater ability in verbal areas, while men in spatially-related ones.  But although many of these strengths varied more within one sex than between the two, spatial awareness displayed very narrow overlap between the two. (And it is exactly spatial awareness that lies at the core to understanding and innovation in mathematics, physical sciences and engineering.)

Moreover, the research of Dr. Kimura indicates that women with high testosterone levels have stronger spatial skills than women with low levels. The presence of testosterone is a chemical indicator of masculinity. (So, in a way, physicists, mathematicians and engineers are real men.)

Other researchers make the same observation. For example, A. Torres, E. Gómez-Gil, A. Vidal, O. Puig, T. Boget and M. Salamero from the University of Barcelona find that:

Women outperform men on verbal fluency, perceptual speed tasks, fine motor skills, verbal memory and verbal learning. Men outperform women on visuospatial ability, mathematical problem solving and visual memory.

Agneta Herlitz and Johanna Lovén of Stockholm University conclude no differently:

Thus, there is ample evidence that sex differences in visuospatial ability favoring males exist throughout the life span.

In short, men and women think differently.

But even then, sex differences in the brain don’t stop at cognitive functions. There is also the issue of intelligence. Dr. Paul Irwing of Manchester University found that women and men possessed different intelligence patterns as well. Although his research puts men with a slight lead in average I.Q. of five points, this is not the real issue. The real clincher is that men have a greater spread of intelligence: there were twice as many men on I.Q. 120 (which is considered “bright” university entrance level), and thirty times as many on 170 (which is high genius level).

Another reason nearly all scientific advances were conceived by men, and another reason the few discoveries from women were not at the same dazzling levels as men’s.

And another difference in the male-female brain function antithesis.

Feminist Government

I now return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article: why does the most powerful body of any country — government — incorporate the blatant nonsense that is feminism into every area of policy that it can wedge it into?

There can only be one reason. Governments don’t like men. After all, in view of all the facts I have outlined, why do governments spend a great deal of energy encouraging women into higher education but don’t give out one grunt to help men?

Because their very survival depends on it. They want to keep men poorly educated. Governments want to create an underclass of men and an aristocracy of women.

Firstly, women spend more — a lot more — than men. More spending means more business and more tax. Arguably nothing wrong with that per se, but it still raises the question: surely if both men and women are highly educated and both are working it would mean more business (and more tax) still? Why make policy that will exclude increasing numbers of men from the economy?

It makes women less dependent on men for their survival. This way, government can asphyxiate the intimate heterosexual relationship and family life that people’s happiness and security are centred on. A less secure population is more dependent on government for its protection and will thus secure the jobs of government officials.

Moreover, poorly educated men have a greater tendency to commit crimes. And crimes provoke a greater public need for government. See my article Why A Men’s Movement? What politicians fear the most is a society that is crime-free. Such a society will have less need for government. Of course, some government will always be necessary, but a population with a significantly lower crime level would force it to downsize. Not an appealing prospect if you are a member of the government.

Apart from that, prisoners’ labour can be used free of charge. Someone will be needed to build and repair roads, maintain sewers, mine coal, etc. These unattractive jobs will still need doing. But if they are done free of charge — by forcing prisoners to do them — it will boost economic efficiency for the new aristocrats: women, big corporations and governments. Men will become the new slaves (barring a few manholes involved in big business or government).

Not good news if you’re a man.

So why does the public in general buy into feminism? One reason is that government is legitimizing it by creating gender studies departments in universities. This gives feminism an erudite appearance. The sole purpose of gender studies is to justify the vilification of men and sanctification of women. The nonsense feminism propagates will be questioned by fewer people if it appears high brow.

And, in any case, government also uses skilled propagandists of its own to communicate feminist lies to the unsuspecting public, working alongside media organizations, who themselves have their own separate vested interests in promoting feminism.

All I can say is thank goodness for the Internet. We need to fight this. But currently the fight is still underground. It is taking place over the Internet behind computer screens.  We need to make it more open. For that we need as much involvement as possible in public spaces over the Internet first of all, not just men’s blogs.

The next step after that will be the big one: to get our message out to the public at large through the mass media.That will only happen when large enough numbers of men demand it.

And that depends on us. I think we can do it.

Links

Books

For excellent material on sex differences see:

(Amazon U.S. linked. Amazon U.K. and other countries exist.)

Why a Men’s Movement?

Big government. That’s why. Big government – the scourge of civilization – is the enemy of men.

But please don’t get me wrong. The issue is not that we have government. We need government. It serves us and has the potential to serve us well.

The problem is that government that has grown too large – big government – has a different objective: to serve itself. As I will show, big government’s aim is to gain power and control over the people it is meant to serve, that it pretends to serve.

And this is the reason we need a men’s movement. It is why the movement exists, and why it is growing. Big government is using men as its target to ensure its own survival, and, above all, to sustain and enhance its power over the public.

Moreover, it is using bogus assertions from feminist dogma to give itself credence. It is turning men against men and successfully achieving it by making women distrustful and fearful of men. It is even callously helping a handful of women with a malicious nature to bring about false criminal cases against men.

More about feminism in a later post.

As detailed by Angry Harry, a sizable body of people forms an organism. It has characteristics not unlike a biological organism. An organism wants to survive, thrive and grow. It has an ego.

And so governments want to grow. As anybody who has watched a politician making a speech or debating will have noticed that governments have a mind of their own that is beyond the sum total of their members. They have an ego. The speaking politician is driven not so much by his own mind but by his party’s. A politician with certain private views on an issue that differ somewhat from his party’s voted position will air the party’s views, not his own personal views. Behind him there is something bigger than him talking: his party’s collective ego.

But government ego has taken a chilling turn. Let’s look at crime levels. What should be wonderful news that crime in the western world has been in steady decline for decades (see Urban Institute of Crime publication), we are instead seeing a surge in men being sent to prison. Prison numbers have multiplied many times over the last 30 years, despite crime levels shrinking.

What’s happening? The problem is that waning levels of crime are uncomfortable for government. Look at the consequences this has in store for them. It will mean less police, fewer prison places, less work for prison officers, judges and public prosecutors. All these people are government employees. It will result in smaller government, because there will be a lesser need for government.

And this rubs against an organism’s instinct to grow.

Naturally then, government’s reaction is to counter the cause. Government will take measures to arrest this decline in demand for their “services”. Indeed, it will force a need for them: it will do what it can to raise the level of crime. How? There are two ways, both subtle, both clever. One is to foment the circumstances provoking criminal behaviour. The other is to bring out more laws.

Sound far-fetched?

Not when you look at the facts. In the 1960s and 70s California’s prison reform system was the best in the world. Prison governors were from university backgrounds and successfully introduced measures for reducing crime. These included classes for inmates and training for the world of work. The result was that the recidivist rate dropped to 10-15%. Crime successfully went into decline. California’s correctional system became the best in the world.

But then something happened. Naturally, the need for California’s prison guards started diminishing. They were being laid off.

That wouldn’t do. So they lobbied government for harsher sentences to keep inmates re-offending and returning to prison.

It worked. It ensured the safety of their jobs.

Now California’s prison regime is one of the most horrendous in the western world. The recidivist rate rose over the years to the stupefying level of 77% in 2009. Prison numbers have tripled. (See Jailing is Big Business for a detailed account.)

A one-off? No.

Britain’s Labour government also tried this approach in order not to be seen as “soft on crime”. The British government acted under the myth spurred on by tabloids that crime was increasing and that only a harsh penal regime could reduce crime. Rhetoric from politicians skilfully stirred up fear and hatred. Voters would glee that at last something was being done to get tough on those thugs on the streets that would make their lives a misery if they were unlucky enough to fall into their paths.

Crime, in fact, was actually coming down. It has been coming down steadily since the 1990s. See page 9 of the National Archives, showing a similar picture to the Urban Institute’s that I linked earlier.

But police and prison numbers still increased. The number of prisoners rose from 18,000 in 1900 to 45,000 in 1990 to 90,000 in 2010. (That’s double since 1990!) Police numbers rose sharply when Labour came to power in 1997, with an overall increase since the 1960s.

A supremely idiotic cock-up? Highly unlikely. Not from top university graduates in humanities subjects with a firm grasp of social and psychological issues.

Governments would ride in like shining white knights and rescue the public by promising policies to protect the public. Their aim was to win their support for policy that would horrify them if they knew the facts.

And this picture, like an ugly instance of déjà-vu, persistently repeats itself in policy areas on other social issues that I shall be returning to.

In fact, all of them draw on claims based on feminist nonsense.

What can we as a Men’s Movement do? We need to get the message out my friends. Join a blog or a news talkboard: try the Guardian, the Telegraph or the Huffington Post.

Tell your friends on Facebook or Twitter.

Want to learn more? Check this out. Here’s an excellent video from ManWomanMyth on how governments are trying to wreck human intimacy. Includes an interview with Angry Harry.

All the best.