By Peter Wright & Paul Elam:The topic of gynocentrism is a perpetual undercurrent in the realm of red pill philosophy. It came up again recently, in a critique of a largely popular, critical commentator on third-wave feminism. That touched a nerve in the MHRM, and sparked some spirited, even acrimonious debate. That nerve, we think, is connected directly to faultline, to a zone of demarcation within the nonfeminist sector that manages to surface regularly in the new narrative. If history is any indication, we will see this friction revisited with greater intensity in the months and years ahead. That heat will increase with the commensurate increase in the popularity of nonfeminism. It warrants a good faith attempt to identify and explain what is happening. We may even head off some problems. Traditionalism vs. modernism Ostensibly, it appears that we have a long-running conflict between traditionalists and those who would make a clean break from any and all social constructs that govern identity and expectation based on sex. Yet the debate about traditionalism is clearly more complex than a disagreement between people who want traditional vs. non-traditional relationships, a fact that becomes more evident with each flare-up of controversy and dissent.
Last month, Dr Paul Turek espoused the
benefits of genital mutilation. He claimed it reduces the risk of HIV and STD infection, but Peter Lloyd, [right] author of Stand by Your Manhood, slams the advice as preposterous. Like an eyelid, he says the foreskin has many functions - and its removal causes the head of the penis to harden and desensitise, like a callus. He also calls out feminist double-standards on the issue, claimingthe frequent violation of boys is 'systematically ignored.
By
Peter Lloyd: Most people would consider the bodies of men and
women equally valuable. But, when it comes to circumcision, that
clearly isn’t true - which is odd considering the procedure removes functional
tissue, causes extreme pain, permanently disfigures and forever damages sexual
response, regardless of gender.
By Mike Buchanan:Suffragents is an organization based in my adopted home town of Bedford, and its strapline is:
Campaigning for gender equality, legal justice for fathers, and the recognition ofdomestic violence against men.
On Saturday 12 March they’ll be holding their first annual convention, details here. Admission is free but by invitation only, you need to fill in a short contact form. I won’t be speaking at the convention, but I look forward to attending.
By Kathy Gyngell: Did childlessness or an antipathy to children form Gloria Steinem’s barren feminism? Or was she unloved herself? I wondered about this as I read Jan Moir’s interview with her to celebrate her 82nd birthday.
Children simply do not feature in Ms Steinem’s world. She takes not one minute to consider them or how the fall-out from her feminist strictures has impacted on them. She reflects neither on the massive expansion of daycare that followed hard on the heels of ‘women’s lib’ nor the exponential rise of child and adolescent mental health disorders we are witnessing today. Despite her age, Gloria Steinem strikes me as an immature woman, still at the centre of her own world – still the child or adolescent in Jungian terms – still seeking experience to confirm her belief system. Asked if she regrets her childlessness, Steinem says that even though: “I can feel the pressure to say yes. But I don’t and I never did”. This is the only mention children get – apart from when she invokes the women having it all mantra – a career (what a revealing term) and a baby. They can’t she says, until men have it all too – career and baby. No, adults and mainly women (menare lovers or helps)are the centre of Ms Steinem’s egocentric world.
Shiloh Owens demonstrated with the Bloodstained Men & Friends at the Super Bowl. He discusses his education about the issue 'protecting children from genital mutilation' and how he felt protesting at this huge public sporting event.
A breakdown of the four contemporary philosophical schools of thought as to the ontological status of race. Namely, does race exist? What do the philosophers think?
By Mr.Jacques: I recently contacted AVFM to offer my services as a volunteer. I’m a British high school student who is a bit of a nerd and have, rather recently, discovered the feminist movement and the mythical oppression of women. This happened in the debate club that I belong to at my school. We recently had a debate about whether or not men and women would ever be equal, a topic of which I am rather fond. However, upon getting into this debate I raised a point about men in prison serving more time than women for the same crime.* For this simple declaration of fact, I have earned the title of “sexist pig.” I was attacked even though I was arguing that both sexes should be equal. My argument was countered with the irrelevant (and I think highly questionable) pay gap feminists love so much to lay claim to. Naturally, they failed to cite any evidence, which is not surprising given they were working harder at derailment than debate. Later that evening I decided to research more into the discrimination that both men and women face. Upon researching into many feminist talking points I discovered that a startling number were complete and utter nonsense. This includes the holy grail of women overwhelmingly being the victims of more abuse than men.
By Gilad Atzmon: On the 10th of October, 2007, at Hotel Hilton in Tel-Aviv, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated the following: "We are buying up Manhattan, Hungary, Romania and Poland."
That nerve, we think, is connected directly to faultline, to a zone of demarcation within the nonfeminist sector that manages to surface regularly in the new narrative.
That nerve, we think, is connected directly to faultline, to a zone of demarcation within the nonfeminist sector that manages to surface regularly in the new narrative.
