The NS Mens Rights Thread

[New Larthinia]

I didn't know this exists. It's nice.

[Ostroeuropa]

I didn't know this exists. It's nice.

Where do you usually go for MRM stuff?

[Haktiva]

Ostro, you kinda sound like Rocking Mr. E with how often you use the term, MGTOW radicals. Not that you don't have a valid point, as the MGTOW circles certainly have people who would fit that description. As you said, we've more or less given up, seeing it as the only valid option, plus it's easier to focus on oneself than try and fix a sick society. If MGTOWs are the radicals of the MRM, then perhaps there is hope.

[New Larthinia]

I didn't know this exists. It's nice.

Where do you usually go for MRM stuff?

On the feminist thread, since I get to wreck them feminists.


We should raid Tumblr one day, it is full of retarded depressed teenager feminists.

[Uawc]

I have certainly not read this thread in its entirety, but from what I can see I support the OP's position.

I'm neither gender, but because my sex is male I'm often expected to act as a cis man often is, and in the process I have to deal with sexism from family and society as a whole. "Be a man", they say. "You can't let a woman do that." ...things of that nature.

I think the MRM is often used as an anti-feminist front and that's not okay, for both the obvious reasons and the fact that it makes the concept of men's rights look like a joke.

Sexism against anyone hurts everyone, and it needs to stop.

[Hirota]

I have certainly not read this thread in its entirety, but from what I can see I support the OP's position.

Thats fine, it's a long thread after all, and we ramble on a bit.

I'm neither gender, but because my sex is male I'm often expected to act as a cis man often is, and in the process I have to deal with sexism from family and society as a whole. "Be a man", they say. "You can't let a woman do that." ...things of that nature.

I think you'll find a lot of people can relate to that in this thread. There is an expectation that women can do whatever they want - which is absolutely fine - yet there remains an expectation placed upon men to conform to certain roles and expectations, and opposition (by many feminists, but also conservative traditional gender role types) for men stepping outside of those predetermined roles.

I think the MRM is often used as an anti-feminist front and that's not okay

It's used by feminists as a bogeyman for opposition to feminism. Whilst there is an overlap, and many MRA's are anti-feminists, not all (or even a majority) of MRA's are anti-feminist.

for both the obvious reasons and the fact that it makes the concept of men's rights look like a joke.

One of the common strategies of some in feminism is presenting this false narrative that all MRA's are women-hating, fedora-wearing, rape-perpetuating men, they seek to undermine the very real difficulties experienced by men, and outlined in the opening post.

Sexism against anyone hurts everyone, and it needs to stop.

Absolutely agreed.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ca ... ntary-film

Title is irritating, but looks promising. Please donate.

[Obexer]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cassiejaye/the-red-pill-a-documentary-film

Title is irritating, but looks promising. Please donate.

Dang it, now I can't make Matrix references without being associated with this. Screw social reform, this thing cannot be made. For the sake of my coherence!

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cassiejaye/the-red-pill-a-documentary-film

Title is irritating, but looks promising. Please donate.

Dang it, now I can't make Matrix references without being associated with this. Screw social reform, this thing cannot be made. For the sake of my coherence!

You can make other references to the matrix, because you choose to.

[Haktiva]

Looks like Hypergamy is becoming a hot topic in academia

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Hey guys!

Kinda making a comeback to NS after a bit of an absence. I'm an Egalitarian with some MRA and feminist leanings. I'm the sort that's really turned off by the negative rhetoric on both sides and wants to see the more reasonable voices on both sides come to an accord. I'm tired of 'kill all men' and I'm tired of the idea that anyone who accepts any aspect of Feminist theory is a 'cuck' or 'cookie seeking' of whatever.

I was recently involved in the [url='https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib']r/menslib[/url] subreddit, and I was wondering what you guys thought of it. I did my part in keeping the subreddit from falling into lockstep with aspects of feminist dogma that I find sexist against men, and the sub became somewhat of a warzone in the early days with feminists insisting on rigidly defining terms like 'privilege' and 'oppression' to exclude men.

An example I made there when trying to explain my perspective on gender roles was this:

Imagine a society in which, by traditional arrangement, the first children of any family are only allowed to fish to earn a living, and the second children are only allowed to make or mine salt (and alternating for the subsequent children.)
In this situation, both groups need each other to survive the winter, so each group has cause to resent the other for the power this gives them. Both are oppressed, and both are participating in their mutual oppression. The only way to end this situation is for people on both sides to allow themselves and the other group participate in those actions forbidden to them by social convention.

What we're seeing in our society today I think is the equivalent of the salt makers being allowed to fish while the fishers are still prevented from making salt. One side has gained freedom from the restriction, and the other resents that they are still bound by it. In my opinion, this can either go one of two ways: the still restricted group can gain their own freedom from these restrictions, or they can drag the other group back into the old way of doing things.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hey guys!

Kinda making a comeback to NS after a bit of an absence. I'm an Egalitarian with some MRA and feminist leanings. I'm the sort that's really turned off by the negative rhetoric on both sides and wants to see the more reasonable voices on both sides come to an accord. I'm tired of 'kill all men' and I'm tired of the idea that anyone who accepts any aspect of Feminist theory is a 'cuck' or 'cookie seeking' of whatever.

I was recently involved in the [url='https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib']r/menslib[/url] subreddit, and I was wondering what you guys thought of it. I did my part in keeping the subreddit from falling into lockstep with aspects of feminist dogma that I find sexist against men, and the sub became somewhat of a warzone in the early days with feminists insisting on rigidly defining terms like 'privilege' and 'oppression' to exclude men.

An example I made there when trying to explain my perspective on gender roles was this:

Imagine a society in which, by traditional arrangement, the first children of any family are only allowed to fish to earn a living, and the second children are only allowed to make or mine salt (and alternating for the subsequent children.)
In this situation, both groups need each other to survive the winter, so each group has cause to resent the other for the power this gives them. Both are oppressed, and both are participating in their mutual oppression. The only way to end this situation is for people on both sides to allow themselves and the other group participate in those actions forbidden to them by social convention.

What we're seeing in our society today I think is the equivalent of the salt makers being allowed to fish while the fishers are still prevented from making salt. One side has gained freedom from the restriction, and the other resents that they are still bound by it. In my opinion, this can either go one of two ways: the still restricted group can gain their own freedom from these restrictions, or they can drag the other group back into the old way of doing things.

Menslib is overrun with AMRats yeh. It's why it's a botched attempt to reform feminism.
Because feminism is mostly a bunch of sexist pricks. That's just how it is. That's the whole point of the MRM.

You saw it, first hand, at Menslib. They tried to get a pro-feminist mens movement off the ground and what happened?
Immediately devolved into sexist bullshit.

So where were the moderates?

Oh they were there.
And HUGELY outnumbered by people determined to femsplain mens issues.

I'm having a discussion with one of them now as it happens.

We have different terms for hegemonic masculinity, but broadly speaking it's seen as an issue for gender roles of any form to exist for either gender. Though we're "fine" with people deciding to embrace a traditional role if they decide to. ("fine" might involve "But why on earth would you want such an imbalanced relationship? Really? Well ok, good luck.").
The MRM rejection of the term is it's association with masculinity. We disagree it has anything to do with that. It's about validation, which is confused for masculinity. It's profoundly unhelpful to call this a type of masculinity when it isn't, it's the seeking of validation, whereas masculinity is intrinsic and inalienable. The conflation of the two is the problem in the first place. In addition, it's inadvisable tone wise and can make people feel offended, when you need them listening. In addition, we note inconsistent terminology in the feminist movement, and some feel that this points to sexism in the foundations. (Though personally, I think it's a result of separate authors for each piece of ideology.)
You're searching for the core difference in beliefs between the MLM and MRM and I think it's more likely to be that the MRM looks at the institutions surrounding the media, academia, politics, and business and sees a feminist narrative of one kind of another dominating each of them, and overwhelmingly discussing womens issues. Attempting to discuss mens issues at the same time is met with accusations this is derailing the discussion and it's not a zero sum game.
The MRM views this as avoiding the fact that the feminist movement is misusing its institutional power. To use an analogy, it's one person who owns all the papers, has written all the curriculums, owns all the tv channels, and has bribed the politicians to be very very right wing, and then tells you you're welcome to found your own paper to talk about alternatives.
It's just not that simple.
The MRM position is that feminist institutions must be made to share their power with someone else because they have abused the mandate for gender equality given to them and the power their position affords them, or must be removed from power if they are unprepared to share it by other means, including delegitimizing their movement and making it unpopular or toxic to support it, until they are prepared to reform themselves or to share power with the MRM or face political wilderness. I'd say we've been pretty damn successful in making gynocentric feminism seem exremely toxic in the zeitgeist. You pretty much have to be menslib now. Sadly, that doesn't translate well into institutions yet.
In this sense, you can view the MRM as believing in a matriarchy of sorts, though they wouldn't call it that. I've seen it called the Velvet Curtain by farrel.
The MLM i'm guessing, is more in line with reforming the use of those institutions and changing the feminist narrative rather than trying to dismantle it. You are, in a sense, a reaction to the MRM precisely as we wanted to happen. Though there are those who want a more annihilationist approach and for the feminist movement to collapse. I suspect that's personal bias and peoples war wounds and histories of being personally victimized by feminism driving that sentiment.
Other than that core difference, i'm fairly sure we basically agree on everything. The frequent lies about the MRM from feminists in positions in the media don't help matters when it comes to knowing about what the MRM believes and stands for. Sorry, but that's just how it is. There's a lot of conflation with TRP and ROK and such, and there's really no excuse for a journalist to be doing it.
I'd say that could be put down to the general collapse in the quality of journalism in general and the descent into sensationalism, shit sources, no research, and pandering to a particular ideological base, rather than something specific to feminists though, so ... yay? This also fucks over feminists by making a lot of their talking points easily counterable. 1/5, the wage gap, etc. Only well informed feminists have a shot of doing anything except spreading misinformation, and the journalists aren't informing them. You need to do personal research to have a shot, and i've met some feminists who do, they are usually the most convincing, troubling even. Conversely, the MRM tends to HAVE to do self-research and share it. This is why it feels a bit like cheating a lot of the time. It's rare to meet a feminist who can hold their own in a debate, in my opinion, because they are being poorly equipped for it. This can make the MRAs who talk to them assume they must be liars, when really they are just repeating what they are told by people they trust. (This trust is the major point of contention.).
But this also fuels MRM growth and belief in their narrative. It's trivial to point out to people that almost any article written on the MRM is full of factual errors and slander, and this can be used to sell them the idea that there is, in fact, a corrupt establishment of feminists abusing their power, and that they have distorted the narrative on gender equality to the detriment of men. That's basically the only difference between our movements, aside from some terminological differences.
This also, admittedly, does mean that when feminists who have read those things and repeat them in areas where we can debate them, are likely to be called out on never fact checking and such. It's tactically useful to make out that the opposing side are ill informed, or purposefully disingenuous, even if strategically, it fucks everyone over by making the sides entrench and refuse to listen to eachother.
I'd wager you probably view those feminists in positions of institutional power are reformable, and that's where the disconnect occurs. We don't think they will ever allow successors who will address mens issues. They are too gynocentric.
However, you should be supported in your efforts to try. If only so you become a new source of MRAs if you fail. And if you succeed, we'll have egg on our face but oh well, mens issues get addressed.
Conversely, I do understand the feminist dislike for the MRM too, especially once the gender wars started and they started getting more and more hostile. It also doesn't help that there is so much misunderstanding and misinformation. The key thing for MRAs to try and remember, which they frequently forget, is that feminists are fine in our narrative (provided they are menslib types. Some MRAs are tribalist and would demand you call yourself feminist-MRA, or WRA-MRA, but eh.). It's the ones in power who are fucking up. But yes. I'd say that this is the sole difference between the MRM and MLM, broadly speaking. There's also the issue of the MRM being driven more radical by the gender war, away from a reforming force, past an oppositional counterbalance, and now into declarations that feminism as a worldview is fundamentally unsalvagable and must be destroyed anywhere it holds power. I think this is unhelpful, we'd do better to return to the counterbalance approach (I'm not going to say I think it can be reformed. I'm an MRA.). There will be terminological disagreements, but this is the crux of our two movements disagreement. This is, in short, a view of what the gender war is from the MRM perspective. Well, this, plus people getting angry and personal about it.

(Anyone wondering who the fuck this is and what they did with Ostro, i'm high as a fucking kite. I'm nicer when i'm high.)

Welcome back by the way.

I still hold out hope for menslib.
But they'll need to start taking a harder line on amrats and people who just refuse to stop lying about the MRM, or people who insist on all feminist doctrines being adhered to or else and make the environment toxic for men actually discussing issues unless they don't think for themselves and just repeat feminist dogma.
Maybe they can pull it off, but I doubt it. Still. Small measure of hope.

It's important to maintain a decent relation with the moderates there in order to work together on projects, but my expectation is that the menslib reddit will serve as a testement to precisely why feminism is so fucked when it comes to mens issues.

This happened before you know.

They tried a "feminismformen" sub, and the feminists in charge of it shut down all discussion because they couldn't handle it being against feminist dogma.
When one of their threads actually gets off the ground without bannings or without people going apeshit over feminisms dogma being questioned because all the AMRats get together to circlejerk, it's usually posted to the mensrights reddit for lulz.
"Oh look. They're discussing domestic violence against women."
"Oh look. They've banned discussing legal parental surrender."
"Oh look. They think the MRM is pro-traditional gender roles. Highest upvoted comment. Very informed people here!"
"Isn't that darling? They're discussing the men for having toxic beliefs about masculinity and not discussing where they might get them from. Hey guys, did you know most of the men who go on these shooting sprees were raised by a single mother? How does that factor into your ideology exactly?"
(obligatory: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/ )
"Oh look, they banned a comment pointing out that to combat violence against women, you have to stop it against men because they retaliate against women."

etc.

So they either need to clean up (Including get rid of one or two mods) and tell AMRats and gynocentrists to fuck off, or at some point, they need to accept that they just shouldn't be in charge of mens issues. They're fucking shit at it, and their refusal to let anyone else do it is preventing progress. That's where we come in. Chip away at their legitimacy until they feel obliged to shut the fuck up about mens issues once and for all and let someone else deal with it. If they refuse to do that, keep chipping away until they collapse entirely.


Part of the process of chipping away is by extending hands to them to help us on projects. Either they work with us, and the MRM is given some measure of legitimacy as a group working on mens issues, or they refuse, and we can claim they are nothing more than an attempt to split the movement.

The goal of the MRM is and should be to attain institutional power and media recognition. We should be relentless in our insistence that the androcentric narrative be used to address mens issues.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

They tried a "feminismformen" sub, and the feminists in charge of it shut down all discussion because they couldn't handle it being against feminist dogma.
When one of their threads actually gets off the ground without bannings or without people going apeshit over feminisms dogma being questioned because all the AMRats get together to circlejerk, it's usually posted to the mensrights reddit for lulz.
"Oh look. They're discussing domestic violence against women."
"Oh look. They've banned discussing legal parental surrender."
"Oh look. They think the MRM is pro-traditional gender roles. Highest upvoted comment. Very informed people here!"
"Isn't that darling? They're discussing the men for having toxic beliefs about masculinity and not discussing where they might get them from. Hey guys, did you know most of the men who go on these shooting sprees were raised by a single mother? How does that factor into your ideology exactly?"
(obligatory: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/ )
"Oh look, they banned a comment pointing out that to combat violence against women, you have to stop it against men because they retaliate against women."

Yeah, my understanding is that it's pretty well understood among the Menslib crowd that Feminismformen was a failure. The menslib mods seem to be a little bit more on the level, and I haven't been banned despite outright challenging people to admit that men were oppressed.

[Ostroeuropa]

They tried a "feminismformen" sub, and the feminists in charge of it shut down all discussion because they couldn't handle it being against feminist dogma.
When one of their threads actually gets off the ground without bannings or without people going apeshit over feminisms dogma being questioned because all the AMRats get together to circlejerk, it's usually posted to the mensrights reddit for lulz.
"Oh look. They're discussing domestic violence against women."
"Oh look. They've banned discussing legal parental surrender."
"Oh look. They think the MRM is pro-traditional gender roles. Highest upvoted comment. Very informed people here!"
"Isn't that darling? They're discussing the men for having toxic beliefs about masculinity and not discussing where they might get them from. Hey guys, did you know most of the men who go on these shooting sprees were raised by a single mother? How does that factor into your ideology exactly?"
(obligatory: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... er/275322/ )
"Oh look, they banned a comment pointing out that to combat violence against women, you have to stop it against men because they retaliate against women."

Yeah, my understanding is that it's pretty well understood among the Menslib crowd that Feminismformen was a failure. The menslib mods seem to be a little bit more on the level, and I haven't been banned despite outright challenging people to admit that men were oppressed.

I see similar problems. Currently my kickstarter thread is upvoted 65%, because the documentary deals with mens issues from a feminist perspective AND from the mens rights movement perspective.
There's no reason for that many downvotes to have occured.

I also got immediately -5 downvotes before it swung back round to the positives.

This was my post, it's about as neutral and inoffensive as possible.

Link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ca ... ntary-film
In the interest of inter-movement cooperation I thought i'd send the mods a link to the kickstarter for this documentary, and they have approved it for posting. Please watch the video through to the end, the documentary seems comprehensive and does not seem to revolve around certain individuals.
Summary:
This film was born out of Cassie Jaye’s curiosity to meet the Men’s Rights Activists, but what she didn’t expect was to be taken on a life-altering journey where she would never see the world the same way again. The original “why” was “why not?”, but the “why” became: because we have to share this incredible journey! This film follows Cassie Jaye, a self-proclaimed feminist, as she stumbles down the rabbit hole into the mysterious world of the Men’s Rights Movement. The film takes you on her exact journey, in chronological order of the characters she meets and events she attends, while also documenting her own transformation through ‘video diaries’. From meeting men's rights activists (MRAs) and hearing their personal stories, to feminist rebuttals, to very personal quarrels between the filmmaker and interview subjects, this film is a roller-coaster ride through the current day ‘Gender War’. There have been many speculations about this film’s intentions, but we at Jaye Bird Productions would like to set the record straight about what this film is and what this film isn’t. This film is NOT propaganda. This film is NOT trying to promote one way of thinking. And this film is NOT a “hit piece” (where a film’s motive is to take down or “expose” someone or some group). Here is what this film IS: this film is an exploratory documentary. The viewer is lead down the rabbit hole of gender politics by a young feminist who is curious about the Men’s Rights Movement and is willing to listen and wants to understand everything they have to say. Nothing filmed was scripted. Every interview and every ‘video diary’ that the filmmaker made was authentic, unscripted, and organic. The purpose of the filmmaker’s video diaries is NOT to tell the audience what to believe but to show the audience the struggle, the journey and the transformation the filmmaker went through.
If I were to hazard a guess, I expect this film will explore men's issues from an MRM perspective, a men's-lib feminist is likely to make an appearance at some point, and probably the more problematic strains of feminist... and Esmay was also there. Throughout all that, we're likely to meet a bunch of people. Some will be assholes. Most will be reasonable folk, hopefully, and the facts surrounding men's issues will be brought out into the open. We're probably going to get to see some survivors of various forms of abuse, as this is too obvious a move not to take advantage of, which will help put human faces on the issues.
This presents an opportunity for all of us to come together and help to bring about a documentary on mens issues, and the various perspectives from our movements on them. It could be a real breakthrough in terms of public consciousness. I'd like to thank the Moderation team here for their continued outreach to the MRM, and look forward to more joint efforts.
I'd like to keep discussion focused on men's issues and the documentary, and away from the gender war if we could. Please support if you can.
Any comments, concerns, questions?

Not all the mods are on the level Imo. (Though they did help me here. As I said, i'm trying to establish at least cordial relationships with them so I can try and organize inter-movement cooperation where it counts.) I've seen one or two really good threads there, but for the most part, they don't do too well.

I AM rooting for them, if only because I think if the reformation attempts fail, we're in for a long, bitter war.

[Haktiva]

any kind of documentary in the red pill way of thinking or even just issues men face is likely to be very gynocentric, focusing on how this will effect women and children. the BBC wanted to make a MGTOW documentary, but most of the guys knew it would be little more than a smear piece against single guys. I don't remember the final results after the proposal was passed, but I think the people making the documentary wanted to find some of the more popular content producers and make them a target, which didn't work out so well for them, apparently.

[Ostroeuropa]

any kind of documentary in the red pill way of thinking or even just issues men face is likely to be very gynocentric, focusing on how this will effect women and children. the BBC wanted to make a MGTOW documentary, but most of the guys knew it would be little more than a smear piece against single guys. I don't remember the final results after the proposal was passed, but I think the people making the documentary wanted to find some of the more popular content producers and make them a target, which didn't work out so well for them, apparently.

This is an independent documentary. I doubt it's the case. It seems focused on men.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tests.html

A Black Lives Matter protest was sparked in the US this week after shocking footage emerged of what appeared to be white police officers wrestling a black 18-year-old to the ground and handcuffing him.
Mobile phone footage shared on Twitter shows Jason Goolsby, a student at the University of the District of Columbia, screaming out in apparent pain as he is detained near Washington DC's 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr Goolsby claims he was harassed and assaulted by the officers, leading to the hastag #justiceforjason trending online and ensuing protests.

Reports say officers were called to the scene after a woman said she felt "uncomfortable" around Mr Goolsby and his friends.
Mr Goolsby said he was at a Capitol Hill bank at around 6.15pm on Monday thinking about whether he needed to use the ATM when a white woman pushing a pram came near to him and he held the door open for her.

Police confirmed officers were responding to a 911 call reporting suspicious people who may be trying to rob someone at the ATM.
But Mr Goolsy was later released without charge.

Racist or feminist?
You decide.

[Fartsniffage]

Kinda interesting.

[Ashkera]

> ''Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots. 'Cause it's OK to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading. 'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading. But secretly you'd love to know what it's like... Wouldn't you? What it feels like for a girl."- Charlotte Gainsbourg, 'The Cement Garden'

I've always hated quotes like this. "Oh, you think femininity is degraaading!" "Oh, you secretly hold women in contempt!" and so on and so on and so on. But it's all crap.

If you had a ray gun that applied an instant and complete transformation, that wouldn't be degrading. The new social roles would apply. A woman being a woman is not degrading! It is not femininity itself that is being perceived as negative!

But a boy in a dress? That's weakness. That's vulnerability. That weakness is degrading. It's not the boy or the dress, but the combination of the two - an announcement to one intends to take the women's bargain in society, to stay home and not get killed working on an oil rig, or work 50-hour weeks while the wife stays home and raises the kids. It's a rejection of his disposability, his expendability, his willingness to be used as a tool by society and then discarded.

And as a hyperagent, he's not allowed to do that.

Women write these things because they don't understand men as well as they think they do.

[Haktiva]

> ''Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots. 'Cause it's OK to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading. 'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading. But secretly you'd love to know what it's like... Wouldn't you? What it feels like for a girl."- Charlotte Gainsbourg, 'The Cement Garden'

I've always hated quotes like this. "Oh, you think femininity is degraaading!" "Oh, you secretly hold women in contempt!" and so on and so on and so on. But it's all crap.

If you had a ray gun that applied an instant and complete transformation, that wouldn't be degrading. The new social roles would apply. A woman being a woman is not degrading! It is not femininity itself that is being perceived as negative!

But a boy in a dress? That's weakness. That's vulnerability. That weakness is degrading. It's not the boy or the dress, but the combination of the two - an announcement to one intends to take the women's bargain in society, to stay home and not get killed working on an oil rig, or work 50-hour weeks while the wife stays home and raises the kids. It's a rejection of his disposability, his expendability, his willingness to be used as a tool by society and then discarded.

And as a hyperagent, he's not allowed to do that.

Women write these things because they don't understand men as well as they think they do.

very nice.

[Haktiva]

Turd Flinging Monkey's Guide to the Manosphere

I won't lie, I'm obviously very biased in favor of MGTOW and so is TFM(which he admits right away). Take what you will from it, but TFM presents things very rationally and clearly, which I think is invaluable to anyone looking to understand Men's Rights, and perhaps not just from a MGTOW perspective.

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.thelocal.se/20151015/sweden- ... ape-centre

[Galloism]

http://www.thelocal.se/20151015/sweden-opens-worlds-first-male-rape-centre

Well that's a start.

I hope it goes better than the male DV shelter in Canada did.

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.thelocal.se/20151015/sweden-opens-worlds-first-male-rape-centre

Well that's a start.

I hope it goes better than the male DV shelter in Canada did.

Well it's been set up by the government and is tax payer funded, so I would imagine so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6dersjukhuset

Not really in the same league at all now I look into it a bit further. I'll only disappear if it's not used.

[The Alexanderians]

http://www.thelocal.se/20151015/sweden-opens-worlds-first-male-rape-centre

Well that's a start.

I hope it goes better than the male DV shelter in Canada did.

I give it a few months before people start to complain about it "drawing funds from women's shelters" or something similar given that it's in Sweden. If it works it will restore some of my faith in their government, since it will surpass my expectations.