We are the radicals now

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is a book which has our name on it. After all, the Men's Human Rights Movement is, in reality, the most radical movement ever in the history of the human species. Andy Thomas explains...

I groan inwardly whenever somebody pushes a book at me, and insists: "You must read this!"

The thing is, after reading Steve Moxon's "The Woman Racket", I was smashed as a going human concern. It isn't healthy to keep focusing on "the problem" without sight of "the solution", and I now feel a little reluctant to expose myself to further crushing analysis of how bad "the problem" is.

With that in mind, I'd like to introduce a particular book, and urge you to read this! But trust me; this one speaks of the "the solution", rather than "the problem".

Rules for Radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky, was first published in 1972. Having been extensively used as activist handbook by various left-wing and environmental groups, the impact of this book have been far reaching, although many outside political and PR circles may not have heard of it. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the sheer bloody effectiveness of Alinsky's counsel has made him an unpopular figure to those on the Right.

Alinsky began his professional life as an organiser for the Congress of Industrial Relations in the US. What he learned about union strategies in industrial disputes, he applied later in his work as a community organiser in the black ghettoes of Chicago and Oakland. Shortly before his death in 1972, he distilled his experiences and insights into a relatively short and accessible book. While not quite a step-by-step instruction manual, Rules for Radicals provides inspiration and, more usefully, strategy and tactics for anyone involved in direct, but non-violent, activism.

The opening page of the book begins...

"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be."

Alinsky goes on to present a distinctly Marxist approach that is rooted in a world-view of perpetual conflict between the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots" of life. The book's overriding purpose is to empower the Have-Nots, and when I first read it, I was struck by its potential applicability to our own struggle. For example, when contemplating injustice and the often perplexing lack of male response to egregious attacks upon their identity and human worth, I am often reminded of some of Alinsky's observations, including these two:

"...if people feel they don't have power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it."

And:

"Remember, too, that a powerless people will not be purposefully curious about life, and they then cease being alive."

For anyone who has attempted to communicate the male human rights issue to those who prefer to turn away, these sentiments must feel rather apt.

I grew up in a working town in the time of its transition from a centre of coal mining and manufacturing to one of unemployment and welfare dependency. My father was a union representative who stood in picket lines as they were charged by police (or as he claims, by soldiers in police uniforms without identity numbers). While my early memories of politics were coloured by TV news of "Militant", the extreme wing of the labour party in the 1980s, I sometimes wonder if I had been a young man in the early 20th century, would I have been an active member in the British Labour Movement back then? I also contemplate the parallel between that thought and the here and now of the early 21st century — a time in which I have somehow found myself to be a member of the Men's Human Rights Movement. It seems that I have always been a bit of a radical, and somewhat unfashionable.

This is the thing — the landscape in which we live out our lives has always been in flux. Our universe is one of perpetual change and conflict between opposing forces. Perhaps the single attribute that has made Marxism so enduring is that, by teaching its followers to view life through a prism of eternal conflict, it embraces change.

As described by Alinsky, the Haves of life fear change because they have nowhere to go but down. Whereas life's Have-Nots, with nowhere to go but up, have no such fear. If we see his words in the context of own movement as being a harbinger of change, I think he describes our experiences rather well:

"Religious, economic, social, political, and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious and against God, country, and mother. These literary sedations by the status quo include the threat that, since all such movements are unpatriotic, subversive, spawned in hell and reptilian in their creeping insidiousness, dire punishments will be meted out to their supporters. All great revolutions, including Christianity, the various reformations, democracy, capitalism, and socialism, have suffered these epithets in the times of their birth."

Today's feminist revolutionaries may think they are radical, but they are nothing of the sort — they are simply fashionable. They represent more of the same; it is we who represent meaningful change.

Because effective organisation of people is essential to bring about change, the key player in Rules for Radicals is what Alinsky's refers to as "the organiser". An organiser is not so much a local leader, but more a creative thinker who's initial task is to "stir up dissatisfaction and discontent", and to "provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations." The organiser's job description does not, in fact, appear to be a particularly appealing one, especially in the early days, as Alinsky explains:

"In the early days the organizer moves out front in any situation of risk where the power of the establishment can get someone's job, call in an overdue payment, or any other form of retaliation, partly because these dangers would cause many local people to back off from conflict. Here the organizer serves as a protective shield: if anything goes wrong it is all his fault, he has the responsibility. If they are successful all credit goes to the local people."

And:

"The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a "dangerous enemy."

Nevertheless, reward comes if the organiser is successful...

"The organizer's job is to begin to build confidence and hope in the idea of organization and thus in the people themselves: to win limited victories, each which will build confidence and the feeling that 'if we can do so much with what we have now just think what we will be able to do when we get big and strong.'"

However, I do wonder if Alinsky saw the construction of mass power organisations more of an end in its own right, rather than simply a means to advance a just cause. He, himself, says:

"One of the great problems in the beginning of an organization is, often, that the people do not know what they want."

Thus, one of the key roles of the organiser is help the people to know what they want by identifying the "enemy" for them. Or, as he puts things:

"Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act only when are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil."

Many of us in the Men's Human Rights Movement, myself included, have no previous background in activism, protest or social politics. Most of us have started out from nowhere and are here simply because we have woken up to the tide of injustice that threatens to engulf us. But what to do? How often have we seen wounded men on forums complain bitterly of injustice, as if simply talking about the problem is actually doing something about the problem? Nobody is going to read their comments, recognise their plight, and put things right for them.

Nobody is coming to save them.

Endless rhetorical debate about "the problem", without reference to "the solution", is nothing other than emotional masturbation. What I am suggesting to anyone who might consider themselves an activist is that a good place to go for inspiration would be Alinsky specifically because he counsels on how to be a "realistic radical", rather than a "rhetorical one".

I warn, however, that with Rules for Radicals there also comes a sickening awareness of how its tactics have been deployed against the men and boys from the 1960s onwards, and I found the sheer bloody cynicism of it all overwhelming. As I turned its pages, it dawned on me that the entire male gender had, in effect, been identified as "the enemy" in order to "polarize the issue" and, thus, create conflict were none existed previously.

You see, back in the 1960s, those subscribing to Marxist ideology had a problem — the lives of the working classes were being transformed by higher wages and property ownership, and the old Marxist model of an oppressed proletariat and a wealthy bourgeoisie was in danger of breaking down. A possible solution, at least to some women on the left, was to re-purpose Marxist theory in the context of a gender war rather than a conflict between social classes defined by property ownership. The players were thus changed, but game went on. In fact, patriarchy theory was never anything other than a pseudo-scientific construct manufactured by Kate Millet and her ilk to give a veneer of credibility to the idea that men and women were, and have always been, at war with each other.

In the hour when I first understood, the sense of betrayal was profound.

Nevertheless, it proves nothing if not how Marxist thinking embraces change. The irony now, of course, is that it is men and boys who are the Have-Nots of western society, both in terms of social empowerment and wealth ownership. However, I'm not so sure that I would go as far as to claim that all women represent the Haves. Instead, I would argue that feminism has not universally benefited women at all, especially when you start to consider the hidden implications for them (a modest home in the UK now requires two full-time incomes to pay the mortgage). However, there are a subset of women with disproportionate influence who have been feminism's prime benefactors — they are the feminist academics and public sector elite — the bourgeoisie of our age.

Times have changed since Alinsky's penned his influential work, and some of the more hands-on tactics he suggests may not be so appropriate today. For example, one particularly delightful tactic is, what he lovingly refers to as, a "shit-in" (as opposed to a "sit-in"). This is where a handful of protesters occupy all available toilet cubicles at crowded public event and absolutely refuse to come out. The resulting distress of the crowd is a great cause of mayhem, apparently.

The sky turns darker, however, when Alinksy tackles ethics and how "the end justifies the use of almost any means." On this issue, I can't help but wonder whether his use of the word "almost" was a conscious addition to keep his book on the right-side of the line that separates riot from direct action. I doubt he cared that much for the distinction himself and, because of this, I think that we in the Men's Human Rights Movement would do well to remember the following instead:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I recommend Alinsky, not for ethical guidance, but for pragmatic inspiration. His book is, after all, mostly about communication, strategy and tactics. It's also a book about change — not only how to effect change, but how to live with and thrive in a climate of change. In the end, we must follow our own moral compass. It is our prerogative to take from Rules for Radicals what we find useful, and disregard what we find unacceptable.

Human society has rested on the back of male disposability ever since the time of Lucy*, and what we in the Men's Human Rights Movement represent is the beginning of the end of that and the start of a new era for our species. We are not just radical, we are in every sense the most radical thinking movement in the history of human society.

Andy Thomas
Copright 2013. All rights reserved.


Notes. Summary of Alinsky's Tactics

• 1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
• 2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
• 3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
• 4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
• 5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
• 6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
• 7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
• 8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
• 9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
• 10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
• 11. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
• 12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
• 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

* Lucy (Australopithecus)

The Skatepark

I walk past it most days.

On sunny days sometimes I stop & I sit & watch the BMXs & skateboards hurtling around. There are always at least 15 or 20 boys there, any time of the day, practising their moves. On the sunniest days I guess 50 or 60, & it's seldom I've seen the same face twice.

It's a weird little world I'm not really a part of, & I wonder sometimes where they all practice, because in all the years I've wandered by I've never seen a bad fall, a cut, a broken wrist. I guess it must happen, just not here.

The age of the park's inhabitants can vary anywhere between the under-10s to I guess the late 30s, from little kids to tattooed men with salt & pepper in their beards. But the one thing they all have in common is they are all male. Unlike, say, the children's playground that sits beside it, which is always half boys & girls, there are never any girls in the skatepark.

True, mothers & girlfriends sometimes stand around or sit off to the side on the benches & watch their boys soaring through the air like birds in flight, but in 15 years or so of walking past & taking note, I can only remember one time seeing two little pre-teen black girls riding a scooter, very slowly & methodically making their way over a mound. Then one would stop & hand it over & the other would climb aboard, & cautiously ride it back over the same hump. No-one was teasing them or laughing, or rolling their eyes. They were treated just the same as everyone else.

Yes, I've seen photographs of skater-girls, so I know they exist, but in my life, in this country, I can honestly say I've only seen maybe three? Four? The disparity is so great & pronounced it seems to me an estimate of anywhere between several hundred to maybe even a thousand-to-one might not be far off the mark.

Now, nothing is stopping the girls from coming & riding about on the ramps - the skatepark never closes, there's no fence around it, it sits there open in the park, day & night. I've even ridden around it myself of an evening. There's plenty of space, & the boys are friendly & considerate of one another & those around. And I bet you, if a teenage girl turned up who could skate anywhere near as good as they can, those boys would flock around her like honeybees to a dandelion. Nothing is preventing the girls from taking part anymore than anything is preventing them from playing with Lego: they simply choose not to. They'd rather ride ponies, go to ballet classes, & play with hula hoops.

Why is this? Every girl I know rides a bike, so it can't be through lack of knowledge or opportunity. They all ride bikes, they just don't ride them through the air. They don't do stunts on them. They don't ride around on them with no hands, the way I do. Similarly, I've probably in my life seen more girls in rollerskates & rollerblades than boys, but again: they don't use them to do anything dangerous or extraordinary: they're not the ones doing somersaults & jumping through the air on them, or competing to be the best at all costs.

It's begun striking me lately just what a great microcosm of male/female differences & preferences all this is. Just as the perceived 'pay gap' between the sexes can be best understood by looking at the differing goals & priorities men & women at large have & the choices they therefore make - rather than believing in some mythical 'glass ceiling', & a universal conspiracy to keep women 'in their place' - many other pronounced differences between the sexes likes & dislikes can best be understood not through 'patriarchy theory' but by focusing on the choices the majority of us make due to innate, biological imperatives.

It's been established that one of the ways in which male & female brains differ is in spatial awareness & abstract thinking. The latter is responsible for all the great mathematical theorems, the great symphonies & architecture of the world, whereas the former explains the greater male attraction to football, cricket, guns, golf, martial arts, parkour, etc: the fascination in passing objects (or oneself) through the air with skill & precision.

On top of this, males higher testosterone makes men naturally more heroic, competitive & prepared to take risks. Men's perception of, & relationship to, their own bodies is much more one of utility & acceptance of self-sacrifice: all over the world males evolved to be stronger so as to better take care of the women & the children. Men had to evolve a disregard for their own safety or else we simply wouldn't be here now: our great great great+ grandfathers would have simply abandoned the incapacitated pregnant women & tiny tots when the tigers turned up & saved their own skin. But they didn't, or at least the ones we are descended from didn't. And there still is no culture today where the women are sent off to war while the menfolk stay home & play with the kids, where the women go out to hunt while the men tend the fire. So, males are both societally & biologically conditioned to care less about their own immediate safety & well-being than a woman, or a dream, a cause, a higher ideal.

This is, incidentally, why there will never be a female 'Jackass' on TV, showing videos of girls hurling themselves off buildings into bushes & kicking each other in the genitals. Women's innate drive for self-preservation makes such behaviour incomprehensible to them. Women move away from possible harm because instinctively they know that to risk damage to their bodies means to damage the ground from which the next generation will be grown.

But boys, everywhere in the world, love doing shit like that, it goes across all time zones, all societies. And 'The Patriarchy' didn't make us this way, only Mother Nature.

So the skatepark is a little, solitary island of maleness, where the boys there are left alone to feel the power & capabilities of their own bodies, doing something crazy & dangerous & sometimes sublime. Where they are left alone to just be boys. And there are so few places like that left, they go there in their thousands, & keep on going back, even once their hair turns grey.

This piece originally appears at www.triggeralert.blogspot.com

Ever seen a bear with a coffee pot?

Have you ever seen a bear with a coffeepot? It's a terrible business. The bear doesn't really know what the coffeepot is. It paws it around, picks it up by the spout, drops the lid. Unable to get its tiny mind around the purpose of this strange object, it becomes bewildered, then irate, then flies into a rage. This is why, when entertaining bears, you should always pour the coffee yourself.

If you think it's unlikely you'll ever be in this position, let's have a look at a similar situation: the desperate struggle of feminists and mainstream commentators to understand men's human rights activists.

This week we've seen Glen Poole who, when Julie Burchill or Suzanne Moore are busy, is occasionally allowed to write about men's issues by The Guardian, and to attack Peter Lloyd of the Daily Mail.

Peter is taking legal action against the operators of his gym, because they discriminate against men by having several hundred hours each year during which are 'women only'.

Glen can't believe Peter's affront. What on Earth is he thinking? It's quite right that women receive preferential treatment; after all giving them what they want saves us all a lot of bother. Anyway, he should have better things to do, like raise cash for charities that run helplines for suicidal young men.

Last year, Glen wrote that The Guardian published 'stereotyping dross' about men. He's also written about the problem of 'invisible men', and of public services being 'proudly pro-male'.

"Is your service welcoming, positive about men?" he asks. "Does it have a high opinion of men? Or is the way that you and your colleagues think about men in general different, and does that different what [sic] of thinking promote equality for men, or inequality?"

Ah the difference a cheque for £350 from Guardian Media Ltd. makes to one's principles, eh Glen? Maybe you can walk the walk and use the money to run a workshop for the good folk at Peter's gym?

Then there's Ally Fogg. Ally wrote on Twitter that Peter Lloyd was 'a knob'. Ally's bestest mates with a lot of feminists, such as Helen Lewis at the New Statesman. Helen ran a series on men's rights activists a while back. She didn't invite any to contribute anything, oh no. Instead she got some teenage girls to write articles mocking MRAs as losers and virgins who lived with their mums.

Ally thought this was great, and just what MRAs deserve. On Twitter he exchanged wearying sighs with Helen; 'they're still at it on the comments section aren't they?" he said. Helen patted him on the head; "yes dear, yes they are." Good Ally, good boy.

It's easy to see what's going on here. Both Glen and Ally are propelled by the memory of very nearly getting off with that sexy short-haired girl from Luton who ran the FemSoc at Uni by acting all 'new man' (remember him?). They think that by distancing themselves from the naughty, 'misogynist' boys, they can earn women's approval. She may have ended up fucking that Brazilian art student, but it was a close run thing.

Then there's James Gates at Sabotage Times, the online hobby project of the former editor of 90s lad's magazine 'Loaded'. James is in his twenties. He lives in North London, and plays in an hipster Indie band that performs at some local pubs. Thankfully, his parents have enabled him to not sacrifice his principles by having to find a job.

James recently wrote about MRAs: 'When I heard about them, I did a double-take, as I had difficulty believing that such a thing could possibly exist.' He then goes on to have a pop at Fathers 4 Justice, a group of 'dads who skip child support payments or have been charged with domestic violence.' James also knows why boys are falling behind at school, it's because 'boys are a bit thick'.

Thanks James!

Then over the U.S. we've got online women's 'zine' Jezebel. A cesspit of lies, bitching and anger, this is a 'linkbait' site, designed by its owners Gawker Media to attract eyeballs by pitching inflammatory and provocative headlines across the internet.

Jezebel's Katie Baker describes mens rights activists as 'scum', and publishes the home addresses, employer's details and personal information of feminist women who even dare suggest speaking to them.

Also in the U.S is the flailing 'Good Men Project', in which Glen Poole has recently accepted the position of "Men's Rights Editor". GMP is a slowly-dying website which believes men are a problem to be fixed. Contributor Zach Rosenberg recently wrote a piece for them about how he'd had to challenge his four-year old son for being a 'rapist', after he'd kissed a girl in the playground.

Yes. You read that right. He told his four-year old son he was a rapist.

What do all these writers have in common? Bewilderment, lies and anger. It's hard to take such pathetic, yellow journalism seriously. These are men who quite happily throw men and boys aside, in their desperate need for women's approval. They'll quite happily stigmatise children, mock men experiencing the worst pain in their lives, and piss on the vulnerable, the dispossessed and desperate.

Back to where we started, with the analogy of the bear. When you do think about it, having a bear over for coffee would be a ridiculous waste of time and effort. The bear's not going to enjoy itself, it's just going to get bewildered, testy and irate. It doesn't know what 'having coffee' means. You're just going to wear yourself out, and the neighbours will probably complain. The conversation's shit anyway.

Similarly, it's pointless arguing with these people. They not our enemies, they're barely even obstacles, they're just thoughtless, blundering, ill-willed and uncaring.

Annoying but, like bears, best left alone to do their shit in the woods.

Radfem & the Irish Navvies who built London

As an Irish Citizen living in London, I am personally delighted that the London Irish Centre came quickly to its senses and booted the Radfem bigots out of its London venue. Many have suggested that the fact that the Radfem 2013 event may have been contrary to UK equality law was the primary reason for its cancellation, but this misses the point entirely.

Irish Navvies Built London

The real issue is that the Radfem 2013 event would have been held at a centre which regularly hosts 'family' music and arts workshops. This is a centre which has a history of supporting women and men in finding their feet in London; a city which quite literally was built by the Irish – the 'navvies' who also built the canals and underground, the labourers who still maintain and build its roads and buildings, sewers and water pipes (and Olympic Parks).



To host an event by those who describe men like these – who still disproportionately account for some of the capital's highest rates of homelessness, mental illness, suicide, workplace injury, work-related disease and poverty; as "dominant oppressors" and "rapists" who need to have their families "destroyed", isn't simply grossly offensive, it’s contrary to the values of the community the London Irish Centre serves.

The organisers of Radfem are fortunate that it was men's human rights advocates who caught them out, because if it had been the Catholic Women's League who had first learned that these bigots were proposing to "castrate" their sons, and were going to use the London Irish Centre as their venue, then they would have really been the ones on the receiving end of anger for a change.

See also: PRESS RELEASE - London Irish Centre Says No to Radfem 2013 Conference

Radfem 2013 Cancelled, Cathy Brennan Explodes

A Voice for Male Students, a student group based in the US, has reached out to us at MRA London with a warning about our personal safety, and possible reprisals, after we mounted an impromptu protest at the London Irish Centre over the planned Radfem 2013 conference.

Thank you guys for your genuine concern! Personal safety is an aspect which is not lost on me.

For myself, I made a personal decision sometime ago to get involved and to get out there, no matter what the consequences. Most of the people in our own group, both men and women alike, have personal experiences beyond belief, and what we realise is that we have nothing to loose, but so much to gain by this.

We are not professionals when it comes to undertaking direct action. In fact, Rod (bless!) the original founder of our group, even began blurting out a profuse apology to the guys at the Irish Centre over "the interruption" — until I stood on his toe to shut him up. Nevertheless, because of our action, the Radfem's pro-violence ideology is now out in the open and, if we can do this — anybody can!

The Radfem booking was subsequently cancelled by the venue centre and feminist overlord and "Radical Hub" website (ex-)owner, Cathy Brennan, is now raging at her spit-flecked computer screen. In fact, she rants on her personal blog that she intends to go ahead with the planned Radfem conference at the London Irish Centre anyway, cancellation or no cancellation. My mind boggles — presumably this would be a bit like being rejected at a job interview, but turning up at the company for "work" and demanding a desk!

But, nevertheless, this is what Brennan says she is going to do...

We do not accept the London Irish Centre’s unjustifiable rejection of our booking. ... We will have our conference. It will be at the London Irish Centre from the 8th – 9th of June.
Cathy Brennan - Radfem 2013

Whatever you say "Jill", you're the master race!

(The full contents of Brennan's spleen can be found on her personal blog.)

Here is a women who is obviously not used to being told "No!" In fact, I seriously suspect that she has absolutely no idea what it means. So, I thought I would write a quick refresher for her:

NO MEANS NO!
No - "A negative response; a denial or refusal."

As this saga rumbles on, I'm finding that I have a great deal of sympathy of the London Irish Centre over this. Possibly they thought they were hosting an event concerned with "equality" or something. Who knows? This must be a very painful lesson for them, but it's one that people everywhere must learn.

In 2011, James Huff operating under the pseudonym "Agent Orange" did an exposé on the radical feminist collective blog, Radical Hub (aka "Radfem Hub"). His findings — which uncovered discussions on child murder, gendercide, transgender extermination, castration and eugenics — must be difficult to comprehend for anyone used to only associating feminism with liberation and equality. At the time, A Voice for Men put out a press release which links to a large downloadable dump of past Radical Hub postings assembled by guys at the antimisandry.com forum.

Screen capture of Radfem Forum

(The Radical Hub website was taken down in February 2013, prior to the announcement of the Radfem 2013 conference.)

For too long, the likes of Brennan and Sheila Jeffreys — an academic who teaches that "Men are the enemy" across Australian academia and contributor the male eugenics discussion group on Radical Hub — have been allowed to hide under a rock. For the first time, we are now lifting that rock and shining a torch onto what's lurking underneath.

It wouldn't matter so much if radical feminists were just a bunch of harmless crazies who nobody listens to — if only this was true! They are a powerful group of women with influence throughout academia, media and law. Cathy Brennan, herself, is a US attorney in Maryland, and Professor Sheila Jeffreys is a prominent academic in Australia.

But as Martin Luther King once wrote:

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right."

We in MRA London, and the wider men's human rights movement, are men and women willing stand up for males everywhere — from adult men, old men, and boys of all ages. We have put everything we have into this — our time, effort, financial resources, heart and soul. We have nothing to gain other than our self-respect and self-worth, plus the experience of engaging life to its fullest extent. We are sick of sitting on the sidelines while the likes of Brennan and Jeffreys trample all over our human worth.

So, you see, this is everything to us and we are here to stay.

Notes. A record of past posts made to the Radical Hub website are easily accessible, courtesy of fstdt.com, using this link.

Why we do this — a reminder

Nobody explains "why" better than Canadian and female supporter of men's human rights than "GirlWritesWhat". And here's a reminder of why we are here...



People are often shocked to learn that many male human rights advocates are, actually, female. And the strange thing is that, for many men, it takes a woman to explain things to them before they will listen.

Her blog and latest videos can also be found by following this link.

PRESS RELEASE : London Irish Centre Says No to Radfem 2013 Conference

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 20th, 2013
London Irish Centre Says No to Radfem 2013 Conference

Radfem, the radical feminist group whose members espouse a fascist, sexist and violent ideology have been ousted, yet again, from their planned convention centre. Last year, Conway Hall banned Radfem 2012 by citing that their exclusionary policy was at odds with UK legal obligations. This year, it was the London Irish Centre's turn to reject Radfem after they were awoken to the reality of inviting the pro-violence group into their venue when MRA London, a male human rights activist group and part of "A Voice for Men", mounted a protest on their doorstep.

MRA London is a peaceful group comprising both male and female members who stand up for the human worth of men and boys. It is also mixed race and includes gay members.

When hearing of Radfem's rejection, the group's co-founder, Andy Thomas said, "We don't believe in shutting down debate. However, it is vital that there is someone speaking up on behalf of men and boys. And for the first time ever, they now have a voice."

He adds, "This is a victory for men and boys everywhere because the message is clear—the time when their human rights can be trampled on with impunity is now over."

The Radfem 2013 conference was to feature Cathy Brennan, a prominent radical feminist and a US attorney in Maryland. Until February, 2013, she was also the owner of the now defunct website, Radical Hub—a site which featured calls for child murder, extermination, and male eugenics.

In 2011, A Voice for Men in the United States offered a $1,000 reward for the real identity of a Radical Hub contributor "Vliet Tiptree", who was duly identified as Pamela O’Shaughnessy from California—an author of crime novels published by Simon and Schuster. O’Shaughnessy had written a lengthy piece detailing a plan for the "extirpation" of half the human race—the male half.

Sheila Jeffreys, who was to be a keynote speaker at the event, was also a regular contributor to the "male eugenics discussion group" on the Radical Hub website. Jeffreys teaches sexual politics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and has been accused by Dr. Greg Canning of A Voice for Men in Australia, of teaching "hate" across Australian universities.

All prejudice is seen as fashionable and virtuous in its time, and we've had 40 years or so of anti-male sentiment in the media and wider culture, so much so that it has become normalised. However, MRA London and A Voice for Men believe that we are witnessing the start of a sea change where, for the first time, radical feminist rhetoric will become universally recognised for the toxic bigotry that it is.

MRA London can be found at: www.MRALondon.org, and A Voice for Men at: www.AVoiceForMen.com.

DailyMail Reporter, Peter Lloyd, Sues Kentish Town Sports Centre for Discrimination

London based news reporter and men's human rights advocate, Peter Lloyd, is suing his local gym, Kentish Town Sports Centre for discrimination over its women-only gym policy. In his latest article for the Mail Online, he reports on how the sports centre is forcing men and boys out at key times because they are male.

Kentish Town Sports Centre, which is run in association with Camden Council, defends their policy with the bizarre explanation that "many women hate their bodies," and they don't want men present when exercising. Peter also raises the valid point that male gym instructors are becoming increasingly frustrated because they are unable to work at women-only times and so are losing out financially.

But then Peter nails the real issue when he says...

"Forcing men - whether 70 year-old pensioners or 13 year-old boys who attend with their mothers - to leave a room because of their gender, rather than their behaviour, is degrading. It's also eerily reminiscent of when African Americans were separated from their caucasian peers in 1940s America.

"Not least because the underlying maxim is the same. In this instance, that all men are inherently bad. This is a toxic message to send out, especially when those affected are frequently young boys in crucial stages of puberty and self-development.

"Such messages are pernicious. They criminalise men for being male, while telling women that they have less responsibility to contribute to functional gender relations."

It's not just Kentish Town Sports Centre who are promoting these divisive and gender-based policies of prejudice; the practice is widespread and the message is clear — "All you men out there, it doesn't matter who you are or how you behave. You are dangerous by default."

They are not talking about "other men", they are talking about your son, your brother and your father. They are talking about you!