AVFM Radio: Top Down Sexism

Organized sexism world wide, a hate movement in the UN.

International aid agencies tell a palatable story, they paint themselves in the colors of Samaritans, and they even announce who they exclude from available help, by omitting their mention in favor of more decorative and popular recipients. After the Earthquake in Haiti, the United Nations organized food and water distribution with an explicit mandate to help, but giving food and water to only women, and excluding men. The tragedy of a natural disaster exploited to engage in society wide social re-engineering, placing the one group of people over another.

Now an international children’s charity organized through the United Nations is using your tax dollars and your trust to place the well-being and the humanity of one group over another, again. Girls count as humans, boys apparently do not. Under another name, this is the same organization who, while opposing the religious ritual sexual mutilation of female infants, is actively pursuing the sexual mutilation of men and boys across Africa, using the wholly phony claim that circumcision curtails the transmission of aids. The international consultant for UN Aids, by the way, stands to make millions of dollars through the use of patented equipment to be used in this culture wide mission of mutilation. The words corruption, cruelty, and sadism don’t even begin to describe what Bob O’hara, Kristina Hansen, Girl Writes What and James Huff will be talking about tonight, on a Voice for Men Radio

To call in to the show, dial 310 388 9709 at 6:PM Pacific time, and 8 PM Mountain time.

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Zerbu

    Going by the description that appeared in the e-mail notification for this post, the charity must be Plan International. Yeah, that was EXACTLY what I was talking about when I created this thread on the forums:

    Feminists have tried to defend the charity’s gender bias by comparing it to charities that focus on people with exclusive issues, as if giving unnecessary preferential treatment to one group over another is the same thing as focusing on the *exclusive* issues of one group. Some feminists say that they *are* focusing on exclusive issues, then when asked what those issues are, they go ahead and name things like violence and murder, which aren’t gender issues. Some feminists have also said that they will not enforce the gender bias, though what’s being said in the description of the post says otherwise.

    Also, some feminists will alternate between the three excuses I mentioned above, pretending that the previous one wasn’t said. For example, one feminist I was arguing with did what I mentioned in the first example and compared the charity to one focusing on exclusive issues, then when I explained the difference to her, she said they were focusing on exclusive issues and gave examples. When I was mentioning that the examples were not gender issues, I actually specifically said it was an opportunity for her to pretend she never said it, and guess what? She actually took the opportunity and reverted back to the first example. Ignoring the fact that I had already refuted it, of course.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to the show, I hope this will be an interesting one.

  • Bev

    Evidence is hard to come by but I understand that some NGO’s refused not only food or water but medical aid. Triage seemed to be the excuse used. Triage has an important part to play in any disaster where resources are limited but gender is should not be a criteria.

  • Laddition

    (copied my comment over from the intactivism thread. Sadly timezones make the show, as a live event, impossible for me – but – you go guyz!!! (catch it tomorrow as a download))

    Coming from the UK (where MGM is much rarer than in the US), I am a bit surprised at the shit talked about URIs in men.

    I’m uncut, I have NEVER had a UTI (in 4+ decades of life).

    I asked a few male friends about UTIs and got blank looks – they’ve never had one either.

    I watch the TV and note that ALL advertising for UTI treatments are aimed at women.

    I’m pretty sure that this MGM is just misandry…perhaps you should try trepanning the circumcision advocates to prevent headaches?

    Sounds fair to me…I mean, if it saves just one headache…

    • xtrnl

      L’addition, that post was exquisite! I’m an intactivist and I was wondering, would it be okay if I repost that to the pages I admin on facebook?

      • Laddition

        feel free brother, you’re doing great work

        • xtrnl

          Thank you very much. You are doing great work as well!

        • xtrnl

          By the by, your post already has 2 likes on facebook, and 2 comments from other men who can relate, as I type this message. :-)

    • L. Byron

      Yes, also from the UK & not only have I never had any UTI in all my years, I’ve never met or even HEARD of anyone here being diagnosed with penile cancer or any of the other more serious conditions the US medical establishment claims only circumcision holds back an epidemic of. The more I look into all this the more bizarre & flat-earth it gets.

      • Aimee McGee

        One of the most spurious uses of data is as follows: ‘being uncircumcised doubles the risk of penile cancer…’ Completely factual but if the rate goes from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000 the actual clinical benefit for all those unnecessary mutilations is negligible.
        As for UTIs, it’s generally a sign of immunocompromise in men to get UTIs…and if the rate of UTIs was reduced by removal of the clitoral hood, we would have everyone saying it was not worth the loss of sensitivity even if it was benificial. So it is double standardville again

        • Rog

          i thot it reduced cancer by the % of penis removed i.e. less penis to get cancer less chance of cancer…

  • MrWombat

    @Zerbu Love the description of how arguments with ideologues work. Only the previous sentence matters. The “arguments” are nothing but point scoring, and points are not given for overall coherence, but for having a smooth delivery in answering the previous point.

  • Bombay

    “To call in to the show, dial 310 388 9709 at 6:PM Pacific time, and 8 PM Mountain time.”

    ???? When it is 6PM PT it is 7:00 MT.

    • dhanu

      I’d recommend adding the actual difference (GMT-03:30, etc) while specifying times. Or just specify the GMT time (like, 07:00 GMT) and let the readers everywhere adjust it to their locations. Also, use 24 hour format instead of AM/PM as it makes adding differences easier (and time format shorter and more consistent; this is also the international (ISO 8601) standard, not localized to specific nations).

  • L. Byron

    A few words on the background of the rise of institutionalized MGM in America here:

  • Bombay

    “Declining Rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions to Health Care Costs, Experts Warn”

    Those males and their dirty penises.

  • napocapo69

    Thank you for the show.
    It is astonishing to see how the double standards have developed to such a degree that in the same year the UN bans female genital mutilation and foster a policy to increase male genital mutilation.
    I wonder if they made any study to see if FGM reduces the risk of HIV infection….

  • gateman

    Whilst in Germany circumcision is being criminalized, in Africa it is being enthusiastically promoted and funded.

    How can we in the west fight these bastards and support the African men and women who will die from this crime against humanity?

  • gateman

    Here’s what thinks of the African trials :

    Mass male circumcision has been identified and promoted as a method of curbing the HIV/AIDS pandemic in subSaharan Africa following three randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

    Analysis of these studies reveals many factors that call in to question the results claimed and limit their applicability to the circumcision debate in the United States.

    Questionable Results
    • All three of the clinical trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa were terminated early. More than 700 participants
    were lost to follow-up, their HIV status unknown; i.e., 4.5 times more participants were lost to follow-up than were reported to have been protected from HIV by circumcision. The study participants were paid, provided free condoms, and given extensive education and counseling, thus limiting the “real world” applicability of the studies.

    • No consideration was given to the probability that a significant number of HIV infections were contracted through
    means other than sexual conduct, calling into question the entire premise of the RCTs.

    • All three RCTs were halted earlier than designed, including a study investigating the effect upon female

    In one study, circumcised men’s infection rates were increasing toward the intact men’s rate prior
    to the study being halted.

    Following the study period, all participants in the “control” group were then offered circumcision, eliminating the possibility of any accurate follow-up study.

    • The studies showed that male circumcision offered no protection to women.

    Rather, circumcising men infected with HIV appeared to increase transmission of the virus to female partners.

    Male circumcision endangers women if sex is resumed before the male’s circumcision wound has completely healed, and it places women at greater risk of unsafe sex practices if they or their male sexual partners believe or insist they are immune from HIV.

    • Circumcision does not protect men having sex with men.

    • Circumcision is less effective, riskier, and more expensive than condom use. A 2009 South African study
    reported: “Male circumcision was found to have a considerably lower impact than condom use or anti-retroviral therapy on new HIV infection rates and death rates.”

    One analysis comparing the cost of circumcision with the
    cost of condoms found that condoms were 98% effective at hindering HIV transmission and reception, and 95 times more cost-effective than circumcision.

    • The effects of researcher bias have not been considered. A Cochrane Collaboration Report from 2003 cautioned against such bias, stating: “Circumcision practices are largely culturally determined, so there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding them. It is important to acknowledge that researchers’ personal biases and dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence interpretation of findings.”

    • Bombay

      “The study participants were paid, provided free condoms, and given extensive education and counseling, thus limiting the “real world” applicability of the studies. ”

      So if the circumcised guys put that education/counseling and condoms to use. Then the reduced HIV could all be due to HIV/sex education.

  • Sleeper

    just a quick thing, I was looking up the page from work on google. I typed “a voice” and AVFM was the first listed. I like that.