Men's Human Rights Movement

Men’s Rights March 2013 Internet Statement

General principles we believe are a forming, coalescing consensus

A working group formed in December of 2012 through a variety of men’s rights publications, forums, and Youtube channels. Over four dozen people from around the globe participated in making suggestions and giving general input. Despite the large number of people from diverse backgrounds, and the fact that almost none of the participants knew most of the others, its development was shockingly uncontentious, even on some of the more contentious points.

This is not a document anyone is expected to sign or pledge to. It is an effort to identify a general consensus.

This document is not released with the intention being the definitive statement of goals for all men’s advocates, but rather, a set of goals and ideas that we believe represent common sentiments within the movement. People will be free to agree with all of these, most of these, some of these, or only one of these; if they’ll work with us on any of them, then we’ll work with them on that. Furthermore, other groups are welcome to take these goals and adapt and change them for their own purposes.

The gender war is a destructive social construct. Viewing the other sex as an enemy to be fought, or an oppressor to be overthrown, does not benefit men or women. Only a select few will profit from the hostility and distrust this creates. The interests of both men and women are best served by ending the gender war, and to working together to alleviate the iniquities visited upon all human beings, regardless of sex.

Feminism is not necessarily what feminists say it is.

Many prominent individuals who self-identify as feminists espouse ideals of equality and equity, but often act against an ethic of equality under the law. For this reason, many men’s advocates have come to the conclusion that feminist activism is dependent on identifying women as victims and men as perpetrators of oppression. While those not solidly entrenched in the day to day gender struggle tend to think “feminism is about equality,” professionals at universities, in government, and in political action groups often act against legal equality and genuine equity through their decisions and actions–and do so in the name of feminism.

Furthermore, anyone genuinely working under the “feminism is about equality” mentality should be natural allies in the collective fight for men’s rights. But those feminists with actual power frequently endorse and exploit sexist ideas in order to promote their divisive ideology, and to raise money, and dismiss, marginalize, or outright mock men’s issues, occasionally even with violence.

For these reasons, self described feminists should not necessarily be considered de-facto experts on what constitutes gender equity. Men’s voices must be heard, even if women aren’t always comfortable with what they hear.

Traditionalism is a choice, not an obligation.

No one can speak for all men’s advocates, but most try to be accurate, objective, and honest about masculinity and femininity. They recognize that men and women are different, but they don’t want to promote discrimination, stereotypes, or prejudices that would limit anyone’s ability to exercise their own ability and talent.

Chivalry, a concept in which men have a social obligation to put their interests below women’s, is common in many countries. Failure to adhere to this code can result in significant social backlash against men. We reject a code that ascribes greater value to one sex or the other. When men’s advocates attempt to describe differences between the sexes, they are not trying to prescribe them. Men’s human rights advocates look to the future, they don’t cling to the past, and they agree that your genitals should not determine your lifestyle or your rights. If you want to be a traditionalist, be one. If you don’t, that’s fine too.

Misandry is real, and pernicious

Most respected dictionaries now recognize that misandry – the hatred or contempt of male humans – is a real word. Some gender ideologues continue to insist that misandry does not and cannot exist, but MRAs, by and large, understand that misandry is real, and is being used to strip men and boys of basic human rights and dignity. Misandric messages invalidate boys and men by telling them that they are guilty by association to all the harmful acts committed by other men, for no other reason than that they are male, but ignoring the corresponding association to positive acts by other men, of discovery, invention, daring, bravery, sacrifice, loyalty, love, and kindness. Misandric messages also tend to ignore negative and harmful actions by women. In general, misandry tells men and boys that part of what defines who they are, their very identity as male, is something dangerous and shameful. These messages are culturally toxic and psychologically harmful to men and boys.

Men deserve the right to dignity, just as much as women. Men deserve the same right as women to not be associated with despicable actions simply because they were committed by members of their sex. Men’s rights advocates agree that misandry is real, and that it should not be tolerated any more than misogyny would be, and have taken on the responsibility for acknowledging, exposing, and opposing misandry. Because if they don’t do it, then who else will?

Strong, independent women are helpful, not helpless.

Most men’s human rights advocates love seeing strong, capable, and independent women as part of society. But they are disappointed to see the rise of idealized, infantilized, sheltered, and fearful women. Men’s human rights advocates understand that power and authority should come with responsibility and accountability.

Rewards come with risks: if you take credit then you should also accept blame. If you criticize, then you should also be able to accept criticism. Making excuses for bad behavior by women, or blaming it on men, is condescending. Women who want equality should speak out against such attitudes and behaviors. The only way people experience personal growth is through life experience and our present society stunts women’s growth by coddling them.

Men’s rights advocates object to feminism’s narrow focus on women’s problems and fears, and to feminism’s track record of treating human issues as divisive gender issues. Men’s advocates object to gynocentrism (focusing only on the female perspective) and female supremacism. We respect skill and maturity, regardless of whether the person is male or female.

General Men’s Rights Movement Goals

When it comes to men’s activism, some have already decided that their role will mostly be passive: become Men Going Their Own Way, by refusing to participate in marriage or even cohabitation with the opposite sex, or otherwise defining their own lives outside the dominant gender discourse, and nothing more. This is fine, as we are all free to make our own choices as to what role(s) we would like to play.

Others feel that “defeating feminism” is the only goal. Our view is that even without feminism, many of the problems we face would remain.

As in any movement there will be people with significant influence and authority even if this authority is informal. Who these people are will change constantly. As a result “We” can just mean “I.” There is nothing preventing you from deciding care about one of these items, or three of them, or half of them, or all of them. The point is, they are goals not dogma.

Some of the goals for the men’s movement are (in no particular order):

1) We stand for all boys and men. Questions of race, creed, color, nationality or sexual orientation are completely irrelevant to us. This is non-negotiable: we are a movement for the needs, well-being and interests of all men and boys everywhere, seeking no more and no less than legal equality and/or genuine equity under the law.

2) We are a human rights movement, and as such concepts of universal human rights are a part of that movement. Addressing the needs of men and boys is not a zero-sum game. Our focus is on men and boys because we believe men and boys are in particular need of help at this time.

3)  We have no interest in legally denying anyone the right to control their reproduction, however we seek equitable reproductive rights for all persons regardless of sex. As a movement we believe no one should be forced into parenthood by the state or another individual, and that sexual intercourse is not a consent to parenthood. As such, mothers seeking arbitration from the courts in order to collect child support from a man she names the father should be required to submit a written instrument of consent signed by him, in which he explicitly accepts responsibility for, as well as defines his rights to, his child/ren. This will allow him to positively establish paternity through a DNA test before signing and allow both mother and father to define the rights and responsibilities of both parties rather than allowing the state to do so. Furthermore, if a mother conceals a pregnancy and subsequent birth from a father and he learns of this afterward without being given the opportunity to negotiate parenthood with the mother then he should have redress to obtain paternal rights and responsibilities.

4) Development and availability of a male fertility control device, drug or method that is safe, affordable, effective and reversible should be a top priority.

5) Paternity testing should be a standard practice when a father is added to a birth certificate or otherwise formally (legally) recognized as the child’s father. Where there is a willfully false claim of paternity, prosecution should occur.

6) If a woman opts to give up a child for adoption, all reasonable efforts must be made to allow the father the option of being that child’s sole parent before the child can be given over to any adoption agency.

7) Women are frequently pedestalized, and men demonized, when it comes to criminal arrest, conviction, and sentencing. This is an injustice against men and infantilizes women. Laws and legal practices and customs which establish lighter or heavier sentences based on sex should be abolished.

8) Foster the emergence of a new cultural narrative where all men and women are encouraged to live their lives as they see fit, without preferential treatment, while also being expected to bear the responsibility for their personal choices.

9) Default physical and legal co-parenting must be the norm where both parents are competent, willing, and do not endanger the child’s physical or mental well being. We wish to promote a narrative of recognizing fair custody arrangements towards fathers as an important issue, both in terms of fair treatment of fathers, and as being in the best interest of all children’s healthy development and quality of life. In divorce or separation of non-married parents, daily contact with both parents, and living arrangements which strive to be as close as practical to 50/50 time with both parents, should be the norm.

10) If there is strong evidence that children shouldn’t be with one or both parents, regular review of the conditions for access and visitation should occur to recognize that circumstances can and do change; the child’s right to both parents must be protected unless one or both has given up the child for adoption (i.e. legal surrender).

11) False and malicious accusations of rape or other violence, when they can be distinguished from mistaken accusations, must be subject to strict penalty under law. Laws against lying under oath or wasting time (of the police or courts) must be enacted where there are no such laws in place, and/or enforced without gender bias where they do exist.

12) The presumption of innocence must be seen as a fundamental right for anyone accused of any crime and restored to anyone accused of domestic violence or any form of assault, sexual or otherwise. So-called “rape shield” laws must either be extended to cover the accused as well as the accuser, or abolished entirely.

13) Debtor’s prison has been abolished in most civilized nations except in one crucial area: men who are unable to pay support payments due to disability or other impoverishment. This practice must be abolished, and debts owed due to support must be treated like any other debt to be paid, and subject to reasonable negotiation and renegotiation when circumstances do not make payment of support practical. Throwing men in jail for being unable to pay not only violates their fundamental human rights, it often robs children of their fathers and leaves those fathers unable to work to pay the debts they owe. This is an abomination and must be ended.

14) We seek to promote social recognition that men can be victims and women can be sex offenders, and that statements which belittle or marginalize the experiences of male victims of sexual assault, including male victims of female sex predators, are likely based on a worldview that pedastalizes women and demonizes men. Such attitudes are hateful and toxic, and must be opposed.

15) Standards for what constitutes illegal violence – domestic, sexual, or otherwise – should not discriminate on account of sex or such things as size or weight. Violence is violence. Assault is assault. Sexual assault is sexual assault. The law must be neutral regarding sexual characteristics or physical traits. Zero tolerance policies which fail to differentiate between a heated argument and a crime must be abolished. Mandatory arrest policies must either be abolished or must treat both parties as potential co-criminals and both parties should be arrested. So-called “primary aggressor” policies which presuppose the existence of one “victim” and one “abuser” have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in most cases, and should be abolished as standing policy.

16) Mandatory restraining orders which isolate and intimidate couples who wish to communicate and cooperate with each other must be recognized as damaging, and the law must be made to recognize that such orders may damage career and reputations and as such should be expungeable if found to be fraudulently or frivolously obtained, or no longer needed.

17) Abuse of restraining orders by anyone seeking to use them as a weapon to deny access to children or gain an upper hand in divorce or custody disputes should not only be recognized, but subject to penalty under law.

18) Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.

19) Financial incentives for prosecution of any crime by the state must be abolished.

20) In divorce or separation of non-married parents, efforts should to be made to promote mediation and solutions that do not involve the court or other state agencies wherever possible.

21) Recognizing that marriage cannot be abolished by the state, because cohabiting persons will still have disputes over children and finances if they separate, “marriage” should be viewed as an enforceable contract. Couples wishing to marry should be allowed to negotiate what their marriage contracts involve to include issues such as child custody, any theoretical support, education, support payments in case of severance, and so on. Marriages are agreements between people, and contracts should spell out specifically what is and is not agreed to. In the absence of a formal contract, presumption of shared parenting must be enforced as noted above.

22) Any government funding towards health research and services, should such funding exist, should be allocated in a way that gives equal and fair consideration to the health needs of men, women, and children, recognising that while maternal health influences the health of both boys and girls in the future generations, so too the health needs of boys and men should be recognized as equally important to all of society. We may argue later whether or how much government should spend on public health measures; in the meantime, men and boys must be given equal consideration under the law when there is such funding.

23) Government-funded educational programs (such as scholarships), if they exist, should either do away with preferential treatment by sex, or, be expanded to include programs to encourage males to enter fields where they are under-represented and or continue their education as they see fit. One way or the other, the double standards in education must end.

24) Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.

25) There are documented and growing gender disparities in education with boys in particular lagging behind girls in multiple areas across much of the developed world. This must be addressed directly by looking at areas where boys as a group may have different educational needs from girls, and where teachers may be discriminating against boys consciously or unconsciously.

26) Conscription or registration for conscription (“selective service”) must either be abolished or be an equal requirement for both sexes. One or the other.


We are under no illusion that all of these items will be automatically accepted overnight by everyone in the world, nor even that every men’s advocate will necessarily agree with every word here. Nevertheless we believe it represents a roadmap to a better future, and hope others will join, in whole or in part, in helping make these things happen.

The initiator and primary editor of this document was Dean Esmay. Others who wish to be identified as having given suggestions, input, or other collaboration should contact the author and let him know if they want to be publicly acknowledged. This item is also publicly accessible as a Google doc right here.

Publisher’s note. This document is not intended to represent the editorial stance of AVFM. It is an instrument intended for discussion that may lead to the refinement of our mission and the mission of others in the MHRM. Please help us vet this information with the awareness that it is not a defining document for anyone that we know of. PE

This document was edited on 3/17/13  in accordance with the updated version available as a Google doc.

*Update*: A video version, for those who prefer that format:

About Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay has written for Huffington Post, Thought Catalog, The Moderate Voice, Honey Badger Brigade, and A Voice for Men. He is a writer and podcaster with Erin Pizzey on domestic violence, Mumia Ali on race issues, and various shows on geek culture. He encourages people to look at issues through the lens of compassion for men who deserve it, and respect for women who deserve it. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed novel Methuselah's Daughter.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Dean Esmay

    I feel like I just gave birth, two months overdue. Holy cow what a relief.

    • Aimee McGee

      Still shorter than the gestation of a baby elephant – so glad to see this posted :)

    • TigerMan

      Not surprised Dean that is an awesome document – haven’t found a single thing I don’t agree with.
      I hope MRA’s of all stripes will read it in good will and if they have any criticisms to be constructive with it.
      The more we can agree on the more we can strengthen and unify our voice.

    • Ray

      Just a mention (under the men’s health area), due to the lack of men’s health research and services, and men living on the street (throwaway lives), I’d be willing to wager there are a lot of men in their 50’s and 60’s who contract prostate cancer and never know about it until it’s a death sentence. Given that prostate cancer is one of the most treatable of the cancers, this is a tragedy of significant magnitude. Why isn’t more said about this if it’s such an epidemic. That’s an easy one. #1 Dead man tell no tails and #2 the Western media and governments just don’t care.

      I’d really like to see good numbers on the number of prostate cancer deaths among homeless, or low income men. Even among survivors, early detection and treatment is very much a quality of life issue for a number of reasons. Much, much more needs to be done in this area to treat male prostate cancer victims as caringly as female breast cancer victims (about equal death rates), and equitable funding for research and services (both private and public) would be a good start.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Excellent run down of MRA/MHRA concerns and goals, Dean.

    Although you state the document is not intended to represent the editorial stance of AVFM, I wonder if it could be refined (if needed) and considered as introductory overview here for newcomers and curious readers.

    • Dean Esmay

      It may very well turn into the general editorial stance of AVfM. Or a modified version might. The goal right now is to see what everyone thinks. A little over 50 people gave input on this document, some affiliated with AVfM, some not, some who don’t even like AVfM. Now everybody has a chance to give input.

      Anyone may adapt this to their own group or site’s purposes; my only request is that if you create your own modified form, you clearly label it as modified.

      I very intentionally made it a “not-AVfM project.” It But nothing’s to stop AVfM from saying “we’re taking this and using it,” either exactly as-is or somewhat modified.

      The floor is open for comment and debate on its content. :-)

  • Nightwing1029

    Dean, that is phenomenal!
    I especially love how you say it’s about rights AND responsibility.
    I can totally get behind this.

  • Teri Stoddard

    I like it. Great work. I appreciate that many people’s voices were heard to create this.

  • Greg Canning

    Thanks Dean and the team for this succinct statement of issues relevant to men and boys and thereby relevant to ideal of a healthy gender equitable society. They are all issues worthy of advocacy in my view.

    The only point I don’t quite understand is this one, and it may be due to legal differences between the US and AU

    “Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.”

    Does this mean for example that a person who reported a incident of alleged DV against their partner can prosecuted /punished if they wish to recant/ withdraw the allegation and don’t assist the authorities in prosecuting the partner??

    • Paul Elam

      Agreed. That one needs some clarification. I will stalk and harass Esmay till he puts out.

    • Dean Esmay

      This is tricky. In the United States, situations like this will happen in some jurisdictions:

      A woman will show up in a hospital or somesuch with bruises, admit that it came from a tussel with her husband, only to be horrified to find that it is reported to the police, even if she admits she started it, or it was totally accidental (say, they were laughing and horsing around and someone slipped and her face hit the floor or somesuch). In some jurisdictions, just saying this to doctors can wind up with police showing up before she’s even left the medical facility and barraging her with questions, then hauling him off to jail despite her frenzied protests to the contrary because the police have decided with their pointed and slanted questions that this is a domestic violence assault. It can be particularly onerous of a woman is in a somewhat dazed state because she hit her head or they gave her painkillers.

      Because the entire incident was accidental or even her fault she will still potentially wind up having to share thousands of dollars in legal bills, possibly loss of his income (devastating if he’s the main earner OR they’re both earners but need both incomes), destruction of his career, etc.

      There are also cases where a woman will be threatened with filing a false police report if she won’t comply or if she recants. Of course this gets us into the tricky business of not wanting to punish a woman just for recanting.

      (Of course under the way many of the laws are worded, all of the above could be worded the same with it being the man who accidentally gets hurt unintentionally, but of course we know in practice that’s going to be extremely rare.)

      Better wording may be called for here, and I’m certainly eager for suggestions or other examples if so. (I consider this Version 1.0 of this document and hope to see a 2.0.)

      • Paul Elam

        Another suggestion, Dean. Rape shield laws cannot be extended to the accused. They address a different area of law, with the exception of withholding names to the media.

        I would say the paper would be strengthened by advocating the abolition of rape shield laws, period.

        In that I don’t support state control of media, I fundamentally oppose restrictions on the press of any kind. However, that may not be a realistic option. Given that, I would suggest a position supporting the idea of not publishing the names of alleged victims or alleged perpetrators of those crimes until a verdict has been reached.

        • Dean Esmay

          Since what exactly constitutes a “rape shield” law varies tremendously by jurisdiction, I felt a high sense of anxiety on this section, not knowing whether to expand it, contract it, break it into multiple sections, or what.

          Hey, you’ve got a keyboard there. Make use of it. What’s better wording in your opinion?

          (All right enough commenting for me tonight, I’m gonna go watch some TV. Probably reruns of All Creatures Great And Small. Imagine, a TV series set in the 1930s where men and women really like and respect each other. Such high fantasy!)

          • Paul Elam

            I would say that the men’s human rights advocates are for the repeal of any laws that undermine due process, specifically rape shield laws.

            You are correct, rape shield laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but all of them in one way or another have the potential to undermine the presumption of innocence, the right to face an accuser, the right to introduce all facts as evidence, including the sexual history of the plaintiff when it is relevant.

            We already have laws on the books, long established that govern the introduction of evidence and trial proceedings. The fact that we make any law that impacts trials for a specific kind of crime is a problem on face value.

    • knightrunner

      What happened to the sheriff in California comes to mind.
      Sometimes a couple wants things out on their own and the state insists on getting involved. They force one party to participate in the prosecution of the other. If the first party refuses to participate then they can become liable. Its wrong on so many levels.

      • Ray

        “What happened to the sheriff in California comes to mind.
        Sometimes a couple wants things out on their own and the state insists on getting involved.”

        The situation I recall hearing about happened fairly recently in San Francisco, and made juicy political fodder for local feminists wanting to feather their domestic violence industry nests, IMO.

        I’ve always wondered about that “no drop policy” and “mandatory witness testimony” policy, where they try to force a witness (often a wife, or girlfriend) to testify against her husband. I’m certainly no lawyer, but isn’t there some law saying a wife doesn’t have to give testimony against her husband? Are those imposed d.v. policies just more ways, that VAWA violates other established laws?

    • Ray

      “Does this mean for example that a person who reported a incident of alleged DV against their partner can prosecuted /punished if they wish to recant/ withdraw the allegation and don’t assist the authorities in prosecuting the partner??”

      I’ve read this has happened in certain jurisdictions in the U.S., but have no first hand knowledge. “No drop policy,” is the term I’ve heard used, where prosecutors in some jurisdictions prosecute ALL allegations of d.v. and if a witness refuses to testify, I’ve heard they (female witnesses usually) are threatened with prosecution, or are actually prosecuted. Why does the State of Maine come to mind when I think about this?

      The Equal Justice Foundation, is probably one of the best resources for doing research on this in the U.S. They also have a page It’s run by Dr. Charles Correy a man I had the pleasure of meeting once at a D.V. conference in Sacramento, the one where I also heard Erin Pizzy, Dr. Murry Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, and other notables speak. DVD’s of that conference appear to be available here, but I’d recommend calling to make sure.

      This historical conference was called “From Ideology to Inclusion.” In other words, from gender feminist ideology to a gender inclusive model including all genders, including men. John Hamel, LCSW was very involved in organizing this conference.

      Hamel has written an excellent book titled, “Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse” which takes into consideration such prominent factors in relationship dysfunction as alcohol abuse. Hamel’s model looks at the actual problems in the relationship as opposed to just a person’s gender as the problem.

      Dr. Donald Dutton also has an excellent book, “Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Dutton’s earlier works pretty much followed the gender feminist, gender based violence model (man bad/women good), but I think it can be said he’s had an epiphany at some point in that regard.

      For my college newspaper, I even interviewed a professor who was still using one of Dutton’s old books, saying, “He has a new book out now where he largely refutes the Dutton book you’re using. He’s largely corrected/recanted a number of errors in that previous book so I’m curious why you’re still using a book that the even the author believes is outmoded?” Since he knew he was “on the record,” he took on kind of a look like a deer in the headlights, but seemed to genuinely be concerned, just unaware.

      I hope some of this may help.

      By the way, the Erin Pizzey DVD from that conference is fabulous, IMO.

    • Ray

      ““Policies which allow alleged victims to be punished for refusing to cooperate with prosecution must be abolished.”


      Here’s an article about the d.v. industry and its treatment of women from a woman who’s been on the inside. It’s a very fascinating read.
      “Women are ordered to leave their husbands, even in the complete absence of real domestic violence or abuse. They are ordered to never let the fathers see their children, or DSS will charge the woman with neglect, again. Women are ordered to leave their homes and to sever contact with their mates. They then discover that, in order to get shelter, housing, food stamps, Medicaid, or cash benefits, they must claim to be victims of domestic violence to get a priority. Women are told they must do this to keep their children or to get them back if DSS already has them.”

    • STONE

      In some jurisdictions an alleged “victim” can be held in contempt of court and threatened with imprisonment, or threatened with having their children taken away by CPS as punishment for their refusal to “do the right thing” and testify against their spouse in DV cases.

  • knightrunner

    This section was a relief to me. I don’t consider myself a traditonalist or progressive; Im somewhere between the two. To my dismay, I’ve seen an attitude of “bash the traditonalist” right here on AVFM. It was a little heart wrenching and pissed me off to no end. Its my opinion that men should have choices. If a man chooses the traditional life then we should support his choice and help make that choice legally safe and socially acceptable. Feminism likes to claim that they are for women’s right to choose. In reality they are for women’s right to choose until a woman makes the “wrong” choice and chooses a traditional gender role and life. Let us not follow the way of the feminist movement. This is not the traditonalists men’s rights movement. Nor is it the progressive men’s rights movement. This is the men’s rights movement. Period.

    Ok. Ok. Ok. Add the “H” if you want.

    • Dean Esmay

      It’s a tricky needle to thread because conservatives can’t be the only voice, but they can’t be thrown out either. I think conservative voices are vital, as are liberal, libertarian, etc. voices.

      I have no objection to people who want to live by whatever tradition they think of as the conservative tradition. Our friend JudgyBitch lives what is pretty obviously a pretty old fashioned “traditionalist” marriage because that’s what she likes and it’s what her husband likes. I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is anyone who tells me this is the only solution for anyone and that if we’d all just be like that all this shit would go away. Because (A) I don’t want to live like that, sorry, never did, and (B) all this shit won’t go away if we try to force everybody into that mold, in fact a lot of shit will just get worse.

      But who the hell would object if two people make up a relationship that says “Hey, you’re captain, I’m first executive officer/2nd in command?” OK, if that’s what you like, that’s what you like. In my own relationship, it’s more like we switch depending on circumstances. But whatever. I’m not here to prescribe my way onto you either.

      • knightrunner

        Don’t get me wrong, this is Paul’s website. He should do with it what he wishes. Don’t think Im try to be a Monday morning quarterback or a backseat driver.
        AVFM has become such a large part of the MRM that it is far more than just a blog. This is the central meeting place. We meet here then go to our own spaces or our own groups. AVFM should be neutral in many aspects like religion/atheism, political left/political right, conservative/liberal, traditonalist/progressive, etc. Call attention to the groups that need the light shown on them. But allow all the same courtesy as anyone else. I’ve had to learn to bite my tongue while being around the atheists on here. I expect the same in return. (Im using religion/atheism as an example only.) We should save our bashing for our own private spaces and groups. I have no problem with examining and criticising religion or traditonalism or anything else, as long as its done with an even hand.
        The idea that traditionalism should be criticised and examined is a good idea. No group should be above critique. The idea that traditionalists/traditionalism are just as bad as feminist/feminism is a brain fart best. Traditionalism has a lot to answer for without a doubt, but I don’t see a radtraditionalhub or traditionalthiest anywhere. Traditionalists want to keep men in there old gender roles, which are oppressive. Feminists want to continue to cut and trim mens rights until there are none left.
        When we hold traditionalists in the same regard as feminists we alienate people who would support us even if they wanted a traditional life. It appears we are only fighting for the rights of men who want to live a non-traditional life.
        To reiterate:
        Examine every group evenly and fairly without exception.
        Assign blame where it is due in accordance with the offence.
        Realize that traditionalism, while plagued with problems and misandry isn’t actively seeking to destroy what little rights men have left.
        AVFM should be accepting of everyone that want to fight for men’s right to choose how to live there live even if you disagree with their choice. (by “you” I mean you, me and everyone else)

        • Mark Trueblood

          Where are you seeing “traditionalism = feminism” in the above document?

          I would never say that traditionalism = feminism but i would say that the traditional societal expectations placed on men to care for women has been a primary factor in the rapid growth of feminism.

          Conservatives have largely accepted shifting gender roles for women, but have continued to put a great deal of effort into strong-arming men into the old gender roles. As have feminists.

          • knightrunner

            I don’t see feminism = traditionalism in the above document. But I do see many attitudes of feminism = traditionalism here at AVFM. The document places traditionalism in its proper perspective.
            Chivalry and male disposability are responsible for the growth of feminism. While these two ideas are a part of traditional male roles they are not unique to traditionalism. Chivalry and male disposability run like a thread through the consciousness of our entire society.

  • John A

    Dean, I agree with around 90% of what your group has written there. Great work and a big step forward for the men’s movement. Let’s continue to get the message out there.

    • Dean Esmay

      Feel free to bring up whatever 10% you don’t agree with. This is supposed to generate that kind of discussion.

      • napocapo69

        sent you my contribution via email.

        • Dean Esmay

          Did not receive. Find me on Facebook if email gives trouble, my inbox is a mess.

          • napocapo69


  • Stephen O’Brian

    A good looking list so far Dean. Thank you to the folks involved. One notable I’d like to see added is the right to bodily integrity with an outright banning of genital mutilation of boys euphemistically called circumcision. Unless there is a proven need for such invasive surgery males should be left intact at least until they are adults and can choose it of their own volition.
    Any violation of this principle should be treated as assault and grievous bodily harm and subject to legal punishment as such.

    • Dean Esmay

      Was this section not prominent enough, or is the wording too weak somehow?

      *) Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.

      The question isn’t snarky. Is there a better wording?

      • Perseus

        I think it’s great.
        Although it should not be necessary, an explicit invoking of “the right to bodily integrity” may strengthen it.

        • VictorGarcia

          i think intact rights are at the very core of human rights. after all, who OWNS the body being mutilated? its the first experience of socialized misandry that a boy goes through.

          • strix

            In law, an individual person has the right to self autonomy, self integrity and self determination, but the individual does not actually own their own body.

            This is why the individuals from whom cell lines have been grown were unable to sue the companies and universities who profit from them.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        Hi Dean, Sorry for being a little unclear and adding the preamble which was basically reiterating what you wrote here –
        [*) Abolish medically unnecessary genital mutilation or surgery on infants and minors. If a person wishes to have their genitals altered, they may make this decision when they come of age.]

        which is fine.

        The part I’d like to see added is the part about –

        [Unless there is a proven need for such invasive surgery males should be left intact at least until they are adults and can choose it of their own volition.
        Any violation of this principle should be treated as assault and grievous bodily harm and subject to legal punishment as such.]

      • shmiggen

        I disagree with this one, only because I know there are so many parents who will not cede this power. It’s not that I don’t understand where you’re coming from. It’s that it is an impossibility to achieve. Babies are the property of their parents, full stop. If a couple wants their son circumcised, it will happen, even if it is in a back alley. Banning circumcision is akin to banning abortion, and it makes us look way out there.

        • MrShadowfax42

          The only reason it “makes us look way out there” is because of the cultural norm which makes MGM perfectly acceptable and FGM hideous and barbaric.

          This cultural norm is a very important part of the problem we are dealing with. This is nothing like abortion, either. If the western world can unanimously declare FGM as hideous and barbaric then they can damn well throw baby boys the same courtesy, and frankly religion be damned.

          Just because something is difficult, doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. We have a responsibility to speak for baby boys who cannot speak for themselves, nor do anything about the fact they will be mutilated.

          • Stephen O’Brian

            Thankyou MrShadowfax42. Your comment seems errudite and reasonable to me.

          • Stephen O’Brian

            Thankyou MrShadowfax42. Your comment seems erudite and reasonable to me.

        • Stephen O’Brian

          Some communities ban female genital mutilation already, so I see no no reason why they can’t ban male genital mutilation as well. To say that babies are their parents property doesn’t mean they can do as they please with those babies – they can’t for instance tattoo them, or commit other acts of compromising major body integrity disfiguring them for life.

          • shmiggen

            I agree with you and I agree with the thrust of your statement. My only point is how this plays out where the rubber hits the road. It won’t be seen as a men’s right’s issue. On the contrary, it will be seen as an infant’s right’s issue. The comparison to the removal of a girl’s clitoris to circumcision will be balked at. But that’s not all. We will be seen as infringing upon the rights of adults. They will think our next move is a ban on abortion, because they will infer from this that we believe a fetus also has rights. It’s a political dead-end in Judeo-Christian America. If it happens anywhere, it will be Europe first. Possibly Canada next. But the USA will be last.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Parents are stopped from tattooing babies – at least in the US.

          If a couple wants their daughter mutilated, it will happen, even if it is in a back alley.

          • shmiggen

            Yes, I am aware that here circumcision is viewed as the same as the removal of a girl’s clitoris. My point is that beyond this website most people don’t see it that way. It is still the most parochial of all MRA views. The fact is a circumcised man can still have an orgasm. A woman without a clitoris cannot. This is not to say I am in favor of circumcision. What I am saying is the general public do not see them as the same.

          • Stephen O’Brian

            At least a 100 newborn baby boys in the USA definitely won’t become men who can have an orgasm.
            Because they die as a result of the genital mutilation –


          • Stephen O’Brian

            “If a couple wants their daughter mutilated, it will happen, even if it is in a back alley.”

            Yes, but the point I’m making is that in USA female infant genital mutilation is a criminal offense, whereas male infant genital mutilation isn’t.

          • Dean Esmay

            Uhm, actually Shmiggen, if you want to get into it, study has shown definitively that women who’ve had their clitoris removed can still orgasm.

            That does not make clitoris removal acceptable at all.

            There are various forms of female genital mutilation, some worse than what we call circumcision, but some clearly far less extreme; some are as minor as making a minor nick, or a simple piercing. All are condemned and were banned by most countries in the developed world as soon as anyone heard about it.

            There are also, for the record, forms of male genital mutilation far more extreme than what we call circumsision, and a few less so. Once again, no one gives a shit about that either.

            If it’s not OK for one, it’s not OK for the other, that’s a principle we should be able to live with. I don’t care if it takes America decades to figure this one out. All these issues I mention above are issues people have been pointing out for decades. All of them. They all need discussing.

        • Dean Esmay

          I fully expect that the two most contentious items here are the one involving genital mutilation and the one involving paternal choice. Those are the toughest issues to take a stand on for some people in some countries. My view is, too bad. If you want to say you don’t support those, that’s fine, but this is where I’m at, and where a lot of us are at. Indeed, so far you’re the only one to object to that one. The one that got the most pushback was the one involving saying that consent to sex is not consent to fatherhood. I expected WAY more pushback on that, although so far even the people who’ve said they’re uncomfortable with it have said they actually agree with it they just worry about the image problem it might create.

          • Paul Elam

            Push back or no, I am totally behind these points. It’s a ridiculously simple no-brainer for me.

            As long as we still have people insisting that men are to be forced into parenthood because they had sex, then those are the people that hold us back.

            The same with circumcision. If you want to use religion as justification to mutilate male babies, then fuck your religion.

            I have no qualms with people of faith till they pick up a scalpel and cut their beliefs into a child.

          • strix

            One way to mitigate pushback on the consent to parenthood thing is to proffer a positive model for how children where one parent doesn’t consent can be protected and provided for.

            On the basis that this is already the case in one direction (mothers have the choice to terminate or to resign legal responsibility for the child by giving him or her up for adoption), this shouldn’t be too hard — but feminists might not like the consequences of giving men equal rights in this respect.

        • Kristina Hansen

          Babies are not property, and that is an idea that needs to be stricken from society. They are their own people, and just because they were born to you, does not make them your property. You take on the responsibility of raising them, if you so chose. But raising a child does not make that child the equivalent of personal property. Saying they are the property of someone, even parents, is how people can justify doing horrible things to their children. And in this case it would be MGM.

          • shmiggen

            I’m not saying your point is not valid, and I’m not saying I am in favor of circumcision. There seems a bit of a blind spot here. I am asking you to engage me legally, not morally. Taking away a parent’s right to have their son circumcised requires an amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, and to one’s beliefs, be they religious, atheist, or whatever. You are asking the government to step into people’s bedrooms. You can tell me until you are blue in the face how cruel circumcision is – and I will agree with you, just as I believe abortion is cruel. But in the end, who give’s a toss? I am telling you this requires nothing less than a constitutional amendment, and you are not responding.

          • Kosh

            Shmiggen (who for some reason can’t be replied to): It depends what country you’re talking about. In the US, people have the right to “life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”. In Canada, people have the right to “life, liberty, and SECURITY OF PERSON”. I’d say that security of person trumps what some mythical sky daddy allegedly told desert roaming nomads thousands of years ago.

    • Disorderly Conduct

      I get it how some people are against circumcision, but I personally don’t see anything wrong with it. There’s no negative impact I’m aware of having from the procedure, and I’ve heard circumcised men find it easier to keep it clean. It was a one time operation and I was a baby, so I have no memory whatsoever of it or any other long-term effects.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        “there’s no negative impact I’m aware of having from the procedure”.

        Sorry, it’s impossible for you to know what it’s like to be intact. Therefore you can’t be aware of the negative impact experientially.
        However it’s indiputable that there is a negative impact.
        Here are just some of the facts to support that –

        * Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin – thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.

        * The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.

        * Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, are removed in circumcision. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.

        There’s much more information for starters here –

        If you find this and subsequent knowledge about the effects of the surgery done to you distressing then I suggest seeking help from a counselor or support group specializing in that kind of trauma.

  • DxM Scotty MxD

    I don’t know if people have seen this before (I sent it in an email to the founder of JFMB a few days ago but just wanted to reiterate the point.) Quoted directly from my email:

    I do not know if you have already seen this but the online UK government definition of rape spells out in no uncertain terms that rapists are men and only men. The article of course can be found here:

    and I have taken the liberty to create a screen print highlighting the accusatory language, which can be found here:

    hope this helps.

  • Steveyp333

    All excellent stuff, but there are a couple of points that get discussed fairly frequently around here that weren’t on the list (yes I am copypasting these from the forum, sue me):

    – the overrepresentation of men in suicide and workplace death stats and the reasons for this
    – the cultural expectation that men are to earn the bulk of the money for their families. The statistics on women ‘marrying up’ (aka hypergamy) are testament to what an endemic issue this is. The document focuses largely on legal issues, but cultural expectations can also have a big impact on our lives

    finally, my feeling is that the section about misandry could do with some specifics. Maybe, for example, talking about the widespread publishing of false or misleading rape and DV stats in mainstream news

    • Dean Esmay

      I am shocked at myself, considering how often I talk about the suicide issue, I somehow managed to overlook that. I’m surprised no one else in the group brought it up either, although ultimate responsibility for all omissions goes to me, and we did after all have a CRAPTON of stuff to go over.

      Suicide as a major public health crisis for men should absolutely be in here.

      The issue of hypergamy does matter and probably should be in there somewhere, but I’m less certain how to get it in there or where to put it. Somewhere under discussion of misandry I would think; something about how the widespread assumption that men dump their wives is misandrist given the widespread reality we see of women filing most divorces and the experience so many men have had of seeing their wives “trade up” to “better” husbands? Just spitballing here but that seems like the right way. A big trick on all this is getting it into something short and easy to digest that leaves the person reading open to discussing more.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        Hi Dean,
        I’m snowed under with work at the moment so don’t have time for much reading. However, if it isn’t in there, then I think something about paternity testing should be a right for men to know their true status as fathers should be included.

        This is growing into a kind of modern day Magna Carta.

      • strix

        I guess I don’t understand hypergamy well enough, because it seems that this is a problem where the solution lies fairly and squarely with men: don’t go along with it, don’t marry a woman who appears to be “marrying up”.

        If that’s the case, does reference to hypergamy need to be in this statement? If not the case (and this is a genuine invitation), would anybody care to set me straight?

        • Dean Esmay


          The entire idea of hypergamy comes as a massive shock to many men, and bringing it up at all appears to infuriate many women. Yet there seems no denying its reality, or the stinging way it can undermine the feeling of utter disposability that drives so many men to despair and even suicide. I remember even introducing the concept to a psychologist of my acquaintance recently, and he hadn’t heard of it, but his eyes widened and he got a complete “aha!” lightbulb look when I explained it, then he laughed and laughed and said yes of course it’s true he’d just never heard it described so succinctly.

          So obviously the idea has some importance.

          But the very question you ask makes me wonder how best to incorporate it, or if it should be. You can even argue that hypergamy is a positive instinct: women really shouldn’t be in the habit of making babies with men who can’t be of critical help in the raising of those babies. Acknowledging that it as a reality is an important step in “taking the red pill.” But how do you get it into a goals and principles document?

          There’s no doubt that women’s hypergamous instincts, if left unrecognized and unchecked, can cause devastation, not just to her children and their father(s), but also long-term to her herself unless she’s very lucky. I’ve known at least one highly hypergamous female who lives in misery and loneliness because it never occurred to her that her “sell by” date had passed quite some time ago and she could no longer latch onto higher status men. She’s psychologically broken and in poverty now, in her early 60s and utterly alone, estranged from the very children whose fathers she tried desperately to alienate them from and with no man wanting her since she dumped her last husband and the 10 years’ alimony she wrestled from him ran out. Nothing left for her but a tiny social security check, she ran out of everything else including her good looks long ago.

          No one brought this up before, and I don’t think it was Political Correctness driving our thinking, I think it may be that there’s no obvious place to put it in. To *this* document.

          Sitting down and looking at young men and telling them “look boy, forget what you’ve read and seen in movies, a woman who’s looking at you as a prospective mate is consciously or unconsciously looking at what makes you a potentially good father, and if she doesn’t see you as potentially useful in that regard beyond being a sperm donor she probably isn’t going to be a good long-term relationship prospect” is wise. But does it go *here* in *this* document?


          Still open to input. Does it belong here? One thing in a document like this is to be succinct and to the point and with something tangible associated with this. “Your girlfriend/wife may dump you if she thinks you’ve got better options” doesn’t quite seem like it fits, but you know, I could be wrong. I’m just scratching my head on it.

          • strix

            I guess I would still probably say that it doesn’t really fit in this particular document. Women who marry for a man’s wallet rather than for love come under the heading of ‘bad choice’ or ‘mistake’, and there are many other reasons why certain women are best avoided. It’s not like this statement’s purpose is to give life advice to men (young or old).

            A woman who is so spiteful and disloyal to leave because she’s found a better option evidently had no real love in the first place and, as an aside, I’m inclined to say that it’s better to be out of a loveless marriage than in out, especially if there are no children involved, and especially if it can be done without enduring financial obligation. (NB: it may be a different situation here in the UK where alimony works differently than in the US.)

          • Aimee McGee

            Perhaps it fits in as an element of educating young people in relationships.
            I’ve changed my approach on hypergamy. I think we do need to talk about hypergamy – but more importantly the women who have conscious awareness of their hypergamy need to challenge women to think about this tendency.
            Hypergamy as an instinct in a hunter/gatherer or subsistence economy which is beneficial to the survival of the species, but ultimately it is destructive in a society of relative prosperity.

          • Steveyp333

            What I would say is that hypergamy is encouraged by popular culture, advertising, and the prevailing social norms. Of course it has roots in biology, but our culture is enforcing it.

            Of course, I would never suggest that society pass laws restricting who can marry who, but I do think it is a phenomenon that we need to draw attention to and discuss the implications of it, the same way that feminist make videos about what they perceive as degrading tropes in video games 😀

          • Stephen O’Brian

            I think that sections of the document dealing with the downstream effects of hypergamy i.e. male disposability as husbands, fathers and citizens in need of equitable healthcare, education, housing, protection from violence, taxation, life etc effectively deal with hypergamy without even raising the topic. That way the document stays focussed on men whilst simultaneously dealing with women.
            Work on raising awareness about women’s hypergamous nature still of course remains of paramount importance at the side of this document.

  • Perseus

    This is one of the very few best things I have ever read. Ever
    Wow wow and wow
    This is …..
    Dean, you’ve outdone yourself, my friend. You and the others
    Tour de force
    I’m not sure how many ways there is to say ‘utter perfection’, but apply them here. For all intents and purposes.

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    Well, since I am amongst the few internationals in the editorial board, I will stress on the fact that this document is waaaaaay too anglo-centric. I do not think, for instance, that some few cases happening in some small jurisdictions in the USA necessarily need to be in a worldwide MRA statement.
    Again: The most horrifying issues that men and boys face are NOT in the English speaking countries or in the so-called „developed world” – as if „developed world” has indeed a meaning. Iran, for instance, is a primitive country in terms of mentality – but it is more developed than most people here could even imagine.

    It is 3 AM here so I will come back a few hours later with some modifications and a lot of additions.

    • shmiggen

      Roosh is in Romania. I’d be curious what your take on that is.

    • Paul Elam

      I hate the word anglo-centric, but I also completely agree with you.

      I look forward to reading the proposed additions. I don’t think anything in this document that could only apply to one country will be very useful.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        Perhaps all those things MHRAs from around the world have in common will make for a usefully limiting document… just a thought. There is plenty in Dean’s document that applies globally, and more could be added such as limeywestlake’s suggestion about misandry in the global media.

        Regarding those understandings people might hold in common, I take as an example Adam Kostakis brilliant distillation of the definition of ‘feminism’ which he defines thus:

        @Kostakis: “I shall posit the following as a universally applicable definition of feminism; that is to say, it must fit everyone’s criteria for what feminism is, in spite of the different perspectives that different people hold on its nature. It is a suitably limited definition, since it can encompass only those parts of feminism which all definitions hold in common. So, here it is: feminism is the project for increasing the power of women.”

        Adding MHRM idiosyncracies from various countries, even if legitimate, could be a recipe for argument and division. For instance (hypothetical) I would hate to see a political dogma of one individual or country be included like; “MRAs from country XYZ are primarily about the fight against Marxism/Socialism/Leftism” or something equally partisan and divisive. We’ve seen this kind of stance from some of the less intelligent “Anglo-centric” natives and it leads nowhere good. Best stick to those things we all have in common, and applying Occam’s razor to the rest.

        My two cents.

      • Ray

        “…a worldwide MRA statement.”

        @ Paul & Lucian & Dean:

        In as much as “human rights” are becoming somewhat of a focal point of the MRM, or MHRM, perhaps it would be good to elaborate a little more on that. As Kristina pointed out above, “children are not property,” or words to that effect. Neither are men. We have endless focus on women’s issues in this regard, but men, and children, equally deserve inclusion.

        I keep thinking of “male disposability,” “military conscription,” “unfair child custody encumbrances,” unrealistic and needlessly unsafe job duties, outrageous suicide and homicide rates, human storage prisons and other indicators that point to a general acceptance of males in society as property, slaves, tools, commodities, trash, exploitable violent entertainment fodder, etc. It’s not acceptable in any circumstance to role condition, or treat males as a life form undeserving of full human dignity. Hollywood movie producers did you hear that?

        NCFM has created a bold, 38 article document, that’s actually been presented to the United Nations. Perhaps some, or all, of that could be incorporated into what you’re proposing.
        NCFM asks the United Nations to end all forms of discrimination against men

        “…sent under NCFM letterhead to all United Nations Delegations requesting sponsors for the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Men” (below), which Carl also authored.”

        • Stephen O’Brian

          “I keep thinking of “male disposability,” “military conscription,” “unfair child custody encumbrances,” unrealistic and needlessly unsafe job duties, outrageous suicide and homicide rates, human storage prisons and other indicators that point to a general acceptance of males in society as property, slaves, tools, commodities, trash, exploitable violent entertainment fodder, etc. It’s not acceptable in any circumstance to role condition, or treat males as a life form undeserving of full human dignity. Hollywood movie producers did you hear that?”

          Yes! Bingo! Spot on brother.
          I’m so friggin tired of being treated as an expendable success object.

    • Peadair

      Gotta ask, what is your definition of Anglo-Centric?

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Boasting the largest MALE prison industrial complex the world has EVER seen should be good for a few anglo-centric laughs.

      • Ray

        The “freest country on earth” sports that “largest male prison population on earth.”

        The large male prison population is a result of efforts expended by the corrupt American legal system to wield unjust misandrist laws in “Witch-Hunting Males” as shown in the video of the same name at Youtube.

        I suspect “law and order” types would argue that we have such a huge prison population, because men take advantage of their freedoms, are undisciplined, and disregard/disrespect laws, but is that it, or is a massive compilation of laws, purposefully imposed by a repressive state, designed to entrap innocent males for the profit of the prison industrial complex, and the suppression of freedom for men?

        I say it’s the later, and that’s the reason I told a judge the last time I served on jury duty, “I will sit in judgement of the law as well as the facts in evidence in any case.” I then tried to give him supporting quotes from former Supreme Court Justices, but he didn’t want to hear it.

        I told the judge, “The Constitution begins, “We the people,” and it’s writ large lest there be any doubt. It does not begin, “We the judges.”
        “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy,” said John Jay, the first U.S. Supreme Court chief justice.

        SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804): “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

        “…such Founding Fathers as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson venerated juries as “the last roadblock to tyranny,” according to civil libertarian John Whitehead.”

        “JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ….(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

        “OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.”

        “U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has….”unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.””

        “ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction….”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”

        “4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

        “ALAN SCHEFLIN and JON VAN DYKE (“Jury Nullification: the Contours of a Controversy,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No.4, 1980): ): “The arguments for opposing the nullification instruction are, in our view, deficient because they fail to weigh the political advantages gained by not lying to the jury…What impact will this deception have on jurors who felt coerced into their verdict by the judge’s instructions and who learn, after trail, that they could have voted their consciences and acquitted? Such a juror is less apt to respect the legal system.”

        “U.S. v. WILSON (629 F.2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1980): “In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position.”

        I told the judge that I had no confidence in the L.A. County legal system that willing submitted itself to training for police, prosecutors and judges by hate groups like the gender feminist ideology.

        Lastly, I told the judge that according to the Declaration of Independence, it was NOT my duty to serve a jury duty system corrupted by vile gender feminist ideology as L.A. County’s was. Rather according to the D. of I. it was my duty NOT to serve it.
        “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. “

    • Disorderly Conduct

      That just opens a whole new can of worms. Women’s rights here is already well represented by feminism, but in some less developed nations feminism or any other women’s rights groups are as grossly underrepresented as men. If we only represented men’s rights in those areas we’d look like chauvinists, but if we represented both genders we’d just be a gender rights movement instead of for men. I guess you could argue that since the MRM is egalitarian it’d work out anyway but I still dislike expecting women to refer to their human right’s movement as a “men’s” movement.

      Although in places like India there is a strong feminist movement and from what I understand all the men’s rights groups are strong traditionalists, so that’s one area outside the Western sphere that needs the MHRM.

    • Dean Esmay

      There are any number of items that only apply to certain areas. There is for example no conscription in the United States, just an implied threat of it, and in other countries there’s none at all, yet there are others where it’s a very real issue. There are any number of countries where circumcision is no longer practiced at all, yet circumcision goes in here because it does apply to some nations. Something happening in a few jurisdictions still matters.

      That said, the reason this is here is so people can give suggestions. We’ve already got two things that obviously need to go in here that aren’t there, so more is good. Look forward to seeing whatever you have.

    • chris3337

      One of those non-Western place is Singapore where there is a dual penal system for punishment. Over 6000 men/boys per year are stipped naked, tied to a post and have their buttocks ripped to pieces by a prescribed brutal judicial caning in addition to their prison sentence. It takes months to recover, if ever, from this state prescribed assault. This brutality is only allowed by the penal code to be applied to males. Women get just the prison part for identical crimes. Crimes for which caning is mandatory for males range from graffity or visa violations to armed robbery. I cant imagine how a female judge feels when she is mandated to prescribe these sentences when she, just because she has an XX gene, could never be subjected to the same law. Where is the UN on these Human Rights Violations ? If this state-sanctioned cruelty was applied only to women, international outrage would have forced its abolition decades ago. Singapore claims to be a modern democratic society.
      Caution Very Graffic , not for faint hearted

      • Stephen O’Brian

        Could you please upload video or other media showing this misandric brutality to name and shame the Singaporean government?
        They’ve certainly earned it with this form of bigotry.

        • chris3337

          Stephen, I do not have the clips downloaded , can only provide the links. Singapore and Malaysia are the most brutal.Both these countries exempt all women from caning (except religious Sharia type which is very mild by comparison). Even when women are co-accused and equally guilty, the man gets an additional caning on top of the prison term, no reasons given. Again no international outrage. I recall a few years ago when a beer drinking woman was sentenced to a light and clothed Sharia type caning in Malaysia, there was international outrage and cries of discrimnation against women, this was commuted as a result. This judicially sanctioned torture of men happens daily in these so called modern countries Here is a link to the site , this one is particularly brutal. There should be a travel advisory for men travelling to these countries. I would not spend one minute or one dollar in any of these miserable places.

      • Kimski

        I saw this in Saudi arabia back in the 80’s.
        The majority of spectators who showed up to this recurring event every saturday morning were women. Their responses to the violence perpetrated changed my view on women forever. I don’t feel like going into details, but it were truly disgusting to watch the obvious glee in their eyes, while they cheered with every lash.
        The man being punished had a drink on the plane on his way back home, and was caught red handed. It was his only ‘crime’.

  • Perseus

    Man, I could just read this over and over and over..

    Mr. Esmay, I would like to buy you a beer, and some kind of expensive food.

  • JJ

    I would add that either the courts and collections agencies produce faster results in regards to child support modifications which can be compared to their greed in summary judgments when they raise support.

    If they refuse, then give power, maybe, to a magistrate whose sole focus is to look into the finances of the party seeking relief and look into the taxes of both parties in order to compare notes.

    I don’t want to take child support completely away; just remove the fascist nonsense surrounding it now.

  • Perseus

    x) We demand that the insidious and entrenched societal meme in which males are collectively guilty of current or past oppression of collectively females be condemned for the baseless, deceitful, hateful and empirically proven lie that it is, particularly upon just recognition of male sacrifice and over-representative occupation of the most oppressive positions in society throughout history and increasingly in modern times.

    y) An immediate end to any and all state-sponsored, codified, institutional, illegal and unconstitutional, sexual discriminations against males, including ‘affirmative action’, ‘quotas’ and ‘short lists’, and the denial of paternity leave allotments. With the caveat, however, that for the next ten years as compensation for the damage inflicted on men by these long-standing unjust practices, females should be required to occupy fully half of the jobs in the most dangerous, dirty and physically demanding fields such as construction, ditch-digging, underwater-welding, roughnecking of all sorts, front line battle, refuse collection, plumbing, mechanics, sewage maintenance, etc. Achievement of 50% occupational death and injury will be considered as an indication of meeting this goal.

    Addendum to article y)
    Females should serve in 100% of front line battle positions for the next 10,000 years to balance the historical record. Furthermore, females should be readily chastized and ridiculed for complaining about damsel tropes when their relative historical participation in real life as protagonist warriors has been far less than the generous plethora of ‘heroine’ roles granted them in video games.

    z) An immediate end to prison slavery. Humane conditions and treatment for prisoners, and guarantees on their safety when in government custody, including safety from other prisoners.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “z) An immediate end to prison slavery. Humane conditions and treatment for prisoners, and guarantees on their safety when in government custody, including safety from other prisoners.”

      This shall include debtor’s prison for unemployed fathers.

      b) End of Prosecutorial Immunity in blatant cases of wrongful convictions.

      c) Due Process and Constitutional rights restored for men starting IMMEDIATELY.

    • Disorderly Conduct

      Affirmative action can be a good thing if done correctly (so far it hasn’t really). It can help men gain better representation in the the education system as well as any other areas men and women are in need of.

      • MrStodern

        I don’t want men getting into college because they’re men. When boys aren’t falling through the cracks in our education system, because the cracks aren’t there anymore, they’ll be qualifying for college far more often, all on their own.

        The most important thing we can keep in mind when we discuss goals for the future is that a lot of the problems we’re facing now aren’t natural to an non-indoctrinated society. Obviously, male disposability isn’t something any ideology came up with, it’s pretty ingrained in even a non-indoctrinated society, but before tackling that, we have to deal with the ways in which feminism has made it worse. Slow the out-of-control car down before we apply the brakes, so to speak. When the hateful ideologues aren’t sitting at the table anymore, we as a society should be able to have a civil, productive discussion on the issue of male disposability. But first we have to scare all the cats (feminists) out of our yard (society) with the hose (truth).

        • Disorderly Conduct

          By “representation in the education system” I meant jobs like teachers etc. Men’s rights media always talks about how there are way more female teachers in the education system than male, so how else are we supposed to change this? Changing society’s view of men could take decades, and generations of children could have already gone through the discriminatory education system by then. The only way to rectify this is by government intervention, a.k.a affirmative action.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        You’re starting at the wrong point. *Getting rid* of affirmative action is what will allow men to work in “female dominated” field, if they so choose.

        • Disorderly Conduct

          I think we’re on different pages. Female dominated fields are to some degree the result of social standards that suggest women are inherently better qualified at these fields based on their gender, and managers consciously or subconsciously discriminate by denying applicants jobs/promotions/pay raises etc because of it. Affirmative action (by what I meant) is when the government or a company takes notice of this discrimination and enforces policies that attempt to artificially overcome it. So if a man chooses to become a teacher and is denied the job over less qualified women because of his gender, affirmative action rectifies this by giving him the job anyway.

          • Suzanne McCarley

            The job should go to the best qualified person. Period.
            You appear to be advocating to replace one form of sex discrimination with another. That’s what feminists do.

          • Disorderly Conduct

            Err that’s what I’m saying. The man is the best qualified person over the other female applicants, but the job still isn’t given to him because of his gender. The affirmative action rectifies this by ensuring the best qualified person ALWAYS receives the job regardless of gender (like you want). If it gives a job to a man when there are better qualified females, then it’s not working correctly.

  • August Løvenskiolds

    My business had an unusually good weekend, so earlier today I made my first (too small, I’m afraid) donation to AVfM.

    Then, this pops out.

    I feel weirdly like I’ve just won the jackpot on the first pull on a slot machine. Cha-ching!

    This was a beautiful, masterful effort, Dean, and I thank you. (Do we know who the mother is?)

    Well done.

  • JohnKimble1

    A few things appear to be missing, perhaps there’s been a lack of impact from outside the US?

    Firstly, what about equalising retirement ages? That’s a huge scandal – we’re talking literally hundreds of billions of dollars denied to men who die earlier anyway. See too see all the countries where men retire later than women (I count at least 30). Also here in the UK government funded child benefit automatically goes to the mother, even where custody is shared equally! Perhaps a phrase that all state benefits/entitlements should be distributed blind to gender would suffice?

    You mention changing social attitudes so we recognise sexual assaults on men by women but what about the legal aspect too? If we don’t redefine this using the actual term “rape” then attitudes will never change – ending gendered rape definitions surely needs to be one of our core goals?

    Something on all women shortlists in politics may be needed because that destroys democracy. Gender should not be a barrier to gaining selection for a political party and all candidates should be chosen on merit.

    Also suicide and workplace deaths are missing as others have noted.

  • Fidelbogen

    Making this document separate from AVfM was a savvy move. 😉

    • Mark Trueblood

      I can vouch for the fact that “A Voice for Men” as an entity never had any influence over this document and I don’t even think it came up in the discussions.

    • Paul Elam

      Hey, Ima savvy sumbitch.

      • scatmaster

        I thought you were a Texas “thug”‘
        I am so confused.

  • droobles

    Very impressive, a salute to you Dean!

  • Peadair

    (in no particular order) Numbering them would help, if only for navigation. Pretty please?!?!

  • Suzanne McCarley

    This is comprehensive, adaptable and inclusive without pandering. Nothing here can be construed as ideology.

    Good document, good discussion. I look forward to more suggestions.

  • Limeywestlake (Neil Westlake)

    “There is nothing preventing you from deciding care about one of these items, or three of them, or half of them, or all of them.”

    Missed out a ‘to’ between the deciding and the care.

    A great document. One glaring thing that was left out in my opinion – something which, as a media professional, irks me no end. It is the intensely negative portrayal of men and boys in the media – especially on television and in commercial advertising.

    The media is the crucible whereby our value systems coalesce and are promulgated (alongside our prejudices.) I am in favour of the drafting of statutes that would deal, specifically, in curtailing the conveyance of misandry across all media platforms, along with the creation of watchdog bodies that would regulate and filter content to this end. This, of course, is no easy task as we do not want to appear overly censorious. Yes, there is a fine line to tread, but, heck, we are fine folks and I reckon we could achieve that balance.

    I am fed up to my back fucking teeth of seeing men portrayed as dumb and inept imbeciles. This pernicious trope is beleaguering generations of men and boys. It has to end, no ifs, no buts.

    • Fidelbogen

      Yes, I will second what you are saying here.

  • Klar

    i have to step back from this a bit and realize what’s happening here

    after all the atrocities of the 20th century and subsequent human rights movements, we are actually having to reinvent the wheel

    all the cliches about being doomed to repeat history – and now we’re having to spell out in bite sized pieces what centuries of philosophers and thinkers… aarghhh – unreal

    but there is no choice

    this task has to be done: the self-appointed caretakers of human rights have all left the building

    I admire your work, Dean.

    this is a jump start on something i would never have expected to be necessary, but oh how necessary it has become.

    • Perseus

      The need to state the blatantly obvious. It is truly the twilight zone, and absurd.

    • Dean Esmay

      It was extremely tempting to start with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”


      • August Løvenskiolds

        Given both men’s and women’s innate preference for those of the fairer sex, how about: “We hold these truths to be counterintuitive at first glance but nevertheless verifiable…”

  • napocapo69

    Dean, an excellent basis for a MHRM manifesto.
    I would lile to contribute to it, publicly.

    I’ve a few comments and integration proposals. Where can I contact you?

    • Dean Esmay

      Fastest way is Skype: deanesmay (no spaces, no dashes, no dots, just my name run together).

      Second fastest way: Facebook.

      (You do not want to see my email inbox. If you appear in there you have at least a 50% chance of disappearing.)

  • Kalan Chinuck

    Excellent work, but I confess to a slightly unpleasant tickle in my tummy when I see phrases like ‘ legal equality and/or genuine equity under the law.’

    Does this mean equality of outcome?

    Secondly, if the government tomorrow were to pass legislation enabling all aspects of this manifesto, how much more power would be granted to bureaucrats, and how much more suffering would they inflict?

    Klar’s comment about reinventing the wheel is strikingly accurate – perhaps it’s time to abolish government’s stranglehold on human rights, since the more ‘rights’ it grants, the fewer we end up with.

  • Sasha

    Thank you Dean.

    I think this is a brilliant document. I agree with most all the comments in terms of amends and additions. I’d only add the following suggestions:

    1. I’d clarify ‘equality’ as ‘equal treatment’.

    2. Add that men should have equal access to all public health services, especially domestic violence services and primary care.

    3. Marriage, being today an unenforcable contract, with no penalty or sanction, should be disestablished from the state and have no special status under the law. Marriage should be a private matter between two (or more) individuals, their religious community (if they have one) and should not be registered, recognised, acknowledged, or restricted by the state on grounds of gender, race, sexuality or any other reason.

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Dean this is magnificent.

  • Near Earth Object

    A BIG thank you to all involved in producing this document.

    Four stars to Dean Esmay for putting it all together.

  • Tim Legere

    Excellent work Dean.

  • MGTOW-man

    If this site will start a fund specifically for the use of getting this incredibly important document into the hands of as many men and boys, I will donate towards that fund.

    I believe this document just might be the “explainer” of all; the one we need to break ground with other men who are curious but suspicious, ignorant but dangerously apathetic.

    But it will not do near as good if we do not get it out into the “world” in EVERY way we can. I have long thought about a way to get this information into the hands of most men and boys. Sure, not all will heed, join, or agree, but some will. And we need those some to speak the truth to more “some”. Time is running out,

    So how about it? Everybody want to donate for this if admin approves?

    Another suggestion is to let the fund grow until larger impacts can be ensured. Bulk efforts can make something like this more efficient and reach more overall.

    When ARE we going to really march? You know, down the street? Can these stated goals be met, (in which I soundly agree with most of them) without a live march…us foisting ourselves into the media—forcing them to cover our issues?

    About false accusations, I think “and money” should be inserted to read:” waste time and money” . Even though it is obvious already, money talks, so it should be used to reinforce.

  • donzaloog

    It’s perfect. Good job, Dean.

  • MGTOW-man

    Thank you for your thorough work. Your work examples what I like to see in men of our purpose. I support the document almost in its entirety. Let it be one that gets heralded as the great communication that it is!

    I dissent somewhat, (but can be pursuaded by the RIGHT argument(s) perhaps), from the stereotype issue. Realizing stereotypes can be harmful and work both ways, the truth about stereotypes relative to men and women are being substantiated by research.

    I recommend all those who read this to read this book: “Brain Sex: The real differences between men and women” by Anne Moir, Ph.d and David Jessel. As it turns out men and women did know women quite well when many of those steretypes were formed.

    Women helped write the stereotypes of women as well. Women know women, and men know women too.

    I believe that we can not as effectively oppose our adversaries if we do not understand them, why they act the way they do, what is driving them to make and tolerate misandry in all its forms (then deny its existence…and to be sure, many “normal” women would balk at the mere mention of misandry existing at all).

    Eventually, we are going to have to upset most women. They will be upset with us because they know we are finally fighting back for real. That, or because they will not understand…and feminists will deliberately interfere with their understanding. When this occurs, if we do not know women and use how they are “against” them then we will not be able to do more than we currently are. Thus, understanding them, educating them, and using such to promote our goals is critical for success.

    (It was a wonderful woman in my life that first breached this subject with me and who taught me the importance of understanding women and using it to fight against feminism. She was just being honest, even if it would help cause her to “lose”. I think we should use the words of this wise woman to our advantage).

    Personally, I will continue.

    I think exceptions to the no-stereotyping rule should be allowed. Including the practice as a means to deliver truthful information (or mostly truthful enough) is a powerful educational tool to help relate and teach men and boys stuff they practically know already (sure they do, but are too afraid to man-up and use it). They might just need this affirmation of other men finally publicly agreeing for them to sign over to the cause. Remember, there is strength in numbers.

    Everyone will not fit under the bell (…and don’t we all, men and women, know that already?… so let the processs work to educate, especially if it is the truth, often substantiated by commonsense as well).

    We can better believe, our opponents have used this powerful tool, perhaps because they want to win. I do not think we can win if we do not use all we have in our “arsenal”. (And of course, a true MHRA does not include violence in his or HER arsenal).

    Specifically, I think we should study the issue of feminist-minded women’s (including most normal women as well…APPARENTLY) over-emotionality, reality-perception-distortions…APPARENTLY, and how it relates to them making the malevolent, misandric decisions and laws we have forced onto us; how even seeminly loving and normal women side with feminism when “pushed”; and how many of them think things like hitting us men (only because we said something that hurt their feelings, or because they didn’t succeed at changing and controling us, or us allow them to punish us) is an “equalizer.”

    I just do not think we can win ultimately if we do not brave the strongest, most forbidden waters—actually understand women (and use it). We will never understand them if we are afraid of stereotyping them… in at least some limited very important ways.

    The area of reproduction equality: The current system of procreation is the only system we both sexes have. It is a geater loss of ones humanity, a stronger reduction in ones dignity for men to be shut out altogether (except for his payment, IF she lets the child live), than for a woman to have to share 50/50 or even 51/49, her favor. There is no other approach acceptable.

    I am not in favor of abortion as I beleive it is murder since a human, like all life forms, is created and comes into existence at the very time of conception. Abortion is one of the most selfish, heinous and violent things a person can do to another. A woman’s plans is not more important than the life of a child. The same goes for mens plans. Otherwise, as an equality-fostering alternative, I also believe men should be equally able to opt out of parenting altogether (at least men do not kill the baby with abortion, so that is still one-up on women who murder by abortion).

    “…without preferential treatment…”
    —Fat chance on this one, there is no way women will ever agree to this. By that, I am not limiting my words to feminists. I mean “women” for they are more alike than different. I once had a very respectable woman in my life say. “Sometimes, a man can say things that…allow her to slap him.” Such ridiculous and violent behavior is deeply embedded in the minds of most women and how they have a right to “equalize”, not only because they have been “taught” this by society and by men, but also by the way their brains irrationally perceive and distribute information. READ THE BOOK!

    SEE THERE?, there ARE threads of behaviors/beliefs that run consistently in most women (mostly enough) that will be our greatest obstacle in our fight. How are we ever going to stop this thought process if we do not let ourselves explore their minds and get to the nitty- gritty about the most important things?


    • strix

      I read Brain Sex a number of years ago. It was a good read.

      Stereotypes exist for a reason, i.e. have a basis in reality. Whether stereotypes are bad depends on what they’re being used for. Stereotypes that are descriptive and generalised across a demographic can aid understanding in the general case; stereotypes that are prescriptive or used to justify pre-judgement of an individual based on the characteristics of that individual’s demographic are bad. Discrimination is discrimination.

      Stereotypes describe trends, not the whole demographic. Even though based in reality, sometimes a stereotype can be so far divorced from the common case that it would be a great injustice to assume that the stereotype applies to all (or even many) members of the class.

      There are many stereotypes concerning men, for example, which nearly all of us would (and do) object to being unconditionally applied to all men. Feminists are responsible for propagating many of them.

      The reason why I think it is important to draw this distinction is that we cannot afford to do to women and feminists what they do to MRAs because we would lose the legitimacy of our argument.

      Regarding abortion, you are entitled to have and express your view (and I acknowledge that you didn’t at any point require anyone else to agree with you — for which I thank you). I worry about the needs and opportunities of the child, too.

      Since the subject arises, I agree that abortion is killing and also that, at least in a very narrow scope, abortion can be argued to be homicide. I don’t agree that it is murder, however (again, in the strictest, narrowest sense of the term).

      I also reject the notion that all human life has equal intrinsic value solely by virtue of a) being human and b) being alive. I say that capacity for personality (and therefore level of development) matters, as do the wishes of the person (as distinct from the ability to express that wish). Wishes of the individual have particular relevance to end-of-life care and the right to choose to die, especially in terminal cases.

      I can give examples and further argument to back up the foregoing if desired. I feel qualified to have an opinion on abortion because as one who is the product of an accidental pregnancy which the mother felt obliged to carry to term for religious reasons and who has resented the loss of her career ever since, I think it would have been better to terminate than grow up in an environment of mixed messages and not-entirely-successful suppression of resentment — even though that would mean that I would not be here to argue this case.

      If there’s one thing worse than dying against one’s will, it’s living against one’s will.

      • Fidelbogen

        “…we cannot afford to do to women and feminists what they do to MRAs because we would lose the legitimacy of our argument.”

        I would strongly beg to differ.

        I agree that one should not treat women in the manner you have described.

        But let’s not jumble “women-and-feminists” into the same string. Isn’t that a feminist-like procedure?

        I believe that feminists ought to get the identical treatment they have dished out to men.

        And yes, I admit that this is NOT FAIR.

        So what?

        “Not fair” is part of the treatment which feminism has dished out to the male population, hence, “not-fairness” is what all self-declared feminists must be compelled to endure, so that the message will effectively hit home and be burned into the cultural memory.

        But mark well: any self-declared feminist who does not fit the stereotype we so cruelly impose on ALL feminists, is free to escape the stern lash of our displeasure by a very simple action.

        And that is, to stand up publicly and say “I am not a feminist.”

        Simple, isn’t it?

        • Bewildered

          ” And that is, to stand up publicly and say “I am not a feminist.”

          Short and sweet and very effective.

      • MGTOW-man

        Hello Strix.

        “Brain Sex” IS a good read. It scientifically validates what we know already. The fact that feminists didn’t even want the truth-research performed, let alone published, proves that it is sound to use the book and stereotyping in our fight against the cancerous but unnatural, synthetic replacement scheme called feminism.

        When I say we should stereotype when appropriate, I mean when it is the truth. Who cares if a very few are not tucked neatly under the curve? It is better to scrutinize all women, even if we peg a few unfairly, than it is to let them all skate by the “gate”, thus fomenting what we have now under feminism. The proof is all around us. Don’t just take my word for it.
        I’d rather piss a few women off than to let happen what we have now. For the good women whom the shoe doesn’t fit: self-explanatory.

        On abortion, I still think it is a greater loss of dignity and a larger reduction in ones sense of humanity for the man to have no procreation power at all than it is for poor, poor pitiful women to have to share 50/50 or 51/49, whatever (boo hoo). It is women who think they should get away with murder who should grow up.

        Somebody down-voted me above. Was it you? No problem, because I put about as much stock in the up or down vote thing as I place in feminists starting to be nice to men and boys. However, it would be cool if the down-voter would speak up, you know, generate conversation and discussion, just as the author intended.

    • Theaverageman

      Ya…no don’t introject your own morality into this movement.

      • MGTOW-man

        Was it you who down-voted me above? If so, please read how I feel about it above.

        However, thanks for your input. …and I say this with no hard feelings at all. But I wasn’t interjecting my morality into anything…no more than any one of us here on this site does when they use their own experiences, education, opinions, and such to convey their thoughts on the subjects presented. People are free to disagree. I often disagree with many people, positions and behavior on this site.

        The important thing is to remember that not all of us are going to think alike—nor should we. But as I say often here, UNITED, WE STAND A CHANCE; DIVIDED, WE WILL BE ERASED. I mean, this site can surely be just fine without me, but as a whole, men had better unite and stay that way. And those of us who have already swallowed the red pill, no need to get resentful and start segregating ourselves. In that sense, we all count…that is, if they are MHRA’s.

        In this war against tyrannical selfishness, all things matter, and all things count. No stone should be left unturned. We should be doing all we can in every way we can—legally, that is.

        Thanks for the stimulation. Peace!

  • Kristina Hansen

    YAY! It’s finally up for all to see :) Great work Dean, and all those who contributed to it. I am in agreement with it all and hope that this is the beginning of a productive discussion for all in deciding which way the MRM (MHRM) should go in regards to our goals.

  • Jolly_Mcfats

    Thank you Dean and everyone who put this together- it is both coherent and comprehensive. I am in agreement with everything stated.

  • gastirad

    A wonderful political program
    But how such a mess could happen ?
    In my opinion, Feminism is but a tool for a bunch of nasty political tricksters to seize power almost indefinitely without any risks.
    The outgrowth of a democratic disease afflicting women as much as men.
    These fake democrats noticed, as soon as the nineteenth century, that women outlive men. If they could vote, they would produce strong majorities, if only you could divide their votes from those of men.
    That’s why they granted voting rights to women at the end of the First World War, at a time men were furious against their political leaders.
    And everytime citizens are fed up with those in power, you’ll get a new feminist move (domestic violence, rape culture …)
    We must cure that social disease. And women will help us !

  • Bastian Contrario

    fking great contribution. thank you.
    i have found things i don’t agree, but that’s the best document i’d like to start a discussion from.
    i hope you don’t belive in copyiright, cause i have the strong intention of making fair use of it 😉

    edit: btw, i love how you decided to title it, the men’s rights march 2013 internet statement, aknowledging how it may change in the future.

    i hope it will become a standing and updating document and we will remember it as: “the men’s rights internet statement [as it read on 11 march 2013]”

  • Flo604

    Solid statement :) it is good

  • Robert St. Estephe

    For comparison, here is a historical document, published in 1929 by Sigurd Hoeberth, founder of “Liga,” the world’s first formal organization founded to promote the rights of males:

    Dr. Hoeberth has 10 points which he is demanding for men before he will accept an armistice. They are:

    1. Divorced women, able to earn their own living, or those who have an income of their own, are not entitled to alimony,

    2. Alimony claims are valid only for marriages which last three years. The amount of alimony is to be based on the duration of the marriage.

    3. After the termination of a marriage the woman, loses the right to use the name of the husband.

    4. The legal limit in Austria for contesting the legitimate birth of a child, now three months, is to be abolished. The procedure shall be the same as in contested paternity.

    5. Blood tests and anthropological examination have to be considered as a judicial and legal method for determining paternity.

    6. Mothers are to be required to support illegitimate children according to their means.

    7. The father of an illegitimate child shall not only have obligations towards the child, but also is entitled to rights as to the child.

    8. Illegitimate children are required to support aged and invalid parents.

    9. The existence minimum cannot be derogated because of failure to pay alimony or contribute to support. The law by which a man can be thrown into prison for failure to pay alimony must be repealed.

    10. “Further,” says Dr. Hoeberth, “we are fighting all the monstrosities which have come from the emancipation of woman.”

    From: “The World’s First Men’s Rights Organization – 1926-1930”

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Do you not count the men’s unions (or guilds) that go back many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years into history? These often negotiated men’s working conditions, taxes, social responsibilities, and other male-specific obligations.

      • Robert St. Estephe

        No, I do not. This is not an effort to “count” up pertinent male issue documents. This a specialized category: Organization (formal) with an office, a regular publication, founded with a specific mandate to promote legal rights for males in opposition to laws and customs that were perceived by the founders as anti-male.

        Obviously, all the other pertinent, related and tangental historical facts are of value and interest, but the early history of formal men’s rights organizations, with a specific anti-misandry stated agenda is a category that needs to be understood on its own terms instead of merely letting this category to get lost in a more general narrative (one which is yet to be written).

        Many MRAs have told me that this history is not important to them because the organizations did not correct the problems forever. In other words: “Hoeberth and all the others (members of establish formal anti-misandry organizations) should be forgotten because they did not serve my personal selfish needs.”

        But, the fact that I am a historian means that I spend time on research and try to promote documented knowledge — for the use of all who know how to use it.

        Funny thing is, no other embattled activist group but the MRM would discount historical documentation of our own struggle the way we do: not Mormons, not feminists, not Black rights, not Jews, not Irish, not American Indian, not East Indian anti-colonialists, not marxists — just us. We are “special,” I guess.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    “This is not an effort to “count” up pertinent male issue documents.”

    You say you are not counting, but you definitely counted Liga as numerically “first”… “to promote the rights of males”. This is obviously a false statement on face value, as historical unions and guilds are far older organizations which promoted male-specific legal rights. And they were much more than “male issue documents”… they were formal organizations.

    However, your second post clarifies that you meant something different, ie. organisations with “a specific anti-misandry stated agenda is a category that needs to be understood on its own terms”. That certainly extends your first statement.

    So with that, yes its very interesting that Liga may be the first organisation (so far discovered in the period you are researching) that was specifically anti-misandry.

    I much appreciate the delving you’ve done into this more recent history of misandry, and with you I’m astonished at the lack of interest by MRAs in the historical background of the misandry trend. The material is profoundly important.

    The twin assumptions made by lazy historians is that misandry and gynocentrism appeared with the suffragettes merely 100 yrs ago, or even more recently with the advent of second and third wave feminism. OR alternatively other MRAs claim that these appeared millions of years ago as a result of biological programming – ie. that misandric gyncocentrism has been with us throught history. Both answers leave out, well, the entire cultural history between Homo habilis and Emmeline Pankhurst!

    The claim that studying history is “pointless” because organizations did not correct the problems is IMO a testament to laziness. It also leaves potential solutions to current day problems lying around like moonrocks waiting to be picked up…. ie. if we get a sense of how cultures developed these misandric ways then we have a picture of exactly how things need to be reversed.

    History ignored is history repeated.

    • externalangst

      IMHO the multifactorial aspects like history (culture), and the biophysical and evolutionary worlds it interacts with cannot be separated. Specialized study of each is good but the big picture requires how they interact.

      The MHRM should be prepared for a change from the current gender ideology of social constructivism to one that recognizes biology. Biological differences in the sexes can be recognized but gynocentrism still used to sustain their demands.

      The specialist researchers are invaluable for their contributions understanding where we have come from.

  • 98abaile

    I agree with all of it, but there is one more goal I would add: Prenuptial agreements should become mandatory and enforced under the law.

  • jhurricain

    It is really good to see. It seems that women in general are better at working together and pushing their agendas forward. We are going to have to get better at it, if we are going to accomplish justice for all men.

  • julie

    I just want to say a positive and so I commend you for continuing to try. I am on the fence with active men helping men and boys still wondering if men can get it and feminists still skeptic about men using women and that’s the only place I want to be.

    But, it would be nice seeing masculists/masculinists (males) and feminists (females) online giving each other nice words so the younger generation gain true knowledge. IMO, ignorance is the oppressor and there’s a lot of it offline so why not offer real history and present day rather than fantasy – online? (Just a refreshing thought)

    Anyways, keep up the good work and all the best in building something for future generations of men and boys. (if universities, governments, ect are holding you back, then continue to fight for some space, but don’t forget to utilise the space once you have it, IMO)

    I look forward to seeing the good you reap by your hard work in the fields you choose. :)

  • QueenofAllEvil

    I am a 1st time commenter here but as the mother of 3 sons, I would like to say that I like the statement. I disagree with some of it and I think it should be made stronger in a couple areas. There is one thing that was not mentioned but I wish was covered. The repeal of Statutory Rape laws. This is one of the most unfair and most devastating ways that angry parents can punish and RUIN young men forever for having made the mistake of having sex (consensual in most cases) with their little virgin flowers.

    Please consider going after that law…and I left you, Dean, my other suggestion on your blog.

  • Archi Desai

    I don’t read or post much in the ‘manosphere’ for a few years now.

    But I did read this (just the document – not the comments)

    So Dean, and the others, this is quite simply – well ‘ard. (A London colloquial)

  • Doug

    We believe strongly in men’s rights. We can be there if you need us

    • Paul Elam

      Hey Dougie,

      I removed the link to your business.

      Don’t you think it would at least be polite to introduce yourself and perhaps even join the discussion and offer something to say before plugging your bidness?

      I mean really, you could have even contacted the management through the admin and talked to us. We might have even helped you. But instead you have tried twice to post something totally off topic, solely to plug your wares. Bad form. And not the way to impress this audience.

  • Winstone

    I think that this good document should be put on a wiki-platform such that everybody can more conveniently discuss and improve it, with the goal of reaching a consensus document to be translated in main languages and kept on a dedicated web-site

  • JGteMolder

    The first three points are repeated, once with an asterisk in front of it, and once with a number.

    Also, I suggest adding “gender” with number 1.

  • griloch

    Excellent article! But please, please consider taking a second look at this section:


    Maybe put “some” before “feminists”? I think it’s important to recognize that women have issues too. The section does a good job of pointing out the harm of radical feminists, but doesn’t give enough acknowledgement to *true* feminists, who *are* interested in equality. Can we make “WRA” a thing or something? While the word “feminism” has become negatively charged, many people equate it with “women’s rights.” I feel like talking about it like this looks a little bad.

    Also, “even if women aren’t always comfortable with what they hear” left me absolutely mortified, and honestly just sounds snarky. It doesn’t help that it comes only a few paragraphs after wanting to end the gender war. Is this line really necessary?

    • JGteMolder

      >Maybe put “some” before “feminists”? I think it’s
      >important to recognize that women have issues too.

      What? Like some might have to start paying for their birth control themselves some of the time; like ALL men have to do ALL of time.

      Or maybe it’s that after the divorce they get only three quarters of the man’s paycheck instead of five sixth. Is that an issue women are facing?

      Or maybe it’s that only 62% of all students are women instead of 100%. Is that an issue perhaps?

      ‘Cause ehm, I don’t see any issues that aren’t women’s issues, just issues that exist due to reality that men have to deal with as well; and already get more money and work done on them that the equivalent for males.

      Please explain to me, what issues women that are equality minded would wish to have a government focus on, while men suffer systematic discrimination, imprisonment, demonization, victimization of violence, suicide, homelessness, having their finances and reputations seized. ->

      >The section does a good job of pointing out the harm
      >of radical feminists, but doesn’t give enough
      >acknowledgement to *true* feminists, who *are*
      >interested in equality.

      If any woman that genuinely cared about genuine equality looked around and faced reality, and then checked what feminism is doing, and continues doing, she would stop being a feminist on the spot.

      We can only assume that those women don’t actually care about equality; they merely pay lip service to it.

      Indeed, the only difference between radical feminists and feminists running the joint, is that radical feminists are too stupid or insane to realize that publicly spouting you want to murder 90% of all men would be counter productive to your goal.

      And the rest; well, they’re just along for the ride, only caring about “equality” when it benefits women; never men, in fact, with that average feminists in command is doing, it seems more that the blue-pill idiot feminists just like to say they care about equality but in reality don’t care enough to bother to open their eyes.

      >Can we make “WRA” a thing or something? While the
      >word “feminism” has become negatively charged,
      >many people equate it with “women’s rights.” I feel
      >like talking about it like this looks a little bad.

      What rights would a woman in the western world have to perform activism for that it is worth not performing activism on behalf of men’s rights?

      Last time I checked women have more rights then men, and whatever further rights they want to have, obviously pales in comparison to systematic discrimination, demonization, financial destruction, tearing away from children, homelessness, suicide, and victims of violence that men face.

      >Also, “even if women aren’t always comfortable with
      >what they hear” left me absolutely mortified, and
      >honestly just sounds snarky. It doesn’t help that it
      >comes only a few paragraphs after wanting to end
      >the gender war. Is this line really necessary?

      Oh, yes, it is; for that, just look upon the rest of my answer above. Because those blue-pill idiots that like the sound of saying they’re for equality, aren’t going to be comfortable with hearing, “Hey, men are people too; and they’re massively disadvantaged.” Because it ends their little honeymoon with, “I’m so oppressed, yay, give me all your money” then, all of a sudden, all that funding, is no longer something you deserved, but something that gives you massive advantages over the other, that feminists manipulated toward you using lies and fraud. The moment that comes up, the true test of their equality-mindedness comes into play. Whether or not they are willing to go through uncomfortability and face reality; or whether or not they will start shouting woman-hater, and misogyny because it is easier and doesn’t require them to look in the mirror and face what they see.

      • griloch

        Look, all I said was that women have issues too – not that men don’t. The fact that you immediately began enumerating men’s issues that we all already know in response to me is alarming – this is exactly the “us vs them” mentality that should be avoided in an article like this.

        This isn’t the place for this, really, I’m talking about issues like abortion, where a good chunk of the country is fighting against a woman’s right to her own body, talking about overturning Roe v. Wade.

        And I don’t think the student gender gap is necessarily indicative of oppression, much like the gender gap in STEM fields.

        You’re also missing my point about feminism. I reiterate: many people think “feminism” and “women’s rights” are synonymous. They aren’t, of course, but this article is meant for laymen to see, and they don’t necessarily know that. When it article calls out feminists, it needs to be pointed out that there are women who pursue their rights that don’t follow the radical feminist agenda. And they clearly exist – there’s no way that women aren’t disadvantaged in any way whatsoever and you know it.

        Yes, the radical feminist agenda is outrageous – but it’s absolutely vital to remember that they don’t represent modern women’s rights. The article itself says as much. It’s easy to shut them down and act like women have no case at all, but they’re basically caricatures.

        And regarding the last line, I’m not saying it’s not justified – all I’m saying is that it looks bad. It’s a cheap shot and doesn’t belong in an intelligent, balanced statement like this.

  • griloch

    Look, all I said was that women have issues too – not that men don’t. The fact that you immediately began enumerating men’s issues that we all already know in response to me is alarming – this is exactly the “us vs them” mentality that should be avoided in an article like this.

    This isn’t the place for this, really, I’m talking about issues like abortion, where a good chunk of the country is fighting against a woman’s right to her own body, talking about overturning Roe v. Wade.

    And I don’t think the student gender gap is necessarily indicative of oppression, much like the gender gap in STEM fields.

    You’re also missing my point about feminism. I reiterate: many people think “feminism” and “women’s rights” are synonymous. They aren’t, of course, but this article is meant for laymen to see, and they don’t necessarily know that. When it article calls out feminists, it needs to be pointed out that there are women who pursue their rights that don’t follow the radical feminist agenda. And they clearly exist – there’s no way that women aren’t disadvantaged in any way whatsoever and you know it.

    Yes, the radical feminist agenda is outrageous – but it’s absolutely vital to remember that they don’t represent modern women’s rights. The article itself says as much. It’s easy to shut them down and act like women have no case at all, but they’re basically caricatures.

    And regarding the last line, I’m not saying it’s not justified – all I’m saying is that it looks bad. It’s a cheap shot and doesn’t belong in an intelligent, balanced statement like this.

    • griloch

      Oops, replied to the wrong thing. And it’s giving me the option to delete for some reason. Hm.

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    Manteresting conversation @ Slate: Amanda Marcotte thinks men are AFRAID of Pinterest because of female “taint”. Men should just “man up” and enjoy cupcake recipes instead of starting their own sites.