Best products from r/MensRights

> To my knowledge reasons like this one don't exist for female circumcision.

Not true, or at least very debatable. Science has show us...

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these activities.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be ironic and educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

If the amputation of the mucus membranes of the male genitals results in a lowering of HIV infection; then it would not be unreasonable to assume that the amputation of the mucus membranes of the female genitals would produce the same effect. Indeed, as the total surface area of mucus membranes in females is so much greater than that of males, the effect may be even greater.

However, most western peoples will be repulsed by the idea of amputating parts of an infant female's genitals to obtain some future protection from a disease. All the more so, when nearly 100% protection can be obtain from HIV infection by use of condoms.

But this repulsion does not arise when the prospect of amputating parts of infant male genitals. This is clearly because such activity has become "normalised" in the west. This is the issue.

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

"Georgia State University, Public Health Theses" — a USA University of international renown:

The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years):

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables."

"DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. While a positive association was hypothesized, a surprising inverse association between cases of female circumcision and positive HIV serostatus was obtained, hence indicating that FGM may have protective properties against the transmission of HIV."

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf


"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

> females who have had their clitoris remove, cannot have a clitoral orgasm

> case closed

Nope. Case open again:

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these activities.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

If the amputation of the mucus membranes of the male genitals results in a lowering of HIV infection; then it would not be unreasonable to assume that the amputation of the mucus membranes of the female genitals would produce the same effect. Indeed, as the total surface area of mucus membranes in females is so much greater than that of males, the effect may be even greater.

However, most western peoples will be repulsed by the idea of amputating parts of an infant female's genitals to obtain some future protection from a disease. All the more so, when nearly 100% protection can be obtain from HIV infection by use of condoms.

But this repulsion does not arise when the prospect of amputating parts of infant male genitals. This is clearly because such activity has become "normalised" in the west. This is the issue.

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

"Georgia State University, Public Health Theses" — a USA University of international renown:

The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years):

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables."

"DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. While a positive association was hypothesized, a surprising inverse association between cases of female circumcision and positive HIV serostatus was obtained, hence indicating that FGM may have protective properties against the transmission of HIV."

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

Female Circumcision Does not Reduce Sexual Experiences

"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

To unequivocally debunk the feminist myth would take an entire book, which would require years to research. You're going to have to be very neutral and balanced and as fact-orientated as possible, which most mrm stuff imo falls short of. "Positive discrimination" and false accusations are what feminists WANT you to complain about - not that they're not valid complaints, but things like the gender empathy/victimhood gap, men's lives being valued less, maternal superiority, male moral inferiority etc. which fit into traditionalism and can be put forward as the other side of the coin are much better imo.

Janice Fiamengo's youtube series "The Fiamengo File" (Season 1, Season 2) is a much watch (she's also coincidentally an English proffessor). Her video : "what's wrong with women's studies" is also very good (this lecture was protested, had fire alarms pulled etc.).

Christina Hoff Sommers' channel "The Factual Feminist" is also very good. These videos (1, 2 by Karen Straughan are good, but her other stuff tends to be more sensationalist.

As for books, Warren Farrell's "The myth of male power" and Roy Baumeister's "Is there anything good about men" are essential reading. This paper (on sexual repression) also by Roy Baumeister is also extremely important.

This article touches on a lot about the childcare/domestic vs workplace spheres, also this one on maternal gatekeeping - which you could could add domestic gatekeeping in aswell - basically that a lot of women still see the traditionally female realm as "theirs" (despite wanting into the traditional male realm) and although they probably say they want equality, in reality they want a helpmate rather than a full equal, taking on a managerial/directorial role to which a lot of men might react to by dragging their heels (not that some guys aren't genuinely selfish) - things like fathers looking after their kids being described as "babysitting" tie into this. Of course guys in these situations have very little preparation for this because feminism has resulted in a situation where for decades egalitarian roles have been pushed with a positive encouraging message for women and girls and a negative shaming message for men and boys, as a gain in power for women and girls and a loss in power for men and boys. It has also resulted in tons of messages of traditionally "masculine" things being reconciled with positive/aspirational feminine social value, while the reverse has not been the case remotely near as much (I've only ever seen housework being portrayed as compatible with positive/aspirational masculine value once - in movie Don Jon).

I'd write you a second post about gender roles (and the context they need to be looked at within) throughout history and in the developing world, but there's a lot and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow morning!

Quite right they shouldn't.

Same goes for their father providing help with oil for the nazi army.

However, these days they are rising up fascism, nazis and KKK.


You can read more about where the alt right came from here

>Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?
The conventional answer is that a popular uprising against “big government” led to the ascendancy of a broad-based conservative movement. But as Jane Mayer shows in this powerful, meticulously reported history, a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views bankrolled a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the American political system.
The network has brought together some of the richest people on the planet. Their core beliefs—that taxes are a form of tyranny; that government oversight of business is an assault on freedom—are sincerely held. But these beliefs also advance their personal and corporate interests: Many of their companies have run afoul of federal pollution, worker safety, securities, and tax laws.
The chief figures in the network are Charles and David Koch, whose father made his fortune in part by building oil refineries in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. The patriarch later was a founding member of the John Birch Society, whose politics were so radical it believed Dwight Eisenhower was a communist. The brothers were schooled in a political philosophy that asserted the only role of government is to provide security and to enforce property rights.
When libertarian ideas proved decidedly unpopular with voters, the Koch brothers and their allies chose another path. If they pooled their vast resources, they could fund an interlocking array of organizations that could work in tandem to influence and ultimately control academic institutions, think tanks, the courts, statehouses, Congress, and, they hoped, the presidency. Richard Mellon Scaife, the mercurial heir to banking and oil fortunes, had the brilliant insight that most of their political activities could be written off as tax-deductible “philanthropy.”
These organizations were given innocuous names such as Americans for Prosperity. Funding sources were hidden whenever possible. This process reached its apotheosis with the allegedly populist Tea Party movement, abetted mightily by the Citizens United decision—a case conceived of by legal advocates funded by the network.
The political operatives the network employs are disciplined, smart, and at times ruthless. Mayer documents instances in which people affiliated with these groups hired private detectives to impugn whistle-blowers, journalists, and even government investigators. And their efforts have been remarkably successful. Libertarian views on taxes and regulation, once far outside the mainstream and still rejected by most Americans, are ascendant in the majority of state governments, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Meaningful environmental, labor, finance, and tax reforms have been stymied.

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597

> Do I just have terrible luck with women?

No. You make poor choices with women.

It's clear that you've ceded dominance to your female partners and they are calling all the shots sexually. This rarely works well. Very few women have any clue or ability to be a good dominant partner, because a good dominant partner is both a leader and a caregiver. He/she initiates and leads but is also caring and giving.

Most women don't get the caregiver part of a sexual relationship because they are too self-focused. They expect to be taken care of by a man, not to take care of a man. That's why these women don't appreciate your need to be warmed up and put in the mood and won't take any responsibility for getting you there. That's why they mock you instead of reassuring you when it comes to rejection.

You have two options:

• Find that rare woman who can be dominant AND caring sexually.
  
  
• Become more dominant yourself. Power is sexually stimulating for most women, and if you exhibit that personal power, you will have a much easier time getting your partner in the mood. Just make sure you balance the dominance with caring so as not be become domineering.
  
  Your odds are probably better with the latter option. I recommend this as a guide book to making that change.
  

Andrew, I would like you to please consider doing something. Please consider taking all this wonderful knowledge you have about this "14 times" myth and attempting to get it published in a major periodical.

I think your best bet is the shotgun-approach--sending the information to multiple people and hoping one or more will run with it. I think you should consider sending your information to all of the following (it´s just copy/pasting after the first one):

• Christina Hoff Sommers. She´s a brilliant writer who eats feminist myths for breakfast. She publishes with several popular media sources including The Atlantic and Time magazine. Both her and her assistant´s emails are on the page (to the right of her photo). I would email both.
  
  
• Barbara Kay. Not afraid to criticize feminists. Writes about a variety of issues. Publishes in the National Post.
  
  
• Dr. Helen Smith. Her contact email is: askdrhelen@hotmail.com Dr. Smith is very sympathetic to men and boys. She normally publishes at Pajamas Media.
  
  
• Send a letter to the editor in to the Toronto Star (the newspaper you linked to here). The email address is: lettertoed@thestar.ca Your letter probably won´t get published, but it just might. It shouldn´t take long, mostly just copy/pasting what you´ve already done.
  
  Well, I would like to thank you for your excellent post and I hope you´ll consider what I´ve proposed. Keep up the good work.

>I think what I'm saying is that even if the man has to pay a lot of money in child support, isn't he still getting the better end of the deal?

It is not about paying money. It is about having the most important thing in your life taken away from you and given to someone else. It is about having restrictions on seeing or being involved in your children's lives. It is about having a monthly tax, a daddy tax if you will, that if you do not pay your credit is ruined, your driver's license will be taken away, any business license revoked, any hunting license revoked, any other government issued license or certification revoked, liens put on your bank accounts and all personal property, and you will be jailed until you pay. And the amount of this monthly tax is determined by a lot of people who have a vested interest in getting you to pay as much as possible. This tax will most likely be way more than you are able to pay and have a life. So, no, for most men, even the ones who would prefer option #2 (which there are not many that I know of), it is by far not the better end of the deal.

Since you do not have children it is hard to grasp how special they are to parents. I know because I did not realize until after I had a child how much they mean. But let me try and put it into somewhat better perspective. Imagine you had a car that you loved more than anything. Imagine the government taking your car and giving it to someone else. They tell you that you can only drive this car every other weekend. The person who owns the car now can paint it any color they want, put any rims on it they want, do anything to it that they want and there is nothing that you can do about it. Oh, and the government expects you to pay the payments on the car. And not just the payments that you would normally have made but three times the normal payment amounts. And plus you have to pay for the insurance and all maintenance. And whoever has your car can let anyone they want drive the car and do whatever they want to it as well. If you do not agree to these terms or you cannot pay three times the amount of the payments, you go to jail until you do.


>Also, regarding reproductive rights, is it not yet possible for a father or a father-to-be to contractually sign away parental obligations--including child support?

No. Every father is required to pay for their children. Period. There is no getting out of it. Even if you are not the biological father you will have to pay child support if the courts say so. Even if you sign an agreement with your ex, the family courts will overrule it and assign what they want for child support. There is absolutely no way to not pay child support.

The family court system in America, and most developed nations, is predatory and perverse. They use children and the excuse of protecting them as a way to extort money from parents and control them. None of it is fair or just and "the best interest of the child" is only a term that is used to screw parents out of their rights. Read Taken Into Custody by Dr Stephen Baskerville to get a better grasp of the system.

I'm glad you are interested in gender issues and want men's issues to get the focus it needs. I'm happy you want harmony and peace between movments. I suggest you pick up Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement by John Lewis. This will help you learn a great deal how movments work.

Your at the lip of the rabbit hole and I'm sorry I have to burst your bubble. After you read this do you honestly think we should work with feminists and the feminist movment? IMHO we need our own movment for now.

Men do not "get paid" more, they choose to EARN more on a playing field that is tilted toward women. Yes, men are more than 17 times more likely to die at work. They constitute a similar percentage of workplace accidents that do not result in death. Yet they take far fewer sick days, make fewer insurance claims, including worker's compensation, and so on (relative to events), meaning women receive a disproportionate share of employer-funded healthcare (government healthcare also, but that's another story), while doing considerably less than a proportional share of the work. Consider the research done at the University of Washington in the Department of Vocational Rehab. If a worker takes paid time off for "carpal tunnel syndrome" there is an overwhelming and statistically significant prediction you can make about the worker: It's a woman. All of those paid days off are funded primarily by men, and enjoyed primarily by women. If perquisites are distributed in this way, one must consider that if women's cash earnings are 2% more per hour, their total compensation, including perks, is much more.

Add to that the fact that women take fewer entrepreneurial risks. While they control more capital than men, they like bonds, not starting new businesses. Of course this moves the average earnings of men up relative to women, but does not indicate they are victims of discrimination. In fact, it could be said to indicate that they take an equal or greater share of the benefits of living in a country where men increase the GDP, pay taxes that provide good schools, safe air travel, and medical research, but they are unwilling to contribute equally in sacrifice and risk.

See this landmark books for a deep investigation of why men don't merely receive more in wages and salaries, but why men EARN more in wages and salaries: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1310457878&sr=8-5. Then teach your children the meaning of equality.

>...someone who denies the value of etymology so as not to admit to the misandry and dishonsty (sic) inherent in the feminist redefinition of "patriarchy".

And here we go again...

>Patriarchy is not meant (or at the very least, isn't meant by all feminists) to encompass all social forms which produce inequality, rather it is to describe those forms that produce the dominance of men over women. That is to say, becuase patriarchy describes those things that make men privileged over women, it does not presuppose blame or that all oppression takes this form. It is a description of the a current order of things, not a prescription of blame. The question of blame is independent of the description of the current order....

You are incorrect to suggest that there is something inherent about the usage of the term patriarchy, especially within the diverse and broad field of feminist thought and scholarship.

>...In the introduction to Feminist Theory Reader: Local and global perspectives, McCann and Kim (2010) give a good explanation of the state of feminist theory and the purpose of learning such theory:

>>[G]iven that women live in so many different social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances, there can be no one theory of gender subordination or a best strategy for change. Nor has the development of feminist theory been linear or unidirectional. No final answers have emerged.... As Judith Butler has noted elsewhere, "gender identities emerge, ... shift, and very so that different identifications come into play depending upon the availability of legitimating cultural norms and opportunities" (1990, 331). Yet much useful knowledge is generated trough recurring debates and difficult dialogues about what feminism is and can be; about how to do feminist theory; about which theories adequately explain women's status in different social groups and historical locations; and about which theories offer the best strategies for changing gender relations. We believe, taken together, the essays [in this reader] effectively represent the multivocal feminist theory of this historical movement, as well as the multiple and shifting sites of feminist identities. We hope the resonance and discord among the multiple voices and perspectives in this collection of of essays will push readers to examine their own assumptions, the explanatory power and limits of these theories, and the relationships between feminist theories and practice. We end the anthology with readings that point to the new direction of feminist theory that have emerged from previous strands of conversation and debate between postmodern and standpoint theorists and between queer and feminist theorists.

>I think that this both provides a glimpse at the wide field of feminist thought, and why your narrative of a "mainstream" feminist movement or theory is mistaken. The totality of the the collective meaning of ideas like "patriarchy," oppression, and gender is lost when you present them in with a "straw" and shallow understanding. There is great differences among different feminist theorists and activist as to what form patriarchy takes, and how it comes about.

>In fact, I highly suggest you consider reading McCann and Kim's reader, it has a many feminist essays and writings, and does a great job of showing the different kinds of feminism and elucidates some of the disagreements and conflicts present within the wider discussions and debates among feminists. I own the 2nd edition, and it looks like a used copies are only about $8.

BeeTeaDubz: For as much effort as I put into a number of my comments in this subreddit, it is highly presumptuous of your to assume that I am arguing in bad faith when I clearly do the work of citing my sources and explaining my meaning. In fact, it is in very bad faith that you assume that I am arguing in bad faith when I have already done work clearing up the meaning of the term patriarchy when I (and a number of other feminists) choose to use the term. I am more then willing to debate the merits of individual uses and applications of terms within various bodies of feminist thought, which is something very important if one wishes to understand what these terms means. But I am not willing to let you (or anyone else) put words in my mouth.

To answer your question, I would strongly recommend safety razors which use double-edge (DE) blades. I too don't shave much and this was by far the best option for me economically and environmentally. I also transitioned away from Gillette on principle. What a disgusting ad! And what a delight to see the company suffer an $8-billion loss. Karma bitches!

Going back on topic, I started out with a cheap plastic beginner razor made by Feather. It is $20.99 at Amazon AU at the moment so it won't cost you an arm and a leg.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Feather-Double-Shaving-Stainless-Popular/dp/B003YJ70NY/

It comes with Feather 2 blades. Just make sure you watch YouTube videos and read about wet shaving for beginners. Join r/WickedEdge for some good advice. Make sure you give yourself plenty of time when you start out and don't rush. It's totally different to 'normal' cartridge shaving and it's infinitely better. Good luck mate!

I am on chapter 4 of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. It is amazing how this novel from 1957 is coming true.

How can a state government require that a female be on every publicly traded board of Public Company! Is this America land of the free??? This has to be unconstitutional.

I have nothing against women, I would be just as concerned if it was "every board has to have a Italian, or Canadian on the board. This is government over stepping itself into the private sector. Yes we need laws to protect the environment or making sure people are not hurt on the job. To just say you need one women just because she is female?

​

Link to the book

https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

​

Sorry I have to add to my rant.

I think the crab fishing industry is under represented by women also, So lets make a law that 20% of all crab fishing boats crews need to be female. Also the LGTB is under represented on public boards and crab fishing boats so we need to have one LGTB person on each crab boat and publicly traded board??

As I stated above, Laws for environment, health and safety of employees should be in place. This is pure 100% social engineering.

​

Someone put it here beautifully, iirc it was something like equality for women and nothing less, equality for men and nothing more.

I think it goes back way to the very start,

>Cultivate the frontal portion of her brain as much as that of man is cultivated, and she will stand his equal at least. Even now, where her mind has been called out at all, her intellect is as bright, as capacious, and as powerful as his.

• Ernestine Rose
  
  Most of them do recognize that this isn't true in the physical attributes of strength and athleticism(and the overcompensation with regards to mental aptitude seems to be related to this inferiority), however you'd still hear of some deluded ones talking of ultramarathons and then there are some who go the whole hog.
  
  >Can women be equal to men as long as men are physically stronger? And are men, in fact, stronger?
  These are key questions that Colette Dowling, author of the bestselling The Cinderella Complex, raises in her provocative new book. The myth of female frailty, with its roots in nineteenth-century medicine and misogyny, has had a damaging effect on women's health, social status, and physical safety. It is Dowling's controversial thesis that women succumb to societal pressures to appear weak in order to seem more "feminine."
  
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Frailty-Myth-Redefining-Potential/dp/0375758151

Again, I disagree. Feminism was never truly founded on noble principles. All the same bad ideas we're fighting against now were present from the very beginning.

A good place to start learning about the true history of the feminist movement is reading about the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. That's more or less where feminism got its "official" start. Of particular interest is the [Declaration of Sentiments] (http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html) presented at same.

To be fair, there are some reasonable points there, particularly the one about women being seen as essentially morally blameless, but the oppression narrative it's trying to weave rings rather hollow when one considers the socioeconomic status of the attendees (hint: they weren't poor), and most of the items listed are couched in terminology painting men as big meanies who simply want to keep all the goodies for themselves^1 . Never mind the fact men were the ones held legally, financially and socially responsible when things went tits up.

Another good historical source is [The Fraud of Feminism] (https://smile.amazon.com/Fraud-Feminism-E-Belfort-Bax/dp/1533387095/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496102290&sr=1-3&keywords=E.+Belfort+Bax) by E. Belfort Bax, first published in 1908, in which he authors many of the same criticisms of the then-fledgling movement as are commonly voiced over a century later. Of additional note is [The Legal Subjection of Men] (https://smile.amazon.com/Legal-Subjection-Men-Perfect-Library/dp/1515039730/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1515039730&pd_rd_r=DQJPTVT7Y0SYSTHPXFA9&pd_rd_w=3bgPe&pd_rd_wg=Vcfzw&psc=1&refRID=DQJPTVT7Y0SYSTHPXFA9), which was published the same year and seems to have been a response to J.S. Mill's The Subjection of Women published roughly 40 years prior.

All of which doesn't even touch on the ugliness to be found in many of the "founders'" personal views regarding race and ethnicity, to say nothing of the rather cozy relationship between the suffragettes^2 and the Ku Klux Klan. Granted, said views were generally fairly common for their time, but hey, if social justice activists want to tear down monuments to significant historical figures who owned slaves or held what are now seen as regressive views... "What's sauce for the goose" and all that.

I'd also recommend watching [Karen Straughan's] (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg) early videos on YouTube, where she covers much of what I've mentioned above in greater depth.

Point being, the principles behind feminism at its inception and those espoused by the ideology's modern contemporaries are so similar as to be virtually identical. It was never really "about equality." There was always an unspoken asterisk affixed to the word denoting the retention of women's social privileges and eschewing the shouldering of men's responsibilities.

Feminism has always been an ideological shell game. The only difference between then and now is more people today are willing to point it out.

---
^1 "As a teacher of theology, medicine or law, [woman] is not known." Nary a word about more women in coal mines or on sailing ships. I'm shocked.

^2 Not to be confused with the suffragists, who, despite the best efforts of feminists over the intervening century to conflate the two, were not at all the same group. The suffragists wanted the vote for more or less everyone. The suffragettes wanted the vote for wealthy white (Protestant) women only.

https://www.academia.edu/38034640/The_Privileged_Sex_-_Create_Space_Independent_-_Martin_van_Creveld

"The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld is a great read about men's issues.

EDIT: I haven't personally read this one, but a lot of people seem to say "Is There Anything Good About Men" by Roy Baumeister is a good book on the topic as well. https://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

That would be a great idea. The /r/mensrights sidebar has a few suggestions. I would definitely add Uneasy Males to that list, it's a historical look at the American men's movement up through 2000. It's an interesting overview of the growth of the men's movement and some of their early work. It's not exclusively about MRAs, it also covers others in the men's movement like the mythopoetic men's movement and the pro-feminist men's movement.

A great book to read concerning the family courts is "Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville. He is widely regarded as an authority on the toppic.

https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943

Aslo, you may want to reach out to these guys. They are a great resource.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org

Good luch and knock em dead. I love it when students come here.

>A woman told me that the fields females pick to work in are paid less BECAUSE women dominate those fields.

I'd love to see her proof for this claim, because there is plenty to the contrary. I'll share with you the same sources I post when I see topics regarding the wage gap:

___
Studies

An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity
in Wages Between Men and Women
Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience Diminish
The Gender Pay Gap - Have Women Gone As Far As They Can?

Articles

NCPA - The Wage Gap Myth
Forbes - It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth
AEI - A Quick Fix For The Gender Wage Gap
CBS News - The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Trigger Alert Blog - The Almighty Wage Gap - A Comprehensive Analysis
Market Watch - The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth
AEI - The Gender Wage Gap Myth
Huffington Post - The Wage Gap Myth Exposed - By Feminists
Freakonomics - Goldin and Katz on the Male-Female Wage Gap
Real Clear Markets - [White House, Women's Wages, Myths] (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/03/03/white_house_womens_wages_myths_98895.html)

Videos

Straight Talk About The Wage Gap [3:00]
Do Women Earn Less Than Men? [4:00]
John Stossel - The Gender Pay Gap [10:36]
Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap [1:16:11]
The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth [2:21]
Thomas Sowell - Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth? [3:30]
The Gender Wage Gap Uses Bogus Statistics [4:45]
The Pay Inequality Myth: Women are More Equal Than You Think [2:37]

Audio

The Myth of the Male/Female Wage Gap by Thomas J. DiLorenzo [7:49]

Books

Warren Farrell - Why Men Earn More

Why yes, it looks like you're right:

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Cassie-Jaye/dp/B06XGY67WQ/

N.B. This means any Amazon Prime subscriber can watch it for free.

Mods, this announcement might be worth making a sticky.

> In "The Frailty Myth," Colette Dowling presents a compelling and well-researched analysis of why and how American girls are socialized to be "weak." Dowling examines the myths about the "weaker sex," tracing this myth as a source of the oppression of women handed down to us from Victorian times.

> She convincingly explains why men fear strong women: In part, she says, it's because strength is perhaps the only area in which our culture does not say that men and women are equal. Thus, as male-only professions and traits are rapidly disappearing from public discourse, strength is masculinity's last hope.

Source: The Frailty Myth: Redefining the Physical Potential of Women and Girls by Colette Dowling.

Here is a great essay on where gender roles come from, how the males ones are constricting, and why female roles were relaxed first:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

And here is a book where the author expanded on the original essay:
http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X

Wow, I'm floored. That woman came across better than any MRA I know. She's articulate, knows the issues, and isn't hateful. Does anyone know if her book is this good?

Please consider paying to see this movie to support Cassie Jaye.

I think Vimeo has it available in most countries

It's on Amazon as well

Also check itunes and Google play for your country.

http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/do-women-earn-less-men

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2a1f8ad4-f649-4ad3-a742-268d946962db

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2084582,00.html

I'm sure I don't have to link you any information on child support law and enforcement, because that would be like linking to a source that provides evidence that water is wet.

> One thing that won't be mentioned in that book: women do not need to continually prove that they are women because their status as a woman cannot be stripped-away very easily and it simply isn't demanded of them.

Summa Genderratica

> A female needs to undergo a process of biological maturation in order to perform the feminine contribution to society, however this process is essentially automatic and is basically assumed to occur over time, with mensturation serving as a clear biological indicator of fitness to perform the task.

> With males, things are more tenuous. Proficiency or even ability to perform the male function, let alone perform it well, is not biologically guaranteed. Additionally, there is no single clear “he’s ready” indicator delivered by male biology.

> Whilst females “grow into” being women, males do not automatically grow into being “real men.” A young female just becomes a woman automatically, due to the innate properties of her biology. Her mensturation evidences her maturation. Her womanhood simply is. She is assumed to be gender-compliant and thus socially contributive by default.

> A young male has to demonstrate, through action, the ability to perform masculine tasks successfully. A young male must prove he has “grown up” and become a “real man.” Males are not assumed to be gender-compliant (and thus socially contributive) by default; by himself he is just another mouth to be fed by the work of “real men.” A man must validate his manhood by action, otherwise he is not a real man but rather a “boy” (i.e. immature, not-an-adult male).

> A gender-compliant person of either sex is seen as valuable to society (since they are acting in ways which conform to survivability-oriented norms). However, females are assumed to either be (or will be) gender-compliant; naturally infertile women are the exception rather than the rule and thus the assumption is that any given female is (or will be) capable of bearing children due to their biology.
As such, females are ascribed an innate value simply for being female. Females are seen as inherently cherishable because they are the incubators of the future.

> Males lack this. Their gender-compliance is not seen as an inevitable feature of their biological maturation but rather an ideal to live up to. Males neither are nor will become “real men” by default. As such, they have no innate value. The value of a man is exclusively contingent on the consequences of his agency and by himself, he is ultimately disposable.

Roy Baumeister - Is there anything good about being a man?

> In one episode [of The Apprentice], two members of one team were shown arguing about a difficult aspect of the upcoming task. Somebody had to take on the responsibility for doing what could be an unpromising chore that was needed for the team but carried some risk and unpleasantness. The argument became heated, as each person thought the other should do it. The woman goaded the man with the phrase “C’mon, be a man!”

> Indignant, he shot back, “You be a woman!” Immediately and almost shouting, she replied “I am a woman!” and went on to say more things. The man sat there in silence, unable to think of what else to say.

> We can understand his confusion. He did not know why he had abruptly lost that argument. She had said something to him, and he had said essentially the same thing back to her, but his reply had somehow failed utterly. He probably thought that in this age of gender equality and fair treatment for all and so forth, “Be a man” and “Be a woman” would be equal, parallel things to say. Yet they weren’t. She was a woman already, and she knew it, and he did too, and she did not have to prove it. But once his manhood was questioned, he would have to do more to prove it than simply say “I am a man!” in a loud voice.

Are you negging or do you want to see the movie?

Seattle is home to several large corporations whose primary workforce is made up of males. A lot of them made a tremendous amount of money only to lose it to their ex-wives. I know a dozen men personally who worked 80 hour weeks, were worth millions in stock-options, and saw it all disappear down the divorce rabbit hole. Seattle is ripe for an education.

I already preordered the DVD on Amazon but I would love to see it sooner and with a group.

Buy a ticket

EDIT: redact snark - insert rational assertion to rebut the knee-jerk assumption that Seattle is only dope smoking feminist hippies.

Back in 2013, I remember hearing that argument about a film maker ...... So nice that those throwing about personalised conjecture as fact have been proved so wrong!

Do look it up, it's called "The Red Pill" by Cassie Jaye - and I've been told that the global distributor is Damascene Conversions Inc.

Global Release 07 March 2017.

If you missed the opportunity to back the film and get rewards including a copy of the film, you can always pre-order the DVD $19.99 or BluRay $24.99 on Amazon. P¬))

If you want a good start, here are some links explaining stuff

http://www.cultural-misandry.com/mens-rights/

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/product-reviews/1594036756/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

A personal favorite: http://imgur.com/gallery/OutZX

Pretty easily. Ernest Belfort Bax was was of the earlier MRAs we know about.

I agree that The Myth of Male Power is basically the MRM bible - read it first. However, my favorite book - by far - is Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men. Also, if you have a young boy I suggest Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men for it's medical advice.

This is a hilariously common delusion among feminists. The idea that women are on average physically weaker then men because of "patriarchy". And that if only we lived in a perfectly feminist utopic (read: sexless) society, all sexual dimorphic traits would vanish and women would be competing in the exact same powerlifting classes as men. No...seriously, that's what they actually think.

Here's a feminist anthropology PhD on here regurgitating this hilarious nonsense. And an actual book (written by a psychiatrist feminist) basically expressing the view that the only reason men "seem" more physically powerful than women is because teh menz are keeping them weak.

I guess once you decide to take a trip down the deranged rabbit hole of academic feminism, pretty soon no measure absurd research cherry-picking and perversion of reality in the form of wildly deluded "feminist theory" is out of bounds.

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

It seems very unbelievable to hear about it, but the testing beared it out.

It's sourced in this book, by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister.

http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X/

Note that while the book may largely be about evolutionary psychology and the like, DNA analysis results are not subjective in any way.

The fact is that you're just woefully uninformed. It positively oozes out of your comments. You would have to spend a few months just educating yourself on the issues, reading a few books, watching a few videos, poring over a few blogs, to get a grasp of what this is all about.

Honestly, trying to educate you in the comments of this self-post would be like teaching calculus to someone who doesn't know basic arithmetic. You just have to educate yourself.

I can give you some resources to start, but I can't make you read.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943/

http://www.amazon.com/Until-Proven-Innocent-Correctness-Injustices/dp/0312369123/

http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

I found the book if you're still interested.

https://www.amazon.com/Uneasy-Males-American-Movement-1970-2000/dp/0595373208

>Statement: Women earn a fraction of what men do.

>Source: http://gao.gov/new.items/d0435.pdf

response:

___


You completely rephrased your statement from before.

Your original statement was this:

>women being paid less than men to perform the same jobs,

this is what I refuted, with this challenge:

>If you offer me a solid reference proving that women are being paid more than 10% less FOR IDENTICAL JOBS, WITH THE SAME TIME IN JOB, AND THE SAME NUMBER OF SICK DAYS, I promise I will look at it.

>But you won't.

And you didn't. The GAO report does not show that women in the same jobs, with the same time in job, and the same number of hour worked, are paid less. It explicitly states in bold letters on the first page of the report that work patterns partially explain the difference between mens' and women's earnings.

I determined this by reading the first page of the report, where it said, "Work Patterns
Partially Explain
Difference between
Men’s and Women’s
Earnings "

You have failed here to meet my challenge.

However, by eliminating the challenges:

1. women are being paid more than 10% less
   
   
2. FOR IDENTICAL JOBS,
   
   
3. WITH THE SAME TIME IN JOB,
   
   
4. THE SAME NUMBER OF SICK DAYS,
   
   
   you created your own challenge and met it.
   
   Here's a book for you:
   http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109
   
   Even the AAUW cites a differing amount if time at work and time in job as significant factors in the wage gap:
   
   http://www.aauw.org/research/behindPayGap.cfm
   
   THis looks at the AAUW study closer, and finds flaws in
   http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/09/pay-gap-persists-women-still-make-less.html
   
   This report by CONSAID, included this statement from in the a forward. this statement was from the US Department of Labor:
   
   > However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to
   advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap.
   
   
   http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
   
   (CONSAID did the research, US Dept. of Labor provided the forward.)
   
   and look at this:
   
   >"At any given level of the career hierarchy, women are paid slightly more than men with the same background, have slightly less income uncertainty and are promoted as quickly," it concludes. "We concluded that the gender pay gap and differences in job rank in this most lucrative occupation is explained by females leaving the market at higher rates than males."
   
   Quoting a Carnegie Mellon University study.
   http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2009/09/pay-gap-persists-women-still-make-less.html
   
   

Here. It really is a "must read" essay.

There's a book out as well now.

You could either have preordered it, spend a few hundred, or wait until March 7th. It is available for preorder on amazon now.

> What can my boyfriend's dad do?

Nothing. It's getting to the point that whenever onerous child support judgement like this happen, the only valid recourse will be going expat. If you don't, you risk ending up in the dad's situation: broke, destitute, and at best at risk of going to debtor's prison, or at worst homeless and thinking about suicide. Fuck. Everything. About that.

Don't get me wrong, there's stuff he can do to help such as the things other posters have mentioned, but the honest truth is that he's at risk of going to jail for a very long time over this. Personally if I had been sold into slavery like he was I'd be looking to escape somehow. If that means fleeing the country then so be it.

If you want to learn about why this was all allowed to take place, read the book Taken Into Custody. I've found there's no better book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943

About 80% of women who ever lived but only about 40% of men who ever lived have a living descendant today. From this book.

Stumbled upon this while reviewing old HN bookmarks. It seems Roy F. Baumeister wrote a book on the subject since then.

Some previous discussions on Hacker News:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634955

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767867

Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More.

A thorough review from an ex-NOW member who realized that if women really made $0.70 for every $1 men made, any company which didn't hire only women would be driven out of the market due to overhead...

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594036756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372047172&sr=8-1&keywords=men+on+strike

It's all stuff that a regular reader of MensRights will know, it just happens to be this one radio journalist and the author of Men on Strike chatting about it.

A link to Helen Smith's book.

You can't afford $14.73 ?

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Marc-Angelucci/dp/B01LTI1PCI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1495482464&sr=8-2&keywords=the+red+pill

BUY / RENT / STREAM ‘THE RED PILL’ ON THESE DIGITAL PLATFORMS:

• Rent / Buy on Amazon US
  
• Rent / Buy on Amazon UK
  
• Rent / Buy on Hulu
  
• Rent / Buy on Vimeo
  
• Rent / Buy on Google play
  
• Rent / Buy on YouTube
  
• Rent / Buy on Microsoft Xbox
  
• Rent / Buy on Fandango Now
  
• Rent / Buy on iTunes US
  
• Rent / Buy on iTunes CANADA
  
• Rent / Buy on iTunes UK
  
• Rent / Buy on iTunes Ireland
  
• Rent / Buy on iTunes Middle East
  
  More details at http://theredpillmovie.com/screenings/buy-rent-stream/
  

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B06XGY67WQ/ref=acr_dpinstantvideo_text?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&showViewpoints=1

There is a much longer book in which the author (Roy Baumeister) covers these topics more in-depth.

Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men

Other good reads which are related include The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley, and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

In case somebody comes in and has no clue, here's the link I guess http://www.amazon.com/Taken-into-Custody-Fatherhood-Marriage/dp/1581825943

Agreed — and here's the evidence:

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed scientific studies, cultural research reports, and personal testimonials, that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised.

Female Circumcision & Sexual Response

The truth about the female clitoris

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

”Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised” — The Atlantic Magazine

“An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure”:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

”Fuambai Ahmadu explains how female circumcision is empowering and culturally enriching, and why she chose to get circumcised” — BBC Interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6UfEaZHBE

”Fuambai says circumcision is an essential part of her culture and she doesn't feel mutilated” — Insight Interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbxVctxoMU

"3,000 Afrian Maasai women protest in favour of FGM and against the government banning it" — Note how the men are ordered to keep quiet!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9hRH6fCo

”Circumcised Women Fight Back”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-KC75YUBY

"FGM: Maasai women speak out" — The activists leading this (anti-FGM) movement have failed to understand the cultures behind the practice, and their ignorance is dangerous. Legislation, particularly the criminalization of FGM, and other external pressures that do not take local culture into account can have deadly consequences:

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/fgm-maasai-women-speak-out

”Seven things to know about female genital surgeries in Africa” — By the public policy advisory network on female genital surgeries in Africa. Western media coverage of female genital modifications in Africa has been hyperbolic and one-sided, presenting them uniformly as mutilation and ignoring the cultural complexities that underlie these practices:

https://www.sfog.se/media/295486/omskarelse_rapport.pdf

"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" — African Women Confront American Medicine:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi [Unscientific opinion — no different to the sort of stuff spouted by western Doctors about the wonderful "benefits" of male circumcision]:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

The 4% of amazon people who gave it one star have hilarious attempts at dissuading people from seeing this film.
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Blu-ray-Documentary-Cast/product-reviews/B01LTI0BKA/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1
Here's a highlight: ''I was expecting a serious treatment of some fringe groups, but instead this movie is a long propaganda film for a very, very sad and twisted group of "Mens Rights Advocates" including a guy who writes about smashing womens' faces into a wall or similar. I skimmed through the last half or so once I realized the film was never going anywhere other than propaganda, but I saw no serious discussion of the absolutely horrendous comments by these "mens rights" people about rape and violence toward women.'' LOL!
''I skimmed through......but I saw no serious discussion''