(Part 2) Best products from r/MensRights

You seem like a bro so I will tell you the secret to marriage mishaps. I do not bother telling this to non-bros, so use this information wisely, because most men will never have it, and even fewer will use it (to their own detriment):


Marriages fail because people don't know enough about emotion. I have been with a number of married women, and I witnessed my own parent's marriage fall apart when I was young. Relationships all come down to knowing how to give people specific emotional experiences. People who are successful don't say, "I am going to give this person this emotional experience." If they are happy (some couples aren't but stay together anyway, usually for religious reasons) it is natural for them in their relationship to do so.


Let me give you an example:


Sending flowers. Doing that in and of itself means nothing. If you send flowers too often, or don't put any thought into when you send them, people will not care. Also, you have to send them in such a way that the person will not be annoyed. Let's say your wife works long hours and is a cashier at Walmart; getting flowers at work might actually be annoying for her. For one thing, she'd have to be called away from her job to receive the flowers, then she'd have no where to put them. But let's say she works in an office; if she was having a rough time for some reason and she got a bunch of flowers there, not only would she feel happy about the flowers, she would feel even better than usual because all of her office buddies would be like "Awwwww! I wish I got flowers!" so it would make what you do seem even more special.


Some people would know that intuitively, and those people would be successful without ever trying to give a specific emotional experience. But actually knowing the function behind it gives you an advantage, and I think happy people have guessed something similar to that. It's likely their parents taught them, through the kids observing how their parents treat each other.


So how does that apply to you?


You didn't know this so it's not your fault, no one tells you this stuff, but she was getting emotional experiences from fake people in books, because she wasn't getting them from you. She would have rather had them from you, but didn't get them. BUT that doesn't mean it's all your fault. Maybe she didn't know how to give consistent, positive emotional experiences either. And chances are you both had a bit of communication problems (something else no one teaches you but that successful people pick up from their parents). When you think about it, how are two people going to work out when A) they don't think about their partner's emotional experience and how to change it from negative to positive, and B) they aren't amazing communicators. I think it's important to realize that if one person in a relationship is a good communicator, then both people will soon be good communicators. Good communicators give other people the tools they need to communicate effectively; that's why when you talk to someone who seems like a brilliant speaker, you always have a lot to say back to them. But at the same time, if you talk to someone who doesn't communicate well, it's a dance to see who acknowledges how awkward the conversation becomes first and then you just go along your way and try to forget the conversation. If you want to be a great communicator, I would highly recommend this book:


http://www.amazon.com/Getting-More-Negotiate-Succeed-Work/dp/0307716902/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394690301&sr=8-1&keywords=getting+more


It is a book on negotiation, but it covers everything from emotional subjectivity (emotional payments) to learning how to change people's perspectives, and a lot of other stuff (and teaches to negotiate, which is great for your personal and business life). The book is brilliant, but is it one of those books you can't just read, you HAVE to apply it, and the books mentions that itself.


Creating emotion also applies to sex; your ex didn’t want a mystery guy from a romance novel; she wanted a feeling. Once you recognize how she wants to feel (loved, dominated, excited, happy, embarrassed, unique, or maybe a combination of excited and dominated, etc etc) there are a zillion ways to make her feel that way, so you can choose one that doesn’t make you feel like you’re a tool. For example, I am not a huge fan of candles and rose petals, but I am a great cook and don’t mind setting up a fancy as fuuuck dinner, so I don’t mind using that to take a girl’s mind off of work, get her attention onto me, and then get her into the kind of mood I want her in (excited, sexy, etc etc).

So while the previous marriage may have been a loss, at least you've got something to come away with. This is a bit heartless sounding, like "Really? Create an 'emotional experience'? Isn't that manipulation? Sounds like some bullshit." Well, people manipulate each other whether they realize it or not. It is not a question of if, it is a question of successful implementation; that is, are either of you getting what you actually want? You don't have to know about creating emotional experiences to put someone in a bad or good mood; it happens anyway and you can and do have something to do with it. Denying it is just denying responsibility and losing out on a MAJOR opportunity. Are you giving the person you want to be with what they need? Are they giving you what you need? etc etc.


Sorry for the long post, hope it had something helpful in there. I hate talking about this but it is why I talk about it at all. I had always dated but I was usually more concerned with sex. I didn't really think about the mechanics of what works and why, I just knew how it worked because I've literally read hundreds of women's sexual fantasies. The kind of things women like to hear, etc etc. I was normal about the actual relationship. Took people for granted, wasn't rude or anything just didn't go out of my way, and that lead to negative feelings and arguments later, and arguments are never good for anyone. Well the ex I was talking about I really cared about but, like the other people I just got too comfortable. I wasn't really thinking about how she actually felt, just kinda trucking along and seeing each other when possible. We started bickering a bit and what have you and I was like "sigh," like being with her wasn't even neutral anymore it was becoming kind of negative, but she was also crying a lot which I tried to comfort her then because I hate seeing people crying, but when it came to day-to-day life I just did the same old shit. I really do not like thinking about it now but looking back I feel like the biggest piece of shit on the planet. I would always say the normal shit to myself like "I'm not DOING anything!!! What does she want!?" but the problem was, I didn't ACTUALLY care because I didn't actually look and try to find what she was really after. It was more a rhetorical question to vent frustration. Everyone wants the same thing, you don't have to ask. They want to feel happy, but I was too busy being self-righteous. it is hard to even type this now, i don't want to go into detail but now my ex has scars on her wrist. We were basically separated but not "officially separated" when it happened, and the thing is, I was still too stupid to figure it out, I was more like "why?" well it is fucking obvious, she was miserable, but again there I was just fucking things up more, trying to make her feel better (too late for that from me at that point, and i didn't even really know how to do it in that situation because I never thought about it and hadn't figured shit out yet), and asking the "whys" and the "hows" and guh. My mom and friend said the usual "it's not your fault, she had to have had some serious trouble" that kinda shit. And all of that is true; it wasn't actually my fault, I never abused her, I was just in a normal relationship. but there is also someone I was with who has scars on her wrist now, like there is a person alive out there who maybe (I don't know, but I will always wonder "if") I could have done something for. She was never a raging psycho, just a mostly really nice, quiet girl who I started to have verbal bouts with because she stopped relating to and understanding each other. That was what I THOUGHT, and even looking back at it, that is why it bothers me. She was so normal and I never saw it coming. So the excuse it, "well, if she had shown any signs, I could have helped her." But there WAS NO SIGNS and now she's got those permanent reminders, and to her it is probably like "what did I do?" but to me it's "what COULD I have done?" Like, looking back (and forward) now, I think you gotta be fuckin transcendent; normal isn't okay for me anymore. I am pretty sure this "if" is gonna stay with me til I die, and it's not because I DID something, it's I because DIDN'T, and I'll never know if I could have now.


Anyway I am gonna go drink til I pass out now, good luck in your future endeavors.

why "a" students work for "c" students and why "b" students work for the government

the "a (grade)" students become academics and the "c" students become the wealthy donors. i would go as far to say that being a social animal is more advantageous than being an intellectual one. you can't be dumb as rocks, but you certainly don't have to spend so much time reading books in order to be successful.

most students are being fooled into believing that they'll be happy doing what they love, and that they should pursue their passions, i.e., do what you love and the money will follow. obviously this is very effective marketing for the "social justice" departments at universities -- people actually end up thinking that their degree in social work, art history, english literature, chinese studies, journalism, women's studies, etc. will bring them success.

the reality is contrary to what these college marketers want you to believe: if you want to make money, you have to follow the money; the money won't follow your passion. even natural science majors (math, biology, chemistry, etc.) do not make much money doing research in their respective fields because that's not where the money is.

most people do not go to college to learn, they go to college to demonstrate to future employers that they are capable of being productive. those who go to college to truly learn the subject will be those "a" students and continue their life in academia. colleges are very resistant to lawmakers' proposals that they outline new metrics (graduation rate, employment rate after graduation, wages after graduation) for prospective students so that the students can make better decisions based on these new metrics. most of the university officials know that if they did advertise such metrics, the only type of students in higher education would be doctors and engineers.

if art and music is what inspires you and you like reading about chinese culture, do it in your free time, i.e., don't expect your passion to turn into a well-paying career.

In 2013, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg urged women to “lean in” to their power and break through that pesky glass ceiling. Predictably — and correctly — feminists argued that “leaning in” not only left male-dominated corporate culture intact but also depended on underpaid female domestic workers to clean and care for children. Both Sandberg’s book and the critiques of it left actual men out of the analysis, as if leaning in (and sorting out the limits of this proposed solution) was yet more women’s work.

I’m reminded of that omission as we head into the Democratic primary season. More women are seeking the party’s presidential nomination than ever before. And yet a few white men sit at the top of the polls and rake in big fundraising hauls. As candidates such as Sens. Kamala D. Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar lean in, maybe it’s time for some of their male competitors to find ways to lean out.

Early media coverage of the campaign demonstrates why merely leaning in can’t dismantle the double standards and deep structural misogyny women face. Studies by FiveThirtyEight and my colleagues at Northeastern University found both fewer “media mentions” of female candidates and also more negative coverage than of their male counterparts. Meanwhile, Beto O’Rourke apparently merits multiple profiles, an HBO documentary about his failed Senate run and an Annie Leibovitz photo shoot in Vanity Fair — while Pete Buttigieg got a literally glowing New York magazine cover profile.

The candidates themselves do not demonstrate much more awareness of these dynamics. O’Rourke acknowledged having “privileges that others could not depend on or take for granted,” and then, well, continued to make the case for his candidacy. I suppose he deserves a tip of the hat, if only by comparison to Bernie Sanders, who, when asked if Americans really need another white man as president, replied: “Well, I think you need this one.”

A real reckoning with privilege goes beyond acknowledgment and into action. Given the unbroken record of male presidents and what we know about the double standards under which female candidates run — including obsessive attention to their voices, their bodies, their clothes — it is worth asking what steps male candidates of good faith can take to even the playing field.

First, they could do more than give the notion of privilege a cursory nod.

They could refuse to give interviews to news organizations that have practiced gender discrimination in their coverage of the campaigns and say “no thanks” to the magazine covers that curiously feature only them. They could call out the disproportionate attention they receive, as well as the presumption that they are more electable by virtue of their gender, and instead point out the fact that the women running have already won multiple races, written many books, and have deep executive and policy experience — claims that could not be universally made of their male counterparts.

Male candidates should definitely stop offering a patronizing nod to women through the “offer” of a vice presidential spot on the ticket just so they keep on benefiting from the massive affirmative action plan that is male privilege. Naming Stacey Abrams his running mate wouldn’t actually fix Joe Biden’s problems with women — especially if, as Abrams said, that’s not actually a role she wants. Telling women we can play second fiddle is not proof of a commitment to equality.

Of course, some candidates don’t even offer women that much power. Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts has as his main credential an unsuccessful effort to topple Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House.

The really radical thing for a male candidate to do in 2020 would be to step down and step away, realizing that real gender equity is achieved only when men actively refuse the benefits they receive simply for being born male.

Gender and racial equity are not zero-sum games: Everyone is a winner when we have a more diverse and representative government. But we can’t achieve that vision without men taking responsibility for the inordinate space they take up in the media and the candidate field.

There’s only one president and only so many seats in Congress or on corporate boards or as chief executives or union bosses. If we want to get even a rough version of parity, men will need to take less, have less, make less and, in so doing, recognize that the more they always got was at the expense of those who got less, courtesy of sexism.

Women are leaning in like mad, leading the resistance, voting in higher numbers and signing up to be candidates for office. But men have a responsibility — if they really do want a more gender-equitable world — to lean out, work actively to disavow their privilege and pitch in to get a woman elected president.

There are several highly qualified female candidates running for president. Every single man currently running or thinking of running should drop out and support one of these women. Now that would be real leadership.

It goes without saying that when doing any form of activism to have at least one person recording all the time.

I am a hardware and software developer and extreme enthusiast, so my experience with ABR is very different from most peoples. My code is compiling, so I'll post at length because society may find some of my extreme ABR examples far more normal in the near future.

My phone hard-case has a belt-clip, that allows me to be recording from waist level without obviously holding it. It also has a stand. A blue-tooth headset can work for discrete audio recording, but the batteries don't last long enough for me.

I consider my home an extension of my lab, and do research in cybernetics and new forms of audiovisual user interfaces. I have several ongoing machine learning projects involving object & voice recognition, A/V IO processing, activity pattern discovery, etc. So, there are web cams and microphones and speakers in every room of the house (except bathroom). In the dining, kitchen, den, bedroom I have Kinects which supply detailed audio, infrared, 3D, and RGB (normal) feeds. I also have a few cameras for recording the exterior perimeter. These all continuously feed into my machine learning systems.

This is a prototype setup for a smarter smart home I'm developing -- I already can not imagine living without my digital assistant, and think these will allow ABR to become the norm for most everyone in the future:

> "aEye, where are my damn keys?"

> KEYS last identified in KITCHEN by SOUND.

You know you want one...

> "aEye, what was that?!"

> PERSON identified in ENTRYWAY by SIGHT. UNKNOWN SOUND in LIVING ROOM. MAIL DELIVERY most likely by TIME.

> "I'll check the mail later. aEye, tell me if you see anything. I'm taking a nap."

> NOTIFICATION set for MOTION.

(trigger words emboldened)

Everyone that visits wants me to built one for them... It's kind of silly how easy this is to make though if you know how to code up some cybernetic networks and A/V processing. The adventurous could use FANN, Jack, OpenCV, Freenect, and Festival to take care of the bulk with open source software. Unfortunately, most open source voice recognition sucks, but doing pattern recognition on frequency domains isn't rocket science.

There are several gigabytes of data per second being streamed into my machine learning system, but it only uses a ~24 hour sample cache (customizable size). Many off the shelf home surveillance systems allow for longer caches. In my case this is enough data to extend over several days because once a feed is processed the AI only keeps high entropy sample signals (ones that require further processing) -- A form of delta encoding compression. This means if no one is in the den anymore (or they have frozen and gone quiet), nothing more is being saved of that feed. It's similar to motion activated recording, except it works on visual, audio or changes in 3D depth map -- Moving slowly can not fool it as one can a motion sensor as it does not compare samples at a fixed interval: It will always compare "now" to its last known "active" sample, so the delta will become large enough eventually and trigger recording no matter how slow you creep.

I can usually pull up anything that happened around the house from the past few days or sometimes a week, and that's plenty, IMO.

Google has a product called "Google Now" which, I think my systems are FAR superior to since they do not send any of my data off to some 3rd party corporation's servers -- I wouldn't trust feeding all that personal stuff into an AI that was working for someone else... However, if you use Google Now, they'll ABR your location data which could come in handy if ever charged with a crime you weren't physically present to commit.

I also have a personal custom web-spider and link recommendation engine similar to how StumbleUpon or Google Now does, and its interest identifying AI is fed all webpages as I visit them through my customized unified threat management system (based on Sophos UTM).

Since my spider crawls so much stuff that I never see when it's looking for things it thinks I might like, I'm usually banned from Google services as a "virus" unless I fill out a bunch of "captchas". This is both good and bad because Google doesn't know fuck-all about what I really like, but it means I can't rely on their logs to prove I was at home browsing the web. If accused of a crime when you were browsing, subpoena your ISP, reddit, the search engine data, or youtwitfacetrest, whatever has been recorded.

One can get wireless IP webcams for a home security setup for far cheaper than scattering computers and cable trays around the house. One could use a security gateway appliance in-line to cache your web traffic and thus extend ABR to your digital life too. I recommend people use an offline email viewer, like Thunderbird, for email and download their email from the web servers, in case you are forbidden connection online, or it disappears, your attorney can access your home copy to help you out. Be sure to select the [o] Leave a copy on the server option so you'll have a backup if your hardware is confiscated at the airport or border (or within 100 miles of them -- the 'constitution free' zone).

I'm streaming about 10 GB/month of AV from my phone to my home AI / security system, and that's mostly delta compressed. With just audio and an app with a good compression ratio you can probably get away with much less. It helps to carry more batteries. I have several rechargeable portable power bricks in case the juice gets low on my tablet / phone.

I inform people that everything is recorded before they enter my home, and if they do not consent to my doing so that they do not have permission to enter or remain on my property. I also inform them that if they use my WIFI I will have a copy of whatever data traverses my networks. In addition enabling your router's logs (preferably remote syslog) you can use Wireshark in promiscuous mode to ABR your network data.

Most people who know me don't care that I'm recording. About half of the people who initially balk at being recorded are OK with it when I explain that I don't keep things indefinitely by default, and unless something bad goes down I won't be keeping a permanent record. I say, "It's about personal safety, if you think I'm a creep then you shouldn't be in my home."

Check your local laws, in some states it is required to notify both parties that they are being recorded. It may also be illegal to record the police in action -- bogusly deemed 'obstruction of justice' or some such. It may also be illegal to record celebrities without their permission, as in some countries they use copyright of their likeness to fight the paparazzi (as if it stops them). Your workplace may also prohibit recording, typically for "trade secret" purposes. Remember to document everything at work if this is the case.

I have experimented with building a few cheap laser microphones to mic my garage from the house via its windows (can also work as a tripwire). Ultimately I found that some unfiltered omni-directional USB mics and a PC connected via WIFI range extender/bridge worked better for recording of outbuildings.

I let friends and neighbors know if I'll be recording while I'm visiting. It may not be illegal not to say anything, but it's best not to piss off the people who know where you sleep. Be warned that using my Wifi means I could pwn your device. I don't do such things, just beware that if you do use public WIFI or someone's hotspot even once, then someone else could ABR you. Due to the slow nature of cellphone OS updates, they are trivially compromised by any willing script-kiddie. When in doubt, use your own data connection / tether.

Also note: A Ferret Cannon can ABR anyone, anywhere, so install a soundproof Faraday cage if you want a place to NBR. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you... Seriously, I just love making and playing with electronics and robotics and such and I've got machines to teach about people. I have excuses, I don't recommend going this overboard into ABREE (Always Be Recording Everything, Everywhere). Stay safe, and try not to make the NSA jealous.

Nah, but these are the types of guys feminism will create out of 90% of men. You've got a wave of feminists who require 'trigger warnings' for things like saying the word 'rape', ffs.

Go to SRS and see the amount of apologetics for liking cis white 'brodudes' given to women. 'Your vagina will like what it likes!' will be seen in every direction.

Feminist ideology for men relies on prostration and 'privilege checking'. When you have a dogma that elicits this type of garbage to much fanfare:
http://www.amazon.com/Guyland-Perilous-World-Where-Become/dp/0060831359

The men who follow feminism are going to feel--and often be required--to show how 'not like those other guys' they are, to always get 'enthusiastic consent' verbally "just in case" even though it turns almost all women off, to quell confidence and confident behaviour for fear it's too 'aggressive', and to limit his sexuality and feel shameful for having one due to ostenisible patriarchal mores.

I've got a question:

why do you think that almost every feminist guy, at best, looks like this?

http://www.buzzinetv.com/sites/all/libraries/kcfinder/upload/images/Jamie_Kilstein_080211_350-1.jpg

Why do you think most of the women on the side of the feminist dogma at FtB/A+/Skepchick look like this:

http://radiofreethinker.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/img_0152.jpg

Doesn't this start to warrant actual thought and discovery when the pattern is so prevalent?

That is a repost or Churnalism derived from Daily Mail (A UK based news paper with a readership bases of >50% female and was started with women in mind, often equated with the same practices as fox news.) which is a repost or Churnalism from 72Point (News, PR and Survey Specialists, in other words marketing firm), they did a survey on behalf on NPower (a central heating company) for a cash back incentive. The "study" was of 2000 customers, no details are given about how many customers were male/female, no ages or any other demographic information can be found, and as far as I can tell the "study" has not been made public.Your link at least does not claim that Emily Stag is a researcher, in fact when quoting her, it does not point her name out at all. Daily Mail claims she is a researcher, the original very short Press Release that was given by 72Point simply lists her as "Emily Stagg, from npower hometeam 50".
She is however according to her Linkedin the Campaign Planning Manager(which means marketing) for NPower.

I have no idea as the validity of all the sources listed above by ENTP, but the
>80% of wealth is spent by women

Is a rounded down number from the figure 88% coming from the following book.

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women

Written by the late Bernice Kanner Her Amazon books

TLDR: Your link Is nothing but a marketing ploy by Emily Stagg to get her company some national news time, I've never read or heard of Bernice Kanner, thats the source of the 80% number, but the book is their to check for source info.

My god... Is krosen going to ... buy a book?

Support the free market?

http://www.amazon.com/Tampa-Alissa-Nutting/dp/0062280546

or for childs play charity (like they do at /r/GameDeals)

http://www.amazon.com/Tampa-Alissa-Nutting/dp/0062280546?tag=childsplaycha-20

Point her to articles written by Cathy Young.

Cathy Young's articles are always well researched and exceedingly balanced acknowledging the positives and negatives.

Here are some recent ones:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/31/who-hurting-men-rights-movement/HmoV7KuZdAMk9q8HSICglO/story.html
http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/women-against-feminism-blog-misses-the-mark-cathy-young-1.8909937

Her book Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality is available used for $.01 at Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Ceasefire-Women-Forces-Achieve-Equality/dp/0684834421

>So according to you there is no difference between men playing around with their friends, and corporations exploiting men by depicting them as idiots at our expense to sell products to women.

Oh look, a straw man.

I said, to the observer. And it's true. If you can manipulate the observer's opinion, you create the opinion. This is psych 201 and sales 101.

And let's look for a moment at your distinction without difference, shall we. Assuming the man cares what his audience thinks, then he is in fact exploiting men (himself) by depicting himself as an idiot at his expense to sell humor to other men in return for friendship.


>Anyhow, the woman is making the statement that she can dress how she wants, and its not inviting sexual assault, and reclaiming the word slut, she isn't a company commodifying, commercializing and selling products with her sexuality.

Disingenuous assertions.

Women dress in sexual attire to attract a mate. They know this. They do so at the risk of inviting unwanted sexual attraction. Women know that women call each other sluts, as a sexual strategy/competitive strategy.

Further, anyone with half an understanding of politics, ideology, and economics (and honestly, reality) understands that there is always a commodity, always a product. Entertainment isn't a product - fun is an emotional state. But entertainers sell it. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to suggest that simply because she's not producing a physical thing, nor actually produced the idea, that she's not selling it.



In this case she's selling Feminism.

>There isn't actually anything wrong with us having a grasp of the things we are taking about, beyond that of the casual observer.

If only you had that grasp. If you'd like it, start here

Okay! So I have done some digging. And apparently, it takes a lot more digging than I realized. My local library has almost no progressive feminist books and actually no masculinist works. I was disappointed.

However, I was able to find a few books by snooping online that I believe fit the bill of "remotely not pitting masculinism and feminism against each other." I am not positing that they are things that you would necessarily like if you read; I haven't even read them myself. But they appear to be a step in the right direction.

• Men and Feminism by Shira Tarrant. She also wrote Men Speak Out, which looks like it would be an interesting read.
  
• The Gender Knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy by Allan Johnson. I don't know much about this work except from a summary found here:
  
  >A powerful approach to gender inequality that empowers both men and women to be part of the solution instead of just part of the problem. We are all living with an oppressive gender legacy called patriarchy. (...) He explains what it's got to go with each of us and reveals how both men and women can see themselves as part of the process of change toward something better (not matriarchy). (...)
  
  
• Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality by Cathy Young.
  
  Hopefully that's enough to answer your question. I'm sorry that I didn't find more; they are hard to find, and I have trouble sifting through things.

Yes, though some of it is better than others:

1. On the fine-touch sensitivity of the foreskin
   
   
2. On the sexual responsiveness of the frenulum
   
   The role of the frenulum in sexual pleasure is not established in any study as far as I know but it is noted on the above book by noted sexologists, it is an assertion based on popular understanding, as any intact man would say and it is often mentioned for in this context in media from non-circumcising cultures.

/u/yoshi_win, your list and earlier reference posts are excellent; I didn't intend to be hypercritical. Here are further references for your "reliable" category:

• Straus: Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
  
  
• Straus-Steinmetz-Gelles: Book Behind Closed Doors, one of the earliest works finding significant husband battering (>50%)
  
  
• Van Creveld: The Privileged Sex, a professional historian's work showing the privileges (more than compensating for disadvantages) which women have had from the dawn of history
  
  
• Kathleen Parker: Save the Males, a journalist's exposition of the case for helping men
  

Norah Vincent's book Self Made Man is high up on my reading list. In an interview, she said that she "ran smack up against the different between male and female sexuality ... Female is mental. It's up here [in the brain]." At 11:18, Norah "was surprised that many women had no interest in a soft, vulnerable man". "My prejudice", she said, "was that the ideal man was a woman in a man's body, and I learned 'no, that's really not it'. There are a lot of women out there who really want a manly man."

>Ultimately, Ned told most of his [female] dates that he was Norah. Many of the women reacted angrily, but usually just for a little while. Some women wanted to continue the relationship. [Heterosexual women] remained interested in pursuing something further. That's what I'm saying: [the difference] is all up here [in the brain] because they said "we connected, and there's something. I really like you, and I don't care." How many guys would do that? That's the different between male and female sexuality right there.

>The end result of closing the wage gap is women spending more time working in corporations and spending more on consumer goods and the average couple spending more time at work than in the past - just to make ends meet.

This is also Elizabeth Warren's viewpoint, in fact she has a book on the subject, and essentially believes that having both parents in a family working is a huge problem. She thinks it's causing a drop in the quality of life across western civilization, and has been doing so since the 1970s. There's a long and plain spoken lecture on it. It's very statistics heavy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

As for "Cultural Marxism"; I find it interesting that The Frankfurt School were vehemently against propaganda and indoctrination - having seen the rise of Nazi propaganda in their home country - are targetted and blamed for that exact same thing. They called it "The Culture Industry" and believed it was used against the interests of the masses. To quote Adorno:

>"The Culture Industry not so much adapts to the reactions of its customers as it counterfeits them." -Adorno

>"this bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man’s lives. The idea of “fully exploiting” available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger." -Adorno, Enlightenment as Mass Deception.

...and yet they're blamed for creating this industry that they were so against! The targetting of this conspiracy theory seems to be on purpose. The creators of this theory have blamed the only group of western intellectuals who had studied the problem in detail. Effectively obscuring what The Frankfurt School were on about.

Luckily now, thanks to the internet - we make our own cultures.

Anyways - I agree with most of what you've written! Congratulations on coming through the thickets and seeing another side!

File a Title IX complaint with the school's title IX office and with the federal government. Instructions here:

http://knowyourix.org/title-ix/how-to-file-a-title-ix-complaint/

Chances are high that the school and OCR will choose not to act on it, but it's important that boys & young men to leave a paper trail documenting discriminatory behavior. Remember, when it comes to the government, if it isn't documented on paper, it basically never happened.

This is a good book for background information on boys in education:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1501125427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449440710&sr=8-1&keywords=war+against+boys

A good advocacy organization is Boys & Men in Education:

http://boysmeneducation.com/

... they may know of good resources / tactics for your son.

Your son could also organize a men's rights student organization on campus. Most campuses are in dire need of that sort of advocacy.

In many cases that is accurate, especially in education. Men are having a crisis where we are falling far behind in schooling in all almost all subjects and in getting degrees. The system is set to favor women and not men. It's such a big problem that is literally affecting the economy. Men are being affected primarily in America, but also around the world.

Yet Australia, New Zealand, and England, among other places, all see it as a problem and are actively promoting ways to help men rise to the status of women (boy only schools that encourage things like rough housing, tag, etc, as an example) while America is doing the opposite. There are major lobbying efforts by women organizations to go against men and stop such policies here. It's literally a war against boys

The education system is failing our boys and young men. Because it is primarily run by women, the education system is tilted to benefit typical female learning abilities, while chastising the boys' way of learning. We can see the results of such a system today. Boys are significantly more prone to drop out of high school and college. The female population in most universities is much higher than that of males. Here's the kicker: a lot of universities have programs and departments that are set up to help women go to college and stay in college--but these opportunities do not exist for men.

This book outlines perfectly well the problem and it proposes a few solutions. However, these solutions cannot come into place, unless we as a society get to work together to change the system.
http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Adrift-Epidemic-Unmotivated-Underachieving/dp/0465072100

To those switching just get off the disposables. I bought this guy years ago for $25 and all i have to do is buy disposable blades (Like $10 for 100), that’ll last me about a year and a half if not longer. And it’s a way better shave IMO than the disposable stuff. Better for the environment too

Apologies if this is less clear I am tired and was about to go to bed when you asked.

One of the reasons everyone started switching to have a dual income is to have more money to spend and so they could enjoy a better lifestyle unfortunately due to everyone doing it that is not how things work out instead things are actually more expensive like housing and we actually have less security.

Housing costs go up because people are more able to pay more and those making money off this love it. Plus it allows people to pay to live in a better school district. A increase in test scores one year can add up to 10% value to your house in a single year.
The lack of security in the past if the main bread winner lost his job mother would take a part time job while he looked for a new one. Now if one partner loses their job or if medical problems arise so that one partner cannot work you are in more trouble because you have only one person working when you are stuck in a dual income nation you are pretty much screwed. You have no fallback option when one person is unable to work.

This dual income system sounded great, two people working means twice as much money right? Well not so much instead you are forced to spend it and now you have less security. Even in our parents generation it was a bad idea when it was rare for someone to get laid off when statistically now it will happen at least twice in our generations lifetime for each person than double that because two people working.

If you are interested in learning more I highly suggest reading the book: The two-income trap: Why middle class Americans are going broke by Elizabeth Warren.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents/dp/0465090907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347253401&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dual+income+trap

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.

Social Justice Warriors Always Lie: Taking Down The Thought Police by Vox Day <== A really important work

Propaganda by Edward Bernays

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

SJW attack survival guide drawing on the work of Vox Day

How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable: Getting Your Point Across with the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense

Google "verbal self defense" and a lot will pop up, if you are talking about 1-on-1 and small group contexts.
Google "influence" or "persuasion" or "propaganda" or "social change" if you are talking about large groups or society as a whole.

Yeah, supporting thatcher and trump is pretty bad form for anyone.

Mikes a little misguided on thatchers saving of britain too, details are in this book.


http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-about-Capitalism/dp/0141047976

Screw Gillette.

Ditch the disposable razors altogether. Buy yourself a double edge safety razor for $26, one time, and never look back.

The Blades cut so clean, you’ll never want for multi-blade again. You’ll save so much money in the long run as they cost pennies compared to disposable head razors.

If you need technique advice, head on over to r/wickededge.

I really enjoyed this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143038702

For more fun I found out where people could get this book for themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/William-R.-Wishard/e/B001KMI2Y8

http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Rights-A-Handbook-80s/dp/0896660125

http://www.findbookprices.de/isbn/9780896660120

http://www.isbns.gl/isbn/9780896660120

Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.

Me a feminist? No way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]

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

How Feminism conned society

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

Benevolent sexism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo

The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

Feminism and the Disposable Male.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

-----

A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:

Women power in the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

---------

Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xmm3p/i_cant_believe_people_think_we_dont_need_a_mens/

------

Good reading:

The Myth of Male Power

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM

The Privileged Sex

http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00EX5PJC2/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403378&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=privilged+sex

No More Sex War

http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/1856191915/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403395&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=no+more+sex+war

The Second Sexism

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403501&sr=1-1&keywords=second+sexism

The War Against Boys

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403440&sr=1-1&keywords=war+against+boys

Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women

by Bernice Kanner

McGraw-Hill; 1 edition (April 9, 2004)

From the back cover:

>Women control 88 percent of all purchases.

>Women handle 75 percent of family finances.

>43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.

>One out of every 11 women in America owns a business.

>Women influence two out of every three of the 3 trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year!

TIL that author Bernice Kanner is a "scumbag MRA who makes generalizations about women".

Women Can’t hear what men don’t say , by Dr Warren Farrell

(https://www.amazon.com/Women-Cant-Hear-What-Dont-ebook/dp/B00U1IJFJI)

link to amazon

Well rounded book that takes on victim/competitive feminism

Here is the mobile version of your link

Two words, "Norah Vincent".

These are people whose rights are protected under our shield. If they are, were, or will be identifying as men they need to be taken care of. For transmen in particular it can be a shock to learn about the burdens of expected male gender roles in western society.

From what I know there's a certain brand of radical feminism that demonizes the trans community (some crap about transwomen trying to steal victimhood from women and transmen betraying their sisters by trying to claim male privilege).

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

Either way it sounds like it has as many downsides as upsides to be listed as a privilege. I wont get judged as much for being a sexual being..true
The clothes I wear wont matter one iota...true
No one gives a flying shit about me... also true

> It was the first time in my life I've ever been, for the most part, ignored. And it was great

You say this from the context of it being a choice. You may have a different perspective if this social alienation was not a choice. This woman author tried presenting as a man for a year and had to be checked into a mental hospital afterwards. She absolutely hated the dating dynamic the most. The way other women would just outright dismiss her as though she were dirt. She thought..like you did... that nobody noticing you/caring about you would be super fantastic fun time. She had a different experience and to my knowledge hasnt cared to repeat it.

Yeah being ignored is great when you want to be ignored...no question. But thats not really the whole issue is it? What about all those times when you want to connect with another human being?

Its just another bullet point on this list but it spells out the overarching problem. Its clearly made by a woman looking at men and thinking these things are all awesome with no real empathic depth, thought, or experience. I mean this kind of crap really exposes the gender war for the senseless middle-school shit that it is.