In July 2018, along with Elizabeth Hobson, our Director of Communications, and others, I contributed to a document whose contents I read out at the start of my conference speech – The Non-Feminist Declaration. It has already been translated into German.
We invite you to become a signatory. A list of early signatories is here. They include the writer James Delingpole and Paul Joseph Watson.
The Non-Feminist Revolution starts here.
We’re admirers of the Wikipedia project in general, but in relation to gender politics it’s strongly influenced by feminists and therefore – by definition – highly unreliable.
Wikipedia first published an entry on J4MB in April 2015, it was created by someone unknown to J4MB. Over the following two years, a number of additions and deletions were made in an effort to discredit and misrepresent J4MB. Anonymous editors who were keen to have the truth about J4MB made available on the site often had their contributions removed or edited, and in late April 2017 ‘anonymous’ editors were banned from editing the entry any further, so a number of errors and omissions remain.
On 23 April 2017 we posted a piece, Feminist manipulations of the J4MB Wikipedia entry. If you type ‘Wikipedia’ in the Search box, you’ll find more recent pieces.
If you want to learn anything about J4MB, feel free to email us for information (info@j4mb.org.uk).
This post was originally posted in 2019.
Brother K is a renowned American intactivist, and leads the organization Bloodstained Men & Their Friends. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the English-speaking has been more successful in terms of getting people involved in street protesting against Male Genital Mutilation, across the English-speaking world. An example of their protesting, in Denver, Colorado, is here (video, 24:09). A common feature of their protests is the large number of female protesters.
A trademark of the group is wearing white overalls with a red stain in the groin area, and both their male and female followers adopt this “uniform” (the group campaigns for the end of ALL genital mutilation, both male and female).
Both Paul Elam and I wish to step up our MGM-related work, and with this in mind, I recently contacted Brother K. The following is the start of my email exchange with Brother K, reproduced here with his kind permission. We intend to start campaigning at Speakers’ Corner and elsewhere in the coming weeks, wearing the “uniform”, and promoting Bloodstained Men & Their Friends. I wrote:
Brother K, good evening. It’s been some time since we had an exchange, but I’ve long been an admirer of your work as reported at https://www.bloodstainedmen.com.
I lead the British political party Justice for Men & Boys http://atomic-temporary-215937230.wpcomstaging.com, since its launch in 2013 the only party in the English-speaking world campaigning for the human rights of men and boys on many fronts. Ending MGM in the UK has been our #1 campaigning issue for the past four years or so, our successes include informing Philip Davies MP about the subject, such that he later focused on MGM at the last International Men’s Day debate he hosted, in 2018, in which he outlined the illegality of MGM in the UK, and more besides.
We’ve long had a good relationship with Paul Elam and A Voice for Men (AVfM), founded in 2009 http://avoiceformen.com, and his An Ear for Men http://anearformen.com. Between us, we’ve hosted the International Conferences on Men’s Issues, of which there have been five since the first hosted by Paul in Detroit in 2014. There were presentations on MGM at the past four events, including by Tim Hammond and Steven Svoboda at the two London conferences. I can’t promise anything at this stage, but we plan to have at least one MGM-related presentation at future events, and there may be an opportunity for you to speak at the 2021 conference in North America (host city TBA).
Paul has asked me to pass on to you an offer of free advertising on the AVfM website (on the sidebar), and to start featuring your protest and other videos. I’ve copied him on this email, along with Gary Costanza (also cc’d), AVfM’s Director of anti-MGM Activism (Gary lives in California, Paul in Virginia). An example of Gary’s work, in relation to his database of “Known Genital Mutilators”:
We speak and campaign at Speakers’ Corner in London every other Sunday, and MGM is always a major theme, with placards, leaflets etc. With your prior agreement, we’d like to start adopting the Bloodstained Men “garb”, hopefully it will lead to more attention at Speakers’ Corner and beyond. I thought we could term ourselves “Friends of Bloodstained Men”, and start to include your URL in our leaflets and on our placards etc. We’re keen to do what we can to help increase your exposure. In the meantime, keep up the great work!
Brother K replied:
Mike, thank you for your kind letter and comments. I have followed your work in London, the protests and your arrest, the conferences, and your posts and videos, as well as Gary’s and Paul’s, including Paul’s powerful declaration on Facebook earlier this year, challenging men to deal with this issue. Bloodstained Men cannot endorse a candidate under the IRS rules governing non-profits, but given that qualification, we wholeheartedly support your work in the UK to stop this cruelty to boys, not only in the UK but around the world, and girls too, NOT a separate issue as the narrow-minded opponents of female circumcision have segregated genital cutting by gender to protect one gender only, and throw boys to the wolves. Absolutely use the bloodstained suits as you feel appropriate and helpful to your work in the UK.
Bloodstained Men would be honored, Paul, to have a place on your website and in your work, and we certainly look forward to future collaboration on this issue, the fundamental right of a man to his own body, it’s unbelievable that we have to convince people of the cruelty of the human rights violation implicit in cutting off part of a child’s penis. I speak for James Loewen as well, his YouTube channel Bonobo3d, and for Bloodstained Men, that you may freely share and borrow any helpful content for your website and work.
Gary, we all appreciated your recent solo protest, and your video denunciation of this barbaric ritual that American doctors continue to inflict upon the most helpless victims of all, newborn male babies, and your compilation of the criminals doing it.
In short, Bloodstained Men firmly believes that the genital mutilation of children is THE fundamental human rights issue of the 21st century, affecting boys, girls and intersex, and we will work with you and your colleagues to eradicate this disease from our society so that children can grow up in peace, with normal bodies, and live normal lives as men and women have done throughout human history, with the exception of the fanatical genital cutting cultures that claim a religious mandate behind their obsession.
Please feel free to use the DIY resources on our website at BloodstainedMen.com to print up your own BSM infocards and the tutorial to make your own bloodstained suits, and to reference our website in your work.
I have CC’d this email to all members of the Bloodstained Men Board of Directors, with whom I consulted before writing it.
Let me know any way I can assist you on this issue.
Kindly,
Brother K
This post was originally published in 2019.
I’m posting this blog piece because from Sunday, 6 October, 2019, we’re going to continue campaigning against MGM, Male Genital Mutilation – non-therapeutic male circumcision – at Speakers’ Corner, London, but for the first time wearing white workwear with red patches over the groin, in common with the inspiring American group Bloodstained Men & Their Friends. We’ll be handing out new leaflets, and displaying new placards such as this. There will be links to this blog piece on both leaflets and placards, people interested in our message will readily find links here to information about MGM. A unifying theme of the new campaign will be:
If you love your son and understand the harm always caused by circumcision, you wouldn’t have him circumcised.
If you’re an expectant mother, or a parent planning to have your son circumcised, we recommend you first visit the website Your Whole Baby. You might want to watch this video (8:27) of an American mother who is very pleased she didn’t have her sons circumcised. She feels very sorry for mothers who agreed to have their sons circumcised, and later regret their decisions, when they’ve learned of the damage caused by the procedure – “Regret Moms”.
The foreskin, far from being a small flap of skin with no purpose, as many people believe – including most circumcised men – has many important functions. 16 of them are detailed here.
Our collection of materials about MGM is enormous, and it’s impossible to do it justice in one blog piece, but this should be a good start for people wishing to know more about this complex subject.
An introduction to MGM
William Collins, a British man, is the most important blogger on gender-related issues in the world, at his website The Illustrated Empathy Gap. His first article on MGM is here. His book The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect was published in June 2019, and it’s a tour de force. The section on MGM alone is 50 pages long.
Religious reasons for carrying out MGM
The two religions which routinely perform MGM on male minors are Judaism and Islam (Christians from parts of Africa also perform it). It’s common in the United States for cultural reasons, explored in the film American Circumcision, which is free to watch on Netflix and Amazon Prime. The most powerful religious arguments against MGM come from Jews and Muslims themselves. The Jewish case against MGM is here. The Muslim case against MGM is here.
What injuries does MGM cause?
The foreskin performs many functions, and over 90% of the Meissner’s corpuscles in the penis – the nerve cells which give men pleasure during sex – are found in the foreskin, and are therefore lost as a direct result of the procedure. For a more detailed review of circumcision harms we recommend a presentation by Tim Hammond, an American campaigner against MGM, Findings of 2012 Global Survey of Infant Circumcision Harm.
Does MGM deliver health / medical benefits?
At Speakers’ Corner and elsewhere, we find circumcised men – Muslim men in particular – convinced there are health / medical benefits from MGM. We refer people who believe there are benefits, to three pieces about the claimed medical benefits, written by William Collins – Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Video and audio pieces about MGM
Our playlist of 100+ audio and video pieces on MGM is here.
The legal position on MGM in the UK
Performing MGM in the UK is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being at least Actual Bodily Harm, and almost certainly Grievous Bodily Harm. However, the criminal justice system, to its eternal shame, declines to bring prosecutions against the criminals performing the procedure. It also stops people bringing private prosecutions of individual circumcisers.
Psychological denial
It’s understandable, but regretable, that circumcised men are resistant to understanding how they’ve been injured (always physically, sometimes psychologically) by the procedure. Religions and cultures brainwash circumcised men into thinking the procedure has been beneficial for them, so naturally they wish to have their own sons circumcised in turn. We believe that the damaging procedure will stop when enough men and women are better informed about the damage caused by MGM, such that they will naturally refuse to have their own sons circumcised.
Ethical considerations
There is a huge body of literature concerning the ethics of MGM. Virtually all of it points to the practice being unethical, in part because mutilation of the genitals is carried out on a minor unable to understand the operation – there cannot be informed consent – and in part because the individual may later reject the religion of his parents, and maybe adopt a different religion. One of the most outspoken ethicists is Brian D Earp of the University of Oxford. One of his earlier papers, from 2014, was Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse?”.
Our protests at Speakers’ Corner, London
Every second Sunday we campaign against MGM at Speakers’ Corner, London, we invite you to join us. Details here.
Bloostained Men and Their Friends
The American group Bloodstained Men & Their Friends engage in street protests against MGM. An example of their campaigning, in Denver, Colorado, is here (video, 24:09). A frequent feature of their protests is the large number of female protesters.
Known Genital Mutilators
A Voice for Men is a website run since 2009 by Paul Elam, a renowned American Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA). Gary Costanza is his organization’s Director of Anti-MGM Activism. He runs the website Neonatal Cutting and maintains a directory of Known Genital Mutilators (KGMs). Many of the people exposed as KGMs are British, all of whom are criminals, because carrying out MGM is a crime against the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Questions on MGM? Seeking further information?
Please feel free to contact me (mike@j4mb.org.uk, 07967 026163) if you wish to discuss MGM or any of the many other men’s issues about which we’re concerned.
On our YouTube channel we have a playlist of our video interviews of people with interesting things to say on gender issues, including feminism. The videos to date:
This post was originally published in 2013.
My thanks to a highly valued supporter (and donor) for pointing out to me that 2013 is the centenary of the publication of a remarkable book, The Fraud of Feminism, written by Ernest Belfort Bax (1854 – 1926), a British socialist journalist and philosopher. The Wikipedia entry on this man is here, the book here.
The opening of the Introduction:
In the following pages it is not intended to furnish a treatise on the evolution of woman generally or of her place in society, but simply to offer a criticism on the theory and practice of what is known as Modern Feminism.
By Modern Feminism I understand a certain attitude of mind towards the female sex. This attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth century.
The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, has at its back a strong sex-conscious party, or sex union, as we may term it, among women, and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy sentiment among men. There is more than one popular prejudice which obscures the meaning and significance of Modern Feminism with many people. There is a common theory, for instance, based upon what really obtained to some extent before the prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case of antagonism between the two sexes, women always take the man’s side against the woman. Now this theory, if it ever represented the true state of the case, has long ceased to do so.
The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the present day, exercises such a strong pressure in the formation of public opinion among women, that it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong. On the other hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of any consciousness of sex antagonism in the attitude of men towards women, combined with an intensification of the old-world chivalry prescribed by tradition towards the so-called weaker sex, exercises, if anything, an increasing sway over male public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has obtained in the world of the early twentieth century.
The start of the final chapter, ‘The Indictment’:
Feminism, or, as it is sometimes called, the emancipation of woman, as we know it in the present day, may be justifiably indicted as a gigantic fraud – a fraud in its general aim and a fraud alike in its methods of controversy and in its practical tactics. It is through and through disingenuous and dishonest. Modern Feminism has always professed to be a movement for political and social equality between the sexes. The claim for this equalising of position and rights in modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential equality in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, we have indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for regarding the foregoing assumption as false. But quite apart from this question, I contend the fraudulent nature of the present movement can readily be seen by showing it to be not merely based on false grounds, but directly and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions.
It uniformly professes to aim at the placing of the sexes on a footing of social and political equality. A very little inquiry into its concrete demands suffices to show that its aim, so far from being equality, is the very reverse – viz. to bring about, with the aid of men themselves, as embodied in the forces of the State, a female ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of already existing female privileges. That this is so may be seen in general by the constant conjunction of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same persons. It may be seen more particularly in detail, in the specific demands of Feminists. These demands, as formulated by suffragists as a reason why the vote is essential to the interests of women, amount to little if anything else than proposals for laws to enslave and browbeat men and to admit women to virtual if not actual immunity for all offences committed against men. It’s enough to consult any suggestions for a woman’s “charter” in order to confirm what is here said. Such proposals invariably suggest the sacrificing of man at every turn to woman.
ManWomanMyth nails it (video, 13:00).
ManWomanMyth was a highly influential British vlogger who published videos over 10+ years up to 2015. He is no longer active, sadly. Details about his work, and a link to our playlist of his 130 videos, are here.
ManWomanMyth (MWM) was a highly influential British vlogger who published at least 130 videos on his YouTube channel during the 10+ years leading up to 2015, when the channel was taken down. MWM is no longer active, sadly, but we know he’s pleased his work remains valued by MRAs worldwide. Fortunately some MRAs had taken copies of the content before the channel was taken down, which is why they remain available on YouTube and elsewhere to this day.
Individual “mirrors” usually contain some videos which have been pulled for alleged copyright infringements, and none of them contain all of the output of MWM. The most comprehensive developed before now is (we believe) this, but it excludes five important videos on “misandry and intimacy”, and others. The original posted videos attracted huge numbers of views, the re-posted videos fewer. They deserve many more.
We recently set ourselves the task of publishing a new J4MB playlist with all the known output of MWM, and that playlist (130 videos) is here. Most of the videos were drawn from the aforementioned “mirror”. If you know of any videos we’ve missed, please let us know, and we’ll add them immediately. Thank you.
If you haven’t seen any of MWM’s output before, we recommend you start with Female Supremacy (12:59). It starts with a clip from a decidedly un-PC Two Ronnies sketch, the likes of which the BBC would never make today. The occasional flashes of humour in the videos are welcome. A video on the iniquity of men and women winning the same prize money at Wimbledon starts with, “Game, Set, and Snatch”.
The video (11:58) of a well-received talk I gave in 2019 at the third Messages 4 Men conference in London is here, the transcript takes up the remainder of this blog piece:
“Good evening. I’d like to draw on our last general election manifesto on the issue of abortion, particularly relating to the situation in the UK. Elective abortions are permissible in the UK up to 24 weeks after conception. When the 1967 Abortion Act was passed, 24-week-old foetuses were not viable, but with the passage of time and the advance of medical technology, they increasingly are viable. In the same hospital today, one medical team could be fighting to save the life of a 24-week-old foetus, while another medical team is killing a foetus of the same age.
There comes a point at which the basic right to life of an unborn child overrides the right of a woman over her body. One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. In an age when contraception has long been readily available and highly reliable, women should be held morally accountable for the children they conceive. We believe there’s a point in pregnancy when society – and the law – needs to recognize the right of the unborn child to life.
When the Abortion Act (1967) was passed, the British public was assured it wouldn’t lead to abortion on demand. That assurance has, predictably, proved hollow. Abortion on demand has been freely available in the UK for over half a century. Over 10 million foetuses – or unborn children, depending on your perspective – have been killed in the UK since the passing of the Act. Every year around 200,000 more are killed.
There’s a growing awareness that 97% of the abortions carried out in England, Wales, and Scotland, are carried out on grounds which may be illegal. The Abortion Act permits elective abortions to be performed on numerous grounds, when authorized by two medical practitioners. One of the grounds is to reduce the risk of injury to the mental health of women.
In 2012, in England and Wales, over 185,000 abortions were carried out. Over 180,000 of them (97%) were carried out under grounds ‘C’ of the Abortion Act, which stipulates the following – ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))’.
Of those 180,000+ abortions, almost all (99.94 per cent) were carried out on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to women’s mental health. Only 109 abortions (0.06% of the total) were carried out on the grounds of reducing the risk of injury to the women’s physical health.
There is no evidence to support the thesis that abortion reduces the risk to mental health of women with an unwanted pregnancy. None. Clinical trials to investigate the matter would, of course, be highly unethical. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that abortion itself increases the risk to mental health, so medical practitioners who authorize abortions on mental health risk grounds are doing so in the knowledge there’s no body of research to support their authorizations, and that is arguably illegal.
In December 2011 The National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a 252-page report for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Induced Abortion and Mental Health: a systematic review of the mental health outcomes of induced abortion, including their prevalence and associated factors. Among the key findings of the report was this:
The rate of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth.
In April 2013 the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a report titled, Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unplanned pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence. The full conclusion of the report was this:
There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, and suicidal behaviour.
In our manifesto we made proposals in three areas:
I’d like to continue with a thought experiment. I’d like you to imagine yourselves living in a patriarchy, and more specifically a patriarchy as envisaged by feminists, one in which men as a class oppress women and girls as a class, for the benefit of men and boys, as they have for millennia.
In this patriarchy, of course, women wouldn’t have the vote. Let’s further imagine that in 1967 an Act was passed, not the Abortion Act, but an Act that gave fathers of babies up to 24 weeks of age the right to have their babies killed by doctors at taxpayers’ expense, without fear of punishment. Mothers would have no right to stop the killing of their babies. In the 52 years since the Act was passed, over 10 million babies have been killed, and every year another 200,000 plus are killed. Fathers justify their right to have their babies killed with the slogan, “My baby, my choice”.
If we do a parent gender switch, rather than babies under 24 weeks of age being killed at the behest of their fathers, we have foetuses under 24 weeks of age being killed at the behest of their mothers, the reality of abortion in the UK since 1967. Now of course there are differences between a 24 week old baby and a 24 week old foetus, but neither are viable without external support and protection – in the case of the foetus, that of its mother. Killing 24 week old foetuses and 24 week old babies seems to me to be morally equivalent.
I’ve been an atheist for about 45 years, since I was a teenager, but it’s all too evident to me that with the decline of religion in the UK – and the decline of Christianity, in particular – the nation’s moral compass has been well and truly shattered. Nobody in their right mind would advocate for the right of fathers to have their babies killed. Yet society turns a blind eye to the right of mothers to have their unborn children killed, under the name of women’s rights. I look forward to a future of MRAs increasingly working with religious people on matters of common interest, such as abortion.
Feminism is, among other things, a death cult, and no group in the world is keener on abortion than feminists. Feminists are keen on the right of women to kill their unborn children, and they have not the slightest interest in the responsibility of women to protect them. That’s been a theme of feminism from the beginning, of course – ever more rights, ever fewer responsibilities.
The rallying cry of feminists with respect to abortion is, of course, “My Body, My Choice”. And why is that? As always with feminists, it’s about power. By stating that only women can decide on abortion, women gain power over life and death, and men are denied it.
Under the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the work of radical feminists, only men can rape in the UK – in legal terms, at least. Nobody, least of all anti-feminists, would say that because women cannot (under the law) rape, their voices should not be heard on the subject. Yet feminists assert that because men can’t become pregnant, they’re not entitled to speak on the issue of abortion. The double standard is obvious. Post-menopausal women can’t conceive – should their views on abortion be silenced, too?
We’d rightly be appalled by a man who raped a woman – or a man, for that matter – and said in his defence, “My Body, My Choice”. And why? Because the crime has a victim, whether a woman or a man. The most obvious victim in abortions is, of course, the unborn child who is killed. But there are other victims, most notably the father of the unborn child, who may desperately wish to see it born and develop. He may even be willing to be the sole parent to the child. No matter. The woman has all the power, the man none. How many men have suffered egregiously because women in this country have decided to have their unborn children killed since the 1967 Abortion Act? Possibly millions of them.
The feminist position that 50 per cent of adults should have no right to oppose the killing of unborn children is nothing short of obscene. The men’s rights movement is increasingly recognizing that abortion is a men’s issue, as well as a women’s issue, and I believe Men’s Rights Activists will increasingly fight to save the lives of unborn children. Thank you.”
Another insightful piece from Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch), a Canadian, whose pieces were always worth reading. Sadly she is no longer active as an anti-feminist Men’s Rights Advocate (MRA). She gave a well-received presentation at the 2016 International Conference on Men’s Issues, held in Excel London. It was titled, How Feminism Infantilizes Women.
Justice for Men & Boys 