British feminists tried their utmost to destroy both the Man Collective-Oxford and a similar group at the University of Manchester last year. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to disrupt this event at the weekend.

Quote from frostyboy

British feminists tried their utmost to destroy both the Man Collective-Oxford and a similar group at the University of Manchester last year. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to disrupt this event at the weekend.

Only if they can find some man to pay for a ticket or get a Goverment grant,they would not use Daddy's money to get in.

Don't worry though,
There will be a LOT of histronics from the feminist sector.

How many times have you heard feminists bash on about anything that is male orientated, as being part of the "Old Boys Network"?

Interesting that a 20-year old student notices the numbers of male suicides at Oxford, while his supposedly more illustrious elders and betters in government, the NHS and the media have utterly failed to notice any such thing.

One other thought: how did this discerning young man manage to escape the misandric indoctrination of the feminist education system? I would like to know his background. Perhaps he was educated privately, or at home. Or maybe he is just too smart to fall for the endless bullshit. Either way, he shows much promise. Good on him.

I'm a little curious, as to what is meant by this part:

"It is very much pro-women’s rights as well.

We want to remain completely separate from the women-haters who don’t represent anything we are about at all."

Makes me wonder just HOW pro-male it is; or maybe this is but a necessary disclaimer.....

any meeting of men has got to have a pro wimyn's component other wise it will be perceived as an anti feminit conspiracy and would be treated like sedition agin the mendacious feminit movement ( not their smelly brown squishy ones - albeit of equal worth)

As feminists are supposedly all about equality, I can't see why they would take issue with one or two "mens groups" when women have literally hundreds of "womens groups".

The only answer that seems to actually make sense, is they do not want men to be able to talk about men's issues. Hardly what I'd call equality.

To me, there isn't sufficient reason to deride him just because he is trying to distance his group from militantcy. Similarly, in my opinion it's just fine for him to favor women's rights. But where I draw the line is when the concept of rights descends solely from political sources. If that is the case, then there is no moral foundation to criticize any country (or any era) in which any rights that we value are absent politically. Marxists and statists use nebulous terms like "rights" and "equality" all the time, but in their view the only way that these concepts can be realized is through political means, and so they can't conceive that there could be freedom and justice in a country without political guarantees. The state must always get more powerful in their view.

This may seem like an academic point, but in no way is it insignificant. If Linsley concedes the point that the government must be the sole arbiter of women's and men's rights, then he's already lost the argument. You might as well say that injustice is impossible in a democracy, whatever the laws are, because the laws (however unjust) were enacted by duly elected representatives. There's got to be something that transcends political power, something outside the system. I contend that such a thing is defined as justice itself, and it is perceived in the consciences of all human beings. Only in that sense is it right to advocate for "rights" in my view.

@john

I dont think it is necessarily a statist/marxist view but yes, equality through government is a valid concern, but political movements only go so far and without things like this we cannot bring up a social movement which is necessary to first have political action.

The internet is a safe haven and a great place for collective ideas within the MRM but with out human meetings its not going to get anywhere

Its rare we even see a men's group of any type and there is always opposition.

That being said we have a formal system of government, and when there is a formal system you do need government cooperation to obtain equality and/or fairness. I wouldnt say people find it hard to imagine a system without government influence on equality/fairness but it is hard to imagine post-industrial societies without it.

That all being said, I hope this works and isnt totally shut down...not that im getting my hopes up.

Quote from frostyboy

British feminists tried their utmost to destroy both the Man Collective-Oxford and a similar group at the University of Manchester last year. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to disrupt this event at the weekend.

I agree. Given men's beleaguered position, foolishly acquiescing to notions of inclusivity regarding event attendance only provides opportunity for feminist saboteurs to detract away from the potency of the message they should be conveying.

Quote from zetamale

we have a formal system of government, and when there is a formal system you do need government cooperation to obtain equality and/or fairness. I wouldnt say people find it hard to imagine a system without government influence on equality/fairness but it is hard to imagine post-industrial societies without it.

There is an alternative to politicization, and that is patriarchy, i.e. the hierarchical family clan, with the elders exercising the ultimate influence within it. Patriarchy is equivalent to family. That is why the intact family is being driven apart by feminist policies, which encourage divorce and refer to divorce as an empowering act for women. Feminists think of divorce as a "patriarchy smasher." But there is just as much potential for justice in a true patriarchy, one based not on corporate or political authority but rather authority within the family clan. When the chief judge -- the patriarch -- makes judgments, he (and I do mean "he") does so knowing that his clan is his "possession," just like parents view their children as their possession. You'll do anything to ensure the best for your children; they mean absolutely everything to you. You'll sacrifice your life for their benefit. How often will a judge or an elected official do that for a citizen, in our existing politicized system? Not ever.

The point of the preceding paragraph is not to say that political action is useless; anyone who knows me as an activist knows that I'm steeped in agitating for political change. But let's remember that the more you turn to the State as the highest authority, the more you validate its legitimacy. My political emphasis is therefore always to get the State off my back, rather than to get the State on my side. There's a big difference.

There are countries today with dismal political rights and yet a strong patriarchal culture just beneath the surface. In territories where the culture transcends the laws, you're likely to see the important decisions being made by tribal leaders and elders, people with life experience and wisdom, and especially people who have a biological connection to (and thus a vested interest in) those under their authority. It's therefore possible to fight against statism outside of (or despite) the prevailing political paradigm, whatever it is. Quite simply, you're doing right by your countrymen when you defend and promote the primacy of the intact nuclear family. Over time, that nuclear family will become an extended family. So long as elders are revered and respected, and families nurtured, and military conflict rare, you'll have a better chance of achieving a free, peaceful and just world than you would ever have under a government policy.

What does this have to do directly with Alex Linsley's men's group at Oxford? Potentially a lot. A core tenet of the men's movement is the need to preserve intact families by overturning (or culturally circumventing) our anti-male divorce laws. Hopefully Linsley can have meaningful discussions with the men in his group about how the hook-up culture on college campuses ultimately carries a heavy price. It's known as the honey trap. Guys that discard their judgment for a sexual fling are setting themselves up to be ruined in family court, although at that young age it's hard to convince sexually charged college males to reject sluts as partners, and instead find a woman with solid character.

Sexual license coincides with the breakdown of the family, and ultimately the disempowerment (politically, legally and culturally) of men as a sex. It's an extremely politically incorrect message, especially on a college campus. But sex has everything to do with the decline of male authority. Hopefully Lindsley's group can help men to see that, and to make more sensible choices with their lives.