U Not Gonna Like This

First this from an LA Times article originally printed in 1993:

(From the Los Angeles Times, August 11, 1993)
Prostitution: Forbidding sale of sex by consenting adults is paternalistic and condescending.
By EDWARD TABASH

The recent arrest and notoriety surrounding the alleged Hollywood Madam brings to light one of the travesties that still blemishes our criminal-justice system. Whatever one may think of prostitution, an argument can be made that the sale by consenting adults of sex for money, per se, should not be a punishable event in our legal system.

Religious-based arguments asserting the immorality of prostitution should be given no legal credence. In a society that separates church and state, no person should lose her or his freedom because of someone else's religious beliefs. Only those actions that can be demonstrated by empirical evidence, independently of religious dogma, to warrant criminal sanctions should be punished.

The paternalistic argument that women need to be protected from sexual exploitation fails to justify the continued criminalization of prostitution. This argument claims that in order to protect women against such exploitation, society should imprison all women who engage in prostitution. This argument is reducible to a claim that languishing behind bars is a preferable fate for a woman as opposed to allowing her to freely sell her body, if this is what she chooses to do.

A related argument is that prostitution should remain illegal, which means women should still go to jail for engaging in it, because selling sex for money demeans women. Thus, the advocates of this argument would prevent women from being degraded by demeaning them even more severely by locking them up in a prison cell. This has about as much logical force as imposing the death penalty on someone for attempting to commit suicide.

The worst form of exploitation suffered by women who exchange sex for money is from pimps. It is most often the pimp, and not the grateful, gratified and happy customer, who abuses the woman. If prostitution were an unpunished act in our legal system, women could generally conduct business on their own, without having to rely on parasitic and abusive pimps.
An appropriately zoned, taxed and health-regulated legal prostitution industry would free women from jail, free many of our precious few police officers to focus on real crime and bring in much needed revenue. It would also elevate society to a new and desirable plateau of live-and-let-live tolerance.

and this:

In many communities throughout the U.S., the police focus attention on arresting persons involved in prostitution. A careful examination of this practice shows that it reduces the quality of life in society.

By forcing prostitution out of places where it would more naturally be found, such as in brothels or near motels, the police drive that activity into the streets of neighborhoods where it otherwise would not exist. As a result, residents of the neighborhoods are exposed to the activity against their will.

Also because of prostitution being forced into the streets, the dangers to many prostitutes greatly increase. Prostitutes whose jobs involve working at night and getting into cars with complete strangers can be, and often have been, easy pickings for serial killers and other sociopaths. James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, says prostitutes are the most frequent targets for serial killers.

A sensible solution to these problems would be to follow the example of some European cities, where prostitution is allowed in certain designated areas. People who are interested in the activity go to places where it's permitted, and they leave alone the neighborhoods that don't wish to be associated with it. And the prostitutes can work in environments where they are much safer.

Another problem with prostitution arrests is that they cause long-term increases in crime and drug abuse in society. Margo St. James, a former social worker and a leading advocate of legalizing prostitution, writes: "When a woman is charged for a sex crime, it's a stigma that lasts her lifetime, and it makes her unemployable."

St. James identifies this stigma as a major reason why a large percentage of women who are in jail were first arrested for prostitution. The arrest record forecloses normal employment possibilities, keeps the women working as prostitutes longer than they otherwise would, and sets them up for a lifetime of involvement with drugs and serious crime.

Keeping prostitution illegal also contributes to crime because many criminals view prostitutes and their customers as attractive targets for robbery, fraud, rape, or other criminal acts. The criminals realize that such people are unlikely to report the crimes to police, because the victims would have to admit they were involved in the illegal activity of prostitution when the attacks took place.

If prostitution were legal, these victims would be less reluctant to report to police any criminal acts that occurred while they were involved in it. This would significantly improve the probability of catching the criminals and preventing them from victimizing others. In many cases, it could deter them from committing the crimes in the first place.

That view is consistent with the experience of the European countries where prostitution is legal. They have far lower crime rates than the U.S. And a similar situation applies in the Nevada counties where prostitution is legal. According to Barb Brents and Kate Hausbeck, two professors of sociology at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas who have extensively studied the Nevada brothel industry, those counties are quite peaceable and have very low crime rates.
No wonder that in November 2004 in Churchill County, Nevada, a ballot proposal to outlaw prostitution was rejected by a 2-to-1 margin. Although the county is mostly Republican and supported George W. Bush for president, the same voters saw no reason to stop brothels from operating there.

Additionally, laws against prostitution violate Americans' fundamental rights of individual liberty and personal privacy. Thomas Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. envisioned a society where people can live without interference from government, provided they don't harm others.
As Jefferson said in his First Inaugural Address: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement." Or as Arthur Hoppe wrote about consensual acts in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1992: "The function of government is to protect me from others. It's up to me, thank you, to protect me from me."

Similar to issues such as birth control, this issue involves people's fundamental rights to control their own bodies and decide the best way to conduct their lives. Alan Soble noted, "The freedom to choose one's reasons for engaging in sex is an important part of sexual freedom."

In a free society, it makes no sense for the government to be telling persons - particularly the poor - they cannot charge a fee for harmless services they otherwise are at liberty to give away.

To paraphrase George Carlin: Selling is legal, and sex is legal, so why isn't selling sex legal?
In fact, many people work in the sex industry because they see it as their only means of alleviating serious financial problems. Other sex workers aren't poor but simply enjoy that type of work and receive both income and personal satisfaction from it.

As one sex worker wrote in an article for a national newspaper: "All in all prostitution has been good to me and I have been good to it. . . . I don't really have to work anymore, but I love the business, so I still see my regular clients."

Likewise for the customers, there's no reason their freedom should not include the right to purchase the companionship and affection they may want but, for whatever reason, don't find in other aspects of their lives.

For example, one disabled man told researchers he was lonely and visited prostitutes because "I'm ugly, no women will go out with me. . . . It's because of my disability. So prostitutes are a sexual outlet for me." Another man reported that he did the same for a number of years due to being "anorexic and very reclusive. There was no chance of forming a relationship." A physically unattractive man added, "I pay for sex because that is the only way I can get sex."

Another person said his experiences with prostitutes and other sex workers helped him overcome an extreme aversion to physical intimacy, which had resulted from years of physical and emotional abuse while growing up. He explained: "I very likely would have died a virgin if I hadn't somehow gotten comfortable with physical intimacy, and sex workers enabled me to do that. At least for me, it's been a healing experience."

Dr. John Money, a leading sexologist and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, similarly notes that sex workers, with proper training, can assist clients in overcoming "erotic phobia" and various other sexual dysfunctions. He says that for the clients, "the relationship with a paid professional may be the equivalent of therapy."

Can anyone, other than the ignorant or cruel, argue that sex workers should not be permitted to help such persons?

Further, numerous legal commentators point out that using law enforcement resources against prostitution reduces substantially the resources available to fight serious crimes committed against persons or property. This nation desperately needs more efforts applied to solving those crimes, because arrests are being made in connection with only about 20% of them.

And according to the Multinational Monitor, massive amounts of white-collar crime are not being prosecuted. The magazine also says the damage inflicted on society by corporate crime and violence far exceeds the harm caused by all the street crime combined. The victims of the Enron and WorldCom scandals - many of whom lost their life savings - would probably support that claim.

and finally this from Heretical Sex:


Anti-prostitution campaigners typically cite a central corpus of issues as evidence that prostitution must be regarded as an absolute social evil, and eliminated by means of oppressive law enforcement.

These include:

Violence against sex-workers, including rape and murder.

Economic exploitation of sex-workers.

The involvement in the industry of professional criminal elements, including gangsters, pimps and people-traffickers.

Drug-use among sex-workers.

Unhealthy or dangerous working conditions for sex workers.

The involvement of under-age sex-workers.

The intrusion of street prostitution into the lives of those who do not wish to be involved, such as local residents.

Prostitution encourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

Prostitution constitutes a significant sector in the shadow economy, in which:

No taxes are paid

Commercial contracts are enforced by violence, due to the absence of recourse to legal process.

Causes secondary economic crime such as corruption and money-laundering.

All of these problems exist, and they are indeed a heady cocktail of issues.

However, they are all easily solved. All of them. At a stroke. All you have to do is legalise prostitution, and all of these problems will substantially go away.

The fact that prostitution is illegal is in fact the cause of these problems, not the solution to them.

However, anti-prostitution campaigners are not motivated by logic, but by moral dogma, ignorance and narrow self-interest.

Feminists have got it absolutely right when they talk about abortion. Making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening. It just makes it more dangerous. Therefore, it is in the public interest to keep it legal, and therefore regulated and safe.

However, they do not apply the same logic to things they disapprove of, such as pornography and prostitution, or in the last century, alcohol. A charming character called Carry A Nation used to go into saloons with a group of her friends, and smash the place up with axes. She and her fellow feminists were a key force in the Temperance movement, which eventually led to alcohol prohibition under the Volstead Act of 1919.

Prohibition was a national disaster for the US. It led to the creation of a massive shadow economy, organised crime, the criminalisation of many otherwise law-abiding citizens, police corruption, violence and a disregard for the rule of law.

A bit like the 'War on Drugs' today. Making drugs illegal actually makes them more dangerous, because gangsters are not concerned about quality control. Bootleg whiskey was often poisonous and contained methanol. That's why there were so many blind Blues musicians like Blind Lemon Jefferson. But the temperance fanatics would take this as evidence that they were right all along:

"Look. You drink whiskey, you go blind. We were right!". They seemed to be willfully ignorant of the fact that they were the ones actually causing the problems.

This is exactly the situation today with regard to both illegal drugs and prostitution. People are going to do these things whether you like it or not, so you just have to make the best of it.

Many moralists were against setting up needle exchanges for drug addicts, on the grounds that we shouldn't be encouraging people to inject drugs. However, responsible policy-makers accept that you have to deal with what's in front of you; you can't just wish you had something different. In fact, needle exchanges have been very successful in reducing the spread of infections.

Feminists like to cherry-pick their issues. One policy for abortion, another for prostitution. It's time they started being honest.

My view is that anything which takes place between consenting adults in private is no-one else's business.

If we legalise prostitution, we can set up licensed brothels. These could be subject to police inspections and health and safety checks. The staff and the owners will pay taxes. There will be professional recruitment procedures. No more people-traffickers, pimps and gangsters. No more violence. No more disease. No more under-age workers. No more coercion. Let's see if anyone wants to work there. Of course they will. This is exactly what the Australians have done.
I offer the Australian model of legal prostitution as a model for the Western world. I challenge anyone, even Julie Bindle, to find anything wrong with it, beyond the same mundane operational problems which affect any business.

In the licensed brothels in Australia, there has never been a single murder of a prostitute, or a single case of HIV infection. In Britain, in the past 10 years, over 60 street prostitutes have been violently murdered. A third remained unsolved. They make up the biggest group of unsolved murders in Britain. Reference.

I offer the American model of alcohol prohibition as an explanation of why the current situation in Britain is so completely fucked-up, and far from being the solution, is actually the source of most of the problems. It is interesting to note the high degree of feminist involvement in both problem situations. Feminism simply causes far more problems than it solves.

As well as licensed brothels, there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards both street-walkers and kerb-crawlers. Never mind 'zones of tolerance'. The street is no place for prostitution. The appropriate venue is the private house or licensed brothel. The same thing applies to the gay community. The public toilet is not your personal brothel. Summary arrest for everybody. No exceptions. We need to get casual sex off the street and into a safe private environment. If we do that, the problems associated with prostitution will all largely disappear overnight.

On the suggestion of MRA activist Khan Krum The Bulgar I have decided to gather together a list of both anti-Male and Male Friendly businesses.

One example would be Regency Enterprises and Fox Movies both responsible for the movie My Super Ex Girlfriend.

Regency Enterprises
10201 W. Pico Blvd Building 12
Los Angles, CA
90035
Phone: 310-369-8300
Fax: 310-969-0470

20th Century Fox
Fox Studios
10201 W. Pico Blvd
Los Angels, CA
90035
Phone: 310-369-4636
Fax: 310-969-0468

Now it's your turn. Please post in the comments section your anti-male business. Please also give alternatives to the anti-male businesses/services listed. Even if the product/service can only be bought in certain stores or areas.

And as for Male Friendly Businesses start with hosting companies. If you know of any hosting companies that have an MRA/MGOTW or Fathers Rights site stationed there let us know the company contact information.

Other male friendly companies/products/services I can think of off the top of my head are:

Beer companies, Magazines, cigar companies, sporting goods, automobile makers, banks....

If you want to you can always send the offending companies a fax to let them know how you feel. Or send the Male Friendly Businesses a note to let them know how refreshing it is to have a company not treat men like pond scum....

Fax Zero - Send a fax for free from your web browser.
http://faxzero.com

Also if you don't want to give out your personal phone number but still want to use a telephone number there are two ways you can do this.

First there's eFax's free phone number service
https://www.efax.com/en/efax/twa/signupFree

AOL's Free Phone Line Service
http://www.aimphoneline.com/index.adp?promo=779175

So there's no longer any reason whatsoever not to get involved and send letters/faxes to these companies and let them know what you think about what they are doing...

Okay. Please post your anti-male or Male Friendly business in the comments section. I will post them in plane view for everyone to see..

Update Sunday, November 05, 2006 2:05:57 AM

I've created a stationary post located HERE for Operation Intense Thunder. [I changed the date on the post so that the post will live outside of the current chronology of blog postings.]

I will also create a special page so that the important post will be easily accessible.

This from the National Coalition of Free Men:

Appeared as the NCFM Guest Editorial: November/December 1998
HOW IT ALL FELL APART
World Wide Web: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/fallapart.html

In 1992 Canadian journalist Wendy Dennis came out with a book entitled Hot and Bothered: Sex and Love in the 90s. In her introduction she became the first woman I'd ever heard actually admit that men had a side of the story too. She promised to try to tell it fairly, and certainly did a better job of that than any woman I've heard before or since. She still showed some distinct feminist and feminine biases, particularly in some of her choices to illustrate male anger about the treatment they had been receiving from women, but, as I have included certain male biases in my writing with more forethought and intent than I'm sure she showed, I can hardly fault her too severely for that.

The mere fact that she admitted that men have a right to have their point of view considered put her into not just a different category, but an entirely different species, than other women authors who have written on this subject. Please read her book. Please give copies of it to all your friends. For, in the 6 years since its publication, things only seem to have gotten worse. There is no other single topic that I hear discussed even half as frequently as how miserable both men and women are as a result of the lack of any sort of satisfying sexually intimate relationship in their lives.

She begins with the questions "How are women doing?" and "How are men doing?". In both cases the answer is not well. With only rare exceptions, men and women everywhere are confused, angry, alone, suspicious, often downright hostile, and, underneath it all, terribly terribly hurt. In some states the divorce rate has reached 75%. More and more single people have simply quit dating. For quite some time it has been very chic for women to proudly announce that they are quite happy without a relationship. Now men are beginning to take the same position. As I have talked to members of both genders, the story that I get is that this is mostly true but not quite with the spin of satisfaction that it is usually presented. A little probing will reveal that, instead of "quite happy", "less miserable" sitting on the sidelines watching the emotional brawl instead of participating is closer to the truth.

What is most surprising to me is the number of young men, in their early 20s, who have dropped out of the mating game. For a 30 year veteran in the army-of-occupation left behind by the sexual revolution with the scars to prove it, like myself, this is easy to understand. But for someone at an age when I still considered that dreaded Hawaiian disease, Lakanooki, certainly fatal if left untreated for a year and would tolerate almost any level of abasement to convince some woman to share my bed, it is amazing that a young man would make the choice to sit out. Their reasons for doing so are quite informative.

Feminism has transformed the social climate in this country as thoroughly as the Bolsheviks transformed the former Russia. Which is, of course, what it set out to do: Thus, it is a rousing success as a social movement. But, like the collectivist thinking on the economic level, the collectivist thinking on the social level which drives feminism did not have quite the results promised. After 75 years, the grand socio-economic experiment of the Bolsheviks was abandoned because it was too contrary to the nature of human beings. For those 75 years, however, citizens had to contend with economic deprivation and hardship as they struggled to change that nature to conform to a grand ideal. Not just human nature, but the natural world as well. Crops were planted according to 5 year plans and not according to weather, harvests, and needs of the population. In the same way, feminists have demanded that the factors and forces which drive attraction conform to a plan, a FEMinine plan.

Males have simply been dropped out of the picture as serious elements of consideration, except to regard them as agricultural crops which fruit love, support, and sperm. Author Dennis herself says it - "For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men.". When the Bolsheviks fundamentally disrespected the fact that a crop ripens dependent on rainfall, sunshine, and a host of other factors, demanding instead that it be planted on a certain date and harvested on a certain date according to a grand idealistic plan laid down 5 years earlier, they could invest all the hours, fuel, and seed in planting and still have nothing to eat when it was all done. Not just no result, but an incredible waste of resources which were already in short supply. And people ended up hungrier as a result of wasting the seed which could have more productively been eaten than thrown away in an attempt to force nature to conform to a human ideal. Fortunately for them, in the States farmers still understood that a crop ripens according to natural laws and did not attempt to play GOD, so had surpluses which allowed the Bolshevik plan followers to purchase grain to keep from starving to death. Unfortunately, no one is growing a surplus of male attraction to women these days, particularly not one which meets the complex, contradictory, and completely impossible requirements of the feminist agenda, so women are emotionally starving to death.

The most repugnant statement in the entire book follows. It is repugnant both because it illustrates the fallacy which caused the whole house of cards to fall, and because it highlights the fact that women are still blind to the fact that men are human beings at all. It illustrates that a fundamental disrespect for men is basic not just to feminism, but to all women.The most repugnant statement in the entire book is this (quoted in lengthy entirety):

"In the end, the hard lesson women take from the apparent man shortage is this: by trying to live up to the lofty ideals of feminism, by elevating their expectations of themselves and of men, they set themselves on a collision course with loneliness. Men will punish them for their ambitions, and they will punish them in the cruelest way imaginable: by not wanting them any more." (emphasis added)

Let me express the message in this statement another way:

"In the end, the hard lesson the Bolsheviks take from the apparent food shortage is this: by trying to live up to the lofty ideals of Bolshevism, by elevating their expectations of themselves and the crops which provide them food, they set themselves on a collision course with starvation." (True so far, the penalty for that level of denial in the natural world has always been death.) "The crops will punish them for their ambitions, and they will punish them in the cruelest way possible: by dying."

I still cannot fathom the incredible self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-OBSESSION, that can allow anyone to overlook how intensely and determinedly women have pursued making themselves unwantable and destroying and stamping out every last bit of desire for them a man could possibly have.

And the determination to be the victim to the very end. The fact that men have quit wanting women couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that women have been viciously attacking men for being attracted to them and every instance of its expression for years. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that expressing it has been thoroughly criminalized and wanting a woman and making it known can land a man in prison these days. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that everything a man might find attractive that doesn't fit the feminist ideal is slammed with a sledgehammer of shame.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that men have believed women who have told men how little they or their attention could possibly mean to women, and in fact they find them both highly offensive and completely irrelevant. No, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with women or their actions, it is entirely due to the universal quality of men to spend their lives thinking up nasty things to do to women. To "PUNISH" them.

It makes me sick.

In what I call the "Holocaust of Desire", men's desire for women has been being systematically murdered for the past 30 years. By women. Now men are "punishing" women by being dead to them. The murder weapons have been maleness-bashing and the criminalization of male sexual expression through the expanded definitions of sexual harassment and rape and the constructivist fallacy of making all men equally guilty for the acts of any individual man.

The sad truth is that I'd rather eat Drano than try to love a woman, only to find that my every act and intent was viciously and maliciously twisted into a victim's melodrama which I might spend the next several years in prison paying for. The entire purpose of the criminal justice system is to control and attempt to eradicate deviance. Now that men desiring women has been declared deviant, the eradication efforts are having their effects.

In the end, the hard lesson that women really need to take from the real man shortage is this: by denying and negating our needs, by making wanting you into a criminal act, by being so self-centered that you cannot see any act in the world as being motivated by anything other than intent to frustrate your needs and desires, you have proven to us that what feminists began saying 30 years ago is equally true in reverse. Not only is a woman without a man like a fish without a bicycle, a man without a woman is like a bicycle without a fish.

This again from What Men Are Saying About Women :

Angryharry...
Muslim Cleric Causes Uproar Over Women's Clothing Australia's
most senior Muslim cleric has prompted an uproar by saying that some women are attracting sexual assault by the way they dress.

Of course, this uproar was caused by various women's groups who think that women should bear no responsibility for what they do.

Well, in my view, Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali is correct in what he says - at least to some extent.

Indeed, only recently, I wrote the following on my Your Emails page to a woman who seemed to think that women should be able to dress as they please without needing to take into account how others might respond.

... if women behave stupidly, then they deserve less sympathy should something untoward happen. And if, for example, they wander about the place showing off all their bits then they should not be too surprised to find that some mentally dysfunctional male might respond to them. And the fact that women know that such unhappy events are more likely to occur if they are sexually provocative then the fact that they carry on regardless suggests that they are not very concerned about such events. That is the message that they are sending out.

As such, the law should reflect this lesser concern - this message - when deciding what level of negative impact any assault might have had, AND when deciding any punishment.

... Many women, however, seem to wish to take no responsibility for their behaviours.

They seem to think that they should be able to flaunt their sexuality all over the place - in order to incite men - and then they think that they have the right to claim that they are victims when some men respond to them in a manner which is absolutely consistent with the message that they, themselves, have been sending out.

In my view, women who set out to entice men sexually bear more responsibility for sexual assaults against them than do women who do not set out to entice men sexually.

And this should be reflected in the law.

... Are women such sluts that they think that they are entitled to foist their sexuality on to every passing member of the public?

Are women so mind-boggling stupid that they cannot see that flagrantly enticing men sexually might bring about consequences?

What makes women think that they have the right to overtly sexually stimulate men who happen to be in the vicinity whereas if men did a similar thing in response - perhaps with their hands - they could be prosecuted?

When women stick out their sexual organs uninvited into men's vision then this is not much different from men sticking out their hands uninvited for a grope. After all, in both cases they are merely trying to elicit a sexual response in the other party in the best way that they know how.

This from What Men Are Saying About Women:

An Essay by D Byron.

A criticism of iFeminism

In reply to Wendy McElroy on the iFeminist board

Wendy McElroy's iFeminist board is probably the best and possibly the only example of the picture of feminism that many people seem to think is the "real" feminism. ie a movement for genuine sex equality, but with a focus on women only. Since I am against all feminism I felt I should criticise the best of it and not just the far more numerous explicitly discriminatory feminism.

Wendy recently said,

"Individualist feminism embraces men as full and valued equals who have the same political interests as women -- that is to say, politically there is no validity to gender/class distinctions."

But feminism is based on the idea that there is a validity to gender/class distinctions. Otherwise why would anyone create a movement for women only? Wendy admits that even ifeminism is biased towards women in the FAQ:

"Being a feminist is a form of specialization. In fighting for individual rights, some people focus upon injustice to women just as others focus upon injustice to gays or children."

Is this a contradiction? Yes. iFeminism seems to be saying that its practical approach to justice will be the exact opposite (sex biased) of the theoretical point it is suposed to be making.

Wendy attempts to make a analogy with groups that help only children for example. But no childrens sites claim to be fighting against the idea that children should be treated differently to adults, and indeed children *should* be treated differently to adults for many reasons which is often why these groups exist.

Wendy attempts to make an analogy with pro-gay sites. But these groups have many issues where gay people are treated worse than heterosexual people in law still. They could also claim that gay rights were marginalised by other groups. The exact opposite is true of women. Women have more rights than any other group. Women's interests are over-represented and are more talked about and considered than any other group.

You could argue on the "gay" analogy that a men's movement could be thought of as legitimate, although my personal assesment is that it is not.

However at least men's rights advocates can point out practical reasons for supporting only men--- that men as a sex are discriminated against and their issues ignored while women's rights are inflated and highlighted.

This is so much the case that the iFeminist site has many articles underlining injustice against men despite the FAQ's suggestion that iFeminism "focuses" on injustice to women.

This brings up another argument against concentrating only on women's (or men's) issues which is that in researching honestly any sex based uinjustice you have to research both sides of the story. There is no practical saving of time by excluding one sex from the "focus" unless you wish to dishonestly frame issues in favour of one sex or the other.

This is unlike eg. child or gay groups. Issues which are highlighted by gay groups simply aren't issues for straight people. For example there is no issue for straight people in marriage because straight people can and always have been free to get married. With sex concentrating or "focusing" on on sex automatically means discriminating against the other.

In practise the way things work out on the iFeminist board is that relatively obscure "issues" for women are presented alongside stories that highlight gross injustices against men. As per the answer the FAQ gives, the mention of male issues is not part of the "feminism" of iFeminism".

Many issues for men are simply so important they are not ignored. However this obviously (and intentionally) means men are NOT treated "as full and valued equals who have the same political interests as women".