Sunday, March 27, 2011

For the Transatlantic Cable













T
he following, recently dispatched to a European correspondent, is timely and up-to-the-minute:
"When you talk about your encounter with the women's refuges in Switzerland, you are providing a very good illustration of what is different about matters MRA in Europe v. in the USA. Nothing even remotely comparable to that is happening in the USA. We are miles and miles from initiating any political activism on THAT level, the kind which "goes for the jugular" and attacks the problem very directly at the root by holding the immediate perpetrators directly to account.

"Instead, we have a lot of people just talking on the internet -- basically fighting a propaganda war. And yet. . . steadily gaining on the enemy.

"We ALSO have activism from the likes of RADAR, Glenn Sacks, MVA, NCFM, Roy Den Hollander (who is now ruined financially), father's rights groups, etc etc etc.... all of whom are chewing at different parts of the feminist elephant -- while sometimes aware of the entire elephant, and other times not.

"But as I wrote elsewhere, almost nobody activistic is attacking feminism, by name, as the root of the problem. Certainly, no men's "parties", and nothing that I am aware of based on a platform of "masculism". Back in the 1990s, we had something called the mytho-poetic men's movement -- which was a kind of "masculism", I suppose. But that movement is long since defunct. We have a certain number of MRA writers who like to throw around the word "masculism", but there is not much agreement among them on what that word actually means or might mean or should mean.

"Warren Farrell has done good work, especially in his book which debunks the feminist idea of the wage gap. But my own assessment of Farrell is that he is too much of a wishy-washy liberal. He needs to radicalize himself, and I do not see that happening.

"The difference between the MRM in Europe, and in the USA, can best be understood if you look at the different conditions which governance has reached in each of these regions.

"In Europe, socialism is much further advanced; the political spectrum as a whole is shifted more generally to the left, and supra-state systems of power like the United Nations and the European Union are very, very big. Also, in Europe you have "gender mainstreaming" being overtly imposed (under that exact name) as a unified, organized, systematic state policy.

"This 'gender mainstreaming', in my opinion, is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. I have read enough official European literature on that subject to see that the people promoting it are covering their agenda with a very thin layer of rhetoric meant to deceive the general population. They talk about "equality" quite a bit, and they even throw in some nice words about taking care of men as well as women, but on the whole I see a mass social engineering under way here -- almost like a forced religious conversion. In the end, gender mainstreaming will take from men and give to women, and leave men in a weakened position in regard to women. And alongside gender mainstreaming, the usual feminist innovations are also in effect in Europe -- z.b. false rape prosecutions, bias against men in the criminal justice system, the separation of fathers from their children, the robbery of men in divorce proceedings, general hatred and slander of maleness by radical feminists -- all of these things and THEN . . . gender mainstreaming gets added on top of it, as a powerfully enforced (supra) state mandate!

"Well, as I said, gender mainstreaming is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. But only in certain parts of the world does it march under that exact title. In Europe it is logical for things to happen this way because there is such a centralization of state power where socialism is so far advanced -- and this paves the way for consolidating a lot of feminist operations under one very tightly organized system. And the presence of the EU and the UN adds to that effect.

"But in the USA this is not nearly so much the case because of differences in the general culture, but the political culture especially. Although we have plenty of radical feminists here, just as radical as their European sisters, they are inhibited by local conditions. So, in the long run, American feminists (and left - progressivists) are pursuing the same agenda as in Europe -- but they are doing this in a more piecemeal way, a scattered and fragmented way, and not under the color of official government policy. In the USA, as I see it, the feminists are gaining ground by a combination of highly skilled political manipulating, and garnering support for different parts of their agenda from different parts of the political spectrum. (Putting their eggs in different baskets, you might say.) Plus, they are getting plenty of support from big corporations -- in addition to what they bilk from government and taxpayers. Needless to say, their techniques of lying, propagandizing and grandstanding are much the same as you would see in Europe. A feminist is a feminist, all over the world.......

"And so, I believe that this difference in the political machinery of feminism accounts for much of the difference in the resistance toward feminism that you will see in the USA as compared to Europe. In Europe, things are further along the road and overall worse. This would explain the more organized and politicized nature of the European MRM, and the more bold, direct style of activism that I see happening over there. Feminists and anti-feminists are confronting each other openly and politically AS SUCH, in a way unlike anything in the USA. Of course, inherent (non-political) cultural differences can also explain much of this -- Americans have quite a leaning toward polite social fictions.

"Somebody once said, the "the curtain of fascism is always descending in America, but always landing in Europe." A very clever expression, and we can perhaps see the truth of in the present development of feminist "fascism".

"Getting back to the subject of "masculism": From what I am learning, I can easily see how that would become a European men's "obsession" in particular, given the state of things with regard to gender mainstreaming. This seems perfectly logical, and I can see how the phrase "natural masculinity" might have a more acute, localized, specialized shade of meaning in the vocabulary of a European MRA under the circumstances. Simple action and reaction.

"As for 'equal rights and responsibilities for women', that is a good phrase and I must remind myself to use it as much as I can. Those who want to set up a "real patriarchy" need not bother with such a project. All they need to do is allow "equal rights AND responsibilities", and the feminists will hate the outcome as much setting up a so-called "real patriarchy". Of course, equal rights and responsibilities for women is the very last thing that feminism aims to achieve. Feminism ideally aims to "empower" women to do just about anything they please, with impunity and no moral accountability. In fact, that is the ONLY logical endpoint feminism could ever reach for, since it feeds upon a totally bottomless greed. And "gender mainstreaming", for all its rhetoric of equality, is the very same thing.

"Of course, it is more than that. It is also a way to control the population in general by putting men in chains. This happens because women are "empowered" (propped up artificially) by the state and used as enforcers to keep the general male population in a state of subjection. It also happens because men are divided against men, with male supporters of feminism betraying any men who refuse to self-betray. And so with men effectively kept on lockdown, and women receiving benefits ("empowerments") for cooperating with this plan, revolution against the (male) ruling elite becomes near-impossible. But the serious question is to know if such a plan is feasible and stable in the long run, or whether it contains a fatal flaw. I think it very well might contain such a flaw, or even several such.

"Inherent biological differences? I will say this: although I think it is likely, I am not ideologically committed to either yea or nay. Whatever the truth on that question turns out to be, I am fine with it. However..... I will expect other people (feminists) to "govern their game" according to the rules that either possibility would dictate. Right now, the basic feminist position is "constructivism", and yet feminists and quasi-feminists are constantly wandering on both sides of the fence depending on where they sense the advantage (for women) to be. That is, they are happy to be "secret essentialists" at least some of the time (z.b. they are happy to crow about "women are better at multi-tasking" or such). But the real "secret" is, that if the feminists lost their "fear of commitment" upon this question, then feminism itself would be in pretty serious danger of collapsing. . . . . And that is exactly what they are afraid of!

"Finally, on the matter of gay men in the MRM: Gay men, if they are smart, will realize that feminists are not their friends and will eventually sell them out. But the MRM (or non-feminist revolution if you prefer) is so very very big that it is not really a "movement" at all, but a collection of different movements under a big tent. And gay men will have no trouble finding a place under that tent even if not everybody appreciates them being there -- and let's face it, not everybody will. But gay men will become acutely aware of feminist hypocrisy later if not sooner, and the smell of it will drive them toward other camps regardless.

"And no, gay issues are not something that the men's movement ought to opinionate about. I am all for keeping the rhetoric and the agenda narrow and not getting pulled into other conversations. I only wish that more MRAs would take that principle to heart.

"Well, I will wrap this up now, and look forward to future communiques.

"In solidarity,

"~Fidelbogen~"

32 Comments:

Anonymous Alf said...

"Inherent biological differences? I will say this: although I think it is likely, I am not ideologically committed to either yea or nay."

There are inherent differences, and it's not a matter of ideology, just science.

For example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928021.400-boy-brain-girl-brain-how-the-sexes-act-differently.html

7:51 AM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

""""And no, gay issues are not something that the men's movement ought to opinionate about. I am all for keeping the rhetoric and the agenda narrow and not getting pulled into other conversations. I only wish that more MRAs would take that principle to heart.""""

My instinct says that gay men experience misandry almost as much as heterosexual men, but I might be wrong.

I know there are a few gay readers, and if you're reading this, can you help me out on this with personal experience?

Do you think gay men face as much or at least similar levels of misandry for being men?

8:21 AM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

Fidelbogen
"Right now, the basic feminist position is "constructivism", and yet feminists and quasi-feminists are constantly wandering on both sides of the fence depending on where they sense the advantage (for women) to be."
To begin, biological sex is not gender I refer you to my blog post(http://musingsofaprohuman.blogspot.com/2011/03/gender-gender-essentialism-and-gender.html) there are biological differences between the sexes but gender is developed through psychological conditioning, I personally lean on the nurture side of the debate.

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, there is IGAF (Anti Feminismus) and the first international Anti-feminism meeting was held in Europe too.

12:34 PM  
Anonymous silentblood said...

@AlekNovy
I'm bisexual but I'm also don't identify as a man(I'm a gender queer male).

When I was growing up I experienced misandry just on the account that I was different... I was told that wanting to wear the kinds of clothes I wore and the the things I liked were...wrong. I was also told that my masculine side was wrong and I got conflicting messages. I have been ridiculed as a feminine male and I have been attacked for being a masculine male at different times. I have a whole hell of a lot of rage for how femininity in males is portrayed and I don't really connect with purely masculine males.

But I am also bisexual, and that has caused other problems, I have experienced bigotry for being openly bi but I have experienced it from both gays and straight people. And... the misandry I experience takes a more twisted turn, I am not your pop-culture gay man and I don't fit that paradigm. If I fit the standard model for a gay man than I'd experience homophobia but since I have my own identity I am treated badly for it by both men and women.

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Differences in biology and neural structure between males and females have been shown to become slowly built-in as a result of socially constructed gender roles. In other words the gender roles we 'play' from childhood literally shape the brain and body.

But then scientists draw the erroneous conclusion that it is genetic, and we socially programmed bots love this conclusion because it means we dont have to think about anything cause "its all genetic". Dumb is what dumb does.

3:04 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

"""If I fit the standard model for a gay man than I'd experience homophobia but since I have my own identity I am treated badly for it by both men and women."""

So, if I get this straight...

You'd say stereotypically gay men (the kind who display the catty-gay stereotype behaviour) only receive homophobia, but not misandry?

8:15 PM  
Anonymous Jared said...

Speaking of gay men, misandry and the MRM, there's a guy, Jim, who comments over of feminist critics who brings that perspective to the discussion quite intelligently if you feel like goig through the archived comments. I'm sure he comments in other places too, but theat's where I see him the most (and where I'm most certain it's the same "Jim".

8:17 PM  
Blogger Manifold said...

@ Anonymous, 3:04 PM:

There is no point in denying reality to justify the pseudoscientific ideology of genderism.

You're ignoring basic biology of sexual reproduction and genetics in which the sperm determines whether the child will be male or female.

You also ignore the existence of the Y-chromosome which features completely different genes than the X-chromosome (as a reminder: women have X(X) and men have XY). One of the X-chromosomes of women is deactivated and degenerates to the Barr-body without any further function while in men both chromosomes stay functional.

And before you come up with it: aberrations from the two standard sexes (XX-men and XY-women) are just that: aberrations - very seldom mistakes made by nature, it happens.

Biology shapes sex differences - social factors may lead to variation WITHIN the frame which biology sets at the beginning of a new life.

12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Manfold: "There is no point in denying reality to justify the pseudoscientific ideology of genderism."

Of course biology, genetics and environment play a role. But not the only role. Placing the accent to heavily on the role of biology is itself a reductionistic idiological bias- your bias, it seems.

I prefer to put the accent on how environment shapes gendered thinking, and even shapes the brain's executive functions. When makles and females are socialised differently thier brains reflect the same specializations.

12:28 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

"To begin, biological sex is not gender I refer you to my blog post. . . there are biological differences between the sexes but gender is developed through psychological conditioning, I personally lean on the nurture side of the debate."

Thank you. Yes, I am aware of the difference (in feminist semantics) between 'sex' and 'gender'. . but for me this is not a point of political interest.

As the Counter-Feminist, I personally don't find the notion of "gender" interesting or useful. Yes, yes, we all know that some women are more "mannish" and some men are more "womanish", but by the end of the day, male is still male and female is still female.

That's the nub of the matter -- and I have no interest in the subject beyond that. People can sort out their personal feelings about their manliness or womanliness on their own time: those things should NEVER take on political significance or become the concern of the state in any way.

Incidentally, you will almost never hear me use the word "gender". I made a pointed decision to weed it out of my vocabulary.

12:36 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@ Anon:3:04:

Sources?

Or is that just a "just-so story" that you just cooked up?

All right, I grant that it sounds intuitively satisfying.

12:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sources?

Yes there are (literally) thousands of sources showing that one's behaviour and the culture which imparts and encourages these behaviours do cause brain specialisation in various cortical regions.

If this were a Uni class and you were my teacher (which you are not), and I was doing an assignment, yes I'd gather sources for you. Unfortunately i have nothing to gain from spending the next three hours digging around in the literature.

But as you are interested- go look up google scholar, look at MRI studies which capture evidence of brain specialization which can be (and is) attributed culturally prescribed behaviours and customs.

Otherwise please take it as a throw away remark.

PS. Thanks for reminding of difference between sex and gender.

12:59 AM  
Anonymous Snark said...

"Differences in biology and neural structure between males and females have been shown to become slowly built-in as a result of socially constructed gender roles. In other words the gender roles we 'play' from childhood literally shape the brain and body.

But then scientists draw the erroneous conclusion that it is genetic, and we socially programmed bots love this conclusion because it means we dont have to think about anything cause "its all genetic". Dumb is what dumb does."


Um, but if these differences "have been shown" to be slowly built-in, etc., who has "shown" this to be the case? "Scientists," one would suppose. But if "scientists" have found this specifically, then they would not draw the exact opposite conclusions to their findings, would they?

Your comment is just elaboration on the theme "experts say ..."

1:12 AM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

@AlekNovy
My husband(silentblood) was talking about his experiences, he... experiences homophobia from his own family even now. I wish he'd stop denying that they're shit.

@Fidelbogen
Try the scientific community too. The distinction between sex and gender is made in psych and biology.

@Everyone
There is at least psych evidence that gender is developed by the environment. I think the Gender Schema theory is the one I'm thinking of that has a lot of evidence behind it.

2:32 AM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

"But my own assessment of Farrell is that he is too much of a wishy-washy liberal."

I do not know about that.

Personally, I remember NOW when I was in college, and I have a hard time trusting anybody who was a former president of it.

ugh.

Makes me wonder what is really going on.

8:35 AM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Alf said:

"There are inherent differences, and it's not a matter of ideology, just science."

Yes,I know it's not a matter of ideology in itself.

However, it IS a matter of "ideology" whether you choose to feature it in your political rhetoric or not.

12:06 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

@LC:

I generally wonder if anybody truly knows what they are talking about when they talk about about "gender roles".

Gender roles according to WHOM?

Taking myself for an example: I am a male, middle-brow intellectual. I am typically mellow, soft-spoken and witty -- and I despise "touchy-feelyism" (or the cult of feeeelings).

In the course of my life, I have sometimes gotten the message that I am not "manly" enough, and other times gotten the message that I am "macho".

It makes me want to build a lazy-susan machine gun that will spray bullets in all directions....

Yup. I consider myself "just right."

12:26 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

'Crowe said:

"Personally, I remember NOW when I was in college, and I have a hard time trusting anybody who was a former president of it."

I would "trust" anybody as far as their work proves that they have bought in to my own "club".

Also, I would establish a "clearance level", so as to limit any potential damage which their betrayal of trust might inflict.

As for NOW: they are a bunch of radical feminists; don't let anybody fool you with the usual krapola about "liberal feminists".

12:45 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

Fidelbogen,

Gender role is the expected role males or females are supposed to play in culture. These roles are influenced by how you're brought up and the environment you lived in.

Gender roles according to WHOM?
Society. Society has nice way of making you want to fit in. We're a social species, we want to fit in, the herd is better than the individual. As individualist as my husband is, he fits into the goth subculture.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Snark said...

@ Lady Catherine

Could you explain more about this society? Is it a secret society? Like a cabal who are influencing people to act certain ways? Who exactly is influencing who? And how? And why?

I must admit that such an idea is rather novel to my ears; it borders on paranoia.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Following upon Snark . . yes, I am not sure who "society" is, since it appears to contain so many sub-sectors.

Also, I prefer to avoid "Schwyzerism" (or 'Hugo disease') i.e. the sin of universalizing personal experience, and pontificating on the basis of it. I consider Schwyzerism as a cultural infection that needs to be quarantined.

When you start talking about a "normative" set of norms, that leans in the direction of Hugo disease.....

5:20 PM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

@Snark
It's not a secret society, it's the society we grow up in. Every product manufactured for you, every activity, and every personality trait is deemed either masculine or feminine.

And for people like my husband who is gender queer this is psychologically unhealthy and demeaning to every male or female.

I think reading <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/Explaining%20Gender%20Overview.pdf>this</a> about the differences between gender and sex might be useful.

Simply put, gender role is created because of expectations that society demands of you. If society demands that you are a warrior by default; guess what cupcake? You're a warrior or at least that's what is socialized into you, you will be raised to be a warrior.

5:29 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Before the day is out, I am going to post about a blockbuster Swedish TV documentary that I just learned about -- including links to all 12 YouTube segments. It really blows the lid off Swedish feminism, hence, ALL feminism. And it might even throw a certain light upon topics under discussion in this thread...who knows?

6:04 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

From watching this Swedish documentary, it becomes apparent that the Swedish feminists do indeed, de facto, espouse what amounts to bio-essentialistic sexism. I'm sure I wouldn't know what else to call it, other than my old favorite manichean essentialism.

6:13 PM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

""""Gender roles according to WHOM?
Society. Society has nice way of making you want to fit in. We're a social species, we want to fit in, the herd is better than the individual. As individualist as my husband is, he fits into the goth subculture.""""

You didn't get fidel's question... He said expectations accroding to WHOM.

There is no such thing as "the society". There is no special boardroom where "society" gathers and they vote these exact norms that they expect everyone to follow.

There's litterally hundreds of subgroups in society and each one expects different things from a man/woman.

Gender expectations according to liberal universities? According to islam? According to christianity? According to susan or to bob?

The point fidel is bringing up is excellent. Its hard to "liberate men and women from gender roles", because you can't even peg the gender role down :D

How can you destroy something that is undefinable, unmeasurable and not-agreed upon?

There isn't one gender role, there are millions. As fidel said, one person will accuse me of being too agressive, and another for being too soft.

One is pushing me into one gender role, and someone else is pushing me into another gender role...

2:52 AM  
Blogger AlekNovy said...

"""My husband(silentblood) was talking about his experiences, he... experiences homophobia from his own family even now."""

Yeah, I get that part. He experiences both misandry and homophobia for being bisexual, and has even gotten some from gay men.

When he says "gay men", he's reffering to "them" as "they"... I'm guessing he's therefore making a distinction between himself and the typical gay man.

So I'm just trying to understand if he can guess at whether the typical gay men experiences misandry or not.

The feminist movement is co-opting mostly (stereo)typical gay-men, so I'm wondering if "they" tend to experience much misandry or not.

2:55 AM  
Anonymous Snark said...

Lady Catherine,

Maybe I should stop being sardonic.

I have studied psychology and sociology, I am well aware of what these terms supposedly mean.

"It's not a secret society, it's the society we grow up in. Every product manufactured for you, every activity, and every personality trait is deemed either masculine or feminine."

By who? What on earth is this 'society'? When you get down to it, what you are describing is something only conspiracy theorists could dream up.

"If society demands that you are a warrior by default; guess what cupcake? You're a warrior or at least that's what is socialized into you, you will be raised to be a warrior."

This is just blockheaded structuralist tautology.

8:34 AM  
Blogger Manifold said...

@ Anonymous, 12:28 AM:

Your kind of bunch frequently denies biology playing any role in the deveolopment of both sexes - so don't try to fool me.

And it is funny that you mention bias - at least real science tries to reduce bias while genderism points at others in order to justify their heavy distorted view of reality.

Many of your kind just simply confuse a bunch of personality traits with the sex of a person and think it's some kind of new thing they then enthusiastically call "gender".

10:56 AM  
Blogger Lady Catherine said...

@AlekNovy
Fair points about gender role.

That said,

So I'm just trying to understand if he can guess at whether the typical gay men experiences misandry or not.
YES! I have seen it in several blogs and in real life. It's really apparent in radfem blogs but in other more tame blogs I have seen gay men get put down in more subtle ways for their male "privilege."

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If society demands that you are a warrior by default; guess what cupcake? You're a warrior or at least that's what is socialized into you, you will be raised to be a warrior."


The problem I have with the whole "socialization" argument is that it basically asserts that human beings do not have free will. It's the same problem I have with Catholicism and some other strains of Christianity, "you're born a fallen human being and so you all your actions are tainted with sin".

The gender socialization people say "You're socialized into a 'gender role' and so all your notions about yourself are tainted with sin".

The model denies human agency completely.

I grew up (my early teenage years)in the Bible Belt, I CHOSE to be non-Christian, I grew up in a community of rednecks,and I hate monster trucks, NASCAR and horses, I grew up around people who hate "Int-TYE-leckshuls" and yet I CHOOSE to read and study a vast range of subjects and have always loved reading and exploring.

How does your socialization model explain my behavior? According to you people I should be chewing skoal,wearing bedsheets,and beating gay people for fun. I CHOOSE to be otherwise, because I have that choice, and because I knew from a VERY young age that the people around me were WRONG.

I endure hostility for my choices every day and I CHOOSE to endure that rather than live the lifestyle people suggest I should.

The socialization model sounds like a crutch for weak people to explain why they did not have the strength, the willpower,or the creativity to be something other than what they say they do not want to be.

If I can be so radically different from the people in my environment (and I'm not the only one, I had many friends like myself growing up but only found them after I had made my choices)then how come I couldn't find any girls to play fort with me in elementary school?

The only thing that explains it is inherent biological differences. Women never endured the regular beatings I got by marauding gangs of rednecks and would-be gangsta thugs for my choices, nothing like it.

Nor could the threat of social ostracization explain it completely,I ran that gauntlet as well.

So how do you explain it? No one ever encouraged me to do what I did, all I got was DIScouragement every step of the way and I did it anyway,I felt I HAD to.

The gender socialization model is complete horseshit, people are inherently more than what they are taught, they each have a unique soul(for lack of a better word)and unique personalities that they are born with, and shape their destinies through their choices.

12:52 AM  
Anonymous omannohjens said...

Feminism belongs to the dustbin of history!

http://www.anti-feminismus.org/


Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus
Deutschland (IGAFD)

Frankfurt, 4 April 2011
Media Information Association of Antifeminism Germany (IGAFD) founded – 3rd International Antifeminism-Congress take place in Germany

On 9 April 2010, the Association of Antifeminism (IGAF) was founded in Switzerland, and the 1st
International Antifeminism-Congress also attracted many participants from Germany. Thus, the wish arose to become active in Germany, too, and to oppose the generally privileged treatment of women and the reverse proportional, namely disadvantaged status of men.
On this basis, the Association of Antifeminism Germany (IGFAD) is founded on 4 April 2011. The
IGFAD is an independent society, which intends to work closely together with the IGAF in
Switzerland, and to carry out joint activities. The Association of Antifeminism Germany (IGAFD)
plans to organize an International Antifeminism Congress in Germany in the near future.
As for median terms, the creation of an international network is an important goal, as a tool of communication in the fight against the feminist ideology around the world. The aim is to bring an end to the feminist ‘War of the Sexes’ and the socialist equalizations policy (equality = equal results), because the equality in rights between men and women (equal rights = equal chances) had been achieved long time ago.
In the long term, Feminism is to be overcome and left on the rubbish heap of history. The relationship of man and woman needs to be de-ideologized, and families must be strengthened as the foundation of society.

Further information about the Association of Antifeminism Germany (IGAFD) are available on the website www.anti-feminismus.org, and about the Association of Antifeminism Switzerland (IGAF) on the website www.antifeminismus.ch.
For questions, please contact the following:

For questions, please contact the following:

Germany: Manfred Worm Schäfer, President: +49 - 176 - 99234073 – info@anti-feminismus.org

Switzerland: Urs Bleiker, President: +41 - 76 340 78 45 – urs.bleiker@antifeminismus.ch
René Kuhn, Founder IGAF: + 41 - 76 422 17 04 – rene.kuhn@antifeminismus.ch

8:23 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home