What are BMVOFs really trying to do by campaigning to ban male circumcision?

Gentile and non-Muslim beta male victims of feminism resent their ever-lowering status in relation to women, Jews, Muslims and immigrants.

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) May 15, 2017

The latest anti-Semitic cry: ban circumcision

Beta male victims of feminism (BMVOFs) are gentile and non-Muslim men who know their status is being lowered relative to women, Jews and Muslims because of their thraldom to fornication. They also know that their political establishment is a matriarchy and know they have no protectors amongst senior male politicians who wouldn't dream of standing up for the interests of BMVOFs, despised by middle class feminazis in government and public life. Because white middle class men in public life are afraid of white middle class feminazis in public life, these BMVOFs know they have no protectors. Why, even the BNP, won't even admit to the existence of BMVOFs and refuse them protection. There was no proposal to abolish no fault divorce by the BNP, was there? This is because so few of them are married. They too worship the slut and dare not offend her.

And so it has come to pass that pretending to be concerned about male circumcision is their effeminate and pathetic way of trying to gain status.

Their thinking is this: if gentiles and non-Muslims save the foreskins of Jewish and Muslim men, they become higher in status.

To pretend someone is in need of rescue or pity someone is of course to assert a higher status over the person who is pitied/to be rescued. It is always easier for someone defeated in argument to say "I pity you [for holding the views you do and taking the position you have because your rational arguments are indicative of a person lacking in irrationality, sentimentality and a desire to make futile gestures as a display of compassion/femininity/effeminacy]" than try to win the argument using truth, logic and morality.