Under the Soviet Union, a factory was never just a factory; it was a vital tool in the war on capitalist oppression. Every organ of society was repurposed to achieve a utopian society, as imagined by communism. The Soviet Union even manipulated science, as the case of Lysenkoism shows. You see something similar with today’s Men’s Rights Movement.
Take the military, for example. When the American military announced that it would start putting women in combat, Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) rejoiced. Letting women fight is stupid and dangerous for any number of reasons; women are markedly weaker than men, and even if they were held to the same standards, the number of women who would qualify be so few so as to not be worth it. The inevitable rise in allegations of sexual assault and rape among soldiers at war would more than counter any increase in the quality of recruits, if any actually occurred. As Dick Masterson says, “A woman in the army always does more harm than good – and usually more troops than harm.”
One could cite countless more reasons, but to the MRA, that’s all irrelevant. To him, the military exists not to protect the nation, but to deliver gender equality. MRAs don’t care how effective the military is; to say that our men might get slaughtered on the battlefield because of MRA policies is not even a criticism – because the goal of the military would no longer be to defend our citizens, but to uproot traditional sex roles. It’ll all be worth it because it will mean treating women like men. And the military is but one example.
This is already happening with multiculturalism. The goal of a business is no longer to turn a profit, the end of a university is no longer to share the truth – the goal is everywhere always ‘celebrating diversity.’ There is a middle phase, where ideologues assure us that the new goals are at peace with the old ones – that say, multiculturalism won’t harm the academy’s search for truth. Eventually, the original, specific goals of these institutions are discarded outright, so that the ideology of the day can create ‘progress’ unimpeded. Once transformed, it will be demonstrably inferior at accomplishing the goal it had before – there will be more losses on the battlefield and more lies from the labia of academe. But that won’t be a problem, because success in the old realms of honor and truth will be irrelevant. Now, these organs of society exist to push the -ism of the day, whether that’s communism, feminism or men’s rights. Properly understood, men’s rights is just another batty shade of utopian leftism.
As utopians, MRAs don’t much care about any social institution for its own traditional role, but only insofar as it promotes ‘gender equality.’ Its goal is to remake every institution in society until androgyny of the sexes is attained and expected, and the ‘oppression’ of men has ceased. I’ve yet to meet any MRAs in person, so it’s hard to understand exactly why they’re so hostile to traditional sex roles. But they bear an uncanny resemblance to feminists because they resent the duties and limits that their sex imposes.
They are like fat chicks trying to redefine beauty to mean vile obesity. They are pariahs. Which would be fine, if they would simply leave everyone else alone, and carry on amongst themselves. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) do exactly that, for which they have my respect. But like fat chicks and feminists, MRAs are too insecure for that; they desperately crave the wider society’s approval. They can’t bear to go off on their own while society writes them off. So they try to make pariahdom the new normal. The traditional forms of beauty and virtue become their sworn enemy.
For instance, there is a story posted on the website of the National Center For Men, of one man’s disappointment that even hardcore feminists object to him wearing skirts, even as they only wear pants.
But a man had better act and look like a man. He had better be steady, secure, a good provider and dressed in bifurcated clothing below the waist. A man in a skirt is a direct assault on society’s views about masculinity and male responsibility. The image of him in that skirt seems so ridiculous to so many people because it penetrates deeply to the core of sexist prejudice against men.
This group had also defended a man in a prominent court case. I actually respect the author, for carrying out his beliefs to their logical conclusion, instead of hiding his true colors behind tiny changes. Feminism was supposed to free men and women from the expectations imposed by their sex, and it has succeeded, but mostly with women – no one bats an eye at a woman covered in tattoos, cursing freely, let alone one wearing pants; but if a straight man does anything remotely effeminate, his masculinity will come under question, especially at the hands of women. Even when women claim it’s harmless, they refuse to see these men as worthy of sex, a rather damning fate from a Darwinian perspective. Men’s rights wants to do for men what feminism did for women – make effeminacy as acceptable for men as mannishness is now for women.
The premier goal of MRA is to annihilate these notions that men should be masculine, and women should be feminine. MRAs and feminists are hostile to the idea that masculinity and femininity are desirable. The expectation that males carry themselves like men, strong and stoic, is a point of great irritation to them. Paul Elam, founder of the MRA website A Voice For Men, has said that if men were seen as inherently strong and dominant, males who lack these qualities would be seen as less worthy as men. And that that would be bigotry. To believe that men should be masculine and women should be feminine is ‘dangerous,’ according to Elam. Therefore, to say that men be confident and decisive, or that women be graceful and nurturing, is a sin.
Stony Brook University recently erected a men’s studies department, headed by Michael Kimmel, to the delight of MRAs. A little investigation reveals that Kimmel insists that more gender equality is the answer. The leaders of the men’s rights movement are little more than feminists – and this should come as no surprise to one who truly understands the movement. It’s not just one man wanting permission to wear skirts in public – it’s an entire movement based on discontent with being a man.
The Men’s Right’s Movement Lionizes Victimhood
Deep down, MRAs believe not only that men are victims, but that men can only advocate for their rights insofar as they are victims. Victimhood grants legitimacy. Plight makes right. Look at the issues dearest to MRAs, and you’ll find that stories of male victimhood dominate their discussions. Higher male suicide rates, male circumcision, men as rape victims, false rape accusations, divorce ‘theft,’ and men as victims of domestic violence.
Take that last one for example, a man who is beaten by his woman. Accepting responsibility for oneself is a cornerstone of masculinity; if a man is being abused and dominated against his will, by a woman that he himself has chosen, he has utterly failed as a man. He cannot protect himself, let alone his family or friends. Yet MRAs deify broken men like these, as the very icon of their movement. He who values strength disdains they that prize weakness. I have nothing but disgust for men who pride themselves on being victims; were the MRM to actually value manliness, instead of canonizing failures, it would be more popular. Most men don’t want to parade themselves as victims either.
Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears – Marcus Aurelius
Elsewhere, they campaign for female-on-male rape to be recognized as a serious issue – an issue so marginal that everyone else writes them off as crazy for even bringing it up. To the feminist’s claims that women are oppressed, the MRA replies, “hey, me too!” Just as feminists go apoplectic at the mention of sensible advice to help avoid getting raped, the MRA will become livid, if told that he can act to avert disaster.
MRAs Want You To Believe There’s Nothing You Can Do
MRAs bleat so urgently, because they think they are powerless as individuals; only by collective action, ultimately by government fiat, can men be helped. He thinks that if he admits that he can take protective measures, some will say it was his fault when something does happen. So, he must deny that a man can do anything about these dangers. Man must be seen as a weak powerless victim, lest we minimize the challenges he faces.
Tell an MRA how to avoid false rape accusations and you’ll just become one of his targets. You’re ruining his narrative of man as helpless victim. Where the MRA retreats from challenge, the masculine man perseveres, to create the life he desires.
Read Next: 7 Traits Of The Male Feminist
I get your POV; but when I am labeled a MRA, in actuality, I am a FRA (Father’s Rights Activist). This is because I got screwed over. The ex has broken several laws, both military and civil; yet I pay the price. I am seeing my kid after almost two years, and a lot of legal expenses yet she is not being forced to endure any real punishment; it is a game.
Although I get what you are saying, I disagree. MRAs are essentially saying fine, you want “equality,” we will give it to you; we just want them to pay the consequences of equality too. The traditional marriage you are really decrying the loss of, is dead. It cannot come back with the amount of spending required to maintain a family. I don’t hold doors open, I don’t pay for dates. I always got plenty. But many men will tire of the rat race after thirty and potentially take the bullet. So, if and when they do, they want equal footing if the marriage dissolves. Which everyone here knows that more often than not it does. I do not think free sex and slutty behavior that is rampant today is going to last forever; it can’t.
I really don’t think most people here care one way or the other. I guess I don’t get all the disrespect the MRAs get here. What they at least claim to want makes a lot of sense.
So whether MGTOW, or PUA ballin’fo’life, you will be affected by feminist laws. If MRAs can change that good. However, your approach has been around for a long, long time, and like feminism is was chided for a reason. A nation cannot survive, and I have seen a few others here chide women for said whorrishisness, when both men and women cannot live until death having sex like that and no kids.
Not everyone who marries or lives in LTRs is a beta. You act like you are a god who feminist laws don’t apply to. Yet a simple false accusation could wipe anyone here out. I know I will get down voted a million times; but I have been around long enough, and to enough places to see the other side. Accusing cock carousel connoisseurs without acknowledging the player riders of the poosey boat palace ride to poosey paradise is hypocritical. Both are on the carousel.
Not all men want to be a PUA for life. I fail to see why they all have to be disrespected.
This.
The MRM is working on the (correct) assumption that the US Constitution, as written, does not provide a good framework with which to disregard feminist demands for equality. On the contrary, the prevailing interpretation of the law of the land strongly favors those who succeed in casting themselves as oppressed.
Since (in the MRM’s view) it’s difficult to deny equality, MRM tries to do the best with what the law offers them, which is to respond in kind like a lawyer scrutinizing a contract for loopholes.
Bingo. TY.
Ah, but the feminists in particular and women in general want the best of both worlds. I agree that it’s long overdue where they need to choose between traditionalist inequality and modern equality. Anyone who attempts to make them do this is righteous in my view.
Exactly. I get the impression that generally most men would prefer a return to traditionalism, but MRAs are men who realize that traditionalism doesn’t have a leg to stand on now that women have franchise.
That’s how I’ve seen it long before this article. I’ve been thinking of a practical solution to feminism. Either A) traditional gender roles, which we won’t see unless there is a total system/societal collapse, or B) truly equal rights and laws, even though equality is a massive liberal lie – if they’re going to push equality then the laws should truly be equal (but keep women the hell out of the military)
You see here is the problem. The blogger known as The Fifth Horseman or the Futurist said women have the apex fallacy in droves. Most if not all see the top men and think men have it so much better than women. Women rarely if ever look around to see what happens to the bottom men. Sure, it’s true that the top men have it better than the top women and there is a proverbial glass ceiling which is more difficult for them to break through. However, there is a glass floor which women are less likely to be allowed to fall through or to be thrown through. What women never realize is that it is usually better to be a bottom woman than a bottom man. Bottom men are less likely to be regarded and treated as human beings by society at large than even bottom women. The other thing women never seem to understand is that all of this is natural and that having society enforce a different outcome is unnatural and leads to disaster. This is true when men are supported above women, and this is even more true when women are supported above men. Lastly, women never seem to understand as well as men that governments and the ruling elite behind it can and will turn on their most devoted supporters, and they are not to be trusted. I may work for the government again and do everything they ask of me like I did last time, but I have no illusions.
Look, I’m a former U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. My fellow veterans are more likely to be homeless and jobless than any other demographic you can imagine in sheer percentages and we replaced Vietnam War veterans for the top spot. The overwhelming majority of veterans are men. The majority of homeless are men. This is one example of many. You could go on to prisoner population, battlefield deaths and injuries, workplace deaths and injuries etc.
If out of the military, then no more “a woman’s body, a woman’s choice.” If my whole body/life can be conscripted, at least her uterus/9mo can likewise be conscripted — both are about saving life, right? Haha.
I’m a woman and I agree with the bit about the Apex Fallacy, but I think men suffer from this in their own ways regarding women.
“MRAs have traditionalism in one hand, and egalitarianism in the other, and are telling feminism “CHOOSE!””
1. Why leave the choice to someone else, to someone in fact you despise?
2. I never see MRAs advocating traditionalism. MGTOW, yes, MRAs no. So the choice MRAs favor is state-mandated egalitarianism.
“Since (in the MRM’s view) it’s difficult to deny equality”
Precisely where I part with MRAs. Men and women are different, and there is no reason equality ought to be a goal.
As far as the Constitution goes, there was about a century between the introduction of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbid discrimination against women among businesses. So for about a century, the rule was that the government was barred from discriminating on the basis of sex, but private agents could. ‘Equality’ is not mandated by the Constitution.
The Spearhead just did a really great post on this. Equal, but not equalism!
“I never see MRAs advocating traditionalism. MGTOW, yes, MRAs no. So the choice MRAs favor is state-mandated egalitarianism.”
There are more than two choices in life. You don’t have to falsely attribute ‘state-mandated egalitarianism’ to be an MRA characteristic…obviously, you have an axe to grind here. MRAs generally advocate the MGTOW approach, a few advocate the ‘Traditionalist’ approach, and Reddit Leftie MRA noobs generally advocate ‘equality’.
But then, since you are such a student of the MRM, I suppose you knew that and chose to present info in this way because it fit your smear job better…
“Precisely where I part with MRAs. Men and women are different, and there is no reason equality ought to be a goal.”
‘Equality’ is not now, nor has it EVER been a ‘goal’ of the MRM. There’s a hint hidden in the name…see if you can figure out what men are seeking ‘equality’ in….. No? OK, I’ll tell you.
It’s equal rights. Equal legal rights and responsibilities. Equal treatment before the Law.
Know who else wanted that shit? The guys that wrote the fucking Constitution.
MRAs are about ending PC hegemony, and not a lot more. Sure, Reddit is full of asshats who think the MRM is ‘about equality’, but that’s because they’re stupid, and wrong.
AVfM has been a PC cesspit for a while now as well. Notice all the MRAs abandoning that place in droves of late?
“‘Equality’ is not mandated by the Constitution.”
No, ‘equality’ isn’t. But equal rights and standing before the Law? Absolutely it is.
My main question though, is why you would write these hit pieces? What’s your beef? Don’t like men styanding up for themselves? Or for other men? What, seriously, is your problem with there being an MRM? Are you a Feminist or something? Like things the way they are? Or are you just another crab in a bucket?
Seriously, what the fuck dude?
Can you point to a men’s rights organization that endorses traditional sex roles? Or one that promotes freedom over government imposed equality?
I’d love to be proven wrong about men’s rights. But every time I look, it’s more of the same.
“1. Why leave the choice to someone else, to someone in fact you despise?”
Because the legal narrative begun with the 14th amendment and continued with the CRA and now firmly entrenched in caselaw leaves only two courses of action:
A. Acknowledge that our predecessors decided to give women equal choice in the matter and we can’t accomplish anything legally without at least some buy-in from them.
OR
B. Take up arms against the government and enact a new constitution that more explicitly says “wimins be crazy, don’t let them vote”.
Those are the only options.
You play within the system, you have to acknowledge that the system gives women a say. Play outside the system, you have to acknowledge that the largest defense budget on Earth makes a pretty good case for might-makes-right.
I’m not sure AVFM can be compared to all MRA’s. AVFM seems to be a well funded umbrella gatekeeper organization that seeks to channel the MRM along a path that is anti-conservative, atheist, multi cultural and homo sexual friendly. AVFM is intolerant of an voice to the contrary. They do not want Christian or conservative values yet I have seen it stated on AVFM that PUA’s are sociopaths.
AVFM is the controlled opposition
“Can you point to a men’s rights organization that endorses traditional sex roles?”
You have to consider the anarchic nature of the MRM, and the manosphere in general. For example, is Roissy, or Roosh, a ‘PUA organization’, or just an influential guy? The NCFM is a ‘mens rights organization’, but how many MRAs know who Mel Feit is?
There is an ongoing debate within the MR online community regarding this ‘New Left’ approach to Mens Rights espoused by the mods at Reddit, and to some extent the staff at AVfM, but I would personally categorize the MRM in general as more Libertarian in nature than anything else. It was the ‘what will the neighbors think?’ fear mongers that pushed the Leftist ‘equality’ types to the fore. And for what it’s worth, I have been trying to point this out to MRA’s for a couple years now, as have others.
The most visible MRA spots are not necessarily the most undiluted MRA spots.
“I’d love to be proven wrong about men’s rights. But every time I look, it’s more of the same.”
As I continually say to all the other guys whining the MRM isn’t what they want it to be…
If you want to see something, go fucking do it and stop complaining no one else has done it for you yet. This is a baby movement, with all sorts of unassigned territories for expertise, where ‘influential’ can simply mean ‘there first’. So, if there’s truly a demand among men in general for the message you have, then you will become popular and grow.
If you try, and fail, it’s not Paul Elam or Bill Price or anyone else’s fault. It’s because not very many people agree. Call it free market of ideas, or call it anarchy, but it’s the simple fact.
Libertarian kind of autistic guy that I am, and also as one of the old timers of the MRM, I have long stated that one of my favorite authors is George Gilder (a preeminent traditionalist if ever there was one), that Men and Marriage is one of my all-time favorite books, but as a classical liberal (trapped twixt the conservatives and the libertarians) I advocate traditionalism as a choice: legal egalitarianism. Socially, most people will gravitate toward a traditionalist life because traditions serve the greatest number of people. Having the freedom to choose, however, those of us clustered above 5th sigma can take a different path. For the military, it must have been about 15 years ago I wrote that women who want to hold combat positions should be held to precisely the same standards as men. Otherwise, heck no.
Absent for several years from the MRM while serving in a political office, I returned to find that things seemed out of kilter. I could be mistaken, but I get the sense that there are a lot of feminists and feminist-sympathizers posing as MRAs. Back when the web was new there was a joke that, “on the internet nobody knows if you’re a dog.” That was the caption on a cartoon of a dog sitting at a PC. During the past year or so, the number of subscribers to the Men’s Rights Subreddit has almost doubled. There doesn’t seem to be more original posts, but there do seem to be more down votes and negative comments, which are red flags to me that a lot of those new subscribers are posers. Could it be the same in the “manosphere,” that a lot of social egalitarians are like Mel Feit, utopians in search of a gender egalitarian ideal, or are they really feminists intent on subverting the MRM? As to your question about organizations that do support traditional roles, it’s been years since I’ve had contact, but back in the 1990s pretty much all of the fathers’ rights organizations were strongly traditionalist.
Good point about Mel. He’s mostly a NYC personality. I had never heard of him until we met on a talk show in Boston, where both of us were wondering, “who is that guy, where did he come from and why haven’t I heard of him before?”
The Spearhead is a great site!
“I would personally categorize the MRM in general as more Libertarian in nature than anything else.”
Suing venues for holding ‘Ladies’ Nights’ is grossly anti-libertarian, yet the NCFM did it. http://ncfm.org/tag/sex-discrimination/feed/
I asked you for evidence, and you failed to deliver, against my multiple examples demonstrating my point. If you can’t point to a notable advocate in movement X advocating Y, then it’s safe to conclude that the X movement does not support Y.
*X = MRA, Y = traditional sex roles.
His name is Ron Paul.
I think there are a lot of men and women – both in and out of the nascent MRM – who think that traditional gender roles make a lot of sense, at least as a personal option if not as a prescription for society.
However, those in the MRM have tiny voices compared to the massively-state-funded feminists. The concepts and ideas of traditionalism are discredited every day in colleges throughout the western world and legislated against in almost every government, including supra-national governments.
There really is no direct route from where we are to anything like traditional gender roles (whatever one imagines them to be). First, it is necessary to stop the trend of female supremacy, it is necessary for men to gain (or regain) the basic human rights accorded by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and by the nation’s constitution.
Only once men are accorded their human rights can men and women who want something other than the concept of ‘equality’ that has been forced upon society be questioned and changed in the light of fairness and balance.
Um, read the Spearhead bro.
Agreed. “Equality” is a Marxian utopian fantasy with no basis in reality.
Mr. Goldstein, I’ve read your article and totally understand where you are coming from. I mean, women comprising 50% of the army?!! WTF thats just makess me sick even to think of not because of any false notion that girls need to especially protected or any of that white knight BS, but the idea of any military power or responsibility in the hands of women is just ridiculous and sickening. There are very good reasons why traditional gender roles have worked for so long, even evolved in the first place. And under the umbrella of the traditional roles falls the masculine principle :
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears – Marcus Aurelius
As quoted in your article.
But what if the legal build of the society itself starts conspiring against your sex. What if the government that ought to facilitate your successful execution of your masculine role hinders that by neglecting its duties (eg. the state of education for boys) and what if the the biggest mediator of mass opinion, the popular media, just to pander to the tastes of an influential entity (feminism) regularly demonizes and puts your gender in the eyes of people, especially the impressionable younger ones of our own gender. Like first deliberately breaking a man’s leg and then asking him to do his duty to fight and die for his country instead of just the latter. Had it been just the latter, the matter would have ended at the advice doled out by Aurelius, as it has for centuries.
But as that is not the case, we can agree that our gender needs a voice STRONG ENOUGH to be HEARD, ie when it it speaks, the government listens and atleast considers changing the status quo to what it should be (eg. skewed divorce laws). For if the voice is not loud enough, as with the MRM for so long, the government doesn’t deign to pay attention.
Its only recently that MRM, as a voice against the injustices, standards of traditional gender roles considered, against men is beginning to be heard ( and not just in America, also in other countries such as mine ie India where we recently managed to have the VAWA repealed).
So tell, would you have a flawed voice, one that isn’t 100% consistent with whats ideal and needs to be worked on or no voice at all.
So you want choice for women, but it’s okay to pigeon hole men into traditional roles. Most MRA’s are not just about equality under the law, otho that is a big part of the problem right now that MRA’s address.
This is not the MRA’s i’ve seen. Most want to get away from traditionalist ways. To free men from traditionalist bullshit. To free us from gynocentrism. Feminism is just an extreme form of this.
I didn’t hold up the life of the lothario as the ideal. I said that MRAs are arbiters of victimhood, androgyny and passivity.
Much of MRA logic consists of ‘biting off your nose to spite your face’ type thinking. Sexual harassment and questionable domestic abuse laws? “Let’s see them applied to you women!” If they are ever successful, that’ll mean twice as much government meddling, instead of just empowering people to act responsibly. I don’t see punishing women for stupid shit too an improvement over the current paradigm of punishing men for stupid shit.
Yes, the system is stacked against men. I say withdraw, and find an alternative. TV is full of misandry, and you’re worried about your kid’s exposure to it? Don’t start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school. All those things that people tell you you ‘can’t do,’ do them. Get a prenup. Set up a videocamera in your closet to forestall false rape accusations. Do your own paternity testing. The MRA preoccupation with protest over action is the problem here.
In general, government has enabled our current set of affairs where women spurn and disrespect women. Reduce the scope of government, and stop contributing to the power of misandric institutions, and the situation will improve for both men AND women, by restoring traditional sex roles.
I see your point, and seen it many times in the MRA comment sections. Most MRA types are libertarian and don’t want government intervention. the problem is feminism, family courts, and other government agencies are all in the same bed together; and if they can find a way to include all men they will.
However, what you are suggesting is no way to live. Me personally, I take unemployment whenever I can, and use my government benefits to tell the judge how his state is getting paid. With it’s own money. Yet still, it is no way to live as I am still being robbed of every opportunity.
MRAs get your POV, however it still stand s for those who can’t just walk away. If and when we win, so do you. Calling them out for simply not having PUAed their whole life is of no real practical use. You have no reason to worry about it in your case; so why drag MRA/MHRAs down?
Are MRAs truly libertarian? They look at all the goodies feminists have gotten with the state’s help, and are clamoring for them too. That’s not libertarianism.
They want to leverage all the gains that feminists have gotten, and use them against women. I am saying, no, I don’t want a VAMA (Violence Against Men Act), or affirmative action for men wanting to wait tables.
MRAs don’t want a VAMA, or VAHA. Essentially, fair treatment and an impartial system that is not aided by government for social security to be raked over for more funds.
Again, MRAs know that the whole system is about money, and men are the targets, women the tool to get them trapped in it.
It does not have to be hard.
I like those “grow up” demagogy.
“Don’t start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school.”
If I will throw out my TV – will gov stop charging me with taxes from which it subsidies state TV channels? Of cause – no.
If I will home school my kids – will I stop pay taxes from which public education is funded? We both know an answer… So – what you actually says is :
Pay your taxes from which public TV and public education (mainly consumed by females) will be funded , and after it – throw out your TV , and home school your kids.
You claim – it will reduce gov power? You think – we are all stupid here?
You have more control over yourself than anything else. So starting with yourself is the most effective path of change.
As long as it continues to exist, the “establishment” will be stacked against you. Trying to mend it is a fool’s errand. At least when one withdraws, one can claim to have reduced support for the regime.
So you ‘reduce support’ for the regime I guess by reducing commercial revenues for television programs… and by theoretically lowering the budget school receive by a small amount by removing your kid from the pool…
but in the end you still pay the government taxes used to fund the school and much of TV so… it seems like but a drop… I feel like more could be done than that.
“If I will home school my kids – will I stop pay taxes from which public education is funded? We both know an answer… So – what you actually says is : Pay your taxes from which public TV and public education (mainly consumed by females) will be funded , and after it – throw out your TV , and home school your kids.
“You claim – it will reduce gov power? You think – we are all stupid here?”
Free your mind, free your children’s minds. It is about enhancing your own free will, rather than avoiding some minor taxes.
“but in the end you still pay the government taxes used to fund the school and much of TV so… it seems like but a drop… I feel like more could be done than that.”
The point isn’t to bring down the system (that’s coming down all by itself).
Excellent points! However, the laws, at least in the west, are set up to ensnare men even if you separate yourself from the mainstream. Slip up once, and you’re stuck. This is why I’ve been prattling on ever since I resumed publishing that men need to make it their primary purpose to get rich. No I don’t have or promote some get rich quick scheme. I do encourage folks to follow Bill Bonner, Doug Casey and Simon Black. I carry a lot of others on my site from whom to learn how to get rich. With loads of loot, a man can buy himself an escape plan, he can internationalize himself, which is what Roosh appears to have done, and he can work with like-minded men to stage Rupert Murdoch style assaults on western culture, buying media networks (or building them on the web), where we can promote rational values.
> find an alternative. TV is full of misandry, and you’re worried about your kid’s exposure to it? Don’t start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school. All those things that people tell you you ‘can’t do,’ do them. Get a prenup. Set up a videocamera in your closet to forestall false rape accusations. Do your own paternity testing. The MRA preoccupation with protest over action is the problem here.
Not everyone can easily come up with solutions and only know to voice complaints. Rather than insulting people for not having solutions why not simply make more efforts like these to share your ideas that help treat the problems?
Equality under the law isn’t important to you, this is basically all you said. It’s about holding people to the same standards, not doubling the oppression.
I can’t speak with any specific awareness of MRAs. To me, it is kind of a Red Pill adolescence, a stop, a first step many men go through after divorce, in a Red Pill journey. To me it is a whiny sort of way to be, and I prefer the aggression of Game as a cultural game changer. Some men choose to remain in that adolescence. This idea that this current state of the culture can fixed with political and judicial action is something I can’t accept.
But there exists institutional and cultural misandry that is real and it does appear those MRA factions of the manosphere are attempting to attack that misandry: False rape, abuse of sexual harassment laws, family law and divorce injustice, discrimination in jobs and in society against men. These factors are very real and we are all aware of them. I see MRAs using the fallacies of feminist arguments and exposing certain things as examples of that fallacy. So I can’t write off MRM in its entirety. I just choose to be part of something else. This. Our thing.
Emmanuel Goldstein below speaks of a return to traditionalism and I think that will never happen nor do I wish it to happen. Man 3.0 is not going to be Man 1.0 re-released.
The philosophy teacher Leo Strauss from the Unversity of Chicago says western culture is a product of the tension of the Greek legacy of Rationalism with the Hebrew legacy of the Revelation, meaning scriptural dictates from religion. Man 1.0 was almost entirely a product of the Revelation and I think Man 3.0 will not be of that. I think rather he will be a product of a new Rationalism based on a real awareness of women and men, that is derived from science and from the shared observations of millions of men.
And part of being Man 3.0 is saying “Bitch, you’re a bitch and this is why you’re a bitch, bitch.” And MRA has a place in that calling out of women and their behavior. I just choose not to participate in it.
Agreed. Though I casually listen to the MRM now and again, and subscribe to their calls for calling the feminazis out on their bullshit, I don’t necessarily subscribe to everything they say. I’m more MGTOW-ish and have been, in one form or another, for most of my adult life.
However, I do believe that MRM has its place, especially for men who were screwed over in divorce and out of their visitation rights with their kids. If nothing else, MRM shows them the bald-faced lies they were operating under for so long. Maybe they can use it for resource to attain justice (ha, ha) legally.
But, after the MRM and letting the Red Pill dissolve and make its way through the bloodstream, MGTOW is the only rational way to go. MRMs, though laudable in their attacks, are too desirous of “equality” when this won’t happen, given the current state of affairs. Pessimist that I am, the sclerotic culture is beyond being reformable. Let it collapse first, then we see what happens. It won’t be pretty, but what collapses are, eh?
“MRAs are essentially saying fine, you want “equality,” we will give it to you; we just want them to pay the consequences of equality too. The traditional marriage you are really decrying the loss of, is dead”
This is why people should be wary of MRAs. While equality is preferable to what we have now, your battles are a distraction to achieving a functional, rational society. Worse you take the mantle of Men’s Rights as if you are giving men a seat at the table when all you are doing is enforcing feminism. We must rethink and fight the assumptions that lead us down this path in the first place instead of fighting for table scraps in a decadent matriarchy.
Good response. I don’t see the aim of game except to exploit gynocentrism for their own nihilistic ends, at least MRA’s are trying to change the system one knows how. From what I’ve read from AVFM, they are not pushing a political agenda, because they know the political system is biased against men in every single way. For me, because no matter how much you game women, in the end, they have you by the balls anyway, MGTOW is the way to go for me, pussy is a distraction from achieving the impossible, and for me to find greatness, I must cut it off. You PUA’s are Hyena’s in lion’s clothing. You pretend to be alpha, when you are just slaves to the pussy.
>A Voice For Men, has said that if men were seen as inherently strong and
dominant, males who lack these qualities would be seen as less worthy
as men.
Bitching and whining about the hard truth doesn’t make it any less true.
Truth doesn’t go away like annoying people or a fly on your face if you shift around and yell.
Truth remains true, and you better be grounded in reality if you want to change reality.
Action -> changes
Sitting on your lazy ass -> no changes
Nothing comes from nothing.
Unless it is not true.
In ancient times, it made sense to favor the physically AND mentally strong. But today, with modern technology is different. It pays to favor those who have talent. This is dynamically different. Honestly, anyways, how many of us here are ACTUALLY a Julius Caesar, or Einstein? Probably not many if any at all.
A person may be bed ridden, and incapable of playing a sport, or building a building. Yet they could still write. Modern tech allows us to “mine,” if you will, the talent of those who in ancient times would have been discarded as irrelevant due to whatever limitation they had. Back then, it made sense, now it does not. Numerous people, regardless of any physical limitation, can still contribute something to the greater whole.
The problem I have with your theory is that it is outdated. By like a thousand years. With modern tech, it may as well be a million.
I was almost an Olympic level athlete. I can understand and complete hard calculus and physics. I am relatively good looking, and can understand both mechanical and the abstract.
However, just because the dude next to me is paraplegic does not mean he can’t do some of those things, or some of the more abstract better than I can. Chances are likely that while I was working hard in my athletic craft, he was still working on what he had; so he might actually bring more to the engineering table so to speak as I will be coming in late?
To so readily dismiss others because they are weaker than you, perceived or otherwise, is the hallmark of weak feeble fool too afraid of his own shadow. It reaks of insecurity, and is the masculine Yin, to the feminist Yang.
Protip: strength is not only physical, a man who writes a great piece of literature is a man with a strong, healthy mind.
I wanted to say that strength for me is the ability to do something, be it tangible or something abstract like theoretical physics.
A guy like Hawking is physically weak, but I could never compete with him in terms of mental ability concerning math/physics/theories about the universe.
Maybe the internet isn’t the right place to discuss such theories, since so much can be misinterpreted, especially if my native language isn’t even English.
I understand, and withdrew the down vote.
This is what is flooding the so called “MHRA” (an H?):
https://twitter.com/realmattforney/status/341379829578493952
https://twitter.com/TransMillennium/status/341404153391747072
https://twitter.com/realmattforney/status/342111925821386752
https://twitter.com/realmattforney/status/342114368525328385
By the way: WYB?
I would bang but I have absolutely no standards. And I would feel bad afterwards.
I would also bang. I have standards, but I guess even though I recognize she’s not stereotypically beautiful she doesn’t repulse me… maybe her personality could but I want to entertain she could be a really cool pony-loving geekette.
To Elam’s credit, he booted that hysterical, divisive interloper Kristina Hansen out of his organization lately.
The problem is that we all know he’s going to make the same mistake again: letting women into his tent. Because nothing says “A Voice for Men” more than having GIRLS run the show right? Just like how Gloria Steinem and all those other feminists back in the 70’s let men speak for them?
The MRM—er, excuse me, the “MHRM” is one big bucket of fail.
Matt,
Honestly, it is a matter of picking our battles. The gay movement, conservative women, intellectuals, and all the rest are better off with us than helping feminists kick our ass as well. Feminists pissed them off as well, and I would rather they be for us then against us. The MHRM is a new thing, and we need all the help we can get. Honestly, how well has “keepin it real” been working for all of us?
You may be childless, not married, and dating a few carousel riders; but most of us know that at some point we will want more. Sitting there bitching about how bad feminists are, and it is hopeless so just never have kids, and go “be a man” for the rest of my life until death alone is no longer on my list of options.
I have to take the system down, or fail at trying. To mimic feminists by labeling all woman as whores is the same as them saying all men are abusers.
I can’t say that NAWALT, and NAMALT at once, and disagree at the same time. Your a smart guy, think of the logic of it. Ultimately, complete MGTOW/PUA is a losing proposition in the long run as all men are going to want sex and security without all the drama. Takes time, try picking up a twenty year old when your 80, and not a billionaire. Yet not all men will hold even a large fraction (like 45%) of their initial SMV past forty. So, they find a woman who accepts them despite their faults, and does not nag the hell outta of them.
Women may lose their SMV like a airplane turned into a rock at 36. Yet men don’t garner enough SMV past 55 at the latest; and that is me being far too kind. Most men start losing their SMV at 35 or younger. Wise women just cash in when young, and get the baby making out the way. So that way a man may enjoy her while the kids are out by forty.
God or nature, not me made it. We are not going to change it ourselves anytime soon either. Feminism failed, what makes you think PUAing until fifty is going to work for everyone yourself? Gloria Steinem would approve if she were not such a hellish and dynamic thunder bitch.
“You may be childless, not married, and dating a few carousel riders; but most of us know that at some point we will want more. Sitting there bitching about how bad feminists are, and it is hopeless so just never have kids”
You sir have yet to take the red pill and should just leave this site alone. You are probably the type of beta dipshit who watches Hollywood comedies under the impression that they are a reflection of reality. You should leave your bachelor shaming language for other forums.
You sir, should work on yours. That was weak.
I took the pill years ago; 2003. I have been in long enough to know that eventually, it gets old. You don’t have to like it or agree. I could care less which. My notch count was great due to material like this.
Eventually, all the “bad boy alphas” such as yourself wake up one ay, look around, and ask yourself what else is there?
Not saying you have to marry, or have kids, or both. Just saying that eventually, you are going to want something more as your SMV slowly declines after forty, and the younger girls who might have given you kids when you were younger no longer want you. You will also want to know that everything you built up over the years won’t be taken from you without notice, and without the ability to defend yourself and win.
Personally, I got tired of having to listen to inane bull shit everyday before I pounded a NYL ass then sent her home in the morning. Eventually, you get old, and like you will tell a queen bee that she should have taken you when she had the chance…the right woman can tell you the same. Don’t say I did not warn you.
No one wants to see your old wrinkly forty year old ass at the club dude; don’t get it twisted. Enjoy your youth while it lasts, and capitalize on it while you can. Or you “sir” will be the forty something year old spinster wishing you listened. You do preach hypergamy after all don’t you?
I know, I know, I am a beta blue pill loser…how dare I blaspheme in the presence of an “obvious” alpha such as yourself with my “shaming language.”
Just understand that it does not matter if you like it. Marriage was not JUST for women in the past, and the inevitable brick wall waits for us all.
If you think that you will be the 1 in 200 million men who make billions and can get a thirty something year old to grudgingly cover your old 90 year old ass face while she lets you impregnate her is a good thing; well, good luck with that. She is waiting for you to croak and counting the lines on the will with every close-to-cold-hearted thrust you will ever creakingly make.
Or maybe you will sire kids and not ever keep touch, that is a real winner too. The fact is, your dick is one of the multitude of dicks falling off the carousel no sooner than you got on. I know, your a bad boy fo’life! Fo shizzle ma nizzle.
However, honestly, most men will NEVER be that. SO I still fail to see why MRAs are weak little betas, and MGTOWs are lesser betas with more respect?
If a guy wants to have kids, and defend his turf in the process; does it not benefit you? Why you have to drag him down when he is trying to gain his life back?
If you can’t agree, than agree to disagree.
Jesse James,
Emmanuel Goldstein is right to point out that MRAs have faults, and thus far they haven’t been very successful. Even the MRAs know they have faults. You may think they have certain faults while someone else think they have other faults. I got the bad stuff out of the way before I go to the good regarding MRAs.
Many of these men have taken the red pill like you and I have, but their youth and inexperience coupled with their hubris is blinding them about half as bad as the blue pill. You are right to point out that when you get older unless you have high enough status for being famous, having power, having wealth or any combination of these then it will be damned near impossible for you to BANG hot twenty-something year old women. Sure you can easily go 5 years younger, have a good chance of going 10 years younger and maybe even 20 years younger if you have GAME, but these men should stop thinking they are going to be the next Hugh Hefner because that is extremely unlikely to happen. Many men if not all will want to settle down eventually, and the current laws and culture block them from doing that like in the past. Granted like Mark Minter, a commenter here and other blogs, said that men were socially if not legally enforced into being married, siring children and supporting a family so men shouldn’t whine and either go the PUA route or the MGTOW route and count their lucky stars because many men worked themselves to death in the past and tried to hide that they hated it. If men want to go the married and children route then they should have a good path to travel like the past not like today which is the bad path to travel on.
Many of these PUA types here don’t seem to understand that for all MRA faults, they keep a lot of fire concentrated on them which would be used against the PUA types and MGTOW types if the MRAs were gone. Don’t these PUA and MGTOW types receive enough fire already? They should understand that they should be like the USA dealing with the USSR in World War 2, and not undercut them until Nazi Germany has been defeated and let the USSR take most of the casualties and inflict most of the casualties from the enemy. Instead, they act like World War 2 Japan and lie about helping Germany against the USSR when they had no intention of doing so. Then when Germany lost, Japan was finished because without German victory there could be no Japanese victory. Believe me when I say that the PUAs should be like the USA in helping the Nationalist Chinese government to fight World War 2 Japan and encourage the Nationalist Chinese to recruit more and retain more men than the Communist Chinese as it was in the USA’s long term interest. However the USA should have wanted the Communist Chinese to be destroyed by the Japanese not the Nationalist Chinese. By the way, the Japanese inflicted more casualties on the Chinese than any other nation they fought and suffered more casualties against the Chinese than all other nations arrayed against them. This is food for thought.
I can agree with most of that, however the WW2 reference was done here, and is a whole nother debate with those here. LOL
Cheers
What does NYL stand for?
>To Elam’s credit, he booted that hysterical, divisive interloper Kristina Hansen out of his organization lately.
This sounds intriguing, do you have any information about this like an article about it? I want to learn more.
Hell no!
MRAs are basically feminist with dicks. Two sides of the same coin. One is bad for the men and the other is worse. You decide which is which.
In a certain sense, you right that MRAs are feminists with dicks. However the feminists are worse for men. MRAs have their faults, but they do 2 things for you. First, they try to provide men with maximum options and liberty even if they fail which I admit for the most part they have, but they do so in ways which the PUAs and MGTOWs don’t. Granted the PUAs and MGTOWs attempt to provide options and liberty for men in ways the MRAs don’t and they have been more successful thus far. Second, the MRAs draw some fire away from the PUAs and MGTOWs coming from the feminists and their White Knight Mangina allies as well as most women. Believe me, if the MRAs were gone then more fire would be directed at the PUAs and MGTOWs. Pissing contests between the 3 camps is counterproductive towards men and only helps feminists, most women and their White Knight Mangina allies.
Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears – Marcus Aurelius
Aurelius is a genius. A god amongst men.
Also, how to avoid false rape charges deserves it’s own article.
There was an article here about how to avoid false rape charges… Or was it “how to detect a false rape accusation”? Lol. I would link you to it but the search function on this site if broken for me. There was also an article about one man’s false rape accusation experience. Lucky for him, he got away. The reason she falsely accused him? Because he was paying more attention to her friend.
Its really hard to take MRAs seriously now that women are leading the movement.
http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.mx/2013/02/shocker-women-invade-mra-spaces-make-it.html
Feminism only got as far as it did because men assisted them through the whole nine yards.
Masculinism will have to do the same. I don’t care what anyone says. It is the hallmark of mankind that we have sex and procreate. In other words, we need pussy to keep going from the day to day, and to generation next.
So why is it a problem if we enlist the help of numerous women with the ability to see outside of the feminine strictures?
“So why is it a problem if we enlist the help of numerous women with the ability to see outside of the feminine strictures?”
Because the majority of MRAs are pathetically easy to manipulate, and generally fall all over themselves whenever some chick says anything like “I’m a woman, and I support mens rights”. And damn near the whole movement is VERY guilty of abandoning the core issues in favour of more ‘PC’ approaches and goals, not to mention seemingly permanently swayed by concern trolls’ calls to moderate.
The VAST majority of MRAs would sell their mother for a sniff of pussy, frankly, which is one of the many reasons I have been trying to advocate Game as part of the ‘MRM course study’. PUAs are no better, often just as ‘unlucky’ with women as the average MRA but with WAAAAYYYY more bravado (cause they’re so fucking Alpha, dontcha know?), which causes the fight back n forth.
There is NO reason for either group to take issue with the other. None. MRAs should grow the fuck up and start to understand women better. PUAs should grow the fuck up…er…generally. Both can learn a lot from the other, but both are stuffed to the rafters with egocentric assholes who can’t admit when they are wrong.
I see that sometimes for sure. Some MRAs are still very blue pill. I am not. Many other men in the MRA movement have been shafted by women, and could care less.
I am sure that you are right ot a point; but I think that we will need women who are red pill if we are going to counteract government movement in gender realtions. NO, I hate equalism, I know men and women are not equal but different/complimentary.
It is what it is. OUr situations is not even okay, let alone perfect. We have to do what we have to do to survive man. PUAs help with that in the long run which is why I am here. It helps me keep a perspective, but I think that many in the PUA movement fail to grasp that they are merely kicking MRA types while they are down claiming that will never happen to them.
Support, Alimony, FRAs, loss of wealth through common law, and a variety of other wondrous ways to fuck you are ever present in all men’s experience. Whether they know it or not. I could cry about it, or I could do something.
I choose to do something. I also choose not to accept a supposed players opinion of me as weak or a pussy because I choose to stop chasing whores, and make a differecne however I can.
The fact that I am not immediately crushing feminism everywhere is not an indictment of the MRA movement or my ability to make said difference. Feminists have most all the cards, and are not going to see reason an play nice. I have to take it.
So PUAs keep doing your thing, but stop kicking MRAs when they are down. One day, as most women are liars, you might be “one of us.”
Hahahahahaa
“I think that we will need women who are red pill if we are going to counteract government movement in gender realtions.”
True to a point, but this is where MRAs generally go off the rails, precisely because they do not understand women…
Women will be drawn to the MRM as long as it’s a Counter-Culture, defiant of established norms and the Powers That Be. But when the MRM begins to resemble Just Another Victim Group clamoring for program money, it attracts Professional Victims…the same kind of person killing Feminism right now.
Put in relationship terms, the MRM is perceived as ‘Alpha’ when it’s standing up to the tanks, laughing in the face of social pressure to conform, and handing the control freaks their asses. The MRM is perceived as Beta when it complains, or compares men to women and whines about different outcomes.
It’s a fine line, one that Game teaches, and one MRAs REFUSE to learn, they don’t even have the excuse of ignorance. Ergo, the MRM is descending into whiny bitch territory. And all because we let the Village Busybodies take control. Just like the Feminists did.
Out of fear. And that’s disgusting.
“I choose to do something. I also choose not to accept a supposed
players opinion of me as weak or a pussy because I choose to stop
chasing whores, and make a differecne however I can.”
And that damn the torpedoes attitude is what is needed. Don’t forget, the majority of ‘PUAs’ are the same as the majority of MRAs…blue pill whiners who want the hard work done FOR them, boldly claiming they are experts before they know jack shit. PUA comments are about as representative of the Game community (if I can call it that) as MRA comments are of the MRM community.
The antipathy between the two groups is fostered on bias coming from both ends. MRAs think PUAs are mindless pussy beggars, led around by the cock. And PUAs think MRAs can’t get laid, and are therefore bitter.
And MGTOW’s are the ideological foundation of both ‘movements’. It’s like Judaism and Islam, bifurcated from a common ancestor. It is only by adherence to that commonality that we can ‘get along’.
“So PUAs keep doing your thing, but stop kicking MRAs when they are down.
One day, as most women are liars, you might be “one of us.””
Go read some articles in the PUA community from 5 years ago. You will see almost no mention of MRM-related issues. Read some now, and you will see an ‘everybody knows’ attitude about the issues that were non-existant 5 years ago. The Game community is learning from the MRM, as the MRM is learning from the Game community. There are many who want to put a stop to this.
It might serve you well to think on why this might be.
Yeah, when it is completely dominated by victimhood toting welfare professionals on par with feminists; I will have left the movement.
I have said for years now that be it unions, slave risings, or gender equitists of any stripe; once they get power they start to solidify power out of fear first of their former enemies/opponents gaining new ground. Their own establishment second and to the last.
Shit it appears that blogspot got taken down and I can’t find any copy of it on Wayback, anyone have a copy of this article so I can read it?
The MRM is just another victim cult like feminism and LGTB.
The biggest irony of MRM is the fact that it is now run and lead by women.
LOL!!!!
The first sentence I could disagree with, the second made me laugh my ass off because that is largely becoming the truth.
On a side note, you made me spit coffee, cheers.
>Victimhood grants legitimacy
Well said.
This is exactly why feminists think anyone who opposes them is an MRA.
They view the world through hierarchies of victimhood – if you’re not “oppressed”, then who gives a shit about what you say?
Don’t play their game. Don’t get into some kind of victimhood contest. The social justice crowd has skipped the rational thinking process and gone straight to attacking certain groups of people. They will not, and do not wish to judge an argument on its logical merits, but instead judges the person it comes from. Because it’s not about reason with these people, it’s about who is most pitiable, as in, feelings.
In the company of diversity pimps, feminists and men’s rights advocates, plight makes right.
I wonder who are bigger D-bags PUA clowns or MRA whiners? There are so many splinters and factions that women will roll all you little biatches every time. They know the deal – Team Woman right or wrong. You guys can’t even agree on what constitutes an appropriate workout. As a result you will have to stay in the shadows and comfort yourself with forum posts claiming to bang other guys wives and GF’s or baseless brags of nailing 9’s and 10’s when in reality you as much a servant to this feminized society as anyone else. AKA, Keyboard Jockeys
The only ’cause’ worthy of support are movements to change laws regarding Father rights and False Accusations. On equal footing men have no problem. Of course few here will participate.
LOL, team woman huh?
It is easy to have your sisterhood, when you know that men are still willing to take your fat ass off the market, and you possess a government’s favor whenever you decide to break off and search for new wells of dick.
However, it takes time, and these arguments are a great thing. You see, it is not that we have fractions and arguments right now. It is that we are actually gelling, all of our different factions; and the scum of the earth are starting to take notice.
It is not whether men ever become a monolithic group of voters and activists who all roll one direction. Is that if and when it does happen we will not be the professional victim-hood that women have become, and what will all of you who have been doing us raw for so long since before many of us were ever born; are going to do about it?
The answer is written here and on other blogs. Nothing, but sit alone with your cats, and wonder: “WHY WON”T ANY MAN MARRRRRRYYYYYY MEEEEEEE?!” Pet your kitty, read books about it too! Because I for one married foreign, and before that I swam in poosey. I know what women are like, without government intervention, feminism is nothing.
I hope that when I get to China, I am very fucking hungry! Because they sell cat over there, and I am going to have a virtual smorgasbord of kitty cat in numerous feminist honors; drowned down by kitten smoothies. I will take photos, and post them all over the net!
Oh, and fuck you.
I’m a man you dumbass. And the factions and arguments are exactly why things are as they are. Some keyboard jockey want page views so he takes a swipe at MRA’s who will in turn swipe back. Pissing matches ensue, all the while dudes going to jail on false accusations or losing their kids. Pathetic. Now back to the regularly scheduled bickering.
LMAO
It is a good thing. It has allowed me to see that even in this part of the manosphere, men are becoming more accepting.
As a man, you should know that we don’t learn by consensus and group think with spatterings of group hugs to keep each other warm. Nor do we hild a grudge as long.
We mess each other up, and then go have beers to swap notes about how good we are at kicking ass.
If a dude wants swipe at MRAs, let him. This one just learned that in the past year, MRAs have gotten more respect than last year, let alone compared to the last ten.
Men are starting to see that the gears are slowly turning. I won’t say they are holding their breath, but the gears are turning. This is part of the decades long process.
Naive and ignorant of history. Unless you accept yourself as a second class citizen, inferior to females and subject to the female imperative,advocating infighting is counter productive.The Government reaponds to influence. If you are a common man your rights, concerns and viewpoint will take a back seat to the ladies every time. Why? Because you can’t even muster a modicum of support from within. so bend over and ppretend to like it
WTF?
Dude, I am ignorant? Check the facts fella! Name one movement that, even with government assistance, overcame a cultural malaise of hatred in a day?
Go ahead, we both know the answer regardless of the time you take. NONE!
How do you suggest we overcome feminism and its government sponsorship? Sit here and talk about the bitches we have had sex with? Yeah, that will show them!
They want men to have sex, and not change any of the political rules as they stand. They are making money off of it.
So, wise one, how will you make enough influence without doing what the MRAs are doing?
I wrote an article on how to shut down false rape accusations. http://www.returnofkings.com/4386/the-lazy-mans-way-to-subvert-the-system-and-deliver-justice
Tell me, what have you done that’s effective?
That’s an article about jury nullification. And to be honest, Paul wrote a better one years ago that still gets dragged through feminist mud to this day. So, there you go… another example of a follower claiming he’s in the lead….
Look man. THERE IS NO PROTECTION AGAINST FALSE RAPE ACCUSATION.
WAKE UP.
VAWA was written with a financial incentive in it for state DAs and prosecutors to earn the state money for prosecutions regardless of outcome. This is the real reason why the DA WILL NEVER press charges against a FRA because they then have to pay the money back.
THis was why Crystal Gale Magnum was able to kill her husband rather than face years in prison for perjury, fraud, and FRAs. She even got a book deal.
The Hofstra case where a woman casually told her boyfriend that the five guys she intentionally had sex with at the same time in a bathroom raped her rather than him perceiving she was a slut and no longer beta pill buying her free dinners.
Look, I get it, YOU ARE A REAL MAAAAANNNNNNNNANANANANANANANANANAN!
Good for you. But fuck the wrong woman, any woman mind you can do this, and she is getting you ass fucked 41 sheets to the wind for twenty years.
Oh, and BTW, MRAs are the ones fighting that. Such pussies.
What are you doing again? Oh, HHAHAHA, that’s right; deluding yourself into thinking that your UBER-MACHO-MASCULINE ALPHANESS OF DRIPPING VAGINAS EVERYWHERE is going to stop an FRA.
I got news for ya. You get accused, you better hope the judge allows your video.
Left/progressive judge=you are a card carrying member of the patriarchy=welcome mat over your ass in prison by false accusation.
Right/Conservative Judge=How DARE YOU accuse this precious daughter of Jesus to be a whore=welcome mat over your ass in prison by false accusation.
Middle of the road Judge=Likes his salary more than he will ever desire to get to know you=welcome mat over your ass in prison by false accusation.
I read your other piece when it came out. The reason you don’t offer much in the form of protection from FRAs is because YOU CAN’T.
The fact that you can’t fight it effectively, that the Constitution is dead, that lawyers extend the legal process and don’t fight well on purpose for financial gain at your expense, a whole host of terrible other problems; and the fact that MRAs want a more equitable solution to that mess=MRAs are pussies, and your dick magically lines the wet crevices of women everywhere.
Got it.
Nullification?? So exactly what real world changes have come about as a result of your ‘article’?
I’ved donated (and vote accordingly) to 3 causes – Fathers for Families, FRS and AVFM (even though I believe Paul is too polarizing an alienates half the population. At least he’s doing something). Let’s compare how effective your “nullification” article performed in the real world against these reality based causes.
Yes…. woefully so, as evidenced by your statement:
JJ: “Name one movement that, even with government assistance, overcame a cultural malaise of hatred in a day?”
You seriously cannot think of any?
It’s amazing the Slavery was abolished, Unionization took root, Women won the right to vote, Environmentalist passes the endangered species act and the colonists shrugged off British rule. These are but a few movements that had overcome substantial social, legal and Big Money resistance. That you couldn’t recall even one is telling.
JJ: how will you make enough influence without doing what the MRAs are doing?
Your a mess. Comments here are about the article in question. The article in question has men as it’s target audience and aims to divide men into factions. It’s another dumb MRA’s vs PUA’s article that is divisive. Despite men having common challenges in a feminized society this article aims to put men into competing camps. It’s such a stupid and well known tactic that it has it’s own name “Divide and conquer” – and it is used by conquerors upon those they seek to subjugate.
My advise? Don’t do that.
LOL
Slavery and women’s suffrage started hundreds of years before their eventual demise, let alone the acceptance of their demise generally. UNionization, Independence, women’s suffrage, and slavery happned over many years, in the case of slavery… hundreds.
The Colonists had to fight a war that would have had most of them hung for treason and their families and farms burnt to the ground, TWICE. The Rev War and War of 1812. A difference of decades.
Seriously, to answer your question, I can’t think of any!
Also, whether PUA or MHRA, or a combination thereof; our movement will take a while too as we face resistance from the feministacracy about our ability to just be. Let alone live.
If you can’t understand what I mean about influence when you read the same web sites I do, FnF, AVFM; then you have not read my other comments here.
Just saying. I donate to FNF, and when my custody case is over, I will to AVFM as well.
Your logic is elusive. In one place you object to (my) comments pointing out the self defeating behavior of MRA’s and PUA’s and their tendency to take swipes at each other and alienate each other rather than enlist one another.
You say: “As a man, you should know that *we don’t learn by consensus and group…nor do we hold a grudge as long….We mess each other up, and then go have beers to swap notes about how good we are at kicking ass.
While that tactic may make for great drinking stories it’s a dumb way to approach societal change.
You then throw out this challenge: “Name one movement that, even with government assistance, overcame a cultural malaise of hatred **in a day**?
So now your objection seems to drift from my pointing out the futility of infighting, to that of needing change “in a day”??
It appears that in one place you suggest that unless a movement can be assembled “in a day” (whatever that means), it is pointless to undertake. In another place you allege the MRA’s gears are turning slowly in a decades long effort.
From my perspective it looks like you don’t know what you want to say, nor do you know who you need to enlist to cause the change you apparently seek.
Look, it appears as if you just want to win an argument – any argument – even if that argument has to bend and take new forms in order to be “right”.
Ironically this mentality is the crux of my original point. The arguments and juvenile swipes that PUA’s and MRA’s take at each other ensure both will be marginalized.
From what I’ve seen of both camps neither get it, and therefore neither has any chance to succeed. Believe it or not society has bigger issues than a collection of blog guys who bitch, moan, alienate and drink beer afterward bragging how they “kicked ass”.
Until a movement has the intelligence, foresight and ability to persuade millions of men and women to set aside their differences and join their cause they are inconsequential and overlooked. Women realized this years ago. They’ve experienced the power of unity despite their differences in their quest for equal rights. They’ve now parlayed that into Women’s Privilege and are beating you chumps over the head with it at every turn.
Like I said, you just don’t get it.
> Slavery was abolished, Unionization took root, Women won the right to vote, Environmentalist passes the endangered species act and the colonists shrugged off British rule
Yes but not in a day.
This one? http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/on-jury-nullification-and-rape/
If anything, MGTOW is the real men’s movement. The MRM jumped the shark a long time ago.
Thumbs up.
I’ve started reading the blog NO-MAAM, and am in agreement with practically everything he says so far. Even his treatment of lotharios 🙂
Book of Pook. That’s the Bible of the MGTOW.
Atlas is Shrugging.
the MRA response to women in the military was more along the lines of: ” you think you’re equal to men, how about you take a bullet for a fucking change?” there is no cheer leading fir women, it’s more to make it immediately clear that women make terrible soldiers
So, compromise an institution’s effectiveness and put men’s lives at risk to settle an ideological score? Sounds a lot like what I wrote.
you are right, you are right, you are right. we shouldnt have to compromise the effectiveness of our military to prove a point.
but these women, man, they wanna hold the big guns and pose for pictures and talk trash to the boys and get MP involved if the boys dont like it. you already having women complaining about sexual harassment in the military to the point where entire militarys COMMANDING OFFICERS are getting berated by female members of congress and getting threatened with loss of their authority by some third party beaurocratic arbiters. that threatens the effectiveness of our military WAY WAY WAY more than telling the loud mouth short hair tough gals “here sweetheart, you tough? well heres a rifle and theres some armed enemy combatants why dont you go take care of that soldier”.
if i had it my way we would just say “see? see what happens when you let women join the military? they arent even in combat positions yet and already they are stirring up trouble”. but you cant try that shit because you lose reelection, you get death threats, you get protests in front of your house, you get national boycott holidays… the list goes on. they have gotten too far with their female bullshit to just pull that stunt now. so the best option is this: “yeah? daddy told you that you can do whatever you want? well here you go, since you feel you are up to it, theres an IED over there, go diffuse that motherfucker real quick. if you get hurt dont worry, you will get a purple heart”.
All of which sidesteps the question as to whether we should even be in countries where they are planting IEDs to kill our soldiers.
Hahah. I wanna see them face off against the Islamic state fighters.
You talk a great deal in the comments about the fact that men should withdraw from society and government (my interpretation, not your words) and not get involved in things they don’t like.
Why should this not apply to soldiers in the military? If men don’t want to be compromised and have their lives put at risk by women in the military, your stance should surely be that they should get out of it, not be involved in the military and let the women get killed instead.
> To believe that men should be masculine and women should be feminine is ‘dangerous,’ according to Elam.
One of the first signs of someone who is full of shit is fabricated paraphrasing someone else’s ideas. Either that or you are not very bright, which is also a possibility given the way this article is saturated in myopic misinterpretation.
If your shtick is to go after the “real man” market, which you are obviously shooting for here, you would do a lot better not to emulate men like Futrelle.
You said that defining manhood leads to control and exploitation, and that if we expect men to be strong then we will see weaker men as less worthy, which you qualify as bigotry.
If you are sure of this you should provide a source for what I said. It is not that you are not close, but close in this case is a mile off.
My only contention was and is that I encourage men to reject shame based on the judgments of men and women sizing them up by the standards you refer to here, which yes, has demonstrably led to control and exploitation throughout history.
I personally don’t care what you believe men and women “ought” to be. That is your right and I would not take it from you even if I could. But when someone tries to coerce or otherwise shame me based on their personal preferences about masculinity, it is my considered reaction to invite them to go fuck themselves.
You don’t define me as a man or anything else, and if someone told you that you did, they lied to you.
Think what you want about men and women, attempts to appoint yourself as the arbiter of what is rightly masculine or feminine for everyone can only be someone’s ego talking. It is, in my opinion, a feeble and outmoded attempt at self elevation; completely transparent.
I simply reject it, and encourage others to do the same.
That was only one of your many glaring over simplifications and miscalls about the men’s movement and about my work. But it was the most common I have seen (usually from PUAs) who try create an illusion of alpha status by demeaning the masculinity of others.
Well said.
LOL
Damn straight, Paul, I echo Factory: Well said.
This is so funny – Paul Elam is posting on a website that is explicitly for masculine men!
” Letting women fight is stupid and dangerous for any number of reasons; women are markedly weaker than men, and even if they were held to the same standards, the number of women who would qualify be so few so as to not be worth it”
Argument is unsound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#cite_note-mfaWomen-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Litvyak
“This is already happening with multiculturalism. The goal of a business is no longer to turn a profit, the end of a university is no longer to share the truth – the goal is everywhere always ’celebrating diversity.”
Begging the Question.
“MRAs bleat so urgently, because they think they are powerless as individuals; only by collective action, ultimately by government fiat, can men be helpe”
Begging the Question.
Shit, every paragraph has statements which are stated as deductively self-truth which need to be stated inductively. This article is effectively a propaganda/manifesto because it states a worldview supported by zero empirical evidence.
I don’t see how the existence of a few successful female soldiers invalidates the argument. Emmanuel isn’t saying all women suck at fighting. He’s saying that on average and in the long run, introducing women into traditionally male-dominated units creates more problems than it solves.
I have no objection to, for example, the existence of ‘all-female’ elite units (call them Battle Sisters if you want) with objectives and missions catered specifically to their abilities. For instance, China is training an all-female cadre of female pilots because it is something that women have been demonstrated to be just as good at (if not slightly better). Ultimately, the goal of the military should be to win wars, not gender arguments.
Hence Emmanuel’s argument. Once the focus goes from actually winning wars to being about gender equality, things start to break down.
“He’s saying that on average and in the long run, introducing women into traditionally male-dominated units creates more problems than it solves.”
with zero evidence to support the claim other than his intuition.
1. If subjected to the same standards as men, most women currently in the military would not be there.
Marines
Perfect score for men: 20
Perfect score for women: 8
2. The presence of women among men leads to sex, and nothing destroys a group of men faster than fighting over women, “hos before bros.”
3. War doesn’t exactly conduce to gentility. Women will be assaulted and raped by men subject to harsh conditions, or falsely accuse them of such.
4. Women get pregnant to go home.
5. It’s harder for a woman (or a small man) to walk around with 80 lbs of gear on his back all day.
6. PMS http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
7. Female abandonment of their own children back home.
8. Encouraging women to be masculine and thus turn ugly.
9. The cost of building separate extra facilities for women, plus the inevitable sensitivity training etc.
lady you are in our house. the men around here have cited and covered this shit multiple times. there is a precedent here. we arent going to cite this shit every fucking article. we arent writing an academic paper here.
you can find evidence for many of our claims by looking through older posts at some of the sites in the blogroll. there are many early explorations of these refined ideas with studies and facts cited. if you are interested start reading. if not fuck off. nobody is here with the sole purpose to convince you. these are discussions, not seminars.
begging what question exactly, ma’am?
“The goal of a business is no longer to turn a profit”
Really? Cite your source. (Please don’t do a fallacy of composition).
“The goal everywhere is to celebrate diversity?
Really? Cite your source.
“MRAs bleat so urgently, because they think they are powerless”
Really? Cite your source. Anecdotal evidence does not count.
This is ridiculous. There are thousands of targets out there that are more deserving of scorn than a group of men who are aligned with us in many positions.
I’m not an MRA but I see it as an important group who is working in the legal sphere, as others work in the blogosphere. You need multiple groups working on different fronts in order to change anything.
The way I see it, MRAs are mostly men who stumbled on the red pill way too late, and are already being screwed over by divorce theft and child custody laws. Their fight is with family courts, and the only way to do that effectively is to organize legal challenges. Ranting on a blog, or being a PUA, does jack shit to get your kids back from an evil ex-wife.
On the other hand, PUAs are a much younger group, likely a bunch of twenty-something apartment renters and cubicle slaves, who have never experienced marriage, divorce, or childbirth. So they should STFU about the struggles their elders are engaged in, and focus on their narrow, sex-obsessed view of the world.
Here’s a “target… more deserving of scorn:”
‘Be Your Own Boyfriend: Decide to Be Happy, Unleash Your Sexy, and Change Your Life’ by Kaneisha Grayson (29 yo dating guru)
“After a decade of compulsive dating, Kaneisha made the decision to turn her love and attention inward to transform her life.”
Amazon calls it “Candid, inspiring, entertaining and sassy.” Read BYOBF to receive “enlightenment for issues such as:
* How to find and eliminate the
invisible threats to your happiness
* What it means and how to respond
when he says he “doesn’t know what he wants”
* Easy ways to seem less
needy (and actually mean it)
* Why actively pursuing your dreams will
make men come running.”
Where have all the good me gone? Read the book to find out.
You’ve really done it now, Emmanuel. You’ve just pissed off the Men’s Rights Move—er, I mean the “Male Human Rights Movement.” Those guys don’t fuck around. Last time someone made the mistake of taking on the MHRM, they swarmed onto his blog and called him a “mangina” over and over again.
Oh yeah. You BETTER be afraid.
It could be worse, Matt. Generally MHRAs just react to assholes trying to prop up their manhood on their backs. I know you know that gig pretty well. It’s your shtick, too.
If you don’t like MHRAs coming in to your blog and taking a dump on you, then you might consider trying to make yourself look more manly and superior at the expense of other men who won’t react by telling you to go fuck yourself.
Just saying.
It is natural that we should find ourselves fiercely at odds with your movement, Mr. Elam. Although we share the same general anti-feminist ideological direction of the MRM, we have profound differences with you which I do not think you fully appreciate or give us credit for. These differences are procedural, philosophical, and even generational. Consider:
1. In general, your movement seeks societal change through political and legislative activism. You seek the passage of laws which will help roll back the oppressive feminism and political correctness that has corrupted and destroyed the discourse in the US for the past 40 years. An admirable goal, but a quixotic one. Why? Because it is hopeless. Your belief in the fairness and justice in the political system is misplaced. The battle has already been lost. We have lost faith in the political system.
2. Perhaps to the activist generations of the 1960s and 1970s, to which I assume you belong, passing new laws means something. To me, it means nothing. You cannot reverse social decay by passing new laws. The rot is too far advanced for that. You cannot legislate morality or behavior to any real extent. We feel a real and tangible antagonism to your movement because it is directed by the older generation. To be frank, I don’t really like the older generation. It was your generation that led us to where we are now. The game is done. Where was your generation when this shit started? Why weren’t your generation of men fighting feminism back in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s? That was the time to stop this shit. It’s too late now. All we can do is try to hang on and survive the deluge now. We feel that your generation left us holding the bag. They milked the US dry when things were good, and now we are stuck with the toxic clean-up. In short, I have profound contempt for your generation’s negligence and apathy. I don’t know your personal background, but am speaking in a general sense here.
3. The average man is so alienated from the political process that your desire to achieve results in this way are doomed to failure. The whole system is controlled by feminists, white knights, and male feminist flunkies. You don’t go begging to the commissar for justice.
4. We, on the other hand, seek societal change through a revolution of the individual spirit. Our writings encourage men to travel, learn languages, start businesses, and have sex with foreign women. The most profound changes come when you can change the way men behave. This is why our movement is more far-reaching and profound than yours. You want to change laws, and we want to shape men as individuals. We are not solely PUAs, we are advocating profound personal self-improvement. We empower men on an individual level. We give a hope born of real action. We are the harpooners in the whale-boat, not the pamphleteers on the sidelines.
5. We say to young men: withdraw from the corrupt, degenerate political system that has sold you out. Work on yourself. Improve yourself. Travel abroad. Live abroad. Instead of joining a letter writing campaign, I travel abroad and experience real women in Japan and Brazil, and I tell other men how to do the same. I grow my business. I read voraciously and improve my fluency in languages. In short, I take personal action, rather than sit around and wait for some corrupt feminist controlled legislature to protect my rights.
Writers like Roosh and Matt Forney have done a tremendous service to young men by inspiring them with specific, actionable knowledge. You need to acknowledge this. Your movement offers nothing for an aggressive, imaginative, and independent-minded man.
I suppose it will come as no great surprise to you that I believe it is you who does not fully comprehend our position (speaking only for AVFM) , or give us credit for where we actually stand.
The primary mechanism by which we seek societal change is through the dissemination of ant-feminist and anti-traditionalist counter-theory, NOT by any legislative means. You really missed the boat with that one. Hell, you missed the armada.
I think the most productive change that can happen for men is within their minds.
I have not harbored the idea that government or the political process was fair or a practical tool for change since I was about 14 years old. That is quite a while. And I have been saying as much on the pages of my website for years.
We do see a public relations and propaganda value in holding women to the same legal standards as are imposed on men, but no new legislation is required for that; only the brutally fair enforcement of existing standards in most cases. The one exception I can think of is selective service, but for my preference I would rather see it abolished than made gender inclusive.
That is my stand on most laws, actually. I would rather do away with what we have rather than pass more government excuses to control people into existence.
I understand your distaste for the older generation. I think it is misplaced, though. First, at 56 years old, I was only a young teenager when gender feminism started moving in to governance. It was my fathers generation that actually “allowed” it to happen.
But of course, it was my generation of men, and YOURS, that by and large continues to allow it to happen, so personally I will opt for the accountability and pass on the need for a scapegoat.
I do, though, get why you feel betrayed. I just don’t think it is near as simple as finding a specific age group on which to heap blame. Men, as I think we see aptly displayed in the OP here, continue to betray each other for some of the most inane and petty reasons imaginable. It seems to be in our lot as men.
Do I take it from your distrust of older men that you have dedicated some part of your life to helping younger men than you? 🙂
I don’t have any issues with what you espouse here as a rule, not that I imaging you were seeking my approval. Indeed, I think what you do is a great improvement over most of the options that have been placed at the feet of men for three generations now. I have never come here to comment before.
I came here this time for obvious reasons. The personal insecurity that drives a completely pointless attack on a group of men that are, like you, attempting to create and further options for men that the world would rather they did not have, calls me to make a statement against it.
Note that I am not here speaking against PUAs efforts to do any of the other things you just described, but only to point out that the authors work in this particular article is myopic and misinformed. Given what I read in your comment, I see the problem is likely as pervasive here as it is in any other PUA community I have seen.
Personally, I don’t get it. It used to offend me, but I see it much more philosophically these days. That does not change the fact that your understanding, and that of Mr. Goldsteins, of the MHRM as a politically oriented victim culture seeking to legislate our way into men’s equality, is comically erroneous.
Our push for change in men is every bit as much as what you claim yours is. We advocate red pills, for intellectual enlightenment, change in self perception, fellowship with other men, rejection of a life of utility to women, rejection of a life of utility to the state and rejection of the shaming and control of other men.
It is honestly beyond me how anyone could miss this basic truth, but then again, I should not be surprised at anything based on the distortions I deal with from feminists and traditionalists.
I will completely grant you that Roosh and Forney have valuable lessons to teach young men, and that most often they do just that. Again, the only place I find them both lacking is in the completely transparent and I think insecure need to one up MHRAs to demonstrate their masculine superiority. Perhaps it is not insecurity, Perhaps it is just a sales pitch, preening for the fans, but it is pretty fucked up, either way.
Well, I also don’t agree with the pussy centrism, but the only times I have ever called attention to why is when Roosh or some other PUA shot his mouth off about MHRAs. I even quit doing that, at least on the pages of AVFM, after I got it on the record, as I don’t have a lot of time and MHRAs have generally little interest in what Roosh thinks about them.
To be honest, where I think we have come up short in the MHRM is in not providing a better alternative to men where it concerns sex than PUA, so I suppose the critique is as much in our lap as yours.
But if your take is honestly that the MHRM offers nothing for an “aggressive, imaginative, and independent-minded man,” then I am sorry, I just have to say that it sounds like more of a pathetic attempt at a pissing contest from an adolescent trying to prove his manhood — who doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about.
I think that traveling is and living abroad is a great way to round a man out. As someone that has done more than my share of it, I am speaking of experience. And you do well to advise young men onto this path.
But surely an aggressive, imaginative, independent-minded man would not be so foolish as to think that they have cornered the market on the needs and benefits for all men, and have done so to the point that they should derogate all others who choose a different path?
Overall, I think the problem is a deficit of understanding MHRAs. That was demonstrated without question, both in your comment here, and in the OP.
I do think that most of us in the MHRM do understand you, which is why the only time you tend to hear from us is when we are responding to the disinformation.
In the end, none of this means much. Society is changing. Men are more and more Going Their Own Way. We both seem to encourage that for what it is worth. Some men will go your path, some mine. Most will go their own way without ever having heard of either of us.
I am not stupid enough, though I can’t say this for some in the PUA community, to think that I am in a contest for these young men’s souls. It is why you won’t see me writing some drivel at AVFM about how “real men don’t read Roosh.”
I leave that to the snake oil salesmen of the world, to manipulate the insecurities of a generation of young men who have had their masculinity demonized and defiled.
I leave the “man up” shame sandwiches to the likes of this OP.
But I enjoyed reading your comment.
Both Paul and Quintus make excellent points. I’m 60 and I was fighting feminism in the 80s. Lost some jobs because of it, lost some girlfriends, family has disowned me, whoa is me, gimme a sec while I wipe away the…okay, I’m done whining. Where was I? Oh, right, if you’re gonna fight oppression, the fight will have to occur on many fronts. When I ran across ROK and began posting links to it on my site, I got a few email asking why I would do that. There are several reasons, among them that this fight must be carried out on more than one front. We need not agree on everything to form an alliance, only on the general direction and on who our enemies are.
this really reminds me of feminism. You claim to be open and say that he should not derogate all others who choose a different path yet you do the exact same thing! I read your letter to traditional women and that IS derogating people who choose another path. What you do not understand is that traditionalism IS form of equality. It is equality in which we accept that men and women are not identical and that should be okay.
source: http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/a-letter-to-traditional-women/
Yall niggaz need allah.
the author here obviously had no idea what he’s talking about.
And why do you say that?
Try googling “Warren Farrell”. One of the most soft spoken guys ever, and he always responds to questions rationally. This guy supports both women’s rights and men’s rights. Not asking you to agree with him, but you should see the protests that took place when he tried to make a speech at the University of Toronto. You can watch his speech on YouTube. Nothing to protest about really. Crazy feminist.
As long as any pro-masculine movements remain unfunded compared to the massive amounts of funding and entitlements that feminist groups receive from big business and government, such pro-male groups are destined to flounder. The problem is that big business wants to divide and conquer so that future generations (including us) become enslaved to it.
Feminism is basically swapping the male who looks after the family for the government who becomes her new protector. It also then transpires that this very same government/big business then enslaves all of us, including the feminists.
The women are so indignant with their feminist ideology, they do not recognise their days are numbered. In fact, they’re going to bring us all down soon. In a really bad way. There’s no need to worry then about the ‘menz oppressing ussssssssss’ anymore sweetheart. You’ll be working for the gov’t/big biz for peanuts, doing stripteases for extra cash whilst you live in fear every minute of your job and cash flow being taken away, surrounded by dangers as you walk to and from your dingy apartment. Yes, you’re really so independent.
Yes, that’s one of the features of the MR movement which turns me off: they’re using the same victimhood tactics which liberals have used to destroy Western civilization.
Men, in particular, should not act like victims. Mock the enemy, don’t whine. Act strong, and they will prostrate themselves at your feet.
How do you change systemically unfair divorce laws through mockery?
Prenup, common law marriage, expatriate, foreign bride.
“Prenup”
Worthless, ESPECIALLY if kids are involved.
“common law marriage”
…which includes every single disadvantage ‘regular’ marriage has, only it can happen without you knowing. Living together for as little as 6 months can make you ‘married’ by Law…
Not sure how this is beneficial, perhaps you could explain?
“expatriate”
Hey! There’s a solution. Problem is, I have kids and family and friends and a life here I like…. So…not a real choice now is it?
“foreign bride”
It’s not the woman, it’s the culture. So, unless you think locking her in the basement with no outside influence for years on end is a good idea (and hopefully you don’t), there’s going to be cultural influence. And this culture uses natural female impulses to spur them on to take advantage of ‘the System’. Do you think, say, Asian women are somehow genetically impervious?
So…back to expat. Which, as we have established, is no real choice at all.
Gee, you’re not coming off as much of an expert here ya know…
Yup.
I have done most of that. Except the common law thing. Common Law is Marriage stripped of like the three measly protections you normally get in court.
My wife is foreign, and always she compares everything to her culture. Humans, we take time to adapt.
Even if his advice worked, a small fraction, like an eighth or less could actually do it for a short time let alone forever.
Think about it, lets say my only opportunity was to leave permanently like those men on the FBI wanted list for support. They can never come back.
We have to fight it out here, and win.
Except that men sometimes are victims. Your macho bullshit doesn’t change that. The goal should be to recognise that and change it.
As much as I think these men are pussies to the max, I’m going to use MRAs as a rebuttal to any annoying chick bringing up feminist opinions.
You don’t even have to do that. Just take what they say, flip the sexes, and feed it back to them as a question. Drives them nuts, because they can’t dismiss what you say without dismissing their own opinions. It’s even more fun if you laugh while you do it, and if you do it right, you get laid.
And sometimes, they have hairy armpits. I’m just sayin’.
What a good article. I agree with nearly everything. I do think the MRA’s have some valid complaints about divorce law and also the way the educational system failing boys. i recall girls in school being encouraged to become feminists by other feminist teachers. I follow a lot of MRA Facebook pages and publishing, not because I consider myself one but because I fucking HATE!!! Feminists (I also follow feminist fb pages to keep “mis”-informed. But the way MRA crap on about false rape accusations and suggesting that “men who hold doors open for ladies should be ridiculed into not doing it” etc is ridiculous. Bunch of one nut soft cocks.
Your’e still in school, right?
I read a previous article by this writer that was entertaining as hell. But his writing in this article is utterly sub-par. Factually he is so profoundly misinformed you wonder if he actually ever actually read any MRA blogs. I’m sure the first instinct of most readers who have actually studied the issues would be to heap scorn and ridicule on the author for being so brazenly ignorant as to speak out on a topic he hasn’t taken time to inform himself on. But in my old age I’m getting kinder. In so far as it takes balls to try I for one applaud the author’s effort, even though some might think he racked up a big public FAIL. I’m sure better researched articles will be coming from him in the future.
Theres a fair bit of misrepresentation and setting up of strawmen here. This is unfortunate, because it damages your credibility, and theres certainly enough arguments you can make against the position of the MRAs without having to resort to these tactics.
“Tell an MRA how to avoid false rape accusations and you’ll just become one of his targets” true true. and its just like telling a woman not to dress like a whore unless thats how she wants to get treated. these men become bitches crying and moaning about what men are subject to. they are losing their manhood and belittling themselves to the womans screaming game. playing the victim is something that women and neutered men do.
it is a mans choice alone what he will tolerate. failure to draw that line is failure as a man. bitching about things that you have decided to do nothing about is just that: bitching. and the term bitch is ascribed to women because it is something that they (should) exclusively do. except these bitch boys want in on it and they want to do it too. well go cry about it.
but i must admit, i am on the fence a little on this one. while on one hand we have a bunch of faggots crying about being buttraped by their 400 pound wife with a strap on (whos fault is that? you are supposed to be a man, you made the decisions that led to that), then you have guys actually drawing that line, doing something about it. we could use (as men in general) a lobby to represent our interests in government just like every other group has. i think this is necessary to protect us from being trampled by the other lobbies and then the law (not to mention the billy clubs and jail cells that come with it). these men that fund and run lobbies to reform laws, pay lawyers to defend guys on big time cases to get some legal precedence, they arent just bitching and moaning and being victims. they drew a line, that line was crossed, they are doing something about it. those few are actually doing what men do.
as for the rest of them, yeah you can go cry about it or put on the man pants, shrug it off and get on with getting your shit done.
You completely miss the mark on MRA’s.
MRA’s see a system where men are marginalized and second rate citizens. They KNOW that this is unsustainable, as men start leaving “the machine” in droves, whether by playing video games or going CAD.
MRA’s merely help “the machine” on it’s decline. Forcing it to recognize and further resume it’s destructive trend all in the name of equality.
This is the art of jujutsu. Using the energy of the enemy to assure it’s own destruction. Society, under direction of the feminine imperative, wants equality…..with special privileges for women.
Then why do MRAs never embrace traditional sex roles?
Because that is the way of failure. That does not turn the system back on itself.
You need to understand that there is no going back on “equalism”. To fight the battle that we need to return to traditional sex roles is to deny equality and lose the support of a key number of people who are generally unaware of the consequences of said equalism.
You can’t fight the machine that way. In order to reach traditional roles, you have to come full circle again by forcing the system on it’s knees through equalizing EVERYTHING. You can’t open the eyes of a nation with words. Only consequences.
Only when you actually force the State to be openly misandric can you get enough men to rebel against the machine or alternatively to completely check out of the system, thus forcing a collapse anyways.
There may be some logic and merit to this thinking, as history may have shown examples of this. However, you seem to be implying that this cyclic return is somehow architected with intent. I suspect this is a rat ionization fueled by hindsight and wishful thinking.
Either my great granddaughter will be living in a world of real men and women, in a coherent, conservative culture, or she will be wearing a burqa. Those I see these two ends as worlds apart, she will not. As the Romans about their little German tribe problem for illumination.
I see what you are saying but the strategy of MRA is still wrong. In a legal sense that is what they should do, but in a cultural sense it will destroy us. Real equality or male female interchangeability is simply not child-centered. It results in less children and less advancement. It is inefficient, and historically has only really worked when life was very easy and resources are abundant. As soon as things get difficult this turns into disaster.
I do understand that as a man, you have to avoid looking weak and seek strength. But after a certain point it just gets ridiculous.
There are SEVERAL instances of women chopping off the penises of their husbands, wherein that act has been used as a source of humour.
Imagine that: your permanent castration as a source for comedy. If that doesn’t tick you off, you are a fool.
This is a “man up” argument. If you want to see men continue to be fed to the thresher maw of the gynocentric state, that’s your choice, but save yourself the embarrassment of dressing it up as bravado.
Can’t we just agree that some MRA groups are bad and some are good? Just like, *gasp* dare I say it, some women out there actually want better rights for men? Why all this left/right thinking? Not everybody in the left/right is a good person, and not everybody in the left/right is an asshole either. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Buffett and Munger vote for different parties, yet they’ve partners for how many years now?
This isn’t about ‘bad’ or ‘good’ – it’s about identifying the nature of the MRM, and recognizing that it is hostile to certain ideals men may hold, particularly the readers of this website, such as masculinity, femininity, and patriarchy.
I admit that the MRA movement is disjointed right now, but that’s because it’s young and lacking participation. But I think men’s rights is a serious issue that needs to be fought for. But I really don’t think you can just group MRAs into one lump. Just like how, haha, not every writer on ROK is good. If there’s one guy I think is worth listening to, it’s Warren Farrell. What he’s saying is, there are inherent differences between men and women. And that’s basically his premise to men’s rights. He used to support feminism (and still does actually), but he saw that not everything feminist said were true. I prefer his more balanced approach.
Traditionalists and MRAs both see the current situation of the sexes as undesirable. MRAs think the solution is more subversion of traditional gender roles, more campaigning for gender equality, while traditionalists think the solution is less of those same things. Philosophically, they are opposites.
In terms of policy, they could be similar – traditionalists mostly want the government to stop interfering, which they think would restore an equilibrium of traditional sex roles. But MRAs are okay with the government meting out policies affecting the sexes, they just want that policy to reflect their ideology, and not that of female supremacism. If MRAs preached limited government, they could band effectively with men like myself. But MRAs don’t, so that won’t happen.
Warren Farrell is an advocate of gender equality, of a ‘gender transition movement’ where traditional sex roles are made to matter less.
Well then, I definitely don’t subscribe to the above.
Massive and incorrect generalizations about the MRM. Before you write about a topic a little research might be in order. Making stuff up doesn’t make for good reading.
Incorrect how?
I completely agree with this posting. The hatred of anything traditional or anything associated with traditional masculinity is repulsive to much of the MRM, particularly in MR/reddit. MR/reddit is beyond being salvageable, they’re diverse, inclusive, gender neutral and politically leftist. And as leftists, diverse isn’t diverse, inclusive isn’t inclusive and gender diverse is gay and feminine. Traditional straight men are shunned in MR/reddit, which is laughable since traditional straight men are the model of true masculinity. MR/reddititers can best be described as compliant eunuch’s.
I also agree with the assertion of the military’s new goal of providing gender equality as it’s main goal. This of course is imposed from above to match the state intrusion into the private sector. A trash collector can miss time, do a poor job or generally be a schlub at his job. What he can’t do is leer at a woman prancing about in a skimpy outfit whose wearing that outfit in an effort to be leered at. Nor can he in any way slight the feelings of any self proclaimed victim group, even unintentionally. His primary job thusly becomes an agent of political correctness, his secondary job is trash collector.
This is the first time I’ve visited this site. If the rest of the articles are along similar lines, it’s a far better MRA site than the self proclaimed MRA sites.
Return of Kings is not monolithic, and the views among its contributors vary.
But read our about statement, and you will find it violently at odds with the bulk of the MRM:
“Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine.
RoK aims to usher the return of the masculine man in a world where masculinity is being increasingly punished and shamed in favor of creating an androgynous and politically-correct society that allows women to assert superiority and control over men. Sadly, yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogyny. The site intends to be a safe corner of the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed.”
Given how androgyny is generally a goal of the MRM, Return of Kings could be considered anti-MRM. There may be overlap between the two, such as in bringing to light false rape accusations. Insofar as the MRM is pro-androgyny, Return of Kings is anti-MRM.
Oh I agree. I’m well hated amongst the MRM crew as well as the feminist brigade. Actually I’m hated everywhere I go, which makes me think I’m on the right path. The only actual site I agree with for the most part would be the spearhead.
The self proclaimed MRM gang is nothing but a mixture of feminist nonsense, gender neutrality and victimology.
And I’d say western culture is already beyond repair. It’s not heading in a bad direction it’s long been there and the gang at the top seems to be doubling down every damned day. Insanity is the new normal.
I would love to contribute and write for you guys or do something else, let me know if I can. I am also traditional minded.. there is a lot to this topic.. I do not think everyone should do this or that. But there should be a community for traditional minded people (men and women) to discuss gender issues. I am interested in starting that.
This article seems to shame men for wanting “equality” on the same level as women.
Why would someone be so threatened by that?
You write like a woman scorned.
Equal –> Androgyne –> Abomination
[citation needed]
This is why i left the MRM
Interesting perspective. I noticed you’ve mentioned Soviet Union. Ever play chess?
This is my alimony horror story. In the no fault divorce state of Florida, the ex had many adulterous affairs with other women (while pregnant with the second and last child) and including her incestuous relationship with her own 20 year old cousin later. She gets rewarded for this and her changed sexual orientation with lifetime alimony by the Hillsborough County Court (Tampa Case No: 05-DR-013627) and I get punished financially. How is this right and just? It certainly isn’t and the time to fix such an injustice is now. The duplicity continues and she blogs and writes as well as conducts her day to day life under an assumed last name, only using her legal last name on the driver’s license and to cash the hefty checks I write. If you are outraged about this avaricious and hypocrite, please get involved to fight the unjust alimony laws around thecountry. Elvina and Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL – Pays lifetime alimony to woman unable to remarry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l523XAgv_vc
Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL – Pays $4K in permanent alimony to lesbian ex-wife
http://www.youtube.com
This is Lee Kallett and Elvina Kallett. He pays permanent alimony to a woman who left the marriage because she chose to live a lesbian
MRAs has something important to say, but that message gets obscured by an attitude that looks like feminism but for males, too much whining and overreaction for me.
What a load of crap. The fact that womyn have more rights than males is all the proof one needs to see how dysfunctional, deranged and depraved our (Western) society has become. Of course, that’s all been designed by the inbred, Satan worshipping scum of the Cainite/Ashkenazi bloodline (Rothschilds, Warburgs etc).
I for one wouldn’t have anything against seeing the conservative Islam ruling the world; at least females would be put back in their place.
Women are scum, try to get that through your thick skull. They are worthless, vile, demented, hellspawned monsters that should be treated as any other beast of burden.
Oh, and every time i hear a woman being raped/killed/tortured i laugh heartily, because she had it coming.
“Women are scum, try to get that through your thick skull. They are worthless, vile, demented, hellspawned monsters that should be treated as any other beast of burden.
“Oh, and every time i hear a woman being raped/killed/tortured i laugh heartily, because she had it coming.”
Troll, agent provocateur, or sick in the head.
I found that you dont understand MRM at all. It appears that you were criticising feminism and replaced the word feminism by MRM…… the movement has only started. It is developing its philosophy. It is trying to solve the problems society faces in its own way. They are demanding true equality because in the name of equality Men are discriminated against- they say if their has to be equality it should be real one and not sham. They do promote victimhood as in our society victimhood pays… if playing victimhood is beneficial why should men to refrained from playing victimhood…. the story has only begun. What MRAs achieved in less than a decade, no other movement could attain even in century. You will see a totally different human society after a few decades of MRM. We hope it will be just and promotes welfare.
You have some very strange ideas about MRAs. What you say of them is not my experience of working alongside people honestly and ethically working for men’s human rights at all.
Almost every time you state what an MRA is or believes in, I find myself thinking “huh?” MRAs, whether men or women, are not the hopelessly stupid and ignorant feminists you portray them as: not at all!
eXACTLY! I am a woman and I agree with everything the MRAs say from a legal point of view… but the spend too much time bashing women and the same things I hate about feminist, I hate about MRAs. They use the victim card and pretend that the sexes are identical.
We have learnt that due to advent of Men’s Rights Movement, feminist funding has started dwindling. The paid feminist activists are very angry- you know no wages hike. Now many are going to join other paid activism- some have even applied to us. It is just that we dont promote paid activism.
This is a poorly-researched article. The idea of the “Men’s Studies” center at Stony Brook–with big-name Feminists like Eve Ensler, Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem as the department chairs–was torn to shreds by the MRM. Not a single person there thought it was a good idea, and the main criticism was that we can’t even open a Men’s Studies Center that isn’t under direct control of Feminists–completely bypassing the point because when Feminists control the information there, it’s pretty much the same as every other “studies center” on Earth.
Do your research dude.
>When the American military announced that it would start putting women in combat, Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) rejoiced.
Hey Goldstein it’s cool if you want to reflect that SOME of the MRAs rejoice at some stuff, but if you could reflect that it’s a portion in more clearer words, it would be appreciated. What you’re wording in an ambiguous enough manner so as to imply it is ALL of the MRAs viewpoint to some readers can paint en masse an opinion only shared by a portion of those participating in MRA community.
Though it perhaps mimics the “NAFALT” assurances, not all MRAs are happy about the military compromising it’s effectiveness. I mean heck, why the fuck should we be happy about women on the front lines when they’re not even held to equal standards of physical fitness before doing so? That’s a clear priority before even thinking about putting them in positions where their lack of arm strength (via lower pushup reqs) could result in them not lobbing a ‘nade far enough. I’m more concerned about direct risks like that before I wonder about other things that could compromise effectiveness.
So yeah, not everyone is all too pleased about the frontline revelations when they precede more important egalitarian concerns like requiring women to be as fit as men to serve in the army when that fitness is tied to reducing the danger to themselves and their comrades.
Dead on
Masulinists and feminists are, it seems, just two half of the same whole. The ultimate goal of masculinist leadership and those who give financial aid to their movement is to separate men from women.
We need to keep up our efforts towards Mars exploration. Once we have conquered Mars we will have somewhere to send all the poor poor victim Feminists and MRA’s.
I’m not convinced you know what MRA groups actually are. They’re trying to “take back” their manly rights that they feel were usurped by so-called uppity women. They’re not about equality of the sexes, they’re about turning back the clock to before suffrage.
I would agree. I have the same observation.
PUAs, MRAs, MGTOWs – all basically the exact same Libertarian shit. These groups are far more similar than different. You’re like splinter sects fighting over irrelevant details. Far more interesting is all the stuff on which you unspokenly agree, e.g. that present-day problems are not at all (how could they possibly be?!) a direct consequence of capitalism’s end-run around democracy.
People should be treated equally under the law… the interpretation of fairness as justice is to far obscured by personal bias.. this is the position of a MRA .. where the individual decides to take that.. traditional life style.. or non traditional whatever that entails .. is up to them as free persons. Who are you to define men in mass? .. I’ll stop you before you respond and further make a fool of yourself .. you are a individual person, not a supernatural being with the power of objectivity at you’re disposal . At the end of the day this traditional life style that you claim is attacked by the MRA is a fools errand. A life style that 60% of the time will lead you to divorce and risking payment of palimony , or child support that the mother is not held accountable for… MRA’s call attention to these very real life sentences.. Life sentences that have attacked men’s intensive to be a unstoppable “stoic”Theodore Roosevelt like figure. That romanticism is only damaging without caution as many of us have seen in our brothers, uncles, and fathers. Being a MRA isnt about playing the victim its about not becoming another statistic, its about enough is enough. The nuclear family is nearly impossible without equality under the law.
I re-quote this from a comment bellow, as I think it correctly surmises MRAs.
“The MRM is working on the (correct) assumption that the US Constitution, as written, does not provide a good framework with which to disregard feminist demands for equality. On the contrary, the prevailing interpretation of the law of the land strongly favors those who succeed in casting themselves as oppressed.
Since (in the MRM’s view) it’s difficult to deny equality, MRM tries to do the best with what the law offers them, which is to respond in kind like a lawyer scrutinizing a contract for loopholes. They mean to hold women to every standard of accountability and civic responsibility that men are held to; not necessarily because this is what they want, but rather because it’s the only thing they can reasonably achieve within the constraints of the Constitution.
Most MRA’s don’t necessarily want women to be draftable, but since society expects it of men and offers no thanks for it, then it’s only fair that women should be too.
MRAs have traditionalism in one hand, and egalitarianism in the other, and are telling feminism “CHOOSE!”.”
Except that the majority of so-called “Men’s Rights Activists” are actually upset that women are not being treated as if inferior to men.
One recently gained some notoriety for celebrating the killing of women and claiming that it was perfectly legal.
You have to be extreme. You fight extremism with extremism. All young men who wish for a strong patriarchal future. Grab your balls , get together and ENFORCE the laws you want. They will never give it to you. You must take everything you want with force. And yes I am avocation revoultion. And if it must be violence. But I don’t think they are strong enough to physically resist the young men of this nation. They only have power over you minds. And once you accept that they are wrong and you are right, once you accept that there is no other way for justice, then you will be free and find your courage.
The new generation of bigotry. Hope you enjoy being tomorrows version of old racists.
I lump MRAs in with the rest of the SJW crowd. They advocate for big gov and liberal degeneracy and they thrive on having victim status. I understand that the current times are hostile towards men but the focus should be on taking that power back instead of reducing men to snivilling cry babies. MGTOW is a separate thing all together. It’s not necessarily about destroying masculinity and patriarchy like the MRM aims to do but it’s men being cautious in a political and legal climate where they can so easily be screwed over. I can’t say I blame men in the west for going MGTOW. I would be afraid too if my spouse could claim I had abused them, kick me out of my home, fuck other people in my bed, and take my children and then make me pay cupious amounts of money to someone I was no longer allowed sexual access to so they could go and get their hair and nails done. In the long term these laws don’t suit women’s interests either, because men are increasingly understandably going to check out. MRAs call traditionalism gynocentric but it wasn’t anything of the sort. Men held up their end of the bargain but so did women and marriage and family was only an asset to a man and not a potential liability.