You have two weeks to add your voice to the Honey Badger chorus.
Heh.
I did not come up with the moniker, but it’s kinda sweet, no?
“Can’t we all just get along?”
It’s an argument we’ve heard over and over from sources critical of the men’s human rights movement. It gets handed to us by individuals who think of feminism and the MHRM as two opposite ends of an activism spectrum, with feminists representing women, and the MHRM representing men.
The latest version of it, a Boston Globe editorial by Cathy Young, is a sugar-coated rehash of the same tone argument feminists have been using to try to shame MHRAs into silence for years; shaming language, claims that MHRAs are too loud, too brash, too rude, and talk too much about the problems the movement exists to address. She could have snatched the last few paragraphs of her article almost directly from the plethora of feminist commenters who have made the same argument in men’s forums all over the internet. The writing doesn’t reflect an epiphany or even an original idea.
It’s the feminist company line.
The article is dishonest and self-contradicting. After describing all of the reasons why a men’s movement is needed, she went on to try to use a vague, unsupported accusations to shame into silence those responsible for bringing men’s issues into the public view.
Let’s take a closer look at them.
Unfortunately, any movement championing one gender seems doomed to devolve into victim politics and demonization of the other sex.
This generalization is a direct contradiction to her previous statements. Up to the paragraph containing this sentence, Young did a pretty decent job of explaining why the men’s human rights movement exists, listing off several important issues. Her writing discussed some areas in which men are victims of discrimination and in which female abuse of men is facilitated by discriminatory law. After prefacing her personal version of “shut the fuck up” with a conciliatory description of issues the movement exists to address, she went on to hypocritically deny their impact by referring to discussion about them and efforts to address them as “victim politics,” and “demonizing of the other sex.”
What she has said there, in the context of the whole article, is “Yes, I know men can be victimized by women, and I know that society and the law are structured to make it easy for women to victimize men, and I know that there are women who take advantage of that… but shame on you for talking about it.”
Some leading men’s rights websites such as A Voice for Men offer a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing that discredits any valid points they may make.
At first glance, the statement looks like an attack only on A Voice For Men.
It isn’t. Though the sentence mentions the site, it’s an inclusive statement, referencing leading websites. It’s an attack not only on this site, but on every site where men’s rights advocates dare to gather. It’s an attack on all of us – every men’s rights advocate who has the nerve to speak out about men’s issues.
It also isn’t an honest statement. Discussion on leading men’s rights websites centers on highlighting the issues men face, the causes of those issues, and changes in law, policy, and social norms which would be necessary to fix those issues. Among the issues noted in Young’s article, many involve ways in which women benefit from laws that discriminate against men, and as she noted, feminists have opposed men’s efforts to remedy that. Discussing those issues is naturally going to include pointing out the abuse itself, which in turn means pointing the finger at its female perpetrators and their feminist defenders. It will also naturally include challenging popular opinion on aspects of those issues, and challenging popular opinion on related women’s issues.
In labeling such discussion “a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing,” Young is really saying two things; first, that women must be exempt from criticism, even when discussing issues that are a result of female dysfunction… and second, that feminist ownership of women’s issues must not be challenged by alternative viewpoints. This is simultaneously an incredibly tight control to place on gender-issues discussion, and a leash that can be placed on those unruly female MHRAs who fail to toe the feminist line.
Between the lines, she’s saying a third thing that most people won’t pick up – the same thing feminists everywhere say between the lines when they invade men’s issues forums with the “Can’t we all just get along?” argument. To pick up on it, you have to realize that criticism of feminism and female dysfunction can’t be vulgar woman-bashing unless one assumes that all women are feminist, and all women are dysfunctional.
MHRAs cannot discuss women. Women are the proprietary territory of feminist writers. Discussion on women’s behavior and women’s issues must always be shaped by feminist ideology, or anything you say will be considered misogyny.
The sentiment goes beyond male discussion. It’s not just a statement of ownership of the topic, “women.” It’s ownership of women. It’s also the use of castigation of men’s speech to shame women who support the MHRM. That can be further seen in Young’s subtle claim that the MHRM is not a gender equality movement.
Perhaps what the 21st century needs is not a women’s movement (which was once essential to secure basic rights) or a men’s movement, but a gender equality movement.
That paragraph isn’t the invitation to inclusion it’s intended to appear to be. It’s “shut the fuck up, MHRAs.” Strip off the nice intro, read that paragraph by itself, and what you have left is the same thing we see in this type of argument all the time. Her point isn’t “we should be working together,” but “I want to convince you the MHRM has no legitimacy as a stand-alone movement.”
A women’s movement ‘was once essential to secure basic rights,” but when men’s basic rights have been attacked and compromised, a men’s movement is not needed to remedy that. Feminism has gone too far, as she pointed out in an earlier paragraph, but apparently a men’s movement isn’t needed to remedy that, either. Contrary to Young’s insinuation, it can be acknowledged that feminism is not a gender equality movement, because there are demonstrable examples of feminist efforts to create or maintain discrimination against men and boys in law, policy, and social conditions. That’s not gender equality advocacy.
What Young fails to understand is that the MHRM is a gender equality movement. The movement doesn’t attack women or women’s rights, but instead treats women with a respect that feminism has tried to kill – the application of standards. We don’t have to be identical to men to be equally valued, and we don’t have to damsel to get them to listen to our opinions, even those with which they disagree… but we do have to live up to the same expectations of character that men are accustomed to being expected to display.
Feminism is degrading. Feminist advocacy strives to normalize and excuse female dysfunction, and the expectation of special treatment. Feminist theory imposes helplessness on women to support an agenda. Feminist leadership uses the concept of total female vulnerability for political fodder, and in doing so, unnecessarily pits us against men. That is not empowering. It’s disturbing and creepy.
Feminists reserve a special hatred for female MHRAs, because we refuse their exploitative advances. That reduces the size of their stable of proxy victims to whore out for public sympathy, in three ways:
We deny them the ability to use us directly.
We show how dishonest they are in imposing perpetual victimhood on others.
We call them out on it when they do that.
That kills their monopoly on the female end of the gender-issues dialogue, a tool they’ve been using to wrangle funds and political power for decades. When we buck the self-perceived authority of feminist leadership, we threaten their income and status. Bad honeybadgers. No snake guts for you.
The hidden message for female MHRAs in the “Can’t we all just get along” argument isget your ass back in line, bitches! How dare you!
How dare you side with the enemy!
How dare you call the enemy a human rights movement!
How dare you contradict your feminist overlords!
Don’t you realize if you do that, we’ll make you look mean, and ugly, and nobody will like you?
What women like Cathy Young don’t understand is that this particular method of attack – the “can’t we all just get along” tone argument – does not work on either the men or the women of the MHRM.
You’re not going to shut men up by castigating them over the tone of their speech.
You’re not going to shut female MHRAs up by treating the movement as an outrage.
We are not withering violets, afraid that our words won’t be accepted, our opinions not liked, and our methods not approved.
We’re not here for a popularity contest. We’re here to draw attention to issues people want to ignore.
We’re here because we’re not your political property.
We’re here because fuck perpetual victimhood.
We’re here because feminism hurts women, too.
We’re here because men’s rights are human rights.
Sincerely, the Honeybadger Brigade
Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat)
Alison “Asha” Tieman (Typhon Blue)
Della Burton
Suzanne McCarley
Janet Bloomfield (Judgy Bitch)
Amy Dee (Correctix)
Diana Davison
Elena Rider
Magedlyn Prossii
Dr. Helen Smith
Dr. Tara Palmatier
Susie Parker (100% Cotton)
Stacey Allison
Aimee McGee
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/cant-we-all-just-get-along/
judgybitch 
LikeLike
Feminists to Judgy Bitch: “Dammit, Janet, you’re a traitor!”
LikeLike
The MRM needs women like you who see the truth anf aren’t afraid to challenge thoe feminist power structure.
I too hope we don’t need a men’s movement and a woman’s movement one day but that time has not yet arrived. Warren Farrell said as much and I agree with him on this point.
Feminism is ubiquitous. It is time for it to take a good look at itself and who better to hold up the mirror than a group of honest women?
LikeLike
“In civil debate, it is crass and counterproductive to dehumanize those who disagree with you,” is not at all the same as “Shut up!”
Here are some other things that are not the same as “Shut up!”:
Maybe it’s kind of shitty to say things like, “Feminist aren’t real women, they are some other kind of vile species.”
Caricaturing women as easily swayed children who “tend to do what they feel” is both inaccurate and unhelpful.
This generalization is a direct contradiction to her previous statements.
No, it’s not. It’s completely possible for us to recognize that feminism has fought some very necessary battles against true injustices, and then to recognize that feminism often demonizes or dehumanizes men. Cathy Young makes this observation herself. It is not a logical contradiction to apply this same statement to the MHRM.
Contrary to Young’s insinuation, it can be acknowledged that feminism is not a gender equality movement, because there are demonstrable examples of feminist efforts to create or maintain discrimination against men and boys in law, policy, and social conditions.
She says her own goddamn self that “with a few exceptions, feminists have balked at any pro-equality advocacy that would support men in male-female disputes, acknowledge that women can mistreat men, or undermine female advantage.” She’s saying that’s the goddamn problem – that feminism has focused on women’s needs to the detriment of gender equality.
Young is really saying two things; first, that women must be exempt from criticism, even when discussing issues that are a result of female dysfunction… and second, that feminist ownership of women’s issues must not be challenged by alternative viewpoints.
No. She’s not. Here she is, criticizing women herself: “…when the campaign for tough domestic violence policies netted more female perpetrators, women’s groups pressed for anti-male double standards, promoting the myth that nearly all female violence is in self-defense.”
Here she is, advocating that feminist ownership of women’s issues be challenged by alternative viewpoints: “Perhaps what the 21st century needs is not a women’s movement…” (emphasis mine)
i don’t know how this any of this left the impression that Young is trying to promote feminist hegemony uber alles while demanding that men shut up. She is saying what she said – “Hey, aggrieved gender war ladies, men are not the enemy, you assholes. Hey, aggrieved gender war men, women are not the enemy either!”
LikeLike
Cathy has been writing in defense of men for almost as long as I have, and at least 10 years longer than any of the newbies who signed this article. What, I wonder, do you call people who get their hackles up and dog pile onto a person who is 99% on their side, who has a long history of being male positive? Who are they going to dump on next, Christina Hoff Sommers? Warren Farrell? The rest of us old timers in the MRM?
LikeLike
Attempting to decapitate AVfM, the most influential and widely read men’s human rights advocacy site, is not a friendly, peaceful act, unless you consider Pearl Harbor a mild rebuke of the US Military by the nice Axis powers.
LikeLike
Translation of what Young said: “Yes, you men have some valid points. But we’re right to dismiss you when you say anything angry.” Or more basically, “WE decide what is acceptable behavior for you.”
And her line about “We don’t need a women’s movement and a men’s movement, we need a gender-equality movement” boils down to “We don’t need a men’s movement.”
In any case, I’m not holding my breath waiting for so-called feminists with integrity to switch to advocating gender equality. (Whatever that is.) Women in the USA have all sorts of privilege now; what feminist would dare say publicly, “We need to give that up”?
LikeLike
Attempting to decapitate?
A writer publishing an article critical of an organization’s rhetorical style, which the writer finds unjustly hostile toward an entire class of people perceived to be the cause of men’s suffering, is engaging in attempted decapitation? A writer who agrees with the organization on its basic issues?
This makes her analagous to the war coalition that committed genocide, human experimentation, and the Rape of Nanking?
Criticism is not censorship. It is not violence. It’s the marketplace of ideas.
LikeLike
Who is this “we” you’re putting in her mouth? Feminists? To my knowledge she does not identify as one.
Women? Because the entire point of her article is that this need not be a contest of man against woman.
Society? Because in that case, well, yes, society does frequently formulate norms of acceptable behavior. Such as, “Don’t treat people with hostility, suspicion, or condescension based on their gender.” If you get a reputation for doing that – like, say, Andrea Dworkin – you become much more difficult to take seriously. Especially if what you’re bitching about is gender discrimination.
LikeLike
I am sympathetic to her fundamental argument, and unimpressed by what she does with it.
I don’t consider myself a men’s rights activist. I consider myself a human rights activist, and men are systematically being denied their human rights. Identity politics are today’s solution and tomorrow’s problem.
However – and it is a very important however – anybody raising this argument against men’s rights activists, ignoring feminism, is not arguing for human rights, they’re arguing that men should shut up about their problems. This argument, directed against the weaker of the two opposing gender forces, is -undermining- human rights, not reinforcing them.
But in the end, balancing considerations, I have no issue with holding the men’s rights movement to a higher standard than feminism was and si held to. After all, look at what THEIR standards turned their movement into. I’d rather the men’s rights movement move a little slower, if the alternative is that in thirty years it becomes what feminism is today.
LikeLike
Nice article, but here’s what you’re up against:
1. Women constitute the majority of the population and are therefore the majority of voters.
2. Women are more often likely to vote their own group interests over others.
3. Women are voting for stronger criminal penalties, specifically for sex based crimes of which the evidence is often just the accuser’s word.
4. “Civil Commitment” laws mean that any sex offender may be jailed for life.
5. As a result we have the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world.
6. Through a combination of a longer lifespan and greater male incarceration, the female voting majority will likely increase.
7. The female blogosphere is now talking about “pre-crime”, that is to say, the incarceration of males deemed at high risk of committing crimes. Trial and incarceration without crime is on its way.
8. The MRM is nothing more than a tiny group and is unlikely to grow as men can be shamed into supporting women’s rights of their own interests.
9. Participation in the MRM is likely to damage careers as female co-workers will take action against men found out to be MRM members.
10. Women also constitute the majority of consumers resulting in the corporate interest in supporting feminism.
This is why I’m not an MRA. The cause is too doomed from the start. That is why my position is to simply kick back and watch it all fall down.
LikeLike
The MHRM has as many utterly fucking batshit weirdos with a victim complex as feminism does. I’ll plum for neither and stay firmly on the ever-moving side of common sense, as I always have.
There’s nothing more damaging to rationality than embroiling oneself in a “movement”.
Good luck with your thing, nonetheless.
LikeLike
Much as i hate to admit it, I agree totally. I am not an “MHRM”, I am an MRA. no goddamned H in there. There is, never has been, and never will be such a thing as ‘equality’ between men and women.
the MHRM are SOOO convinced they are different, that they are somehow ‘better’ than us angry and aggressive guys with guns. Us horrible, awful conservatives that are trying to learn from 7000 years of recorded history The most important thing we try to do is look back at history and ask ourselves, “Why didn’t our forebears have these problems?” and identify the differences between THEN and NOW.
We also look at situations that are more or less identical, identify sociopolitical turning points, and apply them to the modern age, and try to figure out how they were resolved.
These ‘new age freethinkers’ wander in, insulting the results of our research, not even arguing against them directly but making sly digs just like the feminazis instead of directly confronting the truth, and start throwing around the same mistakes that us researchers saw failed dozens or hundreds of times before, acting as if THIS TIME it’s going to be different. THIS TIME women and pussybeggars will listen to reason. THIS TIME unlimited socialism and liscentiousness, immorality and atheism, purposelessness and daddygov will somehow work. THIS TIME somehow a ‘star trek’ dream of all humankind living in peace without property, family, community, faith, courtesy, honor, loyalty,or any of those other inconvenient things that restrict ‘natural freedom’ to do whatever you want is going to work. THIS TIME humans are going to treat each other decently, without any motivation whatsoever to do so. THIS TIME men are going to appeal to sympathy, start crying, and people will open up their hearts to the utopian dream of true balance and social empathy for all mankind.
And this dream of unicorn farting rainbow bright skittles is EXACTLY the same thing the feminists are spouting, albeit with a slightly different group of ‘victims’. Sure, the name of the great evil enemy changes. Sure, some details are different, but the core message is the same. I am actually a little sad that the honeybadgers are affiliated with JTO, Elam, and the rest of the ‘we are bigger victims than thee’ sewing circle.
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that the honeybadgers are TRYING to root out explanations and a balanced viewpoint, but where they break down is when they start trying to come up with ways to fix the problems or suggested courses of action.
No, I get it, really. Girlwriteswhat sometimes gets it too, but she shies away whenever the inescapable conclusion that ‘exceptions do not make the rule’ rears it’s ugly head.
Yes, the occasional woman can make a fine soldier. No, that does not mean that all women ‘deserve’ the opportunity to become fine soldiers. Yes, it sucks that one in ten thousand may feel ‘oppressed’. It sucks even more that men are dying because they are having to jolly along female ‘soldiers’ that cannot even deadlift their own weight.
No, EVERYBODY does not ‘deserve’ to vote. Yes, veterans that lay down their lives deserve to have a say in the country they physically took responsibility. Yes, it sucks that occasionally someone worthy of voting doesn’t get the chance because they are not allowed to become a veteran. That one-in a million gets screwed. That doesn’t mean we have to give universal suffrage to all the stupid wasteoids and scumbags to make sure that that one in a million doesn’t get missed.
Every once in a while Girlwriteswhat brushes against the truth. That virtually every ‘social’ advancement the euroamerican world has made since world war 1 has been a step back from civilized progress. That every cause that feminism has championed since the 1800’s has been nothing more than screwing EVERYONE in order to help a few ‘special cases’. Remember, Universal suffrage was passed DESPITE 90% of the women of the time NOT wanting it.
Every single thing ‘feminism’ has accomplished, has been an overall evil, creating a monstrous injustice in order to prevent a rare and minor injustice.
That’s not how you manage a culture. That’s not how you build a civilization.
The Honeybadgers are, in general, fun to listen to because they look open-eyed at modern facts… But their conclusions are colored by the ‘canada corps’ inborn egalitarian brand of socialism, leading frequently to erroneous conclusions. Nobody likes admitting that they don’t need to eat that free cheesecake.
But hey, it’s not how well the bear dances that counts, it’s the fact that the bear can dance at all. I guess.
LikeLike
BTW, if you ever accidentally believe the tripe about women being ‘more merciful’, ‘more gentle’, ‘more forgiving’, or ‘more nurturing’, Just ask your girlfriend what she thinks the punishment should be for a convicted rapist. Most women suggest punishments I wouldn’t inflict on Jack the Ripper, Idi Amin, or Adolph Hitler.
LikeLike
I disagree with Gem. A “movement”, properly conceived and executed, is rational.
Having been an activist who adopted an idealist cause and started a movement that changed a status quo both culturally and institutionally – albeit for a university, not all of America – I can vouch that what JB (Janet, huh?) is attempting is essentially rational. It’s socially rational, however, which is not the same as individually rational.
America’s social-political game is essentially and mechanistically Marxist. Activism, whatever your cause or political stripe, is Marxist. (It behooves activists to have a working understanding of the original Marx and the historical effects of his theories.) You don’t need to like it, but if you are truly committed to making a social-political difference, you do need to accept that there is no choice but to play the Marxist game as an activist. Because there’s no other game to play.
That’s where the Cathy Youngs and Ashlyns mislead. With or without adversarial intent, they give a sleight of hand that takes your eyes off the Matrix.
I don’t like the game, but the game is what the game is. As the wise – rational – men say, don’t hate the player, hate the game. Hating the game ain’t changing it, though. The rational response is adapting to the game. Or you can refuse to be an activist, don’t play, and concede the game to the different-minded activists who are playing the game to win. If you concede, you still lose, but you know, maybe that way they’ll let you keep Paris. If they want.
My advice to the Honeybadgers is to apply every lesson you ever learned as a real-world competitor, taking on mean girls in HS, making money and/or starting a business, war, litigation, (obviously) politics, etc.. Defining the problem frames the solution. Know parties, premises, (first) principles, purpose, and definitions. Know the game. While expressing emotionally is part of activism, always think clearly in your leadership – rationally, tactically, strategically. Do your intel prep rigorously and update constantly. Know and respect your competition – allow them to teach you how to beat them. Map out the battlefield. Identify the obstacles, like Marlo does, except figure out how to overcome them. Be creative. Mark out a long-view frame for your aspirations and fill it in with plans. (Which you’ll need to adjust en route, of course, but you have to start somewhere.) Rationally match means to aspirational ends in your planning. If you lack the means you need, which you will, then figure out how to acquire or create those means. Building an effective insurgent activist movement from conception to grassroots and up doesn’t happen overnight. It takes steps with discouraging reversals, defeats, and seeming dead ends along the way. If your cause is fundamentally sound, though, you should be able to recover and regain progress.
At minimum, add people who think like activists to your team. It’s surprising how many people with otherwise impressive resumes are constitutionally averse to activism. They can still be useful in limited roles matched to their abilities, but if they’re given too much leadership responsibility, they tend to make anti-progressive choices. Along the way, add experienced activists, lobbyists, litigators, and politicians to your team.
Finally, always take care that your rational methods are serving idealistic goals and not the reverse. The head must serve the heart to win the Marxist game. The beating heart of any insurgent activist movement is the zealous advocacy of passionate uncompromising idealists.
LikeLike
This blog is very interesting and I agree a lot of times with the author.
But this blog is conservafeminism.
From which point a woman becomes a “slut”? (one lover before marriage? 2, 3, 4, 5, 6?) This is nosense.
Judgybitch has tell us that she slep with Mr.JB before marry him. Is that slut?
She told us, too, the she had a boyfriend before Mr.JB? Is that slut?
Probably, she had more than one boyfriend before Mr.JB. Is that slut?
She told us too, that Mr. JB was a womanizer when she met him. And that was no problem at all to her. Of course: women love womanizers. Nothing strange here..
But… in last post she told us that she can call, with no problem at all, “sluts”, men who sleep around with random women. And, that even for a man, is sluttie and wrong sleeping around. Contradiction here.
Judgybitch encourages women to be wives and moms and just working at home. And hubby doing the real work out of home and paying all the bills.
That is completely respectable, but this situation is what MGTOWs are trying to avoid like hell. And especially since we live in the time of the Damocles Sword.
Said all this with the deepest respect. And, I repeat: I enjoy a lot this blog. I just cannot agree 100%.
LikeLike
“Unfortunately, any movement championing one gender seems doomed to devolve into victim politics and demonization of the other sex.”
This line of Young’s stuck out to me as well, because it started off sounding like it was going to draw a reasonable conclusion but wound up somewhere else entirely. After everything she’d reviewed of the problems facing men (includinig reflexive opposition to the point of insane hatred from feminists), I was expecting to read:
“Unfortunately, any movement championing one gender seems doomed to be ACCUSED of victim politics and demonization BY the other sex.”
That would have been a fair assessment–and indeed, in the early days of feminism there was some unwarranted demonization by men too. Just as we’re seeing today with the MRM. Instead, she wandered off into complaining about how ‘strident’ and ‘angry’ some prominent MRM voices are (anyone remember the Black Panthers?).
Thanks for the “help,” Cathy Young. We’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.
LikeLike
Yep, the sociological survey of the Manosphere. It does have distinct areas.
From what I gather, PUA/Game, Complementarians (like JB), MGTOW, and MRA are the major schools of the Manosphere. There is inter-school traffic and they share the ideal of counter-revolutionary Positive Masculinity, but also have fundamental differences. Those differences sometimes become flashpoints. Each school tends to respond in distinct ways to Feminism, too.
Of course, there is considerable variety within the schools due to the Manosphere’s red pill ethos. The red pill is based on critical individual consciousness. We look for our individual truth in the social context more than we’re looking to join a prescribed social movement, but of course, socialization is part of our natural human programming so that happens. If we aspire to real social-political reform, a social movement is a requirement. It’s a JS Mill-ian balance.
LikeLike
Marlo,
for information can you point me to some of the discussion of pre crime. I tend to avoid female issue blogs as they leave me alternately angry, bewildered and/os sore headed and I am trying to avoid this.
LikeLike
Totally agree.
But, given the pervasiveness of feminism, it’s nice to have an opposing view point that doesn’t immediately apologise and grovel when accused of misogyny.
LikeLike
We’ve had close to 50 years of widespread gender feminism in this country, and even a tiny MRM for only about a decade. It’s past time to go 40 years with solely a men’s issues movement as regards such groups, and only a tiny (e.g., largely ignored) feminist movement for the 10 years following.
LikeLike
It’s a competition.
LikeLike
“Male positive?”
Feminism IS the establishment. Cathy Young doesn’t seem to have a problem with that, but isn’t it sweet of her to offer teh menz some feminist approved and feminist dictated crumbs from the feminist banquet?
Male positive indeed.
LikeLike
Since Cathy Young said things patently untrue–and by the way, “women are not the enemy” is a lecture the vast majority of us find offensive, since we never declared women the enemy and don’t treat them like that–you’ll have to forgive us for correcting the record and for taking the position that she’s wrong.
Because she’s wrong, and that’s all this really says.
LikeLike
“8. The MRM is nothing more than a tiny group and is unlikely to grow as men can be shamed into supporting women’s rights of their own interests.”
It is growing exponentially, and that growth will continue unless they shut down the internet.
LikeLike
Ah yes, the old “hunker down and wait for civilization to collapse, we’re all doomed” mentality. I know it well, as well as the “women are fundamentally flawed thus this all can never change” mentality. I don’t believe it for a wide variety of reasons, but rather than go into a long debate about it, just let me observe this for you:
Dysfunctional civilizations have a habit of continuing for literally centuries without collapsing. And I’m not particularly interested in waiting that long, I’ve got sons in this game.
LikeLike
It doesn’t have to be pretty. The point is whether it has competitive utility value. You’ve identified one such value. Gem doesn’t care about that point because he or she has removed him or herself from the competition.
LikeLike
The “newbies” who signed that article include old hands who’ve been at it well over a decade.
Speaking as a 47 year old who’ve been in this for a good 20 years himself, and on and off quite active for the last 10 or so years, I came to the same conclusion as Paul Elam, who’s also been at this for decades:
I failed. Paul Elam failed. Warren Farrell failed. Cathy Young failed. You, Rod Van Mechelen, quite obviously have also failed.
Cathy Young’s approach is an abysmal, abominable, absolute and complete FAIL on every single important area that matters. She has accomplished NOTHING except getting polite nodes of agreement and making certain platitudes acceptable to utter in hushed tones of agreement.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result, then Cathy Young is insane and so, frankly, are you.
If your approach is so effective, what results have you got to show for it? Hmm?
Perhaps I’m just wasting my time even responding. If you can’t own up to Cathy Young’s ABJECT FAILURE and, by extension, your own ABJECT FAILURE, just as I owned up to MY abject failure, and thus, facing the reality of FAILURE, start to think about new strategies, or at least try to support those bringing forth new strategies, then from my point of view, what you’re saying is a complete waste of time.
Face it. All the other strategies have failed. Now you want to pat new youngbloods on the head and tell them they don’t have a right to say anything, and they should just sit back and nod at the accumulated wisdom of your decades of failure?
Let me repeat that–your personal DECADES OF FAILURE.
And mine too.
Now you want to tell the young pups they’re out of line? I hope they tell you to fuck off, grandpa. And me to fuck off too, if they can’t figure out that new strategies are called for when old ones fail. And brother, the Cathy Young strategy is a COMPLETE, TOTAL FAILURE.
LikeLike
All significant movements are full of batshit weirdos. That would include the slavery Abolitionist movemetn, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, the anti-Apartheid movement of the 1980s in South Africa, the movement for the nation of India’s independence, and more.
There is nothing more cowardly and damaging to integrity than refusing to join a righteous movement just because you might get your hands sullied, and there’s nothing so repulsive as an arrogant snot who considers himself better than those people busy fighting for change.
Good luck with your “sit on your hands and do nothing” moral and intellectual superiority thing.
LikeLike
Oh, I would add, look at America’s own Revolutionary War leaders. The ones who took American independence from the British by force.
What a motley collection of quarrelling, nettlesome, eccentric people, many of them egotistical, vain, pridesome, arrogant, and some rather close to loony.
I say that with great pride as an American. 😉
LikeLike
Good point. It’s a competition. Seniority means something but it’s not the bottom line. This is real world, not some teacher-refereed intramural league: How you play the game matters, but the bottom line is whether you win or lose.
LikeLike
Yep. MRA is subject to the same social dynamics as other social-political movements. Militant and/or radical activism is proven effective. Smart like-minded advocates who don’t personally subscribe to those tactics and maintain a degree a separation still take advantage of them.
LikeLike
What kind of “sullying” of our pretty hands are you advocating?
Are you suggesting we should achieve victories for one gender at the expense of the other? By treating half the human race as the enemy?
You can’t advocate gender equality by dismissing or eroding the rights and concerns of one gender. You cannot fuck for chastity.
And if you are not interested in equality before the law regardless of genitalia, if instead you are interested in the legal and social domination of one gender, then I’ll be over here having a quiet chuckle about your noble cause.
LikeLike
Thanks for totally not addressing my points.
“Society” formulates norms, huh? Really? Is the voice of “society” soprano, alto, tenor, baritone, or bass? Does “society” write right- or left-handed? Am I part of this “society” that gets to formulate norms? So why do I disagree with this “norm” that’s been “formulated”?
Your implication is that “Don’t treat people with hostility, suspicion, or condescension based on their gender” is a universally agreed-to rule of behavior. No, it’s a rule proclaimed by a minority, and universally promulgated by a politically correct news media, BUT it is not universally accepted.
“Society” doesn’t say “Don’t treat people with hostility, suspicion, or condescension based on their gender” — because then radical feminists would get pilloried in the news media because of their many anti-male pronouncements. But nope, feminists get a free ride in the news media.
“Society” doesn’t say that, only self-righteous feminists say that, and only to angry men. (Here the feminists use “people” in the quote to mean “feminists” — just as Sarah Palin uses “real Americans” to mean “extremist Republicans.”)
LikeLike
Amen to that! Sign me up
LikeLike
Once again, Ashlyn, you don’t reply to what the man wrote. Plus this time, you “reply” to words he never said.
Hey, I can do that too: Ashlyn, I disagree with you that being a socialist is something to be proud of.
LikeLike
The comments section on the sites can get pretty vile. Misogyny is actually the mildest if you take into account all the blatant racism and throwing around of the n-word that ends in “er” and not the pc and pop culture “a”. However I think AVfM has vocally distanced themselves from the White Nationalists of the Manosphere.
What I don’t get is if breeding white babies is so important to them, why aren’t they doing it? Most of the racist Spherians are single and childless.
I wonder why?
LikeLike
I read a blog post of someone claiming a female psychologist was able to predict which men were likely to commit rape. I’ll have to see if I can dig it up again. Basically someone is out there trying to turn the plot to “Minority Report” into real life.
LikeLike
I’m thinking of the Soviet Union. things happen faster these days. So I don’t think this will go on for centuries. I’m thinking more like 50 years.
You have to remember that the soviet union was largely based on an economic theory that was a lie. it didn’t work. But they told themselves it would for 60 years until it all fell apart.
From my perspective, the fall will happen faster if you don’t engage, instead let them have what they want and let it all fall apart naturally. If you engage, they’ll still get what they want, it will just take them longer.
but then again, I don’t have any children. I saw things were falling apart back in the 1970’s and my lack of optimism has never changed
LikeLike
While I can appreciate somewhat what JB and her badger brigade are trying to accomplish, I have to say I am somewhat taken aback by the fact the MRA/MHRM of late has almost been hijacked by them. Take for instance the Edmonton poster campaign. Who was it that ended up on the radio and CBC? Karen Straughan or as the manosphere knew her prior, GirlWritesWhat.
Sorry, but having her as the “spokesman” for a mens right movement just shows Men have no say even in our own movement. It’s only a female voice that is heard when it comes to gender issues.
I do enjoy JB’s blog and GWW’s vlogs but in the end it is once again Women telling men what’s right when it comes to gender issues. Might as well just let the feminists do it because in the end AWALT. IF GWW didn’t have sons would she even care? I kinda doubt it.
Logically it just makes more sense to just GYOW when it comes down to it. Wheither thats PUA, relationships with no commitment or full blown MGTOW and complete avoidence of women. What doesn’t make any sense is putting you financial and emotional well being or Rights movement in the hand of women.
LikeLike
Here’s a starting point:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/philadelphia-courts-begin-using-computer-forecasts-to-predict-future-criminal-behavior/
Pre-crime is basically modelling a person’s future capacity to commit crime based on models with alleged predictive capability. Of course the problem is garbage in garbage out. Such a tool could also simply be used to remove people from society that you don’t want roaming the streets because they make you feel uncomfortable. The risk of subjectivity is great.
First they’ll use it to keep convicts in jail longer. Then they’ll use it to put people in prison who haven’t done anything wrong yet.
LikeLike
You left out one group. Us neanderthal neitscheist dominant master-types that want women (only the attractive ones) kneeling naked at their feet while we kill the hordes of men trying to steal our passionate slavegirl, massive thews pulsing as we swing our sword.
Hey, some of us really do have massive thews. seriously.
the funny thing is, people call this ‘misogyny’. kinda weird, since, while we consider women more or less useless as anything more than a playmate, parenting assistant, or receptacle for reproduction, we certainly don’t hate them…. That would be like hating your beloved dog, or your own children. Unthinkable.
LikeLike
Heh, it’s not misogyny.
very few men hate women. Any more than they ‘hate’ their dog or their children. They just realize that women, when left to their own devices and allowed to misbehave and pretend to be second-rate men, become Shiva the destroyer and wreck everything around them in their unhappiness. Dramatic proof of it is all over.
Men, when deprived entirely of women, break also.
LikeLike
Re all the acronyms — WTF?
LikeLike
Am I part of this “society” that gets to formulate norms?
Yes, you are. “Society” = “people in the aggregate, with plenty of individual variation”
So why do I disagree with this “norm” that’s been “formulated”?
I don’t know. Explain to us why, make a good enough case, and perhaps your ideas will become mainstream.
“Society” doesn’t say “Don’t treat people with hostility, suspicion, or condescension based on their gender” — because then radical feminists would get pilloried in the news media because of their many anti-male pronouncements.
Radical feminists spend a good bit of time vehemently insisting that their core message really, really is all about gender equality. They don’t walk around shouting, “Yay, women! To hell with men!” because they know that much of their credibility is based on being perceived as an equal rights movement. Their signature legislation is even called the Equal Rights Act.
Just because they do not live up to this ideal does not mean that the ideal is not widely accepted.
LikeLike
I would not mistake the internet’s ability to allow individuals with a common interest to combine in large numbers for growth. The internet can create the perception of a movement being popular without real popularity. It’s like if you put all the people who liked the new Lone Ranger film in one place, it would make it seem like that film was a hit.
LikeLike
John Brown, Harpers Ferry. probably not the most sane guy.
LikeLike
We’re discussing the merits of a men’s rights movement as distinct from a gender equality movement. The primary argument against the former is the batshittery of the people who demonize their perceived enemies.
Dean Esmay says that the “batshit weirdos” who can be found in every movement should not dissuade us from supporting a noble cause. In this context, I’m assuming the batshit weirdos are the men with victim complexes who treat women as members of an untrustworthy alien species. (By, say, blaming the skyrocketing incarceration rate on women’s irrational vindictiveness.)
Perhaps I’m mistaken about what he actually means by “get your hands sullied” – I did ask for clarification. But it seemed like a reasonable takeaway.
GrimGhost, I disagree with you that Twilight Sparkle is the magickest My Little Pony.
LikeLike
They’re basic. MGTOW=men going they’re own way. PUA=pick-up artists. GYOW=go your own way. GWW=GirlWritesWhat. AWALT=all women are like that. MRA/MHRM=men’s rights movement/men’s human rights movement.
I don’t know CBC, but I’ll guess Canadian Broadcast Company.
LikeLike
Excuse me. MRA=men’s rights advocacy or advocate.
LikeLike
Funny.
You know, the Dom/sub and – a step removed – the TTWD/DD and Taken In Hand communities have peripheral links with the Complementarians. However, my understanding is that they’re predominantly woman driven, not man driven like the Manosphere schools.
LikeLike
You have to start somewhere. Usually, majorities are not required for social-political change anyway. You just need a critical mass and the right nodes.
LikeLike
“Shiva the destroyer and wreck everything around them in their unhappiness”
Shiva is a most benevolent god. He does not “destroy everything around him in unhappiness”.
He is actually Yogiraj, or the King of Yogis, and always entranced in meditational bliss.
LikeLike
“They’re basic” if you’re well into the movement. If you’re not, part of that post is Swahili, because there are a bucketload of acronyms in that post.
The way a book on “how to write” explained it to me, “don’t use an acronym without spelling it out the first time. Skip that step only if you’re willing to bet your house and car that every reader knows what the acronym means.”
LS/MFT.
LikeLike
Yeah, this ^.
Women in the MRM, whether the real one or the Manosphere joke of it, are in it for attention.
A lot of these women are attention seeking online ALL DAY while their poor husbands slog at work to financially support their habit.
LikeLike
What’s your solution?
LikeLike
Sure we are.
LikeLike
or just quibble for the sake of being an ass. I was on my phone while doing that post and didn’t feel like typing out what well over 90% of the regulars here know.
By the way (BTW) ….. way to miss the intent of the post while bitching over the simple. One would almost think you’re a woman…
LikeLike
My point is not that they are in it for the attention. I don’t know any of them well enough to attribute the why behind what they do. My point is that even when it comes to Men’s rights, the only voice listened to in the mainstream when it comes to gender issues is Woman’s.
We as Men have no voice or seemingly even the right to have a voice without being labelled and shamed,
LikeLike
Flawed analogy. The Soviet Union was in deadly competition with capitalism, and the USA in particular. That is what brought it down: it could no longer afford to pay the price. Feminism is not confronted by any power, it has a near-global reach and expanding. The coming Feminarchy could last a very long time. Yes, it will ultimately collapse, but not before it causes human suffering on a massive scale, just like its ideological predecessors have done. Only active opposition has a hope in hell of preventing that IMO. I just hope it’s not too late.
LikeLike
I see your point, but remember that the primary tactic used against male MRM voices is “he’s just a misogynist.” That single, lazy slur is a feminist’s go-to response for any argument they can’t respond to rationally.
But when a WOMAN makes a point in favor of men, the feminists are stumped. They can’t just dismiss it, because that would be ‘silencing women’ (the ultimate crime). They have to deal with the argument itself, and they hate that.
It’s all too easy to laugh at a male MRA and say “he’s just a bitter, sexless woman-hater.” That tactic doesn’t work on GWW… which is why her voice is so useful.
LikeLike
Aren’t you cute.
LikeLike
Labelled and shamed as what?
LikeLike
Perhaps common use is a better description than basic. GWW, GYOW, and AWALT aren’t commonly used per se, but are easily derived from common use terms and thread context.
LikeLike
And what do you suppose would happen if enough women stood up and said, “I know this because I listen to men?”
There’s a twisted sort of irony here. Yes we have trained a couple of generations to listen to women. That means that women’s can (and must) be instrumental in re-training other women to listen to men. It sucks, but that’s because the system is broken, not because it’s inerently bad to listen to women. Women’s voices are now needed to fix it. If it sucks that men must rely on women to help solve the problem, does that suck more, or less, than women’s role in creating the problem?
I understand the visceral male reaction to being “defended” by females; it’s a reversal of some of our most primal instinctive roles, but when you analyze the situation, women didn’t create these problems without the assistance and active cooperation of men. Millions if not billions of white knights rushed to accommodate teh wimminz, and it is in their nature to continue to accommodate us as we “change our minds.” Men have the power (though most of them don’t realize it) to take back control of their lives, but WOMEN have the power to encourage them to do so. At present the only way men can take control of their lives is GTOW, but most men either can’t or don’t want to do so. Most men don’t want to be THAT free, because they don’t want to pay the price for it. They would rather pay the other price, the familiar price, for social approval and security. Freedom is scary.
LikeLike
The Elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Dealing with the source instead of the symptom. The collapse of inane egalitarianism, of which most of the nastiest crap, from feminism to multiculturalism, socialism to ‘the war on families’, ‘corporate persons’ to foreign adventurism, a welfare state to guardians ad litum, is pretty much inevitable, there is simply no way to keep up with the costs.
I pretty much assume it’s still going to get WAY worse before it gets better. I know it sounds ‘tinfoil hattish’, but the stuff we are discussing today, that have come into common knowledge, is stuff that twenty-five years ago was considered the deepest of conspiracy theorist legend. Tracking people via their phones. ‘skinbugs’, robot warriors (drones) used on americans and civilians. invasive search procedures at every turn. ‘Papers’ required for even the most innocuous activities, like checking into a motel or opening a bank account. Restriction of travel. Thought Crime. Criminalizing dissent. outrageous litigation. Terrorist witch hunts. LEGALIZED TORTURE! Media control. Suspension of Habeas corpus. Random searches. Debtor’s prison. involuntary debt, taxation without representation. The list literally goes on and on. Somehow, our country drifted from ‘the land of the free’ to one of the most terrifying technocratic fascist states the world has ever seen, and NO ONE NOTICED.
People are fed up. and not just the tinfoil hat brigade. I suspect that it’s going to come to a head in 2021, either with a complete state clampdown, or a civil war the likes of which will make that little 1861 dustup look like a brush fire.
What people can do NOW is prepare. learn how to survive in the fascist state that backlash will cause. There is an enormous amount of anger, and no one knows where to direct it… Lesbofeminazis are an obvious target for backlash, as are race pimps and the caliburgeoise. The most important thing is know which way you are going to jump. Prepare for an underground war against the thought police and ‘equality’ troopers. find a place to hole up, or stockpile what will be needed to fight. Have a backup plan for where you are going to go if something goes wrong and they show up at your door.
Like I said, I know this sounds like a vast conspiracy theorist thing, it isn’t…it’s a prediction based upon a few minor additional factors and what is already in place. There are only 3 things that have to occur for martial law to be declared in this country:
1, a trucking strike, fuel strike, or bug that reduces the amount of countrywide traffic, thus interfering with urbanity’s already-tenuous food supply situation.
2. 2% more americans have to ‘give up’ on finding a job. We are already at 38% ‘true’ unemployed, once you stop cutting out the tricks Obama uses to pad the numbers to make them more palatable.
3. a Spark. The george/trayvon fiasco was ALMOST enough… fortunately, SOMEONE was hard at work minimizing the work that race pimps like rev jesse ‘you white crackers are racist!’ jackson and Al ‘Africans invented everything’ Sharpton did to get a massive riot going. Eric Holder’s treachery was ALMOST enough. each time we edge close to the barrier, something barely hauls us back… but we keep getting closer each time.
just…be prepared. understand that when the fit hits the shan, the backlash is just as likely to spatter honeybadgers as it is entitled princesses. Make sure you have something or someone to hide behind. preferably someone large, male, with lots of firearms, who isn’t suffering some delusions about humans all being basically decent.
Although I am afraid, for our generation, it still might not be enough.
LikeLike
“the backlash is just as likely to spatter honeybadgers as it is entitled princesses.”
Below, freetofish notes the contradiction of women assuming leading spokeswomen roles for a men’s movement.
Perhaps an impending sense of social implosion is a reason why. By definition, red pill women have a better sense of women’s need for empowered men and secure, stable, orderly society. Perhaps the signs you see are what’s driving these women to urgency to save conditions that women depend upon.
LikeLike
I think that the complementarians have some glimmerings of understanding, except that they keep overemphasizing the female role.
Frankly, most men can do JUST fine without a female. I mean, psychologically it will hurt, and SOME sort of human contact keeps you from going nuts, but aside from reproduction, women are simply a luxury to men.
I know that this will even piss of JB, even though she is remarkably tolerant of most ugly truths.
Men are simply, in every possible way that involves ‘doing’, on the average, significantly or dramatically better than women.
We pay for this. Women are ‘prizes’. Men will be killed in war, women will survive and breed with the victor. In point of fact, women don’t have to really even ‘DO’ anything at all to be protected and treasured by their ‘extra competent’ men.
Even in the so-called ‘patriarchial past’, women had ALL the advantages for as far back as you can imagine, and had to do almost NOTHING, by male standards, to have those advantages.
It was not ‘complementary’. It was ‘woman, all you have to do is a couple of household tasks, squirt out a couple of kids, and occasionally pretend to appreciate me or suck my dick and I will give you EVERYTHING I have.”
” I will slave from dawn until dusk for you. I will lift loads that would break your back, take risks daily that would certainly kill you, and all you have to do is look pretty, keep an eye open, and try not to make too much of a mess.”
“Someday I will likely DIE for you. I will almost definitely die before you. I will protect you with my life, get my teeth knocked out defending your honor, and even go to jail for a crime YOU committed…. when I get out, I may knock you around a little to discipline you, but I have that right because I went to JAIL for you.”
So no, I don’t quite buy that complimentarian viewpoint. I barely even tolerate that ‘captain first mate’ anaolgy that some of the more balanced activists espouse.
My woman is my PROPERTY. I care for her for that reason. I will die for her, and I will kill for her, but if she thinks she has even the slightest right to assume she controls ME, she can hit the goddamned road. My current slave (Whom I have had for almost…wow… 20 years now?) Is quite happy with the arrangement. I will ask her opinions, but I do NOT have any interest in her advice, and she refrains from offering unless I ask. (Okay, I will admit she programs my cellphone. I hate the damned things)
I may be the captain of my ship, but she is NOT my first mate. At best she can be a swabby… although she looks mighty fine as the figurehead.
LikeLike
I don’t see why it’s wrong to assume that man-hating dykes are the enemy.
I am sure, if she can get away with it, she’d shoot me, a large, masculine male.
So I see nothing wrong with considering her the ‘enemy’. I will kill her if I can get away with it.
Why is it so hard to see that there are feminist voices that are literally calling for gendercide? They imprison you, strip you of your humanity, slaughter and steal your children, call for your extermination, and you still resist calling feminism an ENEMY?
I’d shoot Andrea Dorkey in the head if she weren’t already dead and I could get away with it.
I know it offends the pacifists and crybabies, but fuck yeah, these women are enemies. They have declared their side and have shed innocent blood.
LikeLike
full halt, Copyleft. Just because something isn’t logical and doesn’t work doesn’t mean feminists won’t use it.
I have SEEN a lot of comments in GWW’s threads. They accuse her of being everything from a transsexual man to a drugged slave.
LikeLike
excuse me, Kali, is that better?
Not up on my mythology.
LikeLike
Any criticism of feminism what so ever, by a man and he is immediately labelled a misogynist.
Any indication a man decides he does not need nor want to be married or in a relationship with a woman and he is immediately derided as a fat, basement dwelling, virgin, loser. I have seen this even here by commenters when referring to the MGTOW movement.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between earning your way into something, or demonstrating ones value, as compared to claiming that there aren’t enough of a thing somewhere and declaring your outrage that this is happening and demanding your seat at the table because of this supposed lack.
Karen isn’t “The Spokesman” for the movement, she is another able voice within it. She speaks to logic and rationality, in opposition to an adversary that is objectively unsane.
Some of our greatest assets in WW2 and other engagements were the defectors of our enemies. I see no difference here.
You’re welcome to toss your allies to the curb if you wish. Seems pretty dumb to me though.
I see NO problem with MGTOW and see it an entirely valid mindset in the present day climate. BUT – I think that when men and women are properly able to complement one another, each one becomes subtly ‘better’ – I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’m not a feminist, so I don’t usually define a thing by exceptions to it. JB’s articles regularly speak to that side and I appreciate that voice, even when sometimes I were back to going my own way.
LikeLike
This makes loads of sense to me, driver. Sometimes the cure is distasteful and it hurts, but it is the cure.
LikeLike
There has been men’s movement since the first days of the feminist movement. There are several reasons most of you don’t know that.
First, the MSM (main stream media) refused to cover it, for reasons of their political agenda. And, with no Internet, communications existed, but only with great effort. I was an activist from 1984 to 1993, and I communicated with people from Florida and Seattle. They were there.
The second reason is most of you assume nothing happened, so no point in looking for it. And, if you do find out someone did something the usual response is we were losers, therefore nothing found here.
Yet, today, pretty much the same thing is happening that happened in my generation. When someone does anything at all, the Destroyers come running, shouting, “You are doing it wrong! You are doing it wrong!” And, shut them down. Which is what many of you are trying to do today.
LikeLike
Marlo, I’ve been around as long as Dean and can assure you that the mens’ movement has advanced exponentially in the past few years compared to the previous two decades.
LikeLike
The 1.0 MRA activists should link up with the young turks leading the charge today. Upload your experience to them, offer what tips you have, assist where you can, but let them lead the charge.
LikeLike
This discussion happens in every social-political movement.
Is MRA a hobby or an activist competition?
A hobby is idealistic, the orientation is personal, and the goal is perfection. An activist competition is rational, the orientation is societal, and the goal is winning social reform.
Obviously, MR is both and MRAs can be both. The tension occurs in social-political movements because the cause begins as an in-group hobby and then transitions to activism in order to compete for the societal status quo.
Hobby and activism involve fundamentally different ways of thinking. We need to recognize the differences and the different needs of either orientation. The Marxist game, which is the only social-political reform game there is, requires men’s rights advocates to be competitive activists. The men’s rights hobbyists need to understand the real-world needs of the activist competition while they continue to perfect the cause. At the same time, activists fixated on the rational demands of competition must take care to guard the soul of their cause, which means respecting and listening to the hobbyists.
LikeLike
Mean girls politics does work, which is why feminists use it.
Winning a debate based on intellectual merit is not their prime objective. Real power and undermining their competition is their prime objective.
LikeLike
So this will fix itself? Or are we supposed to leave it to women to defend our interests because somehow men banding together to work for our sons and ourselves are just too scary and/or distasteful for even women that have an understanding of true egalitarianism.
No, I think if we leave it as it is, too many women will be perfectly fine to indulge their varying degrees of dislike or disgust of the other sex, and the women with the burning passionate hatred, will continue to drive the agenda until most of us are dead or in labor camps.
I actually hear young men talking about this stuff all time, when they’re not going with the flow to get laid.
LikeLike
Men’s rights = Gender Equality, for now. Feminism certainly isn’t it. Feminism = Female Supremacy.
LikeLike
I had a better response for you but the wordpress re-auth deleted it on me.
What other explanation for the extraordinary incarceration rate in the US? Are men in the US just more evil than men elsewhere in the world? Or are the black robed white knights working overtime to protect all the strong empowered, as good or better than men in every way, damsels in need of saving,
LikeLike
We have to use the cultural communication avenues as they are, not as we wish they were. Female anti-feminists (who happen to be, generally, extraordinary women) are very effective in the current zeitgeist and I for one am glad that they are here.
LikeLike
Feminism is in deadly competition with reality, and that’s what will bring it down. Unfortunately, it’s likely to take everything else down with it….
LikeLike
While I understand the desire to do without a men’s movement and a women’s movement, that’s far too utopian to be practicable. It’s like asking us to do without a civil rights movement and a hispanic rights movement.
LikeLike