The Fear of Manning Up

There seems to be an elephant in the room of the MRM.  A topic that is simply too taboo and controversial to bring up.

Manning up.

It has become the creme-de-la-creme of shaming language for feminists, conservatives and liberals to throw in men’s faces for our lack of “doing what needs to be done” – i.e. being responsible to, taking responsibility for, society, women and children – our “duty” to put it bluntly.

Of course, in today’s feminist infected climate, to ask this of a man is to spit in his face and men in the MRM are rightfully angered and incensed by such attempts at shaming them into doing “their duty.”  Exposing this term for the hypocrisy it is in the 21st century and disposing of it to the MRM trash-bin however does not get rid of its stink or its sting.   It merely puts it aside in the hope that it will go away, but it won’t, because it is part of who we are as men.  At some point, men are going to have to take a close look at this term that has become so reviled and ask why, if it is meaningless today in a feminist culture, being told to “man up” stills evokes such powerful emotional responses.

When a man is told to “man up,” he is asked to be… a man… a leader… and that is the pivot upon which all anger and hatred at being told to “man up” is unleashed.  That, in some way, you are not being “a man.”  This anger, in my opinion, is coming from men who no longer feel they can, should or even want to be leaders – to be responsible for women, children and society – and rightly and justifiably so.  However, I think this way of thinking is a dangerous precedent for the future of mankind, for the future of man, and I for one would like to address this elephant head on.

The genesis for this piece was sparked by J Durden’s very early comment on my article On Leaders and Leadership over at The Spearhead.  J Durden asked… and I paraphrase and expand a little in logical progression…

Where is the plan?

The outline?

Suggestions on what to do?

How do we stop feminism?  What can we do to right the perilous situation so many men find themselves in today?

Where is the action?

Action is leadership.

Asking a man to man up is asking him to take action, to lead, and that is why it evokes such wide ranging emotional responses in men, especially when it comes from a woman.

This is why I am writing on this topic again, at length, in hopes my views will be better understood in a larger contextual written piece. I know what I am about to write will not be popular, but that is the very reason it needs to be written.

If our actions are stymied, if we lack a plan, if the men’s movement appears to be on the cusp of breaking out of its digital Fortress of Solitude but seems forever to be hung up on some white-knight pothole or is constantly hitting those damn mangina parking-lot speed bumps, it is because we have yet to go to the heart of the problem that we face in defeating feminism in our culture.

Love, fear and defining what it is to be masculine, what is a man.

Men are afraid to man up.  To be leaders. (and I include myself in this category to some degree, for no man is immune from this fundamental fear of masculinity.)

In my Spearhead article, J. Durden called me out on my lacking a plan of action and rightly so.  If I am going to call for men to be leaders, there should be a plan.  I think I missed it because I did not want to tell other men what they should do, as Paul Elam wisely noted in his commentary.  I wanted to simply get men thinking about leadership and incorporating it more deeply and consciously in their own lives.  However, you will notice that the simplest comments praising my article came from women ironically enough:

Thag Jones September 27, 2010 at 11:56

I have nothing to add, just that this was excellent.

Alte September 27, 2010 at 13:35

Good article. Yes, we need leadership. Paul and Welmer are both very reluctant to lead… which adds to their credibility as leaders.

No, I am not seeking female praise, just noting that the most direct and uncritical support of my article on leadership in the men’s movement came from women, and it is for a reason.  You will note Alte remarked precisely why I wrote my article – man’s reluctance to lead.  Much of this reluctance does come from the natural desire of a good man to not push his views on other men, but the majority of that reluctance comes from fear.

Anonymous  September 27, 2010 at 12:33

I think articles like this one [On Leaders and Leadership] suggest that I should want to save this society. That I owe something to a society that ultimately hates and fears me, and all I stand for. That I should personally sacrifice for the good of all. Why should I stick my neck out to save it, if all I do is place it beneath an axe? Why, after all this time, should I believe that “be a team player” isn’t the same as “warm the bench?” How is this article any different from the dozens of feminist articles encouraging men to “man up” and resume their service to the matriarchy?

Also, note that Spartacus almost made it over the Alps, but was held back by the two Celtic co-leaders. And Leonidas was betrayed twice (the oracle and the goatherd). I am no Spartacus or Leonidas, but if such great men could expect no better, I should expect no less treachery if I distinguish myself as a target.

J. Durden  September 27, 2010 at 09:38

But it’s pretty tricky dismantling and refuting the establishment. You have to be careful in the way you go about doing it, or you could make the wrong sorts of enemies. Worse, it is possible you could lose friends or loved ones.

There it is… fear… and no man can hide from it.

Fear of being being the nail that stands out to be crushed by the hammer of judgement by delusional masses still stuck in their feminist cave, trusting the shadows on the wall before them is the real world.

Fear has always been man’s number one enemy and it still is.  It is what makes Batman eminently more appealing and identifiable with than Superman.  Bruce Wayne had to conquer his fear to become the crusading vigilante he is.  The men’s movement now has to do the same.

If men want to change the status quo of a degenerate and collapsing feminist society, we are going to have to make ourselves a target and start becoming the leaders of the change we want to see in the world.

Or maybe I am assuming men want to change society for the better.  Am I alone?  Have we men in the MRM simply decided to go our own way permanently?  To leave the whole of society to go down in flames, the sooner the better?

To those men who think as much… I ask the following question…

Would the world be a better place without…

John F. Kennedy and his attempt to shut down the CIA and the US Federal Reserve?

Martin Luther King and the clarity of reason and conviction with which he spoke out about the oppression of men serving in the Vietnam war?  (as relevant a speech today as it was then, if not more so as history is, once again, repeating itself)

Ghandi and his non-violent struggle that freed the people of India, defeating the British colonial system of oppression on the men of that historic nation of peoples?

These are the speeches of masculine leaders.  They are also all dead.

These are the targets true masculine men become in deciding to take action to change the status quo, to alter the course of history and society for the better.  Are we men in the 21st century no longer capable of being such leaders?  Are these manner of men truly extinct in the world today, never to be seen again?

I think not… we just need to find our cojones and start leading again.  It is what men are designed for, it is what we do best, albeit reluctantly despite all the supposed “power” feminists say we have and use to lord over them and the natural world like dictators.

Women want leaders, desperately.  They want to be led.  They yearn to submit to leadership, both inside and outside the bedroom.  This desire in the female for leadership is embedded in her biology.  If your woman is unhappy in her relationship, sadly, it is your fault – you are not leading her, you are not being masculine, you are not being “the man.”  (too much to go into here, but suffice it to say, learning “game” is not being “the man.”)

While that may sound like I am asking you to “man up” for the feminist matriarchy, I am not.

I am asking every man to man up for patriarchy 2.0 – the salvation of civilization and society.  I am asking you to man up and become the kind of leaders, the kind of men, that Kennedy, King and Gandhi were for their time and place in history. (and again, I include myself in that exhortation.)

The vitriol and disgust that appears in the comments of some men’s blogs whenever anyone writes or says something even remotely close to being interpreted as asking men to “man up”… is the very hurdle we need to overcome and proves it is the final roadblock to a true men’s revolution going mainstream.  These angry men, and rightly so, are the hammers in the men’s movement that we need to start turning into nails.  The only voices that should be trying to drown us out are our opponents – the feminist state and its slaves.

I don’t take anything away from Anonymous’ or J Durden’s comments.  They actually were crucial in my being able to illustrate in this article some of the root problems we face in growing the men’s movement and taking it beyond the internet. They and many other men are right to sympathize and place themselves in such a position.  Why should men put our heads under the feminist axe?  Why should we sacrifice potential relations with friends and family or our career in trying to overturn the insanity of a feminist state culture?

All I have in response is…

Who else boy?

Who else is going to do it?

Are women going to do it?  You trust women to fix this mess?

Things are only going to get worse the longer men allow women to run things.

For all the whining and complaining about feminism et al, for that is what it is, no one else is going to fix society, certainly not women as is plainly evident.

It is up to men.

If society fears and hates us, so be it.

If we are made a target to be taken out.  Such is the fate of all men that try to bring about change for the better in any society or age.

Good men buckle down and go about righting the system anyway.  No one will thank us.  No one will praise us.  In fact, many will hate us and do all they can to stop us.  Ultimately, no one will care, but that is not why we are doing it.  We are here wanting to right the wrongs feminism has perpetuated on man and society because it has to be done.  Let’s stop complaining about it and just do it.

To be clear, J Durden and Anonymous are not whining nor complaining, they are simply being realistic about the situation men face today and I identified with them completely… in the past.

Now?

We need to move past this kind of realistic, even nihilistic, analysis of the situation men face and start seriously thinking about what needs to be done to correct things.  We have to start taking action.

Szebran

What should unify the MRM is the destruction of feminism.

Agreed. Simple and to the point.  Truly, a more manly summation of our goal can not be stated, nor needed.

The male weapons of feminism’s destruction are love, courage and becoming true masculine men.

But I won’t leave it there, in such a vague, cliche fashion to be easily picked apart as empty and nothing but a platitude.  Allow me, if I may, to see if I have correctly surmised the plan of action so far throughout the male blog-o-sphere.  I will then frame some of those actions in light of my above call to embrace love, reject fear, and become a more masculine man.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the actions advised to bring down feminism so far are:

1. Disengage from women.
2. Take ownership of your life. (MGTOW)
3. Don’t marry, don’t get her pregnant.
4. Learn Game in order to come out on top in relations with the curvy gender, or at least in a superior position in your dealings with women as you go about your life.
5. Disengage from the feminist matrix – reduce your taxes, reduce your debt, reduce your contributions to the system (i.e. marriage, babies and material consumption) and starve the feminist hydra to its ultimate death. (kudos barbarossa)
6. Educate and recruit other men to “the movement” now that you have freed yourself.
7. Shrug off misandry, just ignore the whole damn thing. (kudos to Paul Elam)

Let me now expose my thoughts on these actions and try to spark some debate and analysis on the first three items.  I agree with them, but not in the way most men in the MRM currently conceptualize them. The rest are of secondary importance and nothing more need be added to their already widely discussed and debated merits. (And this piece is already long enough!)

1) Disengage from women

Next to impossible.  Biologically, we love the ladies and they are everywhere.

Fidelbogen September 27, 2010 at 14:38

“As much as men here would like to wish they can just ignore women and go their own way, they can’t. We like the ladies and we like them a lot! To deny this is to deny our very nature as men.” [Maximus - On Leaders and Leadership]

I would say, speak for thyself! Let us not simply assume such things about “men”, or about their “nature as” men.

First… shrugging off misandry is one thing.

Shrugging off man’s innate, biological, genetic and Darwinian desire for sexual and romantic union with a female is like asking for the sun to revolve around the earth – not gonna happen buddy.

With the greatest of respect to Fidelbogen, this is precisely the kind of shaming language feminists use to destroy men and masculinity – lets not define men in terms of unique gender attributes; and for certain, let’s not even begin to attempt to define men in any biological, genetic, Darwinian or philosophical/religious terms.  I am writing a book to expose that much of what men are in terms of “the masculine” comes directly from our genes and man’s ability to conceptualize abstractly the ideals of justice, love, truth, liberty and respect in a way women are simply incapable of.  We need to start accepting and learning how to work with these truths about man’s nature, not in continuing the feminist denial of them, that “man/woman has no nature what-so-ever.”  Fidelbogen even used scare quotes around defining “men”… as if to even whisper of there being a definite modus-operandi within the male species of homosapien is an attack against all men… for that would mean… some men are on the right path, and others… not so much.  And it is there… right there… that fear exists in men and why so much emotion is unleashed about being asked to “man up” and the MRM movement needs to get over it.

Second… I want to address something that extends logically from the action of disengaging from women – a growing mistrust and even hatred/anger toward women.

If you mistrust and hate women, if you are angry at the current state of affairs between the genders, it is only because you have allowed these women to make their emotional frame of reference your own.  You have allowed their opinions of men, their disrespectful actions, their callous treatment of you (now fully awake you can no longer deny), to take you to a very dark, bitter and angry place, much in evidence in the comments and articles on blogs all over the MRM.

Being angry is not masculine.  Being bitter is not a manly way to live.

Shaming language?

Not at all, it is a fact all men who enter the MRM go through this phase and some never leave it, but I am telling you… it is not manly, not even remotely.

Is mistrust and anger toward women justified?

Absolutely, but we must move past this phase and that is what this article is about.  Getting past the fear and mistrust of women and finding a way to love them, and they us, once again.

Some time spent in bitterness and anger is cathartic, and much of the men’s movement is just this phase, but no good man, no masculine man, should stay there forever and wallow in it.  It is not good for your soul and ultimately, not good long-term for society.  Yes, western feminist women are almost worthless and beyond salvation, but unless you are willing to neuter yourself and remove the testosterone that courses through your body, you are going to have to deal with women… a woman, even if only your mother or sister… at some point in your life.  To appropriate Churchill’s quote for our own purposes, woman:

“is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.“

Disengaging from women is a starting point, but it cannot… cannot… be an end point.

Finding the key to woman is.

That key is becoming a better man, a more masculine man, and leading your life and hers in love, respect and harmony together.

I here now assert that this hate for all things feminist and female in the MRM has to stop.  It has to end for this movement to truly move forward into the mainstream.

Think of feminism as nothing more than a fly in need of ignoring to rid its annoying existence from your life, and so it shall be.

That does not mean you don’t acknowledge it and its affect on your life.  You simply no longer let it dominate your thoughts or take away from you your pursuit of happiness and inner calm about who you are as a man in this screwed up, feminist world.

Continued anger, rage, hate, bitterness… serves no purpose what-so-ever and only feeds the feminist beast from the opposite angle, men learning to hate women as much as feminists hate men. (Which is precisely what the NWO elite want you to become – divide and conquer between the sexes allows the oligarch state to rule estranged and depressed men and women like slaves with impunity.)  If this were the end result of all our writings here in the MRM, feminists (and the so-called “alpha” men who control them) will truly have won.  As badly as women have and are treating men today, I simply cannot bring myself to loathe and hate them… because… I love them, and I am not ashamed to admit that.

Love comes from man, and man needs to learn to love woman in a way that allows her loving nature to naturally arise.  If women in the west today have stopped loving men, it is because we have stopped being the KIND of man they would love in abdicating our responsibility to BE masculine men and teach woman what love is.

Shakespeare was by far the most wise of masculine men.  More than any other author, his works embody all that is masculine about man and what inspires love in both man and woman.  As you can see from this passage, woman is man’s greatest teacher for she presents him with the ultimate test… become a better man, to truly discover himself, to learn things he can never discover in all the books of academia.

Far from disengaging from women, men need to learn how to re-engage them from a masculine perspective, the key to her riddle, in order to naturally affect the female to react more positively to him and to bring out his best talents and abilities.  (and vice-versa)

Before I hear cries of “down with chivalry”… that is not what Shakespeare was about, not even close.  Shakespeare was writing about being a man and being masculine, his ultimate expression of these concepts immortalized in his greatest work – Hamlet.

Perhaps talk of love is too mushy for a men’s forum, but if we do not talk about it, about loving women, then nothing we plan or take action on to end the feminist nightmare will be of any use.  What is the point of living if there is no love between men and women?  That is where the feminist movement has brought western society and is seeking to infect the whole planet with.  The Men’s Movement must go in the opposite direction – toward love and respect for gender difference.

Love and respect, NOT equality, between the genders is the core ideology… if the MRM is to have an ideology… we men have to refute feminism.  It is love and respect between men and women feminists have focused on destroying for over 50 years in their insane pursuit of hypocritical “equality” and that just goes to prove… beyond a shadow of a doubt… it is MAN that embodies these ideals since he is the target of every feminists destruction.

Disengage from women?  Yes, for now, but do not stop loving women and do not make it permanent.  The only real solution is to re-engage with and teach women how to be loving wives and mothers again once we men have become men again.

2) Take ownership of your life. (i.e. MGTOW)

This is the second reason why I wrote the leadership article for The Spearhead.  I first wanted to counter the idea that the men’s movement does not need a leader(s).  It does.  Secondly, leadership goes to the heart of men deciding to go their own way, to lead their lives for themselves and not others.  More men need to dedicate serious time to studying what leadership is and what it means/takes to be a leader.  You can’t lead a woman to happiness if you can’t lead your own life… period.  Hate the players and jerks all you want, what they have over other men is a fixed and immovable vision for how they wish to lead their lives that attracts women to them in throngs.

In the past patriarchal age, this was all men discussed.  What is a man?  What does it mean to be masculine?  How is a real, masculine man to live his life?  Where have these discussions gone?

piercedhead September 27, 2010 at 14:21

Generally, the more talk I hear about leadership, the less convinced I am by it. There is always the sneaking suspicion that what is being paraded as leadership is a recruitment drive for someone else’s point of view.

Talk about leadership and what it is to be a man always heads in the same predictable direction. A good leader would avoid it – he would lead by example.

Good point, and this is precisely what I am trying to do… lead by example.

What is that predictable direction of discussion Piercedhead speaks of?  Is it one of clashing egos?  One of judgement and condemnation of other men?  A sense of superiority over other men for feeling one is leading a more masculine and manly life?  The fear that you may not measure up to the standards of “what is a man” that social consensus and societal pressures dream up and give life to as “culture” that is plainly in evidence throughout history, even today?

Absolutely.

It is called patriarchy.

It is called measuring and testing oneself before one’s male peers not for their approval, though there may be some of that, but for the sheer challenge of it and being able to keep your head high no matter what the end result.

It is about leading the life you want to live, not what society, women or other men wish you to, and in so doing trying to discover and show other men how a “good” life can be attained for all men in living by common masculine ideals and beliefs.

It is about unleashing the creative force of men the world over to redefine for themselves who and what is a man, what is masculine, and women and 21st century feminist culture be damned.

Some men shrink from this masculine challenge with the same overarching cringe of fear they have in attempting to approach that perfect 10+ woman.  Being asked to man up, and the patriarchal culture that produced such an environment, is what created the great leaders, the great men, of past ages.  It was a clash of visions, of philosophies, of actions, and it was great.

Why are we men, in the 21st century, walking away from this proven and historical process of advancing society, of advancing mankind?

This is the process that made men men.

In denying ourselves these types of discussions, we have what we have today – a complete lack of definition for what is male or masculine, which the feminists then write for us, to which most “men” then roll over and obey in silence.  This is the reason men in the West are now the majority unemployed, the majority oppressed by the feminist state and its legal apparatus, the majority depressed, disillusioned and angry as to what a “man” is today and what he should be in the 21st century and beyond.

Men have gone silent on what is is to be a man.  Or at least western men have.  The Middle East seems to have an overflow of young, male testosterone that will no longer be silent or taken advantage of and they are taking action.  When are we going to start taking action?

My thoughts are that no matter how many men we have as readers in the MRM community, few of them are willing to go into the absolute no-go area of outright political incorrectness – that men are a definable gender, based on biology and spirit, for which the patriarchal age was its first evolutionary emergence and will be society’s eventual return.

Of course, we cannot go back to those very old days.  Not even I am that stupid or naive and nor would I want to.  The past is the past.  But those old patriarchal concepts worked to advance man and civilization for a reason – some of them, almost all of them, were and are true.  Men today need to re-imagine past masculine ideals for the 21st century and we should not be afraid to go about doing just that.  It is our very refusal as men to define what is a man… what is masculinity… in any way… out of fear of “the direction” such a discussion will take us that has led to the rise and near triumph of the feminist, matriarchal, welfare state

In having this discussion on leadership and masculinity, what it means to be a man, Piercedhead correctly points out it is going to be one man’s point of view against another’s.  What else would we expect?  That is what men do, compete with each other over ideas and vision.  Yes, I am trying to recruit other men to my point of view, I will not deny it.  If you don’t have a point of view, then I win by default.  If you do and fail to express it, then again, I win be default.

Correction… I should say she wins by default, because for the past 50+ years, that is exactly what has happened – men have completely abandoned defining themselves in terms of being a man and being masculine, leaving feminists to completely dominate the debate and define these terms for their own agenda.  No wonder the women are “winning.”  Men are not speaking up about what masculinity and being a man is.  We have completely abandoned the field of battle.  It’s pretty easy to “win” a battle when your opponent not only does not bother to show up, he is afraid to.

Here is an analogy to put the final nail in the coffin of not talking about what is a man… and by logical extension meaning that there are many “ways” man can be a man…

Take hunting for example.  If every man of a pre-historic hunting party were to INSIST there is no one single way to properly take down a mastodon… that each man should simply decide what is best for him in the hunting party and “go his own way”… just how successful do you think that hunting party would be?

Not very.  What will happen is that a “leader” will emerge based on his arguments using reason and logic and his results will show other men that “their” way of hunting is not exactly the best way to hunt.  That does not mean those men can’t leave the hunting party and go their own way anyway.  What it does show is that the process of patriarchal, male competition in simply attempting to define the best way to hunt, and recruiting men to that way, is what led to advances in weapons, in tactics and ultimately, in the success or failure of the tribe.

Far from avoiding it, talk of leadership, talk about what it is to be a man and what is masculine is vitally needed in the MRM movement right now.  We can’t avoid it and it is time we started to seriously talk about what it means to be a man again.

“He was a man.  Take him for all in all.  I shall not look upon his like again.”

- Hamlet Act I, Scene II, line 187ish

And we may never see the like of “Man” again unless we start talking about what that man is (and is not) the way Shakespeare and his contemporaries did at the pinnacle of the patriarchal, masculine age – what I call Patriarchy 1.0.

Hamlet’s pursuit for the truth about the death of his father, and his agony in attempting to do right by him, is the struggle each man faces in his life; to define what it is he stands for as a man and to translate that vision into action in the real world, not stay locked inside the insane, burning, cacophony of his wishy-washy thoughts, engrossed in fear and hesitation, never taking action, never defining himself… as a man.

What is the result of a man not defining the masculine terms of his life?  In not defining what a man and to be masculine is?  Death to a nation and its people.  A more CLEAR warning to the death of man and masculinity could not be written, and in such fine style!  Fortinbras storms the palace of Denmark to find no man standing to resist his claim to the throne.  Hamlet did what he could, he tried his best, but like today, he was surrounded by men in abject deficiency of any masculine character or temperament; except of course for Horatio, a man’s man and a good friend if ever one should be lucky enough to have one such as he.  Horatio of course is the only man left standing to tell the tale, a warning to all men of the dangers of not defining who and what they stand for as men.

I hope this article will be the Horatio needed for the MRM.

Discussion of leadership and masculinity, what it means to be a man, what it means to be masculine, is far from useless, divisive, or suspect of motive.

It goes to the very heart of defeating feminism.

What is the saying?  If you stand for nothing, you fall for anything?

Men are falling in droves in the 21st century.  When are we going to man up, and stand up, for something again?

In Shakespeare’s day, there was no question man had a role distinctly separate from, dare I say above and in front of, that of woman.  A role that he and he alone could fulfill for the future good of society.  Are we lesser men than our forefathers in backing away from taking up this mantle of leadership?  For the good of the family?  The nation?

Feminism came along to question man’s “natural” role as leader and I think this is simply God/Allah/Fate/Karma’s way of bringing about the next evolutionary stage of man – painful, but necessary.  Now that it has and man’s role has been removed from society, we can see the destruction wrought upon society our forefathers and Shakespeare warned about for millennia.  Now is the time to look back to those old patriarchal values, pick what is true and useful, tweak them in the light of 21st century knowledge, and discard the rest.  It will also be the last time women will have their say as “leaders” for… with all the evidence the MRM community is gathering for historical posterity during this process of regeneration of the next patriarchal age… the argument for man’s natural role as leader of the home and state will be beyond refutation – no man will be so stupid as to say “yes dear, whatever makes you happy dear” ever again.

Once men define for themselves in the 21st century what men and masculinity mean for them, women will naturally fall into line.  Peace will return to the state.  Love will return to relationships.  And sons like Hamlet won’t have to agonize over avenging the murder of their father by feminism.  I predict that in 50 years… even women will roll their eyes in shame at how their mothers and grandmothers treated the men in their lives.  The lesson will have been learned and both genders will emerge in a more balanced, not equal, relationship with one another

The future of men and masculinity, if history is any lesson, will look much like the days of old.  Man, nature and God/Allah has not fundamentally changed one iota over millennia and never will.  Man has allowed himself to be led astray by the very creature he covets most and was warned about in a past patriarchal and masculine age at great length, in great artistry and with great prose – woman.

Taking ownership of your life is more than simply going your own way from women, finding your career and establishing for yourself the life you want to live apart from women.  All of these are what men used to do in order to become men, but they also returned to woman and society and became leaders.  They wrote, debated and discussed… never concluding, always questioning…

“What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed?  A beast, no more.  Sure He that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and God like reason to fust in us unused.”

- Hamlet Act IV, Scene IV, 2nd quatrain

3) Don’t marry, don’t get her pregnant.

For now, this is the only course of action.  Long term?  Not to good for the human race.

At the risk of derailing this piece into a political dark hole… and who would have thought how topical this piece would be today considering who I am about to quote when I wrote it almost four months ago… this is precisely why Islam is going to defeat the west in the Middle East and at home.  France and all of Europe will be Muslim in mere decades.  America is well on its way.

The Effects Of Western Feminism – An Islamic Perspective

Dr. Ayub begins with a quote from Muammar Gaddafi.

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.”

The future belongs to those that show up.

Who shows up for the future?

Those who marry and form long term pair bonds to produce enough offspring to actually continue a culture into the future.

Ragnar September 27, 2010 at 11:12

In order for leadership to emerge there need to be a group of men who has something they believe is worth defending.  Darwin want us to fight for our own and Newton screw up any group lacking of dynamics.

Ragnar is right. Men do need something they believe is worth defending.

That belief is marriage and family. It always has and always will be.

Feminism destroyed marriage and family in the Christian west (Jewish as well, but to a lesser extent I think)… and it is now trying to destroy it in the Islamic east, the very last, and strongest, defense of what brought man out of the caves and into the civilized world – the reigning in of the chaos of matriarchal, female led “goddess” societies by male led, monogamous and long-term (ideally of course) marriage and family male/female patriarchal partnerships.

That statement flies in the face of everything the MRM supposedly stands for – no to marriage – and it is for that very reason it is most likely the sole reason any of us became MRM advocates in the first place – families destroyed by divorce, children ripped away from loving fathers. The result?  Rapidly increasing child delinquency and single mothers and childless “career” women being the most depressed human beings on the planet.

If men agree that we need to unite to defeat feminism, they are also simultaneously agreeing to defend the institution of marriage and family, for that is precisely what feminism was born to destroy in the first place. Therefore, the destruction of feminism is the rise and reinstatement of the institution of patriarchal marriage and family (albeit not in the same way as it was in the 1950s, obviously) as the primary locus and focus of societal organization.

If the 20th century was the rise of feminism and the end of family and man… the 21st century is going to be the rise of patriarchy and the return of family and man as it’s natural head… permanently.

A good man wants a good wife and mother to his children.  No good man will deny wanting this for himself.

Far from not marrying women or having children, men need to re-think how they can go about finding good women to marry.  To find a good mother to raise their sons and daughters.  There are no such women?  Far from it.  They can be trained and women are already beginning to take notice of the cues men are leaving as to their future marital relations with the relationship/marriage/baby strike.  All that is lacking in this strike is for men to come out and state up front and unequivocally:

• I want a family.
• I want a mother at home until the youngest is in school.
• I want a woman that will make our home a place of peace, love, caring, comfort and solitude from the outside world for her husband and children.
• I want a woman who will take a leave of absence from her “career” when it comes time to start a family who then trusts her husband to be HER SOLE PROVIDER. (because her “career” was, and always will be, second to being a wife and mother)
• I want a woman that will live on less, a lot less, than the materialist culture the new-world-order elite programs the rest of the deluded masses of sheeple (cough, women, cough) to pursue into debt to their financial suicide.
• I want a woman that can cook, that can sew, that can clean and takes pride in having a well kept home and lives frugally in it because to be lavish is to teach children the wrong lessons about what makes for a happy life.

What have men got to lose?

What have YOU got to lose?

You are already disengaging from meeting and dating women, so speaking this way and alienating them will only help your disengagement from them even further! (Trust me, this is personal, direct experience talking. They will give you so much space you will think you are in another universe.  Then… you will also start getting a LOT more looks than you used to before… and I mean the “bedroom eyes” kind of looks from women who are TOTAL strangers.  It is like they can SNIFF a masculine, dominant male by his very beliefs and thoughts alone!)

You are not going to marry any woman you do date – correction, “game” for sex or a “relationship.” – so again, what is the harm in telling her WHY you will not commit to her.

Why not date them and, when they ask, simply state up front what kind of woman you will marry or enter into a more committed relationship with than the free, prostitute-like-friends-with-benefits arrangement so many women are now willing to tolerate from men? (Yea… THAT’s advancement for the status of women?)

What have men got to lose?

If a woman should object to such a “misogynistic” tirade and ask how you can even begin to utter such barbaric, oppressive and patriarchal falsehoods and non-sense… you can say…

“Wow.  We must not be compatible at all.  You are really offended.  It’s a good thing we live in an age of EQUALITY and you are FREE to ACCEPT OR REJECT my proposal to enter into a relationship with me.  I wish you the best and hope you find a man that will not demand such degrading and submissive requests of you as being a loyal, devoted, loving and caring wife and mother to my children and myself.”

And WALK AWAY.

Women will get the message, but quick, or at least the smart ones will.  The dumb ones we don’t want so doing this will weed them out faster than Game ever could.  In fact. despite how much Game proponents love to think they have found the key to woman and therefore escaped the pitfalls of the feminist culture we live in if they decide to chance marriage, they have not.  Game only encourages more bad female behavior and the chance of getting stung as it seems the dangers to men in relationships with women are only going to keep getting worse.

Far from just a marriage strike or not having children, men need to tell women exactly what will work for them to even consider marriage or getting her pregnant.  Simply removing a wedding proposal and children from a woman’s future is not enough.  She won’t get it.  Women need to be taught what they, and society, require for there proper functioning.  In time, merging the marriage/baby strike with the above open and blunt non-negotiable requests going public in the mainstream will bring women around.  Technically, we don’t really need a men’s movement as the power of even just a few single men doing this is already becoming apparent.  With each man that goes his own way, woman, being the innately social and sexual union seeking creature she is, will begin to notice and immediately change tactics to get men to come back to her.  The only power a woman has over a man is that which he gives her.  When push comes to shove, it is woman, not man, that will be the first to change when love and intimacy is withdrawn, for she needs it more… far more… than man does to be truly happy.

Marriage and family are what most good men desire, on some level, as do most good women even if they are deluded by the feminist kool-aid at present.  These are the values men will die for, have died for, and will die for in the future.  As Darwin correctly discovered, men will fight for their own – their own family and the natural Newtonian group dynamics of balance, harmony and co-operation that emerge from a well ordered, male led household and state.

For those men that are not inclined to family and children, they too would benefit with being up front about their expectations of women. Unlike in the past, men and women are no longer held to only marriage and family as their future (they never were, but there was far more social pressure to do so in the past, where it should be left).  Women are now as educated as we are and many of them have absolutely no desire for children, so why not weed out the ones that want them and find that hottie that wants nothing but lots of sex and independence, just like you!  A man loses nothing in stating up front he does not want a family or marriage or children.  The only problem is, for this attitude to become the norm, we have what we have now in the west – a rapidly declining birth rate and a “culture” that will go extinct, replaced by one that does reproduce.

Beltain

… enough men need to get fed up to the point that they are no longer afraid to use the real male power [of effecting governmental change.]  When/if that critical mass is reached we will then see real leaders arise. It’s simple really men and women are different so why does the MRM in general expect to use the female avenue to change and constantly ignore the tried and tested male method?

The tried and tested male method is quite simple – state your demands and get compliance.  If you do not, move on to a female that will comply.  No coersion or force is necessary.  You simply give a woman a choice, and she can make up her own damn mind as to what is good for her or not.  YOU know what is good for YOU, and if she is smart, she will know that what is good for you is also good for HER and trust and follow you.

This is NOT rocket science.

Unless you have an infinite fear of rejection and place ALL your happiness and male self-esteem/confidence on having a woman in your life or “getting laid” to feel like you are a “man”… this aspect of the action phase of the emerging mainstream MRM movement will be a cakewalk.  I seriously doubt, if you are reading this here at In Mala Fide… you are as desperate as the man I just described in being unable to tell a woman what you want and walk away if you don’t get it.  We men in the MRM are already completely disengaged and indifferent to women, we just need to accept this fact and broadcast it loud and as far as the female ear can hear.

Men are not women…. so why are we acting like them?

Let’s stop complaining about feminism and the culture of annihilation it has created and do something about it.

I want you to get fed up.

Demand a family, if that is what you want, and a wife at home where you both work in co-operation, love and respect as partners to raise children in a loving and happy environment.  Governmental change is not necessary.  The government will change when the men in society change, as it always has and always will.

This is not simplistic… it is simply effective.  It is male.  It is masculine.  It will work.

But perhaps you are all right.  Perhaps Maximus is wrong about leadership, the discussion of being a man and of being more masculine, the dangers of stating your opinions on women, love, family and children boldly and with no guilt, on demanding women be good wives and mothers in order to get a marriage proposal (or even just a date).  Perhaps these things are too controversial to speak out about.

That I leave up to you to decide for yourself.

Lead women back to love.

Lead your life not in fear from reprisal for standing outside the accepted norms of society.

Lead your sons to become the future leaders of men.

Lead your daughters most especially to go out and marry such men. (As they will if you are that kind of father.)

Lead.

Man up.

What are you afraid of?

Tagged as: feminism, leaders, leadership, love, man, man up, manning up, masculinity