Readers of In Mala Fide and Freedom Twenty-Five are probably familiar with the men’s rights activist community.
If you’re not, allow me to take you on a short tour. The definitive MRA publication is The Spearhead, an online magazine that features articles by a variety of regular columnists and guest writers.
So what kinds of issues do men’s rights activists address? Well, here’s a short list:
- Divorce theft.
- False rape accusations.
- Legally mandated employment discrimination.
- A culture that never misses an opportunity to belittle and denigrate masculinity in its schools, films, TV shows, public service announcements, and print media.
If this is your first introduction the world of men’s rights, spend an hour or two clicking around the links above. It’s a perspective you’ve probably never considered before.
I agree with the majority of the men’s rights movement’s goals and values. But I think their current approach will be fruitless. MRAs are spinning their wheels, and will continue to do so until they completely reconsiders their strategy for achieving power.
The problem with the current movement is that it is attempting to play by the rules of its adversaries. MRAs seem to have said, “Gee, look how successful the feminist movement was! If we do the same thing, but with men’s rights, we should get the same result!”
This approach has given us a men’s rights movement thoroughly steeped in the vocabulary and tactics of radical left-wing activism. As it’s currently constituted, it is doomed to have close to zero impact on the world outside of itself. The tactical and strategic environment that MRAs must fight in is completely different from the world in which the feminist movement lives.
Why the Feminist Movement Succeeded
The mythos of the feminist victory is that a group of plucky women wrested power from a world run by a shadowy cabal of cigar-smoking men, who were united in their conspiracy to retain power for men as a whole. The reality is that the feminist movement was only tangentially about feminism. It was just one front in a gradual, all-out, centuries-long war on western civilization. The hairy-legged harpies burning their bras in the campus square were useful idiots.
On the surface, it appears that Feminists won a myriad of rights and privileges for their gender. They seem to have whined their way into the corridors of power. But the actual muscle behind their Gramscian march to power was provided by the organized Progressive – or, Communist – movement in the USA, for whom empowered women were a political asset.
Do I sound crazy? If you’ve spent your life believing most of what your professors and newspapers taught you, I admit I probably sound crazy. But if you do a bit of research, you’ll find the links between the feminist and communist movement are numerous and significant. See here for example.
It’s beyond the scope of this post to attempt a full exegesis of the Progressive movement of the 20th century. For now, suffice it to say that its singular goal is to burn the world to the ground and warm itself by the flames. The Progressive movement seeks to empower women because it knows that doing so will tear families apart, skew the voting population towards the impulsive, unjust and disorderly, and otherwise hasten the decline of Western civilization from the great and good empire it once was into smoking ash.
The original feminist movement was ostensibly about slogans that most decent people could rally around – respect for women as human beings, the desirability of inviting women to participate in businesses and public life once technology freed them from the labours of homemaking – but the actual energy fueling its successes was the mysterious tendency of destructive political forces to arise within mature empires, and pick them apart from the inside. Whatever one calls this force – leftism, communism, radicalism, socialism – it uses whichever nice-sounding excuses it can (gender equality, anti-racism, global warming, alleviating poverty) to bite off chunks of order and decency from the fabric of a healthy society.
The feminist movement cannot be properly understood, outside of its context as a tool for something much larger than itself.
Why the Men’s Rights’ Movement Will Fail
Men’s rights activists, in stark contrast, are not part of anything. They are an isolated and insular community with no ties to power. The movement is powered by a small number of men, none of whom are greatly compensated for their efforts, financially or otherwise. There is simply no money or status to be made in the Men’s Rights Movement. As Freda Utley wrote:
Do to expect the material rewards of unrighteousness, while engaged in the pursuit of truth.
MRAs have fallen into the trap of thinking that they and their opponents are playing the same game. They think that because the single-issue advocacy model has worked for the feminists, it will work for them as well. But single-issue advocacy is ineffective without the energy of organized leftism behind it. Progressive movements, like feminism, feed on destruction. Reactionary movements like the MRM must use a different playbook.
For all the nothing that MRAs have accomplished in the past half-decade or so, the movement has certainly grown by leaps and bounds. The big guns like The Spearhead have been expanding and attracting wider audiences, and every day, another man loses faith in everything society taught him about women, dating and marriage, and starts reading blogs like mine. Or starts writing one.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. All over the Internet, alternative opinions are flourishing on multiple topics. The Men’s Rights movement is just one example of a vast phenomenon of decent, intelligent, generally anonymous writers standing up and doing their modest best to restore sanity to our civilization.
In isolation, each of these communities is powerless. Taken as a whole, they are a viable alternative to the present order. Men’s rights activists, listen closely: you will never achieve your goals unless there is a major and discontinuous shift away from our current national religion of Progressivism. If you want change, you must work for change on a grand scale. You need to understand the role that you play – you are one front among many, working to end this long, dismal experiment in liberal democracy.
Next Steps
The one and only advantage that the men’s rights movement has in its war against modern feminism is truth. MRAs are correct about the factual questions – the causes of wage disparities, the percentage of rape charges that are false, the prevalence of corruption in the family law system – and they are even more correct about the moral questions. Separating children from their fathers is evil. Putting a young man in jail because a drunk girl regretted sleeping with him is evil. Deceiving women about the reality of their biological clocks and convincing them to deprive themselves of motherhood is evil.
So too, with other planks in the Reactionary movement. We have no political power. We have no funding. No hordes of dim-witted college students chant our mantras. All we have is truth. In the 20th century, with every form of information distribution firmly under the control of Progressives, truth was not enough. In the digital age, perhaps it is.
I don’t know exactly how Reactionaries will eventually restore sanity, order and beauty to the western world. But for now, the best thing we can do is leverage our one advantage. We need to understand what’s wrong with the world, what happened to it, and how we can fix it. MRAs, the first thing that you need to learn is that you are not mere single-issue activists. You are Reactionaries. You are part of a small, but growing force that is opposing an ideology which has been slowly conquering the western world for centuries.
Welcome aboard.
Originally posted at Freedom Twenty-Five on [DATE].
{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }
Fucking A right! It really is refreshing to know that there are other people facing today’s issues and coming to the same conclusions. There are days that I swear I’m the only sane person within shouting distance.
It will fail because alphas don’t agree with betas on the issue of the sexual revolution. The Spearhead needs to beware of that. And do you think alphas want beta husbands to be able to do DNA testing on their (the alphas’ biological) children? That said, the child custody laws are starting to change as a result of organized MRA activity.
Outstanding and right on Frost.
The gun rights movement is the only group I know of that’s been able to roll back a plank of the progressive movement. So take a lesson from the gun rights movement: Punish your enemies. You don’t have to agree with everything your allies believe as long as you can work together to harm your mutual enemy.
It’s fine to be a single issue person, but let that expression of your single issue be all about punishing the people who run the system. You can’t change the system until you purge the motherfuckers running it.
The MRM is not actionable, that is the problem. For now, the only solutions are to run away (MGTOW) or to learn game. That’s it.
The only MRA I know of who is trying to make changes in the real world is Peter Nolan, GlobalMan, but he’s been shunned by most MRAs. He’s written many times that when asked, MRAs would not lift a finger to help. There is no male brotherhood. Arab men have no love for Jewish men, Black men have no brotherhood with White men. That’s why it will fail.
MGTOW = Less tax dollars going to the government = Less tax dollars going to single moms.
MGTOW = Less soldiers fighting pointless wars
MGTOW = Denying women what they want most; marriage and children.
I constantly see the aging, depressed faces of women going through life alone as they spend 45 hours a week at a shitty job. Im sure you have seen it too.
This is justice
The problem is that not all (most?) MRAs are reactionaries; they’re not trying to return to a previous societal state.
You’re right, Frost, the MRMs play according to the rules. The rules are what they should be fighting against! And it doesn’t help that so many of them are deltas or even gammas that are afraid of women either. They are not proactive, they rarely speak at college campuses, they do almost nothing of note. Thus, they are doomed to fail.
Excellent piece. After reading this, I realize I need to examine my own thinking. Sticking to the truth is a big one. Realizing that feminism is a big motherfucker of a movement, and that it is evil, is important. But the big problem with the Men’s Rights Movement is that most men are indifferent. Changing men’s minds is perhaps a bigger obstacle than anything else.
I have the feeling that the totally new perspective that you call MRAs to adopt will end up being Islam. It’s a way for men to regain their dignity and to get legal and social protection from feminist bullying, such as over false rape claims.
False Rape claims would lose its bite if men on juries would stop convicting these men based on no evidence. Anytime I see the jury makeup of these court cases, the majority of jurors on men. It’s infuriating. That’s why educating men should be the focus. I dont give a shit about about educating the women.
And who says that campuses would let MRA’s speak? At my college, no one was allowed to give a speech suggesting that the Duke Lacrosse whore was lying. It was considered “hate speech.” There IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AMERICA.
Feminism won the war. The MRM is analogous to an insurgency. We’ll never overthrow the existing social order but we can be a disruptive force and score minor victories here and there.
Going public with our views in irl has it’s own problems. Living a life where you challenge a deeply entrenched ideology (the establishment) is a hard life. It can cost you your job and social status. Contrary to cheesy Hollywood movies that portray rebels as hot and sexy men who get to wear leather jackets, ride motorcycles, and have women swooning over them…..the life of a real rebel is more akin to being a social outcast nerd who lives in poverty and can’t get any pussy. Who wants to volunteer for that? Going mainstream comes with it’s own pitfalls as well (co-option, self censorship, etc).
The real solution is to continue spreading the message online and embracing a certain lifestyle irl Game/MGTOW.
Frost is spot on with this… men have allowed the opposition to not only define the rules, but also to shape the playing field and the tools being used. Men enter this debate already at a distinct disadvantage. In order to be successful, the MRM must refuse to accept the definitions and roles that the courts and media have assigned to them.
how long have you been active in men’s issues, that you qualify by experience to pronounce its doom to failure? and to instruct its adherents in what they “need” to do? lol
pls provide a summary of your efforts over the past, say, decade . . . or links to your works
feminism hasnt been around for centuries, but for millennia — from the beginning, in fact… and was a dominant planetary force long before Progressivism congealed from the post-Enlightenment slime
in fact, all major empires (including Amerika) were/are ruled by collective female power, through use of small groups of fronting male elites, secular and “religious”
a handful of dedicated men (and even a few women) havent overturned that in a paltry couple decades of truthtelling, as they slowly awake from the MaTricks . . . gee, what a failure, eh?
youre very wrong, a certain form of the “men’s movement” will conquer all nations, and the MRAs you disparage for their “powerlessness” and lack of “accomplishment” will receive an eternal reward for living truth and righteousness, despite the endless attacks, critiques, and discouragements of pretty much everybody . . . “For all the nothing that MRAs have accomplished in the past half-decade or so”
i’m a precious, unique snowflake and my opinion is equal to everyone elses; teaching before learning is the female/feminist way
Dang. I think this post ought to be required reading for Men of the Red Pill. I’m just sitting here starting off and thinking about things…
Are we also a movement of dismantling? Do we propose anything to replace what we are trying to eradicate? Is it even necessary to propose a replacement?
I’m tempted to just trust innate biological impulse of men to live free. Encourage the courageous free individual trapped within every man and let the chips fall where they may.
Tempted… but then part of me suspects that part of this fight involves covert chemical attack. Yeah, sounds kooky, but I insist that it’s worth looking into. The great feminisation of the western man might be partly attributed to various poisons in our food air and water.
I know. I know. Precious bodily fluids, Jack D. Ripper, etc. etc. It’s worth thinking about, though.
Good point! Now , how do we go about convincing liberal men to embrace reaction? How many men are right- leaning? 40 %? Probably less. And of those, how many are reactionary? 6 % I´d wager.
But there´s no other way to defeat feminism but to crush progressivism. In that I agree. Cheer up lads, victory is only 50 years ahead!
they better not win the battle they are fighting, or else it’s curtains for trendy bad boys like “freedom”25!
When I read that the MRA is defined by the spearhead is when it became clear to me this author is completely misinformed and will make a ton of false assumptions.
The actual MRA movement is actually led by Paul Elam, Joh the other and AVfM. Notice that the A stands for activism, and all the kikass activism is coming from AVfM.
The actual MRA movement is actually led by Paul Elam
And who are you to decide who the “leader” is?
What “movement?”
Like the author of this piece states, there is no “movement.” Activism? Hah!
There is only truth and recognizing the current system of our society is geared towards leading people into lives of unnatural, artificial dysfunction.
There is no “movement” that is going to change this system for the better.
There is only truth and making the average man aware of it, and to recognize just how badly they’ve been mislead.
AvFM and the Spearhead, and IMF and many other MRA-Manosphere blogs all serve the same purpose. There is no “leader” of a “movement.” There are only those who are doing their part in exposing the truth. Paul Elam is one of those guys, as is Bill at the Spearhead. But a leader of a movement?
Who the fuck are you, Alek Novy, to determine who is “our” leader?
The actual MRA movement is actually led by Paul Elam, Joh the other and AVfM. Notice that the A stands for activism, and all the kikass activism is coming from AVfM
SH and AVFM both do fine jobs in differing, if occasionally overlapping, niches
god decides who leads, not women and men, and encouraging or pursuing popularity contests is counterproductive and unnecessarily divisive
the folks who support and further the MRM now, while it’s still v unpopular, and do it for the right reasons (not personal glorification, to be sure!) will live forever in great authority and admiration, and you can bet i’ll be one of those, god willing, doing the admiring
god decides who leads
You just lost me there ray.
At first I was going to accuse you of Alinsky-ing the MRM but I think you’re just completely ignorant.
The Spearhead doesn’t even claim to be a part of the MRM, or a leader of the mrm. It is a men’s issues magazine. Says so right in the “About” description. Go ahead and look, I’ll check.
Meanwhile, over at AVoiceForMen.com, a truly activist MR site, umerous prominent MRAs including Paul Elam and John The Other have extensively covered feminism’s connection to the power elites. And connection to progressivism. We also have numerous MRAs who favor something like the reactionary “truth” you mention above. In fact, that’s a major theme of John The Other’s writings.
Yes, there is a certain percentage of MRAs who are leftists and progressives. Glenn Sacks and Dr. Warren Farrell come to mind. However, the majority are some combination of traditionalist, religious conservative, and conservative-leaning libertarian. I, personally, think leftist MRAs are deeply deluded.
You guys don’t see me writing a bunch of ill-informed jibber jabber about your white nationalism and that’s because I don’t know much about it. Please show us the same courtesy.
Conservative, religious conservative, and traditionalists are still progressives. They’re just stuck with an old and outdated version of progressivism.
A good example: My parents are traditional religiousness conservatives. But they believe everything spouted by the progressive movement before 1950. They still think everything is men’s fault when it comes to families and children.
And reactionaries are not necessarily all about the past. Reactionaries primarily feel the system needs to be destroyed so that regular civilized forces can be allowed to operate normally again. I don’t want to force people to think one way, or have to spout off the right words not to be fired. I want people to be free to make their own choices and to enjoy and suffer from their choices. I want communities of people to focus on living instead of telling everyone how to live or meddialing in everyone’s life.
Our current system plays Russian roulette with our lives and destroys the fabric of what’s good in life.
Red:
Yes, exactly. Yet we have the normally brilliant Paul Elam recently writing an article critical of Game entitled Chateau Bullshit, obviously a pot shot at Roissy. Whatever one thinks about game, Roissy has been one of the best anti-feminists in the manosphere for years. Why undermine it? It’s just men shooting themselves in the foot over and over. One reason why we spin our wheels and get nowhere.
*Paul Elam is great though, don’t get me wrong. I have much respect for him. That article was disappointing though.
/schtick
Many of the commenters here appear to have missed the point. Here is the simplified version:
MRAs are correct factually
MRAs are fighting against feminism
Feminism is bad, but is only a tool being used to advance a larger agenda
For the MRM to succeed they need to fight the power behind feminism by joining with other like minded causes.
Or more simply, the friend of my enemy is my enemy; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Carry on.
I am a men’s rights activist, and I am doing something – suing LSE’s Gender Institute in a sex discrimination case which will cost them £50,000 if I win, and that will force other gender departments to incorporate more men’s issues into curricula, lest they are sued.
Please go to the website, and like the other 35 men’s rights activists from around the world who have donated £1300 so far, please do your bit for the cause.
sexismbusters dot org
P.S. Video on way very soon, so follow on facebook and twitter.
It’s just men shooting themselves in the foot over and over. One reason why we spin our wheels and get nowhere.
And this is why it never will.
Feminism also had (and has) massive “internal” disagreements about a whole bunch of stuff, but nevertheless they are able to put those aside when it comes to any aspect of anything that potentially could negatively impact a member of Team Woman. This is because women are a herd. A competitive herd, yes, but a herd, and, particularly importantly, a herd that is biologically defensive of itself when confronted by *males*, when in conflict with *males* — in fact, that is the very raison d’etre of the herd to begin with, given that human females in deep history found themselves physically and geographically isolated from their female blood-kin and living instead among blood-bonded males (relatives of their husbands) with non-blood-kin females. The herd developed to counteract that expression of male solidarity, which resulted in a huge amount of male power. And it’s a very, very deeply-rooted thing in women. They scratch at each other like nasty cats much of the time, but when some woman comes into conflict with a man, unless a specific woman wants to use that for her personal advantage, the overwhelming trend is to support the woman in question, or even at the very least to give her a substantial benefit of the doubt. This is now wired into women bio-culturally.
Men have no such wiring. We compete. We are always playing status games with each other. We are always trying to one-up one another, to best each other, if even in argument. You cannot get men to unite under the banner of “men’s rights” because men will never agree on what that means, and in fact are wired to find ways to disagree about it so that some can gain status over others. And that is leaving aside the alpha element. It just doesn’t work for men — we are not wired to cooperate on a large-scale basis as men. That is what feminist pseudo-history believes men always did, but we never did — a group of powerful men (and women) set the social norms, and everyone else, men and women as well, followed along. Men as a huge group never cooperated with each other outside of one very specific context.
Yes, men can cooperate with each other … against other groups of competing men. Think armies and sports and so on. Not “universal brotherhood of man” — such a thing runs contrary to our biology.
How then did we ever have monogamy? My guess is that we ended up there because it evolved from tribal situations where men were blood-bonded and hence there was much more natural (yet of course imperfect) male solidarity. When tribes became bigger than could be sustained by male blood bonds, and became larger communities, the old blood-based male cooperation was buttressed and eventually reinforced by religious rules. That is one thing feminists have right — religion generally reinforces male power — and likely because it replaced the tribal forms of kin-bonded male power. So feminists and other Gramscians set about to destroy religion and turn the average person against it. And when religion was broken down and replaced by individual initiative, well … the entire edifice of male power (outside of alpha males, who have “natural” power under any ruleset) was dashed to the ground in the space of a couple of generations, largely voluntarily by the alpha males whom it did not suit.
If you want to get that back, Frost is right — you need to be a reactionary. But if you think you have a hope in heck of that happening, you need to have religion at the core. It is the only thing that has ever historically succeeded in bonding men together as a larger group to any significant degree (other than as being on a particular “team” competing against other “teams” of men). And this is where the alt-right, MRA and most of you young’uns fail. No can do without religion, and most of the people in these corners of the community hate religion, so no can do.
yeah good summary brendan
there is a “new religion” at threshold and you and like-minded are near the center of it — a fusion of mrm/antifem and the spiritually attuned forming the new way, grounded in god, who hasnt changed
agree that competition and pride limit men, and thus woman, naturally collective, manipulates and rules over them, as the bible states
also agree, authentic religions have always limited collective and personal female power, this was their primary (and sometimes sole) purpose — tom smith helped me see this more completely
Leftism=slave morality.
“No can do without religion, and most of the people in these corners of the community hate religion, so no can do.”
You don’t need religion, just a normative belief system that people are willing to sacrifice for.
But anyway, the only way I see feminism being overthrown is if men badboy the fuck out of society. These thugs/badboys will form their own gangs in order to attract women and make themselves even more sexy/badboyish, these gangs will form into paramilitaries, then these paramilitaries will reach a point where they will try for a monopoly on violence and challenge the state for power. Then boom, say goodbye to democracy and progressive-ism and say hello to rule by the ruthless and violent.
Sort of like how the drug cartels in Mexico are now taking over entire provinces there and the government has effectively ceded control over to them in those regions.
You don’t need religion, just a normative belief system that people are willing to sacrifice for.
No real examples of that outside of religion or quasi-religions. The Nazis were a secular religion, as were the Soviets (including processions and iconography), but these were both short-lived, because they were humano-centric. No real long-standing cooperation on a large-scale among men has happened without religion being its main base.
A summary of this article could be written as follows:
A.)Obstacles to contemporary Feminist “reform”:
1)persuade the PTB of some (mis)percieved social or legal inequity.
B.)Obstacles to contemporary MR reform:
1)dissuade the PTB regarding item A section 1
2)persuade the PTB of social and legal inequity
Item A subsection 1 is the default presumption as far as legislators, educators and the MSM are concerned.
As a result, the MRM is placed at a distinct disadvantage…..
It’s not like the Nazis had a go at it and petered out over time. They were stamped out. The Soviets were never up to the role of being the seat of world revolution. They were bled dry over time, but a lot of their ideology lives on in the hearts and minds of people all over the world. It’s not time to issue a death certificate for Communism yet.
How ironic. You didn’t mind or freak out when the author of this piece defined spearhead as a leader. So don’t bullshit me that you have a problem with someone declaring a site as being the leader. You just mind which one I chose.
The spearhead does ZERO activism. It’s just a collection or rants and whining. It’s reactive – whereas Paul and AVfM are proactive.
Chivalry, enabled via bullshit ‘Men are so powerful’ narrative, makes Betas help the Alphas get more stuff…hoping they will become Alphas themselves int he process.
And? It’s not like we haven’t known this for …oh, I dunno….DECADES now?
The mens movement is currently both refining our understanding of issues, and developing effective responses to the situation faced. Change on a mass social scale does not happen overnight, it just seems that way sometimes. The long lead up is in making a critical mass of people aware of, and sympathetic with, a particular viewpoint…ie, popular approval.
And, like the fabled snowball, it starts out really tiny, and seems to take forever to get going, but once it grows it does so rather rapidly. 20 years ago, we couldn’t get a Letter to the Editor published, and the very EXISTENCE of the mens movement was denied, when the idea was acknowledged at all. Ten years ago we started to gain enough attention to be mentioned, but usually as ‘those loons’ and dismissed. 5 years ago we began to be taken a bit more seriously, both by marketers and the media (go figure), and last year, a major MRM issue (Male genital mutilation) was the subject of national debate.
What you seem to miss, is that the MRM is not about imposing ideas on people, but about exposing them to a different viewpoint, and the evidence used to reach the conclusions reached, and to hopefully interest that person enough they will investigate on their own.
We can’t make people ‘stop being evil’, we can only mark them, and express disapproval, and hope enough others do the same.
And by the way, the Right is every bit as Gynocentric as the Left is, and every bit as oppressive…hardly surprising since both groups are made up of largely the same people.
Kill Chivalry = Kill Impetus supporting Feminism = Implode the Victim Mentality = Destroy Progressive power base.
Think about it. I’m just sayin’
The trajectory is easy to follow.
The current path everyday guys are taking such as shunning marriage, the hookup culture, and phenomena such as game .. these are multitudes of individual decisions ( and in growing numbers ) that don’t specifically require a typical “Movement ” .
It’s via Internet and blogs that diseminate information and help feed the thirst for truth and options that individual men seek.
In the end however, Economics will determine Why the current status quo cannot continue. The wealth just isn’t there anymore to continue this insanity.
Feminism requires a wealthy host to parasite.
You’re missing some information, for example the efforts of A Voice for Men such as register-her.com. They already are well aware of much of what you stated.
But you’re right that there are plenty of MRAs who are willingly blind to the fact that leftism is the real enemy.
I try to spread information about men’s issues in conservative/libertarian circles, and vice versa.
I don’t care if Glenn Sacks leans mildly leftist at times. Fathers and Families still has done some absolute good for men, and , even when it fails, often shows us what we are up against. Warren Farrell, despite being a bit too egalitarian to suit reality, has still written 3 great books that have helped many men. I first got an inkling of the men’s movement in 1997 when I picked up Why Men Are the Way They Are from a local yard sale. And yes, AVFM is both angry AND active. And let’s not forget the National Coalition for Men, S.A.V.E, and R.A.D.A.R, all of which have made some limited good impact on the world.
It is true that the MRA’s would benefit from more alliances. The fact that some on this thread seem to not know of the existence of the organizations , websites, and people above howwever, is saddening.
It always saddens me
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/moral-decline-as-prisoners-dilemma/
Anonymous (Oct 24, 4:40pm) is onto something re. the question of leadership.
Name a leader to rally around, and the narrative becomes about the person, not the issues.
Take the Tea Party, for instance. The MSM doesn’t miss a chance to assassinate Sarah Palin, their nominal spokesperson. Occasionally some rank and file Teabagger gets 15 minutes of fame for saying something vaguely racist, but it doesn’t really stick. But with Palin, they’ve got a name and a face. A closet to search for skeletons, and a public record to sift for any ill-chosen words.
The same applies to the OWS protests (I’m sympathetic in the abstract, but the heavy presence of retard college Marxists and their ilk is kills most of my support). Suppose they nominate a leader, say, Michael Moore. As a media assassin, I’m drooling. Instead of generalized scorn at a mass of activists, I’ve now got encyclopedias of material to work with. Decades of political opions and quotes to twist. Personal failings and bad behavior to undermine him (eg. union-busting his own staff). Attack HIM, not the message.
Name a MRA spokesman, and we’ll get sob stories about his ex-wife (who left him, burned through the divorce settlement and is now homeless). Or how his children are in trouble with the law (kept from him by a vindictive ex and a complicit court, despite his best efforts). Or the ‘racist’ opinion he posted about HBD and culture. Or dozens of other personal flaws and character imperfections.
Those will be what gets the headlines and talk-time, not divorce court rape or false accusations or any other issue.
I agree and disagree. Men don’t cooperate because shooting down another guy is a way or perceived way to get women. Particularly now. So, no, there will be no MRM. Nor will White guys ever stand up for themselves, because if they do they lose White women, who view it as beta loserdom. Its a permanent exile to a sexless, lonely life.
However, feminism and most of the ills of society today are not Gramscian. They are in fact, Christian. Particularly though not exclusively, Evangelical Christian. [Catholics are not immune though.] The Temperance/Prohibition movement is a good example. A moral panic, a moral crusade, deep societal changes, all aimed at controlling male behavior led by … Evangelical Men on the behalf of Evangelical Women. [Catholic women did not think they had to stop their men or other men from drinking.]
There are no “Jewish mind-control rays” or Gramscian skullduggery of “fooling” people into thinking garbage is gold. You can’t sell a person a turd when he can smell it for himself. Rather, guys have gone along with this because fighting women on it means no sex. Simple as that.
The solution of course is Chavdom. Once you reach a tipping point, your obedient, respectful, painfully middle class society becomes lord of the flies time, in a brutal all-against-all competition for the limited amount of women. That was the fate of working and now increasingly middle class Britain.
Whiskey just hit the Elephant in the Room with the ball that’s been flying around here: who let the Women’s Christian Temperance Union start the ball rolling downhill 110 years ago? Leftists? Think again.
Women got the right to vote because evangelical Christian “males” (married to the horribly ugly wives in the Christian Temperance Union) were willing to sell their souls and their birthright in order to stop Catholic men (the Democrat forerunners of JFK and his brother Ted) from going to the ubiquitous brothels and liquor outlets that existed at the height of Christian power in America.
It was a push for power by married men who wanted to be shackled over single men and those married men who didn’t want to be shackled. The evangelical males felt they had to cheat; they needed female help to shape their “perfect world”.
The female vote was Republican in the US until 1968. That’s when the older females temporarily lost their control of men. That Ted Kennedy succeeded in harnessing the female vote for socialism after that, doesn’t change the fact that his Democrat ancestors fought to keep women from being able to vote. Sexually liberal men would be naturally terrified of giving old women the right to vote. Think about it.
Although the female vote is here to stay, the past 100 years can be seen as an anomaly for western civilization and only the past 40 years have been really bad. The MRM does have a chance here to bring back the relatively pro-male world that existed only 120 years ago and we could easily get back to 1975, before the anti-male laws started to kick in with a vengeance.
Case in point: The Chairman of CBS was a major womanizer into his eighties, which would have been in the early 1980s, and CBS and other broadcast media didn’t really lean hard toward feminism until after he died.
We just need to media owners like him again as compared to the neutered manginas that call themselves Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. The British need to put Rupert Murdoch in jail for stabbing men in the back, not just for eavesdropping on cell phones.
The female vote is divided between those who want a “Husband State” and lots of sex with alphas and those who want to kill off or incarcerate alphas because they can’t get them anymore.
We can exploit that. We can divide and conquer. Better yet, we can make sure that everyone knows about and talks about the psychological reasons for women to vote against the common male interest. This is starting to happen.
Knowledge and common understanding is power.
And since the so-called Illuminati elites have a goal of destroying religion (which explains their wars in the middle east right now), they might actually start supporting the MRM if they see it’s not just a small arm of the reactionary white religious right, 6% of men.
But that will mean that men will have to define properly what the MRM is all about and recognize that it was religious right married males that originally let the feminist gremlins out of the box with their incessant desire to make free men as miserable as themselves.
I’ve heard that writers at the Spearhead often conjure up a yearning for a world that never existed in the anglo culture: a strict patriarchy that controls male sex lives with no outlets. That’s right wing feminism.
For the MRM to go anywhere, that revisionist nonsense has to stop. It serves right wing feminism and leaves the MRM as a fish flopping on the sand.
And therein lies why we will never have an MRM. Someone like you and someone like me, Anonymous, will never in a billion years agree about what you just wrote, and there are countless who are on both of our sides (as well as many other sides) regarding these issues who will similarly never agree and, as a result, never cooperate.
Brendan:
Having watched this fledgling movement grow over a period of 14 years I do not retain your pessimism.
The RISUG is the solution, he is the counterpower.
For the rest be independent.
Interesting. I am reminded of research showing that thinking about things too much is a form of inertia leading to depression, where as doing something is much more healthy.
The men’s movement will only amount to what it does.
So, take the healthier option for yourself and the movement, by sending $20 to to the fighting fund at sexismbusters!
Then I will be able to afford further legal advice, and actually win this important case against LSE’s Gender Institute.
If a normal person like me can overcome adversity and see off the might of the educational victim-femalist establishment in the UK with a victory, then it will send the message, that anyone else can too.
The laws may already be in place for a revolution, and it might simply be, about applying them vigorously.
Progressives dominate the debate, the language so that anything that attacks it can be used by it to justify a greater power grab.
How ironic. You didn’t mind or freak out when the author of this piece defined spearhead as a leader. So don’t bullshit me that you have a problem with someone declaring a site as being the leader. You just mind which one I chose.
Alek, work on your reading comprehension. Frost did not call The Spearhead the “leader” of the MRM. He called it a definitive representation of the MRM movement – i.e. it hosts a large number of articles from a wide array of authors covering a wide range of topics, many of which are specific to the MRM.
Pointing out that the Spearhead is a definitive representation is not the same as saying it’s a “leader.” Furthermore, Paul Elam is respected, and in many respects is taking a leadership role in his Activism. My point is that someone like you is acting like a fucking jackmonkey cheering on the division of the MRM along the lines of MGTOW and PUA by blowing smoke up Elam’s ass and trying to say he’s THE leader of the MRM, while the Spearhead is irrelevant. The Spearhead as reached a far wider audience of men and woken them up to the realities of the present day far more than all of your whining and ranting in the Manosphere.
Game theory is NOT PUA.
The spearhead does ZERO activism. It’s just a collection or rants and whining. It’s reactive – whereas Paul and AVfM are proactive.
So says the Manosphere’s foremost whiner and ranter who thinks PUA bootcamps, seminars and DVDs are the exact same thing as Game theory, and that anyone who dares discuss Game theory is a fraud and cult member. You really are a dumb fuck.
Horeshit.
The jack-ass writer of this bone-headed article basically calls feminism a communist plot and even dumber people are all too happy to “bah” in unison.
Material forces led to the rise of feminism. The Pill meant women could delay having a family and focus on their careers (and/or cock carousel). It helped business because women almost doubled the size of the labor market, and so the “army of the unemployed” (as Marx put it) pushes down wages.
False paternity bullshit in courts owes a lot to conservative judges protect the woman’s “virtue.”
Male Rights Movement will fail if it has dumb ass followers not unlike the above. People who say women will destroy civilization (what, because Denmark is so far behind Saudi Arabia).
“most of the people in these corners of the community hate religion”
I, for one, don’t, and I’m sure I’m not alone. I condone Islam, for example. I admit though that I cannot stand the Roman Catholic Church and its lame female-pedestalizing pussy worship.
With regards to the idea of reactionary politics, that’s utter idiocy. The mere notion that society can somehow return to bygone sexual mores in an age ruled by the Four Horsemen of the Sexual Apocalypse is ludicrous. The only reactionaries in the West are the Christian traditionalists. We all know how successful they have been in reaching their political goals.
Great article.
If MRAs imitate feminism/liberalism, they will end up re-creating the same situation they find so objectionable.
It’s a big circle. One group declares themselves victims, and takes revenge on the other groups. Then other group figures that out, and soon they’re just taking turns being victims.
The last group is men. In becoming victims, they lose all that is awesome about being male and basically become bottoms for the guilt and pity parade that is liberalism.
MRAs, if you follow that path, you have not thought outside of the box and you will not break the vicious cycle you are in. You will fail.
This is a superb article. I will only add that a list of Jewish feminists reads like a list of Soviet commissars. It is the same poison by the same tribe.
I can tell you that William Price, the editor of The Spearhead, regularly deletes my comments demonstrating the Jewish background of both Communism and feminism. He is terrified of the subject. You should tell him to grow some balls.
Here is a good example of what he regularly deletes.
DANNY BOY ABRAMS ON SEX SUPERIORITY
Dan Abrams, the legal analyst of NBC, is writing a book called “Man Down, How Women Are Better At…” One can just imagine the reaction were Dan Abrams to write a book entitled “Blacks Down, How Whites Are Better At…” The reaction would be instantaneous. The book would be labeled racist, vile and untrue by definition. The facts on white superiority would count for nothing. One cannot believe that whites are superior to blacks but one can believe that women are superior to men. We may be sure that Dan Abrams does not discuss Alcohol Prohibition in his paean of praise to female superiority. The fact that women were the driving force behind the most disastrous social reform movement in American history might present difficulties for Mr. Abrams contrived thesis. Thus, we may be sure that he deletes it. Dan Abrams shall also be predictably silent on how women are treated in his real country called Israel. Thus, “Danny Boy” shall not be describing how women in Israeli busses are required to ride in the rear as the bus passes through Orthodox neighborhoods. Nor shall he discuss the vast Jewish controlled sex slave trade and the thousands of women kidnapped to the Tel Aviv brothels each year. “Danny Boy” may mention Israel’s 1953 law granting women full civic, political and economic rights. But, if so, he shall surely delete the exception for family law and what it entails. Thus, “Danny Boy” shall not mention that a wife cannot get a divorce without her husband’s consent or that a wife whose husband dies while she is still childless must offer herself in marriage to his bother – or buy her release through forfeiture of the community property. Still less shall he mention that if a woman has a child born from adultery the child shall be termed a mamzerim, a bastard, and shall be forbidden to marry, except to another bastard. A woman whose husband goes missing in war or who otherwise disappears cannot remarry unless she has absolute proof of his death. Abortion, in Israel, is a state decision, not a personal decision. A Jewess must obtain government permission for an abortion. The decision shall be made based on the state’s need for more Jewish babies and the danger of a higher Arab birth rate, counterbalanced by the woman’s financial ability to care for the child. Traditionally, in Israel, a woman’s testimony has no standing in family law court. In the Orthodox synagogues until recently a woman could not qualify for the minyam, the minimum number of Jews necessary to form a quorum. Only male Jews so qualify. The free love, no-fault divorce system that has caused so much grief in the United States is virtually unknown in Israel. Divorce has been severely restricted in the Zionist state. When divorce does occur, it is exclusively under the control of the religious authorities, not the civil authorities. There is no civil divorce in Israel.
“Danny Boy” Abrams knows these facts on his real country perfectly. But like the deceased Jewish Communist Ashley Montagu/Israel Ehrenberg who wrote “The Natural Superiority of Women” back in the 1960’s, he is not about to mention them as he lies through his teeth.
TALMUDIC TWAT THINK
Many common sense people wonder how men can be prosecuted for “fetal homicide” when women practice fetal homicide down at the abortion
Clinic. The answer lies in the legal definition of fetal homicide. If one looks at California’s statute, which has served as a model for the rest of the nation, it reads that “the unlawful killing of a person or fetus with pre-meditated intent” is a crime. The key word is unlawful. If a man kills a pregnant woman he is doing it unlawfully. But if a woman kills the fetus, she is lawfully exercising her right to dispose of an unwanted pregnancy. Thus, he is committing a crime; she is exercising a constitutional right. The same act, the killing of the unborn, becomes distinguishable depending on who is doing it. This is Talmudic Twat Think.
Talmudic Twat Think operates on other levels. The best example is legal abortion for women plus mandatory child support for men. The woman gets to kill the baby before it is born; the man gets to support the baby after it is born. The man has no share in the woman’s decision as to whether the child lives or dies; the man gets to pay for someone else’s decision because he shared in the creation of the child. This is Talmudic Twat Think. Talmudic Twat Thinkers say that the welfare of the child must come first; then they say that a woman has a right to kill an unwanted baby in the womb. The Talmudic Twat Thinkers deny the contradiction by saying that a baby is not a baby until it is born. The Talmudic Twat Thinkers claim that a baby is part of a woman’s body. But they do not explain why, if the baby is part of a woman’s body, it is not present and accounted for at birth, like all the genuine body parts. The Talmudic Twat Thinkers know that genuine body parts are permanent fixtures of the body. They know that if these body parts are removed that the woman will die. If a woman loses her heart, her lungs or her kidneys, death will result. But a fetus is not part of a woman’s body. It is an implant which will exit a woman’s body after it reaches a certain stage of development. Its exit will not kill the woman, unlike the loss of real body parts.
Talmudic Twat Thinkers love to argue over stages of development. They do not argue that turtles should eat their own eggs because the turtles are not yet hatched. That would lead to the destruction of the species. Only 1-2%f all hatched turtles make it to the sea before they are picked off by predators. The Talmudic Twat Thinkers do not argue that a turtle is only a “potential” turtle until it “hatches” from the egg. The Talmudic Twat Thinkers, being Jewesses, do not tell their listeners that in Talmudic logic, a fetus is considered potential, rather than actual, life. They do not mention that the fetus is considered a rodef, an aggressor against her body which she has the right to expel. They do not mention that a woman’s right” to control her body is really a Jewish religious doctrine. They cannot, for then someone might ask: “Why does the Constitution ban the imposition of Christian religious doctrines on the population but condone the imposition of Jewish doctrines on the population?
The Talmudic Twat Thinkers are Bolshevik Jewesses. Ruth Bader Luxemburg and Ana Pauker Kagan are outstanding examples. Save the unborn; murder the synagogue of Satan.
Real Vince is a shit head. Does he not know that Betty Goldstein/Friedan, the founding mother of feminism, had a Communist past ten miles long? Does he not realize that the media that pushes feminism at every opportunity is filled with the same Jews who Communized Russia? Is he unaware that Denmark and the Scandinavian countries are socialist sewers run by psycho-cunt feminists? Or is Real Vince just a Marxist shit head, whining that no one will hire him for the job he is too stupid to do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7xCzGWz7pM
Look at the video guys. It is no one but the Jews.
Here’s a game changer:
Do you REALLY want to change this language game around, or are you guys just bitching? Well memeplexes work both ways.
Here’s a thought about moral primacy: the idea that “men are all rapists” exists because science and scientists actually have theories that “predict” such behavior. Richard Wrangham, and Greg Laden are two such biological anthropologists.
The book you should read is called “Demonic Males” and it predicts that repressed male sex drives can lead to rape.
NOW, here’s the kicker: that same theory would ALSO predict that women are all pedophiles–i.e. their ‘drives’ and ‘instincts’ are like any other mammal to lick and sniff at infant genitals, each others and so forth. NOT that men are mind you, because they are not–because the definitions of “bad touch’ and so forth actually tie directly in to the ‘nurturing instinct’ in women.
It is tied to the sex drive in the opposite way, but carries implications that women are pedophiles by modern definitions–that womens behaviours are based upon ‘repressed drives and instinctual behavior,” but also, if we look at ‘herd behaviors,’ then their are implications for rape as well.
But this is worth a look, if you want to help re-write the moral language.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_Jews
Behold the face of the enemy, guys. This is the truth the Spearhead will not touch.
“authentic religions have always limited collective and personal female power, this was their primary (and sometimes sole) purpose” – ray
Also, religion gives [religious] women a false sense of superiority over other women & girls. Thereby allowing them [religiously superior women] to feel righteous when they participate/assist in abuse of those “other” women & girls.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Feminism#External_links
Again, read the facts – and understand who promotes it – and why.
The very existence of this discussion with its abundant comments and controversy is evidence enough for me.
‘Manosphere’, ‘MRA’, ‘PUA’. All these terms were confined to a scant few books, blogs, and message boards hardly 5 years ago.
When I look back on my first gender based blog posts just 2 1/2 years, ago they seem hopelessly dated now. What was controversial and heretical then is now stating the obvious.
Through the 80s-90s-early 00s Warren Farrell was just about the only somewhat well known men’s rights author out there and his books were out of print, the remaining straggler copies available for pocket change + shipping online.
There was nothing out there.
For the last 40-50 years this kind of thinking was but a dream of a whisper in the underground. Men had their misgivings but were isolated and had nowhere to take their concerns.
There’s been a tipping point in just the last two or so years.
This whole community has exploded in size and influence.
Many people point out that this sort of community is insular and represents the barest fraction of the overall population.
True, but the internet allows dissident communities to have a vastly disproportionate impact on overall public opinion.
One might consider how the imageboard subculture has influenced countless millions and given rise to a world class cyber military.
Because of current cultural and economic developments: for every manosphere writer, there’s a hundred thousand men who have the very same thoughts tormenting them on the fringes of their minds. Furthermore, the family courts are pumping out a steady supply of disenfranchised men who will actively seek out MRA type organizations.
Neither MRAs or any other manosphere faction require millions of dollars in money from shady benefactors or an industrial grade organization to advertise ideas and recruit new followers.
The nice thing about having the truth on your side and having a perspective that speaks to the spirit of the times: all that work practically does itself.
I just recently learned about AVfM and it seems obvious that their star is rising. The fact that they are quickly making themselves known across the gendernet, have been mentioned in MSM publications, and have succeeded in putting known feminists on the defensive is nothing short of amazing.
I couldn’t have imagined this 5 years ago! And as far as I can tell, they’re just getting started.
I can’t understand why so many men here are pessimistic.
Can’t they see that this whole society is a pressure cooker right now. The weak economy, widespread public disenchantment with established institutions, hordes of unemployed, angry young people… This is the stuff that catapults radicals with new ideas into prominence.
If there was a manosphere public traded stock I’d be buying in right about now.
Interesting viewpoint but I do need to point out some factual errors. It’s probably to be expected when a gamer interprets the MRM and vice versa.
First and most obvious, The Spearhead is NOT an MRA site. Welmer himself has clearly stated that and there is negligible activism there. At best, The Spearhead is an MGTOW site with a lot of traditionalist visitors.
Second, Feminism is not necessarily a gramscian socialist movement, although there are some elements. That is too simple, 1st wave feminism was very conservative and through out the years feminism has relied on either/both right/left wing support, depending on the issues. They are opportunists that will infiltrate any organization.
In the past, the MRM was dominated mostly by traditionalist reactionaries but that’s changing. This is also why feminism is often branded as monolithic and a socialist movement. Feminism is a movement for female privilege and power, not equality and the feminist movement has been funded by capitalists who benefit from broken families.
The MRM is still in it’s infancy of dealing with the basic problem of just getting men to speak out. The biggest hurdle and difference with feminism is the natural deference of men (aka chivalry) to the needs of women. I don’t expect to see much success in my lifetime, but hopefully there will be many more informed men to continue the fight.
It’s a big circle. One group declares themselves victims, and takes revenge on the other groups. Then other group figures that out, and soon they’re just taking turns being victims.
Yup.
And it leads to totalitarianism as we all try to become “equal.”
“Sniff,” cried the beaten man. “But… but… I thought I was supposed to get some equality pie TOOOOOO! Well, can I at least have a few of the crumbs? I’ll sell out the future generations just to get some measly crumbs of equality pie!”
And equal we shall become!
Everything that is not prohibited will become mandatory.
Or didn’t men get that memo yet?
Don’t tell me it’s an accident either.
Denis is wrong. Although business has taken advantage of the entry of women into the marketplace to do away with the old family wage system, it is abundantly clear that post WW2 feminism has been Jewish-Marxist through and through. Anyone who actually reads the evidence I have posted will quickly realize this.
9 Alcuin October 24, 2011 at 11:32 am
I have the feeling that the totally new perspective that you call MRAs to adopt will end up being Islam. It’s a way for men to regain their dignity and to get legal and social protection from feminist bullying, such as over false rape claims.
********************
Better still ‘progressive’ hands are tied on the issue.
ray
in fact, all major empires (including Amerika) were/are ruled by collective female power, through use of small groups of fronting male elites, secular and “religious”
*********************
Sounds similar to this:
http://seanmaccloud.blogspot.com/search/label/3%20Matriarchy%20of%20the%20Past%20canard
u dont seem to have any idea of wht MRM really is.. Foo!
Its a shame you guys are cutting down MRM as Game,Pua,Mgtow,Zeta n wht all ! Do you even remember who the enemy is? How different is it going to be when you are falsely accused of rape by some strange feminazi you have never seen or met??
Wht u gonna do play ur smooth move on men in prison whn lockedup? Look around Rose, we are in the same sinking Titanic…
You r taking eyes of the enemy… You will regret later :/
I note that in all the comments here no one wishes to address the material I’ve posted. No one wants to talk about the Jews – and the fact that their power alone stands behind feminism, just as it stands behind civil rights, racial equality, open borders, one world, all out support for Israel, demands for war against Iran and everything else that goes on, including who really blew up two twin towers, non-existent gas chambers, etc.
That is the issue – and all the rest of these comments are esoteric pussy footing around the real issue.
The MRM will and should fail because it can only define itself against feminism. Other than an being an emotional tantrum or an irrational reaction against the logical progression of egalitarianism and feminism, MR has nothing to offer men.
There have always been male support structures which do a much better job of addressing men’s concerns. Unions, Attorneys, Men’s Health Magazines, Abuse counseling, Veterans Affairs etc. Anyone looking for aid from MRM will come up empty or be made worse for it. Anyone looking to the support structure already in place will find aid and prosper. The MRM can’t compete. It’s is a movement that was born obsolete.
MRM is at its best, a con that most men will see through. Someone in need of help will actually find a lot more comfort in existing help networks instead of hearing, “blame feminism!” Feminism succeeds because it’s necessary. MR fails because it’s empty.
{ 3 trackbacks }