I had to sit and read the above comment about a dozen times. It seemed beyond incredible to me. It still does. Even now I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it.
The online men’s movement I drifted into several years ago was a much different environment. It was mostly, predominately, white, male, protectively heterosexual, traditionalist, pro marriage (between one man and one woman, of course), politically right wing (in the neocon sense), and highly polemic in the political sense.
And it was as stagnant as ditchwater.
Even back in 2008 when I was Editor-in-Chief for mensnewsdaily.com, the erstwhile flagship for the men’s movement, the publication was generally inhabited by shills looking to sell disaffected men on Republicans being the Great White Hope for the MRM. And they were buying it while getting nowhere except straight into a brick wall.
Then the crazy fuckers dusted themselves off and bought it again.
But MND did have patently pro male sympathies, and an opportunity, thanks to publisher Mike LaSalle, to put some real men’s rights literature into public view, so I served with equal measures of disgust, hope and appreciation.
I always knew though, that if the men’s movement was ever going to gain traction it would depend greatly on the voices of women to do it. What’s that I hear now? Is that the sound of beer bottles exploding into shards as they hit the chicken wire screen I am standing behind on this stage?
Actually, I don’t hear that now, but I would have in 2008 because back then most MRAs were still looking to figure out how to keep men on their white horses and wanted women to look up at them adoringly for it. OK, well maybe I hear a couple of bottles breaking, but not many.
Yes, the MRM has changed drastically in that time. And AVfM has been a very big part of it happening. That is something I will take to my grave with more pride than I can ever articulate. I don’t pretend that the credit belongs to me, and that is fine. There are dozens of people now behind the scenes of this website, and while we don’t rest on the same page on all issues, each one of us carries the understanding that claiming to be a human rights movement and not including everyone is a deadly hypocrisy that can only lead to a reversal of our recent fortunes.
And failing to recognize the value of women in particular is not only hypocritical, it is also foolish.
I could spell out the litany of political reasons why women should be here, and in great numbers, but I really have another part of this on my mind at the moment.
After getting over a little bit of the shock of witnessing the initial rush of female donors that kicked off our donation drive, it left something else on my mind. I hope I can say it without drowning you in schmaltz.
Feminism, as it has on most anything it ever touched, half-recognized a problem and then promptly screwed the entire pooch on what to do about it. Nowhere is this more evident, nor has it resulted in more destruction, than where it concerns the relationship between men and women.
There were indeed problems out of our traditional past that needed to be corrected. And it does have to do with men and women being cast into sexual roles. Those roles, necessary in an environment where moment to moment survival was never a given, robbed women of agency and piled it on men in the form of self-sacrificing obligation, often till they broke beneath the weight of it.
That was the cost of keeping humans on the planet. It sucked, but it worked. However, in a time when such drastic measures are unnecessary, those roles are as punishing as they are archaic.
Rather than see that simple and obvious reality and pursue solutions that pushed for a balance between agency and responsibility, feminists just pushed for and got more measures to infantilize women and burden men with the responsibility for it. They got there by exploiting the very sex roles they pretended to critique and deconstruct, resulting in two generations of women-children that were trained to hate and fear the men who were expected to enable their petty entitlements.
If there ever was a real problem with misogyny in our culture, this is where it was birthed. At the very least whatever misogyny was there was aggravated and amplified by sexual politics that were absolutely insane.
The men’s movement, among other important things, is a call for both sexes to return to sanity. It is a pathway for men and women to reconnect, free of the constraints of expectations based on sex and unencumbered by the vitriol and sexism that are the driving forces of modern feminism.
The men’s movement is our chance to love each other again.
For that to happen, we must not undo feminism, but simply do what they failed to do. We must see women as responsible adults worthy of earned respect, and men as something other than pack animals placed on earth for women’s convenience. Well, that would pretty much undo feminism on its own, but you get my point.
As we look at the women and men that support this movement and help it grow, I am struck by how much they are the living examples of what freedom from sexual roles portends for the future. I don’t see men puffing up their chests, vying for women’s attention. I don’t see women getting rescued from their own words, or expecting anyone to do that. I don’t see entitlement in these women, but humility. And I don’t see self-sacrifice in the men, but self-awareness.
I don’t see anyone getting special credence for their opinions because they are one sex or the other, nor do I see anyone being summarily dismissed for the same reasons. I don’t see women saying stupid shit like “As a woman, I feel….” That is because they talk as human beings, with a high degree of personal agency, not as members of an entitled class who count on their vaginas for credibility or a pass.
I see at AVfM a community of men and women who live by the same rules, who all make it here or don’t make it by their ability to articulate their ideas and support them with logical arguments; who are measured by their values and principles, not by the size of their bust or wallet.
Even though there is a glaring problem with female entitlement in this culture, we don’t tell women to “check your privilege,” before they have demonstrated that they feel entitled to any. We don’t even require them to identify as an MRA. Simply human with an affection for truth and justice does just fine.
We do all this recognizing our fundamental differences as men and women, yet we do not let those differences shape our expectations of each other and ourselves. The things that connect us and nurture our mutual respect are sexless.
Does any such thing exist in feminists circles? The question itself is laughable.
In the exact opposite of the feminist norm, we are not burning bridges between the sexes, but building them. And we are doing it together, with women carrying the lumber and driving nails right alongside men who fully value their contribution. It is the most sexually equal place on the internet, and it is starting to hit the real world ground as well.
Yep, things have come a long way since 2008. We are now actually starting to see a movement, and we are doing it in the only way that could ever happen. Together.
If we never accomplish anything else, that will do just fine.
657 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Fredrik:
sowhat:
Sarah:
diablo:
Typhonblue (Asha James):
scatmaster:
Beautifully articulated. I couldn’t agree more.
Thanks for this reflection, Paul. Your sense of life in this article resounds with mine. As Ayn Rand said, “Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.”.
Anger may be what brought many individuals here, but that does not have to be the only fuel for action. Being able to accept joy in the process is much more powerful. This is pride in the proper sense, and you have earned it.
The change you mention about men giving up being on their horses is true. If it didn’t take so long for this little corner of the world, it doesn’t have to take so long for other places either.
Maybe that is because so many men were never aware of an alternative. They didn’t actually believe what they had been pursuing, but that it was “just what people do”.
It is ideas that have freed them. Freed them from the default programming of the culture. If advocated consistently, with integrity, the right ideas can and will win — and while they win on the outside, we can heal and grow on the inside.
Hear, hear.
Amen to that.
Hope is something we have now, wouldn’t want to let that slip. Keep the momentum, and keep the respect.
We should not deny that there are essential differences between male and female, but an acknowledgment of these differences does not preclude the possibility of men and women working together for justice and fairness in the world; there are many people who profit greatly from the world as it is, corrupted by hate and prejudice. We know that these people currently hold the reins of power, and our efforts as champions of mens rights/human rights — which, of course, are indistinguishable — need the support of all who align themselves to the cause of justice, regardless of their genitalia.
For most of history men and women worked together as a team in their family and in society, a system although imperfect, worked for the good of all.
Feminism upset the balance and in some cases rightly so as cultural and technological evolution freed us all from traditional sex roles and expanded our opportunities.
But there is no doubt feminism went too far, advocating only for one sex to have it all, and the other to pay for past circumstances that were none of their making.
The balance needs to be restored, the innate desire of men and women to work together, love each other provide for future generations is bound up in our genetic make code.
Women are important to this movement, many who are involved at an intellectual and moral level because they simply know right from wrong. Others because their experiences as partners, spouses, parents, siblings, or children, or friends of men damaged by feminisms excesses, recognise injustice and want to help correct it.
No matter how people arrive here, our job is to restore the balance to gender relations, and allow both sexes to adapt to changing circumstances for the good of future generations. That is we need to move away from ideologically biased and rigid constructs to evidence based understanding and policy.
Thank you to Paul and the AVFM team for shining a beacon in the darkness on this path to change and true equity.
Paul, this is a classic, even for you, because it hits home on a very basic level for me at least. For me it has never been about women vs men and it never will be. There are a lot of things that happen that do make it seem that way, but the most important thing to remember is that Feminism is BAD for almost everyone, not just men.
I have a daughter and I want Feminism crushed. If anyone has to ask why, you do not understand.
A great thank you to the women who support us. Not because it is so special to support basic human rights of human beings, but because you have not only shunned the privilege handed to you by this Feminist system, you are actively rallying against it.
I’ve noticed recently that one of the MRM’s sleeping giants is starting to open an eye: mothers who realize what is happening (and will happen) to their sons in a misandric society.
Personally, I would not like to face the pointy end of that particular spearhead if Girl Writes What and Nurdy Dancing epitomize it.
I’m looking forward to one day seeing an MRM weapon of mass destruction: A female Daddy Justice, or Mummy Justice if you like, who wants fairness for her sons.
I suspect she would cause white knights’ heads to implode and female feminists to disperse like scared rabbits.
It must be nice to have a mother like that. Mine used to abuse me while ranting about how men dominated women in society.
Sad to hear that. I have kids myself, and my definition of a good parent is simply a rock filled with infinite love and patience.
I hope the work people are doing here might stop the kind of abuse you experienced from a ‘primary carer’ being swept under the carpet.
I’m sorry to hear that, TheMoralGodless. I hope you can find peace despite that.
Just goes to show… one loving mother on her own is a more potent force carrying a far greater whallop than an army of entitled career-grrrl imbeciles riding the affirmative action gravy train.
For better or worse, men are not accepted in society until they are accepted by women. So, women deigning to nod their head at the MRM is no doubt a good sign.
AVfM’s focus on the humanity of men and women is the winning recipe. Humanitas as the Romans called it. Following the feminist dictum of separating all human activity into ‘male’ or ‘female’ behaviours is a recipe for estrangement.
Males and females relate better when they focus on those experiences we have in common -the bigger picture- rather than reducing everything to difference. The fact is that males and females are both among the homeless; both are among the mentally ill, both are among the impoverished; both suffer the impact of environmental degredation and the pollution, and so on. Males and females equally experience all emotions- jealousy, pride, elation, fear, anxiety, depression, or joy, and they equally suffer tiredness, hunger, heart attacks, diabetes, strokes, malaria or the common cold. We all appreciate the staples of life; kids, play, food, travel, work and we all enjoy the aesthetic rush of a sunrise, full moon, or nature scene. Why pretend we are radically different?
AVfM provides an opportunity to move beyond a singular consideration of gender to include the vast arena of human experience shared by men, women and children alike; our similarities deserve to be celebrated as vigorously as those things which differentiate or divide us.
Beautiful Tawil.
Your insight is a delight to meet.
You should be writing more of (and on) this in feature articles TAWIL !
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Depend greatly” is what he said, not “depend exclusively and completely” as you are trying to insinuate. He’s talking about male and female voices working together to improve the lot of human beings…. so no need to manufacture a false argument that we are being asked to “slide into dependence on women’s voices”… good attempt at hyperbole nonetheless.
Yes, DEPEND. As in, there will never be a men’s movement that succeeds without them.
Funny, these voices of division, speaking of “we,” are always from those whose voices I have never heard in the past.
I can name 20 women that have spoken more for men than I have ever heard from you. Shall I reject them and depend on men like you?
Well, human societies have a primeval instinct that if women accept a man/a group of men, these men are worthy of a second look. I don’t look at it as depending on anyone as I see it as gaining a level of respectability. Which is obviously important.
To be fair, I don’t think a women’s movement would have gotten too far without the support of men either. Having the support of men has always given feminism plenty of traction. When it comes to societal change, both women and men are necessary. Real change can’t come about with only one side of the equation.
This doesn’t mean lowering the standard or accepting “any woman” It mean’s woman that measure up. Nobody is suggesting that we give the feminists a seat at the table, or any woman that subscribes to woman firster rules, regulations, or laws. Any woman who supports anti-male misandric legislation is out. In other words, no feminists, no manginas, no white knights.
We exist, in a large part, to debunk feminism, and their lies and distortions. The women who join us must be on board with that. Look at the women we have on our team, as well as the regular commentators, writers, and financial contributors. These are the women Paul means. The Zeta women.
By the way, how much are you throwing into the fundraiser?
Irrelevant.
I hope we’re not degenerating into a “Give me money, or shut up” group.
I don’t think we are. In fact I know it because I would not allow it. I think Stu was making a point, and for one, I got it.
Men’s issues ARE human rights issues. Anyone who’s a mother, a sister, a daughter, or a wife or lover to a man has every reason to care about these things we talk about.
The men’s movement offers something to women what feminism promised but never delivered: treatment as fully mature adult human beings with all the rights AND responsibilities and consequences of same. It’s a slightly tougher road, but infinitely more rewarding.
Men and women need each other: that should not be a radical statement.
Damn shame I can’t hit that + button more than once Dean.
Well said.
I depend on a number of people directly and a whole heap indirectly in my life, of both genders.
There is a real problem with codependency but human society demands cooperative interdependence.
Given the number of men who are addicted to pussy worship we need good women.
Every one can make his own choice, but I’m not about to join a male separatist movement.
Quote: ‘I always knew though, that if the men’s movement was ever going to gain traction it would DEPEND greatly on the voices of women to do it.’
Why take one word out of context. As men and women stand shoulder to shoulder… for a better world and that is to rid it of feminism. I stand next to my husband Stu .. and always will. There is no dependence for a womens voice, but there needs to have a lot of women stand up and say..”We have had enough of the lies and manipulation of what feminism has done to this world”.
We need the women to turn against it, and to stand as ONE team (that is men and women) for equal rights, not just everything handed to women on a silver platter.
We need the women to speak to their daughters and sons, to be strong in their voices for the TRUTH and not to be brain washed into thinking that one sex is better than the other. But we also need to tell them that just because you are a women do not think that you can be the same as a men in certain aspects in your life. It is taking the best of a person and making it good for all.
If you look at how many women are now joining forces with the men – not just on here about a lot of other places, it is because they are sick and tired of the b/shit that has been brought about by feminism and the hurt it has done to the family unit, work places, health programmes, even in the law courts that’s just to name a few.
Ok that’s my 2 cents worth.
Paul, thanks for the great article. Also thank you to EVERYONE who has donated, no matter how much it is… every bit counts towards the final goal.
Exactly. I don’t look at it as “dependency”. The final goal depends upon women rejecting feminism. Some men will facilitate it (no matter what “it” is,really)if women want it.If women don’t want it,nobody will be able to convince them to adopt it. The crux of the problem is that equality is predicated upon the same conditions, if women reject it, it’ll be tough to enforce it against their wills.
That’s why if we want equality, we absolutely must have women who want it too. We’re certainly the ones making the case for it,both male and female MRA’s,not the women’s groups, so we’re not dependent on women,but the ultimate goal of the MRM is,to a large extent.
We’re peaceful. We’re not going to force women or feminists to accept equality at the end of,for instance, a box cutter,so that only leaves one way for us to be successful. Women must freely accept doing the right thing because it is the right thing. And I have faith that many women will,once we get our case out there.
A lovely thing happened this afternoon.
A young woman from the real estate came around to my flat today for the annual inspection. I was expecting her and I left the door open while I sat at my computer here in my kitchen.
She turned up in her starched linen suit and hair swept back in a bun and she looked very professional indeed.
I greeted her with a “G’day Anna mate” and she tilted her head a little and smiled. It was a generous smile. Her face relaxed and her guard came right down.
“It’s not common for a man to call me ‘mate’” she said. “I like it.”
I asked her ‘why’ and without pause she replied, “Because it’s a leveler.”
I knew exactly what she meant and said to that, “Yeah, like feminism aye?”
The peals of laughter that followed her as she went into the next room with her clipboard made my day I reckon.
Nice post but (as always:): ‘We must see women as responsible adults worthy of earned respect.’
If we wait for the ‘earned’ part, will there be respect?
I am not seeing many women (present company excluded, of course) doing much in the way of ‘earning.’
Yeah, but I can say the exact same thing for men.
Present company is all we have, brother.
Until we reach critical mass and go mainstream you won’t see many zeta women. There are decent women out there who don’t know there are other forms of femininity. My own path being a zeta has been lonely a times, much as I like guys I hungered for female friendships where other women had adult agency. I’ve finally got that
What do you by “zeta women”? I haven’t heard that said before.
There might be a definition of a Zeta woman around here somewhere that i havn’t read. TyphonBlue did talk about it on a radio program once, and others regularly mention the phrase “Zeta woman” or “Zeta humanitarian woman” or just “Zeta” etc. Apparently it can apply to a man too.
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that unlike feminists who want equality for women alone but not for men (they actively resist the notion of equality for men), Zeta women advocate equality for both sexes. A Zeta woman is what feminists pretend to be but are not.
Another definition is that the Zeta woman tends to focus on humanitarianism (regardless of sex) whereas feminism tends to advocate humanitarianism in a bizarre female centered way – hence the gender specific axiom that “Feminism is the notion of treating women as humans” – note that it is not aimed at treating “all people” as humans.
Hope that made sense… I’d like to see how others define the phrase. In fact I’d love to see a full article written about this topic.
Zeta male was said to be a man aloof of the alpha/beta/omega rat-race of pursuing intercourse at all possible times and by also refraining from putting anyone on a pedestal.
Instead they pursue their own life goals which benefit themselves and seek a partner who is compatible with what they want – or at least that’s what I think of it.
How it applies to a female would be very similar I suppose, perhaps getting away from cosmetics and other materialistic consumption and instead enhancing their lifestyle, seeking their own fulfilment etc.
I dunno.
@Adam: “Zeta male was said to be a man aloof of the alpha/beta/omega rat-race of pursuing intercourse at all possible times and by also refraining from putting anyone on a pedestal… How it applies to a female would be very similar I suppose..”
That makes sense, think I may have even heard it somewhere before. Its a very different definition to the one i gave above….. Which one is right? Maybe both definitions belong together? I’m going to have to leave this one for someone else to clarify.
Any takers?
What is so amusing to me is that right now over here on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1c3RFl_HVI
…Typhon Blue is arguing with a self-professing MRA who claims her and other women’s presence in the MRA is them pulling men’s string’s to arrange things to their own convenience and–get this, it’s even better–that women must SURRENDER THEIR AGENCY in order for things to get better for men.
That’s right, we need teh wimmenz to give up all their power and surrender it to us. Because having my woman give up all her power to me will make me free? Um, yeah, no, that’s making me her slave, dummy.
By the way Typhon, still can’t get enough of the Sugar Glider hat and pipe.
I’m trying to write day in the life of a zeta woman but can’t quite get the tone right!
I’m agreeing with the wider humanitarian perspective and with a certain amount of anti-consumerism, I’m trying to also emphasise the adult agency that marks out a zeta.
Some articles from this website regarding Zeta. Think they mainly refer to the masculine, but presumably it would relate to the feminine in most instances.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/defining-and-implementing-zeta-masculinity/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/so-what-the-fuck-is-a-zeta-male-anyway/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/zeta-masculinity-for-dummies/
@Aimee: “I’m trying to write day in the life of a zeta woman but can’t quite get the tone right! I’m agreeing with the wider humanitarian perspective and with a certain amount of anti-consumerism, I’m trying to also emphasise the adult agency that marks out a zeta.”
Wow, am really looking forward to that!! And yeas agree with the centrality of agency. I guess you will have to harvest the various explanations of Zeta floating around here and amalgamate them into one if possible. Maybe you could do a bunch of subheadings and fill them out with more info:
- A Zeta has agency
- A Zeta is not a slave to capitalism and fashion
- A Zeta transcends status rankings (eg. Alpha)
- A zeta believes in true equality
- A Zeta believes champions both sexes as humans
- A Zeta goes her own way (GHOW)
(etc – whatever)
I think there’s something to be said for how the Zeta sees all people as human as opposed to the reductionist notion of humanitarianism that says “feminism is the radical notion that women are human”.
This will be a valuable article as it will serve as a reference point and definition for Zeta women.
Thanks for the links Dean and Turbo. Now that Aimie is playing with writing an article these will come in handy for her research.
The AVfM radio program Aimee cites below is going to be a really core one as it specifically cites the concept of the female Zeta.
Check out AVfM radio shows, I think it was in July ‘Introducing zeta femininity’ a JtO, GWW and TB classic
“Rather than see that simple and obvious reality and pursue solutions that pushed for a balance between agency and responsibility, feminists just pushed for and got more measures to infantilize women and burden men with the responsibility for it. They got there by exploiting the very sex roles they pretended to critique and deconstruct, resulting in two generations of women-children that were trained to hate and fear the men who were expected to enable their petty entitlements.”
– Frame that one.
“We are now actually starting to see a movement, and we are doing it in the only way that could ever happen. Together.”
– This, too.
Like any relational arguement, once the drama subsides and the air is cleared there’s always the next moment or day to carry on with one hopefully knowing and valuing a little more about the other.
But there must be clarity on what the original spat was all about. And that both parties want to make it happen.
Glad to know that I can come here for both.
Great article, feminism could never convince me they’re as equality minded as the MRM to matter how hard they tried.
Speaking of this, does anyone know yet if there will be women on the MRA side in the “has feminism gone too far” debate?
Paul writes about “failing to recognize the value of women in particular is not only hypocritical, it is also foolish.”
Many AVfM readers have read the following post, but some have not. If you have not yet read it do so now. This is the single most important post on The Unknown History of MISANDRY.
“A Woman’s Voice”
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/06/womans-voice.html
Think about it. Quote it. Link it. Wake up others to the bigger picture that belies the fraud that is called “herstory.”
Sterling work Robert, and it is an important piece. The post provides an example Zeta women sticking up for men against misandry long before many had thought misandry and Zeta women even existed.
In fact an alternative title for this collection could be “The early history of the Zeta woman”.
I have never heard the problem explained this well before:
“Feminists just pushed for and got more measures to infantilize women and burden men with the responsibility for it. They got there by exploiting the very sex roles they pretended to critique and de-construct, resulting in two generations of women-children that were trained to hate and fear the men who were expected to enable their petty entitlements.”
Beautiful and insightful exposition of the fundamental problem: feminism has become distilled sexism.
If I can add my two cents to it this:
“Even though there is a glaring problem with female entitlement in this culture, we don’t tell women to “check your privilege ” ”
One important “cast” that feminists employ, and that the MRM should avoid, is the gay male cast. Gay men are allowed to be sub-human cheerleaders of the feminist movement, but can never be assertive. Feminism has attempted to reduce homosexual men to a caricature of themselves, like an exotic zoo animal that that serves to solidify the feminist contempt of all men. In fact, 90% of gay men are MEN. They are not histrionic emotional cripples who think that the world is a stage performance with first prize for the most garish and exotic extravagance.
There’s a lot of gay men in the MRM nowadays (always?), but here’s the ‘weird’ thing…
Unless they are openly making it part of their online identity, I have absolutely no fucking clue who is gay and who isn’t.
Weirder still, I don’t really give a fuck, except as an interesting viewpoint/article to read. Do I have an opinion on ‘gay issues’ being brought up in MRA spaces?
You bet your ass I do. I think there should be a lot MORE of these ‘side issues’ brought up here and elsewhere. I think Black (African American? Who can keep up with PC these days?) writers, gay writers, asian writers, plaid and polkadot writers, what have you….all of them should write great articles that outline their experiences.
And AVfM does a great job here, to be frank, although there is always room for improvement.
Point is, all of these types of men are MEN first (usually), and if it gets right down to it, I would bet a lot that most men would be shocked at how common each of these groups’ life experiences are to each other.
As far as I’m concerned, this kind of thing should be a natural characteristic of any ‘real MRA’ type movement, rather than a political viewpoint movement wrapped in an MRM flag (such as some New Right websites, or r/mensrights on the other end of the scale).
There’s no brownie points for the “Amen Chorus” but just to punctuate a point:
“…claiming to be a human rights movement and not including everyone is a deadly hypocrisy that can only lead to a reversal of our recent fortunes”
Amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen, amen.
Yes, everyone can be included, as long as they do not support ideologies that contradict the aims and goals of the MRM.
Great article. We can not build this movement by excluding women or being hostile towards those that truly back our cause. That would cause us to stoop to the level of feminists who view men as the enemy. We must show our true colors- that of true gender equality and fighting for the rights of humans as a whole. Maybe one day when politicians say they are campaigning for the women’s vote, there will be enough of them on our side that those politicians will be catering to our cause.
Ending the disdain and distrust that women have for men that Feminism created is all anyone could ask for. There are moments when women are down right hostile, but just in the last decade or so men are becoming hostile right back again. That’s not a good development.
It’s going to take men AND women to make peace again, and no “they started it” or “they’re worse than us.” It’s getting men and women to actually like each other again. That’s a tall order, but impossible without both of their involvement.
Perhaps feminists will start allowing a debate to take place, OMG!
Well said, Keyster!
Paradoxically, peace and understanding (liking) come from combat…that is from war. The very reason we don’t have peace and tend to loathe one another is because the Victims’ Revolution (The Rise of Identity Politics and the Closing of the Liberal Mind by Bawer) has resulted in the prohibition of genuine combat between men and women. Thankfully, feminists or no feminists, that combat is beginning to occur once more.
Fantastic article, Mr. Elam!! To be honest, I feel this is one of the few sites that promotes true “equal rights” between men and women. I don’t understand all the bashing at all. Those who don’t get it don’t try to see it. They don’t read the articles here. They don’t open their minds to the truth. They are stuck forever in their bitter misery until they accept there is another way — a better way where we can all live in peace.
And I encourage women to help promote this site. To anyone who has a father, brother, husband, partner or son – we have to care about the future of men.
Thank you AvFM!! You are making such a difference.
Some of them come here looking to find misogyny and they find it in articles like the “bash a bitch” article and the “run jezebel down” one. If they’re looking for misogyny, then that’s what they’re going to see. They won’t bother examining the broader context of the articles, or comparing them to the original feminist content they are critiquing.
This article makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I feel some hope for the future of the relations between the sexes. I want manboobz to write an entry about this article. (Not that I care what he thinks, I just enjoy mocking his ‘mocking misogyny’ to myself.)
This really is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Far as I can see, feminists are the ones who started the war of the sexes. Why did they do it? They took a leaf out of Napoleon’s book–”Divide and Conquer”. By creating this false idea that men have been oppressing women, feminists have been able to win sympathy and use it to elevate themselves to positions of power.
I’ve personally asked Amanda Marcotte and David Futrelle a question: “If the Men’s Rights Movement is so horribly insane, and their ideas so blatantly wrong, why do you spend so much time and energy attacking them?” I haven’t received an answer from either of them (surprise, surprise), but the answer is quite obvious: because we’re a threat to their power base, we’re a threat to gender dogmatism, and we’re a threat to female supremacy. Without all of those things, Marcotte and Futrelle (and Jessica Valenti with them) will literally go broke, having no other marketable skills or credentials.
We’re not trying to bring about patriarchy, either. Men and women aren’t supposed to be competing. We’re supposed to be cooperating. I’ve never had a problem with women spreading their ideas in the MRM. Female =/= feminist.
The trick they used for the longest time, and it worked pretty good here in America, and it still works a little bit (although it’s losing its potency) is to divide men by race and by sexual orientation.
Guess who’s making them stop doing that? The fucking Canadians. I’m not even kidding about that. Also the Australians, but that’s to a lesser extent.
No, it’s Canada that’s leading the way, and I think I have put my finger on why it’s not Australia, not the UK, not America, but Canada. And it’s probably Canada that’s going to show the most progress the most quickly. It’s also where the fight is going to be the most bitter, but also where it’s going to be most easily won. Australia (probably) won’t be too far behind. The UK and the US will probably the most intractable, and I can’t even predict which will be slowest but I’m guessing it’s the US that will be the worst straggler–ironically enough, because its anti-feminist sentiment is already highest. (Wrap your head around that one if you can, because I’m serious.)
By the way, I’m an American. Just to clear up any sense someone has that I’m glorifying my nonexistent Canadian heritage.
This may be worthy of a front page article, because the thesis is so long, but I’m not sure anyone would be interested enough or find it useful.
But let’s put it this way: Americans and Canadians like teasing each other, but, I really did notice early on here, “damn there are a lot of Canadians.” At first I was joking a little until I noticed: no seriously, there are a LOT of Canadians. WAY out of proportion to Americans. Canada has 10% of America’s population, but when I look at the number of activists in Canada getting shit done… dude, they’re way more than 10% of the effort. Their presence is way out of proportion. That is not a complaint, it’s an observation, and I’ve been chewing on “why” for a long time. It can’t even have anything to do with Paul Elam who, as a Texan, south-Central Texas at that, almost as far as you can get from Canada and still be in the continental 48 states. So, why Canada’s overrepresentation here? There’s nothing WRONG with that per se, but why? And as tempting as it is to pull out some kind of joke about hockey or beer or whatever, I think there’s a serious reason:
I believe now know why. And in a very meaningful way, Canada’s going to be our salvation. The Canadian presence: it is no joke. Canada is key, and it’s not by accident.
Shit, I’m out of time but… watch Canada. They aren’t just putting the rest of us to shame. They’re in front for a reason, and they’re going to be key to changing things elsewhere.
More later, if anyone gives a shit, but I suddenly love Canada more than ever.
It could be because Canada has been steeped in political correctness for some time now, and there is a hunger for the plain truth.
I’d be really interested in hearing your thoughts on that Dean. Not in some small measure because I really REALLY want to start a non-profit here to fill in some gaps, and insight is EXTREMELY badly needed (along with legal advice and start up cash and Board members).
And you’re not exactly all talk and no trousers, so I assume there’s some good stuff to be had.
Well, better than my own personal theory, which is that we’re all a bunch of pot smoking peaceniks up here….
I got into the MRM I think in 2007, after a few bitter red pills in 2006.m At that time, I knew of no women anywhere in the movement. (There were also a lot fewer places for guys back then). Once in a while, a female would post a comment, and then a few more comments, and then they’d out themselves as a conservative that wanted to go back to the 1950s. I was very suspicious about any woman saying they were an MRA. Oh how things have changed since then. I am much less suspicious, and have a hell of a lot more hope for growth. And for that, my red-pill sisters, I sincerely thank you.
Yep, things have come a long way since 2008. We are now actually starting to see a movement, and we are doing it in the only way that could ever happen. Together.
If we never accomplish anything else, that will do just fine.
Paul absolutely loved this article.
I would like to touch upon this last little bit of it.
When I first had my eyes opened in 2009 on just how discriminatory and sexist the injustice system was here in Ontario I thought I was alone, and I was.
I was alone via my own ignorance as to what all was going on in regards to MRM.
I was also very ignorant as to how many issues men and boys faced.
Something I sheepishly admit to.
Then I started to dig around, look around.
I believe I first stumbled across your youtube channel.
My first thoughts were hot damn this guy is spot on in his views. I was also disappointed in that you were not in Canada.
Still my eyes, through your vids started opening. I became more aware.
I followed some of the people who were commenting on your channel.
If memory serves me, this lead me to JTO’s old youtube channel. I thought to myself right-fucken-on We got ourselves a Canuck saying the same things this guy with a southern drawl was saying, scratch that proving.
And then his channel disappeared.
I have to say I was disappointed that his first channel was gone.
I continued to march on here in Ontario.
Some time passed, and then I came across a link to AVfM.
I started reading, absorbing, mentally ingesting what was being said here.
I was in awe at the articles being penned, not due to their readability (they are extremely readable) but because I was able to learn I was able to expand my knowledge in the field of issues facing men and boys at an exponential pace.
I lurked for a bit just reading and absorbing the information located here, testing the waters. I screwed up some courage and finally joined up and posted my first comment on and article.
From there I started making AVfM a site I visited daily.
Fast forward to last Christmas, you put up an article with warm wishes for all. I found it struck a ear shattering chord with me.
I as well believe that around the same time you had one of your fundraising drives going on. I promised that I would give some of my Christmas money to help fund AVfM, it wasn’t much in terms of the amount I was able to give but it was in fact about 20% of my Christmas money.
Something else happened the godfather of posters Karma said, get them posters up.
Something I had already done for my own plight here in Hamilton.
“Fuck it I said to myself. If Karma can do it in his part of the world. I can do it in my part of the world.”
And I did.
My first poster run was back in February of this year.
It wasn’t and won’t be the last.
However I did notice something when I first started my poster runs. It was that women who happened to stop and ask what all my posters were about would agree with what the word I was spreading.
That word was from your Christmas article, “men matter”.
I kept on visiting AVfM and noticed women were commenting here and of course Dr. T was here as well.
Mighty big shout out to her for her words and work.
Now when I come to AVfM I see the words of GWW Typhon Bleu (typo intentional loved the last show), Nurdy and Aimee. There are other women as well and I am sorry if I have forgotten to mention you, so please take no offense to my tired memory.
So now I see the MRM is working together with these wonderful women who see the horse shyte dogma of feminism for what it truly is, and I agree this is the only way for the movement to continue, to grow, to end the cancerous damage of feminism.
I highly doubt Paul, that the MRM’s accomplishments will stop here.
I look back at my own experiences for proof of that.
Yesterday I was one, today we are two tomorrow we will be legion for we are growing. And that legion will be a force to be reckoned with for we are doing this together, men and women.
i have had pretty much the same experience and welcome the female contributors. i still wonder what happened to the mra that helped me reclaim my rights with maintenance enforcement and told me i didnt have to sell my house as they suggested to pay them off and since then i havent seen any mention of anyone doing flesh and blood advocacy with the child support people because to be honest everything changed once i had someone else speaking to them for me and i recommend it to everyone, shoot i would recommend that everyone who pays support find someone else who does and handle each others claims, the whole attitude of maintenance enforcement changes once you arnt the client and they know they cant do anything to you it becomes less of a power trip for them and its very obvious thru their communications.
DannyBoy,
You exemplify what we are about here. Your actions on the street are just some. You follow through with your hundreds of photos and your continual searching for something else to give, and boy you do that alright. All that digging and digging online and finding names of the misandric and collating your hundreds and hundreds of pages with other data is pretty impressive. Oh,and your YT vids uncovering lies about DV in Canada is a hoot.
You feel alone sometimes I know, we all do I reckon, but getting out there and mixing it up with the poster-scratchers and those that like what you are doing staves that away I’ll guess. Being on Skype and sharing your stories is another way and that in itself is the A in MRA. It is because it’s a reminder as to our being here.
I talk to you on Skype regularly and every time I do I am amazed at how you just press on and on. You’re like a Terminator of posters or something and you do it all with a laugh no matter the day you’ve had.
Getting to know you more each week is a pleasure and trying to catch up with what you are doing at any one time is not so easy, but it’s damned interesting and very satisfying.
I wrote this just now, for you mate, because not always credit and recognition goes to where it’s deserved and all the more so when we can be far away geographically.
Yes, I admit it, I’m a DannyBoy fan. (but not a schoolgirl giggly fan. Just a Dr. F giggly fan)
Check it out, your first post here 2010/08/15
———————————————————
Hey paul, love the site! But i would like to see part 2 of zeta game. hope you find some time to make a few videos here and there, anyway have a good week
Yee gads man has it really been that long?
I guess it has.
I shall pay you the same compliment me ole cocker getting to know you has been extremely rewarding.
We are a busy lot us activists and it does get somewhat difficult to keep up with everyone and their activities. Why can’t their be 48 hours in a day I wonder to myself sometimes.
Colour me a Dr.F fan and am always trying to make sure I catch your shows and comments. The way you turn a phrase has me in stitches some days, on others I am in awe at your word wizardry and poignant insight.
Your mention of my ability to laugh even when times are tough, well sir that comes from something my father said to me many years ago. It was in regards to work and I’ve applied to any aspect of my life that involved work. And yes I do consider the MRM work, but it is a labour of love to be honest.
What he said to me was “if you’ve got a job to do and can enjoy a laugh along the way so much the better.”
I miss him some days but take comfort believing that there is something beyond this earthly plane and he is smiling and nodding his head saying “that’s my boy there St Peter we best make sure there’s a cold one waiting for him when his time comes.”
It does get somewhat lonely sometimes. Someone once commented on a thread here stating if you want to loose friends just tell them your a men’s rights activist. They were right. (think it was Stu)
I am humbled by your compliment that I exemplify what we are about here, but the true credit should be given to those who blazed the path before me, yes Paul that would be you and others who got together one night in a small corner of the internet and laid down tracks.
It is those generals who blazed the path that exemplify the MRM, and as long as there is this battle of the sexes being waged by feminism against men and boys I am foot soldier, theirs to command.
And on that note I shall bid this comment adieu,
For I do believe I’ve graduated
Fuck their shit up U.
I ve been reading and searching the archives of AVfm for a few months now and this article, I beleive, is one of the best and may be the inflection point for the movement.Feminism only saw half the population but also only succeeded when a critical mass of men allowed them to flourish. The MRM needs that critical mass as well and its coming because what’s right usually succeeds.
Now is the time to rekindle the ERA dialogue because we actually need it more than feminists do. It would be impossible for the feminist movement to not support it at this point. Ratification of ERA would help many of the areas men are disadvantaged in and it would provide a means for men to get justice that feminists cannot deconstruct since it ‘s their own baby to begin with.
Thanks Paul, my moneyorder is in the mail.
Thank you, Chis for the kind words and the financial support.
I see I’m not the only one who thinks it’s time to revive the ERA. Although at this point I’m cycnical; as the privileged class, I don’t think the women of America will be willing to relinquish their power and control by having to face up to the Equal Rights Amendment’s consequences. But I could be wrong. Getting behind a push to revive it would be a smart move for a number of reasons.
I see I’m not the only one who thinks it’s time to revive the ERA. Although at this point I’m cynical; as the privileged class, I don’t think the women of America will be willing to relinquish their power and control by having to face up to the Equal Rights Amendment’s consequences. But I could be wrong. Getting behind a push to revive it would be a smart move for a number of reasons.
If I could put into a sentence why I am here and why I contribute:
My experience leads me to believe that we need a new start at correcting social and gender inequality, the MRM is that new start.
Let’s learn from the mistakes of feminism and create a truly equitable society where diversity is valued and talent is rewarded. Let’s make it possible for all people to achieve their full adult potential.
Not asking for much eh?
I have said it and said it often that if we are ever to be anything we have to be better than the feminist. One of their greatest downfalls was that they welcomed men, but only as a tool to get what they wanted or as long as they fell in line with their ideals!
I might be an MGHOW, but I am very proud of this website and I am very happy that it has become a place of willful diversity and ethnicity!
Who knows! Maybe their will even come a day where there will no longer be MRASs or WRAs, but humanist!
Only time will tell!
The day men and women have the same rights and accountabilities is the day I walk away from MGTOW.
Same here!
However, I get the distinct feeling that day won’t come to pass….
Yes!
Without the differences and cooperation between men and women the world would just become a lonely dust bowl. We are all human, we are all needed for the continuation of our species, positively growing with both sides of the human equation.
I mean according to radical feminism science can replace males in reproduction and children do not need fathers. That is totally wrong, our species needs both sexes to grow in a healthy way, and the MRA is showing an health example of that cooperation. With equal contributions to a modern society that can be open minded and not filled with false dogma.
I believe the men’s movement, just like my other affiliation of libertarianism, needs to proceed with caution when it comes to the inclusion of women. I’ve spoken to many that will claim to be allies, but dig deeper and they still really want special treatment, privileges and access to someone else’s wealth via state force. Two generations of fully getting away with this isn’t going create a deep understanding that accountability and responsibility are just as important as equality and liberty. It does seem to cultivate more of an “as seen on TV” superficial agreement with these principles from my experience. I welcome females into the men’s rights as well as the liberty movements, but I will do it with a healthy dose of cynicism.
Yes, I once got in a screaming match with a “libertarian” female who said all female-oriented social spending should be excluded from budget cuts libertarians recommend.
I came here this morning to post a link to a news article about a man who had run foul of the White ribbon foundation in Australia. I have no doubt there will be attempts to discredit and demonize him.
This article is too important to be diverted off into a side track by me and to Paul all can say is this is the crystalization of what everybody is striving for but had not been able to articulate. I thank you for enabling this and helping bring together all the different threads into one overall goal and aim.
Thanks Bev. How could I find out more & help?
Gender feminism was never going to last. Falsehoods and injustice eventually give way to more noble ambitions. It’s just a matter of time. Too much time is unfortunately the norm.
It is said that it is very dangerous to be the first with a righteous idea that challenges the status quo. None more so than an idea whose time has come. Before that time, it is ignored. After that time, it was obvious. At the right time, it is dangerous.
The women here are invaluable. Would it be simplistic to suggest that if a black man had refused to give up his bus seat rather that Rosa Parks, he may have just been punished (or lynched); rather than propelling forward a Human Rights Movement?
Well said! Having been away for 10 years, I was surprised to read, however, that in 2008 it was still considered radical for you to point out the absolute necessity of women’s equal participation in the “men’s” (equalitarian) movement. In the late 90s while the followers of Iron Joe Bob were busy banging drums and hoisting talking sticks to celebrate their manliness by, among other things, condemning the MRM, and then slinking home to hide their masculinity in the back of the closet until next month, many members of the MRM, including luminaries like Warren Farrell, were calling for women to be our equal partners in the effort because without them we could never succeed. I had hoped this matter would have been settled by 2008, but I’m grateful to see that under your leadership, we are finally getting past that.
Feminism IS misogyny… in the literal sense of the word.
I beleive the inclusion of like-minded sincere women into the MRM is absolutely vital. Many of these women hold positions of influence, their views being all the more credible because they are women. We need to embrace these women who expose the Sisterhood for what it has become.
There are many examples whom you all know and who post here but here are some more:
Senator Anne Cools of the Canadian senate often speaks to the issues of Domestic Violence debunking the prevailing BS with true unfiltered statistics showing men and women as equal perpetrators.
http://victoria.tc.ca/Community/MensCentre/coolart.html
and
http://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/541
Professors Denise Hines and Emily Douglas who are doing honest research into DV and the victimization of men.
http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/publications/
There are many more but these are the few I ve read about lately. The importance of these female detractors of the Sisterhood should not be under-appreciated.
Great article, even better message! Incredibly hard to disagree, especially after enjoying the caliber of work from our female contributors for the past few months.
However, I must admit that when I read the comment from TheSameDog, I recognized an argument that I had been having in my own head for some time. I have no conclusive way of knowing if this is his position, but it IS mine.
I think it was the situation described by GirlWritesWhat that captured it best. If my memory serves, she expressed her pride that her daughter chose to speak on Men’s Rights for a class assignment. Her teacher stood up after and revealed “if you had been a man, no-one would have taken you seriously,”
This is deeply frustrating for me, not because people are more willing to listen to a women, and certainly not because the MRM will benefit from their contributions (which we already have in so many ways). It’s frustrating because it is yet another indication of how disadvantaged men truly are.
Man: “Men in our society are facing severe problems and we need help!”
Society: “Hmmm… I don’t know… do any women agree with you? Because if they did then I would HAVE to give you a fair go! Come back when someone important thinks you deserve help.”
As TheMoralGodless eloquently put it: “For better or worse, men are not accepted in society until they are accepted by women. So, women deigning to nod their head at the MRM is no doubt a good sign.” It is a good sign that our message is garnering more mainstream approval, and approval from women is vital to our success. But doesn’t recognizing that we cannot make positive changes in our society prior to reaching a minimum level of female endorsement make us a tad hypocritical whenever we lament the white-knight obsession with winning female approval? I do recognize the difference, namely that the MRM never changed its position in order to gain that approval, but I also recognize the irony of requiring women’s permission to be able to tell other women I don’t require their permission to live my life.
As I’m sure Dr. T has paraphrased at some point on her fantastic blog, the single most powerful (literally life-saving) truth I learned in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is that the only entity in the universe responsible for your emotions, your identity, your boundaries and your happiness is yourself. Placing that responsibility on anything else is a recipe for disaster. The realisation that I must entrust my agency to a third-party in order to see my basic rights acknowledged is precisely the reason I am an MRA.
I do not begrudge that my voice is strengthened by others’, but I lament that my own voice is deemed unworthy to be heard for its own sake.
So, those are the two sides of this coin as I see it. Hopefully that’s not too antagonistic!
I think you definitely have a valid point, and the same thoughts were going through my head as I read the article as well. (The article is excellent, of course.)
Luckily, I think what is going on is not as simple as “women are taken seriously on gender issues and men aren’t”. The question of motivation is probably playing a larger role. When a man is arguing for men’s rights, people are bound to question his motivations as they can seem self-serving. However, when a woman does it the motivations become less cut-and-dry. It’s just harder to write her off because “She must be a traditionalist, and brainwashed by the patriarchy” isn’t nearly as strong an argument as “He’s a selfish man who is trying to promote patriarchy for his own benefit, and doesn’t care what happens to women.” Especially when you start paying attention to what female MRA’s say, and realize they can’t all be traditionalists!
I would argue, even, that male voices in feminism have been similarly powerful for the same reason. When men started saying, “women have been historically disadvantaged” the message became even more powerful when the supposed oppressors were acknowledging the oppression themselves.
Think of it as analogous to a large corporation lobbying the govt. People are going to assume the corporation’s motives are self-serving. But if the regular folks who would be affected start saying, “Yes, we agree with the corporation’s position,” then people might start to question whether there might be some merit to the corporation’s side of the argument after all.
The double standard where women are usually allowed to “toot their own horn” about gender equality and men generally aren’t remains, though. This goes back again, to the tendency to protect women and tell men to suck it up.
Agreed
From his perspective, Jack Donovan describes MRA’s as Feminists+, arguing that our primary complaint is that feminists did not go far enough in eliminating sex roles, meaning they eliminated female sex roles as a constraint but did not liberate males from theirs. I see much fallacy in this, our actual complaint being that they didn’t just eliminate female sex roles, but that they’ve proceeded to fuck men royally by exploiting theirs. But beyond that, I have been mulling it over and wondering if there is any accuracy or value in his description. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
I agree with his argument in general. He doesn’t say anything about feminists going too far, but he might be just skipping that part for simplicity’s sake (or to make his message more palatable to the general public that doesn’t see feminism as a threat).
After all, he is just talking about elimination of sex roles here, he’s not saying that there isn’t extra protection given to one sex. (Though one can easily argue that feminism STRENGTHENS traditional female roles, but again, we’re better off leaving that out of this for simplicity’s sake, and when considering the audience.)
Thanks tallwheel, that makes sense.
So then, while heretical, is it somewhat correct to say that MRA’s are the feminists that feminists claimed to be but turned out not to be?
It gets really confusing because ‘feminism’ is such a dichotomous, meaningless, bastardized, incoherent term it might as well cease to be used. But for these purposes I’m just trying to make a little sense out of it. I think what I’m kind of getting at is whether the MRM could be considered to have something in common with any element of any shred, even historical, of meaning that could be usefully ascribed to the shit term ‘feminism’. lol
Yes. I think that’s basically what he’s saying. Warren Farrell also says basically the same thing in more than one of his books. (He usually doesn’t mention MRA’s but I think his words are “Men freed women but forgot to free themselves”.)
Got it. Excellent.
This brings me to my final, main and broad point. This makes the MRM a very revolutionary thing. It also makes it a very experimental thing. If we define feminism as the elimination of socially enforced sex roles predicated on a belief that biological sex, male or female, is not a significant determinant of behavior on an individual or societal level, rather chalking it all up to synthetic ‘gender roles’, then this provides a logical foundation upon which to discard gender roles without issue. However, if on the other hand, biological sex of male or female is a primary determinant of behavior both individual and societal, then wouldn’t we naturally consider the ramifications of eliminating the sex roles.
What I’m getting at is this. The TradCon perspective essentially holds that while socialization may play a significant role in our lives, biology and human nature- in this case sex determinant behavior and dynamics- are relatively constant through time. This is far from an unreasonable perspective, one must agree. In this context, the *Feminist* and MRM perspective is actually a Progressive one, out on a limb, acting on the belief that we can if we do x, everything is gonna be great.
To make this more poignant, just because females have fared extremely well with the elimination of sex roles, does that necessarily mean that men will fare well? Could it be that due to the natural dynamics of the sexes, say for example, female sexuality and sexual selection, female autonomy will ultimately exclude most males from reproduction? Marriage can in some light be seen as a great equalizer, a tamer of female sexual hypergamy for the ‘greater good’ (civilization). In a sense, the whole feminist shtick could be seen as this hypergamic nature exerting itself and throwing off these ‘shackles’ so to speak. I’m not placing a value judgement on it one way or the other. God knows I love freedom and want women to be entirely free. Yet I can’t help but be hit with the question, what does it mean for men? 50,000 years of sex roles, arising similarly and independently among cultures, successful ones, all across the globe, might give us pause as to the why. And what the alternative is. That said, I fucking hate sex roles and you could not drag me back into them. Free, fully functioning women are the most beautiful kind. But what does it mean for men?
It depends on your definition of feminism. If it’s about deconstructing gender roles or achieving equality, there are similarities.
But if you look at the actual actions of feminists you can see a very strong common theme between them and traditionalism. That theme is this:
Women define men.
Both traditionalists and feminists reserve for women the right to define men. Women ‘civilize’ men.
I believe the MRM, at it’s root, is about men reclaiming their right to define themselves. When they regain this right, the issue of disposability disappears.
You have to make a slave define himself according to his use to his master before he is truly a slave.
Mr. Donovan seems to see men defining _themselves_ as abnegating traditional masculinity(which he values highly). And he’s right. MRAs are fundamentally abnegating the notion that women define men. Either by women’s weakness, women’s service or women’s sex.
@TyphonBlue: “Both traditionalists and feminists reserve for women the right to define men. Women ‘civilize’ men.”
Well said TB. The ancient greeks had a Goddess devoted to this specific task of civilizing men and heroes. She was called, “The Tamer” and she was considered the most important goddess in the pantheon, ie. she had the highest status.
I wrote the following about Hera on another thread but its worth repeating:
“She was the Goddess of power and marriage, and her primary cosmic function was that of “tamer” of men, heroes, horses and livestock. She was even considered the tamer of the seasons. This Goddess is an age-old archetype of socially constructed womanhood. Here is a Google Book detailing her civilizing, taming nature. Unfortunately the book is written by a feminist, but the facts of taming and bridling are laid bare despite the feminist apologetics. Is it any wonder that women are attracted to wrangling with “wild untamed males”, or that young girls love riding and controlling ponies…. they are practicing taming (!!!!!!) and their Goddess is none other than the ultimate Tamer, Hera.”
Warren Farrell provides a revealing story about Hera from Greek myth that spells it out:
The Hero As Slave:
Once upon a time, a mother who wanted to see the beautiful statue of Hera had no oxes or horses to carry her there. But she did have two sons. And the sons wanted more than anything to make their mother’s wish come true. They volunteered to yoke themselves to a cart and take her over the mountains in the scorching heat to the faraway village of Argos, the home of the statue of Hera (the wife of Zeus). Upon their arrival in Argos, the sons were cheered and statues (that can be found to this day) were built in their honor. Their mother prayed that Hera give her sons the best gift in her power. Hera did that. The boys died. The traditional interpretation? The best thing that can happen to a man is to die at the height of his glory and power. Yet had this been a myth of two daughters who had substituted themselves for oxen to carry their father somewhere, would we have interpreted the daughters’ deaths as proof that the best thing that can happen to a woman is to die at the height of her glory and power? The statues and cheers can be seen as bribes for the sons to value their lives less than their mother’s request to view a statue. The fact that the statue was of Hera, the queen of the Olympian gods and protector of married women is symbolic. The sons’ sacrifice symbolized the mandate for men to become strong enough to serve the needs of mothers and marriage, and to be willing to call it glory if they died in the process. Which is why the name Hercules means “for the glory of Hera”.
Enter MRM: Men need to define themselves apart from Hera’s concept that males are civil servants to women.
Leaving aside my traditional complaint (“feminism” doesn’t fucking mean anything specific, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean the moment it comes out of his mouth and whatever the listener wants to hear the moment they hear it, rendering it as useful a term as “flfhoufouhlaf”):
Typhon and I have been talking about this a lot and I recently unearthed a juicy quote which sums up, in one incredible paragraph, written by a far-left feminist who quotes a far-right conservative traditionalist in approvingly “humorous” context, the same idea: WOMEN CIVILIZE MEN.
This is something both traditionalist conservatives and gender-ideologue feminists seem to believe to their core: men are fundamentally beasts, beasts who need to be tamed, and it’s women who do it. Men DEFINE themselves by their utility and service to women, and if they fail that, they aren’t really men, and they’d rather die.
I’ll spare you the quote because I have plans for it for an upcoming thing I’m doing for Dr F’s radio show (so Typhon and Girlwriteswhat, no stealing it!) but afterwards everyone can use it.
But when you see this for what it is: that right-wing, conservative traditionalists and misandrist feminists BOTH believe THE EXACT SAME THINGS about men, they just want different outcomes, it really is a bite of the red pill like you’ve never taken before.
They both believe the same things about men. They both do.
You want just one example? What is the functional difference between being told not to use foul language in the presence of a lady, and being told not to use sexist words in front of a woman? In both cases, YOUR LANGUAGE IS BEING POLICED BY WOMEN. Conservative traditionalists want you to protect a lady’s delicate sensibilities, and “modern” feminists want you to protect their sensibilities by not saying things like “whore” or “cunt.” Either way, what are they doing? Hanging on to their eons-old privilege of setting the rules for what is and is not polite behavior toward women. IT IS NO DIFFERENT.
When a woman “surrenders” her power and agency to “submit” to you, she’s giving you the burden of all responsibility for her actions: she gets the goodies, you get the consequences and, if you’re lucky, a few perks. That’s what conservative traditionalists want you to do, and they sell it to you by telling you how awesome and powerful and strong this makes you. And this is different from White Knights who want special programs and set-asides and protections for women how exactly?
Oh right, IT FUCKING ISN’T.
Shroedinger’s Rapist could have been written by a conservative traditionalist and no one would have fucking noticed the goddamned difference. (If you haven’t read that doozy, Google “Schroedinger’s Rapist”, I’m too fucking tired.)
No one here thinks “gender is a social construct” or wants all traditional roles destroyed. What we do think is that men need to define themselves, and by extension, women logically must do the same.
If Jack Donovan wants to buy drink the Kool-Aid that says women have to be submissive, if he wants to fall into the trap of enslaving himself to another human being who gets him to do her bidding by “submitting,” he can go have fun with that. I’m not interested. I want an adult human being in my life, not a fully grown child I have to pamper and support my whole life in exchange for nookie and a false sense of pride. Fuck that.
@Dean: “What is the functional difference between being told not to use foul language in the presence of a lady, and being told not to use sexist words in front of a woman?”
Great point dean, love the way you think. I bet you could come up with a long list of feminist admonishments, put them side-by-side with the so-con and white knight admonishments and they would look identical.
@Dean: “Leaving aside my traditional complaint (“feminism” doesn’t fucking mean anything specific, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean the moment it comes out of his mouth and whatever the listener wants to hear the moment they hear it”
I want to challenge this last, admittedly common belief that word meanings are defined by a speaker and listener. This amounts to a capitalism of words- that delusional belief that we own them and control their meanings. Here’s a post I wrote somewhere else which I reproduce below out of laziness:
The name feminism poses a big branding problem which the slippery femos have tried to circumvent by suggesting that “feminism can mean whatever a person wants it to mean”. The word “feminism” is essentialist – its a gendered word. Anyone identifying as feminist immediately orients around a female referent (femin-ism). The same is true for those who align with “masculism” – this word also includes a gender reference. While its true that feminism can mean many different things to many different people, the term does not get us into neutral territory… actually the contrary.
Words are not only what we choose them to mean. Words have a life of their own quite apart from the speaker; i.e. we need to remember that we don’t just make words up or ever have them fully under control and that they are independent powers which have power over us. Words have whole mythologies, genders, genealogies, etymologies, histories, qualities, and vogues, complete with their own guarding, blaspheming, creating, and annihilating effects. This aspect of words transcends the arbitrary definitions we give to them, feminism included. The apology declaring feminism can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people goes only so far, i.e. whilst we can highlight the variety of ideas that attach themselves to ‘feminism’, the term itself has incontrovertible semantic referents – anyone identifying with those semantic referents (ie calling themselves a femin-ist) has used gendered language and struck a partisan stance. Nothing humanist in that.
It’s perfectly ok to broadcast one’s alignment with the feminine or masculine gender and to combat the inequities supposedly faced. But for those claiming to advocate for the welfare of all human beings they need to rid themselves of totem gendered badges like feminism and masculism and employ holistic terms like egalitarian, equalitarian, supporter, humanist, humanitarian, etc.
To push this point a bit further; preferencing of gendered titles is at odds with claims by “feminists” to be primarily advocating for all people. Despite the many different versions of feminism, a preference for this gendered title -with it’s implications- is one all feminists share and unites all the different definitions of feminism.
Language is a shared medium and regardless of whether a feminist denies that “femin” exists in “feminism”, the hearer will most certainly notice it’s presence….. ie. who doesn’t know what fem implies? Words are never owned nor fully colonized by the speaker, they have an existence prior to being uttered, and continue to have existence after being used, which means that we never have them fully under control and that they are independent powers which have power over us. Defining a word in a new way does not wipe out it’s reality, nor deliver it fully over into your ownership. By creating your own definition of feminism you partly own it, but not fully… the word transcends your powers of ownership.
We don’t need to rid ourselves of gendered badges if we are advocating for the injustices only one gender or sex faces. However, if we are advocating on behalf of all people then we should employ a more neutral term. To give an alternative example, if someone wanted to work to remove inequalities faced by people in black communities you might use the title “Advocate4BlackEquality” – however if you wanted to fight on behalf of inequalities faced by all ethnic minorities the title “Advocate4BlackEquality” would sound inadequate, incorrect, and biased toward one ethnic minority. The same holds true for those who wish to advocate for the equality of all human beings. If you want to advocate for one gender, then masculism and feminism are perfectly suitable gendered words that do not need ridding… we just need to be honest about the semantic realities of these words.
Most excellent expose, here, Tawil. I have struggled to say it nearly as well for too long..
“…whilst we can highlight the variety of ideas that attach themselves to ‘feminism’, the term itself has incontrovertible semantic referents – anyone identifying with those semantic referents (ie calling themselves a femin-ist) has used gendered language and struck a partisan stance. Nothing humanist in that.”
You nailed so many things here, Dean. I could hardly identify with you more strongly on most all of them.
Blue, blue, blue … what can I say..
So, from the Greeks, to the Victorians, to the Church, to the Conservatives, to the Liberals.. it is all the same story- the pervasive scent of the feminine and gynocentrism reigning over man and dictating his station in life. Is there any hope? Is there any precedent for man to define himself, independent of the long arm of estrogens and she-pheromones?..
@Perseus: “Is there any precedent for man to define himself, independent of the long arm of estrogens and she-pheromones?..”
Looks like we are setting that precedent for the first time -here, now. From the wisdom harvested here and elsewhere I have learnt to stay aloof and when in the company of women, and I wait for the sweet sound of a Zeta woman to enter the room…… it doesn’t happen very often but when it does I’m all eyes and ears, the aloofness gone.
Its instructive and funny to watch women catch my attention and (try to) civilize me into service with a few well-placed facial gestures and shaming phrases that I completely ignore….. but every now and then a Typhon/Dr.T/Aimee/GWW/Suz (etc) walks into the room and my eyes and attention are opened. When that happens it is ‘Screw MGHOW’ and time to make freinds with the not-so-opposite sex.
It’s you and me, Perseus…. we are making the precedent for all our mates and the boys to come in future. Role models.
Short answer: If he thinks he can do better, let him.
Longer answer: Feminism+? OK, I’ll play along. I’m a Feminist+. So fucking what? Is he so addicted to a fucking word, he’s made opposition to the word the center of his being? Great, great. Here, let’s play this game: you’ve vanquished the word. Oxford English Dictionary officially revised to define feminism as “Evil Incarnate.” Everybody says the word “feminist” and when they do, they all gag and spit. Yay! We win! Go home, enjoy your spoils of having firmly established in everybody’s mind that feminism=poop.
Meanwhile, women still get the same traditional protections and privileges they’ve always had and still do have, and men remain disposable and presumed rapist wife-beating perverts until they can prove otherwise, and children remain the property of their mothers, and reproductive freedom belongs to women only. You good with that?
I got news for you: right-wing, conservative America, which is to say roughly a third of America, has hated feminism from day 1 and still does. Shitload of good that’s done, over the last 40 years, eh? Hey, let’s go find some more conservative right-wing voices who’ll say they hate feminism, and we can join that hoary old clique and sit around bitterly wishing it was still 1950.
Or here’s another idea: let’s all find Jesus together. You know never mind that conservative Christians divorce just as much as anyone else. Never mind they’re the fastest to try to forgive female criminals and slap men around whenever they get a chance on their white knight horses.
Look man, I used to consider myself a conservative, and still am in some ways. I used to be a libertarian and still am in some ways. But bottom line is I’m neither one. (Sorry fellas, not gonna happen, been there, done that, not coming back.) No matter what, I am not surrendering my individuality to a woman who wishes to “love honor and obey” me, because that’s code for “take all responsibility for her like she’s a child, while she retains all her adult intelligence and calculating ability.” It’s another way of saying you want to enslave yourself to the person who has said they will “submit.” Unless you literally make women property and literally strip them of all human rights, you aren’t going to get your conservative traditionalist utopia–which by the way never existed in the first place. (It’s a Hollywood illusion, and for all that conservatives rail about the evils of liberal Hollywood, it’s funny how many of them swoon before Hollywood fantasies of the ideal family from the 1950s. Yeesh. It was never real fellas, get over it.)
Do you care about men’s rights, or do you care about defeating feminism? If for you it’s one and the same, I suggest you’re making a mistake. You want to call me a feminist? OK, I’m a feminist. After all I do take the radical notion that women are human beings and deserve all the accountability and responsibility that comes with being one. If a feminist takes that position, then I’ll work with her. If she believes the Patriarchy Lie and asserts that I am privileged and she’s oppressed, she’s a fool at best and a bigot at worst and she can go fuck herself.
As a Catholic, I will hazard to quote Martin Luther: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Equality of rights and equality of responsibility. Everything else is up to the individual. If that’s feminism then I’m a feminist. If that’s not feminism, then I’m not feminist.
When you can tell me exactly what feminism is, I will tell you whether I am one or not. I doubt Jack will be able to do so with any precision, because the word has no fixed meaning anyway.
Dean, Tawil, Typhon, Tallwheel, this is a brilliant discussion. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, it is exactly what I was looking for.
Note that I did not mean to imply that Mr. Donovon talked at length about MRA’s, the comment I read was brief and in the context of some broader point. But it struck me as worth investigating.
I will be processing all of this in the continued quest for enlightenment and understanding of what it means to be male..
“Do you care about men’s rights, or do you care about defeating feminism? If for you it’s one and the same, I suggest you’re making a mistake.”
Well,I know this. Once feminism has been fully gutted and its ideas exposed as a warmed-over goulash of the failed and archaic ideas of socialism,and the attention of the public is directed to condemn the gynocentric,nanny-statist,and freedom-truncating policies of feminism,rather than just the word “feminism” (as I would classify a lot of women as feminists whether or not they claim to oppose it,based on their practice of its ideas,some of which seem to be nearly universal among,and perhaps rooted in,those who are biologically female),it will be one fuckton of a lot easier for men’s rights to be promoted and protected.
I classify feminism as both the philosophy of Patriarchy Theory,and a collection of erroneous beliefs held among those who are biologically female-ideas like the propriety of silencing those who hurt your feelings,or viewing “hurt feelings” as a measurable damage(failure to envision or uphold an abstract principle that protects the majority most of the time),the creation of “safe spaces” for one gender (if it is genuine,it is based on sexist beliefs and stereotypes and therefore wrong,if the “safe spaces” are not created out of a genuine fear of men, then it is little more than segregation), gynocentrism or the belief that the needs of women outweigh the needs of men (biologically true,but socially unnecessary today),grafting,gold-digging,or rent-seeking (nearly universal among women and beta males,amounts to the belief that one is owed something simply for existing and that others who “won’t share” are being “greedy”).
There are many more such policies or ideological proclivities that I could stuff in there,but it would probably be overdoing it. You get the drift.
When a 30 year old female college student stands up and tells me that I need to pay for her contraceptives when:
a)She has more access to contraceptives than I do and
b)She has more access to college than I do
I call her a feminist,whether or not she calls herself one, because she displays one or more of the characteristics of feminism, or feminine supremacism.
Good point ex machina that the feminist establishment inhibits the recognition of men’s rights. The word ‘gynocentrism’ is useful as feminism is powered by chivalry. These women-first traditions are being taken to a higher level.
Men can’t have the same rights as women because many of women’s ‘rights’ are extracted from the pain of men. I’d like to think that the ‘quality of mercy is not strained’ but with gynocentrism – it is. You can’t have equal consideration for both men & women as well as gynocentrism. Gynocentrism precludes men’s rights.
“If there ever was a real problem with misogyny in our culture, this is where it was birthed. At the very least whatever misogyny was there was aggravated and amplified by sexual politics that were absolutely insane.”
Damn you Paul, *Throws the beer bottle in hope to hit the target* for telling the truth.
In a larger sense, women can never be full partners in the MRM because so much of it is about each man contriving his own survival strategy. A woman can advise, support and advocate for men but at the end of the day men must do for themselves. Abolitionists of old could lobby for slaves, preach against slavery and even go to war for the slaves. What they couldn’t do is run away from Massa for them.
Though women can intellectually understand the plight of men, they can’t live the life. Only another man can teach through direct experience. It is quite conceivable that female MRAs live under the threat of violence and even death. But that would be because they are a problem to someone not merely for drawing a breath like men. Whether they like it or not there are legions of manginae ready to shed innocent blood at their direction.
I don’t belittle the contributions women have made. Still, the gist of the MRM isn’t that a handful of women are discouraged from discarding hypergamy and accepting personal accountability, it is about the mass of men being disqualified from humane consideration. It’s men who must deal.
Very well said Paul – cyber clapping long and hard.
Paul you have been reincarnated. Your warrior aspect has been sublimated and the diplomat has risen. No doubt some of your recent health concerns are a result of this transition or at least exacerbated by the dissonance created by the change of consciousness. You may yet need the warrior again. Even Captain Hamer came out of retirement. Sam Houston as well. Y’all keep writing and I will keep kickin’ my favorite articles over to Facebook.
I have much hate in me. This is the hardest part… trying to let go of it.
Or you could let it drive you to dismantle misandry. Hate and agression make for passion if you can harness it in the service of a project. The fact that you stopped here and put your hatred into words means to some extent you already have some control over it. People who have no control over hate are the ones who lash out without thinking or writing about it.
Keep writing…
I agree with Tawil. Trying to suppress your hate might even be mentally unhealthy for you. It’s probably better to spend it all out in increased productivity. If you’re pissed off at something, tell us all what you’re pissed off about. It might be thought-provoking,useful,or even entertaining to others. I know from experience that having a lot of hate in you can help you be creative and interesting to others. You set down, think about a million different ways to kill you boss,make it into cartoons,slap ‘em on a series of calendars and next thing you know you’re rich AND pissed AND able to do something about it.
It’s ok to have a lot of hate in you,but it’s much better if you make it work for you than simply let it give you a heart attack for no reason,from a purely utilitarian standpoint.
Don’t mistake anger for hate. Anger is not a bad thing if directed well. I carry lots of anger. I work hard to direct it, but I don’t hate…worst thing I can do is not give a damn.
As Tawil says, keep writing, I have some more to say on your post, but it is late. I will comment more tomorrow if I have time. Anger and hate are intertwined but are separate emotions IMO. Anger can drive you in some ways, hate can be an anchor around your neck.
Perhaps Man, if you could give us some more info about your hate that would help. Forgive me if I have missed this in another post.
This is the best articulated piece on the “war” I have ever read, period.
Have posted it to Facebook. I’m hoping & trusting my Friends – many of whom are or are formerly, of an organization I belonged to for the better part of 12 years, that had as one of its main goals, to empower the “natural loving relationship between men and women” – will gravitate to it.
I believe it is mainly the heroic bravery of the posters on the streets, and the justice in our cause made manifest *by* those posters (both human and the stickyglue kind), that has attracted the recent influx of both men and women.
The attraction of the women (destination Critical Mass) is the equivalent of the entry of America into the World Wars.
I am going to be perfectly honest, I will never fully trust what I perceive to be a 5th Column in the MRM: Older Men.
The life experiences of older and younger men are so radically different, it is inappropriate for older men to extend the olive branch in any shape or form, as it might come across as a form of white knighting to younger guy’s.
If women wish to be helpful out of a sense of fairness. Or perhaps out of a sense of humanistic altruism, then they shouldn’t be belittled or their thoughts to made to count for less, as long as they are useful though.
We can’t forget about the life experiences, and personal gain that could be accomplished to individual women collectively should the MRM become domesticated by them, as all people try to domesticate their surroundings.
You see it on facebook all too often. You have gal’s who take a hard swipe at women so they can take a slight swipe at men, so as to steer men towards behavior the gal finds appropriate(traditional male gender roles, supporting alimony/child support law’s etc).
Plus, any attempt at bridging the gap right now screws up the long term plan(as per MGTOW). We want women to be desperate as desperate people will do desperate things, and they are almost there already. By giving them an easy out we may make up more territory in the short run, but we will just be extending the suffering of men for atleast two more generations by enabling a soft landing.
That soft landing will enable traditionalists a wedge back into the MRM via the male gender role. I remember very clearly how ingrained traditionalism was with the old Anti-Feminist movement(good riddance as an enemy of an enemy can still be an enemy). We cannot forget that Traditionalism is the right wing branch of the Matriarchy/Gynocentrism Party.
The other head, feminism, is totally irredeemable. Forget any notion of working with feminist’s as feminism is a hate movement that has thrived off of the pain, suffering and death of boy’s, young men and men for well over a Century considering American feminism’s origin in the Women’s Klu Klux Klan. Now they are catching flak and being exposed as a hate movement they are trying to rebrand themselves, that is something we cannot allow.
If we cannot ensure the damnation of each and every individual feminist, than those bigots will merely drop the feminist cloth and take up a new cloth that will enable them to hurt whatever group society tells them it is “OK” to hate. Solving one problem half arsed always leads to more problems later.
I know it means a more difficult road for all men, as someone backed into a corner will fight longer and harder then someone who is not. As I said though, are you willing to sacrifice some men of tomorrow, men society say’s it is ok to hate because of their race, creed or political ideology, for the sake of a large chunk of men today?
We have to be honest with ourselves, if feminist’s were well balanced people to start off with, we wouldn’t be here in the first place.
The MRM community will have to walk a tightrope as more women are flocking to the MRM. Because, it could just end up alienating young men who are also flocking to and becoming the largest segment of the MRM from existing MRM groups. Not because of the presence of women or their actions, but because of perceived white knighting on the gal’s behalf. If women in the MRM are going to be defended in terms of internal debate and discourse, it is something that they will have to do themselves if they have any hope of ever earning the respect of those around them and to truly be apart of the MRM.