Retro Pyramid Background in high resolution.

A funny thing just happened to the MRM

A weird thing happened to the Mens Movement a little while back. Something that literally rocked the whole movement back on its heels a little bit.

See, a few MRAs were out on weekend morning postering a local neighborhood, and were set upon by angry feminists, who proceeded to tear down their posters and call them mean names. And that’s when the weird thing happened…

A guy (by all accounts a man with responsibilities) stepped up and defended the right of his fellow citizens to place their posters on the contested wall. He defended the right of his fellow citizens to say things, even if other, more politically entitled people objected or disagreed.

These same MRAs have also related stories of ‘approving noises’ from passersby when postering the neighborhood. And other reports of public approval of at least some of the MRM message continues to trickle in.

In fact, many of the ‘soothersayers’ in the Manosphere have taken this as renewed reason to ‘play nice with feminists’, as if we have somehow scored a public relations coup.Of course, we have seen nothing of the sort. What we have seen is a signpost. A message from the social conscious.

There is a market for our message.

A big one.

A really, really big one, in fact. And this presents a problem to the MRAs that care about such things. After all, if there are that many people out there receptive to our message…how do we leverage that effectively?

The postering campaigns that are springing up all over the world are one solution, raising awareness of men’s issues to which most people are never exposed, let alone led to consider. But only so much can be accomplished with a kinko’s card and a spare afternoon.

So, what do we do? Where is ‘forward’ from here?

Well, I for one propose it’s impossible to measure progress without an accurate yardstick. Without something to position ourselves against we have no measure of progress. So that is the very first order of business this movement needs to get concrete on, fairly quick.

There are many who say things like ‘gender equality’ are the metric, but I propose those types of things are far too subjective for uselfulness. No, we need concrete examples of misandry, of legal and social discrimination, We need to define the core goals of the Men’s Rights Movement, or at least define yardsticks by which we can measure progress.

Because frankly, I’m personally finding ‘compared to the way things used to be’ is fast becoming too distant a measure to be useful as well. Compared to the way things were, absolutely everything happening in the MRM is amazingly good stuff.

But, progress never sleeps, and we didn’t work this hard just to populate some websites with like-minded drones…

So, why are we here? What binds the many disparate groups of the MRM together? Politics is out, the Left/Right fight is as bad here as anywhere. ‘Gender Equality’ is also out, as a concept, because it is dependent as a concept on the outcome of this discussion….as in define “equal”.

After a considerable amount of thought, I think I hit on a possible answer:

The Mens Movement stands in opposition to Identity Politics, Political Correctness, and other forms of ‘social engineering’. In short, the Mens Movement is basically a Rebellion against our ‘moral betters’.

The Mens Movement also seems to demand equal legal rights as well as accountability between the sexes, and rejects outright there is any reason women or girls should have special treatment in modern society…along with the contingent “if you didn’t experience it directly, it’s irrelevant”.

The Mens Movement stands to correct a pervasive propaganda meme that masculinity, and men, are ‘bad’ or ‘toxic’ to society. Or ‘unnecessary’. The Mens Movement stands in direct opposition to Gynocentric thinking, and is unapologetic in asserting men have intrinsic value as human beings.

…these are a few ideas that have occurred to me, and I am sure (and hopeful) that you have others you wish to add.

It’s time we defined where we want to go as a movement.

So we can start getting there.

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • The Real Peterman

    I think those are fine ideas.

  • Zerbu

    The poster incidents are definitely a turning point for the movement, and I think we might make it to the mainstream by the end of the year.

  • HurleyHacker

    I say keep going until dark blood comes out of the vermin.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    This essay uses a device that I regard as terribly important. It might seem petty but it is not. Every time the word “gender” is used it is in quotes. And it uses the phrase “the sexes.” I NEVER use gender without quotes. I always refer to the two sexes. “Gender” is a social engineering concept, a so-called theory, dealing with social constructions. The sexes are not social constructions, are not theoretical; they are real.

    Social engineering indoctrinees GO NUTS when you refuse to use the term “gender.” Literally NUTS. This practice undermines their entire conversation and discourse. The refusal to use the term “gender” to refer to the sexes is a formidable weapon available for our use, at no cost, in the information war in which we are involved.

  • Clem Burke

    I am in a battle as we speak with a feminist and it has gone legal with me and my firm, and I will be going to court this fall over defamation. Wish me luck as the only (most likely) gay man that is a “sexist pig, woman hater” in America. I want to talk about my growth and how I became an ally of the mens movement, it was a gradual process starting with my brothers and my best friends ,and seeing what they were dealing with. I am a slow learner but once I get it, it sticks forever .

    • Honestjon

      I for one would be interested in the details of this case. There are no doubt members here that could offer guidance and support for your cause.

      • TheBiboSez

        Legally, he should probably say as little as possible until it actually comes out in court. I’m curious, too, but I’d rather see him win his case than compromise it. A link to any public court documents would be helpful.

        Of course, his could always use misinformation to game the other side, but that wouldn’t be ethical or nice.

    • Paul Elam

      Best of luck with your struggle. I think some in the gay political community are starting to catch on to the fact that other than being trophies for feminists, they are regarded as low forms of life by the ideologues.

      If you would ever like to talk about your transition into the MRM, I for one would love to hear it.

    • andybob

      So many gay men have woken up to the destructive nature of feminism and all its attendant hypocrisy and corruption by witnessing how it has hurt the straight men we love – my twin brother for example. The next leg on the road is the realization, shocking at first, that feminists despise gay men with a seething vengeance that is a marvel to behold. To paraphrase Mr Phil in Utah, let on that you care about the rights and welfare of men and boys and watch their carefully manufactured pretence of supporting gay men melt in a puddle of vitriol.

      Remain staunch in your resolve to battle against feminist governance, Mr Burke. We are protected from many of the methods feminists use to silence dissent. Much to their chagrin, the whole ‘you’re-angry-because-you-can’t-get-laid’ avenue is closed to them. So is the ‘you-want-to-return-to-the-traditional-roles-of-the-fifties’ routine as this would force us back underground as criminals and outcasts.

      Feminists often go into a panic as the realization dawns on them that they may have to actually discuss issues as opposed to hurling their usual grab bag of pathetically transparent shaming and snark. As all of their ‘issues’ revolve around the kind of women studies lies that have been eternally exposed by AVFMs best writers, feminists can be left stumbling and spluttering.

      I wish you the best of luck in your fight, Mr Burke and urge you beware that there is no depth to which feminists will not sink in their nihilistic quest to punish all men, regardless of our race, religion, orientation or political stripe. They hate all of us. As gay men, we have a responsibility to stand by our brothers, gay or straight, and be seen to be doing so. It is deeply satisfying to know that feminists are aware that the support for their hateful ideology continues to dwindle in an unstoppable spiral.

      Timely article, Mr Factory. Many things to consider.

      • externalangst

        Welcome back andybob.

        • andybob

          Thanks Mr Externalangst. Good to be back. AVFM raises the bar in terms of depth and quality with every article. Great holiday with some very eye-opening fissures in the feminist behemoth on display.

          • Stu

            Your back. And it’s about bloody time. :)

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

            Mr Andy Bobster,

            Welcome back matey. Like Stu says, “It’s about bloody time.”

            I got your email from way back when and didn’t respond because I wanted you to suffer as I suffered with your long holiday.

            Anyway that’s all blood under the bridge now, and I will be looking out for my favourite gay (flouncer, mineral water scoffer, drapes consultant, Dusty Springfield dancer) on Skype.

          • Kimski

            Wo-hoo. My favourite commenter is back!

            Did you know that Dr.F made up an imaginary friend, and called him Andy in your absence?

            Don’t go missing that long again, or the next thing we’ll see is an imaginary friend called Bob, who’s selling carrousel rides to children, while offering them lollipops.

          • http://mrathunderinthehammer.blogspot.com/ Dannyboy

            yes welcome back Andy, missed your comments as well.
            Sometimes a lil holiday is needed.
            Cheers.

    • http://pt-br.facebook.com/aldir.gracindo Al

      Success, Clem. And please tell us this story, it’ll be surely interesting.

  • Arvy

    Two suggestions:

    1) Graduate from posters to highly visible billboards. I’ll gladly contribute to the cost and I’m sure others will also.

    2) Adopt a very simple, unambigous, eye-catching and consistent “slogan” to be reproduced prominently on every message. Repetition of the basic message is critical. Elaboration and development of that message is secondary.

    Just to ramble on a bit, I think it’s also important to paint a picture of unselfish motivation as the men’s movement is too often portayed as narrow-minded and entirely self-interested, rather than as opposing broader “evil” consequences as the feminists as so good at doing/pretending.

    In that context, I would suggest a very strong role for the “think of the children” meme that has been so well used and abused by women for their own purposes. Offhand, I can’t think of a more evocative and sympathetic sight than a sad young boy deprived of his father’s love and guidance. But it needs to be symbolized simply and reproduceably, which is far beyond my poor graphics skills. Maybe some ideas here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEFX8tqMaSI

    /rambling ends.

    • Just1X

      “A Voice For Men, because we will be heard”

      not threatening, I’m aiming for inevitability, kind of ‘with, or without you, this is going to happen’

  • BioCan

    Great article, Factory.

    Communities involving discussions about the rights of men and developing a place for men to talk about things or as a means to vent about social ills that affect them negatively all have something in common. They allow for the spread of ideas and foster formal debate without restricting anyone’s right to freedom of speech. It is true that there are exceptions, such as promoting violence, but no one’s speech is squelched simply because they have differing viewpoints that are contested by others (including the moderators). Feminist circles are tyrannical and they will restrict anyone’s ideas if it is not in line with their own. Communities allowing for the freedom of speech and thought seen here always attract newcomers.

    As feminists take control of online communities where ideas matter, they force their members to find greener pastures in places like AVFM. They aren’t typically welcome here if they want men to be silent and accept everything they say.

    As for what I think about recent developments. I can only say that I hope that a balance will be found between activism and the discussion of ideas relevant to this community, such as MGTOW and others. There are many of us here who contribute at various levels, and some don’t really contribute at all in terms of activism. While activism is essential and am grateful for all who take part in it, the discussions and sharing of ideas are what support our activism, especially when MRAs are confronted on the street and asked about the rights of men. This website has given us a library of sources and theories, which have been refined by great articles that give full explanations for the benefit of everyone’s understanding.

    In a world of tyranny against men by the feminist elite, we have a community where men come to share their stories of mistreatment and oppression. it gives me a sense of solidarity knowing that I am not the only one who has been affected by this. It only makes it a more positive experience when much of the ideas that are shared resonate with almost the whole community because they have merit to them. If there was no such community, we would be told by society and feminists that we should just be unquestioning slaves and to continue providing resources for their fascist system.

  • JFinn

    Feminists talk about us all the time. Which means that most journalists know about us. Journalists don’t report on us for the same reason that feminists tear down the posters – they know lots of men will open their eyes. Men will open their eyes if presented with a lot of evidence at once.

    I feel like most MRAs are far smarter than I, which is why they caught on earlier. I suspect my experience will become more commonplace. When I look back at my current blue pill days, I remember being pissed off when confronted with blatant misandry, but I simply viewed them as isolated incidents back then.

    When I was finally confronted with one too many incidents in a short period of time, that’s when I started googling words like “anti-male sexism” and had the MRM open my eyes. I identified with much of the evidence presented. but didn’t want to fully accept the reality of men.

    However, the gender dichotomy was suddenly palpable everywhere. I started noticing the frequency of male-bashing in female conversations and was shocked. Then I started following feminist conversations and felt like a Jewish person in a Neo-Nazi convention. As much as I resisted to accept the reality of men, seeing how gyno-centric all gender discussions in the media or common social discourse was – sealed the deal. The absence of an advocacy for men in a society where advocacy for women is frequent felt scary. I realized all the incidents I had faced were connected.

    Feminists talk about going through a similar experience after taking the radfem women’s studies course. They go through a period of perpetual anger that lasts a few years. When they mock the small size of our movement, are they genuinely confident or desperately putting on a facade? The answer is in how very often they’re now talking about us. They. Are. Scared.

    When I look back at my recent blue pill days, I remember much of the non-blatant misandry I was oblivious too. I notice how my now naturally different reactions to such incidents catches the attention of those around me. I don’t act all pissed off at everything. I simply exude subtle resistance to what is usually accepted. I believe that we can’t fathom how invasive the change society is going to go through, as more men and women open their eyes.

  • Arvy

    Keeping in mind, of course, the impacts of public perceptions and influences on achieving any such legal-political prize as any participant in either process will gladly attest.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    Yes, court decisions and laws.

  • Aaron T

    I like to refer to us all (MRAs, Masculinists, FRAs, etc) as the Pro-Male Human Movement. We need to show people that we are not ‘just a response to feminism’, but a movement for egalitarianism. If we are seen as the male version of feminists, then that is how we will be seen, but thanks to their propaganda, we will seem like a joke. People are interested in our message, now we must show them WHY. It is because we speak of the truth, and we want ‘true egalitarianism’. They must know that our view of equality is not ‘equality of outcome’, but ‘equality of opportunity’.

    • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

      Equality of opportunity in what though? What specific idea should we convey? What legal principle or challenge should we present?

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    This: “Not just a response to feminism”

    I believe this is both true and also threading a needle in a hurricane, as certain deeply entrenched feminist ideologues are indeed very wealthy and powerful and harmful, but a lot of MRAs have in my opinion let “opposition to feminism” become what defines their entire cause. This is problematic in a number of areas, but the biggest is this as I see it: already in America there’s a stink on the word “feminism” and huge swaths of America have viewed feminism with contempt for decades. Make the rest of America also believe “feminism” is a dirty word, and what will you have accomplished? The ideologues just change what they call themselves, fall back on the chivalry they’ve always relied on, and keep doing what they’re doing.

    Furthermore, a false battle is eventually firmly established: you have “defeated feminism” because no one will call themselves one anymore. So you ride home victorious, the dictionary now putting “feminism” right alongside “zoroastrianism” as words that hardly get used anymore… and… what? You’ve defeated a word. Yay. The word goes away in polite company. And… then what?

    Is male disposability gone? Is demonization of male sexuality gone? Is failing education for boys better? Is the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing discount for women changed? Are false allegations taken seriously? Are children no longer ripped away from fathers who desperately need them? Is the Glass Basement in any way shattered? Are women everywhere going to decide, “you’re right, I’m going to stay home and make babies and cookies because that’s what ALL women were cut out to do with their lives?”

    Traditionalists have a limited answer to all this because they want us to go “back to” this fantasy idea of the “nuclear family” that was never really real to begin with, it was always a minority of the population, always. It’s not even in the Bible–I can assure you I’ve read the thing and outside of Adam and Eve the “nuclear family” was rare. Look how people actually lived and it was not like that. Extended families were the norm, not “nuclear” families.

    I come from a very different place from a lot of guys here because I come from a family that was extremely feminist-hostile and also was male-abusive. I actually flinch a little at some feminist bashing simply because I have flashbacks to my abused childhood, as well as some abusive relationships I got stuck in with “anti-feminist” women, and have seen other guys get trapped in with staunchly and loudly “anti-feminist” women. So even though I’m down with all the anti-misandry goals, even though the very real problems men face are things I’m extremely and painfully aware of, even though I try mightily not to tell people what language to use, even though I took the red pill 10 years ago at least, that pesky “f” word looks like something that stands in danger of defining us.

    I wrote a very long article about this that Paul asked me about and we agreed to shelve it because the time wasn’t right and it perhaps was a little too incoherent. But this comment I’m leaving has the seeds of it. I’m being self-revelatory here more than I maybe should, but I have BEEN ABUSED BY STAUNCHLY ANTI-FEMINIST WOMEN. I’m flat out saying it, OK? I just got off a two hour phone conversation with a researcher earlier today who is studying female sexual abusers of children, talking about my experiences of being a victim of sexual molestation by a woman when I was young–and I wasn’t molested by a feminist, OK?

    That’s more than I ever wanted to say, and probably more than I should have really, and some fucktard somewhere is going to try to use that to armchair psychoanalyze me, but, I have had REPEATED, BRUISING encounters with misandry my entire life and other than some verbal tongue-lashings that made me realize some feminists were toxic bigots, my most hurtful, deranged experiences with sexual bigotry against my person have NOT come from people who self-identified as feminists and were sometimes from people who were STRIDENTLY anti-feminist.

    I think that if in the end all you can define yourself is by who you are against, then, you have let them define you. A false dichotomy is established: you are defined as being “against them,” and then by their every word and deed, THEY get to define YOU. Because all you are is this mirror opposite of them right? They go up you go down. They go left you go right. They say “white” you say “black.” Even if that’s not really what you’re trying to do, that’s what it LOOKS LIKE to everyone else.

    If you define yourself primarily by being against a specific THEM, then you have just told the whole world that “THEM” gets to define YOU.

    The fact of the matter is that we are up against some very deep-pocketed, monied interests in the big national feminist organizations and the horrendous domestic violence industry. But outside of that, you’ve got whole swaths of the entire WORLD that accepts it pretty much as a given that female problems are always and forever the biggest priority. Female hypoagency and male hyperagency, still embraced everywhere you look.

    My view of an agenda looks a lot more like this:

    1) More respect for “traditionalism” among those who CHOOSE traditionalism.
    2) Concentrated effort to end the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing discount for women.
    3) Make false allegations a punishable offense.
    4) Make shared parenting the default condition absent a STRONG reason otherwise, and make it easy to order a return to a shared parenting arrangement if temporary circumstances change.
    5) A domestic violence agenda that’s actually based on what the science and real experience shows: Erin Pizzey points the way.
    6) Protesting the needless assaults on the self-image and toxic attitudes pumped into boys, men, and fathers.
    7) An examination of the institution of marriage itself and asking what, if any, role the state should have in that–it kind of has to have some when it comes to things like inheritance and whatnot, but the way it’s put together now is badly broken.
    8) An end to debtor’s prison.
    9) Recognition that parental alienation is child abuse, including laws with teeth that back that up.

    That’s a big agenda. Maybe some would quibble or want to add or subtract from items on my list. My point is, it’s so very easy to be against a nebulous “them.” In fact, it’s easy to be “against” period. If you aren’t positively FOR some things, you will only get so far.

    I know I almost cried when I saw the posters go from answering toxic feminist crap like “rape culture–tired of this shit yet?” and moved to “men’s rights are human rights” and educational statistics of the realities of suicide, homelessness, education, domestic violence, and more. “Men’s rights are human rights,” yes, yes, yes. Who gives a fuck with the “feminists” choose to define themselves as. WE define ourselves, fuck whatever they want to say or call themselves.

    Maybe this is madness because too many MRAs have too many different ideas but I have the feeling that a consensus can be reached on at least some of these items. And hammering those into specific and concrete talking points (yes, “talking points,” they really are necessary as much as people sneer at the term) would be a very worthwhile goal.

    (So would a central repository like a Wiki that people can refer to. ;-))

    And I still think getting loud and angry is absolutely justified, absolutely called for. Paul’s right: “playing nice” has failed for 30 years. But the righteous anger has to go the right direction.

    Pontification mode off and sorry if that was too long.

    • kiwihelen

      Dean, hearing you loud and clear.
      I’ve had the privelage of growing up in a highly functional extended family, so my heart grieves when I hear stories like yours.
      Thank you for your openness

    • tallwheel

      Yes. This. Misandry goes far beyond feminism, and you don’t have to be a feminist to be a misandrist.

    • Ricardo

      I used to hear the nasty things feminists would say when I was a boy and I believed some of them but not all of them. But I met some feminists who were very nasty to me.

      Then I met a girl who was old-fashioned, sort of. She was firey and fun and cute. She would swear and curse and liked dirty jokes. And she used to say things like “I hate feminists. If I dress up and put on a bunch of makeup I want men to notice me, I love it. Feminists are idiots.” “Fuck feminism,” she used to say that too.

      We had a marriage and children and it was OK but eventually I noticed when we were in financial trouble it was all my fault. Sometimes she would work but she would always have an excuse for not working for very long. I lost my job and became a “loser.” I was 100% responsible for the medical insurance and the money to pay the bills and making all the money, she might make a little but she viewed it as her “job” to stay home and take care of the children and looked at me with contempt when I said maybe she could work and I could watch the children.

      The stress, it was killing me. I started drinking to help make the stress better but it eventually just made things worse. I struggled with that but did she support me? No not really she said nice things but she did not really try to help and she viewed it mostly as my problem alone. I begged for help and she just looked at me with contempt. One time I cried because the stress was so great I felt like I was losing my mind, and she sneared at me and she even told me she wished she had never married me. We got into one fight that turned physical when I tried to leave the house and she got in my way and I pushed her down and away. She told everybody later that I had tried to murder her. She told my son I had tried to murder her. All I had done was push her and walked out of the house.

      One day she left and filed for divorce. I wanted to kill myself. I almost did. A couple of months after walking out the door I met her new boyfriend, who threatened me. I did not understand at the time but from many readings of MRAs I realized he was a “white knight.” But not some man-feminist “white knight,”hes a conservative who believed all her lies and believed I was a monster.

      I was lucky in some ways because while the divorce was pending she was generous in allowing me to see the children. But the day after the divorce was final, everything came down like an iron curtain: I was not allowed to see them, or speak to them, even on the phone, if it was not in the agreement. Even what was in the agreement, she started playing games of “they don’t want to see you, they don’t want to talk to you.” For a while I went back to drinking, it seemed like the only way to end the pain. I called the suicide hotline more than once. I had no one to turn to, everywhere there was contempt for me as a “loser” because even though the economy was terrible and everyone was having trouble finding work, I was a loser and a “deadbeat.” They threatened to put me in jail for child support payments I could not make even though I always paid something, always, just not enough to satisfy them. I lost my home, my wife, my children, my family, and my job, and I wanted to die.

      It took much fighting and much healing to get to where I at least see my children some.

      The ex, I am lucky to say, we are now somewhat friendly. The fighitng has stopped. She still alienates my children a little but not so bad like she used to, and I now see the children and they can see for themselves who their father really is. So I am luckier than some men. But beacuse of the economy I have a job that makes much less than I used to, and half of that still goes out the door for child support and alimony and arrears. If it were not for my new roommate/partner, I would maybe be on the streets; when it’s all said and done I take home maybe half of what is the minimum wage.

      My ex-, she still says things like “fuck feminism” and “feminists are stupid.” She considers herself a “conservative” and “traditional.” Except for the traditional part of the wedding vow she gave, which was “for better or worse in sickness in health til death do us part.” I meant my part of that oath, but she did not. But I am the bad man, I am the “loser deadbeat bum.”

      She and her white knight baby-daddy (they had another baby together only minutes after she walked out the door) are both proud Republican conservatives.

      These “anti-feminists” are no friend to men.

      • Arvy

        Sounds to me like your quarrel isn’t so much with “anti-feminists” as such, but with certain self-declared “conservative traditionalist” elements who actually do view it as the woman’s job to stay home and take care of the children and the man’s job to support the family financially. No doubt there are some anti-feminists in that latter category, but they shouldn’t be taken as representive of anti-feminism in general. To the contrary, the vast majority of anti-feminists seem quite content to accept sharing of both responsibilities provided the arrangement is fair and equitable.

      • tallwheel

        Anti-feminists or not, self-proclaimed traditionalists can be just as cruel to men if they are not willing to uphold their wedding vows to stand by their men, for richer or for poorer. Traditionalism combined with a self-entitled attitude where divorce is an oft considered option, just doesn’t work.

        In addition, most blue collar men these days just don’t make enough money to support a family without the wife’s help. It didn’t use to be that way, and it’s sad, but it’s just the way it is these days. Pure traditionalism in which the wife doesn’t work at all is only possible where the husband is pulling in a hefty income. In your case, it sounds like you were doing just fine until the hefty income was taken out of the equation. This is just not workable. Few men these days can honestly guarantee that they will continue to make good money until retirement. There’s always the possibility that things could go sour at some point in the future, and families need to pull together during those times, not fall apart.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Ricardo. Your ex is a feminist. She is a “back to the plantation Phyllis Shafly I’m-not-a-feminist” feminist.

        She uses her gender as a weapon, as an advantage, and used you as her personal ‘yo boy’ to provide for her.

        She may sneer at “feminists” who try to shame her for not agreeing a job at Walmart is “empowering”, but she accepts and expects the same entitlements and priviledges as any other man hater.

        An actual “non feminist” is a woman who partners equally(as an adult participant, not “tit for tat”) and respectfully with the man in her life, for better, for worse, til death do they part. If things don’t work out, they still “play fair” even when they have the advantage not to.

        Yes. They DO exist.

        • tallwheel

          I don’t know. Your definition of feminist is starting to get pretty broad. Basically you are saying that any woman who has a sense of entitlement or uses her gender to her advantage is a feminist. I agree that feminists do this, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that any woman who does this is a feminist. There have probably been woman doing that since the beginning of humanity, long before feminism (as we know it) existed. Not all fruits are apples.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I freely use my gender to my advantage every chance I get. Surely you do as well.

            I DON’T use my gender to UNFAIR advantage under ANY circumstance because YOU aren’t allowed to use your gender to unfair advantage.

            Do you not see the difference?

            One apple might be small, green, and sour, while another apple may be large, red and sweet – but an apple’s an apple just the same. You may focus on the differences, but peel away the exterior appearances, they end up being the same damn thing.

          • MrStodern

            @OneHundredPercentCotton: I can honestly say that I’ve never made any attempt at using my nature as a man to my advantage. There’s been times where I might have found certain tasks a bit more difficult were I a woman, but then again, I probably wouldn’t have been expected to do those tasks either, if I was.

            Of course, I have no idea how I could possibly use being a man to my advantage. At least not for things I would actually want to do.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            I can honestly say I’ve never “intentionally” used my gender either.

            I don’t intentionally use my gender when speaking up for men’s rights, but I must say it gives me a certain advantage I wouldn’t have if I said exactly the same thing as a male.

            And yes, sir. I DO use it to my advantage at every opportunity.

            Look how Obama got elected over a MUCH more competant and qualified Hillary. Women prefer males that do their bidding over females. It’s why the majority voters don’t vote their own gender in droves – women prefer male enforcers. Hillary could huff and puff and promise with all her might, she can’t sing Al Green.

            Looks, personality, talents and intelligence are all natural advantages as well. We’re ALL advantaged, we’re all disadvantaged in one way or another.

            If you and I showed up for a job moving furniture, YOU would probably get the job, even though I can tell you I move more furniture in twenty minutes than a crew of four men do in three hours. I know. I do it every day and I’m almost 60 years old. Does my boss aknowledge or appreciate my hard work? No. He says “I wish you’d let the guys do that, you’ll hurt yourself”. If I were a 60 year old man doing the same thing, I’d be considered “amazing”. As it is, I’m just considered an oddity.

            When a big burly thug is breaking into your house, are you relieved to see a lone woman cop show up? I wasn’t. When I called an ambulance and two women showed up to carry my husband down a flight of stairs on a gurney the woman next door enlisted her husband, a cop, to help them out. She said her husband has to help female EMTs all the time.

            THAT’s what I meant by “advantage”.

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            This is why I usually won’t even use the damned word. Too many horrible women who don’t use it, and too many naive but basically decent women who do. It’s a null word, literally meaning whatever the speaker wants it to mean at any given moment, and whatever the listener wants to hear in that same moment.

            So if I use it at all I use it to be very specific: academic feminists, feminist ideologues, radfems, whatever, and even then at least 80% of the time I’d rather just revert to “bigots” because that’s what the people we’re talking about really are.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      My sister in law is a child molester, and she certainly would not fit the current understanding of what a “feminist” is. She never worked, dumped her kids on anyone that would watch them for free, stayed home drinking beer and watching soap operas all day when she wasn’t busy stirring up drama with neighbors or family.

      She used to laugh about giving baby boys erections as a teen baby sitter back before child abuse was a major issue until I had a talk with her about my own experience with childhood abuse, and how damaging it was. She liked my story so much she started telling it to other people, word for word, with herself as the “victim”.

      Then she began accusing.

      First it was a false police report of attempted rape when her parents caught her sneaking out of the house one night, and later graduated to accusing people of molesting her children, usually following an argument. She never escalated it to actually filing complaints with the police,she just put out rumors and gossip about a particular person.

      Then the day came WE got into an argument. There were “things” going on with her kids and I threatened to report her to CPS if it didn’t stop. We stopped speaking afterwards. Two years later, out of the blue, I got a call from an out of state public defender saying my son was being charged with raping her daughter.

      Female advocates, female attorneys, female prosecutors, female judges, female advocates, female counselors, female “expert witnesses”, female doctors and nurses, female probation officers.

      It was a female victimpaloosa. No expense, entitlement or priviledge was spared.

      So even though my sister in law never once espoused “feminist doctrine” or showed any interest in feminism, she certainly took full advantage of the power that being female entitled her to.

      And while you, and certainly most others, don’t consider that “feminism”, *I* certainly do.

      Whether playing “helpless damsel in distress” as opposed to “the best man for the job is a woman” the result is STILL the same.

      If it’s getting away with not playing by the rules, if it’s taking unfair advantage of female priviledge and entitlements, it’s Feminism.

      If you’re an asshole to men, you are a feminist, I don’t care what pretext you present it with.

      • tallwheel

        I didn’t read this before writing my reply above.
        I guess you are certainly entitled to your definition, but like you say, most others don’t consider that necessarily “feminism”. Feminism certainly does nothing but encourage it, though, of course.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          An actual anti feminist is the woman who plays fair in spite of her unfair advantage.

          How wrong and unfair to lump “traditionalist” women (who take just as much unfair advantage of their gender priviledge as any “feminist” does) in with true “anti s”.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I do think this: the zeitgeist is changing, fast. The misandrists (including the self-hating quislings) don’t like it a bit. But it’s changing, and would be changing even without this movement. There are too many kids who were born in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s coming into their own and seeing how fucked up this stuff is for their brothers, nephews, sons, and even in the older generation watching it happen to their sons and grandsons.

    The growing number of men and women who have long felt there’s something deeply wrong between the sexes is real and would be growing with or without us, I’m convinced. But we can either be carried along in that zeitgeist, or we can help shape it and point it in the right directions. And I’d like to point it in the right directions.

  • Stu

    I have actually been anti-feminist for as long as I can remember. I remember arguing with my mother about it when I was about ten years old. I remember being punished in primary school for it. I have pretty much always seen them for what they are, women chasing more freebies and crying victim as the primary way of getting them.

    I believe the reason the fight against feminism takes priority is this: Who is taking our rights away, feminists. Who is behind all the anti-male propaganda the dominates the media, academia, popular culture, advertising, sitcoms etc, feminists.

    How can we advocate for additional rights for men when we can’t even hold our ground against the feminist onslaught? The main obstacle to men restoring our rights, or even maintaining them, is feminism.

    I realize that not all anti-feminists are good for men’s rights. Traditionalists (chivalrists) and religious fundamentalists want a return to the old days. But those good old days were not good for men. Men had it way harder than women, the only difference was that men had respect and rights in return for towing the line. Feminism wants men to have no choices in life either, they just want us to have no respect or rights either. They are the worst of three evils, but the others are still evils.

    Men need to reach the point where they can live their life free from any legal or social obligation to conform to anything based on woman first mind set. We created a society where women can live free from all obligations to men, now we should demand freedom too. The woman who want a traditional relationship with a man will be able to have that, if they provide the man with a good enough reason to give it to them, and only for as long as they continue to provide a good enough reason.

    If they don’t like that, than they can learn to totally stand on their own feet, without special helping hands, without special protections, without special safety nets. Men should not have to provide for women directly, or indirectly any more than they should have to provide for other men.

    Nothing like this will ever exist as long as feminism has political power. And that is why we must destroy feminism.

    • andybob

      Mr Esmay makes a crucial point. The opposition to men’s rights is rooted deeply within our cultures. Feminists merely exploited the lack of concern for men that already existed. Sometimes I suspect that even feminists are taken aback at the ease with which our disposability is embraced by so many.

      For true change to take place, we must look beyond feminism as the sole source of our problems. This idea has been discussed many times by Dr Elam and Mr JTO, among others, in numerous articles. So, I am certain that AVFM regulars are very cognizant of this.

      Still, opposition to feminism is an ideal rallying point for the MRM because it is such a visible promoter of a hateful and dishonest ideology that more and more people reject. Feminism has infiltrated so many areas of our lives that its sheer pervasiveness make it easy to identify. A common enemy has its purpose.

      The maxim that you are defined by your opposition can be true, especially in the popular imagination. However, the MRM is too diverse, and our concerns too varied, for that to happen. This is just as well since people are weary of dogma and our lack of adherence to strict principles is a central feature of our appeal.

      To Mr Esmay, never be concerned about ‘revealing too much’ about your experiences – especially the tough ones. We all arrived here on different roads and I appreciate you sharing the details of your journey. I’m sure others will agree. Your points are always thought-provoking.

  • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

    OK then…but WHAT court decisions? What legal battles need to be fought? Roe v Wade for men? Sure. What else?

    • Kimski

      Biased divorce courts.

      50/50 shared custody at the least, and children above a certain age gets to decide which parent they want to live with. Not any one single parent or the courts. If the child is too young, the case should be brought up later, preferably without any intervention from lawyers who will benefit financially from the outcome.

      The parent who is providing a home for the child is the receiver of alimony, and in case the child decides to live every 2 weeks with one of the parents, alimony goes out the window.

      If the parent in question is unable to pay alimony, the parent should not go to jail, but maybe be offered some sort of community service, which will benefit society as a whole more, than any slave work in a prison can do.

      Anything brought into the marriage before it takes place belongs to the rightfull owner, and should not be divided between the two, solely based on an outdated version of ‘primary nurturer’ or sex.

      Contraception for men is a must. The male pill should be widely distributed everywhere in the world.

      It should also be sanctioned by law, that any of the parents can plee for a test to determine the ‘origin’ of the child, without consequence. Hypergamy should not be a free meal ticket for cheaters.

      Any outside participants in upholding the paternaty fraud should be fined heavily, and should the woman involved throw out the husband, based on his ‘audacity’ to question her morale, she would be held responsible for breaking up the marriage, and alimony goes out the window.

      Equal draft in the military, and pregnancy should not be an excuse for getting out of it. Same goes for the stationing of the troops in the battlefield. If you want to play with the big boys, that’s what you’re going to have to do.

      Equality under the law. Everybody should be held accountable to the same degree, based on the nature of the crime. No more of that ‘she’s got issues’-shit,. It just doesn’t fly in an equal society.

    • Frimmel

      The biggest legal battles need to be fought over family law. This is the area where everyone has the most “I know someone” knowledge of men being worked over by the system. This is where people can first be made aware that there is a red pill. That the law is not made to favor men.

    • http://mrathunderinthehammer.blogspot.com/ Dannyboy

      Dan I think a Lavallee Supreme Court case is one area.

      Let me make this brutally blunt and perfectly clear. This is in no way shape or form me advocating for violence.

      But here is the situation. Canada has a battered woman defense. So where is the battered man defense?

      We know there are severely and heinously abused men out there but as of yet have not seen a case that protects his right to protect himself or his children from some crazy violent wife / girlfriend.

      Here is a link on the Lavallee case:
      http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm

      I think that would be one court decision that could be used for your measuring stick.

      Great article many thanks for taking the time to write it.

      I am left with one question though.
      If society considers them to be our ‘moral betters’ how come they act so unethically?

  • TheMoralGodless

    I blog and Tweet quite a bit on men’s issues under my real name, and I have over 1500 followers, so I think that is one way to reach people. Unfortunately I can’t be nearly as direct as I’d like since I’m not anonymous.

    Along with emerging acceptance, I celebrate when I see Feminism ridiculed or anti-Feminist quips praised. Because if it suddenly becomes cool and trendy and provocative to pick apart Feminism, this will engage the social-climbing desires of blue-pill women and the concurrent woman-pleasing desires of blue-pill men.

    All we need is for a couple of George Clooney-type celebrities to openly disparage Feminism and we will be in good shape. Feminists know this, which is why they flipped their gourds when the new female CEO of Yahoo basically waved off Feminism as important to her.

    • JFinn

      All we need is for a couple of George Clooney-type celebrities to openly disparage Feminism and we will be in good shape.

      We’re getting there. NSFW clips forthcoming. Older generation anti-feminist leftist:

      Young anti-feminist leftist:

      Both are very popular and have been outspoken against “reverse sexism” and feminism several times. Then, of course, there’s Bill Burr. He’s pretty much a MRA comic. And Tom Leykis was huge for a long time. On the right you have Limbaugh, who coined the term Feminazi. And Ann Coulter who consistently calls out the encouragement and celebration of single motherhood, and the gender pay gap myth.

      • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

        Maher also did this movie, dealing with feminist issues on a humorous level:

        Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death

      • VictorGarcia

        Bill Maher is still all about male genital mutilation. guess we cant win em all.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Bill Burr mouths off then back pedals it a bit too much for my comfort zone, and Ann Coulter would assert female priviledge in a heartbeat.

        Bill Maher – pleasantly surprised, and I don’t see him backing down when sister frowns.

  • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

    “Is male disposability gone? Is demonization of male sexuality gone? Is failing education for boys better? Is the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing discount for women changed? Are false allegations taken seriously? Are children no longer ripped away from fathers who desperately need them? Is the Glass Basement in any way shattered? ”

    This is good stuff….what else?

    What specific issues should we fight?

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I think one thing we could do is modify the poster campaign a little, so that instead of going straight and solely to avoiceformen.com, it does something a little more like this:

      “Domestic violence: women are half the problem” and then two URLs, one for avoiceformen.com, and underneath, maybe in smaller letters so it’s not too congested, something like “www.avoiceformen.com/womenarehalf the problem” and that goes to an article on why women are half the problem. (Mutual abuse, child abuse, women aggressors, appropriate stats given.)

      To be clear I’m saying “avoiceformen.com” is big, but, if you bother to look closely at the poster, there’s ALSO a link that goes to whatever that specific poster is about. So any journalist who asks about it or any curious person who asks about it, we have it ready, as a talking point.

      “Stop mutilating little boys. Avoiceformen.com. (Parenthetically, smaller letters, the words “See especially: avoiceformen.com/circumcision”)

      It’s a little more work but I’d be willing to do the research and writeup for articles so-associated with any given poster.

      This is another way of getting popular press attention. People can find the front page easy in big letters and if they have specific question, in the finer print there’s a link right there to that specific issue.

  • kiwihelen

    Great and thought provoking posts.
    Added to the list
    End male genital mutilation in infants and young boys
    Equal focus on male health issues, with particular reference to prostate cancer

  • VictorGarcia

    by my personal human rights metric; we need to end the draft, that is conscription of one gender of people within our countries. end genital mutilation of one gender of our countries children. give equal alimony, custody, and child support of fathers and mothers. equal time for equal crime, that is, prison sentencing and conviction for criminal acts. recognize domestic violence, rape, and assault on a two way street level. in all honesty, our metric is pretty well defined, compared to feminists. it is not much to ask for, but people still can’t get their heads wrapped around the idea of equality. so strange. its almost like their “equality” isn’t equality at all, its entitlement to make up for lack of achievement and sacrifice. it almost seems like one sided ideology without consideration of others… funny how that works..

  • knightrunner

    A thought just occurred to me. We should develope pamphlets for all the MRAs on the ground. Just a basic over view of what we are about and the issues we hope to address. Just a sentence or two about each issue. Just enough to spark the readers interest and give them a very basic overview of what we are about. Take the domestic violence issue as example. The flyer might read.
    DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
    Government statistics show that both men and women are victims of domestic violence in equal numbers. However there is little to no assistance for men who are victims.

    • knightrunner

      When MRAs are out postering and someone says “hey, what’s this about?” the MRAs could hand them the flyer.
      This also would give the MRA notes on talking points. When engaged in conversation with a blue pill person, the pamphlet would be a guide that both could look at and go through together. Taking each point one at a time and discussing them.
      Think about it like this. What if Jack Day and JTO could of had a pocket full of these pamphlets to hand out to the crowd and the police officers and the construction workers. There is the entitled feminist crying about her victimization while everyone around her reads about the mrm and what we are about.
      If I would have been a blue pill person standing there reading about the issues while looking at that entitled feminist, that would have told me all I needed to know.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Yep. And add in “study also shows women commit the majority of violent child abuse.” Which has the benefit of both being irrefutably true and something almost nobody knows.

  • Becky

    Since I don’t live near a major city, I see just two things I can do:
    1. Send complaint e-mails to media which publish misandrist material. To that end, I would like to see a regular posting which shows recent offenders.
    2. Vote. Other special interest groups, such as NRA or NARAL, for example, make it easy for voters by giving researched endorsements or lack thereof. When I vote for a judge or a legislator, how do I know where they stand?
    Off-topic: Can someone please help me, I recently joined this site and my web expertise is scant. For one, I put profile and bio info on the page when I joined and have been trying to access other members’, but don’t know how. Does this mean you can’t access mine either? Also, how do I add a picture instead of this grey silhouette?

    • Stu

      Hi Becky. Click on someones picture, like on mine. It will take you to the gravatar site and show my profile. Once on that site you can sign up. Use the email address that you used to sign up on avoiceformen. I found it best to use a picture that you upload from your computer, I couldn’t get the options to work properly. You’ll see how it works when your on the site.

      Now, after you have uploaded the pic and set it as your picture to be displayed, every site that used wordpress and some other engines, that you sign up for using the same email address as you used in gravatar…..will display the same picture.

    • Stu

      Oh, and no, your can’t access anyone’s details here, and they can’t see yours. But that hasn’t stopped many of us from getting in touch with each other, and building real life meet ups.

  • Primal

    Brilliant. Leveraged focus on the objective is essential. To me:

    1) Since public opinion (or in other words, the public’s current ‘religion’) is the father of politics we need to focus here first.

    2) Since politics are the father of law, we need to focus here second.

    3) Since law is the father of the war (on men), we need to focus here third.

    Simple measurable objectives need to be developed for the APPROPRIATE objectives in each category. For instance, FIRE’s red, yellow, green code using ‘clean’ objective standards is highly effective. Given the wide ranging and complicated nature of the objectives, KISS (keep it simple stupid) is critical or we will loose those who don’t have time to dig in deeply.

    One thing that also might work is to reverse feminist slogans since feminists have been absolutely brilliant in sliming the culture with false slogans. The “political is personal.” or “Respect culture”, or the “War on Men”. or “1 in ? women are bigots” or Your child, your right”

    Another thing is to do network warfare like the Special Forces do when destroying terrorist networks. Locate the core people/nodes and apply focused love there first and foremost. Let the outlying node/networks collapse in confusion.

    Yet another is to locate and destroy the logistical supply lines that feed feminism. For instance, the VAWA grants are online. I imagine with a little work one could at least estimate how much money is fed into the churches (Women’s Studies) too. By showing where all that taxpayer money is wasted, one could begin to deprive the beast of money…particularly those parts of the beast responsible for farting the most dangerous hot air first.

  • Ragnar

    In my humble opinion;
    The only thing that really unites men is the reduction/aboliton of laws and limiting of government.
    In that way everyone will experience real or natural equality and will be able to go any way they choose.
    In other words; More political power on the County level and less power on Federal or State level.
    The higher level of organisation, the more “they” screw up and the harder it is to correct later.
    Without government we can work on our own masculinity and demand feminity from women.

    • Frimmel

      The thing with this movement is that I think it tends to confuse bad laws and bad government with all government is bad and not necessary. This seems to me the source of the idea that “The Right” is going to do more for men than the Feminist laden “The Left.”

      Without government we will be at the hands of our corporate overlords who will continue to dispose of men in unsafe workplaces, warehouse them in private for profit prisons, stress them with Alpha Male attainment shackles, and underpay the rest so they can’t afford their child support. We will be anything but free to “work on our own masculinity and demand femininity from women.”

      • Ragnar

        I wouldn’t recommend a total lack of government only a very limited one.
        Be carefull in your wishes for safety and security.

        • Kimski

          I agree.
          If you place the responsibility of yourself and your life in someone else’s hands, they’re bound to eventually use it against you, and that goes double for governments.
          History is loaded with examples of that, and right now you only have to look at the media, to see how obvious that is.

        • Frimmel

          The only folks I see trying to limit government are ones doing so with the aim of allowing corporations to more easily pollute the environment and to more easily exploit workers.

          They limited barriers to trade with NAFTA (i.e. less government) and those in favor of limited government couldn’t put men out of work fast enough in this country.

          What is being discussed in this article and partially the aim of men’s rights activism is figuring out a new paradigm for the organization of society. Society is largely ordered around what ‘real men do’ or male disposability. The zeitgeist that is rising is coming at a time when society is running out of room and running out of resources and more and more wealth is being funneled into fewer and fewer hands.

          One of the areas I think many here would agree on as a focus is an end to warehousing men in prisons. Well once that stops, what do those men do all day? How do they eat? Where do they work? Where do they live? Who do they couple with? How are we to keep them from being ground up in unsafe underpaid work? There already aren’t enough jobs. Nothing breeds government intervention like scarcity and impending anarchy.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    For poster-makers. I have just posted a prototype poster design bearing a striking image I encourage you to steal and adapt to your own purposes:

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/08/poster-clip-art.html

    May the spirit of Sigurd Hoeberth be with you!

  • keyster

    A centralized position and a well heeled spokesman is critical. This is what destroyed the OWS movement. There were so many “special interest groups” within the group and when the media tried to figure out what they were trying to do there was no one to tell them. And by the time they got better organized with a few articulate spokesman, it was too late.

    A movement has to be IDENTENTIFIABLE, it has to have a BRAND and DEFINABLE in the simplest of terms. It has to appear organized and structured or it won’t be taken seriously.

    If there is to be literally a VOICE for Men, it needs to be boiled down to a few well-reasoned talking points.

    Public relations and working the media is EVERYTHING. When you get the chance it’s important that you don’t blow it…or you’ll be tossed right back in the heap of other Fringe movements.

    My biggest fear is not having the opportunity to be heard, but rather when the opportunity presents itself will the MRM be ready to respond in an articulate and cohesive manner. Who will be the face/voice for men in the public arena? Where will his support come from, to travel and speak and eat? Who’s ready to sacrifice their time and energy full-time and then some? This involves REAL genuine HARD WORK; stress, time away from family, etc.

    Quite honestly, I don’t think this is a movement ready for too much attention right now. Be aware that the fringe (hate) groups we’re associated with are far better organized and funded. They have a heirarchy established (org chart) and clear mission statements,defined roles and responsibilities.

    Does this sound remotely close to anything the MRM has? Or is it disparate groups of angry men, with various and even conflicting agendas?

    You have to get it hard before you can penetrate.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      You are correct that this is what destroyed Occupy Wall Street and to a lesser extent nearly took down the Tea Partiers, which badly fragmented.

      The term “talking points” has a bad odor but in fact talking points are critical to getting a coherent message out. You can’t start blathering about side issues like “cultural marxism” or “new world order” or whatever. It has to be concrete:

      Domestic Violence: Point X, point Y, and point Z.
      Debtor’s Prison: Point X, point Y, point Z.
      Genital mutilation: Point X, point Y, and point Z.

      And when the reporter tries changing the subject, refuse to take the bait and go back to Point X, point Y, and point Z, and refuse to be pulled off-topic.

    • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

      You are currently participating in the beginning of that process Keyster…

    • MenDiscontinued

      I remember a post or article discussing that it takes time to fully learn the language and art of speaking to feminists and countering all this. Much like what you speak of, being ready for the media and PR. Very key importance.

    • Primal

      Ironically, Fathers4ForJustice got soft to penetrate Harriet Harman’s game in Superman suits. That said, your post is right on.
      What about beginning to propose some reasons, rules, and roles for both leaders and followers in an effective hierarchy?

    • Primal
    • Primal

      In support of your suggestion, here is some work going on in business related to the power of ideals: http://www.millwardbrown.com/Libraries/MB_POV_Downloads/MillwardBrown_POV_New_Engine_Business_Growth.sflb.ashx Of course, I know that ‘idealistic capitalist’ is almost always an oxymoron since capitalists are in the greed rather than the guardian game but there is certainly food for thought inside these otherwise cheesy business books. That said, I hope there is something in Growth that can be used to create growth here.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    To win the PR battle ahead we need to emphasize that we do not consider women the enemy we consider sexist BS to be the enemy. In short we are pro-women and pro-men. We need to be absolutely clear in this regard in order to undermine the feminist smears that are sure to come our way. Also, it’s the truth, um right?

    • Arvy

      The “we” in your question is rather difficult to address as no one can possibly speak for every participant in the “battle” at large, or even here on this particular web site for that matter. As for the site itself, however, its aims and values are clearly stated under the Mission tab at the top of the page. I seem to recall an earlier version being more specifically pro-male, but that’s beside the point.

      Personally, speaking as only one participant here, my own very strong priority is pro-male advocacy. The pro-female advocates have plenty of resources and allies of their own, many of whom quite obviously don’t give a tinker’s damn about our wellbeing and some of whom work very hard against it. Somehow I doubt very much that they need or would welcome support from this direction in any case. They’d almost certainly manage somehow to distort that too.

      • HieronymusBraintree

        Right. But the thing is we’re in a political battle and if we don’t define ourselves regarding this very important matter, our enemies will. I personally make no bones about despising feminists but that’s because they’re such a bunch of pious man-hating bigots. I bear no particular ill will towards women, especially since some of the worst feminists are men. Feminists already have a well-deserved reputation for hating guys and a long documentable history of doing so. If we assure people that women are not our enemies that very much puts them in the position of being the bad guys with us as the good guys. Is that not an extremely desirable position to be in?

        • Arvy

          I’ll certainly accept the proposition the “some of the worst feminists are men” (curse the blind fools) but having just read about Gordon Smith’s trials and tribulations (and his sons’ as well) I find myself having great difficulty with your suggestion that women aren’t our enemies. Frankly, I’m coming around to the view that woman is man’s worst enemy.

          Yes, I know that’s an emotional response. Maybe some cooler logic will kick in later in the day. But right now, I just don’t give a shit about “correctness”, political or otherwise.

          • Sting Chameleon

            Women might be “man’s worst enemy”, but we’re doomed without them, so we have to figure out how to solve this clusterfuck and reach a workable system that allows us to co-exist without engaging in constant one-upmanship games (or at least, a system that severely penalizes such behavior)

          • Ragnar

            @ Arvy;
            In a short reply I’d say that you are partly right in saying “women is man’s worst enemy”.
            It’s not the individual woman though.
            It’s womanhood, the abstract “eternal female” (paraphrazing Nietsche) – LOL!

            Man left the animal kingdom to create civilisation and the main “snag” in civilisation is still the animalistic requirements of giving birth, in order to continue it.

            Men decided that women had no part in it and that the important thing was “men passing on wisdom to coming generations”. Thus to participate in a given civilisation you must have received the instructions from your father (not necessarily DNA). Therefore we have the male line.

            Women are not important in our civilisation, because they do not have to come from it. Any man can get a woman from outside our civilisation and take care to pass on it’s core wisdom to his son’s.
            That’s all.

            Thus we never run out of women.
            There are plenty of them everywhere. Eh . . . provided our civilisation is superior to surrounding civilisations. (Sic!)

            The only thing that can put a stick to the wheel is giving women rights as men.
            One can only wonder about the cycles that civilisations seem to go through; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/10/the-rise-and-fall-of-complex-societies/

            Actually, we men honour “equality ad absurdum”, meaning all and everyone are equal, even women. It’s just something you have to prove yourself, you must prove yourself worthy.
            Add to this respect for property and you have they very core of most civilisations.

            In this way civilisation becomes “Fail-Safe” and can go on developing further and further, for ever.
            Except when men cave in to “bitching”.
            Then little by little society disintegrates.

            Therefore the “Principled Man” were seen as the ultimate goal / highest order of maleness up through generations of history. Many ancient texts as well as more recent ones point to this.
            You may want to read; “The Cold Equations” by Tom Godwin in order to get a modern text. Or you can go to Polybius; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Histories_(Polybius)
            page 193:
            “Cowardice and sluggishness are contemptible enough in private individuals, but they are disastrous for a state as a whole when they are attributes of one of its leaders. A general of this sort makes his troops ineffective, and often exposes his dependants to extreme danger. Then again, impulsiveness, recklessness, irrational ardour, a false conception of one’s abilities, and arrogance are characteristics that make a man vulnerable to his enemies and highly dangerous to his friends; such a man reacts too readily to any plot, ambush, or trick. A general is most likely to prevail, then, if he has the ability to understand others’ flaws and can get at his enemies by exploiting their commander’s weakness. Just as a ship that has lost its helmsman will fall into enemy hands, crew and all, so a general who can outwit or out-think the commander of an army will often capture the entire army.”
            Unfortunately I have lost the direct link to the text, so it is pasted in above.

            It is possible – I believe – to skip the “religious” part of religious texts and read them for the wisdom only. Christianity talks both of turning the other cheek and using the sword. In Havamal they mark evil as evil and call for brotherhood through sharing. Buddhism is very well known for it’s search for wisdom. Just a few short assertions of mine, check it out for yourself.

  • jms5762

    Is a man a second class citizen when his wife complains more about the cost and inconvenience of his health issues than expressing concern about his well being?

  • heartless bastard

    I remember a few years ago on Big Brother in Australia a housemate used the fact it was live,so on eviction night he wore tape across his mouth saying “free the refugees”.now i hate the show but i can’t tell you how much attention it got in mainstream news here,maybe the MRM could do the same sort of thing? that is just one example though

  • Urias

    1. Make involuntary circumcision illegal.
    2. Acknowledgment that abuse in relationships is perpetrated at nearly equal rates by men and women.
    3. Equal shared parenting as the default in case of separation and divorce.
    4. Both sexes should receive the same punishment for the same crime.
    5. Enforcement of visitation and custody rights of fathers.
    6. Restraining orders should be temporary and if no reason can be found in an investigation for the restraining order to be made permanent then the restraining order should be dropped.
    7. Only convictions and not arrests should be included in crime statistics.
    8. Accurate reporting of crimes against men and women e.g. the one in three myth.
    9. Acknowledgement that differences between men and women in income are due to personal choices, experience, qualifications, and negotiation skills.
    10. A woman that has been proven to have made a false accusation against a man must receive a punishment fitting her crime.
    11. The testimony of men and women should be given the same credence.
    12. Emotional outbursts by a group, or an individual making accusations does not confirm the guilt of the accused.
    13. Development of a male fertility pill.
    14. A man should only be held responsible for supporting a child if he has signed a legal contract is which he agrees to do so.
    15. A man should not be held accountable for the financial support of a child until a paternity test has been conducted.
    16. Discontinuation of alimony.
    17. Shared parenting should take the place of child support, unless a person is found to be an unfit parent, or a parent decides that they do not want custody of their child.
    18. Discontinuation of affirmative action.
    19. Discontinuation of women only scholarships.
    20. Discontinuation of government funding to women and gender studies courses.
    21. Women should be held completely accountable for their words and actions.
    22. Increase government funding for male health research.
    23. An increase in the number of services for abused men.
    24. The legal definition of rape should include being forced to penetrate someone against your will.
    25. Investigation into prison abuse and assaults of men.
    26. If a man is physically attacked by a woman he is entitled to defend himself up to and including the use of retaliatory violence.
    27. Discontinuation of government departments for women e.g. the Women’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor.

  • Jean

    “HieronymusBraintree

    To win the PR battle ahead we need to emphasize that we do not consider women the enemy we consider sexist BS to be the enemy. In short we are pro-women and pro-men. We need to be absolutely clear in this regard in order to undermine the feminist smears that are sure to come our way. Also, it’s the truth, um right?”

    I totally agree with this.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Me too.

  • Jean

    The most important thing is to really establish a solid base of what we stand for and what were we fighting against. We can’t only seem organized to the people, we HAVE to be organized from the inside out. Each one of us has to stand for the meaning of the MRM and not be biased by things that we’ve been through in our personal lives.

  • Ragnar

    “We either stand together and hang together or we definately hang alone”.

    The world has changed very much and I do NOT think this apply today towards an all powerfull state/World Government when you see how the UN/US/EU is able to undermine all of the middle east and bring about regime changes, as well as they are able to destroy the nation states of Europe by demographic outbreeding of the indigenous peoples. The demise of the western world goes much deeper than many of us imagine.
    So therefore, go ahead and form mens movements, but do not expect there to be one mens movement that can be regarded as “The MRM”, as “our” organisation.
    I probably wouldn’t join that, just like a lot of other also won’t.
    The only way forward as I see it is not universal at all it will be multiple MRM’s and many of them will conflict each other, but so be it.

    • kiwihelen

      I agree that if we look at centralist top-down models of organisation the MRM will run the risk of schism and infighting. We need to look at alternative models of association and organisation.
      Humans find it hard to identify to large groups, cell movements with high levels of day to day autonomy are closer to the fit for human association patterns from an evolutionary perspective.

      • Ragnar

        It becomes more and more clear that the perpetuation of civilisation is based on men passing on knowledge from one generation to the next.
        It is also not certain that women will or can participate in this. We actually experience the exact opposite.
        If women are going to help to maintain our civilisation we got to see them support men on a large scale.
        Untill then the first sentence stand uncontested.

      • Ragnar

        Kiwihelen, I basicly agree with what you said, but we are talking men, and men only.

  • Ragnar

    Well, I’m not trying to spam this thread, but . . .

    In my eyes/logic/thoughts we cannot make rights, morals or cultural modes universal because humans are too different in their persuit of happiness.

    This means that we are stuck in an eternal struggle for our own civilisation and the changes we make to it.

    We cannot escape the competition that is life.