Tools

Fighting feminism: let’s get practical

One hears that the ‘women of the United States’ are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust. ~ HL Mencken 1880-1956

Public awareness of the damage wrought by feminism is increasing with each passing year. While this is heartening, it hasn’t – so far, at least – impacted greatly on the numerous manifestations of feminism, which leads me to pose an obvious question. How might we more effectively fight feminism?

We need to recognize the deeply undemocratic nature of feminism. The rise of feminism as a major political force – over the past 30 years in particular – has been facilitated by the feminist strategy of operating ‘below the radar.’ I have friends and acquaintances who remain blind to the catastrophic impact of feminism in the modern era, despite my best efforts to enlighten them.

I’m 54 and I can’t recall a penetrating critique of feminism on a mainstream television or radio program in the UK in my lifetime, nor in ‘serious’ newspapers or magazines. We shouldn’t be surprised that the level of public understanding about the nature and impact of feminism, while improving, remains low.

Feminist agendas are developed and driven by activists who are wildly unrepresentative of women in general. When women blithely call themselves ‘feminists’, what do they mean by the word? If they use terms like ‘patriarchy’ you know they’ve been brainwashed, but most women define their personal feminist ideology (if they do so at all) using expressions such as ‘equality between men and women.’

But do they mean equality of opportunities, or equality of outcomes? The first is the equity feminist position, the second the gender feminist position – I refer the reader to Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism? (1996).

In my view, fewer than 10% of women hold the ideological positions of gender feminists, and fewer than 10% of them are developing and driving feminist agendas in either a professional capacity, or as activists. Combining the two figures leads us to a stark realization. Fewer than 1% of women are driving feminist agendas.

From this point forward the reader should understand the term ‘feminist’ to mean “gender” feminist.

Despite their claims, feminists haven’t fought for the transfers of economic and political power from men to women which have taken place over the past 30+ years. They’ve manipulated a small number of powerful and influential male collaborators (white knights, sycophants, call them what you will) into handing over power, or enabling that handover, through tactics which are ultimately rooted in shaming men. I doubt if these collaborators represent more than 1% of men. They’re found in all walks of life – politics, state agencies, journalism, business, medicine, law and education.

Feminists lack any democratic legitimacy. The British prime minister, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party and leader of the Conservative-led coalition government, is clearly a feminist – all his speeches and policy directions have been reliably women-friendly and feminist-friendly. The British government continues to drive ‘improving’ gender diversity in corporate boardrooms.

Feminism is being driven by a tiny minority of women, and is enabled by a tiny minority of men. An extraordinary state of affairs in developed democracies, and one which has implications for how feminism might be fought.

Let’s get practical

First, the bad news. It’s not possible to defeat feminism as an ideology. Now, the good news. It doesn’t need to be defeated, only thwarted, and that is possible. If there’s to be a war on feminism it will have to be fought one battle at a time, like all wars.

While public understanding of the damage wrought by feminism is rising over time, even a major increase in that understanding won’t stop the tiny minority of women demanding more power, and the tiny minority of men giving it to them.

Feminism has many manifestations which damage the interests of men – and sometimes women and children, let’s not forget – and they need to be fought individually.

I’m increasingly convinced that if the MRM is to make more progress, more speedily, MRAs will have to become less ideological and more practical. MRAs need to spend less of their limited and valuable time and energy debating with other MRAs. They need to step out of their ‘comfort zone’ more often. They need to spend less time debating with feminists, online and elsewhere. Experience tells us that feminists cannot, and will not, be persuaded by rational arguments.

More MRAs need to dedicate themselves to fighting on single issues, moving from being ‘generalists’ to ‘specialists’. There are, of course, many such issues. Obvious examples are the differential treatment of men and women with respect to parental access rights, domestic violence, unemployment, homelessness, suicide risk, drug addiction (including alcoholism), incarceration and sentencing and education.

By focusing and collaborating on single issues, MRAs could become more effective. In April 2012 I realized that no individuals or organizations were campaigning against the initiative to ‘improve’ gender diversity in corporate boardrooms, despite the growing evidence that the ‘improvement’ leads to declines in corporate financial performance.

So I launched the Campaign for Merit in Business. While we haven’t yet won the battle to persuade the government to drop its threats of minimum quotas for women in corporate boardrooms, the battle is well and truly underway. The lessons we’re learning from this single-issue campaign will hopefully be the subject of a future article on AVfM, but one of the early lessons was that our opponents had no robust defenses, only ideologically-driven supporters, albeit powerful ones.

We’ve publicly challenged all of their arguments, and shown them all to be questionable at best, and ridiculous at worst. We’ve exposed many of their claims as lies. By contrast, not one of our key arguments – for example, that ‘improving’ gender diversity in boardrooms leads to declines in corporate financial performance – has been challenged.

If MRAs shift their focus from fighting feminism as an ideology, to fighting its manifestations, they may find they have a number of influential allies. One of the reasons we campaign against ‘improving’ gender diversity in boardrooms is to attract funding from business people wishing to counter this ideological assault on the business sector.

The CBI, the major employers’ organization which should be countering the assault, is itself a proponent of ‘improved’ gender diversity on boards. The current President of the CBI is a FTSE100 company chairman, Sir Roger Carr:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/toadies-and-their-daughters/  

Let’s go on the offensive

How do you know when a feminist is lying? Her lips move.

Feminists have no rational arguments. They have only lies and distortions to ‘justify’ their actions, which helps explain why they’re permanently on the offensive.

For many years MRAs have heroically countered those lies and distortions, but with little impact on the public consciousness (largely because the mass media is reliably feminist-friendly). The feminist mission is damaged both by free speech, and by feminists’ efforts to prevent free speech. MRAs need to stop being defensive, engage less with feminists, and spend more time addressing the reasonable men and women who are willing to listen to their arguments.

While men have legitimate reasons to be angry at the feminists’ assaults on their rights, there’s an obvious problem when men publicly display anger. It plays into the feminist stereotype of men being predisposed to anger and violence. The more than men remain externally calm when provoked by angry feminists, the better. But maybe that’s easier for me than some.

I’m British and therefore genetically predisposed to remaining calm in the face of offensive people… even those most offensive of people, feminists.

Naming, shaming and ridiculing feminists

Feminists’ power stems from their relentless shaming of men as a gender. The idea of gender-wide shame is ridiculous to me – has any woman ever accepted it for her own gender – but shame is a powerful emotion. Feminist activists and ideologues should be ashamed of themselves, and we can help them realize it. The AVfM search for the identity of the feminist protester screeching at a man wishing to attend Warren Farrell’s talk at the University of Toronto is a good example of this tactic.

We also need to subject feminists to ridicule. I think the following is a gem:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/sometimes-for-the-sake-of-your-sanity-you-have-to-laugh-at-them/

Anti-Feminism League presents ‘Harpy’ awards to prominent feminists, including one to Cherie Blair, the wife of the former prime minister, Tony Blair:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/cherie-blair-qc-wins-a-harpy-award/

Naming, shaming and ridiculing feminists’ male collaborators

We need to name, shame and ridicule the male collaborators who hand over power to woman. Anti-Feminism League presents ‘Toady’ awards to such men. The 2012 ‘Toady of the Year’ award was won by the prime minister:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-foundation-of-the-anti-feminism-league-and-the-award-of-toadies-to-david-cameron-and-the-chairmen-of-33-major-british-companies/

Celebrating people who contribute to the fight against feminism

We need to celebrate these people publicly. A Conservative MP, Philip Davies, made an outstanding contribution to a debate in the House of Commons about the differential treatment of men and women by the judicial system, earning him a ‘Winston’:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/rt-hon-philip-davies-mp-is-awarded-a-winston/

To summarize my key points, I believe MRAs should:

Spend less time fighting feminism as an ideology, and less time debating with feminists.

Spend more time fighting the manifestations of feminism – collaborating with other MRAs on practical single-issue campaigns.

Name, shame and ridicule feminists.

Name, shame and ridicule feminists’ male collaborators.

About Mike Buchanan

Mike Buchanan is a British anti-feminist writer and campaigner. He was a business executive for 30 years before taking early retirement in 2010 to focus full-time on writing books (including Feminism: the ugly truth). In 2012 he founded the Anti-Feminism League http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com and Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Thank you for this article Mike.

    I think it’s where you said, “When women blithely call themselves ‘feminists’, what do they mean by the word?” you brought to my recall of an incident that happened to me some time back.

    I was at a dinner hosted by a mate and his polite and brittle feminist wife. Also there was another couple I had never met before. We were finishing off the last of the meal and I patted my stomach and said, “That was the five hundredth and seventh best (or some other big number) meal I have ever had in my life.” There was a bit of a laugh, but I wanted a bigger one so I turned to the feminist wife and said, “Since I’ve had thirty six thousand four hundred and nine meals in my life this meal ranks in the top 0.0012 percent.”

    Ok, so I got the bigger laugh but at what cost? Her face was totally expressionless. It looked like a fried egg for all I could tell and that was just before she stood up and sneered. “I’m a feminist and I take offence to that comment. I have been tied to that fucking kitchen all day!” Wow. I had just stepped on a land-slime.

    The mate of mine looked terribly ashamed as he tried to calm her down and the other couple shrank in their seats and said nothing. The woman was a disgrace and the words of excoriation spat as spurts from from a busted sewer pipe. It was horrible not for me or the other couple, but for the poor bastard who would be closing his front door from the inside that night.

    I was not interested in a fight while I jogged to my car, but what fight was there waiting for him later?

    That woman went to no feminist meetings where the gals sat about reading victim poems and never has she been to a rally of any sort. She would no doubt call herself a non-political-feminist. And I think this is where I now see real fusion of the “rads” out there and the “latte-set classy feminist.”

    Make no mistake about this. These types of feminists, and all stripes in between, settle in deck chairs under the same umbrella of protection and unaccountability. They know it and they love it and they don’t mind another daiquiri served while a dead man gets washed ashore at their suntanned toes.

    The key points made in summary are quite the ticket and it’s a delight to see them in black and white. Debating and instigating change with feminists could work very well but what is needed in place is logic, compassion and you know, a position of substance. We have that in spades and look at them while they shriek and stall and keep doing as they do. Give up, one life and all that.

    Oh, and my mate? He saw the light that night and got out a few months later. We are still friends and today he shakes his head over it with a crooked smile that tells me he can’t believe he “fell for it”.

    • Otter

      “They don’t mind another daiquiri served while a dead man gets washed ashore at their suntanned toes.”

      I’d argue that most women seem to take noticeable joy out of male disposability, and would enjoy the daiquiri even more.”

      • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

        Thanks Otter. That’s a powerful image!

    • TheSandreGuy

      Did she have some sort of emotional problems? Who in their right mind takes offense at a joke like that? Sheesh…

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

        Yeah,

        I thought it was a pretty funny joke. A shame she was there in her house with me present while I told it really.

        • Aimee McGee

          I promise if we ever have a meal together I will ask you to quantify why I’m not in the top 100 best meals, beloved will check your math!

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

            Ok, sounds great.

            Don’t be offended if I get you to sample the food first before I sit back for twenty minutes to see what happens.

            It’s not you, its me. I’m cautious is all, ok.

          • Kimski

            @Dr.F:

            “I cautious is all, ok.”

            This.

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

            Kimski,

            Ta mate, fixed.

            P.S. Now your comment looks out of place (giggle)

        • Aimee McGee

          Mike, nice to realise you are also in Blighty, I will come and visit your website one day when fighting to save the NHS doesn’t tire me out!
          I was listening to Laurie Taylor on Radio 4 and do wonder if some judicious campaigning would get him as a sociologist to profile the MRM? Whatcha think?

          • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

            Hi Aimee, that sounds like a great idea. Contact me any time at mikebuchanan@hotmail.co.uk.

    • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

      Dr F, thank you. Mulling on the article after it was published, I thought to myself, ‘Maybe it’s not one in ten militant feminists who is developing and driving these agendas… maybe it’s only one in a hundred.’ Which led me to realise, maybe only one in a thousand women is driving this. A sobering thought. How can one in a thousand women – one in two thousand people – be causing this much damage in a modern democracy?

      Mike Buchanan

      • Bev

        Very easily. If you follow and read the reports and submissions to various government enquiries and advisary boards. The same few radical feminist faces turn up as members of committees or government advisors while various radical feminist groups make submissions to these enquiries. The radical feminists on committees ditch submissions from other groups that don’t follow the agenda. I have watched it happen time and time again. Family law, dv law, health policies etc (areas that affect women) are closely monitered and changed by a few to suit themselves.

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

        Yes, I know what you mean.

        A friend of mine is unlucky in that there are two on his block. He lives on a short street which makes the compression of poor luck all the more a humbug.

        • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

          Dr F, that is indeed a concern. If the two feminists on that block breed, we’re in trouble…

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

            It may well be too late.

            One has a bump and the other is fetching twigs from all around.

            Old Mrs. Guernsey and Horace G. cannot have their water turned back on at present. The council has put a stop to all earthwork activities while the two feminists complete the birth of their young.

  • Zorro

    A very good article, Mike.

    Re your assumption that less than 10% of women are gender feminists, and of that less than 10% are activists. That means less than 1% of women are actively pushing a feminist agenda.

    < 1%. No big deal?

    Let's say you live in a town with 10,000 people. Of those 10,000 people, one is a talented serial killer. You enjoy brisk evening walks and the ability to ride your bike on the bike path in the early morning hours. You are a 110-lb. young woman, and attractive.

    Your talented serial killer population is:

    0.0001% of the population.

    Do you feel safe?

    If < 1% of the female population is actively pushing a feminist agenda and the gov’t is buying into it, your society can rot into decrepitude in less than one generation. And we’ve seen exactly that.

  • Zorro

    To summarize my key points, I believe MRAs should:

    Spend less time fighting feminism as an ideology, and less time debating with feminists.

    Spend more time fighting the manifestations of feminism – collaborating with other MRAs on practical single-issue campaigns.

    Name, shame and ridicule feminists.

    Name, shame and ridicule feminists’ male collaborators.

    Agreed 100% !!!!!!

    Debating a feminist is as useless and time-wasting as when a devout Catholic debates an atheist, or when a Muslim debates a Jew. You will accomplish nothing. The recent “debate” between Christina Hoff-Somers and Hanna Rosin was ridiculous and ended in catastrophe. Debating with monkeys will leave you covered in shit.

    OTOH, naming and shaming the femnazis that JTO recently did at the Univ. of Toronto was exquisite!

    • Merlin

      Whist I agree that too much time debating feminists can be fruitless; on the whole, I feel there is some value in the discourse with these reprobates.

      The discourse is viewed and monitored. So, when feminists lose their cool, it’s all there for people to see and judge for themselves. Therefore, helping to quash their predominant narrative.

      However, I would agree with Mike, that targeting specific issues also adds tremendous value to the cause of silencing the beast. I appreciate what he has to say in this area.

      Good article, Mike.

  • dhanu

    Welcome Mike. A very straightforward and fast paced narrative style. The conclusions drawn in the summary part are spot on. I also think that we need to bring changes from the top down, that is, starting from the political and legal systems. Because the feminism is strong enough to crush any lower level small changes we might try to bring over. Public awareness is good for the members of the public themselves; public no longer has any power to change or fight the state’s decisions – it’s so much internally divided. We need to start our (ideological) fights with the authority figures (the system). You’re doing this. More people need to do this and even more people need to see this.

  • Otter

    The truth will set us free.

    I believe if we continue to tell the truth that feminists try to sweep under the rug that we will continue to draw open-minded humanists to our cause. The movement will grow and will continue to gain momentum in the media.

    If this conversation about our rights continues to spread, soon everyone will be talking about it.

  • Mr. J

    I had a tit-for-tat argument with a “women’s shelter” type person who told me that child abuse was not a part of domestic violence and that violence against women was a much larger problem than child abuse.
    How do y’all like THAT one??
    This was after I pointed out that women commit more violence against children than men……….Talk about MAJOR spin and deflection.

  • Mr. J

    Too many men over the years have been made ineffective because of their obsession with “professional” sports…They just don’t see..The Green Bay Packers “professional football team” is collecting used phones for “domestic violence”…How many “sports” people know about that?
    See, all those brutish men(football players) can show their “gentle white knight” side by going all-out for “domestic violence”…Y’all see how that works??…….That twist has been going on for 30 years too…How many see it??

    • Frimmel

      I saw it every Sunday in October in the NFL and even on some Saturdays in college football for the last several seasons as all the players donned pink parts of their uniforms to combat breast cancer. Yet there is no similar month to combat the cancers these players and the greater portion of their fan base are most likely to be diagnosed with.

  • malcolm

    Hello Mike. I’m looking forward to reading your articles and thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly with your premise that debate is useless and that we should concentrate more on actual initiatives.
    That protest in Toronto has generated a lot of publicity for men’s rights and showcased how irrational these people are, and how they are supported by academia and unions. It wouldn’t have happened unless there was an organized event and men and women were willing to get out and attend.
    These people can’t help themselves and as the Men’s Rights Movement starts gaining a foothold in the conciousness of more and more people they will be beside themselves with anger. While their anger isn’t going to cause any changes that benefit men and boys, it will showcase who has rational arguments and who doesn’t.

  • by_the_sword

    “Name, shame and ridicule feminists.

    Name, shame and ridicule feminists’ male collaborators.”

    Great article. I do have one question about the above classification of male collaborators; since feminism is an ideology which can be put forth by both men and women, wouldn’t that make ‘male collaborators’ feminists?

    Other than that I like the article.

    • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

      Thanks BTS, you raise a very intriguing point. I think the motivations of feminists and their male collaborators are often – albeit not always – quite different. Both genders are, I think, hard-wired to seek the approval of the other gender. But men have greater scope than women to secure that approval by handing over power.

      About 25 FTSE100 chairmen are members of the ’30% club’, committed to ‘improving’ female representation on their boards. They’re falling over each other to hand over power to poorly-qualified women on a plate.

      I don’t see many women prepared to trash their own gender for male approval, except in the private sphere and for personal gain. And then we’re outside the realm of gender politics and in the age-old realm of women trading personal attractiveness for economic gain, in whichever one of many forms that may take.

      • Aimee McGee

        Mike, I’ve said it before and will say it again, I would be pissed off if someone tried to break a ‘glass ceiling’ for me based on my gender, if I get rewarded I want it to be for talent alone.

        • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

          Thanks Aimee, but the ‘glass ceiling’ never existed. It was no more than a feminist delusion to explain why ‘equality of opportunity’ didn’t translate into ‘equality of outcome’. The REAL explanation is simple. I refer you to the renowned sociologist Catherine Hakim:

          http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/dr-catherine-hakims-preference-theory/

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    As a woman, I find I can effectively shame men who are spouting feminist ideologies that actually paint men as gross caricatures of people, and men will respond. Most seem almost relieved to discover a woman who DOESN’T believe men are stupid, shallow brutes always one step away from rape and murder.

    But shaming women? That’s a lot harder to do. Most of them will just shrug with a “who gives a shit” smirk on their face when you point out their hypocrisy/cruelty/stupidity.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      If you were to ever consider doing an article for this website, that would be a magnificent topic. :)

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        You’re on!

        • malcolm

          Giddyup then. That sounds interesting.

        • scatmaster

          Looking forward to an article from JB.

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

      I worked have a theory about this. Psychologically, women appear to have the power not necessarily to change minds, but to affirm or deny to men that it is OK to think or say certain things. I call it the “Confirm overwrite BIOS?” button. Typhon and I talked about it at length one night in a long conversation.

      Her solution is partly to give men the “it’s OK to overwrite your own BIOS” confirmation.

      That may sound too geeky for some people but it makes perfect sense to me.

      More White Knights need to be called out for just how absurdly childish, idiotic, foolish, hateful, oh and by the way, titanically fucking unsexy that shit is.

      • Frimmel

        Isn’t it the same thing as the old saw about not knowing something if your job depends on you not knowing something? In this case it is a peaceful home and continued access to sex or in some case the potential for sex. Or maybe more a practical result of women having the greater portion of control with regards reproduction (i.e. The Golden Rule: The one with the gold makes the rules.)

    • Steve_85

      Shame only works when the person being shamed actually cares what the shamer thinks about the person being shamed. If you’re arguing with a feminist, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re in the ‘other’ camp and they will be immune to any shaming you attempt because they’ve already decided that you’re a subhuman piece of trash (doubly so if you’re male).

      Feminists can’t be shamed by men (and most women) for the same reason that I can’t be shamed by anyone. because we quite frankly give not a single fuck. I have a king sized bed just piled high with the empty space where all the fucks I give are located…

      And just like that, shaming has no effect.

      • andybob

        Thank you Mr Steve_85 – that was beautiful.

      • Laddition

        any pointers to blogs from men of your generation?

        I see a lot of young women (and their guru-ettes) assuming that things aren’t going to change much in the market place (sexual and marital). Dalrock has the latest stats showing that marriage appears to be dead for older women (statistically anyway) only 0.1% of women 35-39 and 40-44 getting married in the last five years. For the younger women everything is moving in the wrong direction, but they don’t care yet – they’re not looking to marry yet. If they’re worried at all it is because they may have trouble marrying ‘up’ when they decide that it’s time, but they expect to be making the decisions because the men will be waiting for them with rings…

        So, I’d like to see what ‘normal’ young men are saying, doing, thinking. I don’t see many women caring about da menz, I certainly don’t see any of them thinking that the problem is any more than superficial – quick fix of superficial misandry and da menz will be back. I DON’T THINK SO. I think that young men that have any awareness have seen what women are like when allowed to reveal their true natures, they will not be forgetting that any time soon

        any recommendations / thoughts?

  • Lovekraft

    Nice to see JB here. Have been reading this blog for a few weeks now and check it out regularly.

    There are definitely changes in the wind. Twenty years ago, men and boys had to hang their heads low as they were guilt-tripped and treated like weeds.

    But today, the pie has shrunk and the future is looking bleak. So males are starting to speak up and ask “why should I remain silent while my future is being wiped out?”

    When I started out in the workplace, mainly office environments, I came to the conclusion that the worst people to work with were middle-aged women. Loud, frivolous, self-centered and a general lack of focus and drive. These experiences were first-hand, not anecdotal.

  • Lovekraft

    Today, I am still in the corporate environment but removed from the PC bureaucrats (mainly). I have to follow ‘the rules’ but have had enough altercations with feminists that my reputation is known as someone not to trifle with.

    Sure, most leftists and feminists have no scruples about backstabbing, collusion and outright violence but I have noticed in the past couple of years the space they have given me, as well as their avoiding bringing up their agenda in my presence.

    The reason for this is simple: I never backed down from truth. Truth that goes beyond some leftist definition.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    “Spend less time fighting feminism as an ideology, and less time debating with feminists.” AGREE. But it is necessary to understand the ideology and recognize its tricks and the agenda in policies. The agenda of ending the family (clearly defined in late-1940s UN documents, which have at this point been adopted by the nation states as “global” or global-ist policy) was not invented by women nor feminists, but it used by them. The ideological base, collectivism, must be identified so we do not waste time on the wrong targets.

    Top-down social engineering (coercion) is not “gendered.” We are mistaken when we treat tyrannical policy as “feminist” per se, although we are correct when we observe that feminists vehemently support collectivist authoritarianism and are thoroughly indoctrinated with this male-created behaviorist-designed programming.

    “Specialization”: excellent advice. I myself am a specialist in very specific areas of counter-feminist education: ones I selected specifically because the areas I deal with have not yet been developed by others, thus a need was well-established.

    • Mr. J

      EXCELLENT point…People have realize these problems did not begin with and are not confined to the actions of women and feminism.

  • http://www.forrettindafeminismi.com S. Jonsson

    Excellent article, thank you! I couldn’t agree more. The feminist movement can be said to have been very well organized although in many aspects informally so.

    I have yet to see a single instance of a feminist changing his or her mind in an online debate and often catch myself wishing that the guys wasting time on that would do something more useful.

    I would say however that it is useful to some extent. I live in a small country and can enjoy the benefits of seeing the effects of different types of activism in a relatively short feedback loop.

    We only recently have begun to have what you could call a strong resistance to feminist bs. One of the thing that seems to produce is they get even more outlandish in the public sphere, thus showing more and more sane people how crazy the radfems really are.

    I think I’ll pick up some of the things you suggest. Like shaming of some male collaborators.

  • Tawil

    Mike B: “I’m increasingly convinced that if the MRM is to make more progress, more speedily, MRAs will have to become less ideological and more practical.”

    Ideology is very important; its the basis of any intelligent action. Also, ideology and practical activity compliment each other rather than being mutually exclusive.

    Mike B: “MRAs need to spend less of their limited and valuable time and energy debating with other MRAs.’

    If MRAs are pushing flawed or unhelpful ideas -eg. a certain political party; the use of violence; personal egotism and grandiosity; fundamentalist religion; incorrect assumptions etc- then they certainly do need to be subject to lively debate. Regular debate among MRAs is an important way to stay the course and to avoid getting derailed. It helps to build community consensus and direction.

    Mike B: “They need to step out of their ‘comfort zone’ more often. They need to spend less time debating with feminists, online and elsewhere. Experience tells us that feminists cannot, and will not, be persuaded by rational arguments.”

    Its true that hardened feminists are not persuaded by rational arguments, however there are other important benefits to debating them; (a). it helps shape and sharpen the debating skills of MRAs precisely to make their activism more effective, including the ability to articulate and defend their activism when challenged (as they inevitably will be) by feminists or feminist sympathisers; (b). it provides casual readers with an insight into just how bigoted feminists are – an insight not afforded by the usual media outlets. Call it a grassroots education service.

    Its not necessarily helpful to create false dichotomies to inspire activism. However your encouragement for people to take up a single cause is a good one – one that has proven highly successful over the years by all who practice it. People are anyway naturally attracted to special causes due to personal experiences with divorce, domestic violence, health, child abuse, corporate corruption, politics, and so on… they may just need that little push to get started on a project.

    • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

      Tawil, thank you for your comments. It’s certainly not my intention to ‘create false dichotomies to inspire activism’. It’s my intention to encourage MRAs to move on from ideological arguments – for many, their ‘comfort zone’ – to fighting feminism on a practical level, which in a number of ways is a far greater challenge, and more likely to reap rewards for men, women and children.

      Mike Buchanan

      • Tawil

        I understand and agree with what you are attempting to inspire Mike, and it’s for a good cause. However i don’t see that it’s necessary to move on from ideological arguments, or debate, in order to fight feminism on a practical level. The two can and do work together. In fact i would go further and say that in some instances ideological arguments -like those JTO and others put up on this site- are the best activism we have.

        • Frimmel

          Aren’t the movement seeking a fairly fundamental paradigm shift in the way society on the whole and men themselves view men? The ideological argument are absolutely necessary. The ideological arguments are the red pill.

          • Tawil

            Frimmel: “The ideological arguments are the red pill.”

            Yep, that too.

            As someone who has observed the MRM over a few decades I don’t accept the claim that many men are wallowing in an ineffective comfort zone of ideological arguments at the expense of activism. This comes across as a slightly arrogant, unfair and unwarranted shame-claim. Most men are doing what they can in terms of activism, perhaps involving strictly personal forms of activism to help themselves through a psychological or family war zone. And I say this as someone who is engaged in effective community activism, whilst being simultaneously engaged in ongoing ideological refinement and debate. It’s ok to call for more activism but lets also do it with thoughtfulness and sensitivity to the people it is aimed at.

        • ivy7om

          Perhaps the ideological side should be developed into one of the “specializations” he mentions.

  • andybob

    Mr Tarwil is correct. While Mr Buchanan makes some very astute points (and I salute his practical approach and valuable committment) about feminists and the need to confront them on single issues, we should not underestimate the value of on-line activism.

    Only a hapless optimist would ever venture onto a feminist site and attempt to engage those dogma-spewing harpies in a rational debate. With very rare exceptions, I completely ignore them. I follow Mr Fidelbogen’s advice, and talk over their heads, aiming my points directly at what the Master of Rhetorical Discipline calls the ‘middle class’ of fence-sitting onlookers.

    It works like a charm. It is particularly gratifying when one of those onlookers addresses me directly as we both completely ignore the feminists. I usually manage to manage to mention AVFM just before we both get banned. This is a very worthwhile activity as many onlookers have never witnessed feminist ideology being calmly and thoroughly debunked.

    Having perused Mr Buchanan’s excellent blog, I can confidently assume that he has never struggled very much with the ability to articulate his opposition to feminism. Unfortunately, this isn’t true for everyone. As I have stated many times before, the contibutors at AVFM not only gave me the education of a lifetime, but they also mentored me towards finding my own voice on men’s issues.

    I’m sure I’m not alone in this. The debating and sharing – even much of the arguing – are essential to developing our understanding of the issues. The comraderie we have built is also a contributing factor in building the confidence needed to confront a formidable foe.

    Finally, we should never make assumptions about what each of us contribute in our daily lives and careers towards fighting feminism, and promoting the interests of men and boys. In order to maintain anonymity, many such contributions, including some major victories, must remain unreported – at least for the time being.

  • Autcel

    I agree with your article, but unfortunately one of the biggest challenges of MRM is to make it global enough to cover literally the entire world, but as more regions start to have male issues popping up locally with potential of getting international attention, I believe that this part will eventually gets solved.

    By the way, actual shaming is far worse that what your article suggested. What you called as shaming is nothing more than objective condemnation.

  • Cultural_Expat

    Sadly another new hampshire male suicide by self-immolation this morning. The reason why…yet unknown. RIP dude :-(

    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121208/NEWS07/121209262

  • HQR3

    It seems that MRAs (most) and feminists (all) fear the same thing, albeit for opposite reasons: a big box MRM. The fems, of course, are terrified by the prospect of even one men’s rights organization large enough to challenge the domination of N.O.W., Ms. Foundation, The Feminist Majority, et al. Armed with truth and justice, too big to be ignored by the media and the various institutions, and a reliable conduit for the dissatisfaction with all the misandry and injustice, a big MRM would present them with something they’ve never had to face in a century and a half of existence: determined organized resistance.

    The fems are quite aware of the perks of big box. When Abigail Nobody and her three harpy friends hold a “demonstration” in front of a department store, she knows they will be taken seriously. Why? For the same reason an 110-lb. policewoman can talk smack to a 310-lb. bruiser: they both know that she has the big box behind her. Likewise with the courts, academia, police, and politicians. When the crazy feminist verbally assaults a male student in Toronto and the police protect her, well, they’re cognizant of the big box behind her. (Ahem, not hers.) The big box is the power of plata o plomo (silver or lead), the power of the carrot or stick.

    Many in the MRM are leery of the concept of a big box MR for different reasons: metaphorically, they fear for the movement’s soul. Reasonably, they worry about complications of corruption, warring factions, sell-out of principles, or the movement veering in the wrong direction or pursuing stupid crusades. (In the 70s the Nat’l Org. for Men fought for the right for men to wear skirts.) They fear the influence of big money and politics—e.g., Koch Bros.’ money turning the MRM into an adjunct of the Tea Party—or that influential manginas will insist that the MRM will only be credible if led by a woman. Their concerns are valid.

    However,…

    As our information enlightens more and more fair-minded people, as, to use Fidelbogen’s expression, we become ambient, some form of big box MR will emerge, perhaps spontaneously like the Arab Spring. But having planted the seeds, we must guide what sprouts—or not. Doubtlessly, the fems will try to preempt us with some flaccid clone of the Good Men’s Project; and if it’s big enough, rich enough, and touted in the fem-controlled media, folks will see it as THE men’s movement. Likewise, I could imagine the Republicans creating an astroturf movement to exploit the gender gap on the male side.

    So the question is not big box or not, it’s coming. The question is how BIG, and who drives.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism-page/karma/ KARMA MRA MGTOW

      Deakin University Poster run 9th December

      • Tawil

        A thousand thumbs up! That will give the Shithouse Bandit more than a run for his money.

      • Raven01

        With that many posters eventually some might start using this:
        http://custom.rollout.ca/

        Custom wallpaper, just to save time.
        Karma, you are a postering machine.

      • the Tired Low Social

        what’s with the wondershare logo in the middle of the screen?

  • Kris W

    Sometimes the most effective way to fight a demon is merely with a mirror.

    The strategy espoused in this well written article is to take that mirror and make sure it is planted in the face of every single feminist, marvelous.

  • Jay

    I’m with you Mike. One of my key aims is to prevent misandric laws being passed. Currently, many countries are attempting to introduce the “Swedish Model” for sex work. This basically criminalises all men, but says women are simply all victims without any agency (yep, exact misandrist feminist dogma without basis). And they use the myth of sex trafficking and grossly exaggerate statistics (Yep, we’ve seen that b4 too).

    http://bebopper76.wordpress.com

    I’m writing to MPs regarding this issue, and the continual demonisation of men and continual false victimhood status of women. This Swedish model is similar to the illegalisation of homosexuality – it invades the private sexuality between consenting adults. It is an affront to basic human rights for men and women. And these changes are all being driven by gender ideologues.

  • Jay

    Great stuff Mike. We should look to prevent all misandric laws being passed and repeal the current ones. Currently, many countries are attempting to introduce the “Swedish Model” for sex work. This basically criminalises all men, but says women are simply all victims without any agency (yep, exact misandrist feminist dogma without basis). And they use the myth of sex trafficking and grossly exaggerate statistics (Yep, we’ve seen that b4 too).

    http://bebopper76.wordpress.com

    I’m writing to MPs regarding this issue, and the continual demonisation of men and continual false victimhood status of women. This Swedish model is similar to the illegalisation of homosexuality – it invades the private sexuality between consenting adults. It is an affront to basic human rights for men and women. And these changes are all being driven by gender ideologues.

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

      Jay,

      Many apologies. This one was in the spam-clam and I see you tried to post it four times lol.

      Ok, next time it happens and it does not appear in say, half an hour, can you please make a short note telling of how that clam needs to be cracked open?

      Thanks.
      Oyster Farmer.

    • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

      Thanks Jay.Good luck with the MPs! There’s a very good account of the nonsense talked about ‘sex trafficking’ – the exaggerated stats etc – in Swayne O’Pie’s ‘Why Britain Hates Men: Exposing Feminism’ from http://exposingfeminism.com, also available in a Kindle edition

  • MGTOW-man

    I agree with Mike Buchanan. We MRA’s need to break out of our comfort zones, and go after feminism in alternative ways.

    I too love to comment on this site. I will not stop. I love to explain how feminism is wrong. I appreciate having a voice that this site extends me that would otherwise be shut out from the world thanks to:

    1) a largely successful censorship campaign waged by feminists as they fear the dispersal of the truth—truth that does not represent their conveniences, that is commonsense, that is nature-based, and that is mostly irrefutable, and…

    2), a largely cowardice-laced male population hung up on chivalry despite how it is hurting men and boys.

    But we need to do more. Definitely. We need to find ways around the obstacles placed between us and success. One way is to concentrate and concert on specific initiatives that feminists scheme and concoct derived from their misguided and oblivion-laced, reality-distorted, summations of basically everything.

    So, let us focus on ways to manifest Buchanan’s suggestions. Let us make this year one that the world will remember. Fighting individual initiatives of feminism in a head-on collision way will only help our cause!

    Let’s get busy!

    For starters, it is not enough to complain about how wrong-as-mud the “equal pay for [un] equal work” initiative is. We need to make sure it is not implemented. Not because we do not want women to be paid equally, but because we do not want them to be paid MORE than men—which is exactly what will be the result if women get paid the same as men AND also get paid extra just for being female (against the evil patriarchy), trying to have it all ways in their favor.

    We already know that idiots such as Obama will not agree with us. Nor will he even read scholarly counter-arguments. Instead he will automatically without true investigation, just side with feminists. So changing people like that is hardly possible. But making sure we get the right people in the right places to defeat this transparent power grab that will result in mass unfairness for males is the new preferred method that I think Buchanan is talking about is better.

    Contacting your congressmen (with diplomacy, but unapologetic defense of the truth) is a good place to start. Don’t just say how wrong it is, but explain how and why.

    Another way is for us to come out of our shells, organize better, find ways to get in the media, put our heads together to manifest better fighting mechanisms.

    Mr. Buchanan? Am I right?

  • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

    MGTOW, thanks for taking the trouble to post such a detailed and interesting comment.

    I agree with almost everything you say. Thank you for your point about ‘equal pay for work of equal value’. Somehow we’d missed that in out (proposed political party) discussions to date, but it’s now on our radar.

    Not long after I’d penned this article – December 7 – I had a ‘light bulb’ moment. For eight months I and others had worked hard for the Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com and done all humanly possible to engage the government – a Conservative-led coalition – with the evidence which clearly shows that increasing female representation on boards (official government policy) leads to declines in corporate financial performance. Our latest briefing paper on the subject:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

    We’ve reached the astonishing position where the government doesn’t challenge our thesis, yet is pressing on anyway. No minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is prepared to meet with us (the department is led by an extreme left-wing Liberal Democrat minister).

    It gets worse. We submitted written evidence to a House of Lords inquiry, and our evidence was rejected out of hand in the final report:

    http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/our-email-exchanges-with-baroness-ocathain/

    We contacted the chairwoman of the inquiry, the Conservative peer Baroness O’Cathain, for an explanation of the committee’s rejection for our evidence, and received none. It was clear that the evidence had simply been rejected because it flew in the face of the direction of government policy.

    The ‘light bulb’ moment happened some time after my article was published. I realised that there was no point trying to engage with the government. We had to go beyong getting practical, we had to get POLITICAL.

    And so it was that I decided in late December to form a political party. We have a draft statement of beliefs, proposals etc. which we believe will appeal to the majority of British citizens. For what it’s worth, I think it will be even more appealing to Americans, who tend to be more socially conservative than Brits, possibly because they’re markedly more likely to be religious.

    The party should be registered around late February, and we obviously plan to fight marginal seats. Which brings me to my final point. You talk about contacting your congressman, and I see similar pieces of advice all the time. My hunch is that making contact – and attending any resulting meetings – are a waste of valuable time and effort. All you’ll get are platitudes (at best). We need to stop trying to appeal to politicians’ ‘better sides’, and start fighting them in marginal seats so they HAVE to listen to us, and make their manifestos etc. more male- and family-friendly. Women and children will be among the beneficiaries of such changes. Let’s remind ourselves that feminist agendas are driven by less than 1% of women, and enabled by less than 1% of men.

    Mike Buchanan

    ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
    http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com