[As written for thegoodmenproject.com, prior to the heavy handed editing of it's management - PE]
It’s hard to decide, when approaching a subject such as this, exactly the best approach to take. Explaining the Mens Movement, in however cursory a manner, involves exploding so many of the cultural myths we live with day to day that it really does involve a bit more than a lone article, or even two. In a way, this plays a bit into my hands for a couple of reasons; I hate quoting statistics (and they’re boring anyway), and I’m not interested in telling you, the reader, what to think.
What I hope to do is to show you a couple of fresh approaches to certain subjects in a manner that makes you want to do some investigating on your own. If you do that, I’m confident you and I will be ‘teammates’ sooner or later. But enough of that, what’s up with this ‘Mens Movement’, are we all just a bunch of whiny woman-haters with victim complexes, or is there more to it?
My involvement with the mens movement began over a decade ago, back when Glenn Sacks still had his radio show, before Reddit and almost before Google (unless my drug-addled brain has yet again forgotten to keep time correctly). That should give you an idea of how long this particular fight for recognition has gone on. Almost 15 years, in this incarnation.
Back in those days, there was a thing we call the ‘Lace Curtain’, which is still in effect but to a much lesser degree, which basically was the media’s unwillingness to take a male-sympathetic view of anything, even to the point of suppressing any male-favourable comments, letters to the editor, etc. Yes, back in those days we actually sent out email alerts whenever someone got a letter to the editor published in their local paper. Men simply getting a mention as somehow being worthy of concern in the media was greeted with celebration, it was so rare.
We forget these things, and many of the newcomers think this movement is three or four years old, and thus think we make no progress…
But progress at what, exactly? It’s obvious we exist, and that we’re angry and loud…but what are we on about? Sometimes it’s hard to get the signal through the noise, and the diffuse nature of the Mens Movement makes it even harder. I started a webzine called MenZ Magazine to help with that, and if you’ll bear with me, I aim to help right here, and right now.
The Issues
Here are some basic facts:
Men have no reproductive rights throughout what we would call the Political West. What this means is that men have no right to choose if they are ready for parenthood post conception, even though women have that right (and staunchly defend it, in fact). While the morality of letting men abandon pregnant girlfriends is left in question, the base inequality of the current situation is not. We have a blatant legal double standard based solely on the sex of the person involved. Given our societal navel-gazing in regards to sexism elsewhere, this is a blatant hypocrisy. Either give men the same rights as women, or restrict women’s rights to equal those of men, we don’t care which. But to fail to do so is to admit sexism as official government policy.
Men also have no parental rights unless conferred on him by the mother. A man’s name cannot go on a Birth Certificate unless the mother consents, or states that this man is the father. In addition, a man has no medical assurance the child is actually his, unless he jeapoardizes his relationship by asking for a paternity test (and in some cases, the mother can refuse him). In relation to all of this is the assignation of paternity common in Family Court (and society), either through lying to the father from the outset, or making him responsible because he dated a single mom for a while. Think men paying for children that aren’t theirs is rare? In California over 2/3rds of child paternity is assigned via “default judgement“, make of that what you will.
While we’re on the Family Court tack, how about those Child Support tables…? They were based in part on hysteria generated by Lenore Weitzman, who declared after divorce women’s standard of living went down, and mens went up. Her study was never peer reviewed, and her data never examined (and admitted later to have been faulty), but that didn’t stop the government from employing, get this, a guy who owns a child support collection agency to determine what was ‘fair’. The Feds attached a commission to the State for every dollar collected through official channels and VOILA!, they have a huge ‘backdoor’ revenue stream (that’s right, Child Support is used as a revenue stream for each individual State). And they get to look like they’re ‘helping women’ while they destroy whole generations of men.
To add insult to injury, this is all done under the regime of “No Fault” divorce, which basically means no reason needed, no punishment for wrongdoing. Even in cases where one spouse is decent and hardworking and upstanding, and the other is an alcoholic, cheating gambling addict who takes off with the kids, there can be no assignation of ‘blame’…for some reason. Which in and of itself is no big deal, until you factor in the misandric culture we live in, where accusations of wrongdoing are gendered in the media (when was the last time you heard of a male victim called a ‘man’ instead of ‘victim”worker’ or somesuch? How quick do they throw Gender out there when it’s a “gunman”?), the DV industry and their sexist propaganda that only women are victims, only men perpetrators, the ‘sensitivity training’ all levels of our legal system are indoctrinated with, etc.
Speaking of the justice system, men have particular concerns there too. First and foremost is the massive spike in incarcerations in the US over the last 30 years or so (Fig 1). Nearly all of those are men, and nearly all of those men are poor, and usually black. While some might see tough on crime, I see a society locking their ‘undesireables’ out of sight. And while there is a tendency for black and white men to be treated differently, the treatment women receive vs. men for the same crime is substantially lighter, far more than racially motivated disparity in fact.
A lot of those guys are even in jail because they were broke, and couldn’t pay their child support.
Which brings me to the economy. And jobs. Men are falling WAY behind women in employment, but what seems to never quite reach the surface is that most of the areas in which women dominate are publicly funded, or heavily unionized. Which means Affirmative Action. And of course, Affirmative Action only ever goes one way…
What this all really boils down to, is the loss of the male half of the ‘gender conversation’ that has been going on for millenia. Actually, the deliberate suppression of. Which brings me to…
Why Do MRAs Hate Feminism So Much?
In a nutshell, because nearly every word out of their mouths is a lie. Why do men enjoy such a hated reputation, where men are afraid to help small children for fear of an accusation? Why is the general assumption “if there’s smoke there’s fire”, even when a man is acquitted of rape (and for that matter, why is he not anonymous until conviction too?) never questioned, and indeed championed? Who is promoting the idea of a ‘rape culture’, and that one sex is responsible for the safety of the other? Who has consistently painted all things masculine as evil, toxic, or in need of improvement?
MRAs reject the very notion that ‘men oppressed women’. It didn’t happen. Ever. Men worked with women, in the roles they were allowed, and men’s roles were no less restrictive than women’s. Indeed, most of the time the men’s roles were far MORE restrictive than women’s. Of course, Patriarchy Theory doesn’t address this simple fact except to blame it on, you guessed it, men.
But more than that, feminists don’t even live up to their own rhetoric. And the reason for this? They don’t have to.
Feminism bills itself as a revolution for women, taking on radical new freedoms and exploding the envelope that surrounded women’s lives, hemming them in like so much cattle. Feminists take credit for such things as women’s suffrage (in Canada, non-landed women and non-landed men got the vote on the same day in 1920, after approx 1 million men died in WW1 without having it) without showing any clear connection, and they do so with pride. But should a clearly Feminist organization support a misandric policy, even a national one, suddenly there are millions of different ‘kinds’ of feminism.
This carpetbagger approach is tenable because Feminism is nothing radical, it isn’t even new thinking. It is simply more of the same Gynocentric thinking we have pursued as a society steadily for thousands of years. Feminism is little more than Government sponsored and enforced Chivalry. There’s nothing ‘equal’ in Feminism, and they have steadily attacked mens priveleges without giving up one iota of their own (and fiercely oppose those who seek parity…like MRAs for instance).
Feminists have, from the very outset of the Mens Movement (in its current form at least) ridiculed, dismissed, viciously attacked, mischaracterized, and misrepresented the Mens Movement, pretty much in that order. As it stands today, Feminists are castigating us for not wanting to play nice, as if the last 60 years didn’t exist. As if we hadn’t noticed they haven’t changed one damned bit.
While these people may be adept, like a woman with NPD abusing her husband, at ‘plausible deniability’, we do not live in a court of law, and men see what is happening.
And men are angry. Very angry.
What Men Are Doing To Cope.
In their zeal to avoid talking about the elephant in the room, the multitude of articles written these days about men and boys don’t talk much about the issues I outlined above. Many of these articles still don’t even bother to ask men what they think. Instead, many turn to female ‘experts’. In an age where even articles discussing the state of men refuse to talk about the male viewpoint, or even ask men what they think, what exactly can a man do to get by?
Well, that seems to depend on your goals and your realistic expectations. These are the major sub-groups:
MGTOWs
Men Going Thier Own Way, or MGTOWs, are one major subgroup of the mens movement. These men are, as the name suggests, essentially dropping out of society as we know it. A good portion of these men are the ones Kay Hymowitz and the like are complaining about a lot…the men playing vids, drinking beer and smoking weed, and not ‘manning up’ as expected.
For the most part, these men are responding to the lack of reward in our current culture for those who do ‘man up’, coupled with the massive risk involved in playing the game by the rules in place. They have, quite literally, decided that not only women, but society itself is more trouble than it’s worth.
This is the fastest growing segment of the MRM right now, by my reckoning, followed closely by PUAs.
MRAs
Mens Rights Activists (or Advocates) are sort of the generic term for those men concerned primarily with the political/legal aspect of the issues facing men, with a strong concern for the social forces enabling these injustices as a close second. The defining characteristic of an MRA has yet to be found, but it seems to be a concern over enough legal/political issues regarding men overlapping, as opposed to any kind of ideological leaning.
There are devoutly religious MRAs, and ‘devoutly’ Atheist MRAs. There are black, white, asian, aboriginal, and Indian MRAs. There are straight MRAs, and gay MRAs. And there are male and female MRAs. MRAs have no particular stance on things like abortion, other than men should have the same rights women have. They are neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’, they are not libertarians or traditionalists. They are simply men and women concerned about the legal and social state of men today.
In fact, MRAs don’t have a catchy name because they didn’t expect to have a movement on their own, they originally believed the Feminist movement would help. And yes, their faces are red about that foolish mistake (myself included).
PUAs – Pick Up Artists.
Contrary to popular belief, there is enormous benefit to knowing ‘Game’, whether it’s utilized or not. PUAs are quite simply the practical application of some very astute analysis of female sexual behaviour. These guys are the ones who have decided they will take the counterpart spot to feminism’s “slut culture”, or they want to anyway. And PUAs have the know-how, and the advice, that fathers used to give their sons, back when fathers were allowed in the family.
It’s a well known fact that people like sex. Men and women both. In fact, as Game theory states, women are FAR more ruled by their libido than men are…men have simply forgotten how to push the right buttons. The effectiveness of this approach, as compared to (Single) Mom’s advice of ‘just be yourself’, can be easily seen nearly anywhere men and women interact.
In fact, the biggest objection I have seen against Game Theory so far has been that it…um, works too well, and it’s just not fair. Honest to God. At the very least, Game theory provides some protection against the petty manipulations men are subjected to daily. See: Esther Vilar’s “The Manipulated Man.”
While many women have complained about the presentation and the tone of the facts, sites like Roissy’s Chateau routinely have sheepish women admitting they are exactly as described. And while your mileage may vary, some advice is far better than none, espeically in an age saturated with messages that ‘empower’ women’s base desires, denigrate (and demonize) male sexuality, and wreak havoc upon whichever playing field they’re on.
When Will The Mens Movement Go Away?
Likely never. This is perhaps the very first time in history that a sex has forced his/her gender role off his/her shoulders. Feminism certainly didn’t do so, in fact only manipulating already existing social biases to be more favourable to women, while leaving their gender role intact as a ‘fallback position’. Men are now literally saying ‘screw you’ to women as a sex, and society in general, and for the first time ever, are dismantling the Chivalric infrastructure. And turning their backs on a crumbling society.
Men are hardwired to love and idolize women. It’s why we want to protect them and support them. They literally give our lives purpose, generally speaking. They are the center of our families, and they are the comfort at days end. They are the makers of the home, the calm in the storm. Some measure of softness in an often too-hard world.
Well, rather, they WERE those things.
Now women are our competitors at work, our opponents in politics (womens issues begat mens issues), our critics in relationships. Women are told to fear us, to hold us in contempt and to feel empowered when their success is greater than the men whose legs have been cut off to enable it. They are inbued with massive self-worth, and told their every accomplishment is worth celebration in this ‘male-dominated’ world (and all evidence to the contrary is ignored). And this leads them to believe all the men she meets, who she has been told her whole life have it even easier than her, are total losers. How else could they have failed to succeed, after all?
Women feel entitled to take advantage of men these days. There is little social pressure on women who, say, capitalize on men’s loneliness by demanding free drinks as payment for her company, to stop this practice, since it’s seen as ‘normal’. To the men who may not have much money, who simply want to meet a nice woman and don’t know any better, this seems like cruelty. And to that man, it is.
We live in a society that caters to female hypergamy. We have structured our legal and social systems to accomodate the female desire to be able to ‘upgrade’ at whim with no consequences (for her anyway), and it has devastated Marriage as an institution, and dating in general. We cater to the female desire for power, institute AA type programs, and educational initiatives, all to have them declare men inferior when it becomes apparent we’ve overdone it, by a lot, even though we can’t say it out loud. We live in a society that doesn’t care, at all, about men that are not ‘alpha’. You see it everywhere, the top slice of men doing as well as ever, with the bottom 80% falling off a cliff.
The Mens Movement started, because no one else was talking about this stuff. The Mens Movement continues, because even after hearing about this stuff, many people are too complacent, or too convinced by opposing beliefs, to do anything about it. As long as men and boys are given the raw end of the deal (usually because society depends on the disposability of men to survive), the Mens Movement will be in existence in some form or other.
I suppose that if this is a concern, one could always take solace in one simple fact:
Even after 10 years, and attacking all these major problems and more, and being the LONE voice doing so for most of that time, there is yet to be established a single publicly funded mens rights advocacy agency anywhere. So at least the mens movement won’t likely be surviving on your tax dollar, but will continue to thrive on the volunteer efforts of everyone involved.
Unlike Feminism.
Tags: Dan Moore, Men, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, MGTOW, Miscellaneous, PUA
17 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Jared White:
Codebuster:
napocapo69:
Rper1959:
quolls:
ThoughtCriminal:
One day the femifascist censor machine will be torched and destroyed and then we will have a truly free country, but until that happens MRAs must expect that feminism will continue to edit, block, and straight up lie about every gender issue in existance. To be fair they can’t help themselves, afterall, when your ideological argument is complete bullshit you can’t keep up the fight without lies to advance your cause.
In my opinion the only reason that the Good Mangina Project exists is to counter MRAs. They know that we are growing and they can’t just laugh at us the way that they have for decades. They see the writing on the wall and it says: “Times Up for Feminism” and they are beginning to feel a little nervous. They will probably succeed in convincing themselves that men getting wise to their act is just a fad or that it will simmer down soon, but the smartest of them already know that now that their bluff has been called, and men’s access to the uncensored e-media is as good as the first nail being driven into the coffin of feminism.
Every once in a while I find something about feminism that by chance happens to be true, even among all their lies, hate, supremacy and abuse.
You say, “Name just one feminist truth?”
OK, try this one: “A parent who abuses their children is more likely to abuse their spouse, and vice versa.” VERY TRUE feminist saying, since the lion’s share of legit studies and stats show that women initiate and commit most dating, partner and spouse abuse, and that mothers match that by committing the most child abuse and murders…
And then you catch me by saying that men commit most divorce murder as well as more partner and spouse murders. Maybe true, but maybe not true since all kinds of stats get skewed today. But I will admit that the finding show that the majority of those murders result from an abusive woman who abuses her man and children non-stop and then crowns that abuse with even worse abuse by making false abuse allegations which is always coupled with parental alienation child abuse, with the number of cases and negative effects surpassing those of child molestation.
BTW, most child molestation results after dads are pushed out of the family so children are more exposed to all kinds of abuse, especially by single and divorced mothers who corner that abuse market. But, back to those cases of men who really do murder their partners/spouses.
These men (most often fathers) had the ultimate “invisible” twin abuses of false allegations and parental alienation leveled at them and their children and then find that there is NO HELP for them. They find that when they seek help that they are just abused worse, revictimized, along with their children, and there is no ending the ongoing and accompanying legal abuse either… except… and some do end it by taking their own life or their abuser’s life as an only means they can fathom for ending the never-ending abuse.
So, when else are feminists truthful??? This one may or may not fully qualify, but I think you will identify to one extent or another and find much truth in it even as much as it tears at us with feelings of benevolence:
Feminists claim that patriarchy is bad. Sure, they do indeed lie of course about how patriarchy is bad, that it abuses and exploits women which is not so at all! But, is real protective constructive patriarchy really totally defensible, especially by MRA’s???
Patriarchy really has always put others first, community first, women and children first and that is how patriarchy built houses, buildings, cities, nations, society and civilization, not by committing evil against women and children at all, but by protecting women and children by making men expendable to those ends while putting women on pedestals ahead of themselves and “virtuous” above all.
That’s the real patriarchy mix, putting themselves last, self-sacrificing, sad as that is. Maybe it really is time to end the true patriarchy, as well as the imaginary “patriarchy” so we can finally have equal rights for males (the last thing feminists really want):
Women have spoken and proven they no longer want or need the protection and pedestals provided by the selfless and sacrificing patriarchy…
It appears that the “Good Men” project is really just the stale dregs of leftover and now useless patriarchy, evolved into parasitic mangina minions looking for a pat on the head from feminists at best now, which we have no need for any longer since real women no longer need or want support, and because these mangina “men” just serve no purpose anymore other than to prop up supremacist feminism’s undoing of everything positive which our predecessor patriarchy built.
That’s right, downplaying, marginalizing, maligning men is destroying the family and thus civilization which cannot be built or remain standing in the absence of men and fathers who somehow just can’t quite break away from the bread-in instinct of being the primary builders and protectors, not abusers.
All of this with TGMP has made me more extreme.
You know what makes me more extreme?
Jezebel.
http://goodwomynproject.blogspot.com/2011/03/stupid-behavior-by-college-students.html
“Really, the only solution is to take over the country–we’re better educated and more tolerant and loving–and place men in camps and farms for heavy labor and sperm donation. Those who have other more mental skills that are useful (mathematics and engineering) and are not deemed a threat can have electronic monitoring devices that allow them to interact with women at work for a few hours a day.”
Yes, I see how much more tolerant and loving you are, advocating the enslavement of half the human race.
I said it once, and I will say it again now; I was born in ’71. I had parents that were involved in the hippie-free-speech movement. My mother once had a ‘freinds-who-knew-freinds’ connection with…Jane Fonda. I have seen my mother tell off cops before with her other female hippie freinds (emboldened, no doubt due to the knowledge that these men were less likely to pound the living crap out of women).
Never once did I have it through my head that I , being male, have privileges that superceed those for females. That I come first. Or even that I would’nt be in a job where women may be my boss.
And yet I have had women act and talk like guys of my generation are ‘just afarid we will lose all our male privileges ” that we have enjoyed all our lives.
I really wonder how these GMP people can sleep at night.
I don’t…they are white-knights of male AND female variety that see themselves as goddamn heros.
And Paul, you were around in the 70s. You know that that era was the HEIGHT of feminism.
Agreed…When I first saw the good men project I was amazed to see how well funded they were. I asked myself where such funding could come from so quickly, easily and virtually over night…..the answer….women’s groups.
The good men project is funded by feminist groups as we have all discovered. Women have an amazing ability to divert male, societal and even government resources to themselves simply by asking for it by appeal to female wellbeing..
“In fact, the biggest objection I have seen against Game Theory so far has been that it…um, works too well, and it’s just not fair.”
Watch out for feminist-driven legislation to regulate the use of Game Theory. I can see it now: “your Honor, the young man seduced me with Game Theory victimizing me therefore raping me.”
LMAO…OH man that is priceless!!
Don’t laugh. “Rape by deception” type laws (hello Julian Assange), or some kind of ‘mental incapacitation’ type exceptions (hello ‘too drunk to give consent’ slippery slope) are growing more common. It’s not inconceivable at all that someday a ‘rape by PUA’ type charge be dreamed up, and maybe even applied.
Jesus…you’re right
Recently, someone at I believe the False Rape Society, posted a link to an Australian case. A lesbian college student was busted for filing a false-rape report. She claimed her Christian school mentor ordered her to perform oral sex and later forcibly raped her with intercourse at a party. Her story had holes in it (no puns) on both accounts.
She had claimed that by his position of authority over her she felt compelled and intimidated into giving him oral sex when he demanded it. He never did as the lawyers proved.
Of course she wasn’t punished for creating the lie with her lesbian roommates.
Glad you liked it!
Ok, what made me truly sick was when that Marcotte did that article about “More Feminism” is the answer, in it she states that men being PUAs is manipulating women. I have also read feminists say being a PUA is one more example of men feeling ‘enititled’ to sex. Well WTF about that show Sex and The City?? It is all about women only wanting guys for sex. It is totally acceptable for women to be cougars. But if a guy figures out a strategy to ‘get laid’ he is still manipulating women?
And fine, if he IS manipulating women, they are saying it is fine for women to do the same with men. These are the things I have become MRA about!
And I admit it I am fucking well pissed off about this issue! It’s ok though, and I’d love to have one of those losers from TGMP make a comment like “oooh..having issues” know why? I just spent 10 minutes on YT watching these Feministing videos called ‘Friday Feminist Fuck You” and in them these women get rabid! They get very pissed off.
“I have also read feminists say being a PUA is one more example of men feeling ‘enititled’ to sex.”
Then overall, women are far more guilty of it since they use the art of seduction, their version of game, and The Rules far more than men.
Said it on the AVFM Radio Show chatroom ..”fuck the rules, because the rules…FUCK US!”
You are now the official meme generator of AVfM.
LOL Oh Lord, what does that entail?
OK, I forgotn what memes were. Sounded very feminist..
“me…me..”
I’m currently having a debate on Marcottes website with some ignorant feminists. They’re being thoroughly humiliated. Here’s the link:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/link_farm_and_the_emotional_exhausting_men_who_believe_themselves_so_oppres/
This is just about how all those guys think:
In a moment of self-abnegation, I clicked through to the Menz magazine one of those MRAs. It was pretty much as I expected (I think I need a shower), but this really got me laughing (from issue 5):
Feminism has no obstacles left; total control is within its grasp, and by total, I do mean in the sense that it will be totalitarian
I, for one, welcome our new feminist overlords. Do try to be a benevolent dictator, Amanda. And congratulations on a job well done!
Comment #14: PatrickG on 03/08 at 07:36 PM
PatrickG (is anyone named Pat NOT androgynous?) is the most furiously self-effacing mangina I have had the misfortune to come across. This type of guy is the kind we want to avoid…even if they’re sympathetic, because you get enough of these turds in a movment, all of a sudden it becomes a ‘geek movement’ for ‘losers’…and then peters out.
That’s the last thing we need. Which is why a loud, aggressive tone is such a good thing.
Patrick is a weeny. When feminist quotes were posted he tried to whitewash them. What an emasculated asshole.
Very good summary,kinda reminds me of that information we sent into space for aliens to find back in the day.
Just a simple “Hello,we are here. Here is where we live and this is what we look like.”
This is a great introduction to the MRM,one of the best I’ve seen so far.
Thanks. That’s sort of what I was going for, it’s good to know I hit close to the mark. I think there’s a lot of disinformation out there, and articles that explain the basics are becoming a bit more important…so even if TGMP did turn out (unsurprisingly) to be yet another feminist attempt to discredit/usurp the mens movement, there’s still good reason to have written it.
Same goes for anything else attached to this effort. It may have been a bunch of feminist bullshit, but the demographic of the site is HEAVILY feminist and young female (likely University types) – who better to fire a shot across the bow at?
They may be a bit shocked (or secretly amused) by the vitriolic and unforgiving reaction to their subterfuge. I take that as yet another sign as to just how far out of touch they are. As an aside, I watched the PJTV interview Dr Helen did with Kay Hymowitz, and she certainly seems to be being dragged kicking and screaming towards realization of how pissed off men have become….but she IS realizing it.
She is a microcosm of feminist gynocentrism. As goes with Kay, so goes with Feminists in general. We will not win them over with honey. We will not convince them with facts. We cannot break the indestructible bond of solipsistic victimhood any more than we can ‘make’ an addict seek help.
All we can do is explain that it’s going to get painful, and then let it happen. And refuse to slow the process down.
Feminists are addicted to male compassion, and like a down on her luck junkie who’s only started her slide into the gutter, they haven’t quite realized yet they’re down to the crumbs at the bottom of the bag, and no credit is forthcoming.
You wrote this Factory? Nice work.
FYI, btw:
“This is perhaps the very first time in history that a sex has forced his/her gender role off his/her shoulders.”
This is not the first time in history we’ve had Feminism. Rome, Babylon, Greece all had feminism in various forms (female vote, freedom from “marital rape”, no-fault divorce, child support industries, etc.). I doubt this will be the last time men face feminism either.
On the good (?) side, feminism is a self-correcting social problem: It destroys the society which it infests.
Source: “Sex and Culture” by J.D. Unwin (1934).
It is a shame that we do not learn history which is politically incorrect.
Feminists aren’t the ones shrugging off their role…
Ahh, but “feminism” is women shrugging off their role. A woman’s role is to convince men to keep advancing. To enter marriage and build for their children, the next generation. To select the men worthy of reproduction. To raise the next generation with good moral character. Feminism is women shrugging off their very important role, without which society cannot advance and soon will decline.
It is men’s reactions to feminism, the middle finger they give the women no longer worthy of their efforts, the slacking, the guyland, the refusal to continue being “good men” while there are few/no “good women” to be found that ultimately kills the society.
It is men no longer aspiring to become marriage material that retards the society’s growth. It is men bucking traditional roles that kills society. Women bucking traditional roles also kills society, just slower as their actions influence more and more men to return the favor until society can no longer survive on the few men who still pull their yokes.
As long as men still pull, society will continue. That’s why so many are attempting to shame men to keep fulfilling their traditional duties while allowing women to shirk theirs. It’s only when enough men stop pulling that we tank. It is feminism which convinces men that pulling is no longer in their best interests.
In short, had the feminists in those empires not shrugged off women’s role and convinced men to shrug off men’s role, they wouldn’t have collapsed.
“Ahh, but “feminism” is women shrugging off their role.”
It really isn’t. There’s more consistency than change. Feminism is just taking chivalry/gynocentrism to its extreme
“This is perhaps the very first time in history that a sex has forced his/her gender role off his/her shoulders.”
I’m pretty sure Factory was referring to the MRM, not feminism.
Gynocentrism, or female privelage was the norm through the history of civilisation. If only history could be taught without a heavy feminist slant, I’m sure most people would be able to see this is the case.
I loved that book! There is another book called ‘The Case for Father Custody’ by Daniel Amneus. He is also the author of The Garbage Generation. This book ties in neatly with Sex and Culture. It also all ties in neatly with Roger F. Devlin ‘Rotating Polyandry and its Enforcers’
I too thought it was very good Dan.
You’ll never influence people enough to change their minds about something they firmly believe in over night. It takes time for them to process the information and then begin to draw fresh conclusions. The people we’re trying to reach are the same ones TGMP are trying to reach. The one’s sitting before Morpheous deciding whether to take the red pill or the blue pill.
They think they can “save” men from themselves, when they’re actually the ones that need saving from. “Take the red pill…there’s a good man”.
Exactly keyster. It’s a battle for the hearts and minds of ‘average Joe’.
Problem for Feminists is….they’ve been beating Average Joe into the ground for decades….and he doesn’t like them much anymore.
Now’s our chance.
No more chivalry-take back the knight
I wish I could hit the thumbs up on that one about a million times.
Take Back the Knight
Fitting for a t-shirt or bumper sticker for sure.
And so it will be.
A t-shirt first, I think.
Careful with bumper stickers. Feminists might do damage to your car in retaliation. They do feel entitled to physically harm men with no retaliation.
Should that come to pass…I will stay true to my bumper-sticker.
I’ll be glad to furnish this as a vector graphic file to anyone who wants to use it.
[img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/take-back-knight.png[/img]
If there’s an Issue 6 of MenZ, that would be a good cover image…
What do you mean *if*? Need help?
I just pissed my pants laughing. “Take back the knight”, that is freakin’ brilliant comedy,sir.
Thank you sir
Now that is the classic line!
How about “No more chivalry-take back the knight and we’ll take back the day”
Unfortunately, that is a bit too long for T-shirts, maybe.
it would work if you broke it up. Put “No more Chivalry” on the front and “take back the Knight and we’ll take back the day” on the back.
Take Back The Knight.
You’ve struck gold, brother!
Ah, yes, and if a man has an affair, its surely because he is an evil Jerk! And if his wife has an affair then it must of course be because sh, er, HE is an evil JERK!!! No matter who does what, he is to blame and he must pay, as goes way, way back.
There is a guy in Israel in jail right now, convicted of rape entirely on the basis that he did not tall the women that he was not a jew. In Israel, it’s rape if you lie about anything to do with your identity. So if you say your an accountant, when your really only an debtors clerk……..rape. Lie about your age, rape. Lie about where you live, or work…….rape. And these laws only apply to men.
True, there is a Muslim man in prison in Israel for pretending he was Jewish to seduce and have sex with a Jewish woman. It is a different culture and neighborhood out there.
Israel also has a man tax. As far as I know they have no woman tax.
I had the same impression when I seen the good men project. A feminist front. It’s set up to attract men to it and thus deprive the real MRM of members. I bet they canvas them for donations to. Total scam. Sure they will post a few male positive articles, and recommend some action on this or that, but it’s all a scam. Pretend MRM. It’s the feminist trojan horse.
The content of recent articles at the GMP marks a marginal shift in its editorial attitude but its language for the most part is still full of shaming and mockery towards the MRM. What they’ve not realised is that this feeds the MRM rather than starves it.
To learn why growth is inevitable, I’ll pose the question I always pose to those who question the motives of MRA’s:
What possible motive could an undefinable number of men, growing by the thousands daily worldwide, who’ll probably never meet in person, have for banding together in the unforgiving environment of the internet to share and express their feelings, if it isn’t to thwart a rapidly rising evil?
The GMP is starting to see how woefully inadequate their answers are to this question. Someday soon, hopefully, its testicles will drop, its voice will break and it will no longer be drowned out by the whelps of the feminist dog-pack that anoints all men everywhere who speak in their own defense as evil.
The GMP avoids even the most obvious facts. While women could be characterized more as herd animals rather than pack animals, it is abundantly clear that most simply don’t know how to care for men. In many cases it doesn’t even to occur to most women that a man might be in need. The standard response is like most articles about the MRM at the GMP – shaming and mockery.
I speak from personal experience. Most women who have seen me in trouble have started with a look of total non-comprehension on their faces. It’s only after I emphatically articulate my need that it registers as need. These women hadn’t the faintest idea what a man in need looked like. The MRM is for the men in need who are ignored by a society built for women.
The problem is not so much that women don’t care about men, but that most men are invisible to most women. The humanity of such men doesn’t even register. Most women can care for the men in their personal frame, more or less, or even random strangers in trouble who fit their notion of ‘safe’, ‘respectable’ or good-looking’, but most would not stop to help random men who falls outside these very narrow perceptions. My guess is that this accounts for about 90% of men. The MRM is also for these men.
This highlights one of the key areas in which masculinity differs from femininity. While the statistic is arbitrary, it’s a lot more convincing to say that 90% of women are visible to all men than the other way around, so there is a cognitive dissonance between the sexes that must create some kind of responsive imbalance. The MRM is, therefore, for those men who are invisible to the collective feminine.
Now consider this true statement and reflect on how often it is forgotten:
“Masculinity is the possession of strength for the purpose of female protection rather than expression of strength for the purpose of their coercion.”
I’ve read hundreds, perhaps thousands of descriptions of femininity, but have never seen this description, or anything like it, used to characterize women. Male strength provides the intrinsic freedoms in society yet it’s demonized as the primary disintegrating force, by almost everyone. The MRM is for men who are unjustly demonized simply for being men.
This feminized social system has now become unstable. This instability has led to the demise of Marriage 1.0 and has suspended the voluntary flow of provision and protection services – i.e. the Patriarchy. It no longer has a counter-flow. Since the state is now the primary protector and provider of women, and sex is no longer a marital entitlement for men, men have little incentive to do anything at all for women, least of all protect them. There are literally thousands of ways in which a woman can obtain the provisioning and protective services of Big Daddy government that don’t require anything from men but their taxes. If women hijack the workplace, what’s left for men? The MRM is for these men, the men whose livelihoods are being systematically drained away by a workplace environment that is no longer suitable or even legally safe for them.
And then of course, there’s the h-word…hypergamy. Since most women set the standard for men against the 10% whom they perceive as having higher status than they, it comes as no surprise that the other 90% – the invisible men are little more than detritus to them. It’s a rare woman who is able to recognize, let alone respect, the independent social value of men whom she has herself rejected as potential mates. These men, the machinery of society, who are systematically being replaced by the at-call appliances of an ever more feminized state are the future of the MRM. These are not redundant men, or men who are not productive or bad, but men who are simply not valued in a feminized society.
This is why the MRM exists. It exists not just FOR the 90% who fall outside the protections of a feminized system – it IS them. Unlike feminism, it’s not an ideology nor does it exist for its own sake. It’s a response to the gender apartheid and cultural misandry promoted and purveyed by the corrupt ideology we commonly refer to as ‘feminism’. It comprises every deserving man who feels that the state no longer treats him as fundamentally vital and virtuous.
The MRM can no more be stopped than Mother Nature. It’s a process more than a movement. It carries in its heart the essence of masculinity, civilisation’s engine room, which everyone knows won’t stop until it’s job is done. The stronger and more pervasive feminism and cultural misandry become, the harder the engine will work. The GMP and other feminist enablers can falsely represent it, complain about it, wax lyrical about it, express outrage over it… but no one can stop it. If they try to stop it, it will grow. It’s that simple.
Alphabeta, this is about the best assesment on feminism vs masculinity since The Misandry Bubble!
And no, MRM is not an ideology. It’s damn near BIology!
Alpahbete Supe,
That was amazing. Absolutely insightful.
I think it will be later rather than sooner, if ever, for the GMP to get real and honest about the Gender Apartheid men are experiencing. The GMP has publically drawn their line in the sand in an extreme adversarial way to the MRA movement. The GMP has tried to demonize the MRA movement.
Most modern western women and I think even many who were raised and think somewhat traditional do not know how to care for men. It seems we are regarded as either the immortal warrior impervious to pain and needs or we are seen as a non-human and boring robots. Women do not respond to most men in trouble as men do for most women.
“Male strength provides the intrinsic freedoms in society yet it’s demonized as the primary disintegrating force, by almost everyone.”
— That is so incredible and so true. As our male strength has fallen individually and as a nation so too have people’s intrinsic freedoms. The special-class privileges females have is not real in the greater sense when it is based on a society and government that becomes increasingly a house of cards facing a collapse.
“This feminized social system has now become unstable. This instability has led to the demise of Marriage 1.0 and has suspended the voluntary flow of provision and protection services – i.e. the Patriarchy.”
— Ironic how women keep insisting they don’t need men to provide for them and arrogantly deny how the deck has been so stacked in their favor for so long.
“This is why the MRM exists. It exists not just FOR the 90% who fall outside the protections of a feminized system – it IS them.”
— Even if men never to the manosphere or learn of the MRM, increasing numbers of men are becoming active MRA in their own way.
“The stronger and more pervasive feminism and cultural misandry become, the harder the engine will work. If they try to stop it, it will grow. It’s that simple.”
— The fastest way to grow a movement is to keep on attacking it and to increase the oppression of it. The MRM is not some fringe utopia religious movement that men (and women) can live without and still have fulfilling lives. As stated above, it is for the 90% of men who fall outside the protections of the feminized system.
Excellent! This could be an article!
I was participating in the discussion at GMP as someone new to men’s rights. I have enormous sympathy for this position, but I am really nervous about the idea of total EQUALITY. Here’s a post from the GMP. What is the answer?
Explain something to me here. I am a full time, stay at home, traditional housewife, and I LOVE my job. Yes, I married up (hypergamy). Absolutely. I knew, even after finishing graduate school (MBA) and going to work at a major bank, that I would be dedicating my life to caring for my husband and family. Work sucks, quite frankly, and I am glad that it falls to my husband to report to his desk everyday, and he seems pretty glad about that, too.
I don’t want equality. No thanks. I think men make better soldiers, police officers and fire fighters, and I am happy to let them do that. I want equity, which is just another way of saying respect for how I am different from a man. My body is meant to nurture my children and to care for my husband, in all the ways he needs care. I think of him as being very, very different from me. I love that he is different from me. His mind is different, his body is different, his way of showing love and communicating and caring is different. And that’s wonderful. I don’t want to change him. I love him exactly as he is.
It sounds to me like you want total equality. You are also rejecting the idea that there are some profound differences between men and women, and that we are all happier when we respect those differences. Is this true? Do you think there are no real differences between men and women? Only socialized differences?
Your description of yourself and your situation seems almost like a caricature.
What sort of responses are you hoping for?
IF you’re legit, you’re lucky that you found a man like that. A natural side effect of Feminism’s hard work over the 60 years is that men who are willing and/or able to be sole breadwinners have gotten scarcer and scarcer.
When you did the till death-do-you part vow, it really only means that for him, not for you. If your marriage ended tomorrow, your service to him would be ended, but, by the power of the state and family courts, his service to you would be likely extended in perpetuity (Alimony), because in their view, only YOU sacrifice for the marriage. His hard work and diligence and frequently accompanying stress related illness and shortened life span is meaningless.
It’s a one sided contract, and has been for a while. Only stupid men don’t think twice or three times before jumping in.
Again, you’re extremely, lucky. Hopefully he is too.
^
Is a cynic __|
- realizes that he did not answer your question
- and obviously likes talking about himself in the third person
Have you not been paying attention? Calling somebody a cynic does not mean they are wrong.
Very good questions. There’s two schools of thought regarding sex differences in the MRM. All of us agree that they are there and are biological in nature.
Half of us want a return to a sane understanding of gender roles and a clearly-defined split, as you describe,the other half believe that feminism has made that impossible and wouldn’t want to return to that if given the opportunity, instead demanding that the government do what it said it would and create complete legal parity, by such measures as instituting a draft for women, giving reproductive rights to men,etc.
“Do you think there are no real differences between men and women? Only socialized differences?”
No,that would be the feminist position. In my opinion,there are very real differences between men and women, and I believe we will be made crushingly and overwhelmingly aware of those differences, by women if the government ever does institute full legal equality. Start a draft for women, and the very same feminists who told us women can do anything men can do, and do it better, will be telling us that women are simply not cut out for combat and calling it a human rights violation to ignore these biological differences.
I guess it would be easiest and most accurate to say that the MRM either wants men raised to parity with women, or women lowered (legally-speaking) to parity with men. I,for one, would be amenable to allowing women to choose which ONE (instead of getting the best of both,while men get nothing, as we see today) they want,provided they overwhelmingly support us in dismantling the feminist hate machine and their desires do not conflict with the aims of the Men’s Rights Movement.
I don’t think that men mind doing the dirty work of the world; for the most part, they just want some credit for it. That’s why feminism will fail. They are trying to take away the last tiny scraps of positive recognition that men receive, and this is unbearable.
When you read into MRA statements that they “want” equality, what you’re actually seeing is an exposition of feminist hypocrisy. As in “some people are more equal than others” from Orwell. Feminists want a very selective equality, not real equality to men on a level playing field.
MRA’s want either the same rights as women or that women no longer be identified as a “protected class” by the government. Preferrably the latter. Many men just want their natural role back as protector and provider, rather than the feminist directed State doing it. Other men have simply given up on any notion of that occurring.
I want the same rights and for women not to be a special class. Heck, after 45 years of anti-male discrimination I want special class rights. I’m beyond wanting to be a provider and protector.
Unfortunately, the above won’t happen. What will occur is that the social physics attempting to play God with human nature will eventually bring about a social collapse. What happens after that I have no idea though I do have a few good guesses.
@Keyster
I agree. In the throes of reaction there may be violent disagreement on this point but when the blood cools and all is said and done, it is really this simple.
A point well made.
Why the hell would you go into further education if you never intended to do anything with it?
Because it greatly increases opportunities to meet upwardly mobile yet compliant beta males to mate with and eventually marry and be supported for life.
She won’t meet desirable husbands working in dead end jobs, unless of course she’s unusually attractive and pleasant.
Why in case he leaves you Snark!. That’s one of the typical justifications for racking up student debt for an education an individual woman never intends to use. Divorces are planned for long before husbands even come on the scene.
I don’t think they’re consciously planned, but certianly considered as a viable, if not perfectly acceptable, option…
…you know in case he loses his job or becomes boring.
I’ve often wondered where women get the idea that it’s likely *he* is going to be the one doing the leaving when, 75% of the time, it isn’t he but she who does the leaving. I mean, don’t they realize what’s going on? Surely they’ve heard relationship details about all of their friends’ marriages and realize that of 4 of their divorced friends,3 of them left their husbands rather than the other way around?
Or are women incapable of connecting the dots on that one? I’m not being sarcastic or anything,I want to know.
I mean, out of 4 of my male friends at least 3 will enjoy shooting guns or blowing stuff up because they’ve told me about it, so I know if I propose a trip to the shooting range,most of my male friends will say “yes”.
I like to think if I spent most of my life listening to woman after woman tell me “yada,yada,yada, so I left the sorry bastard and took the kids” that I would be able to figure out that it’s women who have a hard time committing and are likely to leave, and not men.
I’m not sure if it’s a case of being willfully ignorant/female biased and remaining to loyal to the Sisterhood at all costs or not connecting the dots. Both are entirely possible.
Some women seem to know of one instance when a man has left his wife and will obsess over it to completely forgetting the several women they know who have done the same thing to their husbands. Sometimes the wife who left her husband will be thought of as justified for a variety of reasons while the man should have “sucked it up” and stayed. It’s a double standard that seems to be very common when women are talking among themselves and most seem to have no appreciation for the hypocrisy of their beliefs.
I know one particular woman who is so biased and toxic when it comes to divorce that I cannot comprehend how she got married or how her husband puts up with her. Every time we see her she’s ranting on and on about the evil men who divorce their wives and will hear nothing of the actual statistics as all the anecdotal evidence she supposedly has discounts this fact. She’s an especially bad case in her hostility but not necessarily atypical in the reasons for her belief in men leaving their wives the most.
“I’ve often wondered where women get the idea that it’s likely *he* is going to be the one doing the leaving when, 75% of the time, it isn’t he but she who does the leaving….”
I think this quote explains it nicely:
“No human being has ever had difficulty in finding an excuse to overlook an unpleasant fact…. Against this human predilection no form of intelligence can prevail.”
(From David Kahn’s THE CODEBREAKERS, actually explaining the reason why a past American administration ignored NSA decrypts that showed its plan of action in a Middle East crisis was completely wrong-headed. The Suez crisis of 1956, actually, so don’t cuss at Dubya for this one.)
yeah, *WTF*, I see this ALL over the place,
Girls fighting to get into STEM subjects, because they’ve been told that they MUST do that to have some value, and then promptly dump it and do something completely different just before or even after they graduate
I don’t know if I run in odd circles, but I’ve seen this near 100%.
They’ve left some slightly less or equally qualified shmuck on the outside that would have been perfectly thrilled and fine with tinkering with machines, or other technical or lab work of some kind for the rest of his life.
“I think men make better soldiers, police officers and fire fighters, and I am happy to let them do that.”
I am happy for women to do all the risky, difficult jobs.
In fact, I INSIST that they do.
I think the government should be bussing women to army barracks, police HQs, fire stations, etc. for mandatory training in all the hard and dangerous jobs.
Guys this is just another Laura Wood.
She just wants the TRADITIONAL form of female supremacy.
You know, the one that has men suffering 100% of workplace fatalities rather than 98%; that has men as 100% of the war dead rather than just 99%; where every man is a white knight for every woman; etc.
Agreed.
That’s why I gave her a thumbs down.
“You are also rejecting the idea that there are some profound differences between men and women, and that we are all happier when we respect those differences.”
What is this ‘we’ shit, pilgrim?
I respect your right to do all the dirty, dangerous, shitwork that men have done for millennia.
In fact, I respect the MORAL OBLIGATION now incumbent on your sex to take up said shitwork.
Well you can choose that lifestyle for yourself if you want but don’t expect much applause for it. I for one, prefer a relationship based on equality and in the long run, I’m certain that that is what brings two people closest. In a leader/follower style relationship you can never get as close as two people who live and love each other as peers.
As for innate differences. Well sure there are some but we absolutely must not have a law that boxes people just because of those tiny differences.
Ultimately, we want people to be able to choose their own lifestyle (as you did) and we want men to have this choice just as you women already have it. But there’s a TON of work to do.
I’m certain though, that something like the male contraceptive pill might give us the power we need (just as it did for women).
Respectfully Adi, you can never have an ‘equal relationship’ between two disparate parties. Ever.
“In a leader/follower style relationship you can never get as close as two people who live and love each other as peers.”
Forgive me, but that’s sheer nonsense. Only in Disney Land is that actually true*.
“As for innate differences. Well sure there are some but we absolutely must not have a law that boxes people just because of those tiny differences.”
Tiny differences?
My God! I think I missed my period for the last 35 years!!!
———————————————————————
*Actually I think Sleeping Beauty had the Prince and incarcerated for date rape, something about kissing or molesting her whilst she slept…
What sort of equality are you against? Equality in the law is among the most important MRA issues. Our society does not have equality in the law in a frightening multitude of areas including divorce law/family court system, false rape accusations, and criminal sentencing. Total equality before the law is the only way for justice to fully be served.
Yes, she’s saying this while she has the power to sleep around, divorce, kick him out of his own house, garnish 3/4 his salary AND move her lover into HIS home. If she’s feeling particularly evil, she can have him thrown in jail for DV or child abuse (or both)
Whatever she feels right now, he is at her mercy. When the love is gone, she will feel less for him than a stranger on the street. Fight the injustice and then claim MRA status
While I find the idea of such a relationship appealing I will never enter anything like that. The family law system is set to fleece your husband for everything he’s worth, including his children, for “no fault” of his own, even if you get bored at home and start cheating on him he’ll get taken to the cleaners. There’s no “equity” in such a relationship when it comes to divorce. I have, myself, become hypergamous. Not because I judge a women’s worth based on what she has, but as long as she has more than me it will be very hard for her to take everything I have. You chose that lifestyle for yourself. And, for my part, I respect that choice and think it’s a comfortable and fulfilling lifestyle that’s good for you and your children. In a court of law however it will be seen that you are a martyr who “sacrificed” your career for your family and you will be lavished with rewards for not working.
Wow! So much bitterness, probably with good reason, but still really surprising.
Why did I go to MBA school? To get my MRS. Like lots and lots of my female classmates. Yes, we wanted breadwinner husbands, but speaking for myself, I married one I genuinely love and respect. I am profoundly grateful that he pays the bills so I can “give up” my shitty cubicle and stay at home with my children.
Our neighborhood is falling apart at the moment (all women initiating divorce to very surprised husbands) so I know what you are talking about with regards to divorce. I am not afraid that my husband will leave me for his secretary. That doesn’t happen very often, and when it does, I have to ask myself: how much did she weigh? When was the last time she went down on her husband just for the hell of it? What kind of WIFE was she?
My husband isn’t leaving me, and I’m not leaving him. Happy marriages really DO exist. Amongst my friends, those of us with the most traditional marriages seem the happiest. Those with the most “equal” marriages seem to be engaged in a never ending round of negotiating every shitty little thing that comes up in life, and quite frankly, that whole deal just looks like it sucks to me.
Bring on the chivalrous knight, I say. I’ll take him any day.
You seem a genuinely good sort to me. Your head appears to be in the right place and I see you looking at things from our perspective. I appreciate that very much.
Allow me to show you something that will save you a LOT of trouble in your future dealings with MRA’s.
http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
We don’t accept any of these arguments, we have seen them so many times from feminists as an excuse to justify or ignore anti-male bigotry that we have basically developed a Pavlovian anger response to them.
Using words like “bitter” will immediately piss off most MRA’s. I know that is probably not your intention, so try to refrain from using these phrases when posting and it will be mostly smooth sailing.Obviously,nobody ill agree with everything you say but you won’t be getting any flak that we don’t dish out to other MRA’s just as readily.
If a woman wants to be in a traditionalist marriage and treats her husband with the respect that accompanies the breadwinner role and refuses to utilize feminist laws designed to penalize men for doing what is expected of them in a marriage of that nature,then you’ll find no argument from me.
There are plenty of women of that description in the MRM and they have demonstrated themselves to be our friends.
What I oppose is feminist laws that bring the boys in blue into the marital home to smack hubby around when wifey thinks he’s not living up to her expectations.
This,I believe is what Carlos wishes to avoid, and I don’t find it “bitter” at all,he most likely arrived at that conclusion by objective reasoning. We all eventually hope to remove the feminist legal privileges that enable men to be abused by proxy in the first place. I find that to be a noble goal,personally.
On this website and other MRM websites you will cross paths with men who have been greatly wronged in life as a result of the unjust, tyrannical, and misandric law system that exists today. There are men who read and comment here who have been victims of false accusations. There are men here who have been alienated from their children following divorces. Some have seen their financial futures completely devastated thanks to rulings of the family court system. Younger men attended schools during the ADD/ADHD craze and may have been drugged up with potentially harmful drugs against their wills and were improperly educated in a school model that caters largely to a feminine learning style. For men in this group, or people who support them, to hear that equality is unimportant is jarring as a lack of equal accountability and rights under the law is one of the primary issues addressed by the MRM.
No amount of happy marriages or traditional housewifery will correct the wrong or soften the pain, grief and anger felt by many of these website. This reality needs to be appreciated by women who wish to participate here.
WRT what you are speaking about specifically, the bread-winning husband and SAHM model, you may be faced with much disdain here as this role puts tremendous pressure on a man and is one of the very roles that is examined and not thought of as the best around these parts. Many of the old roles are precisely what certain factions of the MRM are seeking to throw out and even those who are fairly traditional are looking to forge more equitable future models of these roles, to reflect changing times and social mores.
As a woman breadwinner is a role I had immense trouble with after ‘seeing the light’ despite the fact I had been raised to value such a husband. Is such pressure on my husband appropriate or respectful if I truly care about him I began to wonder. After much discussion between the two of us the harsh realities of this situation are largely what compelled to be start my natural home care business and WAH to quickly build up our emergency fund knowing this would afford us more security and more career choice for my husband in the future, including being able to walk away from the Army if he chooses to before he hits his twenty years.
If I struggled with this role, as not just a woman but one raised in fundamentalist Christianity where this is the ideal way for things to be, I can’t begin to imagine the disdain and discomfort many men here would have for the breadwinner role.
Exactly.
I just can’t accept the women as breadwinner paradigm because it totally ignores the needs of children. Babies grow inside women, not men. They are born knowing their Daddy’s voice, but it is Mama’s body, smell, heartbeat, breath, skin and milk they crave and need to survive.
Go back in time. Not even that far. A woman who has just given birth is totally vulnerable. Her survival depends on the protection of a man, and the survival of his genes depends upon him protecting her and the child. We are evolved to depend on one another.
Why are men stronger? More agressive? More likely to be rational? More likely to respond to a threat calmly? Because any man who ran around screaming hysterically in the face of a threat would be dead.
And don’t even get me started on daycare. The mass institutionalization of infants is one of the very worst legacies of feminism. Babies who spend their lives in what are essentially orphanages because their mothers don’t want to be nice to a man who is willing to give his life for her protection. Mothers who put their children in daycare are fucking cunts. And single mothers? There is no such thing as a single mother. There is only a woman who has made sure Daddy is not around, either by force, or by being such a bitch no man in his right mind would stay for ten seconds.
Can you tell I was raised by one of these so-called single mothers? My mother poisoned my relationship with my father so that we missed nearly 20 years of one another’s lives. We have now reconnected, and believe me, I understand the full force of evil women have been taught to accept as perfectly normal, but the solution is not some misguided notion of total equality.
We are different. Women bear, and bear primary responsibility for children, and we have a deep obligation to the man whose genes make up half our offspring.
Let’s both work and screw the kids just does NOT work for me.
How is equality before the law ‘misguided’? What precisely do you object to with MRM goals to achieve justice in this way?
I am not disputing the fact that women and men are different, nor does it seem others in this conversation are either. I am also not asking you to accept a gender role model in which women are the primary breadwinners. Instead I am seeking to explain why your comments may have received the reaction they have.
Re-examining the roles doesn’t mean harming children; if anything it may assure that children have an equal invest from both parents and receive adequate time and instruction from their fathers.
There are many ways that life can be balanced for both men and women. It does not mean children must do to daycare or that women should be breadwinners. Instead it demands each couple take a good hard look at their circumstance and see how they achievement balance and mutual cooperation that assures a healthy family life can be a reality.
As I said in my previous comment my husband and I have opted for my to start a business and work from home, a choice that allows me to be home with my daughter full-time, be available to support my husband and his career in anyway I can, maintain an active role as a volunteer in our military community and homeschool co-op. Our young daughter has never gone to daycare or preschool and will not be attending school outside the home either. Earning an income and taking care of my family have not been mutually exclusive jobs but complements to each other.
Looking at the old gender roles and adapting them to a changing time is part of many discussions in the gender relations part of the ‘sphere and also among many young people around my age. You’ll find a fair portion of twentysomethings, both men and women, who are not satisfied with either Marriage 1.0 or Marriage 2.0 and want something better for themselves and their families as both have negatives that ought to be left behind.
Ack pardon the many typos. That’s what I get for commenting while ill.
You know what? That’s great. Mutuality is fantastic. But mothers and fathers contribute totally different things, at vastly different times in a child’s life. My husband is lucky enough to work at job that only requires his presence for 20 hours a week. The rest of the time, he works independently, and mostly from home. He is hugely involved with out children, but it not the same job that I do.
Equality before the law would be things like equal paternity and maternity leave. Nonsense. Show me the father that can breastfeed his baby. And no baby should be split between his parent’s homes. That is just wrong. Babies need to be with their mamas, unless she’s totally unfit, of course.
Between an average loving man and an average loving woman, a baby needs to be with the woman for the first few years of life. Dividing up the early years even-steven harms the baby.
There are lots of examples where equality before the law is patently ridiculous. The draft. Perfect example. It is absurd to send an entire generation of young women to die in battle. You risk your whole society. A generation of young men are expendable, because older men can step in to re-populate. It’s tragic, absolutely. But in reproductive terms, women are more valuable than men.
And men are far more valuable than women when it comes to solving problems with ingenuity and brute force work. If you need a house built or a machine designed or the crops brought in, you need men.
Our roles are totally different, valuable in completely different ways, and designed by tens of thousands of years of evolution to be that way. Passing laws to get more women into engineering school is not only pointless, it actively harms both the men who ought to be there and the world who loses out on that talent.
Go ahead. Educate a million women engineers. Most of them will stay at home with their children. You can’t fight human nature. It’s stupid to even try.
Once again you appear to be missing the point about the political work MRAs are hoping to accomplish and their hopes for a just future. Nobody is discussing laws to get more women engineers or denigrating the important of a mother in the life of children. If you click over to “mission and values” you will better understand that sex differences are acknowledge in the MRM and what issues MRAs are seeking to address.
With the complete discounting of a father’s role in the lives of his children and your view of young men as disposable it seems you are almost fearful of any pro-male debate taking place as it would usurp conservative female supremacy as it exists now.
The idea that men have no business taking leave after the birth of a new child is the height of misandric thought. Why is spending uninterrupted time together as a new family nonsense? Does a father have no place taking care of older siblings if applicable? Is he so useless he cannot keep his wife company during late night nursing sessions or cook a meal or do a load of laundry? Is he so unimportant to his family that he just doesn’t deserve to *be* there and simply enjoy the new baby?
The two weeks of leave my husband took are a a special time I’ll always cherish. Sure he couldn’t breastfeed but together we could stare in awe at a precious new baby, give those first baths, master cloth diapering, and adjust to being a family of three together.
The notion that a generation of young men could simply disappear and all would be fine is also repugnant. Why would you be okay with young men being conscripted and used by the government against their will? Men are not tools for the elites but human beings. If you have sons this means they could be sent to a war they do not support and die a miserable death far away from the niceties of civilized life. They would come home with brutal and life altering injuries or psychological damage so severe they will never be okay again.
If we lost a large percentage of our young men the reasons you value men (brute strength, aggression, logical thinking, etc) would largely disappear too. Young men have a lot to offer society beyond being mere sperm donors and human shields.
I do hope you realize if most of the men were away at war the women left behind have to ‘man up’ and be willing and able to accomplish everything that comes about in his absence. Being a military wife and married to a truly chivalrous male does not involve splitting anything at all, including the tough dirty “man’s work”. You do everything from the domestic chores and child-rearing to the disaster prep work, car repairs, lawn mowing, and spider killing. Women who cherish the ‘man as beast of burden’ idea would have a mighty difficult time living in a world where the men are away. It’s not the romantic fantasy of perfect sexual differentiation but a reality with many blurred lines.
I have never and never will claim that war is anything but absolutely horrific, and that it injures and maims men, but when the jackboots come marching through the streets, sometimes, you have no choice. And to sacrifice an entire generation of young women makes no evolutionary sense. You can personalize that all you want. I am speaking from a population perspective.
And I have no problem and would even encourage paternity leave that allows Dads to be there IN ADDITION to Mom. Not to replace her. He cannot replace her.
Claiming that you can do all the work that men do is probably both delusional and rather makes men irrelevant, doesn’t it? Sounds like textbook feminism to me. Go ahead sister. You live in your world without men. Man up. Because if women can “man up”, what the hell do you need men for?
I’m happy right here with my beast of burden who hangs the shelves, opens the stuck jars, does all the banking and takes out the garbage. There will be no “manning up” for me.
“Man up. Because if women can “man up”, what the hell do you need men for? ”
I would like to think we have value to women as companions, spiritual advisors or mentors in addition to our physical utility and spatial negotiation abilities.
This comment suggests otherwise.
I’m not arguing from the personal and highlighted several reasons why conscription and treating young men as disposable can be harmful to society as a whole.
My point in bit about my commenting about manning up is to better illustrate that these very rigid sex roles you cherish so dearly do not always work. Sometimes life demands we look past such silliness and jump into reality without a care of how we look or what role we’re fulfilling. A myopic view of sex roles fails to acknowledge this reality.
Call me a feminist if you want. Many already have and will continue to do so tin the future. Such an insult doesn’t change the fact of the matter that I value my husband and want him to accomplish all of his career goals. When I married him I knew a large part of this would demand I fill his combat boots when he is gone to be sure harm does not come to our family in any preventable way. Do I do everything as well as he does? Not at all but that’s not going to stop me from trying to do right by him and our daughter and keeping us safe when he’s gone. He deserves a partner who looks after his best interests and one who doesn’t distract him with trivial matters when life is on the line. My commitment to him hardly makes him or any other man irrelevant.
I would like to think we have value to women as companions, spiritual advisors or mentors in addition to our physical utility and spatial negotiation abilities.
Absolutely! When you look past utility there is so much more to cherish about the opposite sex and one’s own partner.
Someone with whom to share mutual companionship in life and loving cooperation to find happiness and success in whatever way one defines such terms. Someone to invest in and give everything you have to help them out and allow them to accomplish their goals and plans. A person who is interesting, funny, a joy to be around, and always a bit of a mystery to unravel. A partner-in-crime for zany plans, explorations, and adventure. A fellow traveler through the seasons of life who knows and shares your history and pens their life story alongside you. An iron to sharpen iron and challenge each other to be better and encourage each other that a simple ‘no’ is often be the worst case scenario when one takes chances to go after life dreams. The yang to your yin. And the list goes on and on.
Leaning toward Hestia on this one.
I’m a young man. I refuse to fight and die for a society that says “C’est la vie” about my sacrifice and considers me less valuable than a woman my own age.
I will,however, fight and die for my fellow men and their rights.
I agree with some of your points, others I vehemently do not.
This falls under the “DO NOT” category.
“Babies need to be with their mamas, unless she’s totally unfit, of course.”
Now,I’d never suggest babies DON’T need their mamas, quite the opposite, I say that babies need BOTH parents.
Your argument contains grains of truth,but is mostly slippery slope in nature, and similar ones have been used to deny men custody altogether.
To suggest that a man could not hire a wet nurse and care for a baby himself is,as hestia says, the height of misandric thought. It used to be a very common practice. Men have proved that we are capable of caring for babies by raising entire generations in this manner 200 years ago.
“There are lots of examples where equality before the law is patently ridiculous. The draft. Perfect example. It is absurd to send an entire generation of young women to die in battle. You risk your whole society. A generation of young men are expendable, because older men can step in to re-populate. It’s tragic, absolutely. But in reproductive terms, women are more valuable than men.”
Another borderline misandric sentiment.
We live in a society today that insists that women are exactly equal in value to men (when they are not superior),so the argument that women are reproductively more valuable matters not to this generation of men who have been told that we should step up to our “responsibility to end sexism against women” in science and mathematics,even though we are more PRODUCTIVELY valuable there than most women.
It also makes little sense to force men to fight for their right to vote and register for the draft for the ability to get student loans but give women all the same things without having to fight because they’re “more reproductively valuable”.
“Equality before the law would be things like equal paternity and maternity leave.”
Actually, I’m more interested in reproductive rights for men before we worry about what happens AFTER they are the father of a baby whose conception and financial support they had no control over.
“But mothers and fathers contribute totally different things, at vastly different times in a child’s life.”
Agreed.
“Go ahead. Educate a million women engineers. Most of them will stay at home with their children. You can’t fight human nature. It’s stupid to even try.”
And agreed.
As I said, many of your points are reasonable,but others are based on misandric conceptions that don’t take into account the fact that the modern notions about child-rearing are less than 100 years old.
We used to do what you suggest only women can do, namely, properly care for infant children.
Andrea is like a lot of people. She get’s it but she doesn’t get it. It’s like she takes red pills and then coughs them up whenever the dissonance engages.
I have been too busy to engage this thread, but great reading, and solid points from Hestia
We used to do what you suggest only women can do, namely, properly care for infant children.
How did men do this? Hire a wet nurse? That is not properly taking care of a baby. That is hiring a WOMAN to take care of a baby. How on earth, at any point in pre-history, did men properly take care of an infant who needs milk to survive?
Men took care of the FAMILY, however that unit was contrived. WOMEN took care of babies. Because we have the boobies and you don’t.
And I will still make my evolutionary point. If you have 30 young men in a village and 30 young women and you send all the men but 1 to die in battle, you can still produce the next generation. One man is all you need. If you send all the women to die in battle, you have 30 men fighting over one woman who can only realistically give one offspring to half the men, if that!
I think the word “valuable” was poorly choosen. I would hate to be a young man who thought his life would be thrown away without a thought. That is simply not true. And it should never happen.
And I absolutely agree that custody and divorce laws are brutally unfair to men, and would further add that any man can do a great job caring for any weaned child.
But a baby? Nope. I don’t buy it. You might have been able to drip goat or cow’s milk in a desparate attempt to keep your baby alive, but without breastmilk, most babies were doomed. The fact that you can buy poison in a bottle now doesn’t really move me. Babies need breastmilk, not formula. Again, assuming the mother is not an absolute psycho.
I think that basic biological reality informs everything about men and women. We use our bodies to create life, with your help.
I think the reproductive rights aspect is fascinating. I think a father should have a say in whether a child is aborted, and any man willing to step up to the plate and assume total responsbility for that child should be able to force compliance from the pregnant woman. In that case, formula from a bottle is better than being murdered by your so-called mother. Where both parties agree to termination, and neither wants responsbility, I also have no problem. But what happens when the woman wants the baby, and the father doesn’t? That is very tricky, indeed.
What rights do men want in that situation? How is fairness determined? And what happens to the baby? Does she have a right to know her father? It’s very sticky stuff. But clearly, vitally important.
“That is hiring a WOMAN to take care of a baby.”
No,it’s hiring a woman to FEED a baby. The care, oftentimes, was done by men.
That includes rocking the baby,clothing the baby,bathing the baby, and changing the baby.
“But what happens when the woman wants the baby, and the father doesn’t? That is very tricky, indeed.
What rights do men want in that situation?”
I’d like the right to legally withdraw from having to financially support a baby within the same timeframe a woman has to determine whether or not to abort the baby.
“think a father should have a say in whether a child is aborted, and any man willing to step up to the plate and assume total responsbility for that child should be able to force compliance from the pregnant woman.”
That would be nice, but men will never get a say there. Fighting a battle to compel women to have children they don’t want to give birth to would be a losing strategy.
However, no one can say that a man should have to financially support a baby that he didn’t want to conceive in the first place.
As it is right now, if a woman rapes me and she gets pregnant, I pay for the baby, regardless of the fact that 2 crimes have just been committed against me, rape and theft of my biological material.
@Andrea
“bitterness” is a woman’s word. Men don’t become bitter, they get angry and resentful. When a woman uses this word, especially in a Men’s forum she’s effectively saying “you’re behaving like a woman”. It is both inaccurate and insulting.
Agreed. And I apologize.
I’d rather you get a job, idle hands y’know.
Another great and highly informative article, my compliments to the author!
Admittedly it is as per what I’ve come to expect from this (one of the undeniably premier MRA gathering places on the web if I do say so myself) site.
@Alphabeta Supe
The content of recent articles at the GMP marks a marginal shift in its editorial attitude but its language for the most part is still full of shaming and mockery towards the MRM. What they’ve not realised is that this feeds the MRM rather than starves it.
Given the sheer narcissism and arrogance of these people, I think that you and I both know that the day will be a long time coming (if ever) that they’ll manage to figure this one out. (No change there then!).
Still this is very much to our advantage as it is, I feel that it is they not us who are looking more and more like the extremists and bigots on these very important issues and thus can only serve to further our credibility and palatability to the mainstream and readers who have maybe not yet made up their own minds.
To put it in my simple terms, the MRM will continue to grow because feminism is making more and more male victims. That isn’t going to stop, in fact it will get worse and worse until we dump feminism in the rubbish bin. That will happen one of two ways. Enough men finally, not only wake up, but decide to sacrifice for the cause, or, enough men have no reason to continue to contribute to society, and the collapse that causes wipes feminism out along with our current form of civilisation.
The first solution is my preference, but plan b is the final solution that will put a stop to it if we don’t succeed. That will cost us all greatly, many their lives, but I for one don’t fear it. If that’s what it takes, so be it. It’s up to the feminists which scenario ends it.
I disagree that it is up to feminists how they meet their end, Stu. To me, that is like saying it up to the tumor how the cancer turns out.
Feminism will end when the values of the culture as whole cease to tolerate it. As long as it is feminists, manginas, and most women against MRAs, we truly are nothing more than a minority movement seeking to seize power from the majority. That makes any claim to the moral high ground a bit shaky. No ruling system that seeks to impose behavioral standards on a reluctant minority can do so other than by force and violence.
These days we often see Spengler’s Law of Universal Gender Parity quoted – “In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other. ”
I would take this a step further to say that in every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture get exactly the kind of mates they want. All rationalizations aside, you can tell what people want by what they choose to do and have. If they really wanted something else, they would choose something else.
I view things like Kay Hymowitz’s recent excursion into man-bashing as women beginning to yelp because they do not like what they have been choosing and getting. And I think this is just the leading edge of what is going to turn into a large wave of griping and hand-wringing as the balloon payment on 50 years of feminism starts to come due on average women who have sat silently and idly by while they enjoyed the short terms fruits of the pendulum swinging temporarily in their direction.
Feminists tried to push men out of one part of the traditionalist paradigm – the protect and provide – while at the same time the white knights, manginas, and traditionalist women created an ever expanding police state to keep men trapped in those roles. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, they seem to have simply assumed that men would continue to do as they have always done regardless of how women changed, and turned over the job of indoctrinating future citizens into their social roles, values, and expectations to the very people seeking to destroy traditional values.
Now that those traditional values have been mostly destroyed, they are running out of cannon fodder. The will first turn to cannibalism and start eating their own and increasing the burdens and demands on traditional minded men – “doubling down on their White Knighting” as The Fifth Horseman puts it – but all that will do is burn out and use up the White Knights at an ever increasing rate. When the WKs are all, or mostly, dead, women will have no one to turn to except the men in whose faces they have been spitting for the past 5 decades.
I think the OP did a good job of laying out what might be considered a 3-pronged attack on feminism. I view MRAs as being sort of like the output of the Family Court/Divorce/Abuse industries. Feed a traditionalist-minded man into one side, mangle his body and soul, and out the other end comes a dedicated MRA.
I view MGTOW as mostly less traditionally-minded men who watched their brothers, fathers, and friends go through the industrial feminist machine and come out the other end either broken men who ended up on the junk heap or MRAs. Their take on the whole scenario was “all pain, no gain… well, none for me, thanks anyway.”
The PUAs, or Game advocates, lie somewhere in the middle. They believe that women actually do want and like sex, and are willing to give it to them without having to pay the traditional price that men used to have to pay for it.
MRAs are the front men. They are the ones carrying the message about why the other 2 groups are disengaging, and the changes which will be necessary to get them to re-engage.
The x factor is women. They have much more social power to enforce social norms on other women, and men, than men will ever have. Desperate measures like the G(i)MP are like the flailing of a drowning person – confronted with the evidence of the failure of their ideology, the only thing they can do intensify.
While MRAs have to, to some extent, confront the manginas directly, the other two groups can simply go around them and ignore them. The more they oppose legal reforms, the more quickly the problems will continue to get worse.
I think a strategy that all 3 groups can share is to keep driving home the point to women that feminism is the cause of their unhappiness. When women turn on feminism and feminists, they will disappear into the status of historical footnotes fairly quickly.
I would add that the Mens Movement(tm) doesn’t exist…that those groups are merely men pursuing self-interested goals…and those goals happen to mesh with those of other men quite nicely.
Only in the mens movement will you have Atheists, Christians, Capitalists and Socialists all arguing much the same viewpoint….
That speaks volumes to me.
But really, we exist only as figurehead.
And that is what feminists can’t seem to grasp….that we don’t HAVE a ‘hierarchy’ so much as a ‘collective’. Kinda puts the lie to another feminist assumption about men…eh?
The G(i)MP is trying to productize the adaptation of men to the feminist state. Feminism or “women’s rights” can never fully realize itself without recruiting more men to accept it and assimilate to it.
I get the impression that their latest littel furay into the MRA/MM community was like a hard slap of reality up side the head, for those with open enough minds to see it.
Kay Hymowitz was also quite taken back with the reaction from her WSJ article, where she admitted later she was surprised men were so “angry”.
Like I said before at The Spearhead, “Who are all these guys?”. They can’t ALL be us!”, regarding the plethora of comments. It’s a grassroots reaction to a poisonous monolithic social movement, backed by millions of dollars of support, MSM sychophants and political/judicial power.
And there seems to be a lot of really pissed off guys and even a few gals, over the whole thing. We’re just doing our little part to help it along.
Oh I’m sorry, I should define “anger” in liberal/feminist parlance as a position of disagreement someone takes with them, that uses irrefutable facts and logic in their arguments. Like the “angry” Tea Partiers as an example.
If you’re right about something you’re an “angry and bitter misogynist”. End of discussion.
Matlack’s newest ignorant piece:
http://goodmenproject.com/good-is-good/no-poetry-no-gender-war-no-bullshit/#comment-20511
I’ve been selected for moderation, truth hurts.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
It’s just you dude, you’re a real POS, a reformed liar, cheat, junkie and drunk. Don’t try to pretend you know anything about the lives of ordinary men who really wanted to be a good man to some woman and got totally fucked by the system.
You’re a born again feminist, which is just as much bullshit as any other religion. You’re a true believer and when an atheist is telling you that children and good men are being thrown under the bus, you just turn your head and pretend that you can relate to them. You can’t relate because you’re a POS Uncle Tom.
I got posted.
(They may remove it though)
Izzey says:
March 15, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I acknowledge your right to ‘out’ yourself in this piece.
What I take serious issue with here, is you breaking the anonymity of Frank. If you received his permission to do so, then that should have been disclosed immediately. If his name is pseudonym, then that should have also been disclosed. You describe his physical appearance, his history of incarceration, his family, the place of the meeting, and where the man is employed.
On the INTERNET sir.
I won’t even bother to address the rest of your pompous grandstanding.
“”Whom you see here, what you hear here, when
you leave here, let it stay here. Anonymity
is the spiritual foundation of our program.”
There’s a real good reason for that quote….dipshit.
This comment pasted from WORD due to GMPM’s practice of auto refreshing to inflate the appearance of advertising impressions.
@ Denis
You’ve made so many points over there at TGMP, and so well, the personal attack in this one was unnecessary. A man ought not be shamed for his past by a brother, irrespective of his politics. We all have our shame.
I hope they don’t approve this comment as it wouldn’t show you up as the stout-hearted warrior we know you to be. You’re better than this comment – by a long shot.
They don’t approve many of my comments anymore, I’m on automatic pre-moderation. However, the personal attack is fair game, since that is the game they are playing in their articles.
The Good Men Project is just a bunch of reformed drunks, addicts, cheaters and convicts. They’re over compensating for their own insecurities. I know some reformed drunks, addicts, cheaters and convicts (not MRAs, but born again christians). They’re con-men and I’ve learned not to trust them.
POS Uncle Tom is a good way to sum them up.
A title they deserve.
My reply to Matlack’s article:
“Tom Bombadil says: March 14, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Mr. Matlack:
Robert Bly and his “Iron John” had nothing over “Iron Joe Bob”
http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Joe-Bob-Briggs/dp/0871135531
It is the real, although satirized, story of the Mens’ Movement.
As for me, I feel that men are inherently “good,” and further, that they should be able to define what that means on their own terms, separate from the opinions, values, beliefs, and attitudes of women.
Reason, accountability, and responsibility is an equal opportunity endeavor and women are just as culpable as men for the public havoc and private strife that exists in the world.
For men and women both, it is ignorance combined with desire that is the cause of most of our suffering.”
I think I fall into the MGTOW category in terms of lifestyle. But I’m also an MRA since I’m a paying member of my local MRA group (not that I have much to give).
I have on occasion, considered to become a PUA and the few times that I implemented it, it worked better than I could ever imagine. It really is astounding how well it works.
The problem is, I hate the dishonesty in it. I hate pretending to be someone I’m not just to push the right buttons of the primitive female sex drive. I want to get AWAY from the animal lifestyle – not feed it.
Women are primitive and puas are living the lifestyle of animals, wtf?
You know, Tarzan and Jane…
I read the book “The Game” and immediately saw the sobering implications of its existence. Where are we, as a society, f men must read, study, and practice for hours every day just to get a woman’s attention?
Feminists try to convince everyone that PUAs are just shallow men who seek to manipulate large numbers of women to feed their insatiable sex drives. Actually, quite the opposite is true. Most men, even the PUAs, never possessed the innate desire to be players in the first place. Rather, they are tired of being exploited by collectist women and are merely trying to learn to protect themselves. Game operates under the idea that the best defense is a good offense.
I think game is learned behavior in males, while it is hard-wired in females.
Me no like you say men primitive! Me come after you with club now!!!
I never called men primitive. I called the female sex drive primitive because it is. It’s so primitive that it makes them choose partners who are almost never relationship material. And when relationships fail, many women just conclude that all men are like that rather than ask themselves if it isn’t perhaps their behaviour that is bringing about the same problems over and over again.
In short:
“All men are bad because I only go for bad guys and they turned out to be bad every time”.
ok me get it now
Great article.
Too bad the Good Mangina Project took liberties with your truthful comments.
To be a man in todays world had been torpedoed by fat, nasty, hairy, man hating harpies from the 70′s who want the seat on the lifeboat, yet think they should be the captain of it at the same time.
They want Equality only when it suits them, yet demand chivalry at the same time.
Is it any wonder in the past 30 years that single mama households in poverty have reached epic proportions. That children are out of control through the forced removal of a father figure. That prisons have farmed out to private corporations for profit on the backs of men via laws written to put them there for being a man. That the judicial system has turned into a BILLION dollar a year business through man hating legislation only set up to destroy Men, Boys and Families. That an ENTIRE industry has been created in Family Court, funneling BILLIONS of dollars through it to pay for Victim Advocates, Therapists, DA’s, Judges, Attorneys and Police. That Television, Print Advertising, Books and Movies celebrate Adultery, Teen Sex, Slutty Women and mock Violence Against Men as a joke yet paint every man as a knuckle dragging caveman who enjoys nothing more than to beat their woman mercilessly for enjoyment. That womens Shelters by the thousands have been created not to help women but to generate profit through the lie that “All Women are Victims and All Men are Abusers”…….That politicians know the truth yet fund the VAWA time after time including new laws to make anything violent in order to keep the Feminist Machine oiled to spit out men by the thousands year after year. That men are robbed of everything in family court and through the Bradley Amendment if he should lose his job he will be labeled a “deadbeat”, hunted down and incarcerated until he can pay. That being gay together is more important than the traditional family unit.
Yeah,
Awesome Job you Fat Lesbians.
The past 30 years have not been about equality as you scream in your really high pitched, whiny, Gimmie Gimmie voices in Washington. It has been about destruction.
You should be so proud of yourselves.
VAWA..Victims Are Women…Always!
Fuck ‘em all!
And Bizz, your first part of that post alone says it all…”Look bitch, you DO know if you insist on being Captain that you then go down with the ship when it sinks, not on a lifeboat ahead of all the ‘gentlemen’”!
wait..and let me make clear..I meant “fuck ‘em all” to TGMP and feminists. Not all women.
“VAWA..Victims Are Women…Always!”
More gold!
Wow… that’s a powerful summary.
You got just about everything in there. If it were all addressed, 95% of the existential and inter-gender problems for both men and women would be gone.
@Jonathan Mann
“One day the femifascist censor machine will be torched and destroyed and then we will have a truly free country.”
That is inevitable Jonathan. About this I am 100% certain. The only thing I am not certain about is who will be doing the torching and destroying.
Western people themselves awakened to a degree of open widespread acknowledgement of the deliberately self-destructive nihilism of the women’s movement – followed by radical and decisive action ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/islamicmultimedia#p/a/u/1/VIdgutZOLE8
Or something else ?
Time is running out.
I just dropped by the GMP. One of their newer articles was written by some mangina who worked last year at the University of Montana’s Women’s Resource Center. Highly qualified to write about the MRM (eyes rolling here).
Great article, it’s very interesting how scrupulous GMPM was in modifying and redacting. It would have been nice if you red-lined the changes, but this was completely censored:
(when was the last time you heard of a male victim called a ‘man’ instead of ‘victim”worker’ or somesuch? How quick do they throw Gender out there when it’s a “gunman”?), the DV industry and their sexist propaganda that only women are victims, only men perpetrators, the ‘sensitivity training’ all levels of our legal system are indoctrinated with, etc.
…
A lot of those guys are even in jail because they were broke, and couldn’t pay their child support.
Which brings me to the economy. And jobs. Men are falling WAY behind women in employment, but what seems to never quite reach the surface is that most of the areas in which women dominate are publicly funded, or heavily unionized. Which means Affirmative Action. And of course, Affirmative Action only ever goes one way…
What this all really boils down to, is the loss of the male half of the ‘gender conversation’ that has been going on for millenia. Actually, the deliberate suppression of. Which brings me to…
Feminism is little more than government-sponsored and -enforced chivalry. Feminism isn’t about equality—they have steadily attacked men’s privileges without giving up one iota of their own (and fiercely oppose those, like MRAs who seek parity).
…
In fact, the biggest objection I have seen against Game Theory so far has been that it…um, works too well, and it’s just not fair. Honest to God
…
This is perhaps the very first time in history that a sex has forced his/her gender role off his/her shoulders. Feminism certainly didn’t do so,
…
And turning their backs on a crumbling society.
…
We cater to the female desire for power, institute AA type programs, and educational initiatives, all to have them declare men inferior when it becomes apparent we’ve overdone it, by a lot, even though we can’t say it out loud.
…
Unlike Feminism.
Yeah, I noticed whole concepts going missing. But I anticipated it, and true to form the GMP didn’t let me down…they performed EXACTLY as expected.
Men And Neo-Gynocracy In Notorious Aliance!
MANGINA.
LOL OH GOD! MRA helps me NEVER take myself too seriously!
MRM
yep guess so
Ooooooo,
I got one thumbs down on my previous post.
Wonder who did that?
A) Feminist
B) Mangina
C) White Knight
D) All of the above
I’ll go with D.
I don’t think you COULD flunk that!
Thanks, nice to see it in its complete form.
TAKE BACK THE KNIGHT.
Dan Moore is aka Factory, no? Anyway, I consider myself more an MGHOW than an MRA. For as long as I could remember, I watched both parents work outside the home, so from the time I had any concept of dating, it never made sense to me that a man should pay for a woman’s dinner (except perhaps on her birthday). But my full enlightenment of the issues outlined above came in 2003 or ’04 when I heard my 1st podcast of “His Side with Glenn Sacks.” In the summer of ’08, shortly after Obama chose Biden for his running mate, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper warning that since Biden was the author of VAWA, electing those 2 would be bad news for the country. Not surprisingly, a few weeks later, a response letter (from a woman) accused me of whining & claimed that VAWA’s provisions were gender-neutral, & nowhere therein was there any authorization to jail men without evidence. Of course, I don’t buy that, but I decided afterward not to cast any more pearls before swine. Now I usually leave the activism to others, do my best to avoid troubles with women by minimizing my contact with them, & contribute what I can to Glenn’s current organization (Fathers & Families) & to Paul’s radio show.
A direct quote from Amanda Marcotte:
Virgin Mary “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”
That is easily the single-most stupid, one dimensional feminist argument for abortion I have ever heard in my life! AND anti-religion argument too. And I am not even so against one or a fan of the other!!!
Amanda Marcotte has a filthy mouth.
She is a filthy girl.
Best to stay away from filth like that.
Marcotte is a fool.
The correct response to people who kick the crutches out from under those who need them is to leave them in the endless empty chasms of their own existence, with nothing but the echoes of their own folly as company.
Yeah, she’s a right nasty piece of work all right.
That bitch has a mouth like a blocked storm drain…
Here’s a feminist heretic Christina Hoff Summers with the truth:
hyyp://www.aei.org/docLib/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf
Basically, she says that feminism is full of lies, it’s not about equality and is actually all about perpetuating the myth of victimhood and the patriarchy.
Likely the reason feminism and other leftist rackets can never accept criticism, because once this is done, the whole house comes crashing down.
It’s simple: they want your money!!!
@Zed
Yeah, what I mean by it’s up to feminism how it ends is that it’s up to them how much carnage and how hard we have to push and how far society goes down the tubes before we get rid of them. They could after all see the writing on the wall and abandon all this man hating crap. Could, but that would mean millions of women around the world who make their living totally by pushing feminist doctrine having no jobs and not even fit for washing dishes.
I know it’s not going to happen, I’m just saying that the road to a peaceful transition away from all this feminist bullshit is open to them. I know what they will choose to do. As the MRM grows in power, they will up the man hating in a desperate attempt to shut us down, with censorship, hate speech laws, more draconian rape laws, sexual harrasment laws. But they are going to drive more and more men into our camp doing that. The end for feminism will be a bit like the end of the nazis, with feminists and manginas defecting and running around denying that the ever supported that hate movement.
The thing is, every man doesn’t have to turn against feminism. There only has to be enough to render society totally disfunctional and very uncomfortable and maybe even dangerous for men who continue to support feminism. I see that day being within my lifetime. Probably in the next 20 years, could even be sooner.
“I see that day being within my lifetime. Probably in the next 20 years, could even be sooner.”
Inside of 5 years. Count on it.
I don’t share your optimism. MRM is a self-selecting sample of self-aware men. The rest of the sleeping class of men are easy targets for indoctrination and/or persecution. And we are a minority, say what you will. If most men were like us, there would be no feminism at all. But here we are, struggling under the juggernaut of feminism, because some men actively supported it stabbing the other men in the back, and most men did nothing end it. And thus the monster grew bigger and bigger, at an explosive rate post-industrial revolution once men invented LSDs and everything was a touch of a button easy, which made things just too easy for women to embrace feminism en masse.
So with men like us being a minority who can try and hide/protect our assets from being grabbed, there always are sufficient number of productive men to exploit, until they wear thin under the ever-increasing demands placed on them, that feminism is going to be around for a long time like it always has.
Well, call me an optimist if you like….but Paul has learned my powers of prediction are uncanny… OK, maybe not uncanny, but certainly remarkable….
Ok, maybe not remarkable…but probably interesting…?
Would you believe I got one thing right once?
I kid. Actually, I told Paul this whole thing was going to explode inside of 6 months, likely closer to three. Guess what happened 2 1/2 months later?
Grab a hold of those negative feelings and strangle them….we’re on a roll and gaining steam, not petering out. I suppose though, that adding a hundred or so people to our rolls each and every day isn’t really a big deal hey?
Chin up there lil camper…we’ll make it happen sooner than later…trust me on that one.
In reference to Hugo’s bullshit article about MRA’s not getting feminists…few fathers teach their boys that masculinity means being violent. MOST don’t! Some may insist that the boy learns to defend himself, but those fathers (which was my Grandfather) also teach that to their daughters as well.
Very few teach their boys that being a man means being an animal.
(My Grandfather was not the typical Jewish Grandad; he was a Marine that fought in the Pacific-two tours. Was a big believer in stopping the forceful will of Alpha pricks with a good palm heel to the chin lol )
lol yeah I never did talk about that-for all my hippie influence, I was still sent to live with my Grandad for a while-quite a saving grace.
I received this in my e-mail today written by James at Fathers4Justice.
Awesome words to complement this article:
My son deserves the equality that was afforded to him during our marriage.
I was with him for the first two hours of his life while his mother lay in the recovery room. With my hand resting on his chest, feeling his every breath while the nurses cleaned, measured and weighed him. He looked into my eyes often in-between bouts of crying, and all he heard was my voice speaking softly to him. Dad’s here now son and it’s going to be okay.
I was there when he took his first steps, when he first spoke, and when he laughed. I helped him with his schoolwork, spent hours with him building legos and playing catch when the weather was right. I answered question after question about the sky, the animals and life universal. I walked with him in the evening, read to him at bedtime and held him when he cried.
Some people say I should be content with the time I have, or to make the most of it. But when I hear this common phrase, I ask them how content they are with their own inequality? How would they really feel if someone they raised and loved were suddenly taken from their life? If you were told that you were a good parent, just not good enough to be treated as an equal? The term “Inequality breeds” is the statement that ignites others to rally against injustice, and that belief is rooted deeply within every human soul regardless of race, color or creed.
This is not about me. This is not about my feelings of inadequacy regarding the divorce. This is about my rights as an involved and loving parent who while married played a significant role in the raising of my son. This is about a child family investigator who took umbrage at my declaration of equality. Who looked upon my temporary anxiety as a form of illness, rather than as a result of a marriage I was deeply committed to whose failure shattered my life and the life of my son. I loved, felt the loss of that love, and to this day deal with the loss of time with my son. There is no ointment for that pain, no salve for the loss for it is one that only loving parents bear the burden of. We may grow accustomed to it, but when we drop our child off not to see them again for a period of time, a small part of us inside withers.
I’m fighting for my rights as a father who loves his son, and believes with all his heart that it is in our best interest to be together, and together equally. Our country was founded on the fight for equality. For the right to be heard and treated as an equal. Our own Constitution reflects that very principle. The struggle for women, for African-Americans and others continues to this day for equality. Why must a single father, who loves his son and was as equally involved in his upbringing, settle for any less?
This is a struggle about equality. A struggle for which others have fought for centuries and without their example many of the privileges we enjoy today would never exist. This is about a fathers love for his son, and the willingness to persevere in the face of certain hardship.
Do not trample upon my effort. Foster it. Encourage it. A father who is willing to go through the trials and perils for equality today is to be embraced. Please do not misrepresent this effort for selfishness, since a father’s fight for equality, my fight, is a fight for the only family I have left.
Now it’s my turn to wish I could give a million thumbs up, thank you for this Bizz. Men like you make me want to stay with this MRM thing and never leave!
Every story of this tragic nature should be used by us all as another
good reason to redouble our determination to stand up to feminism
and its supporters.
People like this man and his young son deserve justice for what
they’ve suffered, we must not fail nor falter in this fight above
all else we must be prepared do whatever it takes to win it.
Whilst our freedom to be male and proud of it is at stake,
our current place in this world is not enough.
@bizzmann664
Brother, testimonies like yours are the living heartbeat of the MRM. It exists for you and your son.
Is there such a thing as manly tears? I’d hate to think I’d outed myself as a wimp or a mangina, for the stinging in my eyes as I read this….
Re: Amanda Marcotte: Bill Donohue of the Catholic Defense League is my hero.
I’ve shortened it:
End Chivalry – Take Back the Knight!
lol—I was thinking that very thing last night
Men are hardwired to love and idolize women. It’s why we want to protect them and support them. They literally give our lives purpose, generally speaking. They are the center of our families, and they are the comfort at days end. They are the makers of the home, the calm in the storm. Some measure of softness in an often too-hard world.
Women aren’t any of these things and they never were. To believe otherwise is to believe in fables.
The end for feminism will be a bit like the end of the nazis, with feminists and manginas defecting and running around denying that the ever supported that hate movement.
Then we put them on trial.
The struggle for women, for African-Americans and others continues to this day for equality. Why must a single father, who loves his son and was as equally involved in his upbringing, settle for any less?
There is no struggle for women considering they were never oppressed. If you bought into this lie and supported those that peddled this lie then you brought your present situation on yourself.
I’d like to propose a new name for The Good Men Project:
THE MANGINA DIALOGUES
Stunning article.
Personally I think that of the particular sub-movements it is mgtow that has the highest ROI. As fidelbogen points out very well: female supremacy and feminism can only be as powerful in a society as the chivalry and pussy power that enables it.
It’s funny but we don’t really have to do all that much to kill feminism-it’s committing suicide through greed. Feminism makes society less and less useful to the average guy. He in turn increasingly decides to opt out of society.
The problem? All of female power and privilege is based on the work that this “loser” does. When enough “losers” decide to opt-out, the entire system breaks apart. There is no one left to power and enable the system of female privileges and basic comforts that women enjoy.
So, in my mind it is things like omega-males, mgtows and the herbivores generation that will make the biggest difference. Oh, as a bonus, it turns out men everywhere are doing this mgtow stuff instinctively. They never had to read an article or book on going mgtow-they just instinctively knew it had to be done.
I think some degree of caution is necessary at this junction. We have to remember that the gender war wasn’t between men and women originally. And that there is another element actively engaged in the gender war:traditionalist’s(which is a female supremacist movement in it’s own right{think right wing of the Matriarchy}).
Look around you, the feminist’s(and traditionalist’s) in the know, know they are toast. They dug their own grave and are about to lose everything. So instead of losing everything they are capitulating to the matriarchal traditionalist’s and using a “cave in” type strategy to ensure the survival of the Western Matriarchy.
They intend to be even more outrageous, dig the hole a bit deeper till it caves in on them and creates a level surface for society to find balance. At that point the traditionalist’s can start a major war or some other machination to set the clock back.
It might seem like a victory, but it is a false victory as a 100 years or less future generation’s of males will have to endure what we have and are enduring now.
Ironically the only real way the MRM can win the gender war is by embracing a more humanitarian destiny(akin to what liberal feminist’s advocated before the ERA was toast). Make no mistake about it, traditionalist’s are male hating bigots too. In-fact they are the most dangerous type of bigot as they are the bigot who wears a smile and carries a dagger behind them.
The days of women being loved are gone. Men have received such a raw deal in life that there are countless men who will never forgive women as a gender.
***
(Warning: Don’t read this if you don’t like to think!)
1. I have been Falsely Accused of DV, Abuse, Rape and/or Attempted Murder etc. – Why?
2. Because…
2a. Some women are NPD/BPD/Sociopaths/Psychopaths… actually every woman has some of these traits to various degree – Men should learn to identify these women.
2b. There are Laws, Legislations, Court and Police practices that encourage False Accusations, Women gain from False Accusations – Why?
2c. The “Feminist” Ideology that is now Indoctrinated into Politics, the Government, Courts, Police and General Public, that:
- Women are Good, Men are Bad!
- Women are helpless Victims, Men are Perpetrators!
- Women need Help and Protection, Men must be Restrained, Prosecuted and Jailed!
… – Why?
3. Why in Western (US) Society…
3a. … Men have gone from being the Workers, Ideologs, Inventors, Entrepreneurs, Leaders, Providers and Protectors of Women and Families to being Bad, Violent and Perpetrators?
3b. … Women have gone from being the Mothers, House-Wives, Dependents… and as in the Bible, Deceivers, Seducers, Prostitutes… in some cases responsible for Disasters and Destruction… to being Pure, Good, Workers, Ideologs (of Feminist Anti-Family/DV/Rape/Gay/Abortion… ideologies), and initiators of Women Legislative Projects?
4. This Transformation is Clearly an Erosion and Destruction of the Family, the Mental Health of Children, Society and the Good Life as we know it, and can be described as being Evil! What enabled this Destructive Transformation?
4a. The Feminists made use of Man’s inhumanity towards his fellow Man and the fact that most Men love Women but are raised to compete with each other. Men are indoctrinated to Provide and Protect Women. Men are indoctrinated to Compete and Destroy each other. Women, thanks to Feminism perceive themselve as Victim and do not Compete or Destroy each other, but Communicate and Bond.
4b. The General Population in America has no Moral Basis. Every person in this country is heavily influenced by TV and Hollywood. The majority of the population is not raised to believe in Traditional Moral Valeus or Family Values. Even US Christian Denominations’ beliefs are a Distorted version, Removed from the Original meaning of the Bible. Lack of Moral Basis means that the Opinion and Concept of Reality of US Population is easily manipulated by the Media, Public Figures, Celebrities and the Feminists.
5. What is the solution?
5a. Gender Neutral Laws, Legislations, Court and Police practices and Government Policies! – This is Obvious!
5b. Insisting on Adhering to the US Constitution in every Law, Legislation, Court and Police practice and Government Policies! – This too is Obvious!
5c. Define an Ideology and Moral Basis that would be the basis for the Education System, Laws, Legislations, Court and Police practices and Government Policies. For Example:
- The Family (Mother, FATHER, Children) is the building block of society. The Family is the most important element of our society. Families are essential for the up-bringing of Children.
- Families come first! Families must be Supported! Avoid the Destruction of Families as much as Possible.
- When there are Problems in the Family, diagnose the problem first. Make Evidence-based Judgement/diagnostics. Follow with a Constructive/Supportive action rather then a Destructive/Punitive one.
- Men are and should be the Workers, Ideologs, Inventors, Entrepreneurs, Leaders, Providers and Protectors of Women and Families.
***
Our mission should be to fight for the Traditional Family Values and to fight against the destructive influences of Feminism.
We must fight against the Feminism Inspired Legislation (VAWA) and the Misandristic Court/Police Practices.
We must develop an ideology that includes the Traditional Family Values and true Equality and Freedom of Choice.
There has to be something good about “Traditionalism”. After all people have been around for thousands of years and learned from their experience what is good and what is bad for the human race…
***
There is a lot of work to be done:
1. Lobby in Washington for Gender Unbiased, Constructive, Pro-Family and Constitutional Legislation.
2. Re-introduce Family Values to our Society
3. Men must take back the leadership seat in the Family, Ideology, Politics and Society.
4. Any political influence must be taken away from Feminism.
I do have to kick at one tiny thing:
yes, women have been oppressed. They ARE being oppressed, in many parts of the world (a few minutes browsing the details of the Islamic world settles that!). We’re not served by denying that. If we deny wrongdoing in the past on one side, we undermine our own efforts to combat wrongdoing today on the other.
I have always found it fascinating that people are so quick to get lofty with admonishments like “We’re not served by denying that,” while being completely oblivious to what is happening right under their noses, and while parroting bilge that has dominated gender discourse unchallenged for 50 years. You come here to lecture on denial, but are riddled with it in every word of your short comment.
As to what you think “settles” matters in the Muslim world, I will first put aside the fact that most Muslim women do not consider themselves oppressed and just focus on the more obvious. This is a western website, dealing with the exhaustive litany of prejudices and discrimination faced by men and boys, RIGHT NOW, that have become institutionalized across the scope of legal, educational and social life. There is massive, well referenced and unimpeachable documentation of that throughout this website.
If you want to make a case that women were oppressed in the west, by all means feel free to do so. But be prepared to have your points (which I assure you have already been dissected here 1000 times over) completely eviscerated with reality. If you have anything that resembles an open mind, you may learn something from it. If not, you will just remain in the ranks of the masses who surrender their ability for critical thought to groupthink and pop ideology; the same thinking that led you here with the belief that anyone but you was in denial.