surfer 1

Welcome to the Second Wave

Having observed men’s issues advocacy since the late 1970s it has been interesting to watch the fledgling men’s rights movement grow. While slowly increasing its membership the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has until recently consisted of disparate islands of disaffection toward the increasing reach of feminist tyranny. These islands have consisted of small collectives of men, along with the occasional sympathetic woman, who gathered to reinforce men’s right to live out traditional male roles if they so choose, and to challenge the feminist bigotry that was increasingly attacking this freedom of choice through its manipulation of the social and legal environment.

Since the turn of the new millennium a thread has begun to emerge from within the MRM that argues less for men to be able to live traditional roles, and more for the right to be treated as human beings deserving of a variety of life choices and basic human rights. Such human rights, according to this ideological platform, have been neglected by centuries of gynocentric culture and, more recently, eroded by decades of feminist governance.

Having observed the MRM for three decades I have no hesitation in confirming that the men-are-human-beings focus suddenly emerged into popular consciousness with the birth of A Voice For Men in 2009, a forum whose articles popularized the idea and inaugurated a distinct ‘second wave’ of the men’s movement based on human rights principles.

The notion of ‘waves’ is familiar to us from First, Second and Third Wave feminism. However our use of the term is not in any way related to the content or structure of feminist waves and is used here for metaphorical convenience as in ‘waves of soldiers’ or ‘waves of emotion’ to connote a surge of activity that is unique and yet related to a previous surge of activity.

Here is how I recently summarized the Second Wave of the MRM:

  • Nationally and internationally networked (as opposed to the poorly networked 1st wave);
  • Inclusive of all: women, men, straight and gay, trans, white, black are actively involved (as opposed to predominant hetero white of the 1st wave);
  • Strictly anti violence (as opposed to occasional violence tolerance of 1st wave)
  • Anti-domination of MRM by traditionalist assumptions (which dominated 1st wave);
  • Anti-domination by partisan politics (1st wave was dominated by right wing sentiment);
  • Inclusive of people of all faiths while having zero tolerance for proselytizers (1st wave had slight dominance by Western religion);
  • Are generally anti-feminist, anti-gynocentrism, and anti-misandry (like first wave) and are broadly oriented to human rights principles;
  • Are more committed to building bridges between the MRM and the general community (unlike 1st wave);
  • Have elaborated a more thorough socio-political history of misandry and gynocentrism (unlike the patchy attempts of 1st wave);
  • Have developed a more sophisticated discourse about sexual/psychological/social/political issues to inform the basis of the MRM (more than 1st wave)
  • Focuses it’s activism on changing cultural narratives over lobbying officials to change laws, based on the principle that laws are usually altered to align with prevailing cultural expectations.

In conclusion, the new wave of thought sweeping through the MRM–a wave which could be called the Men’s Human Rights Movement–has fundamentally demarcated that which went before and that which has gained center-stage now. And for those like me who rode the earlier wave on their rough-hewn Malibus, today we find ourselves in more creative waters where we must learn to ride the versatile short-boards on what is a human rights rather than a traditionalist wave. With this larger call for change I for one am excited by the opportunity to carve it up.

Editor’s note: feature image by Rian Castillo.

  • hellgorama

    Haha fuck yea. 1st wave MRM was simply masculism (twin brother of feminism, but for men instead of women). Such ideology is just as irrelevant as feminism. I look forward to the day when MRM can shed the “MRM” label and become “HRM” or human rights movement (thus completely trumping feminism).

    • VictorGarcia

      id like to think that the MRM has a metric that defines an end point. objectives vs “needs”(needs is in quotations because its a subjective term, that often doesn’t include actual needs). equality in law is a measurable factor. all feminists need to do is make concessions to mens rights, and change their name to make it gender neutral, in order to be humanists. unfortunately, most of them aren’t humanists, and don’t care about equality, many of them are bigots with “needs”, while ignoring the strife of a modern mans life. right from birth(circumcision), oh, wait, before birth(gender selective abortions, and fatherlessness). i think we need to spell out our objectives clearly(and many of us do), and start an account of progress. this is a mission, not a religion.

      • Dean Esmay

        Got a draft of a document I’m working on with some others that may be useful to that end. Should be posted in a few days. May be controversial but I doubt it will be.

    • Fidelbogen

      No. I do not look forward to the day that pro-male political sentiment is cast aside for mere “humanism”, UNLESS the need for vigilance on behalf of men’s interests has truly become unnecessary. And that is not something I foresee any time soon.

      What i DO look forward to, is the formation of below-the radar movements and communities which dispense with labels altogether, and instead rely on mutual recognition by members. Said recognition to be based on bodies of referential knowledge, key words and phrases, and other signalling methods.

  • Dean Esmay

    This is so well put, Tawil. I first became aware of and craving a men’s movement back in the late 1980s but aside from a few writings here and there, nothing. A few arguments here and there online, but nothing. Blogging for about 10 years on my own blog, co-blogging with Glenn Beck for a while (who by the way isn’t a conservative traditionalist, and neither was the late Asa Baber, a maverick columnist for Playboy magazine and one of the first to publish on men’s issues fiercely; I wish we could find and reprint his old articles).

    But in 10 years of writing on these things, trying to be nice, trying to be conciliatory, or just use humor, no one listened, no one cared. I would look to what men’s rights oriented sites there were and they were so shrill and so hard-core conservative I couldn’t hack it; even though I myself was (and am) right-leaning on some things I’m just not on others, and the seeming demands for ideological purity were too much for me.

    Why do I need to vote for one party or the other if I believe men should have reproductive freedom? Why should I be of a certain religion to believe male victims of domestic violence are not a joking matter? Why do I need to be of a certain ideology to acknowledge that women, not men, commit most violent child abuse and most murder of pre-teen chidren? To believe that prison rape isn’t fucking funny? To believe that debtor’s prison is an obscenity? And so on.

    I respect conservatism. I learned a lot, a whole lot, from conservatism. And the best of the conservatives I read (I could name names but I won’t as this is non-partisan) always knew ideology of any sort was suspect.

    We’re entering a new era where people from -multiple- points of view, left right center whatever, can see what’s wrong, and want to do something about it. It’s such an incredible relief to find us in this stage it’s almost palpable. We may finally be to where the conservative-minded can give their wisdom and experience, the liberal-minded can give new creative ideas, and so on, in the best tradition of thesis->antithesis leading to Synthesis.

    We don’t all need to gather in a ring and sing “kumbaya.” But we can perhaps start to look upon these as when the new men’s rennaissance began… and men and women began to genuinely like each other again.

    We’re still at the beginning of the journey, with a long way yet to go, but it’s exciting times. And with luck, I’ll live long enough to see the men’s rights movement become an irrelevant movement, because there is no more “gender war,” there is only people working to choose to live in freedom and help each other where they need help with compassion and justice.

    • Shrek6

      If I see anyone sitting around in a circle singing Kumbaya, I’m going to send in Chuck Norris to sort you all out!
      Heed the warning, because Chuck knows your thoughts before you do!

      • ikonografer

        idk….chuck might have had mind reading powers ages ago (and i was a fan) but nowadays? i’m thinkin’ he’s having a bit of a time keeping track of some of the voices.

    • JJ

      And with luck, I’ll live long enough to see the men’s rights movement become an irrelevant movement, because there is no more “gender war,” there is only people working to choose to live in freedom and help each other where they need help with compassion and justice.-DE

      Honestly; this is what I want to see!

      Because I do not want to be the next feminist. What I mean is a government watch/lap dog who howls at every whim, insult, or perceived inequity.

      Essentially, find what we want, pursue it; then walk away as by then it will be those we have raised to follow the example that was set.

      Feminism never really set any example when you think about it. In actuality; they showed people how to rob others; and this core ideal is what resonates with so many in their camp. As many in that camp, I would argue most, are purely thieves.

      Thieves of children, money, ill gotten gain, and sexual deviancy.

      They could not set an example, any more than a traitor in a castle lowering the gate for the enemy to come inside is an example. They betrayed us all; and then demanded payment.

      I cannot desire to be a part of anything that does the same. Get in, solidify the position, hold it for those who will come after; go home. Preferably to the respect of those around us. Or preferably, no one will know; but move on with their lives and allow human beings to be just that; human.

    • limeywestlake

      Wow, you were online in the late ’80’s?

      Don’t tell me, you had a funky, souped up Delorean DMC-12 in the car port… :)

      • Stu

        I was online in the early 80s. Commodore 64, viatel, discovery, and bulletin boards. I still have that C64 packed away on boxes in garage. I had it suped up to the max in the day. 16meg ram expansion, supercpu accelerator, 2x100meg hard drives, speech synthesis, the list of hardware expansions I had on it would blow your mind. Still got a lot of them, probably worth a fortune by now. There was a men’s rights bulletin board I used to get on now and then. They were mostly all real traditionalists and religious types. I went to a few of their meets and most of what they talked about was God. Everything was about God wants this, and that. God was the answer to it all. They used to pray at their meeting too. That was about 1987.

        • limeywestlake

          Wow? Really? Hush ma mouth….

          This is a world I know absolutely nothing about. Very interesting, though Stu…. Maybe you could write more about your experiences at this point in time. A fascinating little slice of MRM history. When you said that you went to their meets, did that mean you got together in the meat-space?

          My earliest brush with men’s rights was in ’91, through a book called called “Men Freeing Men” edited by Francis Baumli of the NCFM. This was written 2 years before “The Myth of Male Power.” It is a wonderful book. Still got it. It is as fresh today as it was then. I would encourage anyone to pick up a copy if they can. A seminal work – one that chimes with the fair-minded egalitarian approach hereabouts.

          Anyway, it got me fired up. I was interested in following up on the themes touched on in this anthology. This led me to the mythopoetical movement which span out from Robert Bly’s Iron John (which I read in the same month.) Unfortunately, this put the brakes on everything. All I can say that it was a very disappointing experience. Going into the woods to bang drums is okay for some, but there was a lot of hand-wringing that went along with it: essentially, men using Jungian analytical psychology to browbeat themselves for being weak and not ‘whole’ like women. We all had psychical wounds, apparently…

          It would be interesting to see a piece written about the mythopoetical movement that assesses its impact on the development of the MRM as a whole. I suspect that it did as much damage as it purportedly ‘did good.’

        • theoutside

          Sounds horrifying.

    • Grumpy Old Man

      Hey! We conservatives can be creative. LoL

  • typhonblue

    Drive by editing: removed repeated word in first sentence.

  • Shrek6

    So glad you decided to put that post into an article Tarwil. It needed to have been locked down in the article archive for all to read.

    Yes, I have been languishing throughout the past 25 years in an MRM that didn’t really know whether it was Arthur or Martha. I wasn’t heavily involved until about 12 years ago. There was a lot of disappointment back in those days, but they were necessary and we needed to learn many lessons.

    We are actually able to enjoy some ‘outcomes’ now, from some of the activity the MRM have been involved in. This was unheard of with the 1st wave of MRM.

    There are two major factors or in my opinion, causal factors that had the earlier MRM shackled to a ball and chain:

    1. I don’t think men had been hurt enough, or that children of these men had been hurt enough to wake enough men out of the stupor that they have been in for generations. This stupor has been the social construct that men were expected to live in….to be part of and that they had no choice nor right to assume any other way of life.

    2. When the first wave of MRM started and we had this scattering of men’s groups, they were staffed mostly by well meaning Blue Pill men. They were not manginas as such but a better intended White Knight.
    The problem was, that once these groups started to get ‘Red Pill’ men joining and then asking very hard and unorthodox questions, these Blue Pill leaders/moderators then became hostile to change of any kind. They did not understand that they needed to remove the scales from their eyes so that they could see they were slaves to a system that dictated their lives, down to their very thought processes.

    Subsequently, the first wave failed. But it was such a necessary wave to have. It had to be there and it had to fail, so that we could see the emergence of a stronger and better equipped MRM that was built on ‘Red Pill’ principles, which is what we have today.

    Anyway, I am excited at the future prospects of the MRM.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    I am confused about dates and categories. With the formation of men’s rights organizations in the mid-1920s-1930s in Austria (Liga), England (Fifty-Fifty Club), USA (Alimony Payers Assoc; National Sociological League; Divorce Reform League, National Divorce Reform League, etc) and Tibet (org. name unknown) I am assuming these constitute “the first wave” — which has continued to a second wave (in the 2000s?).

    • Tawil

      Good question…. Did the groups you mention try to affirm men’s right to live traditional roles within family and society?

      Men’s issues groups go all the way back to ancient Greece in the form of male student groups, male unions, guilds and so on…. so we could extend your list a long way back into history. In the modern context a first distinction of the ‘MRM’ includes men’s groups who were fighting misandry that was deliberately generated by advocates for women’s special treatment.

      While many traditional men’s groups called for the upholding of traditional male roles in marraige and family, there were also examples of men’s groups whose aim was to advance the general human rights of men. However it was only with the advent of AVfM (IMO) that a broad-issues human rights advocacy for males became both popular, global and sustained in the MRM.

      • Robert St. Estephe

        No. The “traditional” question is a red herring. MRM can be pro-trad or anti-trad, does not matter. The groups I mention are specific in their response to institutional misandry. They are specific to MRM, not part of the larger, widely known history of men.

        “In the modern context a first distinction of the ‘MRM’ includes men’s groups who were fighting misandry that was deliberately generated by advocates for women’s special treatment.”

        That quote does indeed describe Liga, 50-50, etc. You are arguing against including mention of these groups but not citing ANY evidence as to why you exclude them. They were completely left out of a HISTORICAL description. Typical readers of this first wave/second wave article will not know these historical groups even existed, let alone why they were left out.

        You are correct about the internet era. I am pointing out that when we make historical claims about pre-internet we might try to rise up to the level of the misandrists, who are willing to do their homework.

        • Tawil

          “You are arguing against including mention of these groups but not citing ANY evidence as to why you exclude them.”

          How did I advocate against including them? This baffles me because it is historical research like yours (in the narrow 100 yrs you seem to confine your research to) that led to the bullet point, #”Have elaborated a more thorough socio-political history of misandry and gynocentrism (unlike the patchy attempts of 1st wave)”.

          Maybe you could say more about how I argued against earlier historical examples?

          To me the ‘wave’ idea is something that AVfM members can elaborate together…. the finer details are not yet recorded. That said, I do agree with Dean Esmay’s important distinction about whether men’s rights initiatives were a passing blip on the historical radar, or were part of a continuous, unbroken (by time), and active movement.

          • limeywestlake

            I like the notion that we are in a second wave of the MRM. I gives the movement an nice, new, textural context that immediately sets us apart from earlier, more reactionary times.

        • theoutside

          Snippy snippy…

    • Dean Esmay

      Put it this way: Erin Pizzey created the first battered women’s shelter in the world and started the anti-domestic violence movement in London, a movement that spread worldwide right?

      Right, except, not exactly. There is evidence that almost 10 years before her first house, there was someone in California who opened up a shelter for similar purposes, though it never gained national let alone international prominence and disappeared into the mists of time. There is also evidence if you dig hard of shelters for similar purposes here and there going back decades, even centuries before. But was it a cohesive and continuous movement? No. That movement started as a movement with Erin. It just did.

      There were people talking about and writing against cruelty to animals for a long, long time. St. Francis of Assissi was well known for it. But the anti-animal cruelty movement appears to have started also in the UK, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That is where it became an identifiable movement with legs and a continuous history.

      I can’t say we know for sure that the modern men’s movement started at any one point although I’d have to say that the organization with the largest continuous history that is still around and that even we here still work with is the National Coalition for Men.

      I think knowing about these early historical figures you bring up is fascinating, rich, and rewarding, but it’s like trying to tie Frederick Douglass to the 20th Century’s Civil Rights movement. You can’t really make that stretch. Important, moving… but disconnected from civil rights groups that were successful and came later.

      That’s how I see it anyway.

      In any case I would agree that Tawil’s assessment is the way to describe it from the internet era onward.

  • Kris

    Great articulation of the current state of MRM. I think we would be remiss if we don’t acknowledge a few contributing factors towards the successful outreach of MRM in to the mainstream – the emergence of the internet, the large scale export of Feminist bigotry to the third world, and most importantly the initiation of internet activism by Angry Harry!

  • Kukla

    Lookey! Even the RevLeftard are talking about it:

    Warning: This website contains ignorant, coffee-shop revolutionaries. You may experience a drop in IQ.

    • limeywestlake

      Jeez, what a bunch of dullards. Now I know why I am no longer a leftie. God, when I was, I must have bored people senseless…

      • Kukla

        I don’t mind leftists, I just hate revleft leftists.

      • Correctrix

        It depends what we mean by ‘Left’. I always take it to mean ’progressive’. By this definition, the MHRM is the one with the leftist/progressive position, breaking away from feminist orthodoxy and entrenched power. It’s no different from railing against established churches or corporate abuses.

        If we use ‘Left’ in a less purist and more pragmatic manner, to describe those who think of themselves as lefty, or who generally have progressive views on most issues, then the monolithic Left is indeed sadly against us, and wrong to be so.

        I myself am as leftist, revolutionary and radical as it is humanly possible to be; in 2013, consistent application of principles means that I am inevitably an MHRA. We will win when this becomes generally recognised.

        • Room101

          Although I agree with you, so many ‘leftist’ will not break free of their dogma. If the left and libertarians worked together, so much more could be done, but it seems to me libertarians are more willing to embrace movements for change than vice versa. In leftist circles, ‘libertarian’ is almost as bad as ‘fascist’.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Throughout the history of men’s rights activism from 1926 to present, I have not noted a tendency (I’m sure there are minor fringe, individual, exceptions) to fail to reach out to the larger community.

    Left/right terminology is often meaningless, but we need to accept that it is a self-claimed “leftist” position that “the nuclear family must be destroyed” that” “to destroy capitalism it is necessary to destroy the patriarchy.” Obviously there are many camps of leftists, some genocidal, some not, some tolerant of heteronormativeness, some not.

    I do not know what a “right” kind of view is on MRAs — but it is certainly not that of Engels, Lenin, Steinem, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, so I am not sure that the right-vs-left characterization in the article is communicative. I’ve never heard a traditionalist (“right”?) say that “all non-traditionalist men are commies,” but I have heard leftists of both sexes harp on how men “must change” (according to their cult religion faith in dialectical materialism).

    • Room101

      This is where leftist politically correct intolerance stands out the most. They accuse people who refuse to adopt their ideology as bigots, even if such ‘bigots’ have no problem with how others live their own lives.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Here’s a new MGTOW video I found from a Chapin’s Inferno endorsement.
    The Shortest Fairytale In The World

    It is VIRAL material, easy to understand by 100% of the world’s population.

  • Jay

    Similar article to some of your previous comments Tawil. Good analysis.

  • Factory

    I think you are missing the far more obvious distinction of a ‘second wave’ of the MRM….namely, the aggressive refusal to back down, or play nice. There was a VERY definite schism in the Mens Movement splitting off Glenn Sacks’ readership into fractious spaces.

    I won’t pretend to know all of them, but the more significant included The Spearhead..which was a reaction to Dogmatism within the MRM…the PC-ification, if you will.

    This decidedly Libertarian splinter wildly criticized literally everything, up to and including the Traditional Base of the mens movement…the Right Wing white guy.

    The second wave of the Mens Movement is every bit as critical of Traditional Male Roles as it is of Feminism (and for the same reasons), a characteristic the ‘1st wave’ decidedly lacked.

    You are right that A Voice for Men will go down in history as the most important and influential Mens Issues site of our times, and you are right to credit that to Paul, or more importantly to Paul’s ability to stay the course in the face of incredible criticism all while attracting OUTSTANDING talent to join him.

    This place is like the Rolling Stone of Male Gender Issues….back when Rolling Stone was relevant.

    And why here instead of somewhere else?

    Because the message, the tone, the backbone, the entire package…it resonates with people. That’s why feminists continuously try to get us to change our tactics…they work.

    The MRM is, metaphorically, transmuting from the nerdy kid that cries at the drop of a hat, into the rebellious Bad Boy whose simmering rage is easily seen behind his eyes. More Che Cuevara than Albert E Newman.

    That shift, I think, would be a ‘second wave’ definition….

    • Dean Esmay

      Other than my visceral loathing for Che Guevera I fundamentally agree with you: the firey refusal to back down, the backbone, the “fuck you if you don’t like me, I’m not shutting up and there’s nothing you can say to me that will make me shut up, and no, I will not retreat, not one inch, not one millimeter, we are coming into the public square and we don’t give a fuck whether you like it or not, and no, we haven’t got a fucking thing we want to apologize for thank you very much” and the absolute refusal to be pigeonholed into ANY ideology is what defines where we are now.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    History does not work in a “progressive” march. That is just a leftist (social constructionist diaIalectical materialist) myth.

    On women’s involvement in the “first wave” of the Men’s Rights Movement (1920s):

    After Hoeberth’s Liga split into two camps, his camp, Equitas was so woman friendly, that the newspaper called it a Mother’s Club.”

    FULL TEXT Rarely does a mother consider a son’s choice of a wife worthy of the distinction conferred upon her.

    Equitas, the world league for the rights of men, with headquarters in Vienna, was made up largely of women members, a majority of them mothers of marriageable sons. The purpose of Equitas was to defend men against the encroachment of women, whom it charged with being in league to pre-empt all world power and dominion.

    Equitas’ offices bristled with such potent warnings as “Singer Shoots Her Husband, “Husband Poisoners of Nagyrev,” “Orgies of an 18-year-Old Girl.” A weekly journal, “Self Defense,” kept members and public informed on status of men’s rights in various parts of the world. Now Equitas has folded to make way for a woman’s shoe store in the quarters it occupied.

    Mothers find their sons do not share their apprehension concerning the dangers besetting the path of an eligible young man. Equitas could furnish its members no recipe for convincing a young man in love that the object of his affection is a designing creature plotting to reduce him to a state of dependence or even slavery. Unlikely as it seems, the time may come when men will be compelled to band together in defense of their rights, as women were forced to unite in a concerted drive against man domination, and Equitas may rise again.

    [“Mothers’ Club to Save Sons Closes Doors,” syndicated (Newspaper Alliance), The Milwaukee Journal (Wi.), Oct. 10, 1930, p. 10]


    I’m not so sure about the non-heterosexual claims. Tolerance is tolerance. But among my closest MRA peers it is an important thing to point out the rights of a herteronormative boy or man to not be subjected to harassing, offensive “openly X” behaviors in school, workplace, etc. Tolerance is a good thing but welcoming come-ons — pedophilia apologetics (see Netherlands pro-pedophilia, political party, Kinsey politics), and left-wing gender-speculation-utopian-drivel — is another thing. I speak as a person with very extensive experience with these questions: the need for the rights of heteronormative men to be respected.

    • Tawil

      “History does not work in a “progressive” march.”

      I think most people with an ounce of intelligence take that as a given. On that basis, and for the record, we can state the obvious- that first and second wave are waving concurrently. The relative strength and popularity of a given wave, or the eventual death of a wave, however, are different questions. :-)

    • Astrokid

      I very much concur that these earliest organizations were the first wave, and measures of their activism (such as ability to network, inclusivity of diverse participants, continuity in time etc) have to be seen not via today’s sensibilities and capabilities.. but by the standards of the time. Hoeberth’s org ran 1926-1930, and shutdown due to other men’s apathy, and the primary contributors were mothers with marriageable-age sons.

      A year ago Sigurd Hoeberth, president of the world league, sent hundreds of invitations to college professors, bankers and journalists of the United States to attend the world congress at which the league’s objectives were to be discussed. So few recipients took the initiative seriously, however, that the congress was postponed.

      From then on the league’s interests and activities steadily declined until practically the only source of funds was its feminine members. Of these the league had, according to a statement of the president, 500, and he admitted in confidence that they were the best contributors, more especially mothers with marriageable sons.

  • Metalogic42

    So, although I find myself often agreeing with the content on AVFM, I prefer to stay “neutral” with regard to terminology, and just call myself a humanist. That being said, I would like to bring up one small issue I have with this article.

    One of the points describes the proposed second-wave MRM as “generally anti-feminist”; I think this will confuse some people, and drive away others. I’m sure you’ve all seen people on FTB and elsewhere claim that feminism is “the radical notion that women are people”. Well, despite some people, having followed their activity for awhile, realizing that their brand of feminism at least is so much more than that, consider the point of view of someone seeing the radfem vs. MRM “war” for the first time.

    Such a newcomer may see a radfem make the “radical notion” claim, then see your own “generally opposed to feminism” statement. If I was a newcomer myself, I’d almost certainly think that your statement on feminism was at the least bizarre, and at worst actually misogynistic. So, perhaps some clarification on that point would help to dissolve such misunderstandings.

    • Dean Esmay

      [sigh] This can of worms.

      If you believe “feminism is about equality” then you will find that about 98% of us are “feminists.” So you should be asking why it is we don’t like the word and don’t use it.

      The MRM does not take issue with the notion that women are human beings deserving of the same civil rights as men. Look hard enough and someone somewhere may not believe that but they’re odd ducks. The MRM generally believes that the dictionary definition of “feminism” is a lie and that it actually describes an ideology featuring quack pop psych bullshit like “The Patriarchy” and the notion that “women have been oppressed and exploited by men for thousands of years” and things like it that are HORSE SHIT, and that feminism isn’t about equality no matter how much they say it is.

      Now I’m a known maverick; I continue to say I WILL speak with someone who calls themselves a feminist, and even try to work with them, IF they will prove to me that they reject the cockamamie bullshit and that further they take ALL of our issues seriously and not in a condescending way, and will engage in an discussion in a logical, good-faith manner. I find that this happens to me on occasion, although it’s exhausting as those who will are few and far between and I won’t gainsay anyone who hasn’t the patience for it. Still, on occasion I’ve gotten through to a few of them. But being rude to the ones who make it obvious they are drones who won’t come out of their little culty talking points bullshit isn’t something I have a problem with anymore either.

      My war cry: “Not All Feminists Are Like That? Prove It.” And then: “And tell me what you’re doing about the ones who are, besides pretending they don’t matter?”

      I refuse to be apologetic anymore, and I refuse to put up with abuse from them. They want to be treated like equals, and I do, which means when they’re assholes, I say “fuck you” and don’t flinch. That’s the difference between then and now.

      • Metalogic42

        Yes, I agree with all that. What I’m saying is that a short version of that should be put into the second wave statement, because “newbies” won’t know about any of it, and thus will be susceptible to the propaganda from the other side.

        • Dean Esmay

          Ok, good point. I’ll put some thought into it.

          • TheBiboSez

            Until there is a branch of feminism that dumps the notions of “The Patriarchy” and “rape culture” completely, embraces equal responsibilities as well as equal rights, ceases to shame men for being men, rejects “safe spaces” and other silencing tactics, decries violence, stops promoting the perpetual victimization of women, reputiates VAWA and all its bastard children, denounces male disposability, recognizes gender symmetry in domestic violence and rape…(about 50 other things)…then we don’t owe feminists any accomodation at all, even if that stance does confuse the occasional newb.

            There are about two dozen GWW videos that can set them straight.

          • Metalogic42


            The Slymepit (maybe you’ve heard of us) could be considered a branch of feminism such as you describe. We’re *extremely* critical of the FreeThoughtBlogs/Skepchick/A+ crowd (which embraces rape culture, etc.), and we are 89% feminist, as per a recent poll:

          • TheBiboSez

            @metalogic42 – As you are probably aware, that Slymepit poll is as wildly misleading as asserting that Jesus Christ was a Christian – he wasn’t; he was a Jew; Christianity wasn’t even invented until long after Christ’s time on Earth.

            Fuck, that poll made Dean Esmay a feminist!

            Reframe that question to read: “do you believe that at least 90% of men should killed and that the others should be placed into concentration camps” and you will have a much more accurate definitional portrayal of modern feminism.

          • JGteMolder

            By that poll, 99% if not a full 100% of AvfM are feminists, when we are clearly not.

        • dhanu

          If they’re interested in the MRM, tell them to learn the red-pill definitions from The MRM Glossary (the very purpose I created it). If they refuse to do that and continue to believe in feminism per the usual propaganda, they’re not yet ready for the MRM. It’s them who need to change to understand the MRM, not the MRM that needs to slow down or change its stance to accommodate them (the previous wave was like that but it achieved nothing).

      • Kimski

        “[sigh] This can of worms.”

        I’ve come to the conclusion that we might as well get used to it. We’re going to have to explain the true meaning of ‘equality’ to every woman on the planet, save a moderate few.

        Amazing, how women’s ability of ‘networking’ among themselves suffers a complete breakdown, whenever it comes to putting their money where their mouths are, don’t ya think?

      • Falland

        One big advantage we have over feminism is that most men are truly looking for equality whereas women are fighting for supremacy. As a man, equality is shared custody. It is both half’s pulling their own financial weight and not one side paying all the bills, alimony, child support, and taxes and the other side spending it. It is equal spending on health care, social security, pensions and not one side hogging everything and then outliving the other. It is about one side not having a protected status and then using it to take advantage of the police, educational system, employment, and public benefits. It is about women finally adding value inventing things, building things, and running things and then sharing the benefits with men rather than it always being the other way around. I am not afraid of real equality, although ironically, most women are terrified of it.

    • JGteMolder

      No; there’s no difference between “radical” feminism and “equity” feminism. Equity feminism is merely the shield the radical feminism uses for plausible deniability reasons. “Radical” feminism are actually the people in control of the feminist movement, they are also in positions of power all across the world working on anti-male legislation.

      Then there’s “Radical radical” feminism. You know, the types like “The Femitheist” and “the radfem hub”, but as the agent orange showed even the radical radical feminism is already in positions of power to make legislation. Really, the only difference between “radical” feminism and “radical radical” feminism is that the later comprises themselves of “radical” feminists that have lost patience or their mind, so they are actually spouting their goals; as opposed to keeping them in the shadows.

      To not point this out, to not hammer this reality into people’s brains, is to let the hate movement that is feminism continue onward unopposed; and then you can expect the gas chamber one of these days.

      • Metalogic42

        This reads very much like a conspiracy theory. Where’s the evidence that there’s a large contingent of feminists with political power who want to send men to gas chambers?

        • JGteMolder

          “Agent Orange” files, do a search, on google, the very site search bar right here, and enjoy your horror.

          • Metalogic42

            I don’t have time to read through 165MB of screencaps. Anything in particular in the ZIP I should look at?

          • scatmaster

            For one well known author Pamela O’Shaunessy advocating the extermination of men.

        • Kimski

          You might also want to look into the genetic alterations of men by spraying their food, and the extermination of women who doesn’t fall in line with their master plan.

        • Astrokid

          by Metalogic42 » Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:15 pm • [Post 660]
          Wow, some of the commenters on AVFM are just as crazy as FTB o_O
          Yeah Metalogic42.. Go back to your nest where you circle jerk about how brilliant “skeptics” are, esp. those who have managed to see through FTB shenanigans.

          • Metalogic42

            I asked for evidence of “gas chamber feminists”, and I was given a huge number of screencaps to meticulously search through, and vague allusions to other things. It’s not my job to seek out evidence for someone else’s claims.

            I stand by my comment.

          • Astrokid

            Here’s the original quote
            To not point this out, to not hammer this reality into people’s brains, is to let the hate movement that is feminism continue onward unopposed; and then you can expect the gas chamber one of these days.

            Did you really take that literally? If it had said, you can “expect the guillotine one of these days”, did you expect us to show you the evidence for guillotine? I guess so.. after all, you were dumb enough to run a poll that asked “Do you believe that women are people?” And have some 30-40 people vote and then you come by here and advertise it. Bravo.

            And even if there’s evidence for exactly that.. then what would you do? Rubbish them as some loons somewhere and you will move on with your life. As do most people. In my other comment I have given links to a few vile things done by mainstream feminists. people here are very familiar with what feminists have done, what their ideology and psychology are, we have seen the radfem underbelly, and we connect the dots and see what it can lead to.

            I see that you didnt wait until the evidence/arguments were proferred here, and evaluate them.. before mouthing off your comment on the Pit. Of course you will stand by your comment. You are just another demonstration of the dunning-kruger effect. Going forward, it will be really appreciated if you keep your comments here to a minimum until you learn a lot more.. coz you sure as hell dont have anything to contribute to us.

          • Metalogic42


            “Of course you will stand by your comment. You are just another demonstration of the dunning-kruger effect. Going forward, it will be really appreciated if you keep your comments here to a minimum until you learn a lot more.. coz you sure as hell dont have anything to contribute to us.”

            Lol. It’s like you copied a line from the A+ forums. But yeah, you’re right. I’ll just talk to Dean Esmay, cause he’s actually able to have a reasonable discussion.

          • Astrokid

            You have spent many months obsessing over A+ I suspect.. so you see that everywhere.. after all very few people bother about them, or run a poll on “are women people”.

            Of course Dean is able to have reasonable discourse. The question is, are you? So far, you have contributed zilch.. other than run back to your nest and crow.
            You even said: Its not my job to seek out evidence for someones else’s claims
            People here are doing you a favour by pointing you to various stuff. The least one can do is treat it with respect.

        • Dean Esmay

          We’re working on making the Agent Orange Files easier to search. Having us go through them to find what you want is no easy thing, but if we pick through it for you it leaves us then being accused of “cherry picking.” That said, go here:

          Those are samplings. You can look through more easily searchable archives here:

          Women’s participation in the Rwanda Genocide and other genocides has been well documented although generally not known about, but if you seek references for that I can find them. Thus the idea that we can’t take seriously women who talk that about killing men, killing children, killing women who won’t comply with their agenda, or as if these women are inherently powerless and irrelevant, is sexist and naive. To my eyes anyway.

          How many self-proclaimed feminists would actually use mass extermination? I can’t say. We know some have taken their hatred into real-world violence. Some only speak of it. How many are there, how powerful are they? Many members of RadFemHub are respected members of the community and people with political clout. Yet most of the feminist community seems to be silent about them.

          Are they 1%? .01%? 5%? 10%? I don’t know, do you? How would we know, except the Agent Orange files exposed their real existence and the fact that they are found in jobs like university professors and political appointees, and they likely represent only a fraction of the population that thinks that way.

          Now, are all feminists guilty by implication? No, although those who refuse to expose and denounce these bigots look to an awful lot of us like they’re willfully naive and irresponsible at best, and are intentionally or not giving cover to them.

          Hatred of men was found in the earliest writings of the so-called “2nd wave” feminists (although I don’t accept that they were a 2nd wave of anything myself, they were a new ideology). We shouldn’t be surprised if there are people who take the ideology that men are brutal oppressors to the logical conclusion.

          • Bombay

            Do not forget the SCUM Manifesto.


            And that video of them killing a man and celebrating it.

          • Metalogic42

            Thank you, this was exactly the sort of thing I was asking for. I will examine the links in more detail tomorrow.

          • Metalogic42

            @Dean Esmay:

            Ok, so I have some questions and comments. First off, yeah, those radfem hub posters say some crazy and sometimes dangerous stuff. What I’m wondering is how the account names were linked to the people behind them. Is there any info on that?

            Second is this: I’ll assume for this point that at least some (and possibly virtually all of them) of the radfem hub posters are in fact people with real political power. How many people are we talking about, how much power do they have, when did/do they have it, and where? I think this is very important to how seriously we can take such people. Take for example the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church. These groups are just as hateful as radfem hub, yet no one takes them seriously, because everyone else realizes it. Furthermore, I wouldn’t even be much worried if a few of them were lawyers/politician/etc., because the vast majority of people would never let a “kill the men” bill pass. (I’m of course only talking about the first world here, I’m aware that the problem is probably much more serious in less developed countries).

            Third: I still kind of have an issue with the MRM being opposed to “feminism in genral”, for two reasons. First, feminism, as well as the MRM, could both be considered to be a sort of “targeted humanism”; with feminism targeting problems women face, and the MRM targeting problems men face. Admittedly, women don’t face very many problems in 2013, and the ones they do are minor, but still, eventually they should be sorted out. I light of that, a lot of potential allies of the MRM who consider themselves feminists might be turned off by that
            statement (I hope I’m not repeating myself too much here).

            The second issue is simply the ordering of the points in that line. There’s nasty people with power associated with all kinds of movements, not just with radical feminism. To that end, perhaps a better wording would be something like this: “We are broadly oriented to humanitarian principles, and as such are generally opposed to inequality and societal/political corruption, and specifically opposed to radical feminism, gynocentrism, and
            misandry”. This would mesh well with the next point about “building bridges” with other communities (which is always a good thing).

            Anyway, I’m rambling on, so I’ll shut up now. 😛

          • JGteMolder

            Funny, but the answer to point two and three are one an the same:

            VAWA, Dear Colleague letter, The Plan to eradicate violence against women and their children in Australia, the treaty of Istanbul in the EU.

            All these things, implemented by those very same radical and even radical radical feminists, all remove “innocence until proven guilty” if you’re a man, and you’re alleged victim is a woman, and throw you in prison and then throw away the key, where at least in the US you get used for slave labor.

            And they are merely the tip of the iceberg.

            So that answers your question about how powerful they are.

            And yet, except for us MRMs, nobody seems to give a damn. If it wasn’t so terrifying it’d be laughable that an MRM is needed to point out just how vile, amoral, unethical, and unconstitutional that crap is. So what makes you think castration or other bodily harm will produce a different reaction from the public at large? And if that is fine, how much longer, if they couldn’t get away with it already, does it take before kill the men guilty until proven innocent (if that is even allowed) garners the same reaction?

            You are still blue-pill; you still think the world runs on compassion and ethics, this is an illusion.

          • Metalogic42

            @JGte Molder:

            “All these things, implemented by those very same radical and even radical radical feminists, all remove “innocence until proven guilty” if you’re a man, and you’re alleged victim is a woman, and throw you in prison and then throw away the key, where at least in the US you get used for slave labor.

            And they are merely the tip of the iceberg.”

            Am I supposed to take your word for it? You could at least provide some links. As for the “blue pill” comment, someone linked to the MRM glossary above, it says this: “most people are by default blue pill people; they see the word through a feminist viewpoint (men as bad, oppressors; women as good, victims).”

            Um, no. Fuck that. That’s not me. But it doesn’t matter, because I reject the entire concept of such a glossary. Such lingo only serves to make it easier for the in-group to identify outsiders and shun them for not being “educated”. I don’t play that game. But ironically, many feminists do. Telling me I’m a “blue pill” guy is *exactly* the same as telling me to “check my privilege”. Bravo.

          • JGteMolder

            Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me?

            I name all the programs, two of them yous should recognize as VAWA has only just been in the news that it wasn’t reauthorized and all the feminists had their panties in a bunch over it; and The Treaty of Istanbul just got a comprehensive article on this very site.

            Then to consider that VAWA and the damage its done is pretty much everywhere, especially anything remotely having to do with men’s rights as most people finally woke after the damage it’s done to them personally or to men they knew; so it’s pretty much impossible to know about it, let alone still now know about it; hell, IIRC this article mentions it in passing.

            But you’re faulting me, and demanding I write a full on article it in the comments of this article on it, with comprehensive notes and links?

          • Metalogic42


            I’d like to formally apologize for not being aware of exactly the same news stories and other media that you are. To remedy this, I would ask that you install TeamViewer on your computer, and a security camera in your home, pointed at your television, giving me login credentials to both. Hopefully this will remedy the problem of me being aware of different news stories than you.

            Alternatively, you could just shove your shitty “you should already know about this stuff” attitude up your ass, because it ironically reeks of feminism.

      • Astrokid

        As an intermittent slimepitter myself pretty much from the beginning.. I find myself quite bored with the so-called skeptics. In the early days of the slimepit (1.5 years ago), a non-MRA, anti-feminist DavidByron (somebody who’s studied feminism for 10 years) argued that whats being seen in the atheist community is nothing new.. that mainstream feminists are pretty much like FTB.. and many dismissed him as a loon, even a misogynist .. coz they were the “good feminists”, the “equity feminists”. yeah. One can read all this up in the archives.
        Its taken 1.5 years of more FTB shenanigans, and a bunch of people leaving and new ones joining, to bring many more to understand that mainstream feminism as seen on the blogs/newspaper is pretty bad as well. I dont know how many realize that its the feminist orgs like NOW that are the actual agents of harm to men IRL.
        Here are titles of some recent Hoff Sommers’ articles, and even those dont reflect deadly harm caused to some men impacted by VAWA, family courts, debtors prisons.
        In making campuses safe for women, a travesty of justice for men.
        Domestic violence myths help no one
        Baseless Bias and the New Second Sex: Claims of bias against women in academic science have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, men are becoming the second sex in American higher education.
        No Country for Burly Men:
        That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to “skew” employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.

        Whenever men impacted by these raise their voices, even other men scoff at them. As Erin Pizzey said recently..
        Dean: I’m sure there are Canadian and other men who are scoffing at this because they’ve never gotten into that situation, but I’ve…
        Erin: Those men scoff all over the world, because it’s not their situation. Where is the humanity in men for each other? We women have it naturally with each other, but men don’t seem to have the same ability to discuss emotional issues.

        Once you have an understanding of the seriousness of these issues.. of feminist history and actions.. can one begin to talk about the future of feminism.

        The ‘radical radical feminists’ mentioned above refer to Pam O Shaunessey, Sheila Jeffreys et al. You might have read Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement.. these people have regular jobs. Their thinking is only a few steps removed from mainstream people of similar thinking.. say Catherine Comins of Vassar College. Cover Stories Behavior: When Is It RAPE?
        Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of “rape.” She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. “To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.” Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

        Taken to extremes, there is an ugly element of vengeance at work here. Rape, is an abuse of power. But so are false accusations of rape, and to suggest that men whose reputations are destroyed might benefit because it will make them more sensitive is an attitude that is sure to backfire on women who are seeking justice for all victims. On campuses where the issue is most inflamed, male students are outraged that their names can be scrawled on a bathroom-wall list of rapists and they have no chance to tell their side of the story.

        Each time there is some ghastly crime by men, esp on women, feminists cry out about controlling “masculinity”. for e.g
        Fourth Wave Feminism
        Feminists have nursed a perverse obsession with what men think and do for decades. They’ve had to, because the success of the feminist program has always been completely dependent on what bell hooks called “the will to change”. The female strategy has always been to nag and manipulate until men stop doing what men want to do and start doing what women want them to do. Men caving and giving women what they want is as natural as salmon swimming upstream. Its painful to watch but almost everyone does it eventually.

        Forth Wave feminism, already well underway, is a female coalitionary effort to control male behavior through public policy while wielding the threat of state-sponsored violence.

        It cites a mainstream piece:
        The case we are making is that certain widespread masculine traits and behaviours are dangerous and costly both to individuals and society. They are amenable to purposeful change. The culture of masculinity can be, and should be, addressed as a policy issue.
        In my short time as an MRA, I have seen mainstream pieces on:
        – man-tax (i.e tax men extra),
        – suspension of innocence-until-proven-guilty in rape cases (by Jessica Valenti),
        – convicted men should be used for slave labor camps

        All this goes on without any counter in MSM. Business as usual.

  • Skeptic

    Thanks Tawil. Well summarized.

    First wave – trying to educate feminists with rational logical argument.

    2nd wave – FTSU.

    • Paul Elam

      Got your contribution today Skeptic. Thank you!

      Great piece and summary, Tawil. I fully endorse it. Would say more, and will, but right now I am taking the weekend off. Need to recharge batteries, lol.

      Have a great weekend, everyone.

      • Dr. F


        You know I know about your needing this time off to recharge. I swear if you reply to my comment now it means you got on the computer and I’m off to a feminist site to illustrate for them.

        No computer this weekend that’s the deal.

  • TigerMan

    Excellent piece – the emphasis on prioritising humanity before creed, race,religion or sex is a challenging one but it is a challenge we cannot afford to ignore if we wish to coexist in peace with each other. :)

  • Dr. F


    Ten great bullet points you give for the second wave.

    Don’t want to build you up too much mate but seriously, you’re like that bloke in the sandals with the beard standing on that hill with that tablet.

    In sobriety now, thank you for this heads up. Great time to be here right now watching and playing in the most important match in history.

    • Kimski

      “you’re like that bloke in the sandals with the beard standing on that hill with that tablet.”

      Well, that didn’t exactly turn out the way it was supposed to…

      • Factory

        Nobody’s perfect…:)

  • Winstone

    Left wing parties are strictly linked to feminism. So the road is explaining to men who vote for these parties that they are voting against themselves. At some point politicians will realise that feminism allows to gain votes, but at the price of loosing other votes

    • Howard Gordan

      While I agree that the left are more aligned with feminists and kowtow to them at every step, I don’t have any rave reviews for the right either. Both parties have reauthorized VAWA many times with it’s blatant bigotry. The only reason the right has so far stopped VAWA (most likely a temporary reprieve unfortunately) has nothing to do with the anti-male bigotry or trivialization of abused men. It was due to tribal courts mostly. So until someone from any political party comes out and says VAWA is discriminatory based on gender and needs to be changed, I don’t see political allies for our causes yet. Yet. Yet…….

  • AntZ

    Very nicely put. Today’s MRM is distilled civil rights. Anything that is not related to the mission has no place here (politics, traditionalism, religion, exclusion, etc).

  • Augen

    Like it

  • keyster

    If “Traditionalism” means marriage, raising a family, becoming a “wage slave” or “utility” to a WOMAN; then what is the alternative?

    Becoming a co-equal partner, or house-husband to some jr. executive affirmative action plant? Or a footloose MGTOW?

    I don’t understand how the MRM fits into “Humanism”, which let’s face it, is essentially Feminism in sheeps clothing.

    • Tawil

      @Keyster: If “Traditionalism” means marriage, raising a family, becoming a “wage slave” or “utility” to a WOMAN; then what is the alternative?

      The alternative to single-option traditionalism isnt single-option modernism. The alternative offered by second wave MRM is multiple options – hundreds of them. Take your pick. And those options come under the canopy of human rights.

      The Second Wave allows for the legitimate insertion of an extra letter in ‘MRM’ to refer to multiple-choice human rights: M(H)RM.

      • Correctrix

        Keep up the pwnage, Tawil.

    • Suz

      ““Humanism”, which let’s face it, is essentially Feminism in sheeps clothing.”

      Um, no. Unless you buy into the feminist dogma that women are the only “humans” on the planet. One of the end goals of the MRM is to repair the damage to the relationship between the sexes, damage caused by feminism. The primary goal is to ensure that men have all the same rights that are currently guaranteed only to women.

  • by_the_sword

    I like our defining principles. Let’s hope we get the job done and there is no “third wave”.

  • Black Knight

    I’ve been reading this shit for maybe a year or so. I can’t remember exactly when I found it, but it has been a godsend. My own history should be familiar to many of you. I grew up in an abusive home. I was beaten brutally by my father, but even more so by my older sister… until I was old enough to fight back (around age 14). I finally stood up to my father at the age of 17 and was promptly kicked out. I managed to finish high school and kicked around for a couple years before finding myself in the Army. My early political identity was based in my rebellion against the traditional religious right-wing conservatism of my parents. However I quickly found the left to be lacking in important ways. I was a bit put off by the Marxism and the hostility to competition and free markets, but REALLY put off by the feminists and their extreme hostility to male sexuality and their advocacy of sexual repression. I tuned politics out throughout my twenties.

    But then I experienced a reawakening of interest in politics due to my involvement in the Iraq War and my disgust with the Bush Administration. Once again, I found that even in the center-left political coalition of the 21st Century Democratic Party, the feminists were even more shrill and controlling than I remembered. They were NEVER to be challenged, and they had adopted a habit I hadn’t noticed before. Now they were insisting that they were fighting racism and classism as well as sexism. This struck me as a bit odd for a bunch of affluent white women. I struggled to understand what it was that motivated the modern conservative movement which seemed so illogical to me, and then I stumbled upon a book by John Dean, a former Republican, about authoritarianism and how it had taken over and distorted the conservative movement in America. I noticed the same pattern of behavior he described in the feminist movement.

    Today, I do not consider myself a liberal or conservative or even libertarian. To put it simply, I am a humanist. I believe in human rights. I am opposed to authoritarian governments and movements which invariably crush the rights of others for completely irrational reasons, while the unscrupulous sociopaths who invariably lead such organizations manipulate their gullible followers in order to enrich and empower themselves.

    Like many of you, my personal life was a mess when I began to slowly awake from my Blue Pill slumber. I was at one time, sadly, one of the whitest knights in the kingdom. I rode on trusty stallion with my armor shining brightly in the sun as I sought to rescue fair maidens from evil men. There was a time when I truly believed that most men in the world were evil, bad people who abused women. Of course the women only put up with them because they didn’t know any nice men and didn’t know better. I was a sad, lonely man.

    Those days are well behind me now. The Red Pill finally came in the wake of my being manipulated and used by a truly screwed up young women over the course of about a year. I had “saved” her from an abusive boyfriend, only to see her run back into his clenched fist. It’s a long story, maybe I’ll share it with you all some day. But it forced me to confront some ugly realities about this world and my place in it. It wasn’t easy, but it was damn sure worth it. I wouldn’t say I’m a PUA and frankly I don’t like the idea of that playing a big role in that movement. If you want to be a big player, fine. If not, that’s cool too. Do what you want. The important thing is I don’t get taken advantage of anymore. I don’t let anyone sell me short anymore. I don’t judge my self worth on women’s ridiculous, irrational terms anymore.

    The politics used to really frustrate me, but not anymore. What this blog has showed me is that I don’t want to work the left or the right, whatever those terms even mean. I suppose agree and disagree with both sides at times, depending on the issue. That doesn’t matter. There are more than two types of people in the world, and I hate labels anyway. What we should seek to do is get BOTH parties to accept the validity of our cause. Lat’s face it, that’s what feminists have done, no matter how much they claim otherwise. Never mind what the politicians say, look at what they do. I want to say alot more but I’ll leave it at that for now. Good work Paul, keep it up.

  • operator oscillation

    I think the biggest weakness of first wave MRM was that they misunderstood feminism and took it at face value. When feminists said they wanted to destroy traditional gender roles, the 1WMRM took them at face value and said “no, we should have the right to be traditional men.” And the reason why the 1st wave went nowhere is because the feminists had no interest in destroying traditional male roles, only traditional female roles. So the MRM was never a threat to the feminists.

    I believe that the 2WMRM resulted from gaining a better understanding of what feminism is actually doing: feminism functions to justify male disposability. And now that the MRM is bringing that issue out into the open, feminists, as well as white knights and other manboobz (grin) can no longer ignore us, nor can the women, trans people, ethnic minorities, gays, and nontraditionalists who agree with the premise that male disposability and forced gender roles for men is a problem.

    Of course, men who want to be traditional men should have the right to be such. Instead of viewing the second wave as a replacement of the first wave, it’s more accurate to view it as an absorbtion of it.

  • Nostradormouse

    Developing a philosophically bullet-proof Human Right approach (using Version Control software if necessary), and communicating a Protean vision of a post-Feminist “Zeta” ethics may make overcoming Feminist sensibilities a matter of Moral and Ethical Leadership, and setting imaginations aflame with the possibilities of the relationships between the sexes we could have and most of us want.

    “Zeta” is probably similar to the original Feminist proposition (pre-Marxist hijacking), but more highly evolved being annealed by fifty years of gently ratcheted oppression.

    De-programming maladaptive traits like Chivalry, and liberating us from Endocrine tyranny seems like a small benefit weighed against a trashed & devalued education system, the Cultural lobotomy of Post-modernism, a Politically sanitised speech that would have left Orwell in slack-jawed disbelief, and politicised inter-gender relationships.

    Irrespective, I’m excited.

    I’m calling the phases as follows;
    1) Police & Courts disputed territory – next 6 months.
    2) Superiority, then Domination of the Narrative and Gender Discourse (necessary, but not sufficient) – 6 months to 12 months.
    3) Lead public Gender Discourse, communicating a vision of a post-Feminist world – 12 months – 18 months.
    4) Back to barracks in time for Tea & stickies. Clean kit. Inspection. Sack time.

    Any questions?

    Sorry. Flashback.

    Seriously though, I didn’t think the Leadership phase would come for years. It may just be closer than we think.

  • MGTOW-man

    “Have developed a more sophisticated discourse about sexual/psychological/social/political issues to inform the basis of the MRM (more than 1st wave)”—the last of your list of advancement to 2nd wave.

    First, thank you Tawil. You have great insight and an admirable capacity to express it. I am glad that you have taken the time to notice these things and use that knowledge to educate us.

    Second, in quoting the above, from your article, what comes to mind is myself. I do not necessarily have a “sophisticated discourse” with the way I present my comments here on AVfM. I do this intentionally because I do not think being nice and diplomatic will get noticed by the masses. Too, I am angered at men when they act like cowards and customers, selling the rest of us off and down the river. I sometimes want to temper my words but fear that such a change will not reflect my spirit which is to spell it out for the dumb, stupid, the confused and the overly “protective” of women.

    When I write here, I am not preaching to the choir, I am speaking to the massive number of average men and women out there who tune into this growing site but have not thus far joined our ranks. I want to speak in a blunt manner that requires no higher tier of thought processes, no advanced measures of understanding, no extrapolation needed, and so on. I want to make it easy. And when “teachers” can speak plainly with no enigmatic surprises, no expectations of intellect from the audience, they they might just connect better with the some learners.

    Tell me, if you have read some of my comments, am I hurting our movement or should I kind of sugar-coat it?…sort of obscure the truth somehow? If the former, how, and if so, prove to me that being nice and “well spoken” actually resonates with more people—especially those who have their clueless-but-obstinate hats on?

    • MGTOW-man

      Wait. I take back my question above. I read some more on this wonderful site. Now I know I am right on target and so are a lot of you.

      I read the article by Dannyboy, “letter to my nephew” and it answered my question. I won’t be changing my pattern here. I will continue to write the rock-solid truth regardless of whose feelings it hurts. They needn’t be so sensitive. I am not responsible for their inability to cope with the unadulterated truth.

  • Kris W

    In principle that list should read OK, but for some reason it seems to set off my inner BS detector, as it kind of reads like some Marxist Feminist BS list redefined for MRA consumption.

    Many in the MRM have been respectful towards the atheists(and other belief systems) in the MRM and the atheists have like wise been respectful. You though, are not respectful and your () remark reads like any left-wing atheist/feminist anti Christian remark, but again toned down for MRA consumption.

    The MRM didn’t get anywhere by being nice, we got to where we are in space and time, with feminism against the wall, by being ruthless, aggressive and fair(with just a dash of reason). The defining characteristic of the Second Wave(personally I view this as the First Wave as I view the current movement to be radically different then previous Masculine Activists, and we aren’t really based off of their ideology at all as you have pointed out in the differences between the waves), well the defining characteristic is the fact we aren’t afraid to tell women and older men that we aren’t happy. We are not afraid to speak our minds and we will absolutely refuse to settle for a raw deal.

    We are not universally inclusive, but fair towards. If someone is useful, regardless of their gender, race or creed, they will be heard. MRM is about Men’s Rights, not homosexual rights, not transgendered/intersex/whatever rights.

    Homosexual/Transexual/Women activists and organizations have never helped men’s rights, and very much to the contrary, they have aided in our persecution and aligned themselves with the feminist hate movement FOR OVER A CENTURY! Either through direct assistance or refusal to acknowledge the problem.

    If an individual homosexual/transsexual has something that is worth saying then it is worth hearing, but we are not going to carry water for groups that have spent the last 30+ years aiding and abetting the persecution and oppresment we face. Remember, it was the homosexuals in Hollywood, both actors and writers, who whole heartily worked to create the culture of pure misandry we find ourselves in.

    They meant to break us and they pretty much did. By carrying water for them we make it nice and safe and easy to be them. They will support feminism and give token support to the MRM(hedge their bets), all the while using that token for a “voice at the table” as we rebuild that which has been pretty messed up.

    All people like you are doing Tamil, is to ensure the final programming from Equality Feminists is ingrained into men(creation of a “new man”, you have to study the change in feminism after the ERA failed to pass and when feminists decided to both destroy/weaken traditionalism and remake masculinity into something that would serve their interests and not traditionalist interests).

    Right now, as the MRM is gaining steam, it is making men more cognitively aware of the chance to change themselves. In business terminology this would be the halfway point of Lewin’s Unfreeze, Transition, and Refreeze process. We have a chance to decide for ourselves what it means to be a man, or rather what it means to be a heterosexual man.

    This is why homosexual activists, “reformed” feminists and other activists are sneaking into the MRM, so they can continue what they started when they sought to deconstruct masculinity.

    They are trying now to “Transition Masculinity” into something that will carry water for everyone else like a beast of burden. Our “victory” against feminism is to be the final lock click on our enslavement, an act that will mentally freezes the changes into permanence in our society.

    Robbing us of the unique chance we have right now to define ourselves. A chance no generation of men has ever had, and we should not allow others to fill all their hopes, dreams, idealism’s into our chance. To burden future generation of boy’s and young men into carrying water for the very groups that spent so much effort into dehumanizing us and bringing us to this point in the first place.

    Imagine if a new Constitutional Convention was called into being. Imagine all the special interest groups that would cling to such a Convention and try to manipulate it to their advantage. In many respects that is what is happening with males, or the concept of “masculinity”(what it is to be a male).

    That is the problem with the over 40 crowd. Your too damn idealistic. You have your head so far up in the clouds you can no longer see clearly or think clearly. If you push with this Progressive nonsense too hard, all I can guarantee is that the silent radical arm of the MRM will gain ascendancy. The idealism of older MRA’s will leave those who aren’t naive no where else to go other then to the rank of the radicals. As the life experiences of boys and young men are radically different then the life experiences of older men.

    That is going without saying how badly that would fracture the MRM. We need to keep things relevant, purposeful and informative. Circle jerking only leads to stagnation and disharmony.

    • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

      Kris W,

      This has got to be the most astoundingly stupid post I have read in a long long time.

      You have managed to compact homophobia, political trumpeteering, religious bolstering, paranoid delusion and ageist bigotry in one giant stupid bolus of pig shit.

      It’s dumb, dishonest and nasty and you sir will be chasing your tail on these assertions in tighter and tighter concentric circles to the point where your fat head goes right up your greasy bumhole.

      Get smarter and educate yourself you silly fuck. So far you have demonstrated yourself to be useless burst of arse spray on a thread where smarter people than you will ever be, are seeing the piece here as the seminal expression it is.

      “That is going without saying how badly that would fracture the MRM. We need to keep things relevant, purposeful and informative. Circle jerking only leads to stagnation and disharmony.” Yeah, you actually said that.

      Holy crap you’re stupid. I mean really stupid, and when I was half your age I was already twice as smart as “refreshing young hip guys” like you. Can’t you see that you are proving Tawil, the author here, that the first wave was homophobic and the second wave being smarter more compassionate and accepting?

      You are being a billboard for the first wave, the very thing this piece is not. No wonder your BS meter went off. It went off because you are the antithesis of the second wave and good sense looks like slime to you. You floor me with worshipping your insightful young self. You don’t even have the insight to grasp the concept that you don’t even know what you don’t know.

      One more vicious anti-brain-dishonest-anti-humanitarian post like this and you are out you useless scrape of Petri-dish fur.

      • Tawil

        Dr.F: “You have managed to compact homophobia, political trumpeteering, religious bolstering, paranoid delusion and ageist bigotry in one giant stupid bolus of pig shit.”

        Yes he just exemplified the ideology of the first wave, and contrasted that with what is presented here as second wave. Way to helpfully demonstrate the gist of the article! :-)

        • Paul Elam

          Yep, and I am appreciative. We can count his comment here as a fossilized record of first wave mentality.

      • Kris W

        Silly fuck? Here I thought I was being nice?

        Like I always say, feminist, old men same damn thing….

        What did I get wrong? Please Sir feminist? Where did I err in history? Did I miss the presses about GLAD protesting about the second class treatment boy’s get in class? Or about all those gay rights activists who seemed to march in lock step with feminists? I guess in your PC world that never happened.

        And what am I bolstering about with stating the obvious about religion? The fact that it hasn’t entered the picture at all until the writers snide and unwarranted remark? It is identical in spirit to Feminist”s bashing of religion.

        The only thing I am proving is what a moron you are. If not wanting to carry water, to focus only on men’s rights issues(notice how I said if someone had something useful to say they would always be heard?) makes me a homophobic then so be it, I am a homophobe. I don’t hate gay’s but apparently I must because I refuse to make their issues my issues. God forbid I go against a sacred cow.

        I guess I went against many sacred cows, I never knew atheism was the site religion and that you guy’s really had a thing for transgendered folk and where also gay and lesbian rights activists.

        You say I am first wave, your damn right I am first wave. First wave not being a coward. First Wave of not being scared to talk to strangers about MRM, first wave of not cowering to group-think. Doesn’t matter if it is here(well soon to be not I suspect), yahoo, walmart, or in something called Life.

        Me Hip? I just know too much, feel too much and think too much. It just so happen I am more often then not right.

        Me young? No. I may be of 27 years, but I have dealt with too much shit to be young anymore.

        And my assertions? Which ones? The ones that tend to be prophetic or the ones that illustrate the past that most people are ignorant of?

        The funny thing is, I wrote somewhat angry(influenced by other annoyances) so there should of been something concrete you could of attacked. Instead you attack the fact that I attacked a sacred cow. Truly saddening how far the MRM has fallen here. I take back what I said in my comment, there is not an droplet of reason to be found.

        • Shrek6

          Mate, you are seriously crossing the line, but your immature outburst can be forgiven if only for your lack of experience due to your youth.

          But let me entertain a couple of points you have made.

          This site, from what I have been led to believe, is a non-denominational site. There are Atheists here, there are Christians here (I’m Catholic and practice my faith), there are many other Faiths represented here.

          Last time I looked, there was only one barrow being pushed on this site. The welfare and rights of both Men and Boys!

          I don’t recall this being a pro-Catholic, pro-Athiest, pro-Gay or por-anyotherbloodything site, save and except for only one. PRO-MEN/Boys!

          Now, I know I am often confused easily, but the last time I looked Gay people who are not female, happen to be MEN.
          Something tells my less than educated mind, that if they are MEN, then they BELONG here and have the same rights as me a Catholic or any of those who are Atheists.

          Have I got that message through to you yet?
          Or is it going above your head?

          Sorry, I’ve changed my mind. I’ve got dinner in the oven and I just don’t want my appetite ruined. So, I’m not going to comment on your idiotic response any further.

          No wonder the first wave went down the bloody toilet!

    • Paul Elam

      When you say “we” are not universally inclusive, just who are you talking about?

      You sure don’t speak for me, or this operation.

      If fact, you say “we” an awful lot. Do you represent an MRA group, or do you have a frog in your pocket?

      • Kris W

        Sorry I should of added ” all the young guy’s I know who I talk too”. Some may have difference beliefs, the most annoying of them is fatalism as it keeps organization to take place.

        And I am glad I don’t speak for this operation. Atleast people can kind of figure out the GIMP is ready and willing to throw boy’s, young men and men under a bus. This place though? Contest a sacred cow, hurt the feelings of the gal’s you like to parade around, and my how quickly this place begins to look like feministing.

        • Turbo

          Mate, you really are full of shit ,but please stick around, I think you can be saved. Just stay here and read, you will understand

        • Paul Elam

          Oh, I see, ‘all the young guys you know who you talk to’

          Quite an activist organization you have going there. When’s your victory parade? And where do you talk to them? A forum? A grand meeting hall? Dennys?

          Let’s at least be partially real here. You are only speaking for yourself. Is there enough integrity in you to just pony up with the truth and admit that you were attempting to speak for what you think the men’s movement ought to be to everyone?

          Do you really have to make up imaginary gatherings of young men who you ‘talk to’ in some unknown place, in order to try to add credence to your right wing, Christian agenda.

          Seriously, dude. You need to do a lot better than this. No one here is going to buy in to your attempts to shame by calling us feminists (see, here there really is a real life “we”).

          You’re a right of center tradcon that does not realize that men are just as ready to shit you out as they are feminists. But I wish you well.

          Now scurry off, Mr. whoever-you-are. I am sure your gathering of young followers are growing hungry in your absence.

    • Shrek6

      I would like to add a big thank you to Dr. F, for getting in with a resounding rebuttal.

      But before I leave, I have to make this comment, because you pissed me off with your sanctimonious shot at Trans people without being completely honest in stating YOUR part in the failure of the so-called first wave of the MRM, especially in your area, which seems to be what you are referring to.

      The first wave of the MRM was filled to the brim with people like you. Males who overdosed on blue pills, white knightery and manginery, to the point where REAL ‘Red Pill’ MRAs were persecuted and forced out of the movement.

      And that my friend pissed me off big time. Just ask one of my mates here on this site!
      I’m still spitting bitterness out of my mouth over this, but I am getting better.

      I don’t recall Trans People or those who are homosexual, having a bloody thing to do with the almost total annihilation of the MRM that existed from the 1990s through to the mid 2000s. It was you and your ilk that destroyed it.

      Now buzz off!

      • Jason Thompson

        “I don’t recall Trans People or those who are homosexual, having a bloody thing to do with the almost total annihilation of the MRM that existed from the 1990s through to the mid 2000s. It was you and your ilk that destroyed it.”

        Shrek, I was thinking how to respond to Kris W’s straw man about homosexuals being responsible for the poor showing of the MRM. Then you made your post and said it word-perfect: the MRM has eaten itself up from within without any help from trans or gay community, but mostly as a result of MRM idealogues burning down everything in their path.

        • Shrek6

          Thanks Jason!

          Trans and Gay people from my memory, were nowhere to be seen in the MRM back then, because they NEVER HAD A VOICE at all!

          During that period, I made a lot of enemies, because I dared to criticise the foolish/stupid/idiotic behaviour of men and I dared to call an evil woman a bitch. I think I ended up being banned from one major men’s rights group. Oh well, these things happen I guess. Poor deluded fools!

          And you know just how pissed I have been at the treatment we received from those who caused the destruction of the MRM and the ostracising of Red Pill MRAs.

          But you know, I am glad it all happened, because we needed to go through all of that to mature into the form of activism we are engaged in today. Today it is real, it includes ALL MEN, and we are not going to be berated for calling that evil woman a bitch.

          If any of those fools turn up here spouting their shit, and I end up reading it, you can be assured of an angry comment of some sort.

          AVfM, has proven to be a good salve for the wounds that I have been licking.

      • Kris W

        I didn’t become active until 2006, when the MRM was hiding in a closet and behind fake names and clinging to conservative semi white Knights on that Men’s News website as Mr. Elam had to suck the fumes of Conservative blow hards.

        My Failure? Yes my many failures: I screwed up in helping to kick conservatives out of the MRM. I screwed up in ruthlessly showing a mirror to all the radical feminists the where on the internet spouting pure vitrol hatred that the MRM tried to reason with(I am still uncomfortable with the title as it appears most MRA’s merely want the right to become a slave while I prefer liberation).

        Yes I screwed up each and every time I raised an eye brow or said a smart reply to female chauvinism in the classroom.

        I screwed up even more when I was so tired I said nothing at all.

        Yes I screwed up when having to deal with a batshit femnazi history professor Fucked with me to the point of causing me to go into full blown lactose intolerance because I refused to shut up. Yes I fucked up when I dropped that class(had a 100% couldn’t sit in a room and listen to blatant lies).

        I screwed up all the times I treated women as equals and judged them accordingly(depending on who you talk to though depends if it is a sin or a virtue).

        Yes I screwed up. I am proud of my mistakes. They may hurt but they make me, me.

        I even screwed up a few months back when I was waiting inline at the bank I go to. There was something on CNN about rape culture. I guess I screwed up when I joked with the other guy’s that America does indeed have a rape culture problem, it loves it when boy’s, young men and men are raped. I screwed up because apparently I am only supposed to do that stuff online.

        I also screwed up when I spent a great deal of time spreading the meme of feminism as a continuance of White Supremacism in certain circles.

        I also screwed up when I kept hammering the point(took a few years) that traditionalist view men as beasts of burden.

        I also screwed up when I(and others) challenged the notion that not all guy’s are promiscuous or even want to be.

        I also screwed up when I withdrew from all the online casualty reading garbage(the fact that many MRM websites read like war casualty reports is saddening and a huge turn off, destroys ones spirit).

        If being intolerant of someone who is intolerant of the civilization I live in is another screw up, then so be it. If going against a growing cult like Marxist mentality is a screw up, glad to be of help in adding to the screw up quota(no pun intended).

        I would rather screw up then salivate at the mouth at what someone else say’s just because of the person who say’s it.

        If what Dr. F’s reply passes as a “Grand Rebuttal”, then I am glad I failed. For the caliber of intellectual discourse has sunken so low that it would be a grave dishonor to be praised from such.

        • Shrek6

          Okay, I’ll accept that you have been badly hurt and you are obviously very, very angry.
          But you came here and posted in a way that came across like you were frothing at the mouth over certain issues.

          The future of the MRM, has to move past prejudices of all kinds and concentrate on MEN’S RIGHTS, not all the side issues that are used by feminists to sully the water. This is how they get people to start ‘in-fighting’.

          You seriously crossed the line when you started in on Trans People etc, because those of us who have been around in the MRM for a long time, know full well that these people had no voice and were brushed aside by blue pill white nights whose attitudes were the reason the MRM went down the toilet.

          You exhibited that very same attitude. What sort of response did you think you were going to get?

          • Kris W

            The MRM will have no future then. As many have said, alot of guy’s are leaning towards what is being sold, but they won’t be able to make the jump because they won’t feel the MRM is the right place for them.

            The life experiences of homosexual and transgedered persons are too different. The troubles and tribulations they face are too different. It would be kind of sad/amusing though, you could very will win over some leftists men and women but in the end it would create a movement that is effectively alienating and irrelevant to most men.

            I don’t care what other people feel about what I write or say, I care more about what they think. Let’s be honest there was zero thinking involved when it came to criticism.
            The worst part is, I doubt anyone actual read it. Even when I went after radical feminists I took the time to read the garbage they wrote. But it is always easier to throw stones.

            People always have a voice, and those groups decided to follow the feminist banner. They continue to follow the feminist banner and all that is being done is simply catering to them in the hopes they switch sides, and at the expense of the MRM. There is a big difference between being unbiased and supporting someone elses cause at the expense of your own.

            Find me one clear and semi popular homosexual or transsexual activist website that carries water for the MRM; can you find one out of the thousands that exist that decries feminism as a hate movement and spends time worrying about the rights of men in our society? Find but one legitimate Gay or Transgendered Activist website and I will think over it in an honest fashion. Until then they are merely the ally of my enemy and I have no intention of treating them differently.

            I have never said anything untrue or hateful towards those groups(aside from the fact I really don’t care about their movements and it is stupid to overly care about them as movements).

            The condescending garbage about “look we have gay people, OMG we also have brown people too” comes across as offensive.

            Is there any reason an African American man wouldn’t have a place in the MRM? Is there any reason a Jewish Man wouldn’t have a place in the MRM? Or that if a person has something to say that is worth hearing they won’t be heard on account of the fact of their gender,sexual orientation or because they are transgendered? Such things should be self evident or left to the outside observer. Saying it like that, it just doesn’t sound inclusive it reads like “thank God we just don’t have straight Caucasian males here”.

            Am I being sensitive? Yeah probably, but after all the BS PC garbage spouted in our society about inclusiveness, and the way inclusiveness is code for “Heterosexual White Male need not Apply”, it just all comes across as racist and sexualist. And the first few comments as well as the comments of many after the first few(to this article) pretty much confirmed that was what was meant. And if that is what was meant then this website should be renamed “A Voice for All Men but Heterosexual Caucasian Men”. It is no different then the BS from radical feminist on “Deconstructing Masculinity”. Seriously, I dare you to reread old feminist garbage that you yourself at one time probably tore apart and damned as sexism.

          • Dean Esmay

            What is it that makes you think making it clear we are open to all men regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, or sexual orientation makes you feel excluded in some way as a white male?

            If you want to create a Straight White Male movement, go for it. I’m not interested.

            That said, I don’t begrudge young men who are annoyed with older men who foolishly allowed all this family destruction and abuse of males pass into law and society unnoticed and unprotested. I’ve even said it before (and been called a misandrist for it) that part of the problem with the current state of affairs is that men let all this shit happen. We were blinded like a lot of people though, and I don’t go back and blame them that much–“it seemed like a good idea at the time” may sound a little weak as an excuse, but, it’s true.

    • harrywoodape

      I do not prescribe to your bigotry. Gay men are men. Any human being that supports mens rights earnestly is welcome…it’s all inclusive. Feminists can reform…maybe we should make them do pushups or something or heckle them a little for their former wickedness but if they seriously give up the ghost…I say let em in.
      Do you realize that you are exclusive of the demographic that let em in. Radicalized? Sounds like you are already there…ready to grab the football and plunge into the trap of elitest exclusion of those you have a grudge against.
      Look, we need bridges with the youngest men too. They are our lost sons…the ones many of us couldn’t be around. Being angry at the older men is juvenile and misguided.
      If you are going to break off and form your group call it what it is…the arrogant straight young men only club.

      • Kris W

        I thank you for proving the point that group think is taking over the MRM. Please point out the exact sentence where I stated that Gay men should be ignored and what they say doesn’t matter. Please do. I would love to see this line I never written.

        I did state that the life experiences are grossly different between heterosexual and homosexual men, I also pointed out the impact of homosexual men and women had in Hollywood and in Academia in promoting a culture of misandry in society.

        Also pointed out that the sudden influx of activist’s coming to make sure MRM stand for them as well. I guess it is a lost cause as the Voice for Men is really the Voice for Old and Gay men who don’t like to be questioned and won’t actually read what other people wrote.

        Most of the vitriol comes from the fact that I dared to criticize old men, men who effectively threw younger men under the bus and and been cowards for decades.

        • Correctrix

          True, you didn’t say they weren’t allowed in. You said they shouldn’t be welcomed in. You’re wrong, because it is very important to make it clear that the MHRM is not only for males, straights or cisgendered people. You say that that is like specifically welcoming in non-whites. That reductio ad absurdum fails, because we should indeed make it clear that non-whites are welcome, because feminists paint us as a white-only movement.

          You also say that trans people’s experiences are too different. No, they are not. My life before transition was totally typical, except for my brain being different from a man’s and therefore less able to accept male roles with good cheer. My experience is important, because it is confirmation that modern life is shit for men, from a person who knows both gender experiences.

          Whether you like it or not, transgender is the new gay. I predict that within a couple of decades, it will be as unacceptable to be transphobic in polite company as it is now to be homophobic. Our political leanings will be important: if feminists can point to all trans people being feminist, then it will ‘prove’ that the wisdom coming from living two lives leads one to accept the cogent answers offered by feminist theory.

          It ought to be standard, on the contrary, for transfolk to be MHRAs. And we are already halfway there: it is standard for us to be against radfems.

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Hey Kris W.

    You say this,“You say I am first wave, your damn right I am first wave.

    The salty pillars of the first wave reek of it as do you with the toilet roll strapped under your chin.

    Stink away as a first waver and that’s no crime, but you talking with such bravado, with amazing refocusing and a bravado of bullshit on an unrolled scroll with your bullshit bigoted medals on them most certainly is.

    Adios Dinosaurio Prejudicario.

  • rodvanmechelen

    Good points, all, but it represents a narrow slice of the first wave MRM. In the early 1990s the men’s movement (later called the Men’s Rights Movement) was divided into three basic factions: the fathers’ rights movement, which was pretty much as described in the article and comments, mythopoetic, and men’s rights advocates, who were predominantly equalitarians (or what most folks today call gender egalitarians).

    Masculism caught on with a few, but most of us in the MRM were and always have been aligned with leaders like Warren Farrell, and that branch of the first wave MRM is what appears to dominate the movement today, and what you describe as the second wave even though it was strongly represented from the very beginning.

    Politically, Warren is a Liberal Democrat–same for Mel Feit–while I’m a Libertarian Republican, but I’ve never known either of them to make a big deal out of that, nor did I. The right-wing influence was concentrated almost entirely in the Father’s Rights branch of the movement, and stemmed from the fact that second- and third-wave feminists were and always have attacked the most fundamental building blocks of conservative politics: marriage and the family.

    During the 80s and 90s, however, the movement was dominated by the mythopoetic leftists who followed Robert Bly, Joseph Campbell and other Jungian authors. The largest men’s movement publication at that time was Wingspan, followed by Seattle MEN (Men’s Evolvement Network), and both were as liberal as the Father’s Movement was conservative.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Hi rodvanmechelen

      I agree with your snapshot of the movement as constituted by fathers’ rights, mythopoetic, masculist, and men’s rights advocates. Also agree that the men’s rights contingent was one of the strongest advocates of what we are calling ‘second wave’ values – ie. human rights.

      “The right-wing influence was concentrated almost entirely in the Father’s Rights branch of the movement, and stemmed from the fact that second- and third-wave feminists were and always have attacked the most fundamental building blocks of conservative politics: marriage and the family.”

      Agree, but would add that there were/are a small percentage of right wing partisans that have always dominated the public face of the MRM – lets just say they constituted 5% of the MRM for argument’s sake, individuals who tended to drown out the rest of the men of both left and right persuasions who were not domineering divisive partisans – ie. the latter group were happy to agree to differ and to work together against misandry.

      What is more interesting to me is the presence of traditionalists in each of those men’s movements you identified. In each of these there were/are advocates of ‘traditional male roles’ that came from both politically right and left-leaning men. Both left and right were up to their necks in advocating traditional male roles, even while trying to free themselves from them. The largely leftist mythopoetic movement, for example, was a classic example of calling for a return to traditionalism, albiet through the mystification of Jungian metapsychology. The Jungians -hence the mythopoetic movement- held a belief in supposedly immutable masculine archetypes such as the Wild Man , The Warrior , The King , The Knight or the Romantic Lover. They assumed without proof that these ‘traditional’ archetypes were biologically imprinted mandates for male behaviour – mandates that males had supposedly forgot and therefore had to get back in touch with. However these Jungian archetypes are nothing more than stereotypes that advocate the gynocentric tradition that has always pulled us down. So despite the outward apprearance of freeing men, the mythopoetic movement was promoting the same tired return to traditional values as the others.

      In order to break through that gynocentric program the second wave had to emerge and declare itself.

  • Astrokid

    PUA, MRA and a Mangina, and an audience of morons in the 90s.
    WHAT DO MEN THINK OF WOMEN? on NBC’s “Faith Daniels
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

    Things havent changed much, have they?

    • Shrek6

      Sorry Mate, but I could only stomach watching half the first video. And that Bruce Wiener or whatever his name was. He should have been wearing the skirt instead of the loser MRA who was wearing a bloody skirt from crying out loud.

      And yes, the audience was full of losers, including the loser with the microphone. Brrrrrr!

  • tamerlame

    As a left wing socialist anarchist I hate when my political beliefs get lumped in with feminism. (I want to get rid of the state, females expand the state to serve themselves.)

    Some right wingers tend to label all left political systems as feminist inspire. Even though radical feminists have been inspired by it, Marxism really hasn’t got anything to do with feminism. Feminism treats gender as a economic class in a pseudo Marxist fashion. (Not that I am a big fan of Marxism. Wrote some interesting things, his ideas are unworkable in the real world.)

    Feminism plays on the female conformist mindset, and it’s appeal to authority. The Feminist movement has used a random mishmash of all sorts of stuff like Freud, Lucian, Postmodernism, and other sorts of trendy nonsense. Feminist text books instead of offering much original analyses, appeals to authority and references back to Marxism, Freud, Foucault, etc…

    I think it shows the lack of feminist imagination. (I think most woman are less creative than men anyway.)

    The mens rights movement needs to win over the left. The feminist movement has attached itself like a parasite. Even if right wingers disagree with the politics of the left, they can still detach them from the feminist world view they have been brainwashed with.

    • Bewildered

      ” Not that I am a big fan of Marxism. Wrote some interesting things, HIS IDEAS ARE UNWORKABLE IN THE REAL WORLD. ”

      :smile: Ah! it’s great that you acknowledge this.
      But like that eternal quest for ‘true’ Islam there’s a constant yearning by useful idiots in the WEST,who have been disenchanted by capitalism, for a Marxian utopia !

      ” Feminism plays on the female CONFORMIST mindset, and it’s appeal to authority. ”

      This can have deadly consequences ! Imagine a pack of really wild hyenas !

  • Free Human Being

    We could call it MRM Plus :)

    But only if that plus is bacon.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    In reference to Kris W Discussion. I get the feel many of you have not been involved with the gay community. I’m a strong supporter and my biggest gripe is their attempted co-opt of the civil rights movement and alignment with the feminist. Strangely my arguments with them revolve around their lean towards victim politics. I remember years ago before DADT when men in drag were doing satire at the mall in DC. I had no issues with their military service being recognized and not having to live in fear of being outed, but damn doing a skit in drag about gays on ships did not help their cause. My point is sometimes it take a mirror from the outside to give perspective. I see the MRM as an alternative for gay and TRANs men to deal with men’s issues outside the feminist sphere.

    Personally I had no problems with Kris W comments, they may have been candid but I did not see them as homophobic or any of the other wonderful labels attributed to him. The man was speaking his mind. The response was even worse in the sense that it became more of a character attack than addressing his concerns. This is just me but I don’t think Transgendered or gay men on this forum would want us to blunt our words or treat them with a deference we would not show to other men.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    I have some concerns about this thread. There is a lot of character work going on over what I see as someone stating their case. At no point did I see Homophobia, Bigotry or exclusion of individuals being promoted. It almost leads me to believe many have not been around the LGTB community and know what they are up to. Right now they are in the process of attempting to co-opt the Civil Rights movement and are firmly entrenched in the feminist movement.

    Before you call me homophobic let me give you some background:

    I have many discussions about this with my sister who is a lesbian in SAC and cousin who is active in the SF gay community. My sister is in a unique position because she and I have always been very close and it is comical when I visit her and members of her extremely feminist community and they see that unrestrained affection we have for each other. She gets put off by the man hating mantra as many of us do. With this said she knows all too well the lesbian community and their feminist leanings.

    My cousin is an interesting story too. He is and ex marine and Combat veteran in the first gulf war. As with my sister he has to deal with the gay community on their turf but I suspect privately he has to go along to get along. The unique thing about him is he is a man’s man and very popular in our family and community, again someone who would fit into the MHRM and add great perspective while understanding the differences between this group and the gay community in SF.

    I think the operative point is many in the LGTB community may find the MHRM a refreshing change to the current state of affairs. None of those who would join the MHRM would have any illusions in my opinion about where their particular community stands in the broader scope of things. That just might be the reason they would participate in the MHRM.

    We is a funny word, without it there is only you, me and them.

    • JGteMolder

      >It almost leads me to believe many have not been
      >around the LGTB community and know what they are
      >up to. Right now they are in the process of attempting
      >to co-opt the Civil Rights movement


      Every since homosexual men riotted in the streets back in the 1960s because they refused to be arrested any longer for living and dancing in clubs together they’ve been part of the Civil Rights movement; pretty much from the beginning. Hell, they all but ARE the civil rights movement, that pretty much started the civil rights movement, and they did it.

      In fact, I’d say the MHRM is the one “trying to co-opt the civil rights movement” (human rights/civil rights; many of those human rights are civil rights) if it weren’t for the fact, that, well, civil rights movement is civil rights for everyone, especially those that were denied them historically, anyone working to gain rights are automatically part of the movement. Which would include us, as well as homosexuals; although the latter were there from the start of the movement.

      • Grumpy Old Man

        Noted. I should have said the Black Civil Rights movement. But that was not the larger point of the post.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    “Right now they [LBGT community] are in the process of attempting to co-opt the Civil Rights movement and are firmly entrenched in the feminist movement.”

    It is the feminists that coopted the LGBT community….. many of them dont buy it.

    I don’t buy the scare mongering.

    • Grumpy Old Man

      OK I’ll follow you on the Feminist co-opt. But if you are telling me I’m scare mongering, you my friend can go jump in a lake. That accusation only serves to pigeonhole and stifle the conversation. If you have a point to make, make it clear and concise and based on my post and youi and I can talk like men not boys.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Peter, when your done in that lake I forgot to comment on your article. Over-all I like it and it is well articulated.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Lake? I was never in it.

      I don’t buy the scare mongering by socons and homophobes promoting the idea that gay men are taking over society, have a sinister political agenda, want to rape your children, want to force your children to become homosexuals, want to demonize and oppress straight men, want to steal marriage away from hetero men and women, are in lock-step with feminist ideology, etc. ad nauseam. It was a general statement about all those who scare monger, which I gathered was not your aim (quite the contrary). My comment, for what its worth, was designed to put out the welcome mat.

      Like you I agree this place provides a better alternative for gay men than feminist alliances./

  • stefanienicholas

    Wonderful article! This is fascinating – I’m definitely a second waver, as a left leaning, female, Christian, gender egalitarian MRA 😀

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Seeings this article promotes the first ever use of the title ‘MHRM’ (Men’s Human Rights Movement), I’d like to add an observation about the related acronym MHRA.

    The ‘A’ in the traditional acronym ‘MRA’ usually refers to advocate, and less commonly to activist. As evidence a Google search reveals the following results:

    *808,000 results for Men’s Rights Advocate
    *236,000 results for Men’s Rights Activist

    In line with this standard meaning MHRA likewise refers primarily to advocacy and less commonly to the word activism.

    In the context of men’s rights, ‘advocate’ has always been applicable to the personal act of advocating for one’s own human rights (recently given the alternative title MGTOW). It is known as self-advocating. At other times the word can be used to refer to a political advocating for men’s rights more generally… in which case the word activism becomes equally appropriate.

    (PS. MGTOW is a perfectly ok, but unnecessary neologism when we realize that MRA has always been applicable to the practice of advocating for self.)

  • ianb

    Okay, very late to the party with this thread, but reading this it seems obvious to me as an (amateur admittedly) student of political movements that this appears to be a classic example of entryism by progressives, cloaked in the usual language of inclusiveness, etc. It’s a pretty commonplace tactic to neutralise a movement by gradually subordinating it to the concerns and control of the bourgeois. Proletarian socialists had this same problem, as eloquently described by Orwell in Wigan Pier.

    Hard to see anything positive about this, sorry.

    • Fredrik

      You have it completely backwards. The 1st wave was demonstrably ineffective already, and had been so for decades. The entry of progressives is the result of individual realizations that a whole host of men’s issues are quite severe in reality, and yet impolitic to discuss at all, due to a toxic dominance of the false frame that to advocate for men is to oppose equality and/or women.

      I despise the dominant cultural narrative, which insidiously hurts both men and women by imposing a threat narrative on the former and a victim narrative on the latter. I love how people here are subverting the sclerotic patterns of sentimental discourse by re-framing the question into a matter of human rights and objective facts; it fits with my values, and I think it will be effective, so I am quite happy to lend my support.

      The bottom line is that I didn’t infiltrate the men’s movement to change it; I was lured in by how it had already changed.

      • ianb

        I apologise if I misunderstand what you’ve just said, but it appears to me that you’re agreeing that this is a Progressivist initiative; in which case I honestly can’t think of anything more disastrous. It will inevitably subordinate mens’ issues to Progressive concerns, which have been driven for a century and a half by that philosophy, which is women centred and thus will find itself having to gain approval from feminists and women (gay rights is another example here that had to fit the Progressive template, with the result that a hedonist, eccentric and countercultural movement has ended up begging for marriage and other progressivist style conformities).

        I do agree that MRA has a problem with being too conservative, or right wing, but this is understandable as that was the previous cultural hegemony. But what is needed is a shift towards liberalism (what Americans would term libertarianism) rather than progressivism. For instance, any progressivised movement will intrinsically have to adopt the sex hysteria of the puritans and support abuse and therapy-derived narratives, draconian sex laws, etc, the imposition of which by progressives are at the heart of the war on men.

        In other words, you”ll end up with “victim” narratives for both genders, rather than a liberal approach of lifting the “victim” from women and thus the “threat” from men. Progressivism can only work in negatives- narratives of heightened danger and victimhood, driven by moral panic. This is the opposite of what we need.

        Just my opinion, of course.