SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
Given URL is not allowed by the Application configuration.: One or more of the given URLs is not allowed by the App's settings. It must match the Website URL or Canvas URL, or the domain must be a subdomain of one of the App's domains.
This page has been shared 5 times. View these Tweets.
Under the Soviet Union, a factory was never just a factory; it was a vital tool in the war on capitalist oppression. Every organ of society was repurposed to achieve a utopian society, as imagined by communism. The Soviet Union even manipulated science, as the case of
Lysenkoism
shows. You see something similar with today’s Men’s Rights Movement.
Take the military, for example. When the American military announced that it would start putting women in combat, Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) rejoiced. Letting women fight is stupid and dangerous for any number of reasons; women are markedly weaker than men, and even if they were held to the same standards, the number of women who would qualify be so few so as to not be worth it. The inevitable rise in allegations of sexual assault and rape among soldiers at war would more than counter any increase in the quality of recruits, if any actually occurred. As
Dick Masterson says, “A woman in the army always does more harm than good – and usually more troops than harm.”
One could cite countless more reasons, but to the MRA, that’s all irrelevant. To him, the military exists not to protect the nation, but to deliver gender equality. MRAs don’t care how effective the military is; to say that our men might get slaughtered on the battlefield because of MRA policies is not even a criticism - because the goal of the military would no longer be to defend our citizens, but to uproot traditional sex roles. It’ll all be worth it because it will mean treating women like men. And the military is but one example.
This is already happening with multiculturalism. The goal of a business is no longer to turn a profit, the end of a university is no longer to share the truth – the goal is everywhere always ’celebrating diversity.’ There is a middle phase, where ideologues assure us that the new goals are at peace with the old ones – that say, multiculturalism won’t harm the academy’s search for truth. Eventually, the original, specific goals of these institutions are discarded outright, so that the ideology of the day can create ‘progress’ unimpeded. Once transformed, it will be demonstrably inferior at accomplishing the goal it had before – there will be more losses on the battlefield and more lies from the labia of academe. But that won’t be a problem, because success in the old realms of honor and truth will be irrelevant. Now, these organs of society exist to push the -ism of the day, whether that’s communism, feminism or men’s rights. Properly understood, men’s rights is just another batty shade of utopian leftism.
As utopians, MRAs don’t much care about any social institution for its own traditional role, but only insofar as it promotes ‘gender equality.’ Its goal is to remake every institution in society until androgyny of the sexes is attained and expected, and the ‘oppression’ of men has ceased. I’ve yet to meet any MRAs in person, so it’s hard to understand exactly why they’re so hostile to traditional sex roles. But they bear an uncanny resemblance to feminists because they resent the duties and limits that their sex imposes.
They are like fat chicks trying to redefine beauty to mean vile obesity. They are pariahs. Which would be fine, if they would simply leave everyone else alone, and carry on amongst themselves. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) do exactly that, for which they have my respect. But like fat chicks and feminists, MRAs are too insecure for that; they desperately crave the wider society’s approval. They can’t bear to go off on their own while society writes them off. So they try to make pariahdom the new normal. The traditional forms of beauty and virtue become their sworn enemy.
For instance, there is a story posted on the website of the
National Center For Men, of one man’s disappointment that even hardcore feminists object to him wearing skirts, even as they only wear pants.
But a man had better act and look like a man. He had better be steady, secure, a good provider and dressed in bifurcated clothing below the waist. A man in a skirt is a direct assault on society’s views about masculinity and male responsibility. The image of him in that skirt seems so ridiculous to so many people because it penetrates deeply to the core of sexist prejudice against men.
This group had also defended a man in a prominent
court case. I actually respect the author, for carrying out his beliefs to their logical conclusion, instead of hiding his true colors behind tiny changes. Feminism was supposed to free men and women from the expectations imposed by their sex, and it has succeeded, but mostly with women – no one bats an eye at a woman covered in tattoos, cursing freely, let alone one wearing pants; but if a straight man does anything remotely effeminate, his masculinity will come under question,
especially
at the hands of women. Even when women claim it’s harmless, they refuse to see these men as worthy of sex, a rather damning fate from a Darwinian perspective. Men’s rights wants to do for men what feminism did for women – make effeminacy as acceptable for men as mannishness is now for women.
The premier goal of MRA is to annihilate these notions that men should be masculine, and women should be feminine. MRAs and feminists are hostile to the idea that masculinity and femininity are desirable. The expectation that males carry themselves like men, strong and stoic, is a point of great irritation to them. Paul Elam, founder of the MRA website A Voice For Men, has said that if men were seen as inherently strong and dominant, males who lack these qualities would be seen as less worthy as men. And that that would be bigotry. To believe that men should be masculine and women should be feminine is ‘dangerous,’ according to Elam. Therefore, to say that men be confident and decisive, or that women be graceful and nurturing, is a sin.
Stony Brook University recently erected a men’s studies department, headed by Michael Kimmel, to the delight of MRAs. A little investigation reveals that Kimmel insists that
more
gender equality is the answer.
The leaders of the men’s rights movement are little more than feminists
– and this should come as no surprise to one who truly understands the movement. It’s not just one man wanting permission to wear skirts in public – it’s an entire movement based on discontent with being a man.
The Men’s Right’s Movement Lionizes Victimhood
Deep down, MRAs believe not only that men are victims, but that men can only advocate for their rights insofar as they are victims. Victimhood grants legitimacy. Plight makes right. Look at the issues dearest to MRAs, and you’ll find that stories of male victimhood dominate
their discussions. Higher male suicide rates, male circumcision, men as rape victims, false rape accusations, divorce ‘theft,’ and men as victims of domestic violence.
Take that last one for example, a man who is beaten by his woman. Accepting responsibility for oneself is a cornerstone of masculinity; if a man is being abused and dominated against his will, by a woman that he himself has chosen, he has utterly failed as a man. He cannot protect himself, let alone his family or friends. Yet MRAs deify broken men like these, as the very icon of their movement. He who values strength disdains they that prize weakness. I have nothing but disgust for men who pride themselves on being victims; were the MRM to actually value manliness, instead of canonizing failures, it would be more popular. Most men don’t want to parade themselves as victims either.
Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears – Marcus Aurelius
Elsewhere, they campaign for female-on-male rape to be recognized as a serious issue – an issue so marginal that everyone else writes them off as crazy for even bringing it up. To the feminist’s claims that women are oppressed, the MRA replies, “hey, me too!” Just as feminists go apoplectic at the mention of sensible advice to help avoid getting raped, the MRA will become livid, if told that he can act to avert disaster.
MRAs Want You To Believe There’s Nothing You Can Do
MRAs bleat so urgently, because they think they are powerless as individuals; only by collective action, ultimately by
government fiat,
can men be helped. He thinks that if he admits that he can take protective measures, some will say it was his fault when something
does
happen. So, he must
deny that a man can do anything about these dangers. Man must be seen as a weak powerless victim, lest we minimize the challenges he faces.
Tell an MRA how to avoid false rape accusations and you’ll just become one of his targets. You’re ruining his narrative of man as helpless victim. Where the MRA retreats from challenge, the masculine man perseveres, to create the life he desires.
Emmanuel Goldstein
is a pompous git who enjoys the company of girly mistresses, spirited men, endless buffets and luxurious clothes. He can be found on Twitter at @Goldsteineum.
Good Looking Loser
is a resource for men who want to improve their sex life, appearance, self-esteem, bank account, and quality of life. Topics discussed include getting laid, performance enhancing drugs, style, personal finance, fitness, and male enhancement. Click here to learn more.
These content links are provided by
Content.ad. Both
Content.ad
and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use
Content.ad
to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at info@content.ad.
I get your POV; but when I am labeled a MRA, in actuality, I am a FRA (Father's Rights Activist). This is because I got screwed over. The ex has broken several laws, both military and civil; yet I pay the price. I am seeing my kid after almost two years, and a lot of legal expenses yet she is not being forced to endure any real punishment; it is a game.
Although I get what you are saying, I disagree. MRAs are essentially saying fine, you want "equality," we will give it to you; we just want them to pay the consequences of equality too. The traditional marriage you are really decrying the loss of, is dead. It cannot come back with the amount of spending required to maintain a family. I don't hold doors open, I don't pay for dates. I always got plenty. But many men will tire of the rat race after thirty and potentially take the bullet. So, if and when they do, they want equal footing if the marriage dissolves. Which everyone here knows that more often than not it does. I do not think free sex and slutty behavior that is rampant today is going to last forever; it can't.
I really don't think most people here care one way or the other. I guess I don't get all the disrespect the MRAs get here. What they at least claim to want makes a lot of sense.
So whether MGTOW, or PUA ballin'fo'life, you will be affected by feminist laws. If MRAs can change that good. However, your approach has been around for a long, long time, and like feminism is was chided for a reason. A nation cannot survive, and I have seen a few others here chide women for said whorrishisness, when both men and women cannot live until death having sex like that and no kids.
Not everyone who marries or lives in LTRs is a beta. You act like you are a god who feminist laws don't apply to. Yet a simple false accusation could wipe anyone here out. I know I will get down voted a million times; but I have been around long enough, and to enough places to see the other side. Accusing cock carousel connoisseurs without acknowledging the player riders of the poosey boat palace ride to poosey paradise is hypocritical. Both are on the carousel.
Not all men want to be a PUA for life. I fail to see why they all have to be disrespected.
The MRM is working on the (correct) assumption that the US Constitution, as written, does not provide a good framework with which to disregard feminist demands for equality. On the contrary, the prevailing interpretation of the law of the land strongly favors those who succeed in casting themselves as oppressed.
Since (in the MRM's view) it's difficult to deny equality, MRM tries to do the best with what the law offers them, which is to respond in kind like a lawyer scrutinizing a contract for loopholes. They mean to hold women to every standard of accountability and civic responsibility that men are held to; not necessarily because this is what they want, but rather because it's the only thing they can reasonably achieve within the constraints of the Constitution.
Most MRA's don't necessarily want women to be draftable, but since society expects it of men and offers no thanks for it, then it's only fair that women should be too.
MRAs have traditionalism in one hand, and egalitarianism in the other, and are telling feminism "CHOOSE!".
Ah, but the feminists in particular and women in general want the best of both worlds. I agree that it's long overdue where they need to choose between traditionalist inequality and modern equality. Anyone who attempts to make them do this is righteous in my view.
Exactly. I get the impression that generally most men would prefer a return to traditionalism, but MRAs are men who realize that traditionalism doesn't have a leg to stand on now that women have franchise.
You see here is the problem. The blogger known as The Fifth Horseman or the Futurist said women have the apex fallacy in droves. Most if not all see the top men and think men have it so much better than women. Women rarely if ever look around to see what happens to the bottom men. Sure, it's true that the top men have it better than the top women and there is a proverbial glass ceiling which is more difficult for them to break through. However, there is a glass floor which women are less likely to be allowed to fall through or to be thrown through. What women never realize is that it is usually better to be a bottom woman than a bottom man. Bottom men are less likely to be regarded and treated as human beings by society at large than even bottom women. The other thing women never seem to understand is that all of this is natural and that having society enforce a different outcome is unnatural and leads to disaster. This is true when men are supported above women, and this is even more true when women are supported above men. Lastly, women never seem to understand as well as men that governments and the ruling elite behind it can and will turn on their most devoted supporters, and they are not to be trusted. I may work for the government again and do everything they ask of me like I did last time, but I have no illusions.
Look, I'm a former U.S. Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. My fellow veterans are more likely to be homeless and jobless than any other demographic you can imagine in sheer percentages and we replaced Vietnam War veterans for the top spot. The overwhelming majority of veterans are men. The majority of homeless are men. This is one example of many. You could go on to prisoner population, battlefield deaths and injuries, workplace deaths and injuries etc.
That's how I've seen it long before this article. I've been thinking of a practical solution to feminism. Either A) traditional gender roles, which we won't see unless there is a total system/societal collapse, or B) truly equal rights and laws, even though equality is a massive liberal lie - if they're going to push equality then the laws should truly be equal (but keep women the hell out of the military)
If out of the military, then no more "a woman's body, a woman's choice." If my whole body/life can be conscripted, at least her uterus/9mo can likewise be conscripted -- both are about saving life, right? Haha.
"MRAs have traditionalism in one hand, and egalitarianism in the other, and are telling feminism "CHOOSE!""
1. Why leave the choice to someone else, to someone in fact you despise?
2. I never see MRAs advocating traditionalism. MGTOW, yes, MRAs no. So the choice MRAs favor is state-mandated egalitarianism.
"Since (in the MRM's view) it's difficult to deny equality"
Precisely where I part with MRAs. Men and women are different, and there is no reason equality ought to be a goal.
As far as the Constitution goes, there was about a century between the introduction of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbid discrimination against women among businesses. So for about a century, the rule was that the government was barred from discriminating on the basis of sex, but private agents could. 'Equality' is not mandated by the Constitution.
"I never see MRAs advocating traditionalism. MGTOW, yes, MRAs no. So the choice MRAs favor is state-mandated egalitarianism."
There are more than two choices in life. You don't have to falsely attribute 'state-mandated egalitarianism' to be an MRA characteristic...obviously, you have an axe to grind here. MRAs generally advocate the MGTOW approach, a few advocate the 'Traditionalist' approach, and Reddit Leftie MRA noobs generally advocate 'equality'.
But then, since you are such a student of the MRM, I suppose you knew that and chose to present info in this way because it fit your smear job better...
"Precisely where I part with MRAs. Men and women are different, and there is no reason equality ought to be a goal."
'Equality' is not now, nor has it EVER been a 'goal' of the MRM. There's a hint hidden in the name...see if you can figure out what men are seeking 'equality' in..... No? OK, I'll tell you.
It's equal rights. Equal legal rights and responsibilities. Equal treatment before the Law.
Know who else wanted that shit? The guys that wrote the fucking Constitution.
MRAs are about ending PC hegemony, and not a lot more. Sure, Reddit is full of asshats who think the MRM is 'about equality', but that's because they're stupid, and wrong.
AVfM has been a PC cesspit for a while now as well. Notice all the MRAs abandoning that place in droves of late?
"'Equality' is not mandated by the Constitution."
No, 'equality' isn't. But equal rights and standing before the Law? Absolutely it is.
My main question though, is why you would write these hit pieces? What's your beef? Don't like men styanding up for themselves? Or for other men? What, seriously, is your problem with there being an MRM? Are you a Feminist or something? Like things the way they are? Or are you just another crab in a bucket?
I'm not sure AVFM can be compared to all MRA's. AVFM seems to be a well funded umbrella gatekeeper organization that seeks to channel the MRM along a path that is anti-conservative, atheist, multi cultural and homo sexual friendly. AVFM is intolerant of an voice to the contrary. They do not want Christian or conservative values yet I have seen it stated on AVFM that PUA's are sociopaths.
AVFM is the controlled opposition
"Can you point to a men's rights organization that endorses traditional sex roles?"
You have to consider the anarchic nature of the MRM, and the manosphere in general. For example, is Roissy, or Roosh, a 'PUA organization', or just an influential guy? The NCFM is a 'mens rights organization', but how many MRAs know who Mel Feit is?
There is an ongoing debate within the MR online community regarding this 'New Left' approach to Mens Rights espoused by the mods at Reddit, and to some extent the staff at AVfM, but I would personally categorize the MRM in general as more Libertarian in nature than anything else. It was the 'what will the neighbors think?' fear mongers that pushed the Leftist 'equality' types to the fore. And for what it's worth, I have been trying to point this out to MRA's for a couple years now, as have others.
The most visible MRA spots are not necessarily the most undiluted MRA spots.
"I'd love to be proven wrong about men's rights. But every time I look, it's more of the same."
As I continually say to all the other guys whining the MRM isn't what they want it to be...
If you want to see something, go fucking do it and stop complaining no one else has done it for you yet. This is a baby movement, with all sorts of unassigned territories for expertise, where 'influential' can simply mean 'there first'. So, if there's truly a demand among men in general for the message you have, then you will become popular and grow.
If you try, and fail, it's not Paul Elam or Bill Price or anyone else's fault. It's because not very many people agree. Call it free market of ideas, or call it anarchy, but it's the simple fact.
I asked you for evidence, and you failed to deliver, against my multiple examples demonstrating my point. If you can't point to a notable advocate in movement X advocating Y, then it's safe to conclude that the X movement does not support Y.
*X = MRA, Y = traditional sex roles.
I consider the Spearhead to qualify actually. But it's a pariah among MRA organizations, if it can even be considered one. And that's because... it supports patriarchy! Which just circles back to my point that MRA is hostile to patriarchy, limited government and traditional sex roles.
I think there are a lot of men and women - both in and out of the nascent MRM - who think that traditional gender roles make a lot of sense, at least as a personal option if not as a prescription for society.
However, those in the MRM have tiny voices compared to the massively-state-funded feminists. The concepts and ideas of traditionalism are discredited every day in colleges throughout the western world and legislated against in almost every government, including supra-national governments.
There really is no direct route from where we are to anything like traditional gender roles (whatever one imagines them to be). First, it is necessary to stop the trend of female supremacy, it is necessary for men to gain (or regain) the basic human rights accorded by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and by the nation's constitution.
Only once men are accorded their human rights can men and women who want something other than the concept of 'equality' that has been forced upon society be questioned and changed in the light of fairness and balance.
Good point about Mel. He's mostly a NYC personality. I had never heard of him until we met on a talk show in Boston, where both of us were wondering, "who is that guy, where did he come from and why haven't I heard of him before?"
Absent for several years from the MRM while serving in a political office, I returned to find that things seemed out of kilter. I could be mistaken, but I get the sense that there are a lot of feminists and feminist-sympathizers posing as MRAs. Back when the web was new there was a joke that, "on the internet nobody knows if you're a dog." That was the caption on a cartoon of a dog sitting at a PC. During the past year or so, the number of subscribers to the Men's Rights Subreddit has almost doubled. There doesn't seem to be more original posts, but there do seem to be more down votes and negative comments, which are red flags to me that a lot of those new subscribers are posers. Could it be the same in the "manosphere," that a lot of social egalitarians are like Mel Feit, utopians in search of a gender egalitarian ideal, or are they really feminists intent on subverting the MRM? As to your question about organizations that do support traditional roles, it's been years since I've had contact, but back in the 1990s pretty much all of the fathers' rights organizations were strongly traditionalist.
"1. Why leave the choice to someone else, to someone in fact you despise?"
Because the legal narrative begun with the 14th amendment and continued with the CRA and now firmly entrenched in caselaw leaves only two courses of action:
A. Acknowledge that our predecessors decided to give women equal choice in the matter and we can't accomplish anything legally without at least some buy-in from them.
OR
B. Take up arms against the government and enact a new constitution that more explicitly says "wimins be crazy, don't let them vote".
Those are the only options.
You play within the system, you have to acknowledge that the system gives women a say. Play outside the system, you have to acknowledge that the largest defense budget on Earth makes a pretty good case for might-makes-right.
Libertarian kind of autistic guy that I am, and also as one of the old timers of the MRM, I have long stated that one of my favorite authors is George Gilder (a preeminent traditionalist if ever there was one), that Men and Marriage is one of my all-time favorite books, but as a classical liberal (trapped twixt the conservatives and the libertarians) I advocate traditionalism as a choice: legal egalitarianism. Socially, most people will gravitate toward a traditionalist life because traditions serve the greatest number of people. Having the freedom to choose, however, those of us clustered above 5th sigma can take a different path. For the military, it must have been about 15 years ago I wrote that women who want to hold combat positions should be held to precisely the same standards as men. Otherwise, heck no.
I can't speak with any specific awareness of MRAs. To me, it is kind of a Red Pill adolescence, a stop, a first step many men go through after divorce, in a Red Pill journey. To me it is a whiny sort of way to be, and I prefer the aggression of Game as a cultural game changer. Some men choose to remain in that adolescence. This idea that this current state of the culture can fixed with political and judicial action is something I can't accept.
But there exists institutional and cultural misandry that is real and it does appear those MRA factions of the manosphere are attempting to attack that misandry: False rape, abuse of sexual harassment laws, family law and divorce injustice, discrimination in jobs and in society against men. These factors are very real and we are all aware of them. I see MRAs using the fallacies of feminist arguments and exposing certain things as examples of that fallacy. So I can't write off MRM in its entirety. I just choose to be part of something else. This. Our thing.
Emmanuel Goldstein below speaks of a return to traditionalism and I think that will never happen nor do I wish it to happen. Man 3.0 is not going to be Man 1.0 re-released.
The philosophy teacher Leo Strauss from the Unversity of Chicago says western culture is a product of the tension of the Greek legacy of Rationalism with the Hebrew legacy of the Revelation, meaning scriptural dictates from religion. Man 1.0 was almost entirely a product of the Revelation and I think Man 3.0 will not be of that. I think rather he will be a product of a new Rationalism based on a real awareness of women and men, that is derived from science and from the shared observations of millions of men.
And part of being Man 3.0 is saying "Bitch, you're a bitch and this is why you're a bitch, bitch." And MRA has a place in that calling out of women and their behavior. I just choose not to participate in it.
Agreed. Though I casually listen to the MRM now and again, and subscribe to their calls for calling the feminazis out on their bullshit, I don't necessarily subscribe to everything they say. I'm more MGTOW-ish and have been, in one form or another, for most of my adult life.
However, I do believe that MRM has its place, especially for men who were screwed over in divorce and out of their visitation rights with their kids. If nothing else, MRM shows them the bald-faced lies they were operating under for so long. Maybe they can use it for resource to attain justice (ha, ha) legally.
But, after the MRM and letting the Red Pill dissolve and make its way through the bloodstream, MGTOW is the only rational way to go. MRMs, though laudable in their attacks, are too desirous of "equality" when this won't happen, given the current state of affairs. Pessimist that I am, the sclerotic culture is beyond being reformable. Let it collapse first, then we see what happens. It won't be pretty, but what collapses are, eh?
I didn't hold up the life of the lothario as the ideal. I said that MRAs are arbiters of victimhood, androgyny and passivity.
Much of MRA logic consists of 'biting off your nose to spite your face' type thinking. Sexual harassment and questionable domestic abuse laws? "Let's see them applied to you women!" If they are ever successful, that'll mean twice as much government meddling, instead of just empowering people to act responsibly. I don't see punishing women for stupid shit too an improvement over the current paradigm of punishing men for stupid shit.
Yes, the system is stacked against men. I say withdraw, and find an alternative. TV is full of misandry, and you're worried about your kid's exposure to it? Don't start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school. All those things that people tell you you 'can't do,' do them. Get a prenup. Set up a videocamera in your closet to forestall false rape accusations. Do your own paternity testing. The MRA preoccupation with protest over action is the problem here.
In general, government has enabled our current set of affairs where women spurn and disrespect women. Reduce the scope of government, and stop contributing to the power of misandric institutions, and the situation will improve for both men AND women, by restoring traditional sex roles.
I like those "grow up" demagogy. "Don't start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school."
If I will throw out my TV - will gov stop charging me with taxes from which it subsidies state TV channels? Of cause - no.
If I will home school my kids - will I stop pay taxes from which public education is funded? We both know an answer... So - what you actually says is : Pay your taxes from which public TV and public education (mainly consumed by females) will be funded , and after it - throw out your TV , and home school your kids.
You claim - it will reduce gov power? You think - we are all stupid here?
You have more control over yourself than anything else. So starting with yourself is the most effective path of change. As long as it continues to exist, the "establishment" will be stacked against you. Trying to mend it is a fool's errand. At least when one withdraws, one can claim to have reduced support for the regime.
So you 'reduce support' for the regime I guess by reducing commercial revenues for television programs... and by theoretically lowering the budget school receive by a small amount by removing your kid from the pool...
but in the end you still pay the government taxes used to fund the school and much of TV so... it seems like but a drop... I feel like more could be done than that.
I see your point, and seen it many times in the MRA comment sections. Most MRA types are libertarian and don't want government intervention. the problem is feminism, family courts, and other government agencies are all in the same bed together; and if they can find a way to include all men they will.
However, what you are suggesting is no way to live. Me personally, I take unemployment whenever I can, and use my government benefits to tell the judge how his state is getting paid. With it's own money. Yet still, it is no way to live as I am still being robbed of every opportunity.
MRAs get your POV, however it still stand s for those who can't just walk away. If and when we win, so do you. Calling them out for simply not having PUAed their whole life is of no real practical use. You have no reason to worry about it in your case; so why drag MRA/MHRAs down?
Are MRAs truly libertarian? They look at all the goodies feminists have gotten with the state's help, and are clamoring for them too. That's not libertarianism.
They want to leverage all the gains that feminists have gotten, and use them against women. I am saying, no, I don't want a VAMA (Violence Against Men Act), or affirmative action for men wanting to wait tables.
MRAs don't want a VAMA, or VAHA. Essentially, fair treatment and an impartial system that is not aided by government for social security to be raked over for more funds.
Again, MRAs know that the whole system is about money, and men are the targets, women the tool to get them trapped in it.
Excellent points! However, the laws, at least in the west, are set up to ensnare men even if you separate yourself from the mainstream. Slip up once, and you're stuck. This is why I've been prattling on ever since I resumed publishing that men need to make it their primary purpose to get rich. No I don't have or promote some get rich quick scheme. I do encourage folks to follow Bill Bonner, Doug Casey and Simon Black. I carry a lot of others on my site from whom to learn how to get rich. With loads of loot, a man can buy himself an escape plan, he can internationalize himself, which is what Roosh appears to have done, and he can work with like-minded men to stage Rupert Murdoch style assaults on western culture, buying media networks (or building them on the web), where we can promote rational values.
> find an alternative. TV is full of misandry, and you're worried about your kid's exposure to it? Don't start a letter-writing campaign, throw out your TV. School is anti-male? Home school. All those things that people tell you you 'can't do,' do them. Get a prenup. Set up a videocamera in your closet to forestall false rape accusations. Do your own paternity testing. The MRA preoccupation with protest over action is the problem here.
Not everyone can easily come up with solutions and only know to voice complaints. Rather than insulting people for not having solutions why not simply make more efforts like these to share your ideas that help treat the problems?
Good response. I don't see the aim of game except to exploit gynocentrism for their own nihilistic ends, at least MRA's are trying to change the system one knows how. From what I've read from AVFM, they are not pushing a political agenda, because they know the political system is biased against men in every single way. For me, because no matter how much you game women, in the end, they have you by the balls anyway, MGTOW is the way to go for me, pussy is a distraction from achieving the impossible, and for me to find greatness, I must cut it off. You PUA's are Hyena's in lion's clothing. You pretend to be alpha, when you are just slaves to the pussy.
"MRAs are essentially saying fine, you want "equality," we will give it to you; we just want them to pay the consequences of equality too. The traditional marriage you are really decrying the loss of, is dead"
This is why people should be wary of MRAs. While equality is preferable to what we have now, your battles are a distraction to achieving a functional, rational society. Worse you take the mantle of Men's Rights as if you are giving men a seat at the table when all you are doing is enforcing feminism. We must rethink and fight the assumptions that lead us down this path in the first place instead of fighting for table scraps in a decadent matriarchy.
This is ridiculous. There are thousands of targets out there that are more deserving of scorn than a group of men who are aligned with us in many positions.
I'm not an MRA but I see it as an important group who is working in the legal sphere, as others work in the blogosphere. You need multiple groups working on different fronts in order to change anything.
The way I see it, MRAs are mostly men who stumbled on the red pill way too late, and are already being screwed over by divorce theft and child custody laws. Their fight is with family courts, and the only way to do that effectively is to organize legal challenges. Ranting on a blog, or being a PUA, does jack shit to get your kids back from an evil ex-wife.
On the other hand, PUAs are a much younger group, likely a bunch of twenty-something apartment renters and cubicle slaves, who have never experienced marriage, divorce, or childbirth. So they should STFU about the struggles their elders are engaged in, and focus on their narrow, sex-obsessed view of the world.
> To believe that men should be masculine and women should be feminine is ‘dangerous,’ according to Elam.
One of the first signs of someone who is full of shit is the fabricated paraphrasing someone else's ideas. Either that or you are not very bright, which is also a possibility given the way this article is saturated in myopic misinterpretation.
If your shtick is to go after the "real man" market, which you are obviously shooting for here, you would do a lot better not to emulate men like Futrelle.
You said that defining manhood leads to control and exploitation, and that if we expect men to be strong then we will see weaker men as less worthy, which you qualify as bigotry.
If you are sure of this you should provide a source for what I said. It is not that you are not close, but close in this case is a mile off.
My only contention was and is that I encourage men to reject shame based on the judgments of men and women sizing them up by the standards you refer to here, which yes, has demonstrably led to control and exploitation throughout history.
I personally don't care what you believe men and women "ought" to be. That is your right and I would not take it from you even if I could. But when someone tries to coerce or otherwise shame me based on their personal preferences about masculinity, it is my considered reaction to invite them to go fuck themselves.
You don't define me as a man or anything else, and if someone told you that you did, they lied to you.
Think what you want about men and women, attempts to appoint yourself as the arbiter of what is rightly masculine or feminine for everyone can only be someone's ego talking. It is, in my opinion, a feeble and outmoded attempt at self elevation; completely transparent.
I simply reject it, and encourage others to do the same.
That was only one of your many glaring over simplifications and miscalls about the men's movement and about my work. But it was the most common I have seen (usually from PUAs) who try create an illusion of alpha status by demeaning the masculinity of others.
the MRA response to women in the military was more along the lines of: " you think you're equal to men, how about you take a bullet for a fucking change?" there is no cheer leading fir women, it's more to make it immediately clear that women make terrible soldiers
you are right, you are right, you are right. we shouldnt have to compromise the effectiveness of our military to prove a point.
but these women, man, they wanna hold the big guns and pose for pictures and talk trash to the boys and get MP involved if the boys dont like it. you already having women complaining about sexual harassment in the military to the point where entire militarys COMMANDING OFFICERS are getting berated by female members of congress and getting threatened with loss of their authority by some third party beaurocratic arbiters. that threatens the effectiveness of our military WAY WAY WAY more than telling the loud mouth short hair tough gals "here sweetheart, you tough? well heres a rifle and theres some armed enemy combatants why dont you go take care of that soldier".
if i had it my way we would just say "see? see what happens when you let women join the military? they arent even in combat positions yet and already they are stirring up trouble". but you cant try that shit because you lose reelection, you get death threats, you get protests in front of your house, you get national boycott holidays... the list goes on. they have gotten too far with their female bullshit to just pull that stunt now. so the best option is this: "yeah? daddy told you that you can do whatever you want? well here you go, since you feel you are up to it, theres an IED over there, go diffuse that motherfucker real quick. if you get hurt dont worry, you will get a purple heart".
Nothing for you here ... yet. But as you comment with Disqus and follow other Disqus users, you will start to receive notifications here, as well as a personalized feed of activity by you and the people you follow. So get out there and participate in some discussions!
Disqus helps you find new and interesting content, discussions and products. Some sponsors and ecommerce sites may pay us for these recommendations and links. Learn more
or
give us feedback.
Arrange dates with our easy copy/paste method. Enter your first name and email below to grab the 9-page PDF guide and receive twice monthly updates highlighting our best articles and dating advice…
We guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.
Good Looking Loser is a resource for men who want to improve their sex life, appearance, self-esteem, bank account, and quality of life.
Click here to learn more. To become a monthly sponsor,
click here.
Tip Jar
Do you enjoy the content on ROK? If so, please consider making a donation.
Click here to learn more.
