I have been wondering which way the men’s movement may be headed, what the next steps might be. I ran across a reddit post that asked the same question.
“{Debate} What should the MRM’s next step be?
In order to make a positive change happen, what next steps must the MRM take? Which issues should they bring up? Which talking points should be abandoned? Who should be given a larger platform? Who’s platform should be down sized?
What do you think?”
This is a list I left as a comment:
•Education for boys and young men:
•Full civil rights protections when it comes to disciplinary actions – expulsions from universities over sexual assault charges, disproportionate punishments for little boys in elementary grades.
•Eradication and purging of all anti-male curricular materials, and policing of teachers who spread anti-male cultural memes.
•End the female dominance of elementary and secondary schools. This is more than just getting an equal number of men into teaching. It also requires legal protections for teachers when they are targeted for accusations of sexual assault or whatever other pretexts the female power structure chooses.
Expect this to require legislation to establish criminal and civil penalties adequate to effecting these changes.
•Destroy the Pussy Pass, both in statute and in case law and in enforcement policy. All forms of the female sentencing discount should be identified. This form of discrimination should be under the same scrutiny as any other form of discrimination and banned under the same laws, with all the same penalties for violators.
•Severely punish all abuse of process, at every level. This has huge implications WRT domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault accusations. Prosecute perjury as aggressively as crimes associated with perjury – rape, assault, etc. At a lower level, identify and document persons who make false statements to law enforcement for future reference to protect the public when they re-offend.
•Full and complete equality of reproductive rights. Where biology tilts the field, our laws and policies should even it back out. This involves equal parenting, protected by law with penalties for disruption of the parent-child relationship, equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to decision to abort or keep the child, and neither person should have the power to force the other to become a parent or to assume those responsibilities.
•This applies to paternity fraud. All fraud should be punished at the same level of severity and paternity fraud is no exception. Considering the amounts of money involved, paternity fraud is major fraud.
That’s law and policy. On the cultural front there are major issues but we are all pretty well clear on what those are.
And wazzup987 had a good list too:
“[–]wazzup987 1 point an hour ago
Culture:
As far the i am concerned we have to fight Gynocentrism on two fronts:
We have to fight traditionalism in all its forms. I know given the current state of thing traditionalism seem like a good deal. But its not its and assassin wearing legrie. Its a fair lady leading down a dark alley to be mugged. Its a hustle, the conservative from the mainstream are starting to take the MRM seriously. But they are on;y with in that we attack feminism and by extension ‘big government’. Don’t trust them they will be the first to scream man up when male suicide comes up. they will be the first say man up when talk mens shelters comes up (a proxy aregument for not my taxes). they will be the first to tell men not to show there vulnerability and be a ‘real man’. Right now we are a stolidly libertine movement but as larger group use us to bash feminism and by extension the left the meat of the matter will get left behind as these groups and the media drink up all the broth.
Feminism is some thing that is done to death on this forum, it not really something that needs to be brought up.
Side bar on culture:
Building a male positive identity out side wage slave and validation beggar (through a pussy proxy). Areas of interest:
Positive male sexuality.
Positive masculine qualities.
Encouraging men to form male kinship networks and support groups.
Breaking down the empathy DMZ.
Spreading the truth of about violence and aggression. (both men and women are violent).
Tops 3 issues we need to work on IMO:
Boys and men in education
Rape and IPV
Positive male identity.
Talking point that need to go:
Any talking point that reduces down to traditionalist/gynocentric logic.
And make sure we say accurate numbers, don’t want to be like feminists now do we?
Platforms
WE need more outlets as large as AVFM. AVFM can’t be our be all end all.
Any person who puts anti-feminism/conservatism/muh taxes/societal decay/biology above helping men and boys or doesn’t hold women as true equals to men in all aspects is someone who I would minimize their voice with in the movement. This would cut out a pretty big chuck of the manoshere. I don’t consider losing groups like TRP, ROK, PUAs, traditionalist and some segments of mgtow a huge loss.
What I think
I think the MRM is at crucial point. Its hit fork where it can get pushed by the incoming wave of conservatives/traditionalists that are more than happy to fight feminism (for what ever reason) but could give two shits about men or at best view help men as side benefit. And pushing hard line egalitarianism which help men as much as it helps women and hurts men as much as it women. And hold women to the same standards are men where possible.”
There is more to be done than these lists cover, but they are a start.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
A very big question, but obviously very important to ask, for all movements, to look in mirror and ask itself from time to time, even regularly.
Some additions:
1 To “elementary and secondary teachers” I would add, “nursing”
2 To cultural, kinship, support networks, a few more things: I haven’t been to AVFM in a month or two but they were starting a series on cooking. Networks of support are critical, how about also things one can do by oneself, not just cooking though, I’m thinking of: tutorials about “healing” type practices like meditation, journal writing, poetry (maybe I’m biased, being close to done with two painful healing MRMH poems I was thinking of submitting here..not sure anymore, having recently looked at the not very nice exchange of comments on Nov 2014 Observing Libertarian’s post on MGTOW..but think poetry is important) but having a series of articles or shows about such healing practices. I know there are some sections of the website already, and I know there’s the “shrink for men” but I think more resources, and articles and poetry and healing through meditation, that kind of thing.
Also other forms of art, and even humor skits, maybe a viral youtube video or two, to bring out absurdity of so many aspects of SAME (sexism at male expense) and outright misandry, etc. Where actors reverse gender and play out a reversal of scenes from TV, movies, etc, to expose the absurdity, or misandry or inequality that is usually invisible. Also humor helps because while outrage is natural and can be a useful prompt to action, humor helps avoid burnout for those in MHRM, and helps those outside it relax enough to listen, let down their guard just long enough to really listen for the first time maybe…and maybe change their minds.
3 Another item on the “they would be the first to say ‘man up'” from opportunistic conservatives, I would add: sending men to wars based on lies or otherwise for fun and profit not necessary ones (well, not the libertarian ones, but tradcon, neocons etc) cutting vet benefits; hurting not just wages or unions but even workplace safety, work related accidents and so on for many largely male working class jobs..Not that I mind joining forces for MHRM with sincere right-leaning individuals..but good examples with men’s shelters and the rest
4 I suspect there are cases I don’t know about already, but how about we find prominent or somewhat famous people willing to take the heat and take the risk, and to state some support for MHRM, or parts of it. Not necessariy for “all” of the MHRM. After all, as one Moderator on AVFM said in the comments there, there are crazies and extremists he didn’t want to be associated with…I and probably most of us feel the same way.
But to identify support for equality on some topic: definitions of rape, DV law, protection of children (see below), U.S. Register for the Draft laws that cover only men,…get a growing list of celebrities that support some issue. Like celebrity A calls for equality on definition of rape (so male victims are not defined out of existence), celebrity B calls for equality of Draft laws, and also equality in DV law, Celebrity C supports MHRM issues on the U.S. Draft Registration.
Then create a page listing them, their names, their statements..over time that grows…with links to prove their support, their statements…Like “famous people who are atheist” type lists one finds online for example.
5 There is one issue I don’t see above that I will never tire of raising as being very central: any society that could spill the blood of the most innocent of all human beings, infants, routinely, in a barbaric pre-medieval case of genital mutilation and even genital torture…that closes its eyes to it half the time (while having very very strong prohibition, in the case of doing it to female infants) so long as society does that routinely like the U.S. especially, but to some extent many other countries (not having protections equal to those female infants have, not granting that to boys), until that’s dealt with, how can we possibly expect deep, long term, sustainable success on any other issue? How could a society that thinks it’s just fine to brutalize the most innocent, infants, in this case, how can such a society be expected to open its eyes and give the male half of the human race its caring on less extreme things, like fair divorce laws, custody, shelters and so on, if non-consensual knife to genitals of infants is a legal and even routine practice?
A society that is morally deaf enough to allow that, will not be able to hear much else on male rights, in a long lasting sustainable way (there are always isolated victories, which is good, even in a misandrist culture of male disposability)
Those five are some things that come to mind..
“1 To “elementary and secondary teachers” I would add, “nursing”
Absolutely! And mental health care and counseling. and HR departments and social work.
“not just wages or unions but even workplace safety, work related accidents and so on for many largely male working class jobs..”
This one is big too. They say the labor movement was the original men’s rights movement, and feminism was the plutocrats’ counter-attack.
Those are all good and important points you raise.
(•Full and complete equality of reproductive rights. Where biology tilts the field, our laws and policies should even it back out.)
Technology should even it out too. At the moment, reproductively, men need women far more than women need men.
When men can have a child with as little input and oversight from a woman, as a woman can have with a man, it will help even things out considerably.
It will also free up relationships to be about love. Rather than, in some cases, a man getting into one mostly because he wants to have children.
That sort of a situation usually doesn’t end well, and leads to a lot of unhappiness all around.
So I’d put Artificial Gestation into the mix for reproductive options men need.
And that’s not to mention the other benefits it could have for male/male couples, or even male-bodied women who are unable to reproduce in that manner.
Feminists have no trouble with sperm banks that enable women to have children without even the small choice men have now, but many will recoil at the idea that men should be able to use this kind of reproductive technology to benefit themselves too.
And incubators for premature infants, something very similar, is something that’s lauded by both Tradcons and Feminists, since it doesn’t change or threaten their order of “how it should be”.
But, bring Artificial Gestation up and the Gynocentrists, both Feminist and Tradcon alike, decry it due to the “inherent female sacredness” of this function.
Dire predictions of society collapsing and the horrors that will be unleashed are trotted out, all in an effort to fight the very notion of this technology.
It’s a pillar of Gynocentrism, I would say, that women should control the means of reproduction.
But, should we want equality, that’s an area we’ll have to work on for men too; and in every aspect.
It would be great to have that technology. How many years away are we from
A. turning sperm or sperm plus other materials from the man’s other cells, into an embryo or into some equivalent of a “fertilzied egg”? Do you have any links to share about (realistic) timeline?
B. Artificial wombs. I get the sense they are a long way off too, but maybe not so long, March 2015 UPI article “Wooly mammoth DNA successfully spliced into elephant genome” states, “- then the research team will attempt to convert the cells into an embryo that can be raised in an artificial womb.” but they don’t say how many years away from being able to have safe, reliable, artificial wombs for elephants let alone that meet the safety standards humans would be comfortable with. Any links or information about that?
C. How many more years before regular people, not just the super rich, could do A and B? But even just the first two, I’m curious if there’s a realistic change of workable plus SAFE being here even in 20 years?
From a long term perspective, a few decades more or less are a minor issue, and one should celebrate safe ways for men to reproduce if they choose to, by themselves, when that arrives. Just wondering in terms of high priorities for MHRM today, if it’s realistically in the next 20 or even 30 years? Not putting it down, just honestly curious, maybe the science if further ahead than my impression.
Nice additions to the list of female dominated (to use a parallel phrase) jobs. I did focus deliberately on nursing since it’s relatively well paid and socially respected. I’m not saying the others should not be well paid and respects. I’m thinking of the “why don’t feminists talk about gender parity for dangerous male dominated fields?” type discussions and was looking at the flip side, “why don’t the mainstream and feminists focus more on gender parity for the (relatively) nice jobs that are female dominated”. But definitely the other fields are worthy of having us raise issues about gender parity in those too.
It’s nice to exchange ideas with another progressive in the MHRM. I think it’s important for MHRAs to raise, in a constructive and civil way, aspects of reactionary politics that harm men (and generally harm women). But my MHRM work is often about being critical of the political left which I belong to. I am actually working on an article exposing some remarkable contraditions between progressive politics in both values and practice, on male rights versus other areas (I’ll tell you a secret: I’ve been told my first submission to HoneyBadgerBrigade has been accepted, and is in the pipeline to appear on this website. It’s called “ISIS, Kayla Mueller, and the value of a human life” where the subheadling is “Where ISIS and Western media seem to shockingly agree, the MHRM must dissent”, to be posted under Liber Namuh..but I hope the piece I’m working on now on glaring double standard and congitive dissonence in the liberal and progressive circles about MHRs, may be the second one I finish. Speaking of which, I need to go to gmail to see how I can change the name under my ‘4malelib’ gmail account. It would not allow “Male Liberation” to be my first and last names, probably since they are dictionary words, hence the messy MaleLib ForLiberation which gmail accepted. So now my pen name is settled on the above, I’ll see if I can change it..)
I wonder what you will make of my take on your comment about unions and feminism. Yes, unions were a significant (and where they exist can today be) a key social institution supporting workers and, in the many ‘traditionally male’ vocations, are a key rights group for men. So that is an excellent point. Is feministm a counter-attack of the plutocrats? Here one has to choose one’s words carefully to not be suspected as a MHRA of trying to rehabilitate the term feminism. In fact I think the term is meaningless and so I don’t see the point of trying to rehabilitate it. Were good goals like the right to vote for women, “feminist”, but later feminism was poisoned? Or others will say, “no, feminism was poisoned from the start, and good goals like voting for women were advocated by women and men who were not considering themselves to be feminists, but the feminists took over..” I don’t care to argue for either side of that. What I want to suggest however, is the following.
Consider gay rights (I actually had this in mind as an example to use before clicking on your profile) Were the goals of, are the goals of, LGBTI rights worthy ones? Absolutely. But can movements be corrupted? Are some organizations corrupted? And while I hope it does not happen, coudl some day the majority of groups started for LGBTI rights be coopted? Yes. The system would love to make LGBTI rights about products you buy, makeup to buy, identities to borrow from corporate PR and media firms, and so on. Gay consimerism and so on, is what the system would want to turn it into. Similarly whether it was a conspiracy in a smoke filled room or not (probably not) the system starved some parts of women’s groups directions, and encouraged, funded, hyped in the media, other parst. What you have left, without any centralized control for any conspiracy, what you have is a toxic stew of the Manufactured Outrage Media Complex, denigration of men and boys, and so on. That was the “counter-attack”, encouraging the most toxic parts and starving the ones that were a human rights movement applying “human rights” to women. There was nothing wrong with “women don’t have to change their last name if they get married” and obviously nothing wrong and everything right about “they should be able to vote” it’s that the vicious coutner-attack was to coopt the good sentiments of women (and so many men) who supported goals like these two, into something toxic.
Just like they use “democracy” and “Freedom” to get the public to support wars based on lies like 2003 in Iraq. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the real idea of “democracy” and “Freedom”, it’s how the system engulfs, absorbs everything that it can make “use” of for harm. It’s certainly carried out such toxification on what was, and is, a positive goal: general Human Rights applies to women. Right now it opposes truly applying Human Rights to males, but when it does, it will still be in a toxic way.
In othe words, when the MHRM succeeds over the coming years and decades, I think we can similarly expect the system to instinctively try to coopt it, too, into male consumerism, makeup for men including “you’ve come a long way baby” addressed to straight men “now that it’s 2035 and women propose marriage in half of marriages, you can put on that killer skirt and have her drool over you, make her propose, make her desperate for you! And don’t forget our line of makeup for the liberated man to use 7 days a week” or some other variation. The corporate consumerist culture is corrupting of everything. Already the corporate system is trying to make 14 year old boys as neurotic about their bodies as girls in terms of hair removal, according to some mainstream reports I’ve read.
This brings up a critical issue, which will be my final point here. MHRA often see the types of indignity felt by women (and men) that become fodder for attacking men, as being fake. To some extent it is, manufactured by the toxic Feminism(TM), by corporate feminism. But I think there is a powerful tool for waking people up to join the MHRM if we point out to them that to a significant extent, the indignities women feel are real..but come from this corporate consumerism media complex, not from “those evil beings known as men”. This media complex, does plant insecurity into women’s minds. It does injure women psychologically. It then falsely blames “the Patriarchy” and uses that to injure men, and more than psychologically obviously. I’m not sure if I’ve been clear here. Some attacks on men are based on ghosts, things that don’t exist. But some are based on things that do exist, but don’t really come from men, do not come from “the Patriarchy”…but even more ironically, they DO comes from certain places, and we can point out to people that these harmful places that put insecurities into women’s minds, are the same places that attack men…another reason for women (and men who think of themselves as women’s rights advaocates) to join forces with MHRM. Another argument we can make. Isn’t this something we should rally around? Feel free to email me (4malelib) off forum since this has become longer than I intended.
We move forward by doing 2 things
1. Changing culture
2.Knowing our enemies and our friends
1. Changing culture
We are pro mens rights AND pro womens rights. Our message needs to affirm this in every way. We get everyone help by focusing in culture. That issue is rape of men and boys. People who support prison rape are rape apologists who love rape culture. How are rapists born? When people say it’s ok to rape as long as it’s a man who do something we approve of. Then we let pat the rapists on back and let him out into the real world to do damage. Boys are victims to sexual abuse by mothers, by fathers and they need all the help they can get.
This focus helps everyone and tells the women who support rape of men as rapists. It helps men who defending against feminism. The worst thing we could possibly do is complain about divorce. Not because it’s wrong but because it’s a fine detail that attracts traditional conservatives.
2. Knowing our enemies and our friends
Our enemies: Those who don’t support men’s rights. Our biggest enemy isn’t feminism. Our biggest enemy is the traditional conservatives with feminists coming in second. Tumblr feminists are the worst of all but there are many feminists that support mens causes if any of them pop up. Not all feminists are pitching man hate. Those feminists are our friends.
Why are the trad cons our biggest enemy? Because ALL feminists have pretty much set out to destroy trad cons due to the true creation of patriarchy it supports. You can see it in many PUAs and MGTOWs who believe women are sluts and that we should have virgins for wives. Women can do what they want, if they want to sleep around that is their right and I will not shame them as I would not shame men who do the same. Kicking out the trad cons and refusing to support them will help out immensely. The breitbarts and dailymail type of MRAs are not for mens rights any more then they are for woman’s rights. They are anti-government, anti-welfare and anti-help. They don’t care if men die in the streets as long as their taxes don’t go up. If we support men then we support men. Taxes included. We don’t leave men out just like we don’t leave women out.
The future of MRAs are Feminists.
About rape, excellent points about how men and boys are so often excluded. On other things, well this is different, there are usually just a few of us on the left and now it’s one after another posting here (the right-wing isn’t really against government, by the way, only parts of it) Another bit that’s different is usually I’m at the “optimistic” and “let’s build bridges” end of things.
Here I’ll be the one to gently push back..
Let’s put aside a huge debate about “Feminists” and I’ll pretend you said not “The future of MRAs are Feminists” but instead I’ll respond as if you merely said, “The future of MHRM are women’s rights advocates”
I’m not saying this is completely wrong, there is a grain of truth here if you mean we can try to wake up people who are human rights advocates about the exclusion of males from so many discussions…So there is at least that grain of truth to this statement, but let me gently ask a question as a challenge: would you reverse that to say:
“The future of women’s rights are male rights advocates”?
Because that’s the gender reversed version of “The future of the MHRM are women righst advocates”
Switching to your other comment, I do believe in building bridges, I do not believe in giving up on anyone. Or almost anyone. Let’s not write off someone who calls themselves “Feminist” as “They will never become MHRA” because some of them do. That much we agree
But instead of talking about enemies as groups of people, aren’t our enemies principles, and yes ideologies, but they are built on pieces like:
“Men cannot be raped by women”
“Only men can be violent or men do almost all of the violence in the world, in relationships”
“Genital mutilation is horrible…only if it’s done to a female, otherwise, whatever, who cares”
And so on. Those are our enemies. Usually folks here and AVFM are less optimistic than me about building bridges but you seem to be even more optimistic than me.
I don’t really want to criticize you, but in a friendly way to challenge you to try to get a joint statement of principles signed even online verbal or email “signature” with principles like:
* Men can be raped by women. Rape laws should be gender neutral in the sense that if it’s wrong for M to do to F, it’s wrong for F to do to M, and equal penalties. If it’s “not enough evidence” of F to M, then same for M to F. And so on. Do not create laws that use definitions that don’t count rape of men, or that count it “less”
* Male babies should have as much protection from routine genital mutilation as female babies (same with “babies” replaced by children, adults)
* DV laws should be gender neutral
* Divorce..U.S. Selective Service..gender neutral..and so on.
Get groups that describe themselves as “Feminist” or even as “women’s rights” to SIGN ON. It can also include women’s rights statements provided the same fair symmetry:
“Laws should protect women *and* *men* from workplace discrimination, harassment..” for example, with the key condition that the “devil is in the details” and the details can not, should not, be a completely differenet standard of what counts as “harassment” for women, versus what counts for male victims, or for acused women, versus for acused men. One standard. Other than that, making sure they don’t “cheat” on this key condition, let them include womens rights protections. Including a truly gender neutral, neutrally and symmetrically phrased Equal Rights Amendment if they want.
Can you find such groups to sign such a statement? I’m not being sarcastic. Some MHRAs see this as impossible and only a way to show hypocrisy. I do not think it’s impossible. I think it’s a good goal. I might some day even find time to join others on such a goal..But I think it will be hard. Not easy, not quick. If you have energy to look for WRA signers, go for it. If it truly meets the above conditions I suspect you will find MHRAs who will be equally happy to sign on such a list of “some principles we agree on” (it doesn’t have to claim to be a list of all things we believe in, just some things we believe in) 4malelib
You don’t know how ironic – the term “Rape Culture” was originally coined to illustrate the plight of MALE RAPE in Prison and was later co-opted by Feminists to make it about themselves.
I was curious and looked online and found wikipedia link. The article contradicts itself, saying in one place that “The term “rape culture” was first coined in the 1970s by second wave feminists and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole”
But further down it says something closer to what you wrote…Not that it originally referred to only male victims, but that it originally referred to both male rape victims and female ones.
“ociology professor Joyce E. Williams traces the origin and first usage of the term rape culture[16] to the 1975 documentary film Rape Culture, produced and directed by Margaret Lazarus and Renner Wunderlich for Cambridge Documentary Films, and says that the film “takes credit for first defining the concept.”[16] The film discussed rape of both men and women in the context of a larger cultural normalization of rape.[17][18] The film featured the work of the DC Rape Crisis Centre in co-operation with Prisoners Against Rape, Inc”
So even she says it started in a film whose two main organizers included “Prisoners Against Rape, Inc” which is almost sure to be a male or primarily male group.
I am not posting this to argue, and if you have further information with references you can share them, but I think it’s not that important whether it started originally meaning “male victims” or “male and female victims”
What matters more is not an issue of “stealing” a term but of exclusion, of excluding male victims, including male victims of males but especially excluding also male victims of female rapists (including adult males and including boys victims of rape and sexual assault by women). What matters is not to exclude victims. That’s the most important part, by far.
Less important is not to overuse the term “rape culture” (like claims of “rape culture promoting” about the Bud Lite beer slogans) which only devalue actual rape victims male and female..the two issues of not devaluing,. and not excluding male victims, are related though.
Although it’s an exaggeration that I don’t agree with, to say that anyone talking about women’s issues is always framing it as “men bad, women good” but the mainstream establishment and media definitely do have more than a grain of that spin they put on the whole issue.
That pretty much mirrors my understanding. My point though, which I think you attributed reasonably, is that it is ironic that the term has been so thoroughly co-opted by Feminists for their own exclusive use.
While I don’t believe they share ultimate long-term goals, I believe that Men’s Rights Groups and Conservatives share a number of short-term objectives. I am not personally a social conservative, but I believe that social liberals are firmly in bed with Feminists and the issue cannot be won as long as that fact remains.
The liberal talking heads do feel like they need to be very careful of not offending official and unofficial feminist groups and memes..And even they are slowly evolving, though too slowly, an example is The Young Turks interviewing Karen Straughan.
But there are some pro-MHRM progressives, justice egalitarians and others on the left. And I have been glad to see them here and even at AVFM forums. There’s lot of conservatives and right wing libertarians, but a surprising number of these other left or progressive people so while I’m happy to work with conservative people on issue of shares common ground I’m glad there are other fellow political left people on both websites.
One of the biggest obstacles for the MRM, IMO, is somehow overcoming the negative stereotypes and connotations that the Feminists have painted it with. The Feminists are a powerful voice at this point in history and wield a powerful brush with which to paint anything they don’t like as “Misogynistic”. And of course, nobody wants to be seen as misogynistic (Gasp!) and thus cow-tows to their marching orders. One of the biggest difficulties is trying to figure out how to get past those embedded Feminists which pervade many (most?) large institutions and agencies who act to control dissent.
I am not a Feminist because I believe in equality and equanimity, for everyone.
Like “Communist” and “traitor” the terms “mysoginist” and also “Sexist” (which almost always is used to mean SAFE, sexism at female expense, which is “SAFE” to talk about, while society ignores ridicules or minimizes the same old SAME, Sexism At Male Expense) means once the word is used, it’s guilty unless proven innocent.
But there are forces even more powerful than Feminism Inc (a term to refer to what much of it has become. I can’t stop people from using the f word to refer to thinks like “if a woman doesn’t want to change her last name, when married, she doesn’t have to” which I believe in being for Gender Equality…they can call the good things anything they want, I call the good things like that Gender Equality or rights for men and women alike..but we all know how many negative things, legally like legal double standards, and culturally, are done under the direct or implied banner of “Feminism”)
What’s more powerful than Feminism Inc? See my reply just posted above in response to David Pearlman, on how male expendability (which existed long before ‘feminism’) is closely tied to militarism and corporate power.
Until that is changed, and challenged, “equality” can only mean real (or fake) motion of women’s rights downward instead of what the MHRM needs to demand: moving of male rights upwards to equal female rights (to any feminists reading this, start with FGM versus MGM and how one is illegal, the other is legal)
Until we challenge these bigger things which will be a very long hard fight, male expendability can only be slowly and perhaps only marginally reduced. I touch on some aspects of this in my reply to David Pearlman above.
I’ve been thinking about this lately. I think that your observations are correct. There are a lot of conservatives, a disproportionate number of libertarians, and a few lefties. This makes the MRM a very interesting space, because it’s one of the few places where people of differing views have found common ground. And that is very, very valuable.
The lefty MRAs seem to be the result of feminism drifting so far to the left that it’s gone full circle and ended up on the right. It ends up alienating leftists who still hold liberal values.
Therefor I find that most of the leftist MRAs are red pill poppers. They’ve stared down their ideological allies and made some hard choices. Right leaning MRAs tend to be more closed minded and ideologically driven. Since they are naturally opposed to feminists and their leftist allies, they don’t need any red pills to end up in the anti-feminist camp.
Either “drifted so far to the left that it ended up on the right” like you said, or else the label got taken over. Some of “Feminism, Inc” today were extremists back then. Others stood for, and maybe stand for, sanity, but are afraid of being attacked if they speak out about how “Feminism” has been misused. But a third group I suspect large, include opportunists. Including media, organizations, not just people. Did they speak out in the 1980 on what today are common sense, but not so popular then, that genders were equal in rights or should be, women in science is cool and so on? Those of us who were gender egalitarians, and pro Equality, and said things like that were told, that’s “feminist” of us. Whatever you call it, now that it’s safe and easy, and now that there’s ways to use it to attack others, and feel self righteous doing it, lots of people who were alive but probably quiet (just judging by numbers who spoke out loud for equality back then, not very many) and now they are “super feminists” Same with organization, media.
The other thing you mentioned. What conservatives are going to have to come to terms with, or those who want to see progress, is male expendability and its close ties to militarism (at least the libertarian right will find that part easier) but also its close ties to corporate power, putting profits over people, and needing not just lots of mostly male bodies they can send off to die in wars, but also workaholics, obedient wage slaves who put their lives on hold, for career, trying to earn respect in the way society tells males they need to earn respect, hurting their own physical health, and so on. But the left needs to come to terms with these links too, as I’ll try to write in a reply to Mr. E. below.
It’s an interesting question, the way the left and the right deal, or fail to deal, with the issue of male disposability. An interesting novel that touches on the subject is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It offers a startling portrayal of the human meat grinder that was the Chicago meat packing yards at the turn of the last century, with a very sympathetic view of the used up worker.
In fact, the unions, which until their decline were the heart of the left, were mostly male workers advocating for other male workers. Of course there were exceptions, like garment workers. But fruits of the labor movement, like the 40 hour work week, and OSHA, primarily benefit the disposable male.
It’s heading down into the dirt- less and less people are taking you seriously the more and more you fuck up and make yourselves look like virgins-gone-radical.
No one’s ever going to give you a legitimate say in anything. Any of you.
So why are you even here?
Hmmm???
Because her mother was too stupid or negligent to abort. Every woman has the right to abort, and some women have a duty.
So, shaming women for having “too much” sex and being “sluts” is bad, but shaming males for being “virgins” is fine? Like the people who attack racists by calling them “fags” Mally needs to look in the mirror at their own behavior.
Male Human Rights Movement taken less and less seriously? Is that why The Young Turks Interviews decided to interview Karen Straughan? Is that why with about 105,000 views it’s one of the most viewed of the past 3 months? I don’t agree with or like everything said by Karen or others in MHRM, but pointing at the parts you don’t like or think are bad is not an excuse for ignoring serious issues, like laws that say it’s horrible to take a baby that can’t consent and to mutilate its genitals, so long as it’s a female baby, for for a male one’s it’s “ok” Or like laws that take male victims of rape by women and define them out of existence so they “don’t count”, as discussed in Alison Tieman’s powerful video,
explained using Puzzle Pieces
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ncjGFIFPJI
Yes, another female MHRA (male human rights advocate) Have you seen that video? Anyone who hasn’t seen that video, and who thinks they can dismiss the idea that that the male half of society faces very serious issues, is only shaming themselves.
I didn’t say what is or isn’t fine. The only thing remotely ‘bad’ I figure is wasting so much of your own time whining about how women have it so easy, when you’re probably just some lonely miserable neckbeard who has chosen to blame everyone else in the world for your own shortcomings- and instead of taking the time for introspective self improvement, you make blogs about how feminists are taking over the world and how you can’t hunt mammoths anymore and bring meat home to your family- not because you never stop complaining and get off your fat ass and work up some muscle, but because we’re living in a ‘woman’s world’.
Do us a favour- take a trip to some alley in Central Africa, and count the time it takes for a bunch of random thugs to hold you open and slash open your junk and tear bits out- and compare it to the time it took for any other woman who’s had that happen to her in the past decade. Then we’ll all have a laugh about the ‘woman’s world’ and how hard it is to be a man.
I do look in the mirror. What do I see? Pro human rights and an open mouth. Because, ser’, I think it infinitely more important that I make a point on parlance than whether or not someone as minuscule and miserable as you can assign judgement to me.
I would never call a homosexual ‘fag’ for being gay. That’s real discrimination. However, when you get upset because a delicate women gets a deskjob and you have to work construction and it’s too dangerous and *tears tears* hard for you? Well then sir, you are a bonafide -faggot-.
“I figure is wasting so much of your own time whining about how women have it so easy, when you’re probably just some lonely miserable neckbeard who has chosen to blame everyone else in the world for your own shortcomings”
Neckbeard? Let’s see…is that classist or simply gender bigoted.
Let’s make a deal. You don’t call MRAs neckbeards and MRAs don’t call you a legbeard. Deal?
Blaming the whole world? That’s kind of inherent in criticizing a system of bigotry, I would think.
When he wrote a male-shaming line about virgins I wrote to him that:
“So, shaming women for having ‘too much’ sex and being ‘sluts’ is bad, but shaming males for being ‘virgins’ is fine?”
and his answer (unlike Mally I’m not making sweeping assumptions about gender for an entire group but basing on the profile image as far as I can tell) is “I didn’t say what is or isn’t fine”
Except he ENGAGED in that shaming behavior. Like someone using an anti-Asian slur and asked about the contradiction between their recognizing that anti-black is not ok, but anti-Asian based on their action seems to be ok with them, and they reply “I didn’t say what is or isn’t ok” That’s the level of intellectual honesty this person has.
But it’s far more than that. And beyond the fact he puts words into everyone’s mouth (as if any member of the MHRM automatically is someone who says that women have ‘no’ problems when in fact, an equally strong anti-FGM stand is common in the MHRM, so much for his example)
And I’m glad that leaping to censor is not taking place here as it does on so many websites (no all but many) that are part of Feminism, Inc…but at what point is a line crossed?
Would it be allowed, for someone to post on a feminist blog telling “all of you should drink up your pussy juice” which is the gender equivalent of what he just said? Would that be allowed and letting the person keep posting?
And would it, and should be allowed to say, “I would never call a black [the actual N word here] but someone like you folks, you are [the actual N-word”? That’s what he just with with the anti-gay slur. He could argue about the comparison of the two slurs, but the comparison of the intellectually dishonest “trick” to use the slur anyway (not against the original group it targets but against others) is no less morally bankrupt.
Now the lovely lot of you who self identify as MRA, roll your legs up over your head, fuck your own face and call it a protein shot. X) The rest of the world, again, will continue to laugh at all of you until you all grow out of it and this little phase of whining becomes nothing but a collective memory of asshole-ry.
Not unlike the Klan. =D
“this little phase of whining ”
Right, because only women are allowed to whine and call themselves oppressed. Isn’t that about all there is to feminism?
By the way, hasn’t anyone told you that it’s patriarchal, Neanderthal and retrograde to use anti-male shaming, gender policing language like that?
“The rest of the world, again, will continue to laugh at all of you”
That’s adorable. You think you speak for the rest of the world, that haters like you are mainstream. You don’t even speak for women, 80% of whom refuse to call themselves feminist.
If the world is laughing, can you explain why campus feminists are so frantic and desperate to shut down MRA women speakers?
Getting male minors the same protection females already enjoy from genital cutting is fundamental, however controversial the issue. It’s a blatant double standard. Equality won’t exist for as long as society protects females from primitive blood rituals while ignoring males.
Not to mention all the BIG MONEY interests in buying and selling LITTLE BOY FORESKINS.
http://www.babble.com/mom/3-strange-uses-for-infant-foreskins/
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=medical%20industry%20use%20foreskin&oq=medical&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0l4.3828j0j7
etc.
Technically the analog might be clitoral hoods, but the response if genders were reversed would be national outrage, petitions, calls for legislation to ban it and so forth. I’m glad there is a strong anti-FGM sentiment, but the contrast is a moral disgrace.
When the American Academy of Pediatrics tried to help girls avoid FGM by exploring the mere possibility of allowing parents a symbolic “pin prick” to get the parents not to perform genital cutting, Time Magazine like others reacted sharply, as did advocacy groups:
“The AAP now wants to explore allowing American doctors to perform a
ceremonial pinprick.. if it would keep
their families from pursuing circumcision.”
Time’s headline went on the offensive: “Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting?” I don’t remember the details but believe that the APA very quickly reversed its position, back to 100% against anything even related to FGM.
Probably the right thing to do (I say “probably” despite being strongly anti-FGM because of the tactical argument made by APA and a pinprick is not wonderful but if it can prevent FGM..people can disagree on tactics) but the contrast to MGM is HUGE. Where is the public outcry and where are the articles in Time magazine and others screaming, “Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group condoned Genital Cutting” of boys? or “Has the U.S. government condoned Genital Cutting?” of boys? OF course it has, and allows it to be done to millions of helpless boys. It is SEXUAL GENITAL TORTURE and will be rightly seen as barbaric and revolting in future, yet it’s done to millions of baby boys in the U.S. The contrast is stark, and is outrageous.
I wholeheartedly agree. And the amazing– **AMAZING**– hypocrisy in the criticism of FGM is that it is based on “religious beliefs”– well, DUH! What do you think MALE circumcision is based on much of the time? Another one that gets me is how women say “Oh, I just prefer a circumcised penis” and don’t think a bit about snipping off her son’s foreskin but then rant and rail when it comes to little girls…
Who cares whether they snip a little or a lot? The point is that they snip anything at all!
And then there is the whole **BIG MONEY** medical industry use of all those MALE foreskins. Just think about how much MORE money they could make if they started snipping little girls…
Seriously, you should google “medical industry foreskins” and see how obscene the aftermarket it for little boy foreskins– especially products for WOMEN.
Number 1) Put fault back into divorce
I think that as unpalatable as it may seem, the conservative and christian right may be the best ally to “Men” for at least the mid term. While the ultimate objectives of “Men” / “Men’s Rights” organizations are different (probably way different), in that age old line of reasoning that the “Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend”, I think that in many respects these groups are all presently rowing toward the same bank of the river. And if it were possible to put ideologies aside to pursue tactical goals, these groups might find a number of commonalities.
I think the ultimate resolution to the “Feminism” problem is rooted in numbers and Corporate power. In today’s society, “Corporate power” tends to trump both Government and Religious power. The ideal campaign would be to leverage resources from all three of these realms to help force the issues and create environments which are more favorable to Men in the short run, and ultimately to pursue the greater objectives of Egalitarian equality in the long term.
Women want and deserve power. They are human beings who deserve to be treated equally and with respect. And of course, so are Men. Equality can only be achieved through an equity in power. No human person should be faulted for being either a Woman or a Man, but neither should one be lifted up over the other. In our present society, Men have a legacy power base which is rapidly diminishing (they are on the wane) while Women have a new and growing power base which is on the rise. If the situation continues unchecked, then the balance between the sexes will become completely undone and it may be a very long time before Men can recoup their losses.
Feminism is a powerful construct, but Egalitarianism is ultimately stronger. If we Men have the strength to make it so.
The fact you bring up corporate power is great and what you say about it gives me hope that progressives are waking up and joining MHRM and making it into something better and healthier and stronger. Drop me a note (4malelib at my gmail or see Maleliberation the org website) if you want to talk about this because I think there are important lessons to share
Thanks for the invite.
I think the most useful thing for “Men” is to figure out how to develop a “voice” (which these sites are already way ahead and have it underway) and then to use that voice as a rallying cry and a beacon so that men can work on developing the “Deployable Numbers” necessary to mount an effective counter-campaign against the Feminists.
IMO, of course.
“I think that as unpalatable as it may seem, the conservative and christian right may be the best ally to “Men” for at least the mid term”
Dalrock says you’re wrong to trust those people at all, and he says it regularly. He documents how gynocentric the megachurches and the Evangelicals are.
Interesting. Do you have any links I could peruse?
Sorry for taking so long.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/the-sin-of-modern-christian-men/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/turning-a-blind-eye/
These might interest you too.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/shattering-the-forcefield-of-denial/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-we-need-is-more-chivalry/
I’m not really at home in that community, like at all, but there are some points of agreement.
I’m gonna go meta on this one. I’d like to see the MRM form a universal platform. There will be points of disagreement, but those could be spelled out. We should have a consistent narrative with specific policy proposals, and of course this would have to be a living document.
I’d like to avoid the trap that feminism fell into, of considering itself a sort of amorphous blob where anyone can say anything and nobody knows who’s a feminist and who’s not. As Karen says, it’s like sword fighting a fart. You can pierce it a thousand times, but in the end it still smells like shit.
While this does provide great muddy water to play defense in, that’s not what we want to be doing. We want bad actors and bad ideas to be weeded out, while we advance a proactive agenda with a unified voice.
This sort of project would require a lot of ground work creating the sort of cohesive movement that could pull it off. Once that ground work is done, writing the actual document would be almost an afterthought. I’m not in any sort of position to do that work, since I don’t have a platform or any connections to speak of. But that’s what I think the next step for the MRM should be. We need a coalition that unites all of our voices so that it can speak for all of us.