Transcript of this video can be found on my blog at:
http://razorbladekandy.livejournal.co...
When making a video on how appeals to right wing-ism does not advance our cause, the first thing I thought about doing is giving examples of how right wing politicians have hurt us, and how a right wing system can hurt us. But then I realized that's already been done. And the knee jerk reactions the right wingers have is to start accusing the speaker of being a leftist, or even a crypto communist socialist leftist infiltrator trying to hijack the movement.
The other thing it does is result in no one learning anything and the comments just being flooded with left vs right garbage.
Those who are hardcore right wingers, right wing cultists actually, these people hear, or read, an example of how some right wing aspect benefits the feminists or hurts men, and instead of understanding that they were given an example of how blindly appealing to the right and blindly voting for a republican or whatever, doesn't make any change to our misandric culture, what these people actually hear in their mind is an attack on their right wing faith. What their ears heard was "right wing benefits feminists, and that's why socialism and communism will save us men, so every one vote for a socialist, go Obama!"
That's what these people are hearing.
Many political people, be it left or right, view their political paradigm the way a spiritual person views their religion.
Imagine if you will a spiritual man going to his church, his mosque, synagogue, or whatever house of worship, and listening to their preacher read from the holey scripture. They sit there in the audience, having their faith strengthened, and get emotional and spiritual satisfaction from the preaching, and the sense of community by being around others who also share these deeply emotionally centered beliefs. Now, understand that many people turn on the TV, the radio, and they hear their favorite political figure, be it G Gorden Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, talk to them about politics. This is the same thing as going to church and being preached to. The emotional investment is similar. The fortification of belief and conviction is there. The political rhetoric has the same effect as the preachers reciting from scripture. The effect ultimately leads to a strengthening of the belief, and intertwining it with emotional gratification.
What I am saying is, for many people, politics is their religion. To challenge any part of their political faith in any way, is analogous to approaching a religious person, and telling him some part of his religion is untrue. Doing so has attacked a very personal and sensitive part of them. They perceive your disbelief as an attack on them and all they stand for. They no longer argue calmly and rationally, but defensive, because they feel attacked.
I'm telling you, many people are wrapped up in their political views, in a very deeply spiritual way. Clinging to the ideas their favorite political preachers have spoken to them, has become their guide. Their view of the world is through the lens of their political party, it is their god, their faith, and how they interpret the world around them.
This also has the downside of making them oblivious to details that don't fit into their utopia. That which does not fit, is ignored via denial mechanism, or it is redefined as something else, so that it may now fit properly into their world view.
A person who is deeply convicted in their political belief will be as unwilling to admit a fallibility in their political views as a religious person would be to admit fallibility in their scripture. That is, an attack on the veracity of their entire belief system. And rather than exchanging ideas, they become defensive to protect that which is so close and dear to their heart. A thing in which they bond to, so deeply, that it is the thing in which they identify as. Thus an attack on even the most superficial aspect of their belief, is an attack on them.
When looking at the left and the right, I see two different religions at each other's throats, each believing their god is the one true god, and that all problems they face are the fault of the other religious group. In modern politics, we have the left and the right. Both of these "wings" act as two gears working in synchronicity. As one gear moves clockwise, the other must comply by moving counter clockwise. These rolls together make our system, giving the people the illusion that there are choices in their democracy, and act as perfect scape goats for politician's lying, and the fallibility of their own system.
When the right wing policies cause problems, the leftist are a convenient scape goat. When the left wing policies cause problems the rightists are convenient scape goats. Each flawed system getting to wash its hands of responsibility and accountability.
The voters do not rebel against their corrupt government, instead they just say to themselves that next year we're gonna get more of our boys in office, that’ll fix the problem. Our two party nation constantly trying to out vote their enemy; this is the perfect slavery, keep the slaves thinking they ever had a choice in this. And this trickery goes on and on. And if you are a leftist or a rightist, you have been tricked, you have been duped, and your support for any party is the very thing that keeps the system screwing you and getting away with murder. So long as you have a scape goat, you won't acknowledge the fallibility of your political allegiance, and you won't hold your own politicians accountable for their lies either. Furthermore, your blind devotion to your political party is just that, blindness. It makes you blind to reality. You are not seeing things for what they are. You are only allowing yourself to view the world through right wing lenses, or your left wing lenses.
I've had people ask me where I stand politically. I say I have a lot more in common with the ideas presented by the right than the left, but I don't actively stand anywhere. They ask "so do you believe in big government or small government?" I ask which one of these governments are going to end female preference?
Bernard Chapin says mens rights is right wing. Really? I don't seem to recall Ronald Reagan pushing to force women to register for selective service. I don't recall George Bush Senior trying to fix the family court system to not favor women, or Bush Junior trying to breakup the domestic violence industry's racket, or Ron Paul proposing we end sexual harassment laws, even though you'd think he'd be the one to do at least that. After all, sexual harassment is the way people feel. So the government should have laws that dictate how humans are allowed to make humans feel? I don't recall any politician from either side of the fence, running for any office, that ran on a pro male platform, so sorry Bernie I think you might be full of shit.
If you mean that the right is more masculine, and the left is more feminine, and how the "supposed" values of the right are more in tune with a strong independent male, and the left "supposed" values are more in tune with the infantile and parasitic nature of women, than yes, I would agree to this. But it misses the point that neither side advocates rights for men, neither Republican or Democratic party lives up to their supposed agenda, and that in a 2 party system such as ours, you can never have all left or all right, and thus we will always have a "left wing along side its right wing" system, and both parties ultimately hurt males and favor females, regardless of how masculine or feminine their ideologies seem on the surface.
But the thing I most want to bring to attention is the very fact that the Mens Rights Movement, isn't even really a political movement; it's actually a cultural movement with long term political goals. Removing the female preference from our society, removing the misandry, is not done by voting for your favorite corporate bought politician. It doesn't matter which one of these baby kissing organized criminals you elect, our problems are not political problems; they are cultural problems.
As far as my knowledge goes, there is no law that says a judge must hand a man's life earnings over to his wife when she is unhappy and wants a divorce. There is no law that says this. There is no law that says the child must be given to the custody of whoever has a vagina. I am no expert on family law, but I do know that the decision to give child custody to the mother, is not written on the law books. By law, the child goes to who ever is more fit for parenting. This bias in our courts comes from our culture's attitude. You show me a culture that deeply believes that a child should go to the father, and without changing any law on the books, you will see judges awarding child custody to fathers at the current rate custody is given to mothers. It's not the laws, it's who interprets them. And society’s attitudes dictates how a law is to be interpreted. Women can point their finger and say to an authority figure "this man raped, harassed, threatened, hit, or violated me" and for the most part he is guilty because he has a penis, she has a va-jay-jay. But that's not written on the law books. A woman slaps a man and a man hits back, the man ends up going to jail. There is no law that says women can hit men. There is no law that says men can't hit back in defense. It's all a matter of how it gets interpreted by the judicial system. And that, sadly, is all based on our cultural attitudes.
TheCriticalG and others have talked about the importance of changing inequitable divorce laws. I disagree for various reasons.
1. I am unaware of any specific law in the US family court that specifically says something must be granted to the one with the vagina.
2. But even if there are unfair laws on the books, making divorce more fair is a start for equality, but ultimately by itself means very little in our struggle.
3. Even the laws on the books that indicate a judgment must be given "fairly" and without gender bias, will still favor women because women are favored in society.
4. Even if some how we can alter a few divorce laws here and there, to favor men in divorce court, all this will do is get women to accuse the man of violence, drug abuse, sexual abuse, pedophilia, or whatever else the woman needs to say to turn the tables in her favor. And because our entire society demonizes men, demonizes male sexuality, and protects women at all costs, a woman's word will always have more weight in court than a man's when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct or violence.
Even if there are a few divorce laws I haven't noticed, which do favor women directly, and we fix these rules, the moment a woman feels like she is losing full custody of her children, and therefore child support and everything else that comes with the jackpot of winning child custody, the moment she feels like she's losing, all it takes is for her to stand up and proclaim she caught her husband looking at child porn. Well, no proof needs to be offered, and there is no chance in hell he will ever get the kids or get to visit the kids. All it takes is for the woman to stand up and claim that he was abusive. Or that he yelled a lot, or even that just for no reason what so ever he frightens her. A woman need only claim to be afraid, point her finger at the man that makes her feel afraid, and that man must be punished for making a woman feel frightened.
I've heard people claim that they want abortion to be made illegal, except of course if the woman were raped. I tell them that's the worst mistake ever. Now when a woman wants an abortion, she'll just make up accusations of rape against the guy that got her knocked up. And the first time a judge rules that the woman is making up the accusation of rape, just so she can get an abortion, women will flip out and we'll see a whole new wave of slut walks screaming "end rape culture". The media will cover it in the most female slanted way possible. The judge will be forced into retirement, and both the left and the right wing politicians will be giving big speeches kissing the asses of the Slutwalk protesters. And now men will be afraid not only that he might get her knocked up and be forced into fatherhood or financial responsibility of fatherhood, but also that he might get charged with rape if the girl wants to abort the baby for some reason.
Don't you get it, it's not the laws, it's how they are interpreted. So long as we are a female supremacist society that views men as sexually aggressive violent beasts and women as innocent and delicate, always needing protection from those sexually aggressive violent males, so long as this is our attitude, women will dominate over men no matter what laws you slap on the books. That's why this must be a cultural change, not just an effort to get a couple more republicans in office, or to critique a few laws on the books.
I want you to do a quick count of mens rights activists, and do a quick count of feminists. Tell me who has the higher numbers? Let me ask you, did those numbers come from left wing and right wing votes? Did our politicians make those numbers? No, our cultural attitude made those numbers. Feminist have all the power because they have the numbers. They have the numbers because we are a pro-female/anti-male culture, and I don't give a rats ass which politician you vote for, the amount of feminists vs MRA's won't change. We must change our cultural views first, then we can work on getting some good ol' right wing boys in office to build glorious free market utopia or whatever the fuck these horribly obnoxious right wing cultists among us want. Let's just work on fixing society's attitude for now.
Barbarossa brings up that the left right issue is the never ending idea inhibitor in the MRM.
I agree. Infighting is an unavoidable occurrence in any group of people. Infighting is also a natural part of a movement's growth. If we can think of a spider needing to molt, shed off it's exterior, as a necessary way of growing. While some growth can occur on its exoskeleton, it can only grow to a certain point before it must go through the uncomfortable, and sometimes fatal process of shedding the old, and going through a growth spurt until its exterior re-hardens, and then its growth becomes severely limited until the next molt.
Small fringe movements are prone to this. Infighting and civil war is a necessary part of our maturing and revitalizing. It is uncomfortable, and in some cases has been fatal for organizations that once carried the torch for the movement. And movements have developed so much infighting as to chase off the casual member, leaving only two or more small but fanatical factions, essentially killing the movement's progress for a long stagnate period. Though no movement, assuming there was validity to the movement, and assuming environmental conditions don't change, ever dies completely. But it can experience great set backs and periods of stagnation.
The MRM is in a civil war, and it might get resolved, or it might get worse. But assuming we survive, and I believe we will, we will come out bigger, stronger, and wiser.
The civil war that existed in the early days of mens rights activism, on the internet but before the existence of YouTube, back when we all just called ourselves anti-feminists and I don't think we ever heard the term "mens rights movement". The civil war then was atheism vs christianity. Now, maybe my recollection of who the instigator was, is inaccurate because I was an atheist, and remember it all unfolding through atheist eyes many years ago, but I recall it would start out with just one or two Christians on a forum, and they'd make a reference to how important Jesus is in this battle, and how you just had to have god to really fight feminism. Well of course this sort of bullshit would stir up an atheist or two... often me. And they'd argue back that it was a stupid argument, and you didn't need to believe in Jesus to fight feminism. Well that would get the bible thumper to explain how Christianity opposes feminism and he'd whip out some verses that supported at least some aspect of traditionalism. And that was offered as proof positive that Christianity is by default, anti-feminism. And thus you can really only be anti-feminist if you're christian. And some would take the argument that if you were just a good christian, and followed the bible to the Tee, feminism would just disappear. Because the problem here isn't so much feminism, it's that we've lost our way from god, we've lost our good ol' christian values, and that has lead the sexes astray. The argument was damn near this: "just promote Christianity, that's all ya gotta do."
Well me and a few other atheists, and even a few christians that were tired of it, would stand up to this bullshit, and many arguments would be made that we're predominantly a christian nation now and yet still over run by feminists, and arguments against the validity of the bible, and arguments about other religions outside of Christianity that are even more hostile to feminism, and Islam got brought into it (not long after 9/11 mind you), and all that had a very bad effect. You see, this would get many of the common sense Christians, who would never preach something so stupid and in your face, to suddenly retaliate against all the slander against their god and their religion.
Needless to say, this tore small anti-feminist communities apart.
The early men's rights activist communities were very small, not well put together, but on a forum with 30 people, you're bound to get a handful of atheists. And like I said, all it took was just one or two preachy assholes, to get the whole thing started. Because as I explained, when the atheists fought back, all the Christians on the forum, that never wanted to bring religion into this, were now sitting there reading no shortage of hateful stereotypes about Christian people and Christian values from the atheists.
Luckily, after years, this shit stopped happening. I think enough people seen this pointless divisiveness and how it starts and how it all goes down, and they just got fed up with it, and now if you try to say you can't be a Christian or you must be a Christian, or you're a feminist or feminist sympathizer, if you try to say this shit, you will get smacked up side the head and told to stop being an ass, religion and the lack there of ain't got shit to do with men having rights. We learned, we grew, we moved past that. That civil war in our community ended.
The civil war we are having now, which has produced so much stagnation, is left vs right.
The debate itself inhibits ideas, because it detracts from our goal. Our goal is to push mens rights. Not push left or push right politics, or religion, or home improvement tips. Every moment spent making a video or writing an article about why a certain wing of politics will hurt us or help us, is time, effort, and possibly even money, wasted that could have gone to pushing the actual goal.
Another way left-right politics inhibits ideas is when individuals within the movement attack others because an idea, pertaining to the goal of the MRM, doesn't fit their left-right paradigm.
And I'll give you an example. I made a video where I claimed that while women may not directly be the enemy, feminism is the manifestation of women. That is, feminism is female nature politicized.
This upset many people. Some people who get upset over this statement are those politically correct leftists. The best example I can give is WoolyBumbleBee making that video scolding MGTOW, telling them to heal, telling them that feminism is the enemy; not women, and that's why MGTOW need to heal and get married, or else they're misogynists. And it was either in that video, or possibly one of her other ones, where she let lose on Barbarossa and I believe GirlWritesWhat as well, and come to think of it there was a mention of Stardusk too, where she, an admitted leftist, belly ached about them making the statement that feminism is derived from women, (Feminism is female nature politicized). BumbleBee was raising hell about that, because it doesn't fit in to her left wing politics, and of course because it offends women. And heaven forbid us men stand up for our rights if we do it in a way that upsets women. Because that's not PC, that's not egalitarian. But the real outcry has come from the right wingers. I get all sorts of in-boxes and comments telling me how I mustn't go around saying that feminism is female nature. The number one reason given is because it's misogynist. Again, heaven forbid men stand up for themselves if doing so might offend women. Because god knows we need to seek their permission to have an opinion or a theory. But the other reason is because we all know feminism is just cultural marxism, it's just socialism out to get us. It tricked a handful of our innocent women folk into calling themselves feminists, and this handful of feminists are the problem, not women, women had nothing to do with it. The whole thing is just marxism, it's just socialism. And that shit comes from the right wingers.
[TheCriticalG video clip] (TheCriticalG says women and feminism are not the same thing. Unequal divorce laws benefit feminists not women. The unfair female preference in our society is not the fault of women; but of feminists)
I see this with the right-wingers all the time. It's their traditionalist nature. Traditionalism and conservatism go hand in hand. And there is a ton of traditionalist attitudes all throughout the rightwing spectrum. We've seen how traditionalism benefits feminists every bit as much as this PC egalitarian shit. Traditionalist attitudes keep men in their white knight mode. And of course on the other side of that is the liberated limp wristed male who thinks us males should be liberated from the patriarchy that shackles us with masculinity. Either way benifits the feminists. Left wing empowers them, the right wing shelters them from responsibility.
Most of these right wingers in our movement deny they are traditionalists. A bit like the cultural marxists denying they're cultural marxist.
As I have demonstrated in my last video, I fully acknowledge the role cultural marxism plays in this. But I won't turn a blind eye to the role of female nature, and just the age old battle of the sexes, also plays in this. This thing, this feminism vs the MRM. It is not a battle of the republicans vs the democrats. It is not capitalism fighting against marxism or libertarians uniting to take down socialism. This is clearly, and I do mean clearly, a battle between men and women.
We must understand that ultimately we are not fighting abstract and baseless bad ideas that sprang out of the clear blue; we are fighting a battle of the sexes. The power struggle between men and women is as old and as eternal as men and women. Since men and women are forced by our inborn emotional drives, and by the biological necessity of survival of the species via procreation, men and women are forced into pairs. Being “forced” together means there is going to have to be negotiation. I want you to imagine a meeting between nations at war. Both sides discuss what they demand from the other, before they are willing to call off the war. In a negotiation, both parties must make a sacrifice, other wise its just a blatant surrender. It benefits each party to acquire the greatest amount of power, the greatest possible advantage over the other before the negotiations. The more power a party has, the more it can afford to give up in return for the few things it is asking. The more weak and desperate a party, the easier they are willing to capitulate.
Men and women have always been forced to make sacrifices for each other. Classically, a woman surrenders her autonomy, the man surrenders his resources. But the point is, because man and woman togetherness requires negotiating, it is in women's best interest to acquire the most amount of power, or leverage. This is true with individuals, and it is true with the entire species. After all, a man may want all of his wife's autonomy, but only part with just enough of his resources to keep her alive. It is therefore in that man's best interest to be in a culture where having absolute dominion over wives and daughters is normal. That way, due to the cultural attitudes and the law, he really isn't asking for much when he wants complete control. So it benefits the woman to live in a culture that doesn't give much ownership to the husband and father, and celebrates the independence of women. That way when a guy wants even a small amount of ownership, he is really asking for a lot, and better be willing to hand over a ton of resources for what little autonomy she gives up.
So, individual men and women must make compromises with each other to make a relationship work. But how much any individual man or woman must give up is often dependent upon the rules of society, therefore the power struggle is on a cultural level. This is the battle of the sexes. It is not a battle that was written in a book and studied in a class and learned and taught. It is a battle that is as instinctive to us as the need to mate.
Feminism, is women pushing for leverage over men, it's the name given to their effort for leverage and dominion.
Feminism is female nature. Their instinct to control men, to have the upper hand. And the tactics we see in feminism, are typical female tactics that are used in high school mating behavior and in married relationships throughout history. Many of the feminist tactics are clearly just women acting like women.
My point is, discussion on female behavior and other discussions and ideas are removed from the table, because it doesn't jive with right wing politics. Again, many complaints over this idea and others, simply because it doesn't conform to strict, rigid, inflexible, dogmatic, right wing fanaticism. Any attempt what so ever to get these people to loosen up and see things from a perspective outside of their own pseudo religious political views, will result in them pulling a Bernard Chapin and scream “leftist. You're a commie, a socialist, a leftist infiltrator.” They instantly assume that if you do not capitulate and bow to their infallible right wing world view, that you're a hardcore crypto commie poisoning the movement with your secret socialist leftist agenda. I swear, it's like living in Salem Massachusetts during the witch trials where you better walk on egg shells or the accusations of being a witch start flying at you.
Feminism progresses by putting its left foot in front of the right, and then the right foot in front of the left. Left right left right.
They take a step to the progressive left and say “Us women deserve equal opportunities because we're equal... right?” and the progressive egalitarian leftists agree and push for some female opportunity. Then the feminist takes a step to the conservative right and says “Us women are weak and need to be protected... right?” and the conservative traditionalist right pushes for a law to protect them. Thus they can acquire both rights, and protection from the responsibilities that come from those rights.
Feminists do a great job of getting whatever they want by playing off both the left and the right, almost like two businesses competing for customers. Both parties pander to women, neither pander to men. This is due to the cultural attitude that women are to be catered to, and men are to do the catering.
And I know some right winger might be wanting to say “but my personal flavor of Kool-aid, I mean my type of right wing politics support personal responsibility. It's those leftists that think rights are consequence free entitlements, so if we all vote for my right wing party it will force responsibility for people's actions.”
Well here's the main problem with that line of thought. We don't live in a right wing nation. We live in a left-right nation. Which means it always comes down to a compromise between the two extremes. Women, just due to the way they are, will always seek which idea benefits them at the moment and instantly turn their words and loyalties around to get what they want from the other. So when two parties compromise, especially in our female centered society, women will always receive the best of both worlds and men will be the one getting the short end of the stick from both parties no matter how you slice it. And if you don't see that... you're clearly not looking.
In case you haven't noticed, the main problem isn't that women are getting opportunities that they didn't have under the shelter and protection of traditionalism; it's that they are getting privileges from the progressives and yet retaining all that protection from those white knight conservative traditionalists.
Look at how the right wing fanatics in our movement are still, in spite of calling themselves MRA's, are still protecting women. Look at the way they say “remember women aren't the problem, it's feminism”, and those who say “feminism has nothing at all to do with women, it's just socialism, just that evil wicked leftist socialism that got into their pretty little heads.”
That need to stand in front of the women all brave and mighty and defend their good name and their good honor and protect them from criticism and to shelter them from taking responsibility for their own actions. That's right, even the right wingers among us are still white knighting whether they know it or not.
Anytime someone in our movement accuses another MRA or MGTOW of being a misogynist, or denies female nature has anything to do with feminism, I need you to understand, I really need you people to understand, that's white knighting. And 9 times out of 10 it's a right winger doing it. Because in spite of all they have witnessed, their conservative traditionalist roots brings out that “shelter and protect the women folk” white knight instinct in them. Any time someone in our movement attempts to remove women from the responsibility of feminism, you are witnessing that white knight instinct.
The right wingers make no hesitation to defend women and exonerate them from responsibility, and the feminists just love it.
[insert TheCriticalG clip again]
I want to point out that I am not personally attacking TheCriticalG, I have nothing against him personally, and I think he is a very bright, but possibly naive young man. I only use that clip because it so perfectly illustrates what I am talking about.
And yeah, there are leftists who do that shit too for their own reasons. In fact, you got TheCriticalG, RockingMrE, on the right, along side the WoolyBumbleBee on the left, all criticizing Barbarossa, hurling traditionalist based shaming language, accusing people of misogyny, and exonerating women from the responsibility for their actions. The fact that left and right can stand side by side and attack the movement, even while they claim to be a part of this movement, ought to act as the ultimate proof that left and right work hand in hand to fuck us over, and that allowing strong left and right political views to poison our movement holds it back and prevents men from speaking out.
After all, if you demonstrate how in a certain situation, men get the short end of the stick, these right wingers start saying you're just trying to be a victim, you're as bad as the feminists.
You can practically here the old fashion, woman-protecting, white-knight, traditionalist within them saying “Straighten up soldier, a real man doesn't cry. Only an effeminate sissy boy cries, what are you some sissy boy leftist? You're crying like a little girl. Be a real man, take your beating like a man, don't cry and complain, keep quiet, a real man can take it. Don't give up on marriage, that's running away like a coward. Don't demand compensation or protection under any circumstances what so ever, because protection and compensation is leftist commie talk and you're playing right into their hands, you're as bad as a feminist you unmanly mangina, now take it like a man and don't cry about your abuse.”
I notice it's those in our ranks with traditionalist leanings that most quickly use appeals to masculinity. They're still stuck in that mindset of "take it like a man", "man up", "be a real man".
And I also want to mention, those among us, those calling themselves MRA's, who call others in the movement a misogynist, well, they're not really one of us. At least not in my opinion.
I remember as a little boy witnessing many unfair double standards that negatively affected me. The two most common responses from friends, family, and school mates, both male and female, was accusations that I was being unmanly for not accepting the double standard. Accusations that I must be a fag or want to be a girl, or else why would I complain. The other response was telling me I must hate women, or I wouldn't complain.
I recall as a little boy, these two tactics normally shut me up.
As an adult they do nothing. But I want you to think about how quickly the feminists use this tactic to try to silence you, try to silence our movement. They constantly rely on those tried and true methods of silencing: accusing you of being unmanly (including not man enough to get laid) and accusing you of just hating women.
Now I want you to realize, these feminist tactics used against us, are also being used by those in our ranks that call themselves MRA's.
Any time anyone in this movement ever calls you or someone else in the movement a misogynist, or claims that your complaints make you unmanly, I want you to realize they are using the exact tactics our enemies use. And I want you to think about that. How much good can someone be doing for this movement if they are using feminist shaming tactics against other MRA's?
My rule is this:
A true MRA does not attack his fellow MRA with accusations of misogyny.
A true MRA does not shame his fellow MRA with appeals to masculinity.
If any so-called MRA does this, I'd be highly suspicious of them.
And any so-called MRA that does both, I shall brand them as toxic, I shall brand them as enemies to our cause.
As an MRA, I do not fear the title of misogynist, in fact I shall wear this label as a badge of honor.
As an MRA, I will never be silent on a topic for fear that I may get branded as unmanly.
And I will immediately distrust anyone in this movement who attempts to use those two manipulation tactics. After all, we have all seen where these tactics come from, they come from our enemies, a true ally would not use them.
However it's very important to note that I am not speaking in absolutes. I'm not saying if one MRA makes one appeal to masculinity, that he is automatically antithetical to our movement. I am saying those who constantly use this rhetoric, constantly denouncing others in the movement for not being masculine enough, or accusing them of misogyny. Those people are antithetical to the movement. Obviously, it's a judgment call that requires level headed thinking.
I just felt the need to point out the philosophical roots behind certain phrases, certain rhetoric, that is often used by those strongly identifying with the right. Traditionalism runs in the right like cultural marxism runs in the left. I have made a video on the evils of cultural marxism, I will be making a video in the future on the failure of traditionalism.
But the left and right issue go beyond just the toxic philosophy of marxism and traditionalism (which interestingly enough are not antonyms). The issue of whether left wing ideas shall lead us to ever lasting utopia, or whether right wing shall lead us to ever lasting utopia; that's the problem.
As I have already stated, neither leads to a great utopia, both are horribly flawed, neither can exist without the other as a counter balance, there cannot be all left or all right; but only left and right working in tandem, neither helps to rid our society of misandric attitudes, and it is the misandric attitude itself that creates, and excuses, injustices to men, and gives preferential treatment to women.
The fact that fanatic leftists and fanatic rightists within our movement can only judge a mens issue as good or bad if the idea falls into their dogmatic political wing, makes all left and right wing philosophies toxic to the movement.
It is sad that a great MRM speaker can make a video or write a great article, and nearly all of the comments are left vs right arguments. It's as absurd as having a science speaker give a lecture, and the audience completely ignore the speaker and argue over football vs baseball.
I have made the statement numerous times that men's rights is not a left-right issue, as neither side pushes for men's rights. The closest thing I have heard to a legit argument is that feminism is on the left. And so anything that fights the left, must somehow help men.
It's not the worst argument, but it's ultimately false that fighting the left can even hurt feminism. Feminism is an entity all its own. Women, will use the left and the right to look out for themselves, and to ensure preferential treatment. Feminism is not a byproduct of cultural marxism or the left wing, it is a byproduct of women. No matter what political system we employ, whether it is a republic, a monarchy, a pure democracy, or communism. It does not matter if the laws that favor women are signed into effect by the feminine hands of a matriarchy or the masculine hands of a patriarchy, the female citizens of any nation will always push in any way they can for preferential treatment, it is their instinct. And many men will also push for women to have preferential treatment because that is their instinct. The only males who do not sacrifice themselves for the women, are the misogynists, those who distrust women having power. Those who just know on a gut level, that while some women can be responsible with power, the majority of women are more abusive with their power because they lack the white knight instinct to have mercy on males.
A man's misogyny, which varies from male to male, is both biological and environmental, is where the male tendency to keep women in line comes from.
A woman's misandry, which is both biological and environmental, is where the tendency to hold males accountable for their sexuality, but believe women should be exempt from accountability, comes from. Women have two things going for them: their frailty, which is actually their strength, because it tends to make them exempt from responsibilities, and beckons males to do for them. And their sexuality, which is their value, and their weapon. This would explain the emotionally driven knee jerking that comes about when any man telling women in order to reduce the chances of being raped, a woman should do or not do this and that. They become hysterical and start screaming “victim blaming”. And I am sure many women believe this. It's because they are running on pure emotion and instinct. What their ears heard was “women should at least take a little responsibility with their intensely powerful weapon called sex.”
A woman fears having her sexuality controlled by men, like a cat would fear being declawed. You'd take away its only real weapon.
Simultaneously, women push for laws and attitudes that scold or restrict male sexuality. The more males are restricted, the more freedom women have. Sex is a woman's strength and a man's weakness. No matter how much we glorify or shame sex, the one thing that doesn't change is that it empowers women. No matter how loose or strict we are with sex, women will always instinctively push to make men accountable, and women exempt. And they will do this out of self preference, a distrust and dislike of males. Their misandry fuels their self preference.
Our struggle is not capitalism vs marxism: it's men vs women. The emotionally driven psychological motivator will not be our sense of justice, political ideology, or religion, it will be our misogyny that makes us men fight back.
Now, obviously I don't mean to say that we should act like vicious animals and laugh and applaud a woman being mangled in a car accident, or walk around with a real desire to see women hurt. But we have to have that distrust in us. We have to be aware both consciously and subconsciously that women are not made of sugar and spice, we have to know their shit stinks as bad as ours.
Misandry is in the hearts of our enemy. I'm not saying the average woman actively wishes harm to come to their sons, brothers, and fathers, but women will not hesitate to erect laws that benefit women at the expense of men, in spite of the fact doing so will hurt the males in their lives. It just so happens that their misandry makes them value their daughters, sisters, and mothers more.
The female preference in our society is the result of the misandry outweighing the misogyny. We must either lower misandry, or we must raise the misogyny, to create a balance.
And you must also understand, this female preference, all this professional victimhood we see from women, it isn't just the self proclaimed feminists, and it didn't originate from socialism or Karl Marx.
Since the day a dainty woman and her inferior height reached for the pickle jar, and couldn't reach, and a tall man walked up to her and said “I'll reach that for you.” Since the day her dainty hands could not open the jar, and a man said “I'll open that for you”. Since the day she said “I'm frightened!” and a man ran up to her and said “don't worry little lady, I will risk my life to protect you.” women have been playing professional victim, and inventing new reasons why her frailty and helplessness as a woman should obligate males to do things for her. They don't do this because they're evil, they do it because it works.
I have acknowledged the role cultural marxism has played both in the influence and propagation of feminism. I have acknowledge that communist parties that have financed feminist organizations. I have acknowledged that feminism as a movement, falls under the left umbrella.
But you need to understand, feminism is not a byproduct of socialism, it is a byproduct of women.
Women using their frailty and their sexuality as a tool, has been around before marxism, before socialism, and I'm sure before the written language.
The very core of feminism is pushing for special protection laws to protect women because they are so frail. It is pushing for laws and attitudes that allow them to be open and consequence free with their sexuality, but also to scold and restrict male sexuality.
If you can't see women's biological instinctive behavior at the very core of feminism, well then, choose which image best describes you.
No comments:
Post a Comment