Masculism vs Feminism

September 28th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

Feminism is a well established movement that’s been around for more than 200 years; perhaps the starting point can be said to be when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. Masculism (a k a men’s rights activism), on the other hand, has been around for a few decades at best, while only gaining some traction in the 2000s. Apart from the fact that feminism is a movement which is much older and stronger than masculism, is it possible to compare these two movements, and can men’s rights activists (MRAs), learn something from feminism’s strategies and theories?

First of all, what does feminism contain, what are its different components? The way I see it, the major components are:

  1. A desire to work with women’s issues
  2. A political conviction that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group, and therefore need to be liberated

Performing the same kind of overview of masculism, yields these results:

  1. A desire to work with men’s issues
  2. A political conviction that feminism does not fit with the facts, and needlessly vilifies men

The key difference here is that feminism paints men as a group as a problem in society, while MRAs paint feminism as a theory (and its vocal proponents) as a problem in society. As I see it, it is crucial for any and all masculists around the world to keep differentiating between feminism and women, since it is only as long as masculism takes a step into the future and learns from the past mistakes of feminism that it can reasonably be said to take the moral high ground in the discussion on gender issues.

Another important distinction that arises from the two lists above is that you needn’t be a feminist to work with women’s issues. You can work on all kinds of important women’s issues around the world, political or otherwise, without buying into the political ideology that is feminism or radical feminism. Personally I believe that there are still lots of important women’s issues around the world that need to be dealt with, and while I am not a supporter of feminism or feminists, I fully support people who work with women’s issues.

The core agenda of masculists is to work with men’s rights and men’s issues. However, since feminism dominates the political discourse on gender issues in most countries, the need to deconstruct feminism and point out its inconsistencies and factual errors, becomes just as important as the core agenda. Criticizing feminism is not an end unto itself, but a means to simply create the space needed to infuse men’s issues into the gender discourse. If feminism were to be replaced by interest groups that work with women’s issues without attacking men, and without trying to monopolize the gender discourse, then masculists would be able to focus completely on working with men’s issues, without needing to analyze and criticize feminism. However, that is not the world we live in.

Many feminists would of course claim that feminism isn’t anti-male, and that feminism is simply a political movement working for gender equality. This might seem reassuring at first, and some men actually exert a lot of energy instructing masculists that they should simply joint the feminist movement and work for gender equality under that banner.

But what feminists forget to mention is that a prerequisite to be part of the feminist movement is that you accept the ideology that men as a group systematically oppress women as a group, and that women’s issues always take precedence over men’s issues. That stance is hardly attractive to a man (or a woman) who has taken a deeper look at gender roles and seen that both gender roles can be problematic in a range of different ways, with many men’s issues (such as male disposability) being so acute that they simply cannot take the back seat to women’s issues. Furthermore, feminists’ primary claim that feminism isn’t anti-male, is contradicted by their secondary claim that men as a group (i.e. all men) oppress women as a group (i.e. all women).

My conclusion can only be that masculism is a movement that is much needed in the world today, both as a force to put important men’s issues on the political agenda as well as a movement that dares to confront the political ideology that is feminism–without attacking women and without attacking people who work with women’s issues.

Tags: ,

98 Responses to “Masculism vs Feminism”

  1. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    ” As I see it, it is crucial for any and all masculists around the world to keep differentiating between feminism and women, since it is only as long as masculism takes a step into the future and learns from the past mistakes of feminism that it can reasonably be said to take the moral high ground in the discussion on gender issues.”

    + “–without attacking women and without attacking people who work with women’s issues.”

    Not good enough.

    1. MRAs have every right to attack those who implement feminist policies whether or not they identify themselves as feminists; e.g. police officers and judges.

    2. You are assuming throughout your article that winning the ‘discussion’ will win the war.

    It won’t.

    Winning the discussion is not sufficient to bring about change.

    3. It seems to follow from your article that those who support or who simply go along with feminists should be immune from masculist attack.

    Would you say the same for those Germans who supported Nazism and/or who went along with it and/or who remained quiet about it?

    My dear Pelle, your knowledge of how the real world works needs tuning up, in my view.

  2. Danny Says:

    That stance is hardly attractive to a man (or a woman) who has taken a deeper look at gender roles and seen that both gender roles can be problematic in a range of different ways, with many men’s issues (such as male disposability) being so acute that they simply cannot take the back seat to women’s issues.
    Funny thing is you don’t really need to take a deeper look to recognize the flaws in such a stance. All it really takes is living on that side of the gender tracks or at least taking the time to look at it. But instead you have feminists who will either dictate what the life of a man is, hold up examples that fit their arguments as representative of the entire gender, or will listen to what other feminists tell them a man’s life is like. And why do they do that? Because it is easier to take down an image you built yourself than to actually see what is there.

  3. Chris Marshall Says:

    Pelle:

    The intellectual precision you bring to your posts is amazing to me. Your posts remind me in many ways of Paul Graham’s (http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html); if you haven’t heard of him already, you may want to take a look. He doesn’t analyze gender issues much but he does analyze society and how it works in some depth, which overlaps with your focus quite a bit, I think.

    Regarding Harry’s critique of your essay, I think it probably is true that winning honest and intellectual discussions about gender issues is not sufficient. Sites like Angry Harry and The False Rape Society are also necessary. However, the war over gender roles has many fronts, and a long neglected one takes place on the intellectual field, where people are honestly trying hard to understand what it going on and why. I see your website as devoted to that front.

    Regarding feminism’s anti-male focus, I often find myself trying to convince a feminist of it’s existence. It can be quite hard to do against determined opposition. Some feminists (the ones I find myself engaging on reddit) go so far as to talk about Andrea Dworkin as if she wasn’t anti-male, and challenge me to quote her. The problem with doing that is that even though her writing is filled with anti-male remarks, she was a master of vauge snarky writing, and any serious student of hers can simply quote the surrounding context of any remark and exploit the vagueness to deny the allegation.

    While it is probably pointless to try to convince a person that’s not entering the debate honestly, I also find it hard to give a list of particulars (of how anti-male feminism is) to random people at parties when the topic of feminism comes up. What would such a list look like, exactly? The examples I can give come from conversations I’ve had with particular feminists, which proves nothing. Your point about feminists considering that men as a group oppress women as a group is a good one to discuss in such a setting. That is clearly anti-male, and also clearly unjustified (well, to regular readers of your website anyway, which provides lots of specific ammunition). I’m at a loss to think of a longer list than that, though.

    On the topic of people claiming that MRA’s are unnecessary because feminists already realize that men have legitimate issues and work on them (and the related topic that most feminist literature is not anti-male and the authors that are not are on the fringe and not paid attention to), I often ask people to name feminist authors that they consider mainstream. This seems to give a lot of people pause. No one has ever asked them that before and they often have to scramble to come up with a single name. I feel like that makes a powerful point with the honest people, and causes the dishonest ones to lose interest in the conversation.

  4. Chris Marshall Says:

    Pelle:

    If you read none of PG’s other essay’s, read this one:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

    He discusses taboos and where they come from.

  5. Harry Says:

    @Chris

    “Regarding feminism’s anti-male focus, I often find myself trying to convince a feminist of it’s existence.”

    Then why not talk about VAWA, family courts, men’s lesser longevity, government funding of wimmin’s groups, rape shield laws, sentencing policies, alimony, child support, men’s poor reproductive rights.

    What about all the intimidation and punishments meted out to men who protest against feminist notions?

    What about the very name “Feminism”?

    But, of course, these prejudices do not, in practice, “convince feminists”. Nothing does.

    And what Pelle does not seem to understand is that those who support feminism from on high have little interest in gender ‘equality’. They are mostly interested in power and funding.

    He seems to think that everyone is like him.

    But he is an academic, not a power-seeker, not a politician, not a marketeer, a banker, a car dealer or an advertising executive.

    He doesn’t mix with these people. He does not understand their mentality.

    He presumes that they are all up front, honest, and only seeking to better the world etc etc.

    However, those at the top are mostly self-serving and corrupt – through and through. But they are masters at pretending otherwise. And they are first-class professionals at doing this.

    That’s how they got to the top.

    Twelve years ago, I was seeing the world in the same way that Pelle does now. And if people had told me that academics, politicians, civil servants, judges, senior police officers etc were not to be trusted, I would have thought that they were crazy; paranoid. And I would have avoided them.

    Now, however, I have seen far too much evidence to support the contention that those at the top (and their immediate underlings) are utterly ruthless and dishonest to the core.

    They will twist the research, distort the figures, change the goalposts, duck and dive, and do anything that they can do to further their own ambitions.

    They are like scores of greedy bargain hunters desperately scratching and elbowing their way through the crowds in order to get to the front so that they can get the best deals at the sale before anybody else.

    And they do not care whom they shove aside in the process.

    (Think about the lack of concern for children when it comes to their promotion of fatherlessness.)

    WRT Paul Graham’s excellent piece, I point out that his views are completely consistent with my own, particularly with regard to what they suggest needs to be done to turn the tide against feminism.

    Finally, the reason that Pelle often comes under attack from MRAs such as myself is because he talks about what needs to be done (or not done) when it comes to defeating the anti-male prejudice.

    But he provides precious little evidence to support his views on this particular matter (i.e. on the matter of ‘activism’).

    And this is because his area of expertise does not lie in ‘activism’. It lies elsewhere. As I said before; he is not a politician!

    Indeed, he would get precisely nowhere as a politician.

    LOL!

    And why many MRAs feel so impelled to attack Pelle (or to ignore him) is because they believe that he is, inadvertently, undermining the MM.

    Why?

    Because by implying that ‘reasonable discussion’ and scientific research is all that is necessary to bring about change, he is leading people to have faith in something that, quite clearly, does not work in the real world.

    He goes beyond his expertise when he talks about ‘activism’.

    Furthermore, Pelle keeps suggesting, directly or otherwise, that one must always look at the science and the data and the facts etc etc.

    But when he talks about activism, he suddenly ditches this requirement.

    Because the data and the facts show, quite clearly, that much, much, much more is required in order to tackle a huge ideology like feminism through which so many self-serving people gain so very much.

    In other words, he ignores most of our history on this planet.

    Quite simply, the world does not work in the way that Pelle thinks it does.

    If it did, then what Pelle is complaining about when it comes to feminism would never have happened.

  6. Jim Says:

    “Regarding feminism’s anti-male focus, I often find myself trying to convince a feminist of it’s existence. It can be quite hard to do against determined opposition. ”

    This is a comnplete reprise of the intelletual discusiion about racsim in the 60′s during the Civil rights Movement. Every aspect of it – denial, self-exculpation, whataboutery, the whole dripping mess, matches it point for point.

    in fatc it even more closely matches the racist attitudes that informed Balck nationalism in the 70′s, when feminism was reaching its final intellectual form.

    ‘Some feminists (the ones I find myself engaging on reddit) go so far as to talk about Andrea Dworkin as if she wasn’t anti-male, and challenge me to quote her.”

    This too is very typical of thes general mentality.

    Arguing with these people is like arguing evolution with Creationists. Trying to change their minds is a waste of time because their beliefs are a component of their personalities. Arguing in order to expose their weakness of their arguments to on-lookers may on the other hand have some use.

  7. Pelle Billing Says:

    Harry,

    You are assuming a lot of things about me that you have no clue about. If you don’t know what you are talking about, and have as your only agenda to turn me into a straw man that you can then attack, then please feel free to leave my blog and not come back.

    I have never written a single piece on activism, so anybody criticizing my stance on activism simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And if you are the big expert on activism, why are you wasting your time talking to me? Why are you not out there working your magic?

    Finally, if you cannot stay away from personal attacks in the future Harry, then you will be banned from this blog.

    /Pelle

  8. Jay R Says:

    Pelle,

    Well written, as usual.

    I have also tried, for years now, to differentiate between “women” and “feminists” in my arguments, for fear of appearing unreasonable. Some of the most vile feminists are men, after all. Feminism, because it exists more to degrade men than to help women, MUST be attacked and dismantled if gender equality is ever to be established, and if the gender war is to ever cease.

    But, at the end of the day, feminism is inherently a female phenomenon, and criticism of women in the process of attacking feminism is unavoidable — and in some areas, much deserved. In fact, those of us who fear the label “misogynist” will forever be made mute and remain effectively neutered. For instance, I believe that women who cling to feminism are not empowered, but are instead crippled cowards who are not willing to face life without the crutch it provides. As a group, women have (perhaps understandably and unavoidably) diminished themselves as they have tolerated, if not supported, feminism. In a feminist society, women can NEVER be anything but second-class citizens — by their own misguided, cowardly designation. And women — not just “feminists” — must be confronted with this uncomfortable reality.

    “Misogyny”? No, baby. Call it “tough love.”

  9. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    “I have never written a single piece on activism, ”

    I didn’t say you had.

    But in your pieces you often refer to what needs to be done or not done in order to counter the anti-male prejudice.

    For example, in your piece Six Levels Of Feminist Critics on MND you offer the following advice to MRAs …

    “The final level–level 6–is the pitfall of the masculist or men’s movement. The moment you enter this realm you are in danger of sliding down into the same anger and lack of fact-checking that radical feminists around the world regularly resort to. If men’s rights activists, masculists and feminist critics are to have any success in working towards true equality and a society that respects both sexes fully, then level 6 cannot be allowed to have any sort of real influence.”

    … the result on MND was a fistful of long-time MRAs disagreeing with you.

    “why are you wasting your time talking to me?”

    Talking to someone with your intelligence is never a waste of my time.

    “Why are you not out there working your magic?”

    I try my best – with limited resources and virtually no power.

    “if you cannot stay away from personal attacks in the future Harry, then you will be banned from this blog.”

    Yep; that’s the way that the real world works – which is what I am forever trying to tell you.

  10. Danny Says:

    Chris:
    I often ask people to name feminist authors that they consider mainstream. This seems to give a lot of people pause. No one has ever asked them that before and they often have to scramble to come up with a single name. I feel like that makes a powerful point with the honest people, and causes the dishonest ones to lose interest in the conversation.
    I’m willing to bet its not that they can’t name a feminist author its that they won’t for fear of you possibily pointing out some anti-male bias. No what they prefer is for you to make the first move by talking about anti-male bias, then they counter with asking you to make a feminist that supports it, you answer by naming one, then they counter by claiming they are not mainstream. Their goal is to get you to show your hand first so they can take the time to counter. That way they “prove” that anti-male bias is not prevelant while smuggly patting themselves on the back denying it.

    On the topic of people claiming that MRA’s are unnecessary because feminists already realize that men have legitimate issues and work on them…
    This claim is negated by the very core of feminism that puts women first. You can’t tell someone that you acknowledge that they have important issues that need to be tended in one breath while telling them that said issues need to be put on the back burner until some other issues are dealt with first.

    And on top of that they go on to act as mentioning men and their problems is “Oppression Olympics” and crying “what about teh menz?” which despite what they say to the contrary is intended to shut down discussion of men in in ways that are not feminist approved (which usually means “yeah men might have it bad but women are the real victims of ________”). I find it odd that the ones that invoke zero sum games have the nerve to accuse other people of doing so.

  11. Jay R Says:

    BTW, Pelle,

    I don’t see Harry’s opposing viewpoints as constituting personal, ad hominem attacks. He criticizes and disagrees with your perspective — which he considers somewhat naive. He is not saying that you are stupid, corrupt, mentally disordered, or in love with a barnyard animal. He asks for evidence where he finds none, and so leaves you room to counter his views with something other than, “Am NOT!” Harry is brusque, sarcastic, and aggressive, but is still civil nonetheless.

    You and Harry are both heavyweights, IMO. Banning rather than engaging and refuting would be a great disappointment to those of us eager to see what can be forged in the heat by the blows of two big hammers. Sparks should be expected to fly! (And egos can be expected to get a bit bruised in the process.)

    Isn’t your goal here to foster discussion and debate on the issues? I hope you will try not to take even aggressive opposition personally.

    Keep up the good work!

  12. Pelle Billing Says:

    Harry,

    I really do listen to what you say. The only obstacle to me listening to you and carefully considering what you have to say, is when you go overboard and try to “put me on trial” on my own blog. It is quite possible to be sharp, provocative and aggressive without saying some of the things you said above.

    We may also have fundamentally different takes on a few issues. I will not resort to lying, backstabbing, etc just because powerful politicians and feminists do it. On the other hand, please do not think that I’m not aware of these dynamics, or that I expect the world to function in an idealized way. There is one prerequisite for reaching the top: understanding power and how to wield it. Having a moral code OTOH, is not a prerequisite.

    Jay R,

    Thanks for your comments, they are both intelligent and interesting. I really do see this blog as a space for me to listen and learn, in addition to broadcasting my own ideas and thinking.

  13. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    ” I will not resort to lying, backstabbing, etc just because powerful politicians and feminists do it.”

    Nor will I.

    Was I suggesting that you adopt such tactics?

    No.

    “There is one prerequisite for reaching the top: understanding power and how to wield it. Having a moral code OTOH, is not a prerequisite.”

    Actually, that does not go far enough! LOL!

    Having too much of a moral code almost precludes achieving power these days.

    ” is when you go overboard and try to “put me on trial” on my own blog.”

    Well, I don’t think that this is what I was trying to do.

    I was, very specifically, trying to undermine your view – directly stated or implied – that aggressive activism should be frowned upon.

    And what you need to understand is that there is no option for ‘passionate’ internet MRAs with my views to do anything else except undermine such a view when it comes into our field of vision in cyberspace.

    Why?

    Because to ignore it is to undermine ourselves!

    Worse still – because we believe (RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY) that aggressive activism is ESSENTIAL to defeating feminism (and so, for example, my first post above) then anything that seems to encourage MRAs to take a ‘softer’ approach makes us want to scream – because reaching our goals is tough enough without forever having to deal with ‘new’ internet MRAs suggesting or implying that our suggested approach is too heavy.

    Now, for the purposes of this current post of mine, it does not actually matter whether or not I am right or wrong in my beliefs.

    My point to you is this.

    Many of us believe – rightly or wrongly – that aggressive activism is ESSENTIAL.

    Look at this as if it was some kind of god.

    You will surely understand that if someone pops into the kitchen and, in any way, suggests that this god is not worthy of attention, then we do not have any choice except to undermine this position.

    Because if this position ever takes hold, then, IN OUR VIEW, we have no hope.

    In other words, this is not a side issue for us. It is not something that we can simply discuss and agree to differ on.

    IN OUR VIEW, it is FUNDAMENTAL to any chance of success.

    Now, you are a doctor.

    Imagine that your region of cyberspace was mostly concerned with health matters; i.e. nothing to do with feminism.

    And there you are forever talking about the importance of good food, exercise, not smoking etc etc. And your passion, let us say, is to tell people how to live longer.

    And then somebody comes along and writes similar articles in your region of cyberspace – except that he says that there is nothing wrong with smoking. After all, some smokers live to be 100.

    He continually undermines your view of something that is absolutely a FUNDAMENTAL key to living longer.

    Well, you could not just ignore this person, could you?

    There he is, completely undermining people’s health, and he refuses to accept that smoking harms anybody.

    So, what do you do?

    How do you protect your readers from this man?

    If you just ignore him, then all your efforts in trying to help your readers to live longer are going to be undermined.

    So, what do you do?

    Well, I reckon that you would do what I am doing – because it would drive you crazy to see this man suggesting that smoking is OK.

    And in much the same way that (I am sure) you believe that smoking damages people’s health quite horribly, so it is that I believe that the MM is damaged quite horribly by those who suggest that aggressive activism is unwarranted.

    Yep; that is how strongly I feel about it.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    But, as i said, for the purposes of this current post, me being right or wrong is not the point.

    I am simply trying to explain to you why i get so uptight over this particular matter.

    To me – rightly or wrongly – it is like suggesting that smoking will do your lungs – and, hence, your life – no harm.

  14. Pelle Billing Says:

    Harry,

    You need to be specific. What (exactly, specifically, concretely) do you mean by aggressive activism, and how (exactly, in what words) have I spoken out against those very actions?

    I’m not interested in a vague debate, in the same way that feminism thrives on vagueness.

    If you give me a concrete list of examples of what you consider to be necessary activism, then I will tell you what I think.

  15. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    The best that I can do is refer you to my page, …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esEffectiveActivism.htm

  16. Toysoldier Says:

    Personally I believe that there are still lots of important women’s issues around the world that need to be dealt with, and while I am not a supporter of feminism or feminists, I fully support people who work with women’s issues.

    In the long run I think that this sentiment would greatly help in swaying people to support men’s groups. Feminists have been very successful in pushing the narrative that anything that focuses on men is inherently anti-woman. By showing that the objection is not with the focus on women’s issues, but with the ideology driving that focus, i.e. feminism, it would undermine that narrative.

  17. Harry Says:

    @ Toy Soldier

    “In the long run I think that this sentiment would greatly help in swaying people to support men’s groups.”

    Yes. In the long run.

    But, right now, we need some heat!

    Or the current state of affairs will go on for another three decades.

  18. Danny Says:

    Feminists have been very successful in pushing the narrative that anything that focuses on men is inherently anti-woman. By showing that the objection is not with the focus on women’s issues, but with the ideology driving that focus, i.e. feminism, it would undermine that narrative.

    Yes Yes Yes.

    The current gender discourse is infected with the notion that to helping men must equate to harming women and and the only way to help men is to help women. With this feminists have managed to damage the MRA title far more than what actual closed minded MRAs would do to themselves. People need to see that MRAs are here to simply help men and that helping men helps women just as the vice versa is true. Frankly I think that both, helping men by helping women and helping women by helping men, need to happen at the same time instead of the current setup where people are demanding that one happen while promising the other will be gotten to later. We’ll meet in the middle much faster that way.

    I still hold the idea that feminists and MRAs want the same things (to help men and women) but go about it different ways. I still dream of that united front…

  19. Pelle Billing Says:

    @Harry
    “The best that I can do is refer you to my page, …”

    No, that’s not what I asked for. You can write comments that are almost two pages long, so why is it a problem to write down 3-5 examples of what you consider to be effective activism?

    In fact, considering your ranting about how my stance is terribly ineffective, I think it’s only fair that you present what you believe to be effective.

  20. Harry Says:

    Here are some examples, Pelle.

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/26/libertarians-hear-but-are-apparrently-mute/

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/24/allaboutcounseling-com-is-all-about-hating-men-and-exploiting-women/

  21. Harry Says:

    And then, of course, there is Fathers for Justice.

  22. Pelle Billing Says:

    Harry,

    The action that Paul Elam took with regard to allaboutcounseling.com is completely compatible with my own views. If that is what you mean by aggressive activism, then I don’t know what all the fuss is about.

    Paul is also a major supporter of distinguishing between attacking feminism and attacking women.

    At this point the only explanation I can find for you attacking me here, is that you’ve projected certain things onto me and then assumed that they are my views.

  23. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    Actually, in response to your piece, Paul Elam describes himself as being in Level 6 in the list of your Levels – the Level that you actually describe as “the pitfall of the masculist or men’s movement.”

    This is also the Level 6 about which you state in your piece, ” If men’s rights activists, masculists and feminist critics are to have any success in working towards true equality and a society that respects both sexes fully, then level 6 cannot be allowed to have any sort of real influence.”

    In other words, your words in your piece about Levels do not quite reflect your words now.

    As such, your statement that “you’ve projected certain things onto me and then assumed that they are my views,” is false.

    I read what you wrote.

  24. Harry Says:

    @Danny

    “I still hold the idea that feminists and MRAs want the same things (to help men and women) but go about it different ways.”

    In your dreams, perhaps!

    Take a look at Carey Roberts’ latest piece, …

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/29/partner-abuse-industry-flirts-with-a-hateful-agenda/

  25. Pelle Billing Says:

    “In other words, your words in your piece about Levels do not quite reflect your words now”

    No, it’s still your assumption about my piece on levels that don’t match my words now.

    I believe that the male and female gender roles are roughly as “good” or roughly as “bad”. However, we’ve had a feminist movement for decades that have put men in a bad spot, since feminists have (incorrectly) assumed that the female gender role is much worse than the male gender role. Men being in that bad spot, *especially* in Sweden, is what got me writing and lecturing about these issues in the first place.

    I believe that a lot of people over at MND were unable to make the distinction about male and female gender roles in general (i.e. gender roles in a traditional society), and the terrible mess that feminism has created for men during the past few decades. In hindsight, I could have clarified that more, but I guess I just took it for granted since I’ve been a feminist critic from day one in my writings.

  26. Harry Says:

    @Pelle

    “No, it’s still your assumption about my piece on levels that don’t match my words now.”

    Well, you look at the responses that you got from some very long-time MRAs, including Paul E and Amfortas, with regard to your views about what makes ‘bad’ activism (i.e. Level 6) and you will see that they disagreed with you.

    Basically, that is the point that I have been trying to make.

    I quote Paul Elam, …

    I do believe that if there is to be a real men’s movement, it will have to be, for lack of better word, radicalized.

    My experience is that there is no balanced discussion with feminist ideologues. None at all. So I do think men’s issues need to be pushed, without a second thought to conversation or discourse with dissenters.

    … Misandry needs to be targeted and attacked, without discussion, without compromise and without retreat. That is not the position of MND, but my own personally. And I think there is much to be gained from it.

    I agree with him.

  27. Pelle Billing Says:

    Harry,

    I don’t see the point of having your words be more radical than your actions.

    But to each his own. I write texts and take actions that I believe to be effective and that I can sign my name to without hesitation.

    You don’t use your full name Harry, so you are playing a very different game than me.

    And I don’t know why you keep talking about Paul Elam. He’s not part of this discussion.

  28. Toysoldier Says:

    Frankly I think that both, helping men by helping women and helping women by helping men, need to happen at the same time instead of the current setup where people are demanding that one happen while promising the other will be gotten to later. We’ll meet in the middle much faster that way.

    I agree, however, I think that with two movements that were specifically created to oppose other groups this may not occur for some time. Neither side wants to compromise and neither side thinks that anything they do is negative, harmful or wrong. The “us” vs “them” sentiment guides both groups far too much. The other factor is that quite a few people have been hurt by the other group’s actions. Personally speaking, while I would appreciate if feminists no longer fought against efforts to raise awareness for male rape victims, I do not think I could manage to work with feminists on a continual basis. My experiences with them leave me on edge when I am around them. I think a lot of men are in a similar position, just as a lot of women may feel the same way about working with men.

  29. Eivind Figenschau Skjellum Says:

    I’d like to contribute with some general reflections. This isn’t finger pointing, although it is triggered by the different perspectives I see Harry and Pelle taking.

    When fighting to change anything, what defines whether you will succeed or not is the extent to which you feel imprisoned by that which you are fighting. Angry revolutions have a tendency to replace one tyrant with another. The revolutions that succeed in lasting and fundamental change seem to be preceded by an inner revolution on the part of the revolutionaries. Think Gandhi.

    I believe there are MRAs out there who are fighting just because they still haven’t gone beyond even severing the umbilical cord in evolutionary terms. Being a grown up man defined by mother’s wishes is certainly cause for fighting all women.

    Honestly speaking, having opinions is not impressive, we must have the ability to carry those opinions into our waking reality in the world (this capacity is always hard to judge from online discussions). And in that world, it is a simple fact that people, be they feminist or not, simply don’t like a fucker. When you fight someone else with the basic presumption that they are wrong and you are right, you simply create further polarization (in a negative sense).

    A man is judged by those who are fit to pass judgment not by the loudness of his voice, but by his actions in the world. To take an example from the realm of sexuality – where must men turn into soft clay in their meeting with the Feminine – screaming and bashing your chest when a woman makes you come doesn’t make you more of a man, it just makes you a louder man. Which again is not impressive.

    The question we all need to ask ourselves as Warriors of Love in the making is, what are we fighting? Are we recovering white knights who fight the shadow dragons of our own disowned psychic heritage, or are we truly fighting the fight of Truth. Merely being a crusader has never made a man out of anyone. What makes a man is his ability to stay centered in his own value system and inner knowing, while keeping his heart wide open and strong, even in the midst of a storm.

    When the storm overcomes him, as I have made perfectly clear above, he is nothing but a man overcome by the Feminine, and no matter the loudness of his voice, the Truth stands that he is weak and unwilling to own up to it.

    We need strong men. Those men won’t have to fight Feminism in the traditional sense of a fight, because feminists and Feminism change in their very presence. Carry the truth in your heart stably and consistently and every raging feminist eventually becomes the woman she always longed to be. This requires balls that many men don’t have of course.

    Suckling the tit of big Mama, hoping that she will prove her love for you even when you are mad at Her, or fighting for greater consciousness in the world? This, I think, is something to think about.

    Eivind

  30. Boyle Says:

    Found a great ebook exposing the damage feminism is doing to men around the world:

    http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f2bbb1cf41ca09767f7ec40ada4772a6e04e75f6e8ebb871

  31. Jen Says:

    Feminism = Believing in gender equality, not letting gender hold you back, believing women are equal to men in value and in entitlement.

    If masculists hate feminism, they hate the idea that women deserve equality, and that’s all there is to it.

  32. Danny Says:

    And if feminists actually practiced the feminism you speak of Jen masculinists would have been on the same page with them the whole time.

    Problem is they don’t.

  33. Betsy Says:

    I think there is an underlying issue that keeps getting ignored in these discussions…connected to equality. Choice is equality.

    Appearances are deceptive here. Industrialized societies/economies treat resources and people one way: take advantage of. People consume resources and people are sexual…so there is a natural predator/prey relationship dynamic. How do predator/prey relationships become oppressive? By not being honored appropriately.

    Mothers, children, and the earth’s resources and wildlife are not honored in industrialized societies. Some women did pursue freedom or privilege through industrialized society…and that led to political activism for justice…and the illusion of less oppression and more equality. But really, industrialized society, the economy…and political justice based on these, are binding chains. Industry under government rule promises and promotes freedom and choice, especially to women, while emasculating men from resources unless they are good debt slaves.

    Any feminist who thinks oppression is over or can’t understand the burden for men in this system, has a HUGE global wake-up call…arriving exponentially.

    The appearance(promise) of health, wealth, happiness, food, water, justice, less risk, etc… ARE LIES! Men and women are waking up to the fact that industry depends on unnatural extraction, production, and use of resources. We can’t keep defending industrialized slavery just because we depend on it. The more we depend on and encourage forced industry, even regarding rights…the further we remove ourselves from the right to natural resources. This is why the feminist movement did not honor men…because the feminist movement was a product of industrialization.

    The industrialized propaganda, indoctrination, and price on labor and resources…ignores a human being’s natural and crucial relationship to the natural world of resources. Industrialized society has a monopoly on resources. An awakening to the autonomy we’ve exchanged for illusions of comfort and control is needed. As it stands now, men and women are not equal to the power elite. And the power elite would love us to keep playing the monolply game…where no matter how much we divide and conquer each other as men and women or unite to empower ourselves through civilized consensus, we will remain equally manipulated and dependant, and literally owned by the power elite.

    IMO, we need a movement of human beings who are willing to inquire into the depths of how to honor predator/prey relationships. First acknowledging…I consume, I am a predator. If I consume the flesh of a salmon…I have a living obligation to the salmon…to honor the salmon’s life by caring for the health of the river, the salmon’s home. The profit(wealth) of this natural exchange is…renewing life for the salmon and me. But we often don’t do that in an industrialized society because we seek profit…the appearance of wealth. If I am not reverent to the salmon’s life, my life is diminished as well. That is natural law.

    As long as men and women are distracted by money wealth from industry as the health of a nation, it’s people, and land…we will continue to pursue and perpetuate a vicious cycle of depleting without person conscience or action regarding how to truly LIVE life.

    LOVE

  34. hopeless_case Says:

    Jen:

    You say that feminism = believing in gender equality.

    Do you think there are ways in which men are treated less than equal in law and custom (and would you mind listing some), or do those ways pale in comparison to the ways in which women are less than equal (so much so that they are hardly worth talking about)?

    I think that calling a belief in gender equality *fem*inism would imply the latter as well, otherwise, why emphasize the *fem*?

  35. Danny Says:

    hopeless that is because there are some feminists out there that think they have exclusive rights on all things related to equality. They seem that to believe in equality automatically makes one feminist. That way if you don’t agree with a feminist they can twist it into automatically meaning you are against equality. Its all public relations.

  36. Betsy Says:

    For clarity, here is a broad look at industrialized society:

    Story of Stuff, Full Version; How Things Work, About Stuff (21:16)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8&feature=player_embedded#
    (Peak of the U.S. industrial economy benefiting workers, in terms of happiness, was 1950)

    LOVE

  37. masculinist Says:

    “The key difference here is that feminism paints men as a group as a problem in society, while”

    MRAs need to move on from this and rightly treated “women as a group as a problem” (which they are, feminism is their political weapon, feminism is but a symtom/tip of iceberg).

    Making this critical leap will be the difference between the success of MRAism and its failure.

    After all, what’s good for the goose…

  38. masculinist Says:

    “hopeless that is because there are some feminists out there that think they have exclusive rights on all things related to equality”

    Yeah, and it’s not going to change, pointing it out won’t make it change.

    That’s why men must be more radical and take a leaf out of women’s (feminist) playbook – we must treat women as a group as a problem (which they are).

  39. masculinist Says:

    “Do you think there are ways in which men are treated less than equal in law and custom”

    No, she’s incapable of such a perspective, like all feminist women.

    Your welfare literally does not compute in her mindset.

    And therein is the reason why men must take a more radical approach towards defending their interests against the aggressions of female politics (feminism).

  40. masculinist Says:

    “I think there is an underlying issue that keeps getting ignored in these discussions…connected to equality. Choice is equality.”

    Except, like all feminists, you believe that only women should have “choice”, and the “equality” that comes from that “choice”. You believe in eliminating to the nth degree male choice while expanding to the nth degree female choice. You know there’s a conflict and you don’t care.

    “IMO, we need a movement of human beings”

    Funny how women throw out this sop when it suits them. To be aggressively pro-women is fine, but as soon as men start to recognize and defend THEIR interests, you’ll throw the “why can’t we all be equal human beings” bone.

    Suddenly women are interested in “just getting along”. Suddenly you are interested in “peace”, “finding a compromise”, “not seeing things as a zero-sum game”, after decades of (continuing) aggression against men. Right…

    There’s no point in engaging in you people. Everything you say is self-serving lies.

    Feminism/matriarchy must be smashed, simple as.

  41. masculinist Says:

    Feminists accuse masculinists of opposing “equality” for women.

    But who defines so-called “equality”? Man-hating gynocentric feminist women.

    Obviously you are going to end up with a conception of “equality” that is, in theory and practice, exclusionary, antagonistic, sectarian.

    It is an unfortunate reality that sectarian groups such as the women’s movement define terminology such as “equality”, “rights”, “justice”. They will always do so in ways that suit them and them alone. They don’t care about contradictions.

    Clearly, the “equality” mantra is simply a case of language-as-an-instrument-of-domination: something feminist women have long accused (projected) patriarchy as being culpable of.

  42. Pelle Billing Says:

    masculinist,

    I don’t agree that women as a group are the problem.

    Radical feminists do not represent the majority of women.

    I don’t see the point of men forming the equivalent of a radical feminist movement. I want a men’s movement that is grounded, focused, and that reclaims words such as justice and equality.

  43. masculinist Says:

    “You are assuming throughout your article that winning the ‘discussion’ will win the war.

    It won’t.

    Winning the discussion is not sufficient to bring about change.”

    Correctamondo. An increase in radicalism among men, against the [systematized] aggressions of women/feminists, to defend their welfare and interests, is needed.

  44. Betsy Says:

    MASCULINIST:
    “I think there is an underlying issue that keeps getting ignored in these discussions…connected to equality. Choice is equality.”-Betsy

    Except, like all feminists, you believe that only women should have “choice”, and the “equality” that comes from that “choice”. You believe in eliminating to the nth degree male choice while expanding to the nth degree female choice. You know there’s a conflict and you don’t care.-Masculinist

    I am not a feminist. Choice comes from developing will.
    Controlling the masses would not be possible if it weren’t for violence.
    Violence has been proven to bend ANYONE’s will.(please do not respond with a comment on how I think only men are violent…far from it!)
    My whole post was about how industrialized cultures remove much of this choice for both men and women through violence…and to get around the “built-in” choices, and fear of violence, requires WILL.

    Quote on willpower:
    “In order to disobey, one must have the courage to be alone, to err and to sin. But courage is not enough. The capacity for courage depends on a person’s state of development. Only if a person has emerged from mother’s lap and father’s commands, only if he has emerged as a fully developed individual and has thus acquired the capacity to think and feel for himself, only then can he have the courage to say “no” to power, to disobey.” – Erich Fromm (‘On Disobedience and Other Essays’)
    source: #TL10D: WILLPOWER AND PSYCHOSYNTHESIS
    By fm1@amug.org“>Frederick Mann
    © Copyright 2002 Terra Libra Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

    excerpt note: under Introduction, quoted from text following the heading See also Obedience, Punishment, and Power.

    “IMO, we need a movement of human beings”-Betsy

    Funny how women throw out this sop when it suits them. To be aggressively pro-women is fine, but as soon as men start to recognize and defend THEIR interests, you’ll throw the “why can’t we all be equal human beings” bone.-Masculinist

    I care enormously about men and men’s rights…I have a son.
    Indiginous cultures(especially those based on seventh generation sustainability) honor the man and women. Nothing can exist on it’s own.
    The mother does bring life, to honor women is to honor life.
    Indiginous cultures like the Hopi and Iroquois also do not see the natural world as a resource. Fish and trees are not a resource they are part of our family.

    How will we ever resolve our cultural issues with justice?
    Especially when industrialized culture is run by our Economy(which is extremely corrupt and flawed)
    Indiginous leaders and elders use common sense.

    Take child custody for example…
    The way child custody is determined in the U.S. …is through the courts. Each parent essentially tries to prove their individual competence while attacking the other parent’s competence. Even if the parents do not want to play this game…the court will determine who will PAY for the child’s needs. This perpetuates greed and ideas about mental illness and the need for control and violence.

    Now contrast that with this excerpt…
    ~from Wikipedia under Iroquois

    Women in society

    When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed that women assumed a position in Iroquois society roughly equal in power to that of the men. Individual women could hold property including dwellings, horses and farmed land, and their property before marriage stayed in their possession without being mixed with that of their husband’s. The work of a woman’s hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. A husband lived in the longhouse of his wife’s family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling, taking any of his possessions with him. Women had responsibility for the children of the marriage, and children were educated by members of the mother’s family. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother’s line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children. Violence against women by men was virtually unknown.[19]

    The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the mothers of that clan, and the chief’s sister was responsible for nominating his successor.
    ~from Wikipedia under Iroquois

    Violence against women by men was virtually unknown!
    Today, Any women walking alone at night, who hears footsteps behind her…is afraid!

    I do not deny that men may have a very different opinion about child custody rights…but remember we are contemplating into the seventh generation and the health of the entire culture.

    “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation… even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.”
    - Great Law of the Iroquois

    This is where I am coming from. In each deliberation, I do not think only of myself, I do not think only of my gender or my generation, and seek I no separation from the natural renewing world.

  45. Betsy Says:

    Connected to choices…on the subject of knowledge, truth, and human action…

    Please read p24-29:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21149332/Brainwashing-Manual-L-Ron-Hubbard

    Especially p25 where it clarifies that hypnotism is misunderstood. This is sooo crucial! This manual has do to with mass control through violence…and the role of mental illness as a tool or precursor for violence. Remember that when a person is termed mentally ill…they loose their rights.

  46. Stu Says:

    By saying that we shouldn’t attack feminists or people that work for womens interests is idiotic. When a law is brought into being that says…..if I raise my voice at my wife…..even if she has spent most of our marriage yelling at me……..I can be booted out of my home….have my kids turned into my child support payments…..and my assetts transferred to her…….all the basis that this is good for women…….in womens interests……I am going to attack the people that push this agenda…..and so should anyone who doesn’t hate men.

    This softly softly approach to defending mens rights or opposing feminists…….is just not going to be affective. Feminists don’t care if they are wrong about a certian policy or belief they hold…..they just don’t care……so proving they are wrong in debate etc is not going to change their attitudes. They create the lies of rampart rape and domestic voilence…….so they know they are fake……..they know women have not been oppressed throughout history……this is all a lie that they know full well is a lie…….so proving to a feminist that it is a lie will do nothing……they are in the business of peddling lies as a means to an end…….the total and compete domination of men by women.

    We need to attack feminism on three fronts. Politically we need to support the most anti feminist candidates at all levels……regardless of party or other economic or political beliefs…….being anti feminist trumphs all other things here. On the personal level we need to refuse marriage……children…..or an level of relationship with a women that can legally carry any weight…….and when women you are dating press for committment……..say no…..no way……not in a million years……and tell them way……..its the laws you idiot. Financially…….we need to earn our money…..as much as we can……and spend it in ways that benefit as many men and as few women as possible……and save as much as possible. Another thing……..we need to make any ideology that opposses feminism our friend…….it to hell with how intolerant and misogynist they are…….my enemies enemy is my friend……..that makes Islam…..even radical Islam…..our friend.

  47. Mark davenport Says:

    Gee, Stu….

    Tell us how you really feel! Some measure of temperance or you’ll be classified as as extremist as those you criticize.

  48. Allan Says:

    Hmm.. gender issues are interesting but they really are SO, SO complex.

    In feminism and attempts at a men’s movement, I see different levels.

    There is the internal work and empowerment as people individually examine how sexism has harmed them and do the emotional work to get free of it. Feminism is wonderful in this regard. Masculism hasn’t begun to address this in my opinion. There’s for example this whole aspect I called emotional literacy a while ago. You talk about how Stu “feels” but he’s not talking about all his emotions. He sounds angry or hurt, but he’s not directly talking all about this. All his experiences being angered or hurt, whatever. There’s a lot to learn about all this. For example, talking about your feelings often changes your relationship to that feeling. Like, when you are angry with something a friend just said. If you hold that in, you stay angry. If you express it, you might have that experience where you and your friend look at each other and suddenly laugh. “Glad I got that all out!” And now you’re not angry. I think there’s a lot here, and it’s hard individual work to look at, evaluate and perhaps change how you are. Or I might talk about how I was raised about crying, how I feel now, how I’d like to be and feel, and what I’m doing to get there. How is this stuff for you? Make any sense?

    Then, there’s the external process and change. People together try to make issues known, stop creating attitudes in the media, lots of things. But more on an emotional, attitudinal level. Like men speaking out about images making fun of men who express vulnerable feelings. For example, the Geico Commercial – Drill sergeant as Therapist or All Milwaukee’s Best Light Commercial I hate shit like this but it’s everywhere and I wish men would get pissed and vocal about it. We should protest stuff like this loudly. Look at what those commercials are saying about men! And I rather resent it when people say men being emotional is getting in touch with their feminine side. WTF. That is so sexist.

    Then, there’s a political level addressing laws, and allocation of funds, priorities, societal structures, theories of oppression. Rape shield laws, the draft, custody, etc. Seems men are starting here whereas feminism followed the order I present here. Starting with “consciousness raising groups” in the 70′s I think. This is probably going to be a nasty, polarized debate. Feminists and MRA’s say all kind of crazy shit in this context and it’s kind of meaningless to me. I’m not very interested in yelling lies at people. But some of that just seems to be how we talk politics in the USA. It seems pointless to me to even bring up what’s true in this context.

  49. Mark Davenport Says:

    Word, Allen!

  50. hopeless_case Says:

    Stu:

    Support radical Islam (or anything else) just because it is hostile to feminism?

    That doesn’t make sense on any level.

    How can you even suggest such a thing?

  51. Danny Says:

    Allan:
    There is the internal work and empowerment as people individually examine how sexism has harmed them and do the emotional work to get free of it. Feminism is wonderful in this regard. Masculism hasn’t begun to address this in my opinion.
    (FTR I don’t claim the label masculinist.)

    Feminism is wonder in this regard…in relation to women. When it comes men feminism’s reaction to men doing that examination and emotional work seems to be limited to reminding us that men aren’t harmed as badly as women (some would even men are not harmed because of gender), we somehow owe it to women to help them first and foremost, and that no matter how badly we are hurt that damage is mitigated by the privileges we have (funny how that only applies to men).

    You see the biggest barrier facing men when it comes to doing the emotional work and examination is that we have been socialized into thinking that said examination and emotional work are not only unnecessary but would bring our manhood into question (and I think thats the part feminists either don’t care about, don’t realize, or don’t fully understand). And in my experience women/feminists aren’t as interested in seeing those barriers come down as they pat themselves on the back for.

  52. hopeless_case Says:

    Danny:

    and that no matter how badly we are hurt that damage is mitigated by the privileges we have

    I have sensed this for some time, although I have only been able to consciously articulate it in the last few years, after a great deal of soul searching.

    I have noticed that feminists are are very tough to crack on this front. It’s as if they think that a lot of their victim power would vanish if society took the downsides of being male seriously.

  53. Danny Says:

    I have noticed that feminists are are very tough to crack on this front. It’s as if they think that a lot of their victim power would vanish if society took the downsides of being male seriously.
    Excatly. And mind you they are the ones that are often accusing others (namely MRAs and men) of invoking zero sum arguments.

    And honestly I think that’s related to why some of them even take any interest in the downsides of being a man. Like politicians who feign concern for hot button issues (like the “best interests of the children” argument) they really don’t care but are paying just enough lip service to make it look like they care. What purpose does that serve? Simple by paying enough lip service in the event that someone calls thems on it they just talk about how they are so concerned about men and in some cases even declare that they are the ones working with men as a part of helping everyone in an effort to make the ones that called them out look like the enemy.

    Are there good hearted feminists out there that really do have an interest in helping men because actually abide by what feminism is supposed to be about? Yes. But I think there are enough posers to cause one to not just assume that anyone claiming the label feminist is actually down for the cause.

  54. Stu Says:

    How can I suggest supporting radical Islam. Well let me explain. By support I don’t mean become a jihadist, or even convert or anything like that. I mean simply refuse to oppose the activities of Islam on the basis that it’s treatment of women is unfair or discriminates against them or whatever. Feminists survive via the same methods that women have survived throughout history…….via mens productivity and protection. It’s a matter of time before women really start to worry and oppose Islam in some western countries as Islam is growing in numbers and influence. When the feminists abandon their typical PC all cultures are equal rubbish and start to see Islam as the threat it is to western freedoms…….they will demand action from who to stop the Islamic influence erroding their unequal rights. They will demand that men do something about it……who else. They will propose laws…..but who enforces them. I suggest we do nothing to oppose anything that may help errode womens superior rights and lack of responsibility in our society……do nothing to support them and nothing to protect them until we have achieved true equality…….which would mean a roll back of all gynocentric laws and descrimination against men in criminal and civil law, family law, education, employment, welfare etc etc. The list is endless.

    Ok…..how I feel…….I really don’t think anything but the collpase of western civilisation is really going to stop feminism from rolling on with no brakes. I believe that “extreme” action against feminism would be required to remove it’s control of western politics and society in general. Thats not going to happen because even most MRA believe that all men need to do is talk……and post on blogs….and debate……and preach to the converted…..but that it’s to extreme to attack feminism head on…….forcefully remove manginas, white knights, and radical feminits from their positions of power. No……we must protect their rights while we somehow take away their rights…….never work.

  55. Stu Says:

    By the way, the way our civilisation fights wars nowdays, we will never win another war again. Do you think that extreme ideologies get defeated with less then extreme responses. Lets take the nazis…….extreme wouldn’t you say. We carpet bombed their cities. The Japs were pretty extreme……suicide pilots……starved prisoners of war…..forced labour until you drop…….beheaded POWS……..torture. We nuked them. Now look at those countries now. Competely different. High on human rights….economically sound…..democracy…..etc etc. Why…..because we destroyed the existing ideology and replaced it with something better…….ours……yes……better.

    Or at least it was….then. Now we are just a pack of weak arse panzies. What do we do after Iraq……put in place a sharia law government……Afganistan…….sharia law government……we allow the very thing that we are fighting to continue to dominate the country we attacked because of it. Our solders have to fill out paper work every time they discharge a weapon…..every day some woman is making complaints about some male solder sexually harrassing her….often by just telling a dirty joke…..or some other minor minor non event. We have to tip toe around trying to win a war……getting killed and injured in droves…….being careful not to upset anybodies cultural sensibilities……or much worse……feminists…….all while we are fighting for what……..womens rights.

    And it’s going to be the same with any fight we have to fight from here on in including fights from within…….like with feminism. And since the western male seems to think they have to fight by rules of fairness and justness even while the enemy do whatever they want…….then we will lose…..feminism will never attack Islam though…..why….because they don’t give a shit about upsetting feminists……they will just kill them. So I say since our culture no longer has the balls to fight to win……we lose all battles.

    Lets have look at what is happening in the UK with sharia law. Sharia courts are now handling civil cases including divorce. I hear that men are converting to Islam, and even some that are not converting……are using the sharia courts……I don’t know how the mechanics of this works….only that it is happening. Ok….one of the main ways men feel the feminist jack boot on their faces is in divorce……property settlement….custody…..access. Sharia courts are solving some of these problems for men that are accessing them……….are the MRAs solving any of these problems for men. I’t not hard to see that men are going to start seeing their own MRA movements as impotent and that Islam offers them a solution to some of their problems.

    Maybe the if more and more men started “supporting” Islamic solutions…..it would prompt the government to make pre nups and financial aggreements between married and cohabitating men legally binding…….maybe it would encourage them to make laws fairer to men. If so…..great…..if not…..then we support the alternatives until they get the message.

  56. hopeless_case Says:

    Stu:

    I don’t think feminism is the root of the problems men face in society today. I think the traditional values that hold men to be disposable are the root of the problem.

    Feminism got the ball rolling by questioning the role that society insisted women play (stay at home and raise children). If it weren’t for that, it would not even be possible to get people to question the male role (provide resources and protection for women, and do so at great risk to yourself). So I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to feminists for their efforts in questioning gender roles.

    As for western society generally, and the U.S. in particular, decaying, I disagree. There has never been a more exciting and rewarding time to be alive than now. Power is much more about raising educated, thoughtful, and aware children than it is convincing large numbers of men to become soldiers and throw their lives away.

    Indeed, it is because power is so dependent on having an efficient and vibrant economy, and so independant of how many soldiers you can hand machine guns to, that the possibility of emancipating men from their ancient risk-taking role is even a distant dream, let alone a likely reality.

    Demonizing women and/or feminists generally is the worst thing you could possibly do, if you really care about men’s rights.

  57. Danny Says:

    So I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to feminists for their efforts in questioning gender roles.
    Thats fine, well, and good. But I think the time has come for them to realize that there are men who are speaking up for themselves and are not doing it under the banner of feminism. Because frankly sometimes I really think some of them are acting like a guy that thinks a woman owes him sex because he bought her dinner and few drinks.

  58. hopeless_case Says:

    Danny:

    I sometimes wonder at what really motivates the various aspects of feminism, especially the general anger at men. It occurred to me once that before women took to the workforce and to collage in large numbers, motivating women to do so would not have been easy. How might one rile them up and get them to want to take on the hard work and the risk? I can see how a campaign of blaming men for most of societies ills, and for the fact that women were shut out of the workplace and the universities, would make sense in that context.

    If you take a woman who thinks her duty is to support a man in his work and study efforts, and convince her that men are the enemy, it might motivate her to take on the hard work and risk herself.

    I have heard feminists tell stories about how when they were growing up, their parents had been saving money to send their brother to collage, but were not planning to send them to collage, since they would only be getting married and raising children anyway, so why waste the money? I have to wonder how often the father was standing in the way versus the mother in a situation like that. It may be that the anger against men was more effective in changing the minds of mothers to send their daughters to collage than the fathers.

  59. Stu Says:

    Hopeless case

    You are indeed a hopeless case

    A number of your points. You…as a man….are only allowed to “raise your kids” the way your wife lets you…..or your ex wife….and the feminist family courts. You have no power at all to decide anything about your kids because all it takes is one unfounded totally false accusation to remove you from your home, your kids, your assetts and a lot of your income and transfer the whole lot to your wife who can raise those kids any god damn way she chooses and you just try and stop her.

    Your theories about soldiers and war……tell it to the thousands who are right now fighting and dying and coming home in pieces.

    And do you think good old USA is economically sound. It’s teetering on bankruptcy. The dollar is crashing, unemployment is rising. I hate to tell you this but America is becoming a shit hole. I give it until 2020…..2030 at the latest and it wont even exist in it’s current form.

    You think because women have been granted the freedom to choose any lifestyle, role, or combination of roles that they are going to allow the same for men. Think again…..civilisation was built on male labour and inventiveness and it won’t be maintained for long if we are allowed to stop and pursue any navel gazing lifestyle and abandon male roles for long.

    Thank feminism as much as you like. I have nothing to thank them for. And neither have you unless your a women or a mangina that has worked out that he can suck and crawl to women and support any rubbish they sprout as a way of getting any residuel crumbs of female tail that you wouldn’t otherwise get.

  60. Noah Says:

    Villainizing and dehumanizing anybody is at BEST unpractical and at worst, well, that’s an idea I don’t think I need to sell to anybody.

    I just got banned from “Rage Against the Manchine”s blog. Its a shame, because whether I agree or disagree I highly respect anybody who can articulate their beliefs and who is willing to stand up for something.

    The discussion was about porn, and all I was really trying to say was that there are issues in men’s lives that leave them vulnerable to exploitation, and that understanding the unmet intimacy needs of men is integral in understanding the type of escapism that pornography provides.

    Of course that was all met with the worlds tiniest violin. Go figure.

    I understand that misery is the river of the world, suffering is inherent in life and its a total red herring to play the game that this group or that group suffers more.

    I agree with your core beliefs.

    And I appreciate that yours is a tone that is supportive of women, and that you still encourage women to organize and work on women’s issues.

    The ONLY thing that I’m uncertain about is whether all feminism should be scrapped.

    I mean, yes, some seem to emphasize the villiany of the patriarchy more than others. Other self identified feminists I’ve talked to seem to take no issue with any of the masculist issues that I would like to work on.

    Its just there is so much feminism, so many different flavors and breeds. I don’t think all versions of feminism are so stuck on men being monsters.

    A gender transition movement seems ideal, that is focused on creating a mutually supportive dialogue between and within genders, but it seems to me that there is no harm in keeping the terms ‘feminism’ and ‘masculism’ to designate different aspects of the over all gender liberation movement.

    Cheers.

  61. hopeless_case Says:

    The discussion was about porn, and all I was really trying to say was that there are issues in men’s lives that leave them vulnerable to exploitation, and that understanding the unmet intimacy needs of men is integral in understanding the type of escapism that pornography provides.

    I think you really hit it out of the ballpark on that one. Most people agree that they don’t like the idea of prostitution, and most see the prostitute as victim and the john as villian. You were wondering what might drive a man to seek a prostitute, which interferes with the usual woman-good-man-bad narrative that so dominates the public debate.

    Do you happen to have a link to the rage against the machine blog? I’d be curious to see the discussion you got kicked out of.

    I understand that misery is the river of the world, suffering is inherent in life and its a total red herring to play the game that this group or that group suffers more.

    I think it does make sense to talk about specific ways in which one group is worse off than another, but where the game of oppression olympics loses me is when group A is saying that their issues are so much more pressing than group B’s that B’s voice should not be heard at all. That to even acknowledge B’s issues is to deal group A an insult.

    Hence the oft repeated discussion:
    Man: I’m interested in men’s rights
    Woman: Why do you hate women?

    The ONLY thing that I’m uncertain about is whether all feminism should be scrapped.

    I really don’t think feminism is the main obstacle to the liberation of men. I think traditional values which hold that men are disposable and a woman’s life is more valuable than a man’s are.

  62. hopeless_case Says:

    Stu:

    Your theories about soldiers and war……tell it to the thousands who are right now fighting and dying and coming home in pieces.

    Are you talking about the thousands of American soldiers who have come home in pieces, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans that have been blown to bits?

    Tell me again which of those societies puts its men at risk more and which offers them greater choices in life and focuses a lot more on education?

    This has to be one of the most senseless, one-sided wars fought in all of history.

  63. Noah Says:

    Here’s the URL for the discussion I was talking about.

    http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/26/porn-part-9-the-opposite-of-dudishness-is-not-prudishness/

    “I really don’t think feminism is the main obstacle to the liberation of men. I think traditional values which hold that men are disposable and a woman’s life is more valuable than a man’s are.”

    Agreed; actually the reason why I got interested in talking with Rad-femmes in the first place is that I often find myself empathizing with the women in my life and understand SOME of the ways that things are stacked against them. The same goes for males, but the ‘victim’ monolgue is defnitely not doing anybody favors.

    And also the ‘a cant help themselves until b is fixed’ mentality.

    My purpose in trying to communicate with feminist groups is in identifying the over-lap where A and B can collaborate to make mutual gains.

    Actually, thats somewhat of a general interest for me, not just in terms of gender studies but in general the mutually beneficial resolution of conflicts is a process which I would like to devote my life to master.

  64. AlexNY Says:

    There is no serious gender discussion of leisure. People argue about work. And the work is a fixed quantity.

    To say that one gender is disallowed from an activity is mathematically equivalent to saying that the other gender is obliged to that activity.

    If men continue to be systematically excluded from supporting roles such as father and husband, women will continue to drop out of the “race to the top” due to exhaustion.

    Two millennia of discrimination against women in the workplace was ended by the social assumption that women are professionally equal or better than men. To state that men have any workplace ability that women lack is taboo. In contrast, our culture encourages creative ways to prominently identify female workplace abilities that men lack.

    Similarly two millennia of discrimination against men in the home will be ended by a social assumption that men are equal or better than women at support and nurturing roles. Any mention that women may have any nurturing ability that men lack must be made taboo. In contrast, our culture must actively encourage identification of ways where male performance in the home is clearly superior to that of women.

    Otherwise, we may as well end our experiment in cultural transformation, because the space for creative social manipulation ends where the inflexible rules of mathematics begin. The work is fixed. Either men must be supported when they choose to define their lives as nurturers, or women will continue to be drafted away from their dreams and into the vacuum left by their diminished and increasingly maligned partners.

    Feminism will either embrace masculism, or it will fail.

  65. hopeless_case Says:

    Either men must be supported when they choose to define their lives as nurturers, or women will continue to be drafted away from their dreams and into the vacuum left by their diminished and increasingly maligned partners.

    Well put. I especially like the use of the word “drafted”.

  66. Bob Says:

    I think men are the dominate gender. I agree with equal pay for women,but men should be the bigger participants in the work force. I believe women are better nurtures and should belong in the home setting to take care of the children. I think women are trying to take over the man’s roles of bringing home the bacon.So my final conclusion is that women should stay home, have sex, make kids and make us men some sandwiches.

  67. Jordan Says:

    In the United States we have several all-black schools, as well as all-Native American schools. However, there is a reason why all-white schools are banned.

    The reason? Whites are almost entirely responsible for the oppression of these groups of people. These groups are coping, still establishing what it means to have their own culture in an all-white cultured society… and I, as a white person, have no right to argue that to have an all-white school would not be racist. It would be. It would be ignorant of me to even suggest it.

    Likewise, feminism is tolerated and accepted (and has such power) solely because women are the ones who have been oppressed for thousands of years — whether that is not being given equal pay or access to an opinion, or whether it’s having their bodies objectified on a day-to-day basis and being hollered at while walking down the street. While I agree that males have issues to work through, to target feminism would be the same as arguing that an all-black school is prejudice toward whites. No. It’s not. Blacks were put into slavery by whites, and thus they’re trying to figure out how to embrace an Afro culture while living here in the States.

    Masculism is a direct attack on the attempt of women to be respected and heard. There are certainly issues within masculinity which need to be dealt with — but I think it’s more necessary to re-define masculinity itself, which has led to this idea that to be a man, you have to be tough, unfeeling, violent — this is what has caused violence and lack of peace within men AND women. Don’t target feminism. Target injustice and society’s conventions.

  68. Noah Says:

    Jordan, if masculism is a direct attack on a woman’s ability to be heard, you should expect masculists like the blogs author and I to be unread in, and fully disrespecting to the validity of the feminist movement.

    If anything, I personally see it as supplementary, it should make sense that women need some space to redefine their gender issues in absence of men, though I think much of the feminist research has had the unfortunate effect of reifying rather than dismantling some of the lesser desirable charicteristics of modern civilized males.

    Masculists are seeking, just like feminists, to break down what I call “the man box” which is the 2 dimentional chest beating gorilla man that you see on propaganda shows like Jerry springer.

    These hurt men, and although it’s nice to know that some ladies groups are planning to get around to that the very day all rape stops, I don’t think it should be seen a hatred or misogyny or even an attack on women at all to build this social space where men can put forward their own version of masculinity that is more life affirming than the image of the hero that can do nothing better for the world than go down in a hail of bullets.

    What women’s groups are devoting ANY resources to male disposability?

  69. A gentleman Says:

    Masculism. Like feminism, but more positive and less divisive.
    #babytrash1

  70. Tara Says:

    Wow, I am horrified at some of these comments. I’m a feminist and I had never heard about “masculism” until today. At first, I was opposed to the idea, as a feminist my first inclination was to compare it the KKK. After doing more research, I am more open to the idea, but some of the comments on here make me sick. Example:

    Masculist’s reply regarding Jen:

    “’Do you think there are ways in which men are treated less than equal in law and custom’”

    No, she’s incapable of such a perspective, like all feminist women.

    Your welfare literally does not compute in her mindset.

    And therein is the reason why men must take a more radical approach towards defending their interests against the aggressions of female politics (feminism).”

    Are you serious? You accuse all feminists of being incapable of such a perspective, of being close-minded, but then your statement just proves that YOU are the one who is making harsh generalizations about the entire feminist movement.

    For the record, I support father’s rights (was raised by a single dad), stay-at-home dads, and men breaking out of the gender box THEY have put themselves into. No one created these gender roles but MEN, albeit a long time ago, still, you only have yourselves to blame in the end. It’s not the feminist’s fault you built yourselves up as tough “gorilla men,” all the while perpetuating the idea that women are weak and incapable of doing things such as attending college, voting, working in a factory, or succeeding at math/science.

    As a self-identified feminist, I believe that men WERE the oppressors of women. Feminism helped change that. Nowadays, it’s simply institutionalized gender inequity, for BOTH sides. I am sympathetic to your cause and I am not a man-hater. I love men, at least the one’s who aren’t sexist. I just want to know, why does it have to be an “us against them” type of deal? There are many factions in feminism and I know there are feminist women who display the same hateful, ignorant ideas as some of the people who have responded here, but not ALL of us are like that. If you truly want gender equality for BOTH sexes then you HAVE to support feminism/women’s issues and we have to support men’s issues as well. It doesn’t have to be a war. In fact, if you look at it like a war then the gender inequity will only increase.

    Since some of you, including the author of this article, seem misinformed regarding feminism, I leave you with the wiki for the definition of feminism (note part regarding men’s liberation):

    “Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men’s liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are “person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism.”[4]“

  71. Allan Says:

    Hi Tara,

    I’m horrified by some of the remarks here too, but I think it just goes with the territory of gender politics. It draws a lot of people with emotional wounds who make a lot of rational arguments that express them. (“all feminists are incapable of such a perspective”, men will always defend their privilege, etc) There’s nasty stuff on feministing too as well as the thoughtful.

    For example, I’m a sexual assault advocate in a rape & SA center and I work with men. (…and being one…) I find women who totally agree with my observations who probably call themselves feminists. I do feel quite lonely there though as do most male advocates I talk to. Few stick around for long. It’s just too hard work to do without support.

    I hope you’ll stick around. The comments are often rather woolly . What do you think of some of Pelle’s postings? Ever talk to any men who’ve worked through some of their own gender training?

  72. Pelle Billing Says:

    Tara,

    I suggest you reread your own opinions about men, and your reasoning around men, while exchanging the genders. How would you feel if a man said similar things about women, as you say about men?

    This does not mean that I excuse extremist comments from the MRA side of things.

  73. Allan Says:

    Maybe you guys are right who are more combative and confrontational. Slowly I’m gettin’ there. I interacted with with woman this weekend who was just so righteous in her contempt for men. Everyday stuff. We weren’t talking politics or controversial stuff at all. And unwilling it seemed to hear otherwise by her silence. There’s no room for dialog. No tolerance for men to even say how they experience life. Don’t you remember that day you freely decided to build yourself and all men up into a gorilla man? lol

    Tara it’s a war when as you are saying, men MUST agree with women for gender equality, gender problems are all men’s fault individually, and you get to say how I think, feel and choose. Those are fightin’ words with about anyone.

  74. Noah Says:

    Tara, for any dichotomy, a complimentary as well as an oppositional interpretation is possible.

    Masculine/feminine to me seems more sensible as a complimentary rather than oppositional pair, but can you be so sure that feminism has done nothing in the way of framing the dichotomy in terms of a struggle/ battle/opposition?

    Especially since your average feminist will likely make the same mistake and immediatle view masculism as an enemy (like the KKK?)

  75. Pelle Billing Says:

    Allan,

    Some MRA’s go too far (and they characterize me as “weak”).

    But I believe it’s crucial that men don’t accept the kinds of arguments that Tara presents. Men have done that for too long and it’s not work. It’s about breaking the stiff male gender role *and* confronting radical feminism at the same time.

  76. Allan Says:

    Agreed.

    Though I think your more balanced arguments are stronger than MRA remarks that just sound angry and only oppositional. They don’t have much vision going forward. And a lot of women are now realizing they have a lot to loose from the way men are treated and are looking for answers beyond feminism.

  77. Pelle Billing Says:

    I’m also finding that more and more women are done with feminism and are looking for something else. That’s a very promising sign.

  78. E.L.M Says:

    Quite so

  79. Ola Norman Says:

    There are several good reasons for supporting the mens movement, both for men and women. Here are just a couple:

    All people that are willing to take a look with unbiased eyes, will see that many boys and men have a lot of problems in the western world today. And this troubled group seems to be increasing. This fact is mostly overlooked or even denied by feminists. But most women get children, and most of them at least one son. Can a mother really be happy if half of her children will end up as loosers in the society? I think not.

    The most important factor for the welfare of a country (and also the world) is the quality and the behaviour of it’s men. Men have the biggest potential both for constructive AND destructive work, and hence it is so critical that most end up in the first group. Feminism does not seem to contribute positively in this respect,- it seems to be quite on the contrary. With all the challenges we are facing in the coming years, this is definitely worrisome. And will ultimately hurt us all if not changed.

    So where should we go from here? One answer lies in what vision we have for the future. I can’t speak for others than myself, but I hope many will agree with this:
    a world where men and women treat each other with respect, admires and values the differences that exist between the genders and that complements us,
    love each other, and make and raise children together. Also, only then can we have a hope of solving all the other huge challenges that lies ahead of us.

    The more I have read about equality and gender issues and the more blogs I have followed, the more convinced I have become that feminism as of today does not lead toward this vision. Something new is needed. The mens movement can lead the way towards this vision. It should not be so difficult,- it is more or less the way many already live and many before us have lived. I see no conflict with working towards that vision and also at the same time working to reveal the faults and wrongs of feminism. We can not base our work on what the feminists have claimed to be the truth. The closer we come to the real truth, the better positioned we become in order to find workable solutions.

  80. Pelle Billing Says:

    Well said Ola.

  81. Allan Says:

    Good post Ola.

    I listened to some of the talks at the Aspen Ideas festival and a couple things stand out:

    Al Gore talked about how there is no shared reality around climate change. The dominance of irrational thinking. It can’t be discussed, and much of the feminist sphere is like this too. As you say, “overlooked or even denied”. It was so apparent the in talks about women and their issues.

    Yes, men and boys have some huge challenges today.

    In Are the Girls Beating the Boys? http://www.aifestival.org/session/are-girls-beating-boys
    It was so odd how gender and men’s issues showed up here. Discussing college enrollments and graduation rates: “Women are better at school than boys.” About how men are not retraining who have lost manufacturing jobs in industries that have left the US: “Men are not listening.” How 20% of US men are not working now, the highest since the great depression. How a system as broad as education can fail half the population and escape any scrutiny, while simply blaming men… The unspoken belief here, increasing close to the surface is “Men are stupid.” Or lazy. But now it’s a women’s issue that young women can’t find relationships to explore on campuses or spouses that are employed. Oh, these poor women!

    Hanna Rosin goes on how it is such a great mystery that nobody can figure out. How retraining has been loudly promoted for 25 years. But concludes it’s just going to take men a while longer to figure this out. Not this generation of course, but in 30 years men will “figure it out”.

    How the myth of how women only earn 70% for equal work, but later how so many women in intense careers like law and business (with a high “career cost of family”) put a premium on balance and don’t work so hard to have time with aging parents and children. After 5 years they start to differ in pay from men. Companies need to make space for this career path for women… It’s so self-contradictory on the face but all goes unchallenged.

    A woman in the audience asks the men complaining, “Why are there so few men here?” I wanted to scream. Thank God so few men are exposed to such a brow beating! But she recognizes it’s important to ingage men to avoid a huge backlash.

    And the joke about how “Men like women on top in the bedroom, but not in the boardroom.” Women feel so free to speak for men on any part of their experience: what they think, feel, judge important, what they like in sex. Into this environment, men are invited to participate and speak up. And she says, “Men don’t like to hear (what women have to say..)” Wow.

    Men’s issues show up in Race and Criminal Justice http://www.aifestival.org/session/race-and-criminal-justice They note a THIRD of young black men will be imprisoned in the US born today. Kamala amazingly acknowledges the heavy burden of trauma “people” in the criminal justice system carry and how “90% of women in prison have been sexually assaulted as children”. “People” is code for women, it seems. Men are not people. Who matter. At all.

    Hanna Rosin is currently working on a book based on a recent Atlantic story, “The End of Men.” In the book she will expand on her theory that we are in an unprecedented historical moment where men are losing their dominance and women are quickly rising. If I could bet on it, the times 4 higher suicide rate for men will only get worse. I read it wasn’t so long ago that it was equal to that of women. Does anyone have data on that?

    I don’t particularly believe there is a “men’s movement”. Perhaps 10 contradictory movements. I would speak out more, but it seems more and more like walking on to a battlefield to deliver an empassioned plea for a negotiated peace. I’m usually just shot down without a second thought.

  82. Pelle Billing Says:

    Allan,

    You’re on the path, and with time you will learn how to talk and respond to these issues – in a way that is congruent with your own personality. It is perfectly possible to reach a place where you are not thrown off balance even by a room full of hostile feminists.

  83. Allan Says:

    Yes, I can get “thrown off balance” but it’s the lack of a common reality or even a place to have that which is striking. How do women not know what is going on for the men right in front of them? In their lives? And men?

    Al Gore spoke about how historically democracies arose when the rule by wealth and power (kings and the church) was replaced by the rule of reason by institutions and technologies like the free press. (literacy, science, printing presses, then later “mass media”). But that has changed in the US. 70% of Americans supported the war in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks in spite of proof otherwise. Climate deniers. The amount of money a candidate has here predicts election results pretty accurately regardless of their positions. etc

    As to “talk and respond to these issues” … that is what is a bit baffling. I can site research results, statistics and the kinds of perspectives found on this site, but, as I’ve said, the facts and reason are irrelevant much of the time. I’ve also notice that some women are quite sympathetic to things I say in advocacy of men. And agree. But I notice they are not willing to speak out in contradiction of more radical, hard line feminists. Nor act in support of men. They seem really quite controlled by and afraid of the hardliners.

    I guess I just need to make my peace with very slow progress, long periods of reversal, and a feminist movement that’s now a likely decades-long obstacle to broader social progress. For anti-violence progress (my main interest broadly), I hope we have that long.

  84. Ola Norman Says:

    Allan,

    I understand your impatience and frustrations. I have had many of the same thoughts (and still have some), and I believe there are a lot of men out there who thinks similarly. Probably also many feminists who think progresses are too slow towards their goals.

    One huge advantage we have now compared to only a few years ago, is the Internet and all the possibilities it gives us. One person sitting in a small community can in principle reach the whole world from his PC. We can no longer be stopped by the traditional media. And that makes me optimistic. In nuclear reactions we speak about critical mass. Sooner or later we will reach a critical mass and the movement will be unstoppable. Like a rolling snowball. There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

    What I have found to be very useful, is to work on myself in order to grow as a man. I have participated on some trainings for men, and joined a mens group, which have been very rewarding. As a start, take a look at eg. http://www.masculinity-movies.com. There is a lot of activity going on out there. If I remember correctly, the Ultimate Mens Summit internet conference this summer (http://ultimatemenssummit.com) had 18000 participants. Men who work together towards a common goal becomes increadible powerful. Even a small group can achieve amazing things, like we eg. have seen during wars. I think this is an important way forward, and probably also a prerequisite for succeeding. Then in the end, something good for us men may also have come out of the process. Who knows, maybe these times are a long needed wake-up call.

    One final thougth: one characteristic of masculinity is “direction”. As I see it, feminism as an ideology (which started out as a positive thing) has gone completely off track. Could that be caused by lack of masculine direction,- ie. lack of involvement of men? And if so, what lessons should be learned?

  85. Allan Says:

    Are there any of the 80 Men’s Summit talks you recommend? I have them all (listened to mostly).

    I found the summit very frustrating and the alpha-male self-congratulatory banter rather stereotypical of men. Lots of boasting, not much listening. I didn’t recognize many of the speakers and there was no description/summary, so I was offered a 10-60 minute option just to find out who they were and what they were talking about. And then, lots and lots of “you’ve done so much for men”, “you’re so out in front with men”, “your really brilliant work”… without saying what that was or why it was so noteworthy.

    Then, true to my suspicions the very hard-sell e-mails start from Lion Goodman’s business (even his name fits!) continuing with how I lack intention and need him to fix me for a $500 workshop. To get the women. Ignoring our connections to other men, which, for some men are romantic. Duh! It offended me and put me off them.

    Warren Ferrill’s talk was very inspiring in speaking some truth about men. Paul Elam was interesting in getting to know him a bit beyond his writing.

    I should say I’m mostly interested in social science informed work and new-age appeals don’t tend to attract me.

  86. Ola Norman Says:

    Allan,

    For me, Robert Moore’s talk was very interesting.

  87. Allan Says:

    I listened to Robert Moore. That was fascinating! I’ll have to listen again and explore his site a bit too: http://www.robertmoore-phd.com.

  88. Matthew Says:

    I actually read this blog from top to bottom and was very encouraged to see some observations and opinions similar to my own. One thing I can say is that it was extremely gratifying to find this blog and see that I am not alone in my thoughts against radical feminism. Quite frankly, many women are very vocal about the superiority of women and sneer at the weak and inferior male population;the same one that also oppressed them with an iron fist for so long(obviously we are extremely incompetent….). My experience is by no means comprehensive and I certainly do not hate women, unless of course they hate me just based on my sex. Isn’t it ironic? Feminists claim that their movement is one of liberation and equality; I believe that was accomplished a full thirty years ago. Now it has changed to what can frankly be called turning the tables; it seems to me that many women will not be satisfied until men have no rights at all. Not to go on here, since as my luck has it this thread looks to be nearly spent, but just one more brief observation. It seems to me that women lately have had it both ways frequently. To explain, women in the workforce are given the same benefits, pay and consideration as men. Along with that, they also receive a higher likelihood of promotion, as a certain number of spots in many upper level management of companies must have a certain number of women in them. Should a man dare annoy or offend a women in the workforce, she now also has the ultimate weapon; she can file sexual harassment against him. If he is not outright fired, he faces a blacklisting and bad work environment wherever he goes. If a man filed for harassment(even legitimately), he would be laughed at for the sheer ludicrous suggestion. Final thought here(I promise), is the dating relationship between a man and woman. What was once a lovely and heartfelt opportunity for a man is now a minefield in many cases. Should he pay for the meal, or would that imply that he considers her inferior? Should he hold the door for an “emancipated woman”? Should the man choose not to do these things, he may find out she actually is offended since he didn’t manage to find a way to treat her as a complete equal and fulfill what used to be the pleasant obligation of treating his date to a good time. Just a few thoughts I have had myself, hope somebody has some good replies eventually.

  89. Pelle Billing Says:

    Matthew,

    I’m glad this blog is useful to you and I’m honored that you read it from top to bottom.

    I agree that the pendulum has swung too far. It’s a misunderstanding that only women had an oppressive gender role in the past. The male gender role had just as many issues. So when society spends decades cheering for women, you created inequality.

    There’s work to do but finally more and more people are wisening up.

  90. Matthew Says:

    Well, quite frankly it was easy to read it top to bottom because it was so interesting! Along with many men giving their personal insights into the issue, there was also some input from a few female sources(which was unfortunate that only one female contributor had rational comments to make).

    I agree that action needs to be taken in order for changes to be made(in reference to the earlier comments), but at the same time those that claim blogs like this are useless are not thinking clearly. The first step to change coming about is for men to become aware of the problem in the first place, which blogs such as this are an excellent source of information for.

    Keep up the good work Pelle, and if anything I would encourage you to branch out further to reach the male population still living in ignorance.

  91. Ola Norman Says:

    Suppose that the “gender-picture” that has been painted by feminists, the media, some politicians etc. is not a complete picture. Several big pieces are missing. And suppose that when these missing pieces are added to the picture, the picture does not show what you always have believed is showed. And suddenly, you see that several of the conclusions you (and many others) have previously drawn, and the actions you have taken, are no longer correct. And maybe even worse,- you have wrongly accused someone of things that you now see was founded on belief, not on real knowledge.

    Without mens view on gender and gender roles, several important pieces in the picture are missing. And when the picture is not complete, how can we then know if we draw the correct conclusion, or take the right actions? The answer is obvious: we can’t. Both we and the society have an important job to do.

  92. Matthew Says:

    The path to wisdom comes from realizing one’s mistakes and changing your actions according to the new knowledge. Something that must be kept in mind though is that many will not change their gender views even if the entire “picture” comes into view because of personal experience.

    Put plainly, many men and women are extremely unpleasant people who burn those that they are in a relationship in. Whether it be cheating, fighting, abuse, or anything along those lines, those who are on the receiving end of such an encounter often grow bitter of the entire opposite sex as a whole(and spread their bitterness). Now, since women have “girl talk” very frequently,(which reinforces their own beliefs about men since they only talk about the worst aspects of us guys) and the media in nearly every aspect supports the idea that men are all of the above and more, is it surprising that men are in their current position?

    What can be done about this? I challenge some guys to stop being a walking feminist stereotype. Such behavior only serves to vindicate those forces opposed to men and our rights. I realize that this is MUCH easier said than done, but even small steps in this area could help make the difference. If more men could look a woman in the eye and honestly negate their participation in the above mentioned activities, they would receive more respect on their personal front.

    Practically on a large scale, men need to become more vocal about their objections to feminist supportive policy. By sitting on our hands and hoping the issue will resolve itself, we allow feminist groups to gain more power and influence, which will lead to more entrenched resistance in the long run. While I believe that the common man is somewhat limited these days in what he can do on the grand scale, getting those in power that can help is a smart and easy move. Before voting, it would be prudent to sniff out feminist nazis or their sympathizers and not give them your vote.

    I certainly agree though that we and society have much important work to do. Now society itself must become aware of that reality.

  93. Ola Norman Says:

    This is somewhat off topic, but I didn’t find a better place to put it….
    Men are sometimes critized for organizing things in hierarchies, where there are some at the top and some at the bottom. But maybe there is a good reason for that… We know that men tend to be more extreme than women,- with more men at upper end and more at the lower end of the Bell-curve. While women tend to be more in the middle. So one thought that struck me, is that in a male-dominated organization, a hierarchical organization may work better than a flat organization. Simply because there are more to gain by letting the best men decide. In a female-dominated organization, a hierarchical organization may not give the same benefits. So maybe there is a good reason that men have created hierarchies,- it simply produced the best results. There are clearly differences between the genders. Taking that into account may help us gain better understanding, and more efficient ways of working.

  94. It’s a Man’s World? | Mitchell Willie Says:

    [...] Masculism vs. Feminism, by Pelle Billing This entry was posted in Blog, Uncategorized and tagged Uncategorized by Mitchell Willie. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

  95. 电动调压器供应商 Says:

    电动调压器价格…

    [...]Masculism vs Feminism[...]…

  96. Masculism « A Day in the Life Says:

    [...] but seemed to misunderstand the goals of feminism. The second result on Google was a website called Gender Liberation Beyond Feminism had me intrigued, but then I started reading the article… I’ll let you follow the think [...]

  97. fabrizzo Says:

    http://flowerpod.com.sg/forums/Sleep-Boss-Needed-Promotion-t34507.html&mode=show
    one of the proofs that women themselves are the ones who create inequality in workplace.the feminists seem to downplay this n instead focus on their foggy claims of an ‘old boys club’,which i bet u doesnt exist at all;just a fabrication by them to mislead n keep their edge.

  98. Bob Saxton Says:

    I support geder equality as the obvious result of matural justice.
    It is reasonable to break the glass ceiling to allow fair represention on the boards of companies and if necessary legislate quotas.
    I also want to break the glass personhole cover, this is the equal opportunity of the sexist manhole cover. Gender equality requires that women should be given their fair share of employment including clearing the sewers of the fat from fast food kitchens and the other accumulationg debris.
    Also,
    I notice that there seems to be discrimination against women in the garbage disposal industryand council employees clearing vermin infested property after incompetant occupants. I want quotas in these employment areas so that women have to play their fair part in these activities which are vital to public health for men women and children.
    Until we achieve this Utopia I would like women to be a little bit more greatful to men, for building the houses they live in, energy they enjoy and all the other facilities because of the hard physical work in harsh and dangerous conditions.
    Bob the electrician


Google