Masculism vs Feminism
September 28th, 2009 by Pelle BillingFeminism 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:
- A desire to work with women’s issues
- 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:
- A desire to work with men’s issues
- 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.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
@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.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
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.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
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.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
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.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
@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.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“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.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
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
September 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
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.”
September 29th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
@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.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
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.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
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!
September 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
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.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:17 am
@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.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:02 am
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.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:13 am
@Pelle
The best that I can do is refer you to my page, …
http://www.angryharry.com/esEffectiveActivism.htm
September 30th, 2009 at 2:59 am
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.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:56 am
@ 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.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:16 am
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…
September 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@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.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
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/
September 30th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
And then, of course, there is Fathers for Justice.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
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.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
@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.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@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/
September 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“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.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@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.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
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.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
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.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
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
October 21st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Found a great ebook exposing the damage feminism is doing to men around the world:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=f2bbb1cf41ca09767f7ec40ada4772a6e04e75f6e8ebb871