Feminism beats the men’s rights movement

Several years ago, a small group of writers began warning the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) that it was trapped in paradox. In its effort to find a way to beat feminism, it had become feminism, and as a result, its efforts would collide with one another.

At that time, the MRM was divided into several groups: the leftist Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) who essentially wanted equality for men, the rightist MRAs who wanted complementary gender roles for men and women, the Game/Pickup Artist (PUA) community, the Men-Going-Their-Own-Way (MGTOW) community, and various splinter groups, some demanding truly radical solutions.

The observation that the MRM had no direction because its members could not agree on some direction in common was greeted with denials. How could this be so, they said, since the goal was in the title of the movement, Men’s Rights? But this ended up being self-serving for those who were essentially repeating feminist dogma: make us all gender-equal, and everything will be just fine.

An underlying problem here is that people repeat what they are told. They often do not realize this, because they have come to believe what they were being told was universally accepted, and thus was an assumption upon which we proceeded and not a conclusion in itself. This is how you brainwash a society. Convince them that “everybody knows” that something is true, and none will dare deny it.

This is designed to obscure what people have known for time immemorial, which is that the interaction between the genders is more complex than a simplistic concept like “equality”:

Masculinity and femininity are complementary opposites. That which is not masculine is feminine, and vice versa, such that a completed whole emerges only through the two parts.

When you think about it this way, the masculine and feminine roles are different approaches that balance each other and by doing so, enhance each other’s understanding of the other. Additional complementary opposites: hot/cold, dark/light, smart/dumb, fast/slow, wet/dry.

Complementary opposites are a product of a relative universe. To know what is hot, you must know what is cold, because without the other to define it in contrast, neither term means anything. If you lived in a climate where the temperature was 80 F year-round, you probably would not think of hot and cold as terms to describe a day.

This was what the best authors in the MRM offered up years ago. Most people, brainwashed into the social-symbolic consensual reality of modern media and status-climbing oversocialization, couldn’t accept this. It was simply too far from what their TV, politicians, friends, advertising, books, magazines, movies, pop stars, academics and comedians are all parroting, which are uncountable variations on the party line.

Naturally, ignoring a problem only makes it stronger. It owns you because you ignore it, and because instead of acting on what you need to act on, you’re chasing illusions or hiding from the ignored problem. It is not surprising that as a result, the “man-o-sphere” (which is not actually a ben-wa ball but sounds like it) has imploded.

And then there are the PUAs and Gamers, about whom this will be the last time I write, or that will ever again appear in an article on this site. They are comprised mostly of men who bear the deepest afflictions of a fatherless culture. Abandoned to feminist governance by their male elders and bereft of masculine guidance, they have been dropped into the solipsistic void that was the only existence feminism ever could have offered them outside direct servitude. Stripped of values and consciousness and the ability to be circumspect, they have turned feral; so unable to form community or embrace brotherhood that they have shrugged off the desire for either.

They never had a chance. They are the walking wounded; the children left behind from a sexual war in which their fathers refused to fight. I have been personally wrong to have engaged in conflict with them when I could have, should have, been working harder to provide them an alternative.

The very expression, man-o-sphere, implicitly paints an image of connectivity; of shared purpose and identity. Aside from distaste for feminism, which anyone capable of critical thought will share, there is no real or abiding connection; no universality or even commonality, and that lacking manifests in how we tear ourselves, and each other, down, and always have.

The point he makes is a good one: men are being destroyed in this country.

They are being destroyed by legislation, by the unstable social climate, by the ruin of the family and by a culture that is increasingly hostile not only to the needs of men and boys, but to what they offer.

It would prefer women that it can mould into obedient citizens, and make them feel proud of themselves for having cash incomes. (It’s not prostitution if you do it behind a desk, and only occasionally use your genitals in that pursuit.)

While the man-o-sphere was playing around trying to invent feminism for men, the real story that went untold — a story that the MRM should have had front and center, for its vast importance — was the ongoing and increasing marginalization of men:

The new service-based economy rewards communication and adaptation, qualities that women are more likely to have. Only about 3% of men have taken over raising children full-time while their wives support their families. Instead, many men, especially young ones, have retreated into a world of video games, drinking and prolonged adolescence—a phenomenon identified in “Guyland”, a 2008 book by an American sociologist, Michael Kimmel.

But what happens to men has great consequences for women, and vice versa. Many poorer women who are not well educated are forgoing marriage, believing that a man is simply a drag and an additional mouth to feed, Ms Rosin argues. Educated, wealthier women, on the other hand, are experiencing more fulfilling relationships in which they share responsibilities with partners as each takes up slack at different times. She calls these “seesaw marriages”. One result of women’s rise is that men have more retirement income, better health and happier marriages.

What any functional men’s movement — and let’s not kid ourselves, “men’s rights” is dead because it’s too confused to find its own hindquarters at twilight — needs to do is first find a definition of masculinity. It then needs to defend that definition and nurture it.

If you demand “rights” and “equality,” you’re imitating the feminists, who wanted a “Robin Hood” style program of taking from the stronger sex (men) and giving to the weaker sex (women). Feminism for men ends up being feminism. You agree with them that you want equality and then, because men are perceived as stronger, that becomes more subsidies for women.

The root of the man-o-sphere’s problem in finding a direction was the paradox of its outlook. To have a movement for men, you need to go against the biggest social trend in history. This trend has dominated the past 200 years. It is the notion that every person is equal, which means entitled to exactly the same things and interchangeable roles. This means women must act like men and vice-versa.

Bucking this trend scared the MRAs so much they backed down fast and got neurotic quickly. They wanted to act for men, but not in a way that might offend someone. Since the status quo came about by trying not to offend anyone, it was clear that the MRM was a circular firing squad which would return its members to the same condition it complained about.

Because the man-o-sphere could not stop infighting and agree on a definition of men’s needs, it quickly became irrelevant. Chattering nobodies like nothing better than the neurotic situation caused by a void of leadership. The ranks of the MRAs quickly filled with do-nothings, boys, angry divorcees looking to vent and nothing more, and so on. It all fell apart.

This is good, because now we can build a movement based on sound principles: Men and women are different. They have different needs. Society will subsidize women at the expense of men, like they attack any stronger group, in the name of “equality.” We need complementary roles so that men have a special and unique place in this society, and so that it can appreciate them again.

Tags: , , , ,

20 Responses to “Feminism beats the men’s rights movement”

  1. Clarence says:

    The existence of a single person with an ovary and a testes – and there are such people -( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)
    -pretty much undoes your entire argument. It’s true enough that most people can both be comfortably assigned to one of the two “primary” sexes, but even then there are no singular traits of personality that separate a biological man from a biological woman. There are “group level” personality differences, but there are plenty of individuals of both primary sexes that possess mental and sexual desires and abilities “more typical” of the other sex. Thus there is no “masculinity” and no “femininity” outside of individual preferences and the society that shapes and rewards or punishes them.

    I think MGTOW have it right. If you must be political – and I would encourage activism – the reason to fight for men’s rights isn’t because they are men – it’s because they are human.

  2. Jeremiah says:

    What an amazing piece. This is probably the best summary of what’s wrong with the “men’s rights” movement I’ve seen, even better than Jack Donovan’s assessment that the MRM is a feminist movement.

    The true path forward for men who want to solve the problems of the modern world is conservatism, rejection of the life of equality, and embracing traditional sex roles that make sense. I find it highly likely that in order to do so, however, society will first have to go through a steep decline or collapse so that we can rebuild anew.

    Alt right / new right blogs like Amerika.org and GROIN are where real solutions are being discussed today. Sites like The Spearhead and A Voice for Men have sadly become nothing but places where do-nothing complainers can gather together and sing Kumbaya while bashing those of us who actually want to accomplish something and are capable of seeing the bigger picture.

  3. [...] accusations like the one above to whining about how the MRM is really “feminist”, to whining how the MRM doesn’t have a definition of masculinity.  The MRM needs to focused on substantive action that rolls back feminist policies that hurt men [...]

  4. Drew Baas says:

    Ah, and then along came a Masculinist, and changed the game forever..

  5. [...] Contact The American Conservative Explores “Thug Life” Long Live The Manosphere By Jack Donovan On September 9, 2012 · 1 Comment GROIN recently covered the final break of “the manosphere” in his post “Feminism beats the men’s rights movement”. [...]

  6. Franklin says:

    You seem to have forgotten your previous post. The problem isn’t equality or feminism, these are just symptoms. The problem is selfishness, Liberalism being the religion of selfishness. And since no part of the MRM recognizes this, the whole MRM is irrelevant.

    By the way, I have continued looking for cultural alternatives and I have decided that Christianity is a lost cause. The only cultures that I see as having any hope are Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and Japan.

  7. Stacy says:

    Clarence you are incorrect. The exception to the rule, the EXISTENCE of an EXCEPTION, proves that there IS a rule. Rules are about what is most, it counts the general, not all and every single being. “Intersexed” people are less than 1% of the population and their condition is a mistake, a mutation. Sex is not a social construct. There are men and women and both are human. Humanity is being true to one’s nature, not the fabrication of an orientation because of one’s autonomous will. Also if there is no such thing as men and women, how can there be homosexual activity or heterosexual activity? Who are you to decide what and what is not human?

  8. [...] accusations like the one above to whining about how the MRM is really “feminist”, to whining how the MRM doesn’t have a definition of masculinity.  The MRM needs to focused on substantive action that rolls back feminist policies that hurt men [...]

  9. jarl says:

    Clarence is a subhuman retard. Just because the masuline-feminine dichotomy exists as a spectrum does not imply that the terms are meaningless or completely subjective concepts. There are outliers in all human metrics, but nearly all human temperaments correspond to the biological sex of the individual. Men will generally be more aggressive and dominating and females will generally be more submissive and egalitarian.

    Also, if you take the definitions to be based on traits conferred by sex hormones, then it is a perfectly objective measure. There are objectively masculine and feminine brain structures.

  10. [...] rights = feminism, the real answer is to fight the equality farce with roles for men and women http://www.groin.com/feminism-beats-the-mens-rights-movement/ The Men’s Rights Movement is dead. Long Live the Manosphere! [...]

  11. Did you read any articles on AVfM ? You clearly have no idea. Of course there’s differing opinions on strategy, but at the end of the day the goal is common and everyone wishes to achieve it.

  12. fidelbogen says:

    My comment is still in moderation. Additionally, I am hearing a lot of silence.

    So, while I am here, I ought to make some corrections to the analysis given in the article.

    The so-called “men’s movement” (whatever THAT is) is not “imploding”. The truth is quite the opposite — it is EX-ploding. Growth of numbers is boosting the inherent tensions and bursting the patched-over consensus of earlier days. This is the classic pattern for new movements, new religions, new cultures, etc. Just study history.

    You guys are not something apart from the so-called “manosphere”. You are part and parcel of it, and partakers in the diversity of it. The “men’s movement” is exploding, and you guys are just one of the many fragments now being propelled outward by that explosion.

    That’s right, Groin.Com people — YOU TOO are part of this vaguely defined thing called “men’s movement”, whether you like it or not. So don’t feed us any more of your krapp-a-loo-la!

    All that aside, I find your game transparent. What you are doing, in a nutshell, is narrative building. You are projecting a phony construct which you call “the men’s movement”, and then defining yourself in opposition to that projection so as to create a fabricated history. In this way, you hope to draw numbers of people into your narrative so you can position yourself as a dominating force on the gameboard.

    But of course, your narrative is a fabrication. And what you are attempting is just a good ol’ fashioned power grab. It’s the age-old game of politics, but the problem is that you guys are helping to prop up feminism in order to construct your egos. And you are engaging in some classically feminist behavior, too.

    Which feminist behavior do I mean? Well, lying, for starters. . .

  13. bamoqi says:

    The equality that MRA demands is different from that of feminism. Feminism demands equality of roles and reward; MRA demands equality of rules, which means fairness. ie, the best person for a role get the role, and a person own the reward for his work. If such fairness can be established, men and women would fall naturally into their complementary roles.

    • bamoqi says:

      I think the reason that MRM is incoherent and weak is that, ultimately there is very little that can be done collectively. As you noted the west is mired in victimhood ideology, the slave morality. This is what the mainstream media look to and how laws are established. One simply speak of fairness, truth and heroism in such a culture. There is no politically acceptable and effective rhetorics to assert masculinity.

  14. bamoqi says:

    Typo: One simply _cannot_ speak of fairness…

  15. Anna says:

    What I take away from this article is that you demand the return of rigid gender roles where women are to be silent, in the kitchen, and completely dependent upon men and men are the economic slaves of women and pressured to be competent and strong all the time.

    I have no problem with the bulk of what you’ve said, I have no problem with the idea of complementary roles because these absolutely do exist. In a world where we weren’t forcing our girls to go out and work and preaching to them independence, most of them probably would fall into a role of a homemaker.

    All I really ask is that we have some sanity and realize that not everybody is the same. Not every man is going to be bulky and brawny, and not every girl is going to be delicate and feminine. Some men are going to prefer staying home or be on the sensitive side, just like some women are going to be rough and rugged and be on the independent side.

Leave a Reply