Men’s Rights Activists: You Will Never Win The Battle You’re Fighting

by Frost on October 24, 2011

This is a guest post I originally wrote for In Mala Fide. Please read and comment on it here.

Readers of Freedom Twenty-Five are probably familiar with the Men’s Rights Activism Community.

If you’re not, allow me to take you on a short tour. The definitive MRA publication is The Spearhead, an online magazine that features articles by  a variety of regular columnists and guest writers.

So what kinds of issues do Men’s Rights Activistss address? Well, here’s a short list:

Divorce theft

False Rape accusations

– Legally mandated employment discrimination

– A culture that never misses an opportunity to belittle and denigrate masculinity in its schools, films, TV shows, public service announcements, and print media.

If this is your first introduction the world of Men’s Rights, spend an hour or two clicking around the links above. It’s a perspective you’ve probably never considered before.

I agree with the majority the Men’s Rights Movement’s goals and values. But I think their current approach will be fruitless. MRAs are spinning their wheels, and will continue to do so until they completely reconsiders their strategy for achieving power.

The problem with the current movement is that it is attempting to play by the rules of its adversaries. MRAs seem to have said, “Gee, look how successful the Feminist movement was! If we do the same thing, but with Men’s Rights, we should get the same result!”

This approach has given us a Men’s Rights movement thoroughly steeped in the vocabulary and tactics of radical left-wing activism. As it’s currently constituted, it is doomed to have close to zero impact on the world outside of itself. The tactical and strategic environment that MRAs must fight in is completely different from the world in which the feminist movement lives.

Why The Feminist Movement Succeeded

The mythos of the Feminist victory is that a group of plucky women wrested power from a world run by a shadowy cabal of cigar-smoking men, who were united in their conspiracy to retain power for men as a whole. The reality is that the feminist movement was only tangentially about feminism. It was just one front in a gradual, all-out, centuries-long war on western civilization. The hairy-legged harpies burning their bras in the campus square were useful idiots.

On the surface, it appears that Feminists won a myriad of rights and privileges for their gender. They seem to have whined their way into the corridors of power. But the actual muscle behind their Gramscian march to power was provided by the organized Progressive – or, Communist – movement in the USA, for whom empowered women were a political asset.

Do I sound crazy? If you’ve spent your life believing most of what your professors and newspapers taught you, I admit I probably sound crazy. But if you do a bit of research, you’ll find the links between the feminist and communist movement are numerous and significant. See here, for example.

It’s beyond the scope of this post to attempt a full exegesis of the Progressive movement of the 20th century. For now, suffice it to say that its singular goal is to burn the world, and warm itself by its flames. The Progressive movement seeks to empower women, because it knows that doing so will tear families apart, skew the voting population towards the impulsive, unjust and disorderly, and otherwise hasten the decline of western civilization from the great and good empire it once was, into smoking ash.

The original feminist movement was ostensibly about slogans that most decent people could rally around – respect for women as human beings, the desirability of inviting women to participate in businesses and public life, once technology freed them from the labours of homemaking – but the actual energy fueling its successes was the mysterious tendency of destructive political forces to arise within mature empires, and pick them apart from the inside. Whatever one calls this force – leftism, communism, radicalism, socialism – it uses whichever nice-sounding excuses it can (gender equality, anti-racism, global warming, alleviating poverty) to bite off chunks of order and decency from the fabric of a healthy society.

The feminist movement cannot be properly understood, outside of its context as a tool for something much larger than itself.

Why The Men’s Right’s Movement Will Fail

Mens Rights Activists, in stark contrast, are not part of anything. They are an isolated and insular community with no ties to power. The movement is powered by a small number of men, none of whom are greatly compensated for their efforts, financially or otherwise. There is simply no money or status to be made in the Men’s Rights Movement. As Freda Utley wrote:

“Do to expect the material rewards of unrighteousness, while engaged in the pursuit of truth.”

MRAs have fallen into the trap of thinking that they and their opponents are playing the same game. They think that because the single-issue advocacy model has worked for the feminists, it will work for them as well. But single-issue advocacy is ineffective, without the energy of organized leftism behind it. Progressive movements, like feminism, feed on destruction. Reactionary movements, like Men’s Rights, must use a different playbook.

For all the nothing that MRAs have accomplished in the past half-decade or so, the movement has certainly grown by leaps and bounds. The big guns like The Spearhead has been expanding and attracting wider audiences, and every day, another man loses faith in everything society taught him about women, dating and marriage, and starts reading blogs like mine. Or starts writing one.

This is not an isolated phenomenon. All over the internet, alternative opinions are flourishing on multiple topics. The Men’s Rights movement is just one example of a vast phenomenon of decent, intelligent, generally anonymous writers standing up and doing their modest best to restore sanity to our civilization.

In isolation, each of these communities is powerless. Taken as a whole, they are a viable alternative to the present order. Men’s Rights Activists, listen closely: You will never achieve your goals, unless there is a major and discontinuous shift away from our current national religion of Progressivism. If you want change, you must work for change on a grand scale. You need to understand the roll that you play – you are one front among many, working to end this long, dismal experiment in Liberal Democracy.

Next Steps

The one and only advantage that the Men’s Rights Movement has in its war against modern feminism is truth. MRAs are correct about the factual questions – the causes of wage disparities, the percentage of rape charges that are false, the prevalence of corruption in the family law system – and they are even more correct about the moral questions. Separating children from their fathers is evil. Putting a young man in jail because a drunk girl regretted sleeping with him is evil. Deceiving women about the reality of their biological clocks and convincing them to deprive themselves of motherhood is evil.

So too, with other planks in the Reactionary movement. We have no political power. We have no funding. No chanting hordes of dim-witted college students. All we have is truth. In the 20th century, with every form of information distribution firmly under the control of Progressives, truth was not enough. In the digital age, perhaps it is.

I don’t know exactly how Reactionaries will eventually restore sanity, order and beauty to the western world. But for now, the best thing we can do is leverage our one advantage. We need to understand what’s wrong with the world, what happened to it, and how we can fix it. MRAs, the first thing that you need to learn is that you are not mere single-issue activists. You are Reactionaries. You are part of a small, but growing force that is opposing an ideology which has been slowly conquering the western world for centuries.

Welcome aboard.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

James February 13, 2012 at 8:39 am

(… continuation)

Some MRA blogs are angry and bitter; the ones that are not are often focussed on PUA techniques, which are merely the next logical step in our current sexual dystopia. What I really like about Freedom 25 is that it points out that women as well as men are the losers in this dystopia; and that it is possible for us all to choose something better.

There is no need to imitate the feminist political model; campaigning is pretty pointless anyway until there are some concrete ideas on what this “something better” is.

You are not a reactionary, because the solution to our problems is not likely to be a return to the past. Our unique affliction is that we have too much freedom [2]; however the solution is not to take away that freedom, but to provide men and women with a reliable roadmap that will show the destination to which particular choices lead. Those who first travelled certain paths made terrible mistakes because they did not have the benefit of this knowledge.

IMHO the most important lesson is acceptance of personal responsibility. Freedom with responsibility and a reliable roadmap. This is a world away from “here’s your freedom, do whatever you want with it, but don’t ask us how it will turn out for you because we don’t know”, or the older “these are the rules you must live by, and if you do otherwise we’ll burn you at the stake”.

(Sorry everyone, I’m not sure if the complete comment fails because of its length or the presence of links – continued again …)

James February 13, 2012 at 8:35 am

Partly true.

Technology not only provided labour-saving devices in the home, it also helped with physical labour in the workplace, and provided much more work in the service sector. The result was that most paid work could be done equally well by men and women, but this fact was not reflected in the workforce. How could government and capitalism persuade women to spend more hours, more years in paid work?

Amazingly, it did so by persuading women that this would liberate them.

If feminists were useful idiots of a broader movement of cultural Marxism, then in turn the cultural Marxists were the useful idiots of government and capitalism. Taxes paid by women financed luxuries such as the Vietnam war.

I agree that the MRA *appears* not to be achieving anything. However, it is raising awareness. Until now, most people have had no reason to disbelieve the misandrist lies that pervade our culture – but these are now being laid bare, both by anecdotes and by careful analysis of official statistics [1].

It is an enormous change that knowledge can be disseminated without the say-so of a commissioning editor at Fox or the NYT. The consequences will be as large in the West as they have been in the Arab world – but more gradual. Slowly a shift in attitudes will take place, first among men, and then among women.

(continued …)

James February 13, 2012 at 8:33 am


Jennifer January 22, 2012 at 6:24 pm

I don’t like many of your positions, but this is dead-on. No you don’t sound crazy; feminism always was about leftism, promoting liberalism and ONLY the liberal woman’s idea of womanhood. I’d say a mjority of people are sick of it now.

Robert December 13, 2011 at 2:46 am

I have not a single doubt in my mind that things will have to change we are on he verge of financial ruin we have armed republican militas training .We have familes losing their homes we have one in every 4 men between the ages of 25-35 living with mom and dad and having no sex life .We have childredn poping babies out and getting hud housing while we have vets that fought and served for our country with checks 5 timeso over ther monthly renting fee .THe extre disrespect towards men has started riots throghout the world .I hope it does not lead to that but I know with out a shred of doubt that if this system does not change quick muderes rape and even the murdering of women will be extremly normal .

Karl Marx even stated that he did not believe in women ruling over man or women having total independence from man because it would led to the universal prositution of women .Why I hear feminist talk about how Marxism relates to their idealogy I laugh insdie at the ignorance .Many want to translate marxist thought to be absolute liberation for women liberation is good but man should never be lowered to think he is worth less than a women we devalue our men world wide we have planted these seeds now we are going to have to eat them .

I encourage mens rights activist to check out this vid
I am writitng a book called “Welcome To Your Community”.It should be on scribd in 3 weeks

I currently have 85,000 signatures for Housing Rrights For Exfelons and hope that one day uncle sam will release the statistics on how many men can actually rent a hud or section 8 apartment in my 34 years I alive I have never now one man I grew up with that can rent one and we wonder why our prisons are full of men and why the streets are full of men its time for the extrem disrespt to stop support Anonymous and the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Geoff November 3, 2011 at 4:05 pm

The topic of Men’s Rights is one that I have been very interested in for a long time, though I have not written much about it on my blog because I want to avoid marginalizing my target audience.

The link between Communism; or more generally collectivism; and the Feminist movement is an interesting and important one. Collectivism is inherently about power, individuals controlling other individuals through the espousal of the virtue of self-sacrifice. The best description of this phenomenon I have ever read is still to this day the Ellsworth Toohey speech to Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Point being, feminism was never about equality, it was about control. Then again, it was a response to patriarchy, which was also about control. So on some level, it is undeniable that feminism was a necessary market correction.

Unlike the civil rights movement, which was about equal opportunity, the feminist movement is at least partly about control; i.e. fuck men, they’re the inferior, war mongering sex that fucks up the world. This distinction is everything because it is this distinction between being win-win and being lose-lose that makes all the difference.

I also agree with you that the current men’s movement is one that will never succeed. Like the women’s movement, it is a lose-lose movement in its current incarnation. The modern Men’s movement still fosters resentment toward women for not being attracted to betas, and harnesses this resentment in the way that it deals with women. In my opinion, this resentment is analogous to the resentment toward alphas that women feel as their sexual market value drops with age.

The next logical question is how do we get to the place where we want to be. For me, it starts with strategic alignment. We need to seek agreement on basic premises and desired outcomes. Once we have alignment on these fundamental values, the debate becomes a tactical one , not a strategic one.

Lastly, wanted to bring your attention to this post from Mark Manson (formerly the pua Entropy). Think you might find it interesting:

? October 27, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Why does the Progressive movement want to reduce civilization to smoking ash?

Jack Dublin October 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm

It seems to me that MRAs (or any current anti-establishment movement, I suppose) cannot succeed while the current society is extant. In other words the options are societal collapse or conquest, annihilation, and creation. The only real good news is that time is against the feminists.

Frost October 25, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Exactly. Reaction will be all or nothing. I can’t really conceive of any sort of gradual reversion to sanity.

Beagle October 24, 2011 at 2:01 pm

Don’t worry, Z, coherency is not one of these so-called “reactionary’s” priorities. I wish they’d just go about their hedonistic life and leave civilization to those who care.

Z October 24, 2011 at 12:23 pm

P.S.: I can’t believe you’re going away to have a sweet time in the tourist cloaca of Thailand instead of waging war against the pyromaniacs who are about to torch your civilisation.
Perhaps the communists really have succeeded in their plans.

Z October 24, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Yes, that is very much correct, the communists did indeed use the feminism to gain more power whenever they could. However, you have to know that after they’ve won, they ditched feminism and trampled women all over. There were (are, actually, look at China and North Korea) about ZERO women in the ruling bodies of the Communist Parties, women ended up being promoted as the birth machine for the communist society.

Of course, what you’re saying is also quite likely, communists disguising themselves as feminists to bring down birth rates, social norms and collapse the prosperous capitalist West.

But I think the first case is much more common. Hysterical women (a.k.a.) feminists aligning themselves with the first thing that will give them more attention than their daddies, whether it’s smoking ads or the communists. Same thing.

Don’t advocate the rights of men, get women back on the right side instead!

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: