Friday, July 2, 2010


Unlike many of us MRAs, I happen to see the many facets and divisions of the movement as a positive thing. Maybe even essential. These different aspects of a social change on the horizon all, in their own right, have contributions to make to our overall understanding of people, relationships, and social structure.

And, like many MRAs, I firmly believe that understanding, knowledge, and realism are absolutely essential to the survival of our society, if not species.

What we are facing is a collective rejection of objective reality, and it's replacement in all things material with subjectivity and moral relativism. Even our most dire opponents - feminists - claim these things as defense, and women in general employ the methods as well, in the form of the NAWALT argument. If nothing has an objective center, it becomes impossible to 'break'. This attempt to squirm past logic has a long history on MRA BBS's the world over.

This same mentality is behind the 'it's the System that's broken' and 'I was only carrying out orders' mentalities.

They allow one to avoid personal responsibility for actions carried out by, or supported by, themselves, while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of said actions. Or so they hope...

Now, how does this relate to the Mens Movement, it's facets, and the general 'possibleness' of real change?

To start with, the Mens Movement is, by nature and from it's inception, a 'grassroots' movement. It is quite literally composed of people whose shared common experience was so jarring, so oppressive, so unfair, so demoralizing, or so clearly dangerous for the future, that they sought each other out.

On their own.

With NO central authority, or agency, or group to turn to for guidance.

Given the evolution of the movement, one must be struck to at least some degree by the consistency of the message, no? The movement would not be possible in an era without the ability to freely communicate on an individual basis with total strangers on the other side of the Planet. Period. It would just be a bunch of complaining men otherwise.

The fact that we can, and have, formed relationships and had arguments and refined ideas with people that could be next door, or across a Continent, has led inexorably to clumpings of people with the same interests. This is no more true for Mens Issues than, say, Birdwatching. But it is, nonetheless, true.

The strength of the Mens Movement is based nearly entirely on each individual's passion in response to the injustices faced. Every MRA that writes, gets an audience, perhaps of hundreds, perhaps thousands. That audience is sympathetic to the the face of massive social conditioning towards the opposite.

Given the reaction of men I know who have read my magazine (including, by the way, the Gay ones), which is typically "It's about fucking time someone said that!", I would say the general sentiment out there in the real world is quite in line with ours, they just don't know it yet.

If any blame must be assigned to many MRAs for being 'ineffective', it's in the 'they just don't know it yet' bit. We as a group MUST vastly improve our 'marketing' skills....

So that may explain the strength, as well as ponderous progress, of the Mens Movement...but still, what's with the 'facets' thing already?

Well, I'm going to be a bit of a Heretic here and say that I don't think the MRM is always right. Furthermore, I think that given the chance, coming directly off this unjust world, MRA's would gleefully mirror Gender Feminists worst excesses. I truly think that the MRM and Feminism balance each other out (ideologically), and the 'need' to be radical is only dictated by the extremes of the other 'wing'.

The same principle applies to the MRM itself. Game, while interesting and useful, is also chock-full of pussy beggars. People whose entire existence revolves around being able to get, 'play', and dump, women better than women can men. A one dimensional existence, which I have seen with my own eyes on many occasions.

MGTOWs don't get off easy either. There is no way you could POSSIBLY convince me that this is a healthy, or desireable choice. If it was, it wouldn't have to be forced upon the majority of Muslim males. A certain amount of independence from women is a good thing, however.

And on and on it goes, from Fathers Rights activists, Reproductive Choice activists, Intactivists, etc...each individual little corner of the 'manosphere' contributes. It's the nature of the beast, given the fact that clumping around common interests, rather than political ideology or some other social classification (and here, by the way, I include 'race'), was the impetus behind it's growth.

In that manner, the MRM is about as 'egalitarian' a movement as you're ever going to get. Without somehow telling people, for instance, they will have NO way of knowing your race, your sex, your weight, your attractiveness physically, your height, etc. This, right here, is a forum where your IDEAS truly do get considered on their own merits, without regard to -isms.

Some have asked what the Mens Movement is. From within, this is an easy enough question to answer, which we've done several thousand times each, of that I'm sure. But spin it around for a second...

The Mens Movement:

Has no 'Political Centre', no source of funding to attack, and no Political allies.
Has clearly defined goals based on easily understood concepts of Justice.
Utilizes concepts and memes planted in the social consciousness by Feminists against them.
Is composed almost entirely of 'regular guys' with not a lot to lose.
In many cases, merely explains the processes currently destroying society.
Offers clear, simple, and usually far less costly solutions.

Kind of looks like a Guerilla War in a hostile nation, doesn't it?

When people ask what we're about, or argue over the relative merits of PUA vs MGTOW, calm and reasoned vs 'kill em all', legal vs social avenues for redress, etc.... what I think they don't understand is that WE don't know.

I tend to picture all these aspects of the Mens Movement as swirling 'galaxies', relative in size to each other, interacting regularly as their gravity pulls on each other. I don't for a minute think any one of those 'galaxies' have The Answer.

I think the answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle - we just have to let things balance a while to find the center. Within the Movement, as well as in society.

How typically Canadian of me, eh?


  1. I agree with the "in the middle lies the truth" thinking as this is what I like to point out as well. I've been both a PUA and a MGTOW.

    A man, is in my mind, in between the two. They're both idiotic extremes. I've been in both...

    And they're both based on deluding yourself despite evidence, and wanting to believe that something unhealthy is "enlightened".

  2. About radical MRAs balancing out the extremity of feminism, that resonates too. Didn't warren farell say the same?

    In an interview he said something like... Even though it would be great to jump directly to an evolved men movement... There is going to be a need for a men's movement first. One that's shouting and trying to get a point across.

    I'm paraphrasing (a lot) but he basically he agreed with your point. There is a need for a strong, almost dramatic MRA movement first, before we reach a the final, mature movement. Simply because men's voices aren't heard. And there has to be a phase of men being loud and almost as bad as the feminists. (unfortunately)

  3. I think taking almost anything to extremes is unhealthy, but in some cases it's still healthier than keeping your mouth shut.

    Mind you, as long as Society continues to ignore and belittle men, men can't help but get more and more angry...

  4. I hate "let's meet in the middle" moderate positions because not only are they wuss outs of confronting the issues, they also undermine the notion that there _are_ issues to deal with.

    So put in that context, let's see where we are now: Feminism, and even women's "equality", has not created a utopian society allowing freedom from gender roles. Just the opposite: It's taken on the worst excesses of male chauvanism and not just as a "get even" tactic. "Get even" would mean the women going down with modern day Titanics while us men sat in the comfy lifeboats. It would mean women going to war while us men stayed behind. That's not happening, is it?

    Let's try this. We can all agree that we need a "seneca falls" direction agenda. Even though feminists came from different backgrounds 150 years ago: Some hated men, some were lesbians, some just wanted to make men stop drinking at pubs, etc. they could all agree on a general direction. They also didn't leave anything OFF of the table.

    Our senaca falls means going back to THEIR senaca falls and asking: How much of their agenda we should scrap or keep AND provide a very good reason for it.

    One reason the men's movement has been slow to grow is that feminism and women's rights, like socialism, promised lots of good stuff. Freedom from gender roles for men. "Free love". It seems silly now but back then, men were walking around with purses. Today, we see that feminism is merely a goodie grab. We can try to spend the next thousand years or so asking women: "Could you be fair and have all women live up to the same responsibilities as a group that men do as a group and not weasle out?" but that's kind of like trying to get your money back from the movies after paying for a rotten film.

    One of the main problems MRA's have to deal with, aside from our own love for feminist/equality principles and how pretty they look, is the love of chivalry as well. Feminism is just a form of hyperchivalry (women are to be protected even from their own protection.) Getting past that requires women to be SOOOO bad and dirty that it's impossible for men to idealize them anymore as innocent, noble maidens to be protected and given equality without condition.

    OK, after we've established that women don't deserve unconditional chivalry OR equality without Responsibilities (with a capital R), how to move forward? Easy, cut them off bit by bit. Just as women figured out how to manipulate soft men with sex, we can use the thing we have (no, not THAT!) but our MONEY and ABILITIES! Don't marry feminists! Don't allow a woman to enjoy breadwinner protection while at the same time bashing their mates in the voting booth! Tell feminists you'll respect their ideology when their sisters they want rights for ALL live up to them just as ALL men have to live up to OUR responsibilities.

    What's interesting is that a lot of women are cool with that since they are rather sick of the "world owes me a living" attitude they have to deal with too. They have women friends who forget to pick up the tab and say: "Tee hee! I'm SPECIAL! Deal with it! You're so insentitive to not care about pleasing ME!"

  5. Which brings me to a question I want to ask you...

    You're familiar with MRm! magazine? Well, I'm changing it to make it less MRM specific, with more of a mainstream appeal. The subject matter doesn't change much, just the style of writing...

    It would be cool if you would contribute a couple articles...

    You wouldn't happen to have a blog or anything would you?

  6. Hello Factory,

    I'm OLD school. USENET. Since 1991. Back in the days when they didn't have "internet". I don't just mean "web", I mean ARPANET.

    Sadly, USENET is dying off although a LOT of great ideas were refined there including C4M (choice for men).

    I have commented at (before he shut it off altogether) and mensnewsdaily although the owner thought I was a bit too radical for him. I need to start my own blog. In the meantime, thanks for the invite!

  7. Excellent. If you have any archived articles or posts you really like, you should forward them on.