doch_doch gave me an idea.

Note the exchange resulting from this article, on LadyMRAs, has caused me to change my mind, and withdraw my support for this reddit.  In the interests of transparency, I will leave all of the info pertaining to this exchange up here.  What the ban happy mods at LadyMRAs do, however, is anyone's guess.

Needless to say, I was thoroughly disappointed to see 'MRAs' thinking and acting in a manner indistinguishable from the average feminist concern troll.  For example, this was the very first question levelled at me:

"Do you feel like you lack respect for all women?"  
 


Recently, I offered doch_doch the opportunity to ask me any questions she would like, regarding the Mens Movement, the basic understandings, the schisms and rifts, and the general purpose of the movement.  I also offered to supply her with data, or referrals to other MRAs who would best address that particular concern (for example, Pierce Harlan on FRAs, etc).

Considering my generally hostile reception of 'feminist' curiosity, I did not react well.  And to some degree I still don't.  But the comment I responded to twigged something for me...

So, I humbly offer one MRAs opinion on the Movement.

This wall of text will address my own actions and beliefs, both to show you my perspective if you're curious, as well as explain some of the evolution of the movement.  It's not really supposed to be self-aggrandizing, although I do admit to a certain amount of pride in the fruits of my labour.

---------

Back in the day...not WAY back in the day, but a while ago, the Mens Movement commentariat was centered largely around a blog called "His Side", run by a guy named Glenn Sacks.  Glenn is a lawyer, middle class (so I believe), and had the good fortune to be able to stay home with his small child.  This perspective, I am sure, is partly why he took up the Fathers Rights banner in the first place. 

But Glenn was largely a feminist-positive man, believing feminists were 'misguided', or misinformed.  He seemed to fully believe that, once aware of the facts, feminists would move to rectify the imbalance with alacrity.  On his blog, Glenn's optimism was not shared by many of us commenters, and increasingly we expressed our impatience.  Our anger.  Our unwillingness to chalk it up to a misunderstanding anymore.

Many of us (myself being probably the prime example) unapologetically began comparing Feminism to Nazism, which Glenn took as anti semitic, belittling the Holocaust.  Speaking for myself, I am simply outlining the identical dynamic employed by both groups, and the likely eventual outcome if someone doesn't scrutinize what they're doing soon.

Glenn decided that he should ban certain topics, and limit what words were acceptable, at the behest of 'reasonable feminists', in order to show willingness to 'negotiate'.  I assume Glenn is not in Contract Law....

Anyway, this led to a schism, and the formation of The Spearhead by a certain segment of former His Side commenters.  The commentariat grew in such places as Standyourground.com, and others whose names I have forgotten, sharpening their rhetorical skills, and honing their understanding of the issues, through constant debate with feminists of one stripe or another, a practice which continues unabated.

At the time, the biggest 'Mens Issues' site was actually a place called Mens News Daily, started by Mike LaSalle, and edited by Bernard Chapin, and later still Paul Elam.  The site itself was a response to the utter lack of male positive...er...anything in the media.  It was a way of celebrating men, and male achievement.  Non politically correct thought could, and did, lose a guy his job...and newspapers certainly didn't publish even letters speaking in support of men, or critical of feminism.

At the time, MRAs as a group were largely whiners (myself included), we were complaining to anyone who would listen (no one) and anyone we could corner (feminists) about the issues facing men....to no avail.  Most of our time was spent deprogramming each other, understanding the ways in which we had been Gaslighted into submission, the way the State is used to enforce impossible standards on men, etc.

Basically, the embryonic stage of the fairly well developed ideas you see here today.  Only with a LOT more 'victim'.

Victimhood is the basis for the MGTOW movement, by the way.  There's no use denying it, and frankly there's no shame in it either.  How many women that were beaten on daily are SHAMED into getting into a relationship with another potential abuser?  How many female abuse victims are punished by the Law for being a victim?

'Cause that's exactly what happened to a lot of MGTOWs.  And the fear of that happening, or the unwillingness to set oneself up to be a victim of such obviously biased, and dire, outcomes is perfectly rational.  The real indictment is in understanding the sheer size of this segment of the Mens Movement, as well as their *reasons* for being one.

Many women believe MGTOWs can't get laid if they tried.  That they are essentially romantic rejects, the omegas on the fringes of the herd...  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Apply some logic if you will, and you will see where I'm going with this...

MGTOWs have literally decided that women are too much trouble to be worth it.  That's the succinct definition.  The nuanced one is that some of them ARE omegas, glad to find a home.  Some of them are provider Betas that have been burnt too badly.  Some of them, however, are the men who are smart and conscientious enough to know the risks they take in modern society merely interacting with women. 

Some of them, are also the highly desireable men, the wealthy men afraid of losing it to a gold digger, the charismatic men afraid of a false rape charge, the helpful men used one too many times.

And what women now see, is the stunted men too immature, selfish, idealistic, narcissistic or just plain stupid to see the writing on the wall.  Either that, or the men cynically using them for sex. 

How many 'where are all the good men' articles do you need to read, after all, before it becomes obvious.  The 'good men' are the ones disappearing.  Only the low value men are willing to stick it out...that should tell you something. 

Anyway, most of these guys looked at things like the law surrounding sexual assault (in which having consensual sex with a woman who has had as little as one drink is on par with violent rape, and prosecuted vigorously), the laws and policies surrounding Sexual Harassment (hit on the wrong girl, lose your job - and the wrong girl includes *not* hitting on the jealous woman who can also lodge a complaint), the default assumptions made about him in society (men are batterers, men are default rapists that must have it trained out of them, etc), and they rightfully reach a simple conclusion.
if he so much as speaks to a woman, he is quite literally placing his entire future, and freedom, in the hands of someone taught to hate and fear him.

now, one might scoff at this idea, especially if one hasn't experienced any of these things....such is a natural response.

Do you REALLY think all of these MGTOWs are over reacting, 'misunderstanding'?  Of course not, they have legitimate fears.  but look at how adamant so many of them are and ask yourself the question:  "How many of these men are like this, because they actually HAVE been falsely accused or fucked over royally in some way?"

The evolution of MGTOW is one of simple clumping.  Men that have *already* made the decision to swear off women look for support and validation in the MGTOW community.  'Regular' men are not convinced by MGTOW arguments....likely ever.

As a 'movement' MGTOWs are about as cohesive as you can expect, given the name.  Typically thought of as a subset of the Mens Rights Movement, I disagree.  The MGTOWs we come into contact with in the Manosphere are the crossover, not the entirety.  Men following the path are far more numerous than just those adopting the label, or blogging about mens rights.

For instance, in Japan (a country of around 85 million I think), over 65% of the young men (ages 18-35) consider themselves 'grass eaters' - a term that loosely translates into MGTOW.  Chances are the percentage is similar, if not higher, in North America.

About the only thing that unites the MGTOW movement as far as an ideology is one simple statement...

"Women aren't worth it."

And yes, that is both an indictment and a surrender.  Which has been happening in quite a few cultural institutions, largely unnoticed.  Until now.

Now, we see a lack of males in education, both as teachers and as students.  Now we see male unemployment as a problem, even if we blame the men for failing to adapt instead of trying to fix it.  Now we see economic clouds on the horizon, unsustainable budgets, failing economies, and the refusal of an alienated male populace to submit to ever more squeezing without reward.

If you can't tell, I think MGTOW will be the undoing of the West.

And at this time there is also the PUA movement to consider, a slightly radical stance taken by myself and a few others.  I personally feel PUAs, or more specifically the Game Theorists that evolved from such, are of extreme importance to the progress, even the survival of this movement.

So, a few years ago, when I got pissed off at the low production quality of MRA sites, and became suitably embarrassed at the whiny nature and sophomoric style of much of the writing, I started a 'webzine' called Mrm! hoping to elevate the dialogue, and presentation, and hoping for cross pollination.

Which was, of course, hideously laid out and of even worse design.  My only excuse was that I was learning how to use the software at the time.  In that magazine, I made the conscious decision to include certain authors...

Fidelbogen, Amfortas, Zed, Angry Harry, Tara Palmatier, Paul Elam, Hawaiian Libertarian (aka Keoni Galt), Elusive Wapiti, Obsidian, Bernard Chapin, and John the Other were all represented in the pages of Mrm! magazine, spanning the gamut from PUAs to Libertarians, from Intellectual Debaters to Sufi-like acceptance of , and survival in, the status quo.

The problem became obvious to me, because of the magazine and the feedback I got, and from where, that the scope had to be widened.  This wasn't just about Mens Rights, this was about redefining (or keeping) masculinity....which was going to happen with, or without, male participation.

So, I dropped Mrm! and started MenZ Magazine instead.  Notable authors:

Mark Richardson (Oz Conservative), Roissy, Toy Soldier, The Damned Old Man, Archivist, Typhonblue, Pierce Harlan, Robert O'Hara, B.R. Merrick, and more, as well as the authors from Mrm! 

The incorporation of Game principles into the Mens Movement is controversial, and to whatever extent I am responsible, I am proud.  I firmly believe that the understanding of female motivation, and sexual dynamics, as well as male supplicating behaviour is absolutely vital to any healthy society, let alone our success as a movement.  And as you may have noticed, the inclusion of Traditionalist authors has led to a cross pollination of ideas, and the increasing criticisms of ideological(theological?) blindspots is leading to a sort of reformation of religious sects.

The inclusion of all aspects of the Manosphere was not unique in any way, but I do believe MenZ was unique in positioning each aspect of the Manosphere as equally important.  One thing is for certain...these days that looks like a whos-who of the Manosphere...I do not take credit.

Since then I have written for AVfM, been a relentless 'party whip' on several forums (a role I tire of), created graphics and posters, and done a bunch of little things hardly worth mentioning.  In short, I have been active in this movement nearly every single day for 20 years....

I write all of this tripe by way of curriculum vitae, a sort of "who is this asshole to say he can speak?"  Im not saying I speak for any other MRA, what I am saying is that I've been a close observer of it for a while now, and might have an insight or two...

So, if you still have questions r/ladymras, then let them fly.