An article up at Breaking the Glasses gets to the heart of the matter:
This process is well underway in the MRM, in my humble opinion. A false narrative has been set, that the MRM is somehow the 'next big thing in Civil Rights', and inclusivity is of paramount importance. The reasoning is that, if the MRM simply focusses on men, no one will care enough to do anything about it. But if other, 'discriminated' groups join in on the concern, the MRM will gain acceptance by proxy.
If only this and that and the other parts of the MRM weren't there. If it wasn't so 'extreme'. If people weren't saying certain things...
The subtle conditions placed on discourse, even the goals of the MRM, are becoming more and more apparent. As are the lines being quietly drawn withing the MRM. Make no mistake, those with money and influence are simply separating out those MRAs that are populist enough to be both controllable, and followed widely. Once that happens, co-opting the movement is a fait accompli. Peer pressure among 'PC MRAs' provides the enforcement necessary.
Yes, it's the same mechanism Feminism used. It's even being introduced in an identical pattern. By the same people, or at least people representing the same interests.
This is why I believe it is time to move beyond such models of organization. I believe an atomization of the MRM is needed, rather than the usually sought after 'guy the media can talk to'. The real accomplishment of the MRM is making the larger manosphere more aware of the manipulations and injustice all men are subjected to.
This awareness has permeated Game sites, it has begun to infiltrate 'race' based civil rights organizations and think tanks, it has begun to pierce the consciousness of mainstream women, it has even begun to be represented somewhat fairly in mainstream media entertainment product. An aware man is a 'dangerous' man, and what the MRM has done is act in concert with the other blind men feeling the Elephant, to more correctly describe what it is.
The goal of the Manosphere is to Evangelize these truths...not to become 'acceptable', or in any way palatable. If the truth is ugly, then it's ugly. If it poses injustice, then it poses injustice. The Manosphere doesn't judge...many men in it spend their time formulating plans to get around, or even utilize, injustice and ugliness. The MRM itself doesn't postulate anything beyond much more than a simple description of reality.
But the problem we now face was outlined for me quite well in a private message I got from a rather learned ....MRA? Manospherean?.... Maybe now is a good time to come up with a catchy new moniker.... Anyway, the message, in part:
I could not agree more. And this is the danger, as well as the signpost. The key is not to fight on a legal or social outrage level. It makes men uncomfortable, it 'makes us look bad', it invites female hostility, and it's largely ineffective. The key is to 'fight' on a subtextual level. One aspect of this is to pay attention to what motivates women...how they tick, so to speak...and then hit them where it hurts when needed. The reason female arguments are shame based and play to the crowd is simply because shame is what hurts them the most, and they assume the same holds for men.
Similarly, 'looking bad' is not a downside for men if done correctly...or have no women swooned for badass men before? Or is said swooning ONLY for men who are badass, but treat women with respect? You can be as abrasive to societal norms as you like, provided you do it with sufficient charm (not assholery...there's a subtle, but important, difference....assholery is charming when it comes from someone you admire). This not-in-any-way-new concept is something that continually escapes the MRM, chiefly because most MRAs have rejected Game.
This rejection of Game, dismissed as 'How to Pick Up Chicks', genuinely is the result of many MRAs refusing to accept their own personal shortcomings when it comes to attractiveness. It certainly isn't due to sudden de-pedestalization, and many of the anti-Game MRAs in existence employ Game concepts when they are critical of women even while denying Game works both ways.
This is much the same dynamic that results in White Knights, and Manginas. See, while little girls get lied to that they are oppressed at every turn, and deserve everything...little boys are lied to, being told they rule the world, that everything is easy for them, and they don't deserve it. Many men don't like admitting they are really quite powerless, and especially hate admitting they were played like a harp AND they willingly encouraged said playing.
The flipside to the MRM is not Feminism. The flipside to the MRM, the MGTOW movement, and the PUA phenom, or rather the uniting concept, is what has been called 'Zeta Masculinity'. Giving men self worth and the ability to believe they deserve better. Giving men the tools to recognize when they are being manipulated, and the understanding of why and how it's usually done. Giving men permission to bond with other men, sans any women at all, again. Basically, restoring masculinity to a place at the table....we'll leave it up to individual men as to whether or not it's the head of the table.
Without fundamentally changing men, and the masculine experience...without providing models of alternatives, without educating men that they are not 'ending', they are INTEGRAL....we will get nowhere. It is this instilling of belief in themselves in men, that is the greatest challenge, and the key to lasting success.
This is one reason among many why the men's rights movement must not fall for the claims, often made by individual feminists, that the two ideologies are opposite sides of the same coin, one benevolently fighting the good fight to end discrimination against men, the other fighting the good fight to end discrimination against women. It's not true - mainstream, active, real-world-affecting feminist groups do not give a rat's ass about ending discrimination against women. They care about political issues, and they're willing to be as ruthless, heartless, and sexist as it takes to further those goals.
If MRAs start losing sight of that fact, and begin trusting this two-faced, backstabbing, pathological frenemy that keeps trying to invade and control the evolution of the men's rights effort, we'll allow into our midst the equivalent of Tolkien's Grima Wormtongue; a living poison whose only goal is to subdue and control the movement's activism for its own gain, ready and willing to turn on any ally the moment our efforts are in even the slightest conflict, or even just whenever we cease to seem useful to them.
This process is well underway in the MRM, in my humble opinion. A false narrative has been set, that the MRM is somehow the 'next big thing in Civil Rights', and inclusivity is of paramount importance. The reasoning is that, if the MRM simply focusses on men, no one will care enough to do anything about it. But if other, 'discriminated' groups join in on the concern, the MRM will gain acceptance by proxy.
If only this and that and the other parts of the MRM weren't there. If it wasn't so 'extreme'. If people weren't saying certain things...
The subtle conditions placed on discourse, even the goals of the MRM, are becoming more and more apparent. As are the lines being quietly drawn withing the MRM. Make no mistake, those with money and influence are simply separating out those MRAs that are populist enough to be both controllable, and followed widely. Once that happens, co-opting the movement is a fait accompli. Peer pressure among 'PC MRAs' provides the enforcement necessary.
Yes, it's the same mechanism Feminism used. It's even being introduced in an identical pattern. By the same people, or at least people representing the same interests.
This is why I believe it is time to move beyond such models of organization. I believe an atomization of the MRM is needed, rather than the usually sought after 'guy the media can talk to'. The real accomplishment of the MRM is making the larger manosphere more aware of the manipulations and injustice all men are subjected to.
This awareness has permeated Game sites, it has begun to infiltrate 'race' based civil rights organizations and think tanks, it has begun to pierce the consciousness of mainstream women, it has even begun to be represented somewhat fairly in mainstream media entertainment product. An aware man is a 'dangerous' man, and what the MRM has done is act in concert with the other blind men feeling the Elephant, to more correctly describe what it is.
The goal of the Manosphere is to Evangelize these truths...not to become 'acceptable', or in any way palatable. If the truth is ugly, then it's ugly. If it poses injustice, then it poses injustice. The Manosphere doesn't judge...many men in it spend their time formulating plans to get around, or even utilize, injustice and ugliness. The MRM itself doesn't postulate anything beyond much more than a simple description of reality.
But the problem we now face was outlined for me quite well in a private message I got from a rather learned ....MRA? Manospherean?.... Maybe now is a good time to come up with a catchy new moniker.... Anyway, the message, in part:
Too many people have been run over by its wheels for the MRM to have not breached the mainstream. People are noticing in part because we are shouting so loudly, but also because I would guess very few people are untouched/undamaged by some men's rights issue or other. It has simply gotten so bad, people are becoming unable to remain wilfully blind to it.
If this is really what's going on, I can see perhaps a 20% improvement in men's issues, and then public support will fizzle, most people will say, "Meh, that's good enough", the push-back will get less, and the engine of feminism will begin to advance again.
I could not agree more. And this is the danger, as well as the signpost. The key is not to fight on a legal or social outrage level. It makes men uncomfortable, it 'makes us look bad', it invites female hostility, and it's largely ineffective. The key is to 'fight' on a subtextual level. One aspect of this is to pay attention to what motivates women...how they tick, so to speak...and then hit them where it hurts when needed. The reason female arguments are shame based and play to the crowd is simply because shame is what hurts them the most, and they assume the same holds for men.
Similarly, 'looking bad' is not a downside for men if done correctly...or have no women swooned for badass men before? Or is said swooning ONLY for men who are badass, but treat women with respect? You can be as abrasive to societal norms as you like, provided you do it with sufficient charm (not assholery...there's a subtle, but important, difference....assholery is charming when it comes from someone you admire). This not-in-any-way-new concept is something that continually escapes the MRM, chiefly because most MRAs have rejected Game.
This rejection of Game, dismissed as 'How to Pick Up Chicks', genuinely is the result of many MRAs refusing to accept their own personal shortcomings when it comes to attractiveness. It certainly isn't due to sudden de-pedestalization, and many of the anti-Game MRAs in existence employ Game concepts when they are critical of women even while denying Game works both ways.
This is much the same dynamic that results in White Knights, and Manginas. See, while little girls get lied to that they are oppressed at every turn, and deserve everything...little boys are lied to, being told they rule the world, that everything is easy for them, and they don't deserve it. Many men don't like admitting they are really quite powerless, and especially hate admitting they were played like a harp AND they willingly encouraged said playing.
The flipside to the MRM is not Feminism. The flipside to the MRM, the MGTOW movement, and the PUA phenom, or rather the uniting concept, is what has been called 'Zeta Masculinity'. Giving men self worth and the ability to believe they deserve better. Giving men the tools to recognize when they are being manipulated, and the understanding of why and how it's usually done. Giving men permission to bond with other men, sans any women at all, again. Basically, restoring masculinity to a place at the table....we'll leave it up to individual men as to whether or not it's the head of the table.
Without fundamentally changing men, and the masculine experience...without providing models of alternatives, without educating men that they are not 'ending', they are INTEGRAL....we will get nowhere. It is this instilling of belief in themselves in men, that is the greatest challenge, and the key to lasting success.
No comments:
Post a Comment