The Answer: A Case for Integration

Since the initial burst of growth in the online Mens Movement (circa 2000), the question of what we wish to accomplish, and how we should go about it, has dominated much of the internal political discourse.  The topic has swirled around in the background now for well over a decade with no resolution in sight.

Until now, this has been one of our strengths as a movement.  The Mens Movement is about as 'grass roots', as 'anarchistic' of a movement as I can imagine.  Literally, no 'official' leadership with adoption of ideas based simply on debate and general acceptance of the 'membership'.

The problem is, this hyper-democratic approach does not work once we have attracted the attention of those who would twist the movement to their own ends, and have the resources to become a majority of posters on whichever discussion board they wish.  It can hardly be argued that the movement isn't daily assailed by 'tone police' and trolls, as well as those genuinely trying to argue our movement is unnecessary.

As well, there has been 'adoptions' of relatively new, nebulous, vaguely positive sounding goals attributed to the Mens Movement that are wholly a product of the latest influx of neophytes.  This is born of generalized ignorance of mens issues, utter lack of understanding of human nature, and unrealistic approaches that are frankly characteristic of newby anythings.  I have no doubt at all, though, that a good portion of these newcomers are false flag MRAs pretending 'agreement' while taking for granted, for instance, that Patriarchy Theory has merit, and arguing for 'smashing male Gender Roles' (this is different from Feminism how exactly?) is 'what the MRM is about'.

I will leave to another time the subject of the actual goals of the MRM, although I will share my own beliefs on what some of them are (or were).  What I want to address here is The Way Forward.

Why The Manosphere Grows:

I was looking for a good explanation for the Church Ladies, as to why the Manosphere needs to be what it is, and not spend a fucking calorie of energy worrying how others think of us.

As always, I got about a third of the way through, got distracted, (purple cow!) and read Return of Kings for a bit.

And boy am I glad I did.  Because commenter Mark Minter said exactly what I needed to.  And since I would far rather edit than write, here is his comment in the full glory it deserves:

I try, am trying, to get away, to take a break. I mean to. I say "Stop commenting", leave it the fuck alone.

But I can't, even though I want to, because once your paradigm has changed, once you see things through Red Pill, you cannot "not" see them as you now see them.

First, understand you are worthwhile.

One of the very first things a young boy learns, is that his pain, suffering, confusion, fear...etc ad nauseum....is by far less important than damned near anyone else.  Less important than 'Mom's needs', less important than 'sister's needs', even less important than 'random woman on the street's needs'.

From the time we are old enough to understand language, young boys are taught it is 'never OK to hit a girl', while girls are applauded for truly nasty behaviour - which for them, apparently, is 'empowering'.  Young boys are repeatedly told, by nearly every 'authority figure' they come in contact with, that men (especially the white ones) are responsible for all the evil in the world, and have deliberately hurt women and girls for centuries.

And young boys are indoctrinated to accept their lowered status in society...to 'make up for past injustices'.

Every man has similar experiences as a child.  Every man is aware, to at least some extent, that he is forbidden to complain about...or even note...said double standards.  After all, Real Men(tm) don't 'whine'.

Voltaire (by all accounts a pretty smart and influential dude) put it this way:  "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Sound logic, if you ask me...

Men: Failing, flailing, or fleeing? Nope.

Dr Helen over at PJTV asks: "Why are men silent?" and suggests one possible reason...

Perhaps this is why only women seem to be speaking up. It’s safer and they typically have a feminist bent anyway. Come on–The End of Men? Seriously? That’s easy. What’s hard is speaking up about the war against men in our culture, especially if one is a man with a career.

 Dr Helen has had her eyes open wide to the MRM for years.  I've seen her participate on MRM forums, and I know she has few, if any, illusions as to what is going on.  Judging from the comments to that article, neither do the commenters there.

But it's an incomplete picture.  The complaints about Affirmative Action, the Female Imperative in the workplace, herd mentalities...all of it, is simply complaining about the symptoms, not describing the illness.  Declaring 'Feminism' responsible is analogous to declaring, upon hearing the list of symptoms, the name of a disease...it doesn't imply in the slightest an understanding of the underlying cause, it just gives the unknown a name.

Factory's "Official Stance" on Rape, False Rape Accusations, and Legal Approaches.

There is much swirling concern and hand-wringing ado on the fringes of the Mens Movement when it concerns topics touching the third rail of Rape Culture.  Nothing sets a Feminist's hair on fire faster than being dismissive of their favourite pet bugbear, but I am sorry, I just can't drum up even a modicum of concern for the feelings of victims anymore.  The simple fact is, there is a huge swath of rape accusations that are false.

This is an 'open secret'...a truth known but cannot be spoken of.

But it's a simple fact.  And the outright belligerent response of anyone who dares suggest that women just might, you know, act vindictively and play 'Let's you and him fight' using the State as Mr Wonderful positively screams "Hidden Agenda".  It's plainly obvious that a large segment of our Ruling Class doesn't want us to look at this subject too hard, and attempts to clarify this subject are routinely attacked almost exclusively on ideological grounds.

This has led me, as an individual, to sorely mistrust just about every piece of information available on this subject, from Koss to Kanin.  Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Instead, I rely on personal logic.  What is happening, how is it happening, and what could motivate someone to want that outcome?  Simple questions that can be applied to almost any 'intractable' political problem.

The law surrounding sexual assault in Canada, at least, has degraded to the point that if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault convincingly enough, the man must prove his innocence...and failing that he goes to jail.  The Law is written so ambiguously that a man can have completely consensual sex with a woman after having one drink, only to wake up in the morning to find that, in the cold light of day she feels she would never have acted 'like that' without drinking that intoxicant...

Zeta masculinity...what a concept?

I am interested in a collaboration of sorts, in the exploration of the concept of 'Zeta Masculinity', both in the hopes of further defining it, as well as utilizing the concept to give men a way forward.

I particularly want to extend this invitation to those in the Game community, as well as the Traditionalist community, simply due to the probable assumption that this is a 'MRA concept'.

I propose Zeta masculinity will by nature encompass Sexuality and SMV issues, self-worth and -improvement issues, critical thinking skills and logical reasoning skills, and all manner of related issues.  The idea is to identify major obstacles men face, and to give them the tools to figure out how to overcome those obstacles.

There are five main principles that I believe do a nice job of providing a scaffold on which to hang our theories, provided by James Huff.  They are, in James's words:

1) Personal Accountability – An internal measurement of Merit. This is defined through self-sufficiency without resorting to violence and coercion, and the willingness to face natural consequences for your decisions. It is primarily used as an honest form of self-assessment. It keeps unrealistic expectations and narcissism in check.

Who put the 'H' in the MHRM?

I just had one of the more interesting conversations I have had in my long 'career' as a Mens Activist.  I don't think I am stepping on toes revealing his identity as James Huff, who has sent me a document that I think will prove to be a catalyst for major social change worldwide, beginning with the Manosphere, and propogating outward.

But more on that later...

One of the topics that came up was the whole Tempest in a Teapot over the M(H)RM thing.  I personally thought of it as a 'Department of Redundancy Department' sort of move, but if someone wanted to add a letter to an essentially meaningless acronym, who was I to object?

As it turns out, that isn't the only viewpoint on the matter.

It did occur to me that by adopting this additional letter, it would dilute the focus on men and boys, specifically, but my belief was essentially that the issues and articles define the direction, not the label.

What I did not count on, or anticipate in any way, is how this simple 'inclusive' wording change would spur all manner of claims and counter claims as to the legitimacy of views.  Suddenly the MRM was a segment on a spectrum of a much larger 'social movement' known as Human Rights...a world in which men were the antagonist, not the sympathetic creature.  To my astonishment, the warnings of Thought Policing and Identity Politics dominating the MRM as a result became manifest in the strangest of places.  I do not know where this schism came from, or if it will pass into the fog of memory without much ado.

What I can say is that it has exposed a need.  A need for guiding principles, a method of understanding.  A critical base, from which logical structures can be formed.  I understand that part of the reason behind the inclusion of the 'H' is to communicate that the issues facing men, are issues crippling society, and therefore harming women.

And this is laudable.  But in my view completely outside the scope of the MRM in terms of actual mission.  It's great that this understanding of life as a non-feminist female is forming into a viable alternative for women to adopt, but the real problem is that we have focussed on that so much, we have failed (once again) to put men 'first' enough to do the same for them.

We don't provide a plan.  We don't provide a means to learn, other than throwing people head first into the fray.

We utterly fail at the most basic of missions an 'activist' can have...the effective education of Joe Sixpack.  And while I assume the 'H' in MRM thing was an attempt to address this shortcoming, I believe the attempt backfired.  I will leave my guesses as to why that is unsaid.

Going forward, we need to get better.  Because, as my conversation with James made clear to me, this is not just about Mens Rights anymore.  This is a new social awakening, a template we are creating for the world to consider.

That's 7 Billion potential 'customers' for our ideas.  Ideas that are beginning to take hold in the public consciousness, no matter what our detractors say.  This means we have a lot more responsibility to face up to than this movement has thus far been willing to admit.  Myself included.

Now, I'm going to get to work reading this Magnum Opus that James sent.  Give the idea some thought, and we'll talk later.

*UPDATE*

Having read the document James sent me in full, I can tell you right now that this is not only a Game changer, it is what the Mens Movement NEEDS to do.  It is what I would call 'the way forward'.  There will be more forthcoming but for now I will simply say, if this works, we will become orders of magnitude more effective, overnight.

Colour me excited.