And now, the PUAs...

The other day I wrote a fairly long post which addressed a part of future strategy recommendations and included a fairly strong diatribe admonishing MRAs for being so closed minded about PUAs and Game Theory.  I also pointed out the extremely useful aspects of Game Theory, and how it translates to the Political stage nicely.

In this post, I would like to address PUAs and Game Theorists.  Firstly, I would like to ask one simple question:  Are you fucking crazy?

Seriously, I can't think of a more likely group to fall afoul of the Feminist Police State than the aspiring PUA (experienced playas usually know how to navigate the shoals).  Why the Hell would you denigrate and ostracise those who are trying to let you know what dangers you are exposing yourself to?  It's the figurative equivalent to getting pissed off at the guy warning you of the deadly rocks below, because it fucked up your chance to impress the hotties with your cliff diving skills.

It is impossible to argue the MRM and Game Theory and all the rest aren't irrevocably intertwined as it is, let alone as it should be.  We use the same damn lexicon for the same concepts, we share the same opinion of our sociopolitical opponents, we face the same accusations of misogyny and are routinely lumped in together.

And the best I can tell, both groups are trying to dissociate from the other out of fear of 'looking bad'.

And that is fucking pathetic.

It's pathetic that MRAs are afraid of being tainted with the smell of unapologetic male sexuality, and it is equally pathetic that PUAs fear the association of actually giving a fuck about anything male related will lead to a pussy drought.

Sure, you might have contempt for the 'losers who can't get laid', and I fully acknowledge there are a lot of MRAs that can't.  A whole lot in fact.  If this differs from the general male population, I'll eat my own shoes, but sure I'll stipulate to that.  And you may even be narcissitic enough to let men you could help flounder so it makes your pickins easier.  But to contend that MRAs are somehow 'bitter losers' based on their (presumed) appeal to women is to utterly ignore the vast majority of neophyte PUAs are there *precisely because they can't get laid, and want to learn how*.

Chew on that one for a while.  The average PUA board is FAR more likely to be full of dweebs who can't get laid than an MRA board, simply because PUA boards are *about improving your success with women*.

So, like I said to the MRAs the other day, stop being such fucking hypocrites and grow the fuck up.  As a society, we are dealing with some pretty disabling shit, both socially and legally.  Each of these two 'movements' have much to contribute to the other, and the circular firing squad's utility is fast diminishing.

We can watch it all go to shit, or we can at least try.  Stop being afraid of looking bad for once, would you?

ok, ill weigh in...

Hey Hugo.  Can't think of a guy more deserving of what you're going through.  Eat shit, you evil, twisted motherfucker.

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.

A Confession.

I have a confession to make.  I'm a Socialist.

That might surprise the Hell out of a lot of MRAs to hear, and it'll definitely surprise, say, the mods at reddit/mensrights to hear it, but I am.

I am horrified, for example, at the idea of not getting medical care because you can't afford it.  That's just plain stupid.  So is losing everything you own because you had a heart attack.

I believe there are certain things, like electricity, or water, that should be delivered by public utilities, not a for-profit corporation, and that Unions serve a useful purpose, even today in an age where most unions have themselves seemingly forgotten what they are for.

Branding masculinity.

The entity known as the 'mens movement' (aka Manosphere, Androsphere) is gaining steam in the marketplace of ideas.  It's now becoming more vital for proper brand messaging and presentation than ever before, as refusing to do so has led to many attempts to co opt, misrepresent, or reframe the movement.

Attempts by the mainstream to pass off guys like Michael Kimmel or Hugo Schwyzer as 'representatives of the Mens Movement' have subsided into mass immigration of new, usually leftist, 'equalists' that spend more time policing tone than understanding the issues.  Fractures in the mens movement have grown along ideological lines, precisely as they have in the greater society, and the message has been diluted to the point of making the mens movement unattractive to other men.

Hey Mens Rights Edmonton!

Seems Don Iveson has called you out, said you were cowards and and the rest.  Them fightin' words sure should be backed up publicly, especially since they were said publicly by a Mayoral candidate.

I would think the good people of Edmonton deserve to know what Don thinks of all this stuff.  And, considering the implication that MRAs won't debate this stuff, wouldn't challenging Don Iveson to a public debate over these issues be a nice way to spend the weekend?

I'm just sayin'

activist stick girl

Activist Stick Girl by danmoore837 on GoAnimate

Great quote.

"You can only insulate yourself from dystopian trends for so long before the uruk-hai batter down your private school walls."

Roissy is a fuckin' Master at wordsmithing.  Roissy...er...Heartiste...er, whoever...I bow to you, good sir.

Forced Fatherhood: a response.

I never go there unless linked for a reason, and this time, I feel the need to respond.  Amanda Marcotte, writing over at Pandagon, writes out a list or 'requirements' for Feminist support for male reproductive rights.

Somehow, I managed to hold back my grateful relief that Feminists will allow 'would-be Deadbeat Dads' (as opposed to Pro Choice, or Pro Adoption, women) to finally lay claim to rights equal to those of women:

• He has to sign away all rights before the baby is born.  He does not get his name on the birth certificate. The child’s father will be registered as “unknown”. If someone else—say his ex’s new husband—wishes to adopt and coparent the child, he cannot interfere.

Sure, I can get behind that.

• The only exception to this is if the mother did not alert the father to the pregnancy beforehand. He should be able to provide witnesses to testify that he hadn’t seen her in at least six months prior to the birth.

Some kind of time limit, preferably equal to that amount of time to decide that women would have, sure.  This seems reasonable enough.

• He never contacts the child. As far as his child knows, he’s a ghost. No visits, no toys, no pictures, nothing. He should also not be allowed to contact the mother. If he reaches out to the mother, she has full rights to sue him for child support, using that as evidence that he actually does want a relationship with his ex and his biological child.

Agreed.  You can't unmake the decision to adopt out...oh, wait, you can.  Well, I can agree to this anyway.

• This is for life. If you contact the child on her 18th birthday, you owe 18 years of back child support. If you contact the child when she’s 30, same thing: All 18 years of child support, with interest.

 Nope.  Can't see why this should be in place.  What if the contact is accidental?  What if it is for legitimate, or emergency purposes?   Not to mention this treats Child Support as a punishment (which it surely is, but is almost never presented that way).  I CAN agree if said contact is in order to establish a relationship, but only if the exact same requirements are laid on parents who contact their post-adoption children later.  See, it's not about punishing men for having sex Amanda, no matter how much you want to.

It's a mixed up, bottled up, shook up world.

I admit it, I'm an old guy.  I was in High School when Ronald Reagan joked about Russian missiles being on their way on live radio.  I remember watching the Berlin Wall come down on live television, and I remember watching CNN correspondents interviewing Croats through the barbed wire of Serbian Concentration Camps.

I remember when Russia was the bad guy, the Totalitarian State with the secret police and the fear and the food shortages.  The squalor and hopelessness of many Russians was paraded across television screens almost daily back in the 1980's, serving as a reminder of the supremacy of Democracy.

Long post about music and the Mens Movement.

I must have a lot more Sociologist in me than I'm willing to admit.  Perhaps that's a side effect of the Red Pill, since so many people complain of not being able to 'unsee' things.  One area where this stuff hits me the most, for some odd reason, is music.

I've always been a huge audiophile, and have a very wide taste in music, from Brooks and Dunn to Velvet Acid Christ.  What ties a lot of the music I like together isn't the genre, but the purity of the message.  Not 'purity' in the Christian sense, but pure in it's direction.  The honesty of the song.

One of my all time favorite 'albums' is the mashup between Jay Z and Linkin Park.  For the record, I don't own a CD, or even an MP3, of either of these bands on their own.  But this mashup resonates with me.  A lot of guys I've talked to say the same thing, they all own it, and they all agree it's a fantastic compilation.

A question for tough times...

I wonder, and maybe there's a math whiz / economist out there that finds this interesting enough to pursue...  But what would happen to the budgets of various governments if they limited benefits in general to what white males are currently eligible for.  What if being in a 'protected group' didn't matter, and every person coming through the door got the same thing, whether they were white males or not?

What if, in short, we lived in an 'equal' society?

I wonder, just how much fat would fall off the budget.

Jesus, this sickens me.

This woman, and the camerawoman, are laughing while she does this.  But Misandry isn't real....


http://www.nokenny.com/enfants-battus-dans-un-orphelinat-russe-video.html

A distinction without a difference.

So, I followed a link from a blurb on Mensactivism.org, to a GQ Magazine UK article, which criticises another article from the Guardian, which was ostensibly written in concern for today's men and boys.  Sorta convoluted, I know, but it's relevant.

I followed the links, dutifully, and got a bit of a handle on the arguments presented, and came to the realization that this is a great case study in Feminist 'concern' for men, and the Blue Pill criticism the Lamestream Media is capable of mustering.  Not only that, but the holes left in each of their arguments are quite instructive, if one is inclined to believe in the significance of such things.  Since I am inserting myself downstream, I will limit myself to topics 'debated' in the GQ response article for the most part.

Across the Aisle?

So, people tell me that Manosphere types don't do enough 'official' activism.  Not enough outreach.

Well, a local Rape Crisis center has done something that caught my eye, so I called them and asked if they would be interested in an article written, and maybe some contacts.  When they found out I was a 'Mens Activist", they not only said 'yes', but invited me to attend a staff meeting so I could meet the whole staff, and they could ask questions.

So, you have been warned.  There might be a long one coming your way real soon.

Stay tuned.