Six Levels of Feminist Critics
Feminism has been a hugely influential political movement in the last few decades. In Western countries such as the US and Sweden, government policy and mainstream media have accepted the basic tenets of radical feminism without much resistance. However, during the past few years, an increasing number of people have started questioning the unconditional embrace of feminism, and whether feminism is the best way to address gender issues in society.
During the past decade we’ve seen an increasing number of books, articles and blogs that clearly demonstrate that feminism operates from a set of rigid assumptions, and that men’s voices are sorely needed in the discussion around gender roles. It’s easy to believe that most of these critical voices are coming from a similar place; however, I do not believe this to be the case at all. People who take issue with some or most of the feminist assumptions, do so from very different belief structures.
In fact, I started playing around with different ways that you can be critical of feminism, and came up with Six Different Levels of Feminist Critics:
- At this level you have no criticism towards feminism and believe that feminism is spot-on. You are a feminist yourself and possibly self-identify with a particular branch of the movement.
- Some mild criticism starts appearing. You find it important that masculinity studies within the feminist framework are carried out, since you believe that patriarchy hurts men too. Many liberal men and cultural creatives can be found in this category.
- Radical feminism (i.e. the belief that men structurally oppress women) is criticized without hesitation, but classical feminism is embraced and deemed to be the solution to gender issues. You believe that women were unfairly disadvantaged in the past, but that the only correction needed is civil and legal equality around the world. You may or many not have anything against a men’s movement. This is the level where we find Christina Hoff-Sommers, who’s written Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys – two very important books for the men’s movement.
- Both gender roles are viewed as being more or less equally limited and harmful to the individual. Men and women face very different gender roles, but neither one can be said to be much worse than the other. Consequently, you believe that feminism only views half of the problems that a discourse on gender needs to address, and a masculist discourse is needed to balance things out. This is the stance (according to my interpretation) of author Warren Farrell, who is perhaps the best known and most important writer in the men’s movement.
- This level is identical to number 4 above, with the addition that you criticize the common feminist position of believing that all gender differences are socially constructed. It’s not that people at level 4 ignore innate sex differences, but at level 5 you consider them to be crucial in any balanced discussion on how gender shows up in culture and society.
- At this final stage, you believe that the male gender role is worse than the female gender role, and that things could only be set right by by having a dominant masculist movement, similar to the way we now have a feminist movement dominating the discourse.
Where would you place yourself in this list?
Personally, I belong on level 5, but I believe that anyone from level 3 to 5 can work together to bring more sanity to the whole discussion on gender equality. The first two levels propagate the onesidedness of feminism, which is becoming increasingly unsustainable as men are starting to wake up and demand a gender discourse that looks at the situation of both sexes.
The final level–level 6–is the pitfall of the masculist or men’s movement. The moment you enter this realm you are in danger of sliding down into the same anger and lack of fact-checking that radical feminists around the world regularly resort to. If men’s rights activists, masculists and feminist critics are to have any success in working towards true equality and a society that respects both sexes fully, then level 6 cannot be allowed to have any sort of real influence.
That said, I’m well aware that growing up with feminism, the way I did myself, can create a lot of unresolved anger. So there is a real need for places to vent, where men can say things without needing to come across as grounded and balanced. Men’s groups can be the perfect container for this kind of venting, as can blogs that are dedicated to that purpose–if you don’t have access to a men’s group. However, any person critical of feminism cannot lose sight of the fact that it is only by taking the moral high ground, that the emerging voices of men and the emerging voice of reason, can be successful in implementing a new paradigm that replaces the feminist worldview with one that authentically cares about both sexes.
| More from Pelle Billing
Stumble It!
September 7th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Pelle,
I appreciate your contributions, but I do take some issue with this list.
Per your definition, I belong in level 6. After 40 years of giving rights to women and placing responsibilities on men, while women are coddled and privileged everywhere their interests compete with men’s, yes, I do believe that the male role has become worse than the female role in our society.
Furthermore, since, as you admit, feminism is dominating and controlling the discourse on gender issues, men’s voices will never be heard until we become dominating on the discussion of men’s issues. We need to “Take back the RIGHT!” Warren Farrell’s very reasonable, non-offensive “The Myth of Male Power” came out many years ago. What societal impact has it had? Very little, indeed. Something more is needed if equilibrium is to be reestablished.
Yes, level 6 embraces risk — the danger of sliding into the pitfall of unbridled, counter-productive anger. The same anger employed by so many feminists. But we can’t avoid risk. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or, “no guts, no glory!” The challenge is not to fall into the 7th level of criticism:
7. Believes that the male role is worse than the female role due to cynical and cruel exploitation of men by women. Because male problems are thus the fault of women, hostility toward women is justified, and bringing women down is justified to make up for their past oppression of men.
I agree that this is a level that should be avoided, and left to the Sisterhood.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:21 am
As long as we are nit picking, Pelle, I have one or two here, lol.
One, I do, and much conviction, believe that men’s gender role is more life diminishing, worse if you will, than women’s. Always has been.
Roughly by light years.
And I do believe that if there is to be a real men’s movement, it will have to be, for lack of better word, radicalized.
My experience is that there is no balanced discussion with feminist ideologues. None at all. So I do think men’s issues need to be pushed, without a second thought to conversation or discourse with dissenters.
So in effect that puts me in #6, but I don’t think I am unwilling to work with others.
Recently I have had some most interesting discussions with an MRA of much stature on the idea of activism. The more I listened the more I learned.
Misandry needs to be targeted and attacked, without discussion, without compromise and without retreat. That is not the position of MND, but my own personally. And I think there is much to be gained from it.
I have recently selected such a target. Not a huge one, but one that I think I can, as one man, make a real impact. And one that will teach me lessons about the next one.
MND is a fine, but not, IMO, an “activist” entity in and of itself. It is a great place to share ideas, learn and spread the word. Very important work.
But change comes from action, not discourse or pontification. So in a sense, it may well be that the men in #6 are really the only ones that get anything done. And with the right strategy, they don’t really need to work “with” anyone to get started.
But if the right group of men did work together, it might amaze people what they could accomplish.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
8. Admit nothing has stopped the feminist attack on men, and leave for greener pastures. Let the idle dreamers who think anything except total economic collapse or total conquest by an outside force can ever change the direction of the nation, stew in their own juices.
When I hear talk like y’all, I know I am hearing talkers, not those who have actually done anything. Exactly correct that Farrell has accomplished exactly nothing, just as Glen Sacks and David Usher have accomplished exactly nothing.
I know you think you are going to be smarter than my generation was, and that you will actually gain something. You are wrong but feel free to try, while I watch from a safe distance.
Sparta went through this. The Roman Empire went through this. Never has any civilization saved itself by stopping the feminist juggernaut once it gets control.
Writing from Third World Rural Mexico
September 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Agreed. 3rd World is the place to be, if your male and have a way to make a living or a pension. Its where masculinity still counts for something and common sense reigns. I refuse to live in a where women have half the money and all the pussy…and my sympathy to those who do.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@Paul E, Jay R, Irlandes
That’s ma Boys!
Yo!
Pelle is back where most of us were two decades or so ago – and beyond.
He believes that “the facts” and the science, and conversing with feminists and their ilk, will bring us peace and gender harmony.
WRONG!
I recommend two of my most excellent pieces to Pelle ….
http://www.angryharry.com/esScienceDoesNotHelpVeryMuch.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/esgeneratingheat.htm
And now I shall pose a question to Pelle – as per one of my pieces.
You have $100,000 to dish out to cancer treatment programmes. Every $5,000 spent on breast cancer saves one year of a woman’s life, but $5,000 spent on prostate cancer saves 5 years of a man’s life.
How would you distribute the money across these two cancer groups in order to ensure ‘equality’?
A very simple question. Infinitessimally less complex than most other gender questions.
So Pelle; give me an answer to this question that will satisfy the need to maintain ‘equality’; one that will make men and women feel happy with your decision.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
In my some 30 years of experience i have come to the same conclusion as Paul. But the price one pays is ridicule, contempt and becoming a pariah in political and social circles
Quote of Paul Elam; “My experience is that there is no balanced discussion with feminist ideologues. None at all. So I do think men’s issues need to be pushed, without a second thought to conversation or discourse with dissenters. “
September 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I agree with Paul and Mr K, the mens movement needs to be” radicalized” trying to reason or negotiate with the “feminazi’s ” is not only useless, is uses up valuable time and resources that could be used to fight these bitches.
The study of history ie how to create a sucessful civil rights movement and that is what the fathers/ mens rights movement is, shows we can not be nice. We, men are getting runover because we want to take the “Uncle Tom approach” and suffer in silence. That has to stop.
We have to organize, that means mobilizing million of men to get up and protest. Once we can bring massive , economic, political and legal pressure to bear, we can start to stop the disaster we are facing and start to turn this mess around. ONce the weaslee politicians fear losing their “cushy little jobs” we will get their attention. Once men learn the law, as I have and start to use it to cut off the money, power and control the feminist controlled legal system depends on to keep going, then we will have done something.
And yes it will take more than words or blogging on the internet!
September 7th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I too think that level 6 is not the top-end. It does have some legitimacy as a description if you include more than a simple ‘Patriarchal’ or ‘masculist’ solution which simply takes us back to male slavery and women’s privilege as it used to be. Level 6 is a ’search’ level where the starting point is very passionate.
Level 7 has not been tried yet and is struggling to find a place. The Farrells and the Ushers and the Sacks have done a damned good job in my view, even if things have not changed substantially. But their voices have generated much of the men’s movement activity and drive and in major part have taken the fight to the enemy.
But the level 7 is where MND could, if it chose to, lay down the path and provide resources. What has hampered is lack of coherent drive across the MRM and across the Nations. This is the premier meeting place. I am very glad to see Pelle here. His ‘take’ on matters may be more ‘accomodating’ to early feminist legitimacy for my comfort but then the experiences are different in different countries. His analysis is a ‘taxonomy’ which has yet to be completed.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Thanks for saying what Warren Farrell is. I too go with no.4.
I think non whites in the world also consider the European way that was pushed on them to be something to challenge.
I guess Patriarchy does mean white man and white women to other cultures.
But then the white man and white woman had to challenge themselves first, I guess.
Unfortunately, the white man is behind on this, so yes I beleive 100% one gender is missing and is needed for balance.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:12 am
BTW, I am not looking for a fight. I have lots to research yet. Just wanted to say, nice post.
But instead I answered where I stand at this point in time.
Again, nice post. Thanks for the info.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am
@Pelle
D’ya see what you’ve done?
You’ve walked into a hotbed of ingrates (look it up). LOL!
Your idea of talking about the different levels of anti-feminism is a very good one, and I am sure that will it help people to consolidate some of their thoughts.
But, round here, you are getting comments from some very experienced MRAs who have been at this anti-feminist game for a very long time.
And they KNOW three things FOR SURE.
1. There is NO HOPE of bringing about ‘equality’ because it CANNOT be achieved; the cancer question, as per above, demonstrating the IMPOSSIBILITY of achieving ‘equality’
2. The prime movers of feminism are not, actually, trying to achieve equality. They are simply giving themselves good jobs and pensions – amongst other things.
3. The prime movers mostly believe that lying, deceiving, twisting the data, and so on, are completely acceptable methods for accomplishing their aims.
As such, it is quite clear that it is going to take much more than reasoned argument to change things.
And you said it here …
” However, any person critical of feminism cannot lose sight of the fact that it is only by taking the moral high ground, that the emerging voices of men and the emerging voice of reason, can be successful in implementing a new paradigm that replaces the feminist worldview …”
The “emerging voices of men” being THE MOST IMPORTANT factor BY A VERY LONG WAY.
**THAT’S** what we’ve been trying to tell ya!
In other words, **YOU** need to move to your LEVEL 6 – or further!
so, come on Pelle. Move to Level 6.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:04 am
@Harry, what are you doing?
Paul brings work to you from men online and they put forth their views. Why don’t you teach them! Why don’t you explain how it all works?
PS. Don’t start calling me an ingrate. I am further down the line that even Paul is.
BTW, do you remember me?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Hi to the moderators. I just noticed my precious comment is in moderation. Lookie here, I think it is probably best to say what I did offline to Harry.
I take this as a hell of a lesson not to challenge the great leaders online. But I ask (please) for my other comments to be deleted.
Give and take, eh? Let me off the hook too, yes/no?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Without assigning a level number to it, my belief is that feminists are just another group of useful idiots for Socialists/Communists/Progressive ideologues.
Sure, it is a hate movement, initially targeting blacks but later moving to hatred towards all males and anybody who cares about men. And sure, most of its followers (useful idiots) harbor some resentment towards men without necessarily supporting the equal misery for all (except party leaders) that is Communism.
But look around. Communism is on the rise in the west. The biggest difference between feminism and other methods of promoting Communism, such as class warfare, is that virtually nothing stands in its way. While there are politicians and groups that provide fierce opposition to class warfare such as higher taxes for the rich, for example, there is very little if any opposition to whatever happens to be the latest demands of feminists.
“The nuclear family must be destroyed”, reads a quote from above. That goal has essentially been accomplished. Of course men must still provide for women and children even after being displaced from his family, but that is because most women cannot survive without his resources. Women are given the option of retaining the financial contributions of the male, without having to give anything in return, and over half take the government up on the offered deal.
All of this is very destructive to children, family, and society, and we see that all around us ever more every day. Then, leftists like Obama come in and proffer the solution to the destruction their policies have wrought over decades is more Communism, always referred to as something else, although even that is beginning to change.
Feminism will die if, when, and how Communism in all of its other forms die along with it. Whether that will be preceded by total societal collapse and deaths in the millions as happened every other time Communism supplanted a free society has yet to be seen.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:43 am
@ Julie
No problem. Comment deleted.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Let me make a clarification once more: when I say early feminism, I simply mean the women and men who wanted civil and legal equality between the sexes. I am *not* talking about second/third wave feminism, or radical feminism.
Let me also make a second clarification (once more): I believe that forming the feminist movement was a poor way to start off the gender discourse. As soon as you predefine that gender issues are only about female issues, then you are in trouble, and it’s a sliding slope from there.
So early feminism fought for a couple of honorable goals (civil and legal equality), but the basic premise for the whole movement (women are worse off than men) was flawed.
I hope that is clear for everyone. now. Is it a habit around here to turn people into strawmen and then attacking them?
As a fellow MRA reaching out from Sweden, I cannot say that I feel much of a welcome or much of a reaching out from this community.
Another point I feel is important to remember is that cultural change is slow. So all the hard work done by MRAs for the past couple of decades may not have produced much visible change, but it has paved the way for a younger generation, so in that sense the past work has been crucial. In Sweden, the epicenter of radical feminism and male-bashing, we are finally starting to see some real change. People are speaking up against feminism, articles against feminism are being published in newspapers, a (female!) member of parliament has spoken out against feminism, etc etc. So I believe that we will see a snowball effect in the coming decade. That doesn’t mean we can become complacent, we still need to reach out to more men, and form strong organizations–but time is on our side.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:43 am
8!
Wow! I thought it was just me! HA! I was reading along the comments and BAM, there I was.
In fact, I think I’ll start using the notation, “8″ in signatures and such, as I’m in a feminist oppressed country. Sorta like the fish symbol, quickly drawn and then quickly erased. Much easier that MGTOW.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
So where would I fit in?
The reason that neo-nazi skinheads do not dominate in politics is because nobody lets them. The reason that an idiotic, fringe hate-group, as is feminism, has entered the mainstream and thus, politics, is because everybody let them.
Whilst I believe that I am most likely to find the sorts of men whom I would be proud to have as friends in the MRM, I believe that we have seriously misidentified the enemy. Feminism is too ridiculous, and should have been laughed into oblivion long ago. The reason it has thrived is because of men, chivalrous men, the obsequious gollums that the mainstream are. Men in power. Men are the enemy.
Myself, I foresee a rights-movement that is gender-neutral, with a focus on rights for all. We don’t need to imitate the pigists.
“Feminism” is a misnomer, because feminists are comprised equally of both men and women, and so I choose “pig” as the more gender-neutral term. We have nothing to learn from pigists, and everything to teach them.
… Aha, I just notice Pelle’s most recent post, so in some ways we might be on the same page. I’m kind of resistant to a men’s movement, because it’s just more genderism.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
@ Paul, @15,
I meant the other comment. I have alot of respect for Harry. His work is wonderful. It kinda looks like my challenge was negative, now.
Oh well. life goes on. lol
September 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I believe Warren Farrell himself would say you are at least partly wrong about number 6. In the index to his ‘Myth of Male Power’ you will see under ‘men’s movement’, that he equates this to masculism . If you then follow to pages 355-356 you will see this:
“Ideally there should not be a men’s movement but a gender transition movement; only the power of the women’s movement necessitates the temporary corrective of a men’s movement. And this creates a special challenge for men: There are few political movements filled with healthy people, yet few healthy changes have occurred without political movements.”
September 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
MRAs are among the most politically off-base group of people on Earth.
They are so fond of making ridiculous claims about what “radical feminists” have allegedly said and done.
Chief among their lies is the one that radical feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon said and wrote that “All sex is rape” or variations on that stupid theme.
For “just the facts” on this matter, please see the Snopes.com link below, It is a non-feminist website dedicated to busting myths and exposing lies:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp
September 8th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
interesting about the way .
I think I would be closure 6 migrating towards 5 .
The migration is happening primarily as we get successes I get less radicalised.
The step 1 for us was to get the society take cognisance.
This is possible by level 6 activity only .Then comes the broader accepance that will come when level 6 is supported by level 5 . Then comes the chaanges to beaurocracy attitudes and law . This comes when 6 is supported by 5 is supported by 4
I guess most activists startwith 6 and will gravitate towards 4 as the pressure on men eases up.
The more the pressure on men eases I will keep migrating towards 4
Its a personal journey .
From Save indian Family Can lay claim to being largest group of mens rights activists in the world
September 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
First, I have to throw my hat in by saying that the mere suggestion that Glenn Sacks has done nothing for the men’s movement, has “accomplished nothing” is ridiculous beyond the pale.
I’ve been around a long time on his site, for years. And I was a newcomer to some of the people running this place…
I remember one of the first “His Side” broadcasts/webcasts… Many don’t even know they happened, and they ran for years.
A LOT has changed. A TON of progress has been made.
But.
Paul, and the others, are right. The time to “discuss” is long past, Feminists have shown time and time again that the ONLY reason they “engage” us is to try and paint us as Misogynists bent on turning back the clock. They typically grudingly accept that some issues are unfair, but disagree that men should be able to address these issues for themselves….er…which is EXACTLY what Feminists have been saying MRA’s should do… for decades.
I guess the sudden possibility of it happening has made them all want to “talk”. I use quotes because somehow, miraculously, not one feminist anywhere actually believes in all the feminist ideals documented in decades worth of women’s studies textbooks, and feminist novels.
No one “really” believes in Patriarchy Theory(tm) anymore, or so the story goes….because things are EQUAL now…. And men are simply smarting from the loss of undeserved privelege… And really, Feminism is already about equality…. So really, men have no right to self-determination, just let “mommy” decide what you REALLY deserve….
No thanks.
I’m standing up and saying things. Loudly if I can. If it turns me into a social Pariah, well…so be it…someone has to take some heat. It’s easier when there’s more to take a share though.
And that’s the real point now innit? Waking up the public. Once you’re attuned, you can hear men bitching about MRA issues all over the place. They don’t know what an MRA is, or what our issues are….but they seem to share them anyway.
Hmm…
Maybe they’re not the only one feeling that way? It might be helpful if they knew that.
Feminism has succeeded in large degree because they maintained control of the information conduits…namely the media and education. Their influence began to decay with the advent of the web…but the vast majority of men don’t type “men’s rights” into google search….
No, the key is getting the message offline, and in a meaningful, concise way.
I vote for body painting on really hot girls….but then, that’s just me.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@Julian
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” …. “You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.” (Catherine MacKinnon – Prominent feminist scholar at the University of Michigan and Yale)
Sounds to me like she’s saying that all sex is rape
September 8th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
@Julie
Of course I remember you. You’re all over the place.
@Harry
Seems like *Dworkin* made the **first** remark about sex above.
Ooops
September 8th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
@julian
“They [MRAs] are so fond of making ridiculous claims about what “radical feminists” have allegedly said and done.”
MRAs occasionally make mistakes, Julian.
Big deal.
But we all know what feminists have DONE.
And we don’t like it.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@julian
I looked at your blog.
“sexually assaulting women ought to be a crime punishable by death,”
You sound like a psycho to me.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I’ve had a look at the sites reference by Julian (which I presume to be male). Refer to my comment above, regarding men as being our worst enemy. Our enemy cuts across that chivalry-obsessed spectrum that includes lame, obsequious gollums and opportunistic men in power, who realize that affirmative action works in their favour, so long as it’s only the intermediate management levels that block troublesome, challenging males from getting any higher.
Julian’s references to rape clearly indicate that he/she/it has no idea about the nature of female sexuality. Some women enjoy a good thrashing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/borden.html
Some women like men who thrash:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/13/gender.uk
For more on this secret that feminists don’t want you to know, go to:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~tramont/protruth/secrets.html
and
http://www.welmer.org/2009/09/02/womens-rape-fantasies-the-deepest-taboo/
Even feminists are capable of realizing that there is “something” about rape that might be kinda fun. Catharine MacKinnon certainly did:
“I think that sexual desire in women, at least in this culture, is socially constructed as that by which we come to want our own self-annihilation. That is, our subordination is eroticized in and as female; in fact, we get off on it to a degree, if nowhere near as much as men do. This is our stake in this system that is not in our interest, our stake in this system that is killing us.” – Catharine MacKinnon (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1987 p. 54.
Perhaps feminist women should lighten up a bit… who knows what they might take a liking to, if only they’ll let themselves.
Incidentally, as I write this, the male news reporter is talking about allowing women into the military, and agonizing over how society would react to women dying in war.
Stupid, spineless white males who won’t make a stand for their rights. They make me sick.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:04 am
@ Julian
So, in your thinking, because a couple of feminists who are clearly misandric may have been misquoted by some MRA’s, you conclude that the movement itself is politically off base. In other words, there is no anti-male bias in media, family courts or the public at large?
Men don’t have problems with false accusations or bad science relating to wage gap myths, domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse statistics?
Here is another one from snopes, busting one of feminisms many lies
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp
If rape should be punishable by death, then perhaps spreading false interpretations of scientific studies should result at least in a public flogging.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
One of the Soap Opera’s most important episodes in the 1980s was the story of Luke and Laura on General Hospital. Luke in the story line Raped Laura. And later married her. It was one of Day time TV’s highest rated episodes. Women have conflicted issues regarding Male companionship. And the current Female Choice of Loving Thugs and Bad Boys as exciting and edgey companionship, leads to ugly outcomes. Which is then blamed on all males.
We have had an epidemic of False Rape accusations from the Steeler’s QB to the Duke Lacrosse Players. While prominent National Feminists declared the Duke Players, Rapists. Including Nancy Grace of CNN, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.net and Melissa McEwan of Shakesville.
A political movement must first promote their idea into the mainstream culture. But the primary problem in the US is the collusion of Conservative Business Interests with Progressive and Leftist media. Women are the primary consumers in the US and make 85% of Consumer purchase decisions. So there is an economic interest in keeping the current Status quo in place.
While the US national policy is to promote Feminism in Central Asia and the Middle East at the point of the bayonet with the lives of Young Christian and mostly rural Southern White Males. Like the Lance Corporal whose death photo is on the Huffington Post. The US military is promoting Feminism in the Third World.
I am a vocal 6 approaching a 7. A Divorced Non Custodial Father and Grandfather and angry as hell. I have watched for decades the rights of Men in this Republic’s rights be trampled on. And millions of us ejected from our Families and Children’s lives. Feminists are my enemy. To hell with a dialog.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I find that the biggest obstacle to the Men’s movement is inertia. Too many Men who are not paying attention to the trampling of their Natural Rights. The VAWA reauthorization and addition of IMBRA is a prime example. The US Government including Conservatives voted for this evil Law. Which states that US Men are as a group Criminals and Abusers of Women. And Foreign Women must be protected from US Men. This is a lie, it violates our Natural Rights. And it is in fact an admission that US Men are sick of Feminists. Don’t even want them as Sexual Partners. And are seeking reasonable, realistic, and agreeable companionship elsewhere.
The Marriage Strike is the largest manifestation of Male withdrawal from Women and refusal to be horn swaggled by the FemNags. We have millions of our Boys being drugged into submission with Kiddie Cocaine for the crime of being born Male. Because Mommy and the Teacher a Female cannot get Little Johnny to sit still. Our Prisons are filled with the product of Single Mother homes. Just a few of the fruits of Feminism. And the Male Suicide rate in the US is a National disgrace.
Male anger is over issues of Life expectancy, taxes, Child support, which has turned into a Prison sentence with a Gun to our head and Prison if you don’t pay the invoice. Our government has turned against us. And asks our Young Men to give their lives for a system that hates them.
The root of our current economic woes has roots in a construct of an economic system based upon Debt Consumption. Which is not sustainable. And which is Driven by Consumer spending, and those decisions are made by Women. This is like an insane Monty Python skit. While the male populace ignores their situation and escape into Beer and Sports. Welcome to FemAmerica where the real crime is being a Male. Any Male will do.
September 13th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
People go google “the marriage strike” it is the only thing men have left.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:07 am
@ Karma
vasectomies?
Science, technology, two world wars, the Car, the condom, the pill, divorce, and the growth of middle management emancipated women.
Feminism was about junk science and the coming out of lesbians.
Life with a woman who knows biology and chemistry is a good life.
A wife who can actually remember the question to which you are responding is a blessing.
God bless the wife who can read a contract.
dwc
I don’t know what number I am. Maybe I am a 3.14159265?
Apple with whipped or ice cream.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The problem with engaging feminists or actually any fanatic of any stripe in ‘rational dialogue’ is simply that no matter how many facts you present, no matter how compelling the evidence, they are simply not HEARING you. This applies across the board to include religious fanatics, feminists, rabid conservatives, Ku Klux Klan, even rabid men’s rights activists who become so entwined with a belief that they can no longer separate their belief from logical fact to the contrary. You cannot face blind faith and fanaticism with logic and win, sorry.
I find the most effective means is oftentimes to simply use their own tactics against them. I’ve left many a feminist apologist and even several very rabid ones spluttering as I spun things around on them. It was highly amusing and an experience I heartily encourage all of you to attempt. Fighting fire with fire is sometimes the most effective course of action.
Logical discourse may sway some ranks of the less important feminists, but in the end they are not the ones pulling the strings or leading the rest of the flocks. So while there is gain, there is nowhere near as much gain as there is to cutting the head off the proverbial snake.
Action is what works. Words are the means to meaning and can lead one to illumination and truth. But it is DOING something about it that actually makes things change, for the better or worse.
I do my best to live up to this in my personal life. I have little patience or tolerance for those who treat me with disrespect or attempt to emotionally or otherwise manipulate or blackmail me. As a result, I tend to have mostly positive encounters with all but the most hardcore embedded people.
Those people, I just love grinding down anyway, so I derive my satisfactions from that as well.
Stand up for yourself. Demand respect. Do not brook ill treatment from men or women or the government. And do not hesitate to place a well-deserved smackdown in situations that call for it.
Educate and work with our young boys or we will never have a chance. They are, in increasing numbers, getting lost. That is why they are gravitating toward drugs, gangs and suicide. And increasingly winding up in prisons. Do it on the microcosm and eventually it will spread to the macro.
If you are not going to concern yourself to helping to empower even one of your fellow brothers or young sons, why would you worry about affecting thousands?
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Good work, Pelle! I’m from Norway and found this site not long ago.
Very much useful information here. I really enjoy what you write, and are looking forward to your next piece.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
[i]“The final level–level 6–is the pitfall of the masculist or men’s movement. The moment you enter this realm you are in danger of sliding down into the same anger and lack of fact-checking that radical feminists around the world regularly resort to. If men’s rights activists, masculists and feminist critics are to have any success in working towards true equality and a society that respects both sexes fully, then level 6 cannot be allowed to have any sort of real influence”
The moment you enter this realm you are in danger[/i]
Yes this speaks to an attribute of greater truth.
Men put themselves in harm’s way to benefit their families.
Men put themselves in harm’s way even when they cannot elucidate why.
Does anyone know the clinical definition of Risky Behavior?