A recent article on MND posted by Dr Pelle Billing asked the question Where Are All the Men’s Organizations?
Why is it that men have failed to come together to take on the feminists, the anti-male laws and all the poisonous misandry that infects their lives so negatively?
Well, no doubt, there are many reasons.
Here are some of them.
…….
1. Self-serving government.
Governments and millions (literally) of their workers benefit in numerous ways by promoting feminism and various women-centred groups (e.g. see Why Governments Love Feminism) but they are unlikely to benefit much by promoting men’s groups. As a result, it has been virtually impossible for men to resource from public funds the creation and development of coordinated groups that are truly concerned with their own well-being.
2. Female histrionics.
Female histrionics is a well-organised enterprise.
Many government departments, women’s groups, academics, social service organisations, feminist-indoctrinated student bodies, tabloid media businesses, and so on, are populated with people who have a vested interest in maintaining a war against men.
These people often collude together to generate public hysteria that is particularly hostile towards any suggestion that men might be being treated unfairly.
The result has been that both politicians and the mainstream media have, for many years, been terrified of looking into such unfairness and discussing it.
Indeed, the very act of publicly discussing areas wherein men are being treated unfairly has often resulted in vicious protests wherein it is proclaimed that “vulnerable women” will be made even more vulnerable if people are told that men are being unfairly treated.
It is also often alleged that such women would be made to feel ‘guilty’ by such public discussions and, further, that this guilt might inhibit them from obtaining support.
Examples of the effects of these protests include …
a. The mainstream media and the government refusing to discuss the fact that women receive far more funding for their health concerns than do men, lest women are, allegedly, made to feel guilty about their privileged position when it comes to health matters.
b. The refusal by much of the mainstream media and the government to properly address false allegations of ‘abuse’ made by women (and children) against men, and, in the case of the media, even in fictional programs and films. The denial of funding for assisting men victims of domestic violence is just one concrete result of this.
c. Men being too intimidated to speak out for fear of being ridiculed, insulted, accused of misogyny, demoted or dismissed from their jobs, described as promoters of abuse, as closet wife-beaters, as reactionary dinosaurs, and so on.
In other words, the self-serving public hysteria that has been continually fomented by various groups – and, indeed, by millions of women – has successfully blocked public discussions about the mistreatment and disadvantaging of men.
3. Feminist indoctrination.
As described by Myrna Blyth in her book Spin Sisters, media feminists for many years colluded together to highlight at every opportunity women’s victimisation; e.g. by continually shoving tales of their abuse into the frontmost positions of their publications.
This still goes on today, with, for example, the BBC forever doing its best to highlight stories – fictional and otherwise – wherein men are being abusive toward women or children while downplaying or ignoring those wherein women are the perpetrators.
In other words, mainstream media coverage has been designed to paint a picture of women as angels and men as demons.
Furthermore, there has been put into place a highly-successful feminist-inspired media manipulation of the language designed to airbrush out of the picture the gender of any victims when they are male, but to highlight the gender when any victims are female – with the opposite being true when it comes to perpetrators.
A good example of this tactic is the way in which the mainstream media persist in referring to, let us say, men victims of war, as “soldiers”, “troops”, “officers”, “mariners”, “recruits”, “Iraqis”, “Palestinians”, and so on. Whereas when the victims are women then they are almost always referred to as “women”.
Indeed, I am actually often quite taken aback when, for example, I come across BBC TV or radio programmes of forty years ago and beyond which describe men victims as ‘men’.
“100 ‘men’ died in the mining disaster.”
“100 ‘men’ were lost at sea.”
“100 ‘men’ were treated in hospital for burns.”
Such statements actually sound quite strange these days; because they are so rarely made.
What we would normally hear these days is, …
“100 ‘miners’ died in the mining disaster.”
“100 ‘crew’ were lost at sea.”
“100 ‘workers’ were treated in hospital for burns.”
In other words, the gender of men victims is purposely disappeared from view.
A similar situation occurs with children.
Boys who are victims are usually referred to as ‘children’, but when they are perpetrators they are mostly referred to as ‘boys’.
With girls, the reverse is true. They are ‘children’ when perpetrators, and ‘girls’ when victims.
Indeed, when females are victims, the term ‘girls’ if often used to describe females in their early twenties.
As a result of all these linguistic shenaningans designed to mask the fact that ‘men’ are ever victims, most men seem not to have even become aware that they are being severely disadvantaged when compared to women.
Neither are they yet aware of the fact that men, not women, make up the vast majority of victims when it comes to most circumstances wherein people are regarded as victims.
Interestingly, however, many men might actually know that most victims are male. But, certainly, they are mostly not aware of it.
And they are mostly not aware of it precisely because there has been an enormous amount of effort expended by certain groups to hide this fact from view – as per above - specifically in order to prevent men from becoming consciously aware of it.
4. Successful demonisation.
The abuse industry – which is vast in size – consists of millions of people who want to maintain their jobs and their pensions. These people often demonise men in order to make a better living. As such, they support feminist ideology because, essentially, it portrays men as being continually abusive in some way.
The powerful tabloid media also make millions of dollars from generating abuse hysteria – which is mostly directed against men.
Top executives in many large companies have also been very keen to demonise men; because their businesses usually make their profits at the margins. As such, they can often increase their profits quite substantially by decreasing – even by a small amount – the likelihood that men and women will form close relationships. (For example, see Fathers Groups Miss the Big Picture.)
Women, of course, have also gained substantially (vis-a-vis men) in almost every area of life by demonising men.
And, as indicated above, governments benefit hugely from the demonisation of men.
In other words, there are billions of dollars to be made and numerous advantages to be gained by millions of people from demonising men – and so demonising men is a huge enterprise.
And one result of all this demonisation has been that even men are now imbued with hatred towards men; the mainstream acceptability of Bobbit jokes and jokes about prison rapes standing as a shining testament as to how effective has been this demonisation.
Men really are hated.
And now, even men mostly do not care about men.
5. Loss of self-identity.
As I say in my piece What A Piece of Sh#t is Man, …
[W]hat man wants to identify himself with the type of person who is continually being portrayed as the lowest and most unpleasant form of human being that exists? …
… my point being that men would nowadays prefer not to be seen as ‘men’.
As an example of this, try telling a male police officer that all male police officers are brainless idiots, and I can almost guarantee you that he will not look too pleased.
But tell him that all men are brainless idiots – which amounts to the same thing – and he will probably laugh.
You see. He sees himself as a police officer, not as a ‘man’.
(But if you try telling a woman police officer that all women are brainless idiots, then you will almost certainly find a different reaction; because women do see themselves as ‘women’.)
Men just do not see themselves as ‘men’. They see themselves primarily as blacks, as Jews, as Christians, as accountants, as bricklayers, as Manchester United supporters, as Americans, etc etc. But not as ‘men’.
And so, for example, they do not actually identify themselves as being the creatures that they so often see being mistreated, demonised and disadvantaged.
As such, they do not feel the need to do anything about this.
You can see a similar type of failure to develop proper self-awareness and identification in many highly-intelligent animals, such as dolphins.
For example, dolphins will continue to mill around the waters wherein their defenceless comrades are being harpooned and killed. These intelligent animals can see all the blood, the carnage and the death, and yet they do not swim away.
It is as if they remain unaware that they, themselves, are being threatened by such slaughter despite their high intelligence.
Men behave similarly.
6. Failure to recognise an enemy.
Unlike women, men tend to be competitive in nature when they interact with each other. And they seem mostly to cooperate closely only when they can identify some kind of common adversary that needs to be dealt with.
But because they cannot yet actually recognise the existence of many of their common adversaries (as per some of the points above) there seems, to them, to be no reason to cooperate in any endeavour designed to combat them.
In other words, men simply do not yet recognise that there exist various forces and organisations that are specifically aiming to hurt them in some way.
They mostly cannot yet see these adversaries. And when, indeed, they can see them, then, just like the dolphins, they do not fully recognise that they, themselves, are their actual targets.
A really good example of this was discussed in my piece Male Bloggers Failing Miserably; wherein I pointed out that most political activists who seek smaller government (such as those whom one might brand as libertarians or conservatives) do not actually address the fact that feminism has been one of the main causes of the rise in the size of government over the past few decades.
So. Are they blind?
Why have they failed to recognise this particular ‘enemy’ of theirs?
The answer, of course, is that they cannot see feminism as an enemy because it does not enter their equations. And the reason for this is that the huge forces mentioned above have been very careful to ensure that feminism is never linked to anything bad.
So, in much the same way that, for example, feminism is never linked to increased carbon emisssions by those groups that have much influence in this area (e.g. the mainstream, the politicians, the global warming scientists, the school teachers etc) so it is that feminism is not linked to the size of the government.
And this is why most of our libertarian and conservative bloggers do not see the connection.
Indeed, whenever there has been bad or worrying news to discuss publicly in the recent past, feminism has been deftly disappeared out of sight.
Similarly, when one hears Alex Jones or David Icke talking about all the lies and the fantastical conspiracies that, they allege, are being perpetrated by the Illuminati and various lofty others in order to keep us in our place (aliens on the moon, UFOs, 9/11, JFK, hidden viruses, drugged tap water, etc etc etc) it seems very strange that rarely is feminism mentioned – given that feminism clearly empowers hugely the very people that Mr Jones and Mr Icke seek forever to warn us about.
Once again; this particular enemy – feminism – just cannot be identified as such.
It is off their radar secreens.
7. Biology.
Men were biologically designed to protect women and to find vulnerable women attractive; e.g. see Women and Chimps.
As such, men are easily manipulated into helping women who appear to be vulnerable.
Men and women, on the other hand, do not find vulnerable men to be attractive. As such, they are not concerned to help men who appear to be vulnerable.
Indeed, men are not biologically prone to helping men; especially vis-a-vis women.
(The same is true for males throughout nearly all the animal kingdom.)
8. Culture and chivalry.
For a long time western culture has convinced people that being chivalrous is both good and manly, and so most men believe that it is their duty to protect women (or to look as if it is) and to assist them when they claim to need help. In addition, chivalry requires a preparedness for men to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of women and children.
And this cultural attitude has prevented many men from being concerned about the fact that women’s needs and desires are continually being put ahead of their own.
Indeed, so deeply ingrained is this that jurors – both men and women – will often convict innocent men on the shakiest (and, sometimes, the most preposterous) of evidence rather than risk letting a rapist or a child abuser go free.
And there are now many western laws that treat innocent men appallingly when they are merely accused of abusing women, while letting off the hook almost entirely many women who have committed very serious crimes against men.
And this code of chivalry not only clearly prevents many men from complaining about this state of affairs, many men do actually believe that there is nothing particularly wrong with such mistreatment if women are being protected by it.
9. Psychology.
Western men are highly affected by what women think of them. And they often look to women to make decisions about what their attitudes and their values should be. For example, comedians know full well that if they make the women in their audiences laugh, then the men will laugh. But if the women do not find something funny, then the men will feel the same way.
Indeed, it is women who tend to decide what people may laugh about or cry about.
And given that western women have been infused with feminist propaganda for the past four decades, their attitudes towards men who, for example, seem to express anti-feminist or even light-hearted anti-women sentiments, tend to be highly negative; something which men would prefer to avoid.
All in all, therefore, men tend to refrain from expressing or supporting openly, any opinions that bring about the disapproval of women.
10. Feminist domination of the mainstream media.
Feminism has been over 120 years in the making. And for nearly all this time, the mainstream media have had a virtual monopoly on the flow of information to the public. These media have been very heavily influenced by government and by business, both of which benefit a great deal by pandering to women and by portraying men negatively.
The virtual stranglehold that media feminists gained over the media some four decades ago further entrenched the anti-male bias in the information that was being fed to the public.
And men who have tried to get support for the creation of men’s organisations have been purposely blocked from arguing their case in the mainstream.
11. Lethargy.
Most men have been too busy with their lives and with their various interests to have enough time left over to devote seriously to other matters. And most of the spare time that they have had to themselves has probably been spent unwinding and relaxing.
Men’s activism and understanding the issues, however, require quite a lot of work, and so it is not surprising that few men can summon the effort to get seriously engaged with these things in their spare time.
In contrast, however, millions of women have had the opportunity to engage in feminist activism – and to be affected by it – not only through their government-funded groups but also through the mainstream; e.g. via the highly-misandric afternoon chat shows that started flooding the TV screens in the late 70s.
…….
In summary, therefore, it is hardly surprising that men have not formed large groups concerned with their own well-being. The most powerful and influential of our organisations have been deceiving them on many fronts, and so they have not been aware of what has been going on.
They have been demonised so effectively by these organisations that even men no longer like ‘men’.
Indeed, so much so is this true that men mostly refuse to identify themselves as ‘men’; preferring to see themselves as something else.
And so out of touch are they with their own selves, that they cannot even appreciate that they, themselves, are being targeted whenever, and wherever, ‘men’ are being targeted.
The mainstream media have blocked most attempts by men to counter all the anti-male prejudice, and many of those men who have tried to speak up have been intimidated and/or punished in some way; something which has discouraged many others.
And, for various reasons, governments are very unwilling to support groups that are truly concerned with men’s issues.
The biologicai make-up of men and their psychology both conspire to inhibit their concern for the well-being of men vis-a-vis women, and their entire culture endorses this.
And, no doubt, there are many other important factors that have, and will continue to have, a mighty tendency to inhibit the growth of organisations concerned with the general well-being of men.
Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the MM will continue to grow. That it is unstoppable. And that, in the end, it will prevail.
With regard to politically-effective formal men’s organisations materialising, of course, I hope that this happens. But I do not envisage much development in this area over the next decade or two, for two main reasons.
1. The internet – the only realistic means currently of garnering support for the development of men’s organisations – is not very helpful when it comes to focusing efforts into supporting one particular group. The internet encourages the breakdown, not the build up, of large powerful cohesive group structures.
2. The truly enormous self-serving forces currently at play are far too powerful to be much affected by various budding men’s organisations – making the latter seem pointless to support, for the moment.
For example, if the mainstream media refuse to pay attention to men’s issues (which, thus far, has been the case) then, effectively, men’s organisations cannot achieve very much and, as such, men will not bother to support them.
Why should they, if they are ineffective?
All in all, therefore, my own view is that the only way forward is for men to grow, within cyberspace, a ‘male consciousness’ – which, in my view, is actually the best way to describe the “Men’s Movement”.
It is a consciousness.
And this consciousness is very definitely growing.
But it is going to have to grow to be vast in order to continue countering successfully those huge forces that insist on hurting men.
It really will have to be positively huge in order to exert the continued influence that is required.
It will need to have more influence than governments. More influence than the tabloid media. More influence than the abuse industry. More influence than the feminists. More influence than the desire for money by big businesses. More influence than ‘women’. And, probably, more influence than some significant aspects of men’s very own biology and inherent psychology.
As such, the whole task seems rather daunting.
And, once again, it is surely not surprising that, thus far, no large men’s organisations have emerged.
However, matters are not quite as bad as they might seem.
And perhaps we only need to remember two things in order to appreciate that the MM can, and will, succeed.
1. A tiny virus can kill an elephant.
2. 50% of the population are men.
And so while it is true that huge forces need to be overcome, and continually overcome, in order for the MM to prevail, and for men’s organisations to grow and to become successful, it seems to me that the groundwork for these developments is already being done – right here, right now – and that the internet is going to provide support for the growth of a very large male consciousness; one that is self-reflective, self-aware and, indeed, extremely powerful.
And there will surely soon come a point when there are enough committed and effective MRAs in action to wage very significant wars against those who hurt men.
And to win them.
Indeed, in my view, just a few thousand such activists would probably be sufficient to turn the tide completely.
Furthermore, I believe that those MRAs who are active on the internet, and who are good at what they do, should take heart, for in the coming years the MM will certainly grow in power and, hence, wealth, and those who are clearly known to be useful to its development are bound to be rewarded in one way or another.
Their websites and their articles might become much more popular. Their speeches and their TV appearances might be more in demand. Their graphics and video skills might become more profitable. Their legal and therapeutic services might be more requested. And so on.
There will be many ways in which such MRAs can benefit from all their hard work.
In conclusion, therefore, there have been unimaginably huge forces at work throughout the past century which have undermined, at every level, the chances of developing any groups or organisations concerned with the well-being of ‘men’.
Now, however, these forces are slowly being countered by MRAs. And while it might yet take many more years before strongly-influential formal men’s organisations finally materialise, the consciousness that is the MM will soon start exerting a very powerful force that is concerned with the well-being of men.
And – certainly for the moment – this persistent and ever-growing force – this consciousness – will arise mostly through general activism via the internet; rather than through the typical activities of more formal organisations.
Furthermore, while the internet remains available, this process cannot be stopped.
From an activist point of view, therefore, the current primary goal should be to increase both the depth and the spread of this consciousness throughout the minds of as many men as possible.
