As a general rule, it seems that Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) are resistant to the idea that men could be our worst enemy. Forget the reality of feminists like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden being men, to suggest such a notion often elicits the same sort of knee-jerk defensiveness that we have come to expect from feminists whenever anyone dared to question their cause. It has all the hallmarks of political correctness. Indeed, society’s failure to recognize feminism as a political movement having less to do with women’s rights than with strategy and marketing (feminism could not have gotten off the ground without the concerted efforts of chivalrous, marxist men) suggests that we urgently need to get our priorities right.
There is more to be gained by regarding feminism as a men’s movement. More specifically, feminism is a strategy that favors chivalrous men in power because it reduces competition, at the highest levels, from other men.
Of course we don’t need to look at human history to see how men have competed with and done battle with men. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom, too. Yet the defensiveness of MRAs remains. This is not good strategy. Only by properly understanding the nature of the beast can we hope for accelerated change. Muddling along on a vaguely-formed silhouette in the mist might work for a while. It worked for women in the feminist movement. But the success of feminism was contingent upon the premise of false and imagined wrongs, promoted in the media, and requiring the rolling back of democratic principles. By contrast, we as men require concrete facts to work with, and this will require the restoration of democratic principles.
The case that I want to present in this blog is that there is a modern form of gendercide taking place, one that is directed against men, for the most part, by men.
Gendercide against men
Gendercide Watch catalogues a number of case studies demonstrating that men have overwhelmingly been the targets of gendercide. From their website:
[…] We believe that state-directed gender-selective mass killings have overwhelmingly targeted men through history, and that this phenomenon is pervasive in the modern world as well. Despite this prevalence of gendercide against males — especially younger, “battle-age†men — the subject has received almost no attention across a wide range of policy areas, humanitarian initiatives, and academic disciplines. We at Gendercide Watch feel it is one of the great taboos of the contemporary age, and must be ignored no longer.
From their research, Gendercide Watch observes that there are more case studies of gendercide against men than there are case studies of mass killings of women in wars and conflicts. Accordingly, they conclude that “men are, indeed, generally the victims of the most severe gender-selective atrocities in such situations.â€Â
Gendercide against men is usually first instigated as a strategic motive that would render the remaining population as easy prey. Gendercide Watch explains:
Like the Jewish holocaust, the Armenian genocide [1915-1917] represents a case of a clear-cut, “pre-emptive” targeting of the male population, followed by a “root-and-branch” extermination of as many of the survivors as could be killed outright or driven to death. The two gendercidal strategies followed at the outset were 1) the mobilization of “battle-age” Armenian men for service in the Turkish army, followed by the execution or death through overwork of some hundreds of thousands of them; and 2) the concomitant rounding-up and mass slaughter of remaining community males.
Further case studies of gendercides against men, referred to in the Gendercide Watch website, include:
- Kosovo in 1989-1999;
- East Timor in 1999;
- Indonesian genocide of 1965-66;
- Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992-1995;
- Kashmir/Punjab, and the Delhi Massacre (1984);
- Sri Lanka;
- Burundi;
- Colombia;
- The Anfal Campaign in Iraqi Kurdistan (1988);
- The Nazi murder of 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war in just eight months of 1941-42;
- Stalin’s Purges in the USSR with the sheer scale of gender-specific killings resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of men.
Also discussed on the Gendercide Watch website is the notion of conscription as a form of gendercide, that invariably has resulted in millions of overwhelmingly male deaths throughout history. If the above examples of blood-letting are too far removed from our own immediate experience, perhaps conscription is not so far removed, and provides us with something that Vietnam veterans can relate to.
Quite clearly, men are not the friends of men just because they are men.
Brilliant, foolproof, government strategy
The sheer genius behind it all. What more certain way can there be of consolidating power by the government? You don’t have to eliminate potential resistance by killing off half the population, like the Taliban had tried in Afghanistan. Very untidy and messy, with uncertain results.
Strategy-wise, feminism has the same ultimate effect as gendercide. It serves the interests of men in power by psychologically castrating masculine opposition. Neutering half of the entire population with feminist, anti-male policy serves to eliminate that potentially troublesome source of male resistance while, through affirmative action, replacing many of them with obedient, well-behaved women. This is better, cheaper and more effective than more “conventional†gendercide against men, because it won’t rile the womenfolk. Indeed, it will more likely please them, because it will turn men into well-behaved drones who won’t question their draft-horse status as providers, while ushering women into jobs with relaxed entry requirements because women have been oppressed all these millennia as a minority underclass. And it perpetuates the illusion that democratic principles are respected, that the government is acting on behalf of the people, not against them. It puts out that fire in the belly that drives men. It contributes to the creation of a walking dead that won’t dare challenge authority. Even the communism under Stalin could not have done a better job.
Notice that it is men that continue to dominate the halls of power while provided-for wives continue to be… provided for. What we have is still a chivalrous “patriarchy†as it has always been – a patriarchal/matriarchal symbiosis where neither can exist without the other. Nothing has changed except the strategy. These men in power have learned to harness the power of Woman and have mobilized a powerful antidote to the male “problemâ€Â, in order to achieve their own ends.
It’s unlikely that men in power are purposeful architects of precisely this kind of deliberate schemata, implementing feminism specifically to counter opposition from men. But whether by accident or intent, whether their chivalry-as-feminism is a product of strategy or male gullibility, the winners seem to be, for now at least, feminists and men in power. No matter how we cut this pie, the outcome is the same. It is a form of gendercide directed against men by men, for ultimately it is men in power who continue to be the principle decision-makers, setting the course of this ship.
The solution
The solution does not lie in counter-laws or counter-actions to oppose the unconstitutional laws attributable to feminism. Countering one anti-democratic legislation-base with another is an approach that merely serves to multiply the unconstitionality, thus further eroding the democratic principles that are now looking battered and bruised. As such, a men’s “rights†movement is not what we should have in mind, because we already have all the rights we will ever need in the constitutions of most western democracies. It is our long-established constitutional rights, battered and bruised, that need to be resuscitated.
A men’s rights movement, in the sense of fighting for men’s rights, doesn’t ring true. There is no basis upon which men should regard men as friends just because they are men. MRAs are quick to reject, with knee-jerk spontaneity, that this is what they are doing. But implicit in their understanding is that men’s rights have been eroded. They haven’t. We still have all those rights, in principle, in our constitutions. What has happened is that rights have been supplanted by lies, fictions designed to promote a sexist feminist agenda. Our lawmakers and enforcers have become corrupt. The rights are still there, it’s just that men are not asserting theirs. The gendercide that men are experiencing is of their own doing.
We should take comfort in knowing that we owe nothing to men just because they are men. The sort of “men’s movement†that we should have in mind is less of a men’s movement than it is a “democracy revival†movement. We might expect to see such a democracy revival movement associated with men only because it is men that are the target of this contemporary form of gendercide, as manifested in our corrupt political/legal climate. It’s only natural that men should gather to revive and renew old, constitutional principles.
We already have all the necessary laws we need, even if some of them have been eroded. We have to vigorously assert them in our numbers with the force of our will, and lobby our politicians exactly as the feminists had done before us. The men’s movement that I have in mind is not a sexist movement fighting for more privileges for the already privileged. It is a movement based on principle, necessity and indeed, the very survival of our democracies.
