Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail

Why Feminism Succeeds While its Male Versions Always Fail

The future of feminism is one of the most discussed, debated and written about topics on supposedly male-centered blogs. It seems that almost everyone from traditional CONservatives, alt-right morons, MRAs, game CONartists and followers of pretty much every other supposedly male-centric ideology want to see feminism fail. These people spend a lot of time coming up with scenarios under which their dreams would come true and try to interpret every new bit of information through their ideological blindfolds.. I mean goggles.

It is often hard to ignore the obvious parallels between them and those who believe in apocalypse-centered belief systems. Yet feminism keeps on winning more victories and expanding in its reach- even to parts of the world where it is relatively new and non-indigenous. And all of this brings us to a question that most people opposed to feminism seem to be incapable of answering with any significant degree of objectivity.

Why does feminism keep on winning and expanding its reach? and why do comparable male ideologies fail?

There are those who believe that the success of feminism is due to its support by international bankers or elites who are using it to further their own “super-secret” nefarious goals. Others see it as the result of “christian” men abandoning their supposed roles as “leaders” of the family. Yet other blame artificial female hormones in the water supply. I could go on and list many other equally peculiar and convoluted theories put forth to explain the success of feminism, but I am not in a mood for telling you any more fairy tales today. So let us look at the core elements of all these theories..

Most conventional theories about the success of feminism try to explain it as something “unnatural ” that is rammed down the throat of a reluctant society by some shady collection of small but “powerful” groups.

They want you to believe that the remarkable success of feminism is an “unnatural” aberration and somehow unsustainable without the constant and tireless efforts of shady elites or banal bureaucrats. But is that really the case? What is “natural” and what is “unnatural”? Is working in cubicles and living in suburban stucco boxes natural? Are nuclear families natural? Are corporations or “free markets” natural? Is capitalism natural? My point is that a lot of what these people strongly believe in is no less “natural” or “unnatural” than feminism.

Feminism is best seen as one of the eventualities of a larger systemic change that began with the industrial revolution.

But why is there no male equivalent of feminism? Sure, we have all heard about MRAs, alt-righters, MGTOW and PUAs- but none of them have been able to start a movement that is even remotely as successful as feminism. Now, I am sure that all of them have their own complex analysis of the factors underlying their repeated failures. But what if there is a far more straightforward and obvious reason for the failure of all these supposedly male-centric movements?

Here is my theory..

The incredible success of feminism (and popular support for it) comes down to the very basic membership criteria required to benefiting from its gains and victories. To put it another way- any woman can benefit from feminism. Sure.. women from some groups might benefit more than women from other groups, but in the end they are all better off than before. Being white, black, hispanic, asian, fat, thin, hot, ugly, hairy or smooth is secondary to being a woman- as far as benefiting from feminism is concerned. The beneficiary does not have to prove anything beyond their gender.

In contrast to the universal benefit provided by feminism, all of the supposedly male-centric movements want their members to prove that they are worthy or deserving of their membership. The CONservative morons want you to be religious and traditional, the alt-righters want you to be white, the game morons want you to white, buff, witty and so on. Isn’t it odd that people who cannot guarantee anything to their followers want so much from them.

But the bigger problem with all supposedly male-centric movements is a profound unwillingness to share the gains. It is about robbing others with the assistance of your followers and then stiffing those very followers instead of sharing the gains with them. Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.

To summarize, feminism has been very successful because of the very low barriers for membership and universalization of benefits and gains for its members. The same is not true for supposedly male-centric movements and ideologies which have more in common with snake oil schemes and cults than anything vaguely resembling a coherent movement with long-term objectives.

What do you think? comments?

  1. EvilOne
    August 19, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I have absolutely no idea what to think in this regard.

  2. August 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    My dad used to say “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

    Your post is from the land of the blind. The manosphere is the one-eyed man. The one-eyed man is handicapped and stunted, but it doesn’t change the reality of what he sees (out of one eye).

    • The Plague Doctor
      August 19, 2013 at 7:12 pm

      How is A.D. blind, and what does the man-o-sphincter see? You aren’t referring to Pick-Up-CONArtistry, are you?

  3. August 19, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Without feminism being enshrined in law it could not go anywhere.

  4. August 19, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    More to the point, feminism does not require that one be smart, charismatic, or even particularly hygienic to participate (witness Lindy West).

    But I think it misses the mark. Feminism would never have gotten off the ground from the support of women alone, even if they are more than half the population. It succeeds because most men naturally seek to appease a woman or women, and that nature is reinforced by both pre- and post-feminism culture. Take your average straight, white, lower-middle class male, the eternal scapegoat of feminism – it would never occur to 90% of them to seriously question anything they’ve been told by their mostly-female, mostly-feminist teachers, wives, or mothers, or by their Palin/Bachmann/O’Donnel political candidates.

    It succeeds because, whether it’s good for us or bad for us, people want it. Kinda like high-fructose corn syrup.

  5. The Plague Doctor
    August 19, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    This is a good reason, but I think the more important reason is that men, unlike women, lose status when expressing their victimhood; no-one tells feminists to “woman-up”.

    Also, I think we are already nearing the peak of the misandry bubble:– Google trends for 2006-2013 shows a steadily declining search frequency for the keyword “feminism“: google.com /trends/explore?q=feminism (It is also interesting to see two peaks during the two academic semesters.) On the other hand “MGTOW has been exponentially rising, google.com /trends/explore?q=mgtow , although still has a way to go when you compare them in the same graph. I predict they will intersect in the next two years.

    • The Plague Doctor
      August 19, 2013 at 7:39 pm

      Comparing “pick up artist” (to “MGTOW“), google.com/trends/explore?q=mgtow#q=pick%20up%20artist%2C%20%20mgtow&cmpt=q , is also interesting: a slow decline since the TV show appeared.

    • webe
      August 20, 2013 at 4:38 am

      In many academic circles feminism has long since passed its peak. No more separate sub-departments to cater to the lost angles of female insight, etc. Most of feminist theorizing and philosophizing is impossible to find on the internet because it was already past its peak in the 1990’s. This is partially because parts of the feminist agenda has become normal, embedded in social institutions. And partly because women who grew up under the new regime don’t identify with all kinds of radical and freaky historical victimization conspiracies — they are focussed on what they can achieve, not on how much women have been “degraded.”

    • David
      August 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm

      I think “man-up” has lost its punch. The “men’s movement” has been very successful in a short time. Suddenly, many many men are aware of the whip-like intent of commands like “man up” and simply shun the person who says it. Men are gaining self respect.

      Not so many obvious consequences yet, but I believe they are coming. And none too soon.

  6. eradican
    August 19, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    @ MaccAodh

    Well said but the main reason feminism won is because most of human existence was a matriarchy. Only with the rise of male dominance through class, religion, and private property did warlike patriarchies eradicate the old order establishing civilization 5000 years ago. Feminism is merely a return to the state of nature something which is dormant and always on standby ready to come back when the upkeep of patriarchy has waned.

    • webe
      August 20, 2013 at 4:22 am

      Even if primitive societies were not patriarchal (how many examples of truly matriarchal societies are there? — very few) we do not know that much about how they functioned. What we do know is that there was no property (and therefore no true mpatriarchy) and that bands of nomads met at set times for the exchange of young women; moreover that warriors and hunters were absolutely essential to the survival of the group, and that survival was very precarious, especially if the group could not maintain social balance (murder and rape often went unpunished because of the fear of endangering the whole community’s survival in fraternal strife, vendetta’s, cycles of revenge, etc).
      Matriarchy/patriarchy are not modern forms of social organization and were long eclipsed before modern industrial society and feminism appeared.

      • eradican
        August 20, 2013 at 9:55 am

        Crimes going unpunished in tribal societies reeks of female rule because only males recognize dishonor. Bullying is rampant nowadays because schools are female dominated and retribution is frowned upon. Despite trying to be peaceful this encourages more strife since without vendettas the aggressor has nothing to fear.

  7. Remo
    August 19, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    “…any woman can benefit from feminism.” True – in the short term but this is not sustainable. Feminism requires men to work against their own best interests … forever. Men will do this under the mistaken notion that it will get them laid but like socialism it can’t continue in perpetuity. Feminism is parasitic. It is artificial in the sense that it grants women unearned resources and status that they cannot make and maintain on their own – it requires male participation even as it denigrates and undermines those same men. When the wealth is gone and the old Biblical canard about if you don’t work you don’t eat comes to pass suddenly women will get religion about being ladies again. Right now they can demand resources and use a powerful, oppressive government to enforce their demands. When the structure crumbles and there aren’t enough police to round up everyone at the snap of a feminist finger, or there aren’t enough jobs to pay the vagina money demanded then the slut walkers have a problem – how to obtain resources when they can no longer use government to force the transfer. That will involve being nice which is an anathema to a feminist BUT hunger is a great motivator.

    I don’t know if I will live to see its death but the economy is groaning under the pressure with no good news or portents ahead.

    • David
      August 23, 2013 at 9:20 pm

      A bit roughly stated, but pretty much spot on. Niceness from women was always calculated anyway. If they need to go back to that, they will.

      At least they’ll try. But one of the strongest forces opposing it will be the remnant of feminism. Feminism is hardest on the women. Men they don’t desire, they just ignore. But women who don’t join their ideology, they go after them full of aggression and hatred. This is because feminism doesn’t “worK very well when the feminist must compete with a more traditional feminine woman. Men will leave the former by the side of the road. They didn’t want to end up like that, they wanted to force men to accept them and their ideology.

      And the progress of the “men’s movement” is that more and more, men don’t feel they have to. Other choices in women, or just not hurrying to pair up with a woman, are alternatives that are open to men.

  8. Thought Trials
    August 19, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Men are just more zero-sum in their behavior than women. And this reflects in their ideological bents, and how their social movements are constructed. Men are constantly trying to rebuild hierarchies in a world that is getting flatter by the day. That is why they are failing when faced with movements that are more female centric in nature.

    Let’s look at one example: There is an Ideology which states that you must live up to some ideal (be a well-off ‘producer’) to get something that everyone in a modern, moderately automated technological society should have access to, no questions asked (healthcare). Who is pushing this belief the hardest? Men. Who is, for the most part, against it? Women.

    This type of thinking is also why many men are finding themselves economically disenfranchised in a job market with greater female saturation. Unlike women, men just seem to have no urge to protect each other from economic ruin (and sexual ruin, etc.)

    Look at how many young men are libertarians (they have a lot of good ideas, but the core of their ideology is zero-sum). Just repeating the same cycle. Men are starting to wake up to this problem, but they have a long way to go.

    • webe
      August 20, 2013 at 4:31 am

      Not true. Social studies (experiments) have brought to light that men are more inclined to be helpful and to co-operate than women. However in the presence of a woman, they become relatively less helpful and co-operative (to impress her). With women the opposite is true: under the watchful eyes of men they become more helpful (to impress him), and without male presence, they become less so. Any office pool of female-only secretaries or whatever is a hotbed of strife and petty grudges, which can easily be dissipated by introducing a single male into the mix. It is male co-operation (even in conquest) that is the foundation of civilization. There will of course never be a movement of men (andrism) to function as a union to represent all the victimized men. Male victims and losers are scoffed at, reason why the taboo on male rape/juvenile sexual abuse is much stronger than that on female victims (elicit sympathy instead of disgust and ridicule).

  9. Marcus666
    August 19, 2013 at 11:44 pm

    This is because feminism is not a movement, it’s a cultural mentality. I have yet to meet the first woman who will tell me that she’s a feminist. Contrary, she will tell me she is “strong”, “tough”, and can take care of herself and she will get a hot guy. Western woman have feminist tendencies, but they are NOT feminists. That cultural change came with the raising of today’s daughters. Every proud father wants the best for his newborn daughter and he will make her ready from birth to be a fully functional being in the workplace; and so creating monsters who are sexual dysfunctional.
    The manosphere talks a lot about feminism, but that’s because they need an enemy. There is no enemy. No girl will consider herself part of the feminist movement but she will have certain tendencies and characteristics of her personality. Now the manosphere slowly start to realize that they’re fighting windmills, so they start to turn against each other. Every one thinks they’re a bit more value than the other one, and they think that gives them the right to bitch around. Exactly the thing feminists do.

  10. August 20, 2013 at 12:46 am

    Very easy. Spread the idea of abortion rights for MEN. For obvious reasons, the men who need it are the men who get laid, so there is no loserish stigma attached to it. All shady population controllers will side with you, as moar abortion easily trumps feminism; sex-selective abortion in China and India as the most egregious example, but also the covering up of “pedophilia” when it results in an abortion.
    This will prove a very powerful wedge issue!

  11. P Ray
    August 20, 2013 at 1:38 am

    Compare this to feminism, where the gains made by affluent white women in the earlier part of the feminist movement did not remain restricted to them and went on to benefit less affluent white and non-white women.
    This disagrees. http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308122356-0022973

    Besides, anywhere in the world, a white woman (like a white man) as a foreign worker is paid more than a local.
    It’s rare indeed to find a “white person overseas” that died of overwork.
    Of course, there are exceptions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397527/Bank-America-Merrill-Lynch-intern-Moritz-Erhardt-dead-working-long-hours.html

    What I am talking about is a bit different. Consider things like access to education, contraception, healthcare, jobs, government funded social nets etc.

    • P Ray
      August 20, 2013 at 7:07 pm

      Access to jobs leads to this:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2380473/Why-SHOULD-childless-women-like-longer-hours-cover-working-mothers.html
      Why SHOULD childless women like us do longer hours to cover for working mothers?
      Single women bear the brunt of our ‘long hours’ culture
      But while the challenges faced by working mothers are acknowledged…
      The extra burden endured by childless females is going unchecked

      My reply: hahahaha! there’s your equality, taking second place to women with kids 🙂
      Remember, 8 hour days for women with families, as “it’s for the children!”

  12. Wilson
    August 20, 2013 at 4:30 am

    Here we go again with “blaming the men”. What undermines a men’s movement is that men want to be just, while women just don’t care. Just like women can hit men with little effect, while men’s assault on women is a serious matter, if men accepted an ideology similar to feminism, women would in short order be enslaved in brothels or breeding institutions

    • P Ray
      August 20, 2013 at 6:33 pm

      women would in short order be enslaved in brothels or breeding institutions
      They wouldn’t mind it if the alpha they were attracted to asked them to do that.

      Feminism is all about getting compensation from “the men most women are not attracted to” AFTER said women can no longer hold the interest of “the men most women ARE attracted to”.
      Which leads us to the 2 methods to propagate it:
      1. Women decided which men are attractive and which relationships are sanctioned, so that
      2. The cockhoppers of step 1. have sex starved men to leech off of, after the attractive men are not interested in them – they do this by saying that the only “age-appropriate” romances are between older-women-younger-men … and not the reverse.
      Notice the disparity in sentencing between men and women teachers charged with sexual offences against their students as an example.

  13. webe
    August 20, 2013 at 5:14 am

    The first question we should ask ourselves with regard to the upsurge of feminism is whether it is basically cultural/ideological or whether the ideology is epiphenomenal, a rationalization or whatever of deeper changes in the material and social organization of human society.

    During the thirties and the WW II period, female emancipation took a huge step backwards. In fact, wealthy and patrician women always had far more sexual liberties (and access to abortion/birth control; less children) than the commoners. In fact, the “revenge of the cradle”, the oppressed masses overcome their masters through sheer force of numbers is as old as Sumerian society (Semites) and the Old Testatment (Egyptians afraid of Hebrew slaves’ birth rate).

    One of the cornerstones of female emancipation is the pill and abortion. These are the fruits of technological progress. They are not the product of more and more people seing the light. In fact all human societies have had their ideals about how to treat women (and children). Men should be gallant; men should not resort to violence; men should protect and support women and children. Not everyone lives up to the ideals, but no society has been without them. And apparently such ideals must be inculcated to support human society.

    Has female emancipation triumphed through struggle, overcoming the power of their oppressors? Not in the least. Men have often proved well-meaning and idealistic partners in advancing the female equality agenda, freely abdicating their privileged position.

    Is female equality a permanent step? That is, have they definitively conquered and defeated their oppressors? No. The status and protection of women in society is completely anchored to social institutions (still controlled largely by men) and the will/whim to maintain certain standards of conduct. In times of war and social unravelling, it will not come as a surprise if women fall back into more traditional female roles within small gangs controlled by war lords who apportion resources within a context where mere physical survival becomes everyone’s top priority.

    The story of women’s equality in terms of the oppressed underdog fighting heroically against all odds for justice is a great narrative that fits into our Western narrative traditions, but the changing role of women in society are in fact determined by all kinds of changes in the material conditions for survival and the nature of the required productive labour — in short, by the completely altered demands that modern technological civilization imposes as conditions of physical and social survival.

  14. Gruesome
    August 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Wilson gets it. Men’s virtues are also their weaknesses, but their vices are their strengths. Feminism thrives because most men refuse to beat up women, but will readily punish those who do. The key to overthrowing feminism is for men to lead vicious, rather than virtuous, lives.

    • David
      August 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm

      Or to stop assuming women are more virtuous than they are.

  15. eradican
    August 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Islam and the worldwide jihad movement embodies the warrior spirit the west now lacks.

    • P Ray
      August 20, 2013 at 6:29 pm

      Do you even live in a Muslim country?
      Feminism is a problem anywhere in the world.
      P.S. Muslims have divorce too.

      • eradican
        August 20, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      • P Ray
        August 21, 2013 at 3:24 am

        You’re funny.
        Muslims are found all over the world.
        Not just in Saudi Arabia or where the Arabs are.

  16. Tex
    August 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    Well, the reason it is successful is that it appeals to the public. After all, who can live and sleep well knowing that all these woman are being raped. Well, those numbers are never accurate when you look them up. But I’ve never heard a feminist group correct themselves when confronted with the accurate numbers.

    And successful? Sure the movement has been successful. We see kids born into poverty and the mom has no desire what so ever to consider the welfare of the child by actually getting married to have two incomes.

    Some 60% of US new borns are born to at poverty level or less single moms.

    On the flip side, feminists are not inclined to see any progress as enough. Degree attainment is by far, and has been for decades, far superior in favor of the female. We still see programs for girls in school.

    The result of feminism is that women today consider themselves oppressed if they put their family or childs life before they put anything else that pleases them. A selfish person who seems to be only concerned about herself.

    Yeah, I am not pleased with the feminist displeasure of being labeled a slut if she sleeps around being converted to “all men are rapists” and therefor calling me a rapist.

  17. Diego
    August 20, 2013 at 10:09 pm

    I think there are 2 more reasons why the aims of feminism have been achieved.

    -people care a lot more about women than men, even if those women are ugly or losers. If a woman bitches, moans, or complains about something, people will try to accommodate her. Men just don’t garner as much sympathy.

    -Modern life is relatively easy and modern work is not physical labour intensive. Combine that with the fact that women can delay having kids because of contraceptives(cheap, easy to make, effective, only religious nuts will oppose them), women are bound to make up an increasing and very large percentage of the labour force. Essentially, contraceptives + nonphysically intensive labour are sufficient conditions to give women incredible amounts of political power.

    I don’t see how a political movement could possibly dismantle feminism — Especially one as dysfunctional as the MRA.

  18. David
    August 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm

    The article is completely wrong. Feminism isn’t benefiting women who wanted a traditional relationship. Men are pretty screwed up and those who are winning are doing so by learning “game” — they never would have bothered with it if things had just been normal, and not so risky for them.

    The whole world is no longer sympathetic to the feminists. It’s getting a bad name, everyone knows it’s gone too far and is sometimes used to promote female domination.

    On the other hand men’s sites are not exclusive places. The ones I’ve seen present information, like “game” principles, and welcome anyone to join in the discussion. Even women. That doesn’t mean everyone would feel comfortable there, I am sure, but I would not be comfortable in a leftist feminist environment.

    Finally feminism has received massive help from the US legal establishment. Women are a protected class for some purposes, men are not. How much more discriminatory can it get?

    • August 24, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      Feminism has been normalized and many women are feminist even if they do not identify themselves as such.

  19. J.M.
    August 25, 2013 at 7:11 am

    Your biases distorted your opinion Advocatus. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s been documented; powerfull elite groups SUPPORTED, SUPPORT and most likely WILL SUPPORT feminism with funds, economic power and the rest. Only a fool would think no one supported feminism for its own gains.

    • P Ray
      August 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      Heeheehee, I guess that’s why women are always looking for a guy with assets: so that they don’t have to work.
      I guess when becoming a mother requires no previous qualifications except a sperm donor, many women are “naturals”.

      P.S. So what if women have the ability to earn their own living – a DOUBLING of the labour force, HALVES the wages.
      And of course, women “lose their feminist streak”, when they’re either:
      1. trying to catch a man labelled as “unattractive while I intend to be on the cock carousel” so that she can live for free
      2. being in the second wives club where the first one is chasing hubby for alimony/child support
      3. a relative of a guy falsely accused of rape
      4. want to marry into another culture of a rich guy who has been forewarned about feminists
      5. working as a psychologist to gain the trust of “burned” men and claim federal grants and allowances
      6. intending to live off the spoils of a politician spouse
      7. wanting goods and services for free (bat their eyelashes, answer the door half-naked)
      I’m sure I’ve missed a few.

      But thanks to feminism,
      more women have precarious employment, thus they can work in the world’s second-oldest profession (the first being a lawyer, who created the chaos to initiate all existence).

      • Will W
        July 12, 2015 at 5:04 pm

        Love the list! A few corrections though:
        First off, you have to understand the (radical) feminist play book. It states that 1) All women are really feminists although some are misguided by men, and 2) Everything that is wrong was caused by men. If women are ever wrong, men are just more wrong, therefore women are right.
        Now,
        1. A woman NEVER pursues a male based on looks. Thats what men (who are ALL shallow) do. She is merely pursuing “intellectual pursuits”. That is until he runs out of assets, then he just “doesn’t get her”.
        2. A woman is just being loyal and naive regardless of her husbands behavior. Thats how women are superior to men. That is until she finds a good enough lawyer. Then, she becomes “empowered”.
        3. ALL men are rapists. Being a relative is unavoidable. If she supports a male relative, she is only doing it to keep the family peace. She doesnt really mean anything deep down.
        4. “I just wanted a future with someone who I thought finally understood me! I didn’t know he beleived THAT!” (Rule #1, remember)
        5. Thats a necessary evil to further a professional career. So long as a woman is gaining prestige over “mentally ill” men, thats acceptable.
        6. All men should be taken advantage of as interest due on hundreds of years of oppression. He is to be tolerated until he no longer serves her interest. (Refer to: Hillary and Bill Clinton)
        7. A woman should be allowed to do or dress as she pleases at any time. If a man misinterprets this as anything suggestive, its his own aggressive rapist behavior to blame. (Refer to: Canadian and now American “Slut Walks”

  20. P Ray
    September 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430152/Kenya-attack-Mother-Kamal-Kaur-claims-adults-came-mall-massacre-acted-like-animals.html
    MGTOW is taking root, more men are valuing their lives.
    Why should a man who is someone else’s (future) father, spouse or son, sacrifice themselves for people he doesn’t know and isn’t related to?

    That was definitely a shopping trip to die for. The sale of your life.

    • EvilOne
      September 24, 2013 at 9:25 am

      You’re too sexy for your posts. So, Ill one-up you:
      http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/male-singleness-and-rise-of-mens.html
      ———–
      Let us elaborate. When nearly all men had female partners and children, they had a biological incentive to ignore female privilege. After all, their own wives and daughters were the principal recipients of it. Once a large proportion of men no longer had wives or daughters, however, chivalry instantly lost its ulterior biological incentive. Consequently men began to see women in their true light, as state-sponsored tyrants and pedestal princesses. This, I would aver, is the major reason for the recent rise of the pan-Anglosphere men’s movement. When one’s wife and daughters are safe in the lifeboats, chivalry makes sense; when one has no wife or daughters, it makes no sense whatsoever. Thus the men’s movement represents a conceptual revolution comparable to the European Enlightenment, with the same profound implications.

      Many more men are asking: “why should I continue apologizing for women? What’s in it for me?” When men are single and childless, the answer is simply this: nothing. Gender objectivity is the privilege of the single, never the sexually enfranchised. Hence, the recent explosion of single men has facilitated a heightened objectivity concerning gender-relations and, ultimately, the rise of the men’s movement. I think this a very profound and overlooked fact, and one that might be manipulated to further our cause in the fullness of time. It also explains the middle-class, hyper-rational ethos of the pan-Anglosphere men’s movement, since such objective self-awareness always defines the educated and intelligent, never sentimental dullards. Calls for female draft registration and an end to to pro-female educational and legal discrimination all spring from the same source: unfettered objectivity.

    • Will W
      July 12, 2015 at 6:34 pm

      This was a tragic and horrific occurance. That is not in dispute. But along the lines of this post, I have a question:
      Were there no men in that mall that were interviewed?

  21. P Ray
    September 24, 2013 at 10:33 am

    Shed a tear for this model:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2430391/Some-girls-pulled-teeth-look-thinner-Katia-Elizarova-seedy-modelling-THAT-clinch-Sherlock-star-Benedict-Cumberbatch.html
    ‘This is not a nice part of our job. If you’re a model and your agency hasn’t paid you in months, you don’t have anything to eat — and then someone comes over and says, “We’re doing free dinners in the club, come and bring your girlfriends,” of course you go.

    ‘Then you have 20 men perving (READ: That you don’t find attractive, looking) at you, but you’re so hungry you don’t care.’

    Now, is it the regular guys’ fault she is in a predatory industry?
    What kind of complaints are waiters and long-haul truck drivers allowed to have?
    Do we get a chance to hear them?

  22. EvilOne
    October 13, 2013 at 9:03 am

  23. Will
    July 12, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Uh, no. Sorry…
    As someone who is coming up on the half century mark, I have witnessed this evolution at least from the seventies. If you can give the theory of Occams Razor any merit, it comes down to society bred to bow down to sympathy for the interpeted oppressed. Pure and simple.
    People who gain power always want more. That is just human nature. Women got the rights they petioned for in the 20’s and 30’s. In the 40’s the opportunity to show they could work in traditionally male jobs which extended into the 50’s. The 60’s and 70’s brought the second wave of feminism with sexual independence. Then the 80’s brought something strange: science. With communication growing, and science studying things we took for granted (world hunger, destruction of the environment, etc). The worlds economy was growing, we had nothing else to do, so with that we started feeling sorry for everything. Everybody with a cause then jumped on that, including feminism. In the 90’s political correctness was born which is just hypersensitivity and exaggeration. Everybody wanted attention, so everybody was upset or offended about everything. Nobody dared to speak out lest they be labled as oppressive. People lived in fear of losing their jobs or very freedom if they did. It was a very real possibility back then which still lives on today to a lessor extent.
    Now fast forward to modern day. As with all rights, it goes on the assumption one can use them responsibility in fairness to all. This “third-wave” of feminism has just kept going. With the help of traditionalist values in place for thousands of years as being the “weaker” sex, combined with a want for yet more power in society, regardless of fair, they have managed a triangle of perfection: vulnerability, power, and the socially accepted ability to change between the two when politically convenient. Anyone who questions this is again, oppressive. Women want everything and be responsible for just enough to be viewed as independent. When that becomes too much burden, they either revert to being vulnarable and weaker or they simply decry that men are lazy. Even the Pope has this sentiment. Do a search on “Pope” with “male chauvinism” if there is any doubt. I found three different instances of this for the last six months. That is no accident or misinterpretation.
    So, why does feminism succeed and men movements fail? Because of trational views of women. Women want all the benefits associated with both genders yet men are still expected to pick up the tab when the bill comes. With groups like MGTOW and the Herbivore Man movement gaining popularity throughout the western world, its up to the majority of that population to determine when enough power has been obtained and how now to use it properly. And as of right now, that majority is women. Unfortunately, with the gender gap getting wider and wider by the day, I really don’t see that happening. Groups will always want more power and fight viciously when it is threatened. Its that simple.
    On a personal note, something will eventally give out, then break. That too, is nature.

  24. P Ray
    April 12, 2016 at 1:05 am

    The male version of “so-called” MGTOW is actually …
    white guys going to have sex with non-white women (paid or not), and saying it is “going their own way”.

    If an Asian guy tries to have sex with a white woman (paid or not), the white guys who make up the majority of MGTOW, tell the Asian guy he is “pussy begging” and “has no dignity”

    special reference to Tamerlame and Ehrgeniz 🙂

    • P Ray
      April 12, 2016 at 10:22 am

      Whoops, misspelled.
      It’s Tamerlame and Ergeniz.

  25. April 12, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Black men subconsciously created MGTOW. Except it was just a way of life, not a movement. I wrote about this before.

    https://homeiswherethehateis.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/black-men-subconsciously-created-mgtow/

  1. August 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm
  2. August 21, 2013 at 2:31 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: