Monday, May 23, 2011
Challenging Female Dominance Cautiously-
I was reading a post on avoiceformen the other day entitled Is Feminism A Hate Movement?
Great thoughts! Certain truth to this. Now…I have asked myself, is the MRM susceptible to the same influences? Yes without a doubt it is. So what can protect the MRM from influence by a hate based power engine?
Well at this point anyway we have something on our side and that is a moral grounds. The MRM is a RESPONSE to feminism. Does this mean that we will be able to defend ourselves from the same poison? Well in my opinion we can utilize whatever forces available to reach our goals as long as they are constructive and rightful.
In the present time, the threat of a hate ideology serves nothing more than a threat to tarnish our message. It is only through actual action does any hate based motivation harm us. Words are actions we can help stamp out. At this point this is all we have to fear…words and the tarnishing of our message. The MRM is just now getting its teeth. At this point I am not very concerned about a radical fringe because we have little teeth yet to take a bite out of anything.
However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO STAMP OUT HATE WHERE AND WHEN WE SEE IT.
We must remember the role male \ female biological imperatives play that impede the voice of men already and this is, virtually ANY criticism of women or feminism is see right away as a threat to women. ANY male demands, needs or criticism, (due to biological forces we contend with) is immediately reflected back as judgement upon the mere male who dared to open his mouth. He is seen as sexually inadequate, unworthy or even hateful of women. His male use and external utility to the selective choice of the female is nullified. This is how powerful biology is.
This is the threat from the female side of perception. She need only disagree. She is, in her gynocentric nature, predisposed to disagree with anything that may not serve her interests increasingly better no matter what the detriment to males is. Male harm or sacrifice is inconsequential. Through hypergamy she is designed to push the limits. To her, the selective value of males and male legitimacy is measured in this regard. It is literally measured by the male breaking point. She need only disagree with the terms the MRM is advocating for and these forces of motion come into play. This is where the second roadblock comes in…..men themselves and their response to this judgement by her.
The second side is that males, as a class, are a class divided. Unlike females, other males will capitalize upon the phenomena above. Where men draw the line with women and feminism other males will see their opportunity to swoop in to tow the feminist\female line. It is their opportunity to meet female selective variables demanded upon males. They may even be willing to die for this opportunity or at very least cut their own balls off and the balls of other men to get it.
The sheer length to which I’ve seen manginas and white knights go has been astounding to me.
This is why MRAs are so adamant about protecting ourselves from manginas and white knights. They are a real force driven by a very powerful biological imperative. This is why females were not allowed to vote. Female voting destroys the regulatory mechanism of her selective choice to eliminate betas. Desperation was cut off. Now, politicians can be as beta as they want, in terms of serving females they are betas. The crux of the matter, the paradox is that they become alpha by this. Female institutional power and political agency leads to a self compounding and self consuming model. Intrinsic elements of female hypergamy are exercised through the power of the State. The system actually consumes itself of its own means of male enfranchisement. It consumes itself of its own means of production. No civilization that I know of has ever survived female institutional power. Matriarchies have only managed to exist in small matrilinial \ communal social groups.
As such, it is my belief that we may never be able to unite for our collective interests and indeed even the beneficial interests toward a common felicity with women under the event of this new found political paradigm we find ourselves in. Believe it or not, convincing women that male rights and enfranchisement are ends toward their better interests and common felicity with men is key. Will they be able to see it, we don’t know, we have not tried to a large degree.
Remember, the MRM by default, at least initially, is up against A MAJOR FORCE and that is that we as mere males are doomed to serve females as a gender. If he is seen as and labeled unworthy then he must be resentful of this and thus hate women.
Again, other males will capitalize on this especially males in government. Watch the President's body language closely, he winks at the women and after the last sentence licks his lips. Anybody who watches the Science channel on TV knows what this means. This is what men are up against:
We must somehow convince them that they will be safe without being provided to and protected to the death of men. This includes the changes women made to marriage and family law along with protections and provisions given to them in all realms. Others, such as "women first" Affiramative Action in college admissions are very important contenders to male welfare and common felicity with women. Government courts her well and he is a heavy contender. The below is just at the State Legislative level.
These are the forces of biology we are up against. Males will break ranks and play into this. Anyone who doesn’t is seen as unworthy. Her upward demands of hypergamy exacerbates this to ever increasing levels. Only when a majority of males draw the line can we make progress. Even if this is achieved we will then need to contest her husband government, the female majority vote and the all powerful hegemonic female social agency that directs it. Otherwise females are designed to capitalize on the breaking point threshold of how much males will serve their ends.
The other option is to convince females we have passed the threshold toward the ends of meeting their own welfare and interests by the treatment of men and thus we can make progress even though white knights and manginas are willing to still lower the bar upon male treatment even further if it gets them female approval. However to the best of my knowledge women will not concede to this agreement, they will not do this, it is not in their nature. Will the MRM be able to stop the self compounding, self consumptious paradoxical mechanisms that are in play here? To tell you the truth the odds are against us. So for now, there is no need to worry to much about a radical fringe other than to keep hate words out of the discussion.
WHEN our goals are met is the time we should concern ourselves with overstepping. WHEN our goals are met I see the moral constitute of our base supporters going back to the pursuit of fruitful relationships and lives. At this point I see the core of the movement being taken over by radicals that will keep it going. However, we are a long way off from this. It is the least of our worries. Furthermore I see the same forces that attempt to preclude us from advancement as more than adequate mechanisms to shut down any radical fringe. Males, unlike females do not have the authority to propagate a radical fringe. (See: Disciplining Your Male Is Normal)
We must remember we are not playing by the same rules and forces that females have with their movement. Hate and criticism of males actually serves to raise the bar on all of us. She utilized the same mechanisms to enact her will and she will use the same to stop us.
As for now, for reasons of moral fortitude I believe much of our core base is in fact driven by a moral engine. It is when our goals are met and the constitute of our moral base falls away from the ranks that we could be left with a fire of radicalism. Again, we need not worry about this yet and as stated by reasons above, we may not have to worry about it at all.
However, IT IS OUR DUTY TO EXTINGUISH FIRES AS WE MOVE ALONG. ANTI-WOMAN HATRED CAN NOT BE TOLERATED.
It will only excite the white knights and manginas and give them something to work with no matter how small or even non existent. David Futrelle of manboobz is a perfect example. He’s taking beta opportunity when and where he sees it. David is mearly the manifestation of the very real force we contend with on a structural scale. To be quite honest, ANYTHING the MRM says and does will be seen as radical and misogynist anyway. However, at times I've seen him bring to light some needed constructive criticism. This is simply the biological battle we are up against i.e. female selective choice, hypergamy, white knight \ mangina supplicators and the political paradigm paradox of female political agency.
Female nature and the State create a relationship that is imperative for us to understand. For all intent of purpose the State can be viewed as male. It is my contention that the female majority vote along with female nature and it's license of agency will continue it's course. The results will increasingly not bode well.
It is also my contention that this general course is toward the communization and socilization of ever increasing protections and provisions for women through the increasing centralization and succession of power to the State. Men will increasingly be marginalized through this process at which point the consumptive process that this causes in the personal, social and economic realm will necessitate the clamoring for increased State action to increasingly do more. The marginalization of men is a self consuming process. Make no mistake, it is women, their majority vote, the power granted to the State by it along with the propensity of the State to seek power from it that will continue to direct our course as a nation.
Women are simply following forth to met the requisites of their nature, men are now and have always been an accessory for use to meet the ends of this gynocentric drive. It is only natural for women to create a relationship such as the above to what can be described as her government husband. It is he that she naturally chooses...and not a common felicity with men nor the enfranchisement of men to create such felicity.