Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Our Current Problem – A Further Response to John

Once again, in response to my last post, John offered some very interesting comments. I encourage everyone to give it a read. Many thanks, John; your comments certainly help me focus my thoughts. I’ve added your web site to my list of Men’s Sites.

On many points I think we agree, however I disagree on some, and strongly disagree with what I infer is your solution. Where I think we most agree, although I don’t know that you see it, is in your argument that we should attack the cause of our current situation, i.e., politicization, not directly, but by attacking its cause, i.e., feminism. It’s mainly the tactic on which we disagree.

I agree with your comment that the real party in this conflict is the state. I agree because ultimately I think the general problem is that the relationship and the power balance between men and women has been fundamentally changed by the inclusion of the state. For example, marriage is now a three-way contract between men, women and the state. It is the alliance between the state and feminism that is our true enemy. Angry Harry recently addressed this alliance.

With respect to your comments regarding politicization, I do agree that, “the law is itself a restrictive phenomenon upon freedom,” and so must be addressed. I do see the state as the ultimate enemy of freedom. Importantly, it is also the source of female power. I do indeed see the politicization of private matters, such as marriage, divorce, and children, as a crucial problem.

More broadly, I agree that the law’s “value begins and stops with that (a restrictive phenomenon upon freedom).” I do not, however, observe that the current law has limited itself to its value. It is true that this is the historically unique ideal upon which the United States was founded: the idea that rights are naturally inherent and so government power limited.(*) In this experiment, the government supposedly does not bestow rights. One can see clearly the seed of our problem in the arguments for and against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The danger of inclusion was the implication that the government was conferring limited rights (hence, the 9th Amendment). Our instant problem is chiefly that this danger has now been realized.

But our problem is not just politicization, but more fundamentally, a faction problem as discussed in Hamilton's Federalist No. 9 and Madison’s Federalist No. 10. The feminist faction is indeed females “united . . . by [a] common impulse of passion . . . adverse to the rights of other citizens [i.e., men], . . . and [the] aggregate interests of the community.”

More precisely, our problem is a perverse realization of the faction problem as expressed through the feminist-state alliance. This codependent power relationship between government and feminism is the root cause of politicization, and our real enemy. In this case, Madison’s solution, a large republic, has not served to temper the feminist faction problem. Instead the government has embraced and rather opportunistically enabled feminism. From this man’s viewpoint, the feminist faction has served as little more than a sanction of government oppression.

With the allocation of government authority to the feminist faction, effected through so-called public policies that conferred special rights to females, the federal government skillfully escaped its constitutional limitations. It became a government that bestows limited privileges on men and suppresses our natural rights. Females of course self-servingly wield that government authority over men. Moreover, females’ selfish use of special rights supports and strengthens the government beast. The allocation and execution of such power is just too tempting for females to resist, and too advantageous for the government to curtail.

It is a problem of increasing government power as facilitated by the feminist faction. The quasi-communist feminist faction, with a very specific strategy and by using well-defined wartime tactics, allied itself with the government. Feminist expansion became government expansion. Our government happily acceded to the feminist demands because it fed the government’s ever increasing, self-serving, appetite for expansion.

Feminists understood this.

But I don’t assess our situation as having arisen principally because of some tyranny of the female majority. Again, I believe it to be a perverse faction problem. If our government functioned as initially restricted, I might conclude that its decisions were representative of the majority. However, there is more than ample evidence that our federal government plainly does not head the majority when its ever-increasing power is at stake.

Nevertheless, although the majority of females may not have pressed the feminist agenda, all females now, at least tacitly, enjoy and encourage the feminist-government pact.

We must break this feminist-government alliance.

Feminism will never abandon government, for government is truly its only source of real power. Moreover, so long as all females enjoy the benefits of a feminist-government union, they will never truly abandon feminism. Most importantly, government will never abandon feminism while it serves the government appetite for power and expansion. We cannot defeat the state directly. Nor can we defeat government-empowered feminism.

But we can defeat individual females at each and every turn.

Females have become the feminist-government alliance’s front-line soldiers. This is the principal reason I regard all females as members of the enemy camp. Given the opportunity, in a very utilitarian fashion, each female will treat us as the enemy; they will do so with the government’s full support.

Consequently, I cannot agree with your conclusion that the solution is as simple as depoliticization through transcendence, because I basically do not believe that will work.

I disagree that a man might transcend the power of the state through his own choice to opt out, with nothing more. Frankly, I believe that to be a false impression of freedom. While it is certainly true that, “a workhorse cannot be made to produce if he refuses to work,” in our case, females, through the power of the government, have many options to force compliance. As I said before, you can only go your own way so long as the government allows. I have to agree with the Elusive Wapiti when he says, “[t]he law will simply be changed so as to ensnare men that are attempting to avoid the government marriage trap.” We already see this government approach in countries other than the U.S.

Truly, how better to enslave a man than to delude him into believing himself free?

You seem to acknowledge this problem when you state that men must “have the backbone to say ‘no’ to entitled women. You state that, “cultural attitudes filter into democratic processes,” and that it is the “culture that projects its cultural and spiritual shortcomings into the force of law.” You seem to argue again that the solution is to man-up, go our own way, and thereby change both our and the female mindset. As mentioned before, male transcendence of the politicization is not a solution, so presumably it must be the change in female culture that will change the law. You give the impression that females will surrender if we do not fight them. Again, you leave our fate to the whims of females. With this, I strongly disagree.

Frankly, I simply don’t believe that most females awoke one morning with a sudden epiphany, nor, left alone, will they in the future. I do not think that the men-going-their-own-way tactic, without more, is sufficient to dissuade females from allying with feminism. Females must be actively led by men to realize that feminism is contrary to their best interests. They simply will not come to this realization on their own. Consequently, with your argument, that in conclusion again seems little more than leaving our fate in the hands of females, I strongly disagree.

The fact is, the foot soldiers on the ground are the females. Females exercise the state’s power and sustain the feminist-government alliance. Only by defeating the soldiers can we break the feminist-government alliance.

We must compel females to forcefully reject feminism and the feminist-government alliance.

We must take aggressive action against rank-and-file females to actively convince them that a change is in their best interest. We must treat all females as our enemy until they no longer wish to fight or to passively support our enemy. At every turn, we must contest the female use of government power until females surrender. With each battle won we diminish the power of feminism.

Only when females surrender, en masse, will the feminist agenda cease to be a source of government’s ever increasing power. Once rejected feminism no longer serves as a source of government power, government, fickle and self-serving as it is, will abandon feminism for more effective sources of power.

This is how we win.

We must make deserters from feminism of females, not become deserters ourselves.

(*) We can argue this point later. I tend to think of this more as propaganda for the masses.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I do not think you can do that any more than you can fight the state.

In that case, it's best to kill the beast at the source: the government.
The state must be made powerless. We haven't found the way to do it.

Anonymous said...

I'm a white-skinned man living in Asia. The respectable women in my local community trust their fathers infinitely more than they trust the government. (Of course, Asia is a huge place with billions of people and I don't recommend generalizing from a single community.)

I reward women who act traditional and ignore feminists.

I very much like the analysis of feminism as a fundamentally statist phenomenon.

Widespread discontent with statism is not unified -- but it is sometimes more effective that way. Anti-statist atheists and anti-statist mystics fight the state without having to be coordinated.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Females must be actively led by men to realize that feminism is contrary to their best interests."

This is the key point, I think. I don't think that simple retreat or withdrawal on men will be sufficient, for even if a man manages to keep himself from being ensnared by government, he's still (through his expropriated taxes) supporting the femmatrix machines.

PS like your incorporation of Federalist 10 into the discussion. The Founders tried to implement a whole lotta safeguards to keep factions from forming; they failed.

Anonymous said...

I believe that in my comment from your last post ("Defining Victory, Day 2"), I addressed the challenge of overcoming anti-male laws (surgical strikes with trained and paid lobbyists). I also intoned
that the MGTOW approach benefits the individual man primarily (although the marriage strike has had some macro-level effects).

But I have to take issue with this idea that we MRAs are somehow going to change the culture through our collective action. I have seen what this movement is capable of, and we're just not cut out for something like that. I've seen so many strident essays during my time in the MRM, and very few have motivated anyone to donate their money or time. In fact, for all the bluster, most MRAs prioritize their anonymity higher than achieving "victory."

I just want the government to leave me the hell alone. The culture is an irritant, but I can withstand that if I just stand up for myself and develop a thick skin. But beyond that, in my view this idea of "winning" is frankly a pipe dream. Our movement simply doesn't have the cultural, political, financial, or commercial clout to cause much more than a ripple. That's just a reality. To believe otherwise is to kid yourself.

In my opinion, the best that individual men can achieve is to avoid licensed marriage (a trend that is working, with the U.S. Census Bureau reporting that last year, unmarried cohabiting couples outnumber married ones). Collectively, maybe MRAs could dominate the blogosphere as a swarming force against feminist blogs. Legislatively, maybe we can block some legislation and overturn a law or two in the courts.

But forget about a sea-change in the culture. If you disagree with me, then stop writing these posts about what you think needs to be done, and start writing about how you intend to get there. I would like to see not a roadmap, but actual plans, backed up by commitments of personal time and money. If this is out of the question for you, then realize what you've accomplished here. So far you've got a few blog postings, most of which identify half of the earth's population as the enemy. What did you hope to accomplish?

Michelle Therese said...

Ooo... great post!!

Anonymous said...

I agree we will not change the laws.
But is it relevant?

The Romans fixed their problems during the 3d and 4th centuries by "processing" a slew of emperors.

It got so bad that new emperors had to be forced into position (Claudius) so they could be hacked to pieces.
Here's a good example that we could follow or improve.

We may be headed into a deep recession: this should be acclaimed by men as great news.
The deeper the recession the better.
We can use the coming recession as a weapon by making the recession worse.

Nothing will change until we make a decision to sink the economy and society as well.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:

"We may be headed into a deep recession: this should be acclaimed by men as great news.

The deeper the recession the better.
We can use the coming recession as a weapon by making the recession worse.

"Nothing will change until we make a decision to sink the economy and society as well."

This is the mentality that I'm talking about... Who is "we?" Are YOU going to actually do anything? What specifically are YOU going to do in order to "sink the economy?"

More bluster... more analysis... more planning. I can imagine you sitting at a Starbucks somewhere, pecking on your laptop, plotting world domination, and sipping a Venti hot mocha. Then, after making such bold and strident statements, you pack up your laptop, read a book, then head home, ready to plot world domination yet again on the next day.

I'll call such people Latte revolutionaries.

Michelle Therese said...

"This is the principal reason I regard all females as members of the enemy camp."

That's sad because it's not only you men that are suffering at the hands of Feminists and Feminism. We non-Feminist women are also suffering deeply. *Both* men and non-Feminist women are needed in this fight but as long as any men consider *all* women to be their enemies we'll never be able to fully unite.

Anonymous said...

"*Both* men and non-Feminist women are needed in this fight but as long as any men consider *all* women to be their enemies we'll never be able to fully unite."

There might be a handful of women who are not feminists. I can accept that "theory" in a leap of faith.
But even if men and the two or three non-feminist women were to "unite", we would still be a minority and strictly nothing would happen.

I'm afraid to say that men and women have become the most natural enemies, possibly because of feminism.
I believe that what we have seen so far is just the beginning.

Better forget about happiness and male-female relationships: we shall soon be in survival mode.
Expect violence to become pandemic.
Rather than trying to mend the "gender wound", find ways to protect yourselves.

As the economy sinks deeper, the game will become a hell of a lot rougher.
I fully expect men and women to jump at each other's throats in a final showdown.

I do not see how that can be avoided.

Unknown said...

For example, marriage is now a three-way contract between men, women and the state.I've read about this, but more from Patriot Community or Common Law advocate type sources. I'm still looking for a definitive white-paper/treatise on the matter, and anything that shows how to reverse the situation legally. Most people that publicise the situation are only able to warn against getting into it, not how to get out of it and protect your family (I have a good wife and three young boys whom I want to protect in every way possible from CPS hooligans). Any insight you can direct me to that rises above theorizing and indignant-patriot-fluff would greatly appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Asunto: Solicitud Intercambio de Enlaces

A/a. Webmaster o encargado del mantenimiento de la página WEB

Estimado Señor:

Estamos interesados en un intercambio de enlaces con su web

Nos gustaría que nos enlazara en su página con el
siguiente código:

Audifonos - Especialistas en Audicion

Nosotros le enlazaremos desde nuestra web: http://sonosalud.com

desde la página de Enlaces.

¡Si está interesado sólo es necesario que acceda a


(Esta url esta accesible desde nuestra página principal, pulsando sobre el botón LINK
arriba a la derecha.)

y complete el formulario con el que inmediatamente incluiremos un enlace hacia su página WEB.


Dpto. Técnico

Rap Music said...

Nice Posts!

Hip hop Honeys said...

a lot to read and take on

Anonymous said...

Antes de nada, perdona que te escriba esto como un comentario, pero es que no vi tu email en el tu blog
Soy el webmaster de publizida.es

Publizida BLOG'S es un ranking / directorio de clasificación de blogs en español, creado con el único propósito de dar a conocer los mejores blog's

Registrando su blog en Publizida BLOG'S accederás al servicio de estadísticas gratuitas y podrás participar en el TOP.RANKING
También puedes acceder a la valoración que los usuarios hacen de su página.

Y lo mas importante...
darte a conocer y aumentar el numero de visitantes a tu BLOG de manera totalmente gratuita.

Si te interesa puedes darte de alta


o visitanos en ......



Muchas Gracias por tu tiempo... y disculpa si no fue la mejor manera de darme a conocer.

Un saludo.

Webmaster de Publizida.es

Anonymous said...

Another classical example of the gross misuse of Dowry Act (498A) is the case of television celebrity, Suhaib Ilyasi. India's Most Wanted television host was in controversy after the dispute over his daughter Aaliya's custody rose soon after Ilyasi's wife Anju committed suicide on January 10, 2000 in Delhi. While his mother–in-law, Rukma Singh wanted custody of the child on the ground that she had the right under Muslim law, Ilyasi had taken the plea that his marriage with Anju was not solemnized as per the Muslim law but had been a civil affair. His sister-in-law Rashmi Singh came from Canada after six months of her sister's death and filed a complaint with the police against Ilyasi, alleging that he used to torture his wife Anju for dowry.

The case took bizarre turn when Anju's brother Prashant Singh and father Prof K P Singh took a diametrically opposite stand and described the allegations against Ilyasi as ``rubbish.'' Prashant told Express Newsline:`whatever my mother and sister Rashmi are stating against Suhaib Ilyasi is a lot of rubbish. There is no truth in their statement or in the charges filed by the police against Suhaib. If you are holding Suhaib responsible for Anju's suicide, then my mother and sister are also to blame, as they unduly interfered in their family matters.

K P Singh, a retired IIT professor, agreed with Prashant. “My wife and daughter are breaking up my family”. Both Anju's father and brother allege that Rukma and Rashmi have given statements against Suhaib as `they wanted custody of baby Aaliya. When Ilyasi delayed that, they put him in trouble.'

Anju's mother Rukma Singh had changed her earlier statement given in January, 2000, in which she had stated that she did not suspect any foul play by Suhaib Ilyasi. However when Ilyasi refused to give custody of his daughter, she change her statement and alleged dowry harassment against Ilyasi.

It has been alleged for long that Dowry Act (498a) in India is being consistently misused by clever women for extortion and blackmailing. The NCRB records suggest that during 2005-2006, 94% of the 498A, 304B cases filed by women or by her relatives were primarily to settle scores.

Section 498A in itself is, however, not meant to deal specifically with dowry -- it is commonly considered to be a 'dowry law' because domestic violence against a wife related to dowry demands is considered to be within the scope of 'cruelty' envisaged by the Section.