Monday, July 16, 2012

Bull Herding in the MRM

Have you ever seen a herd of bulls? Neither have I. It is the anti-thesis of all things "male" to become like a herd. Herds are the nature of females, not males. Yet, whenever talk arises of what men should do about the Gender War, the first thing everyone shrieks for is "unity." Often we hear criticism amongst men themselves that the Men's Movement is not a "real movement" because it does not resemble the feminist movement. "See! Men don't have vast lobby groups, therefore they aren't a movement. And look! Men aren't burning their gonchies in rallies numbering in the thousands, therefore there is no 'Men's Movement.'" It really goes to show how feminized our entire culture has become that men, in response to women's excesses, would actually try to emulate female behaviour in order to ameliorate their grievances.

There is a lot of confusion about what Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) means. Some define it as the marriage strike, others call it swearing off women altogether, and yet others will claim it means becoming a hermit and shunning society. I have been involved in MGTOW since close to its inception and as such I also have come to know several of the people who founded it as a concept. MGTOW is not a "movement" so much as it is a cultural and philosophical observation about men's behaviour. Men have been unable to find unity in their response to feminist tyranny. Lots of men agree things have gone way too far, but that is essentially where the agreement ends. Men are individual creatures, not herd creatures, and as such they have not "unified" in a front against feminism. In fact, if you look around the MRM, what you will find are hosts of "armies of one." What happens is that some men eventually get fed-up waiting for others to get their shit together and just go out and start doing things on their own. Virtually all progress, research, articles and websites in the MRM are the result of an "Army of One." In fact, this very website you are reading is the result of an army of one - my own. MGTOW, at its inception, was an observation that each man was "going his own way" and failing to unify like a herd of feminists would. It is in the nature of males to do so, just as it is in the nature of males to observe the Truth about such behaviour and work with it rather than try to cover it up.

Let me ask you, how can men fight to save masculinity by adopting feminine traits? Wouldn't doing so nullify the entire notion of masculinity and make us into mere women with penises? Men do not unify as herds and they do not make nearly as good of victims as women do. The MRM has been trying this abomination of nature for several decades now, whether arguing about DV shelters for men or for men's "right" to be a house-husband supported by his wife's earnings (AKA a "kitchen bitch"). It always fails, thankfully, because it goes against nature. As of yet, masculinity has not been destroyed, and once men recognize the difference between masculine principles and feminine principles, they tend to say, "The hell with you all, I'm going my own way."

Female Power versus Male Power 

Women are lying when they claim they had no power in the past. We may not have accurately described female power but this is actually in keeping with the feminine: All things female are covert while the male is overt, and so it is that female power in society is also covert. Although it is true that men have held most overt positions of power in the past, one must keep in mind that they were only permitted to do so because society socially condoned such practices. Society (ie. the herd) falls under the domain of the female principle and further, our social mores are controlled by women. What women want, society wants. What women find socially acceptable, society finds socially acceptable. Women have enormous social power while men have very little.

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson 

Over 100 years ago, E. Belfort Bax was writing how a man could never expect to receive justice from a court of law when his adversary was a woman. Justice is only achieved between a man and another man, and the only time a woman receives punishment from the court is when she has done something to harm another woman. When it comes down to man versus woman, the woman always fares better. This is not something new that has arisen recently, as you can see, but rather is something that is innate to humans. Everywhere in nature, males are the servants of the female. Furthermore, women have spent the past several thousand years evolving to better manipulate males to do their bidding.

"A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

What men do with their positions of "power" in society is serve the needs of the female. Even the so-called "oppressive" things of patriarchy past were done for women's benefit. Take the practice of placing all of a woman's property holdings into the husband's name upon marriage. While feminists claim this was indicative of women being "non-persons," what it actually did was benefit women enormously. Women are hypergamous by nature and as such, seek out men who are more powerful and have more resources than they themselves have. Thus, upon marriage, the male's property holdings were generally much greater than the female's, and by combining the two upon marriage the female received the right to her husband's property. If wives could maintain property outside of marriage, then it stands that so could husbands. If property were able to remain legally outside of marriage then women wouldn't be able to fully take advantage of men's higher provisioning abilities. It was in the wife's best interest for her property to be co-joined in such ways. Wouldn't you agree to co-join your assets with Bill Gates if it meant you gained access to his fortune and further, received inheritance rights to it upon his death? Since it was ultimately in women's favour for it to be handled this way, society condoned it.

The introduction of labour laws, such as limiting the work-day for women and children to a maximum of eight hours, was done for their benefit. Men still had to work long, hard days in the fields and mine shafts, but society thought it wrong that women should spend lengthy days in the hazardous conditions of the workplace, and so laws were enacted to protect women - not men - from such harsh conditions. Feminists, in their hate-fueled rage against nature, have tried to complain that such acts were the result of an evil patriarchy conspiring to hold women back, but they are plain and simply lying. In fact, as Angry Harry points out in his two excellent pieces, Women - Weak and Pathetic? and Did Women Really Want to Go Out to Work?, it was women who fueled such movements as it was considered by society (ie. women) that women leaving the workplace was a great step forward for womankind, and so, because women socially condoned it, that's what happened. Here is an extract describing the situation, from David Thomas' book Not Guilty:   

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."
Further evidence to support this position is provided by a 1936 Gallup Poll asking a national sample, "Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not. However, a few decades later, women decided that they belonged in the workplace again and, as Esther Villar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, in very short order, the laws changed by the early 1960's to grant women equal pay and opportunity with men in the workplace - and of course they blamed it all on men, even though it was women themselves that had earlier condoned lesser pay for women and encouraged men to be the sole breadwinner so that women could leave the workplace. As you can see, in each case, what women wanted, society wanted, and thus it came into being. Men were just the tools who facilitated society's (women's) desires.

"Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." – Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile

Men's power comes from conquering the outside world while women's power comes from conquering the will of man and encouraging him to willfully surrender his power unto her when it suits her purpose. Think about how women claim they were powerless because for a few decades they didn't have the vote. Did they pick up guns and overthrow society to get their way? Nope, they bitched and moaned and cajoled men into doing their bidding. They did the same things with the Temperance Movement. Women decided what was socially acceptable, and then harassed men into doing their bidding - and the men did it! Women's social power is enormous and far outweighs men's social power. Men are playing a fool's game if they think they can compete with women on this level, for that is where the heart of female power lies. Men are as horribly outmatched by women on this level as women would be if they deemed to "overthrow men" by lifting weights and taking boxing lessons in an attempt to physically subdue them. Why should men then try to form a movement on the basis of the female principle when it is under this very principle that men have little ability to compete? Seems pretty stupid to me and it can only lead to disaster. Much of this warped thinking is still based in the false Boomer-topian ideology that men and women are essentially the same, save but for externally imposed "social constructs." This is a false ideology and as such, actions based upon it can only lead to false conclusions. A "men's movement" must reflect male principles rather than female principles. Herds of bulls do not roam the countryside. 
"We Must Get Women On-board!"  

This is one of the most common arguments the Men's Movement has made over the past decades. Those who make the argument are both right and wrong at the same time. As I have pointed out, women control our social mores, therefore, in order for society to improve the conditions of men and end the Gender War, women must want the conditions of men to improve. Not much happens that women don't approve of.

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

The mistake "the movement" has continually made is falling for the notion that men and women are essentially the same and therefore what makes sense to men also must make sense to women. Men are based upon principle and logic and therefore continually appeal to women from a position of justice. This is the wrong tactic to take with women, for as has been pointed out throughout history, women have no sense of justice.

"...women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.(9) So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no 'sense of justice.'” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

It makes no sense to appeal to women's "sense of justice" when such a thing is foreign to the female principle in the first place. Furthermore, women have very little ability to empathize with men.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

There is a hierarchy in how our society "works." It looks like this:

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children --> Puppies

Men care for themselves, women and children, while women care for themselves and children. It does not work in reverse. Men expecting women to empathize with their plight are just as foolish as parents expecting children to empathize with them and "do the right thing" simply because it is the right thing to do. Both will be waiting for a loooooong time before nature re-orders itself in such a way. Appealing to women's sense of justice, or arguing with women by use of logic, is a fool's errand for women aren't creatures of logic in the first place, but rather are creatures of emotion and self-fueled narcissism.
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.

-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Relations between the sexes were originally set up as an economic contract whereby men and women both mutually benefited from interacting with each-other in lifelong marriage. Granted, in almost every situation one can find, women benefited far more than men, but this is the nature of human relations. It has always been a 60/40 deal in favour of women, but the difference between the "bad old days" of yesterday's patriarchy and our modern embracing of matriarchy is that the culture used to have a “carrot and stick” approach – if you were a good beta provider you got 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.

Then women and the culture said, “To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks!” and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles while at the same time browbeating men for living up to those roles. Since the advent of marital rape laws, there is no longer an expectation of "sexual relations" within marriage. Family stability has been eroded by the divorce culture which ultimately was born out of transferring presumed custody of children from the father to the mother back in the 19th Century. We are told today that "all children are legitimate" and in fact, men are forced by law to support children that women have cuckolded them with. And finally, the social respectability of being a family man has been completely undermined by a culture that portrays fathers as buffoons whose wives and children have to constantly tolerate their endless social blunders and ineptness in handling all things about them. Yet, somehow, women's illogical brains still seem to think that men will continue to live up to their old roles and "man up" to keep women happy and floating in money and trinkets. Women don't understand The Law of Cause and Effect very well.

Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None

As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, MGTOW is not so much of a "movement" as it is a cultural and philosophical observation of how men are responding to the society which surrounds them. Men are not herd creatures like women. They do not band together and beg for sympathy as women do. Men are far more individualistic than women and they are also far more adaptable. And this is what men are doing - they are adapting to the changes in our culture. Several distinct strategies have emerged for men which they choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace, quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining, pissing and moaning, he becomes a Ghost. If he wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife. In other words, as far as our culture goes, men are "going their own way" whether we like it or not. There are millions of "wildcat strikes of one" in which men are acting upon their own individual, adaptive choices. These numerous individual choices eventually culminate themselves into a "movement" that can't really be defined as a "movement" but certainly does have an impact upon the situation of larger society.

Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the government to do squat for them. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.

Appeals to women's sense of justice and pleas for sympathy continually fall upon the deaf ears of women, for women only have empathy for themselves and their children. Women will not change this until the situation impacts them directly. The battle between the female principle and the male principle always works in this manner - it is like the Yin and the Yang - one overtakes the other until the other overtakes the first again. The male principle is responding to the excesses of the female principle, and it is doing so in its uniquely male way - the opposite of the female herding instinct - by being individuals who take action, or sometimes non-action, and doing what serves men the best in the situation they are presented with. Sure, sure. This cannot go on forever, as if men and women fail to get together and create future men and women, the human race will not go on. But you know what? It is not solely men's problem. Women are complicit in our society's social structuring and when men's withdrawal from our historical role begins to impact women directly, they will change things to re-empower men so fast that there won't be any way to stop them... of course, they will blame men for it along the way - it is what women have always done.

We live in a false sexual economy that is propped up by excessive government interference. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. Once the government can no longer adequately provide for them - as is fast becoming the case as our Boomer-topian cultures financially struggle to keep from collapsing under the weight of female inspired socialism - women will turn on a dime and insist that men live up to roles that suit women's purposes again - and they will take away the two sticks and provide a carrot again if it so suits their purposes, not men's. However, the carrot will likely have to be presented amidst a delicious stew with beef, onions and other tasty morsels in order for men to willingly don the yoke of "patriarchy" again. Until women come around to this conclusion, and devise their own plan for enticing us back, men should let them change their own damn oil and continue to follow the male principle by Going Their Own Way.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........