Getting into this box is what's best for both of us. During your time in the box, you will learn so much, and yet experience so little. It's a wild ride, my friend, one well worth the time spent...and let's face it, you don't have much to do these days anyway.

Saturday, 26 January 2013

What comes after?

I was got to thinking by a comment a couple of posts ago by DriverSuz. Here's the part that interests me:

MRAs are the only ones offering honorable women a safe haven and a viable direction for the future. MRAs are trying to bring the sexes back together, but not on feminists' terms. It has to happen sooner or later, either through peaceful change or societal collapse.

As for reactionaries, they might understand parts of the problem, but they don't seem to be offering viable solutions, which makes me question the depth of their understanding.

A little earlier on, I was linked to a comment of Dr. Elam's:

"MRAs. most of them anyway, are not so much against traditional women as they are against the expectation of traditional values in a culture that makes those values dangerous for men to embrace. Many of our members were men who had traditional marriages, worked to support their families, loved and cared for their children, only to have all that swept away, largely by traditional men upholding what they thought was traditional values, at the behest of feminists.
Additionally, most MRAs still recognize that society was built on stable families and that the tearing apart of that system is largely destroying our society.
But blindly embracing those traditions, without recognizing that feminism has commandeered and corrupted the male instinct to protect women is foolish for men and their children, and not so wise for women.
We are in a catch-22. Feeding traditionalism is now feeding feminist governance. So without eradicating radical feminist influence in government, traditionalism is a loser for men."

Also today, I found an article on AVFM detailing "second-wave men's rights". You can see it for yourself.

After that, I'd read a couple of comments over at SSM's that got me thinking:

"Yes, I read that foolish article. Very unfortunate piece of nonsense, really.

They can do what they please, to be honest. The people who read here and at Dalrock’s and so on are not a part of the “MRM”, at least not as Paul’s site generally defines it. We aren’t a kind of feminism-in-reverse for men, and our goal isn’t a more perfect egalitarianism, which is what that site is generally about. We’re the part of the manosphere that is closer to traditionalism, even if we are critical of social conservatives and other traditionals from a political perspective (hence the disagreements with the Orthosphere about how things are framed and so on). So, no, I don’t think it’s “rad” — it’s the same kind of stupidity that is associated with throwing gasoline on a raging fire."

"Egalitarianism is manifestly false. The idea that men and women are alike except for social programming is false. Women do not like supplicating, easily-controlled men, and men do not like ugly, standoffish women. The demand for sex is unbalanced; men want more of it than women (which is why women withhold it as a weapon.) Women hit their sexual and fertility peak earlier, making long careers wasteful if they want children.

On the social level, male sexuality is demonized while female sexuality is celebrated. A wife can punish a husband with punitive post-divorce conditions even though he committed no crime. Sexual harassment has no hard definition; it is simply whatever the woman says it is.

Thus, there is no reason to cater to an equality that doesn’t exist physically or socially."

The arguments between the different quadrants of the Androsphere have been documented to some extent: MRAs vs. PUAs, MGTOWs vs. PUAs and MRAs vs. Reactionaries, so on and so forth. I'm sure you'll get a little more fighting as what happens when you get a group of men together and they all behave like a herd of bulls, with the ensuing results.

So here we have a divide between the state of the two groups' envisioned peace between men and women from the damage feminism has wrought: egalitarianism versus complementarianism. The main issues that have the two sides at loggerheads can be summed up like this, as far as I can tell:

MRA criticism of reactionaries:

-The old deal the reactionaries want is what allowed feminism to take root in the first place, due to social mores that once protected women turned into ones that pedestalised them during Victorian times.
-That the reactionaries are refusing to accept the current political climate and are exclusionary of certain groups.

Reactionary criticism of MRAs:

-The progressively-inclined MRM ignores sociobiological imperatives that render perfect egalitarianism impossible.
-The MRM is playing into the hands of the state: for example, the Marxist dialectic of marriage.

I think the crux of the issue here is whether civilisation as we know it can continue. The MRAs can work, albeit in a massively uphill struggle, against the current entrenched system by working within it. Currently, they are the only ones with any foothold in meatspace, and a game plan of political activism - protests, outing bigots, writing in to political leaders, so on and so forth.

The reactionary platform (both in the sense of sexual relations and the more politicised alternative right), however, pretty much requires a civilisational collapse for it to spread beyond themselves and their families, because from their point of view, the rot is too entrenched to be dealt with without amputation. Their game plan for the moment involves spreading the word and laying the foundation for what is to come. Up to now, they haven't had a foothold in meatspace yet, but with the Capn's latest get-together and Aurini attempting to organise small groups of alt-right thinkers about the globe for networking purposes, that might be changing soon.

If our current state of affairs continues, then MRAs indeed do have the best chance at success, if only because "true equality" is much better-sounding than "let's go back to the old deal". Egalitarianism might be the most practical outcome, given the realities of modern society.

On the other hand, if civilisation collapses and we have the Greatest Depression, then the technology and surplus resources required to maintain not just feminism, but even egalitarianism will simply be not there and the reactionaries will have their day as people will have to revert back to the old deal out of necessity.

On a personal level, I'm finding it a bit hard to reconcile the two, since I do buy into aspects of both sides. Most people are unique political creatures after all, and it's hard to argue against the fact that both sides are doing their best at doing good, be it overtly or covertly. I still need to think this through some more and sort myself out on these positions.

When it comes down to practicality, though - I know I'm a pessimist, but I'm sure that anyone who reads this blog knows I believe it's only a matter of time before the house of cards comes crashing down. Nevertheless, the intervening time can be made a little more bearable, and the more red-pill people are around when the collapse does come, regardless of the source, the better the rebuilding effort can be.


  1. Legal egalitarianism (which is a primary goal among most MRAs) creates an environment which fosters complementarianism, for those who choose it. It also fosters honest independence for women who choose that, and legal safety for independent men. Legal egalitarianism means equal rights and equal responsibilities.

    There is no "perfect" anything, egalitarian or complementarian.

    1. Hmm.

      Legal egalitarianism does look like a good idea, and I do support it. The thing is, I'm also concerned about further resultant government intrusion in the interests of equality - Aurini claims this is already happening in Canada with children in divorces:

      "There's already nascent legislation in Canada which will "protect" parental rights by making assigning government committees to monitor divorce children."

      The rest of the comments on this video and the back-and-forth are interesting, I think.

      This is a problem for me because as I pointed out earlier in one of my posts, I'm living in a society where the government MUST have a hand in every aspect of life - from telling people to marry and reproduce, all the way to how we must go to the washroom. It's crazy, and I think one of the main reasons Singapore isn't a police state for the simple reason that people here are comfortable and subservient, or at least, appear to. This a a country where strikes and protesting are outlawed, and a group of more than 3 people with "intent to cause social disturbance" is defined as a riot and can be punished accordingly.

      So yes, that's my main concern. I'm glad for the social work sites like AVFM have done and have printed AVFM posters to be snuck up on campus after night classs myself, but I'm just worried when push comes to shove on legislative changes, whether the state will continue to grab power through MRM-led legislation.

  2. I'm sure the state will try, because that's what the state does, but I think MRAs will fight, not for new laws, but for the overturning of existing laws. There will be no complete solution, but we humans seem to be at our best when we have opportunities, and face consequences, at the same time. In such an environment, healthy individual male-female relationships can grow, which will provide more overall societal stability.

    Legal egalitarianism won't fix everything, but it will give all different kinds of people the right to attempt to pursue their own individual goals. And frankly I think it's our only chance to avoid societal collapse, after which all kinds of crazy extremes will flourish. Hell, it might already be too late to avoid economic collapse; if that happens, the individual family will become one of the few stable institutions left to us.

    1. I can only hope that's the case. Before VAWA died, I noticed on the AVFM articles on it a split between people calling for a VAMA, and those wanting to do away with all special legislation. Even on the AVFM forums I've noticed a split between those wanting pro-male legislation, and those wanting base legislation for everyone - same thing with my handful of local red-pillers, all of whom except me want a Men's Charter to balance out the Women's Charter, as opposed to doing away with it altogether. The MRM seems more resistant to co-option than most other politically active groups, which is good, but no group is completely impervious and it still worries me.

      I suppose the tipping point when I began to get worried came with the "Action MRM" video by Wooly Bumblebee and Barbarossa's response video - the whole exchange left a very bad taste in my mouth. Although he and Dean Esmay agreed on the idea that no one should be given special treatment right out the door, there's still a nagging itch at the back of my mind. I still need to watch the situation and sort through my thoughts on the matter. I can only say that if the MRM turns or attempts to turn into another victim group, I won't be able to support it in good faith.

      As for your second paragraph, absolutely agreed. Right now I'm leaning towards legal egalitarianism on a legal scale and complementarianism on a societal scale, much like Cappy Cap seems to be in favour of. It would fit human sociobiological reality, yet give the men and women who are outliers the freedom to pursue their interests.

      With regards to collapse, I'm almost certain it's unavoidable now - the coming US oil boom may not be enough to save the massive ballooning debt both federal and household, and all the people with degrees in quadraplegic turtle studies won't be workng in the oil fields anyways. You're right about extremism - ultranationalist groups have already risen in Greece, Italy and Spain, which is what the Us might look like in the coming future. Just last month, there were riots in Georgia when the EBT cards stopped paying out - I don't think it'll be possible to separate economic and social collapse. Even if we somehow manage to avoid economic and social collapse, demographics will necessitate it, considering that the current model of state benefits in much of the western world is based off an ever-growing population.

      We're living in interesting times.

  3. I wish I could find the article for you, it was a mainstream Canadian newspaper discussing the need for more equitable custody settlements, with the implication that we need *more* laws to do it.

    It's the logic of the machine; a politician who simply overturns old laws doesn't look as hardworking as a politician who makes new laws, with the added benefit the special interest groups can be given access to the pork barrel inside the new laws.

    Imagine, for instance, if a new committee were formed which made it a point to include AVfM on its payroll as consultants; even the minimalists in the movement would be hard pressed to turn this down.

    1. Thanks for the thought. I've given up looking for said article but come across a whole lot of other interesting stuff in the search, so no loss there.

      Given your example, I can certainly see even the minimalists being cajoled into going along with forming the committee, primarily with the "it's our only chance to make a difference" argument. It'd be justifiably seen as a big break, and anyone urging caution would probably be shouted down or hushed up for spoiling a good thing.

      When I first watched your "eat the MRM" video, I was disquieted, but now the disquietment has turned to their side with recent developments such as the calls for cutting off of various elements they perceive as undesirable; it really has an air of cultural Marxism about it, and not to mention the attack methods of the rabbit people Vox Day described (demanding adherence to the sensitivity imperative, name-calling, and exclusion). I'm really hoping they don't get co-opted, but it doesn't look good.

      As a result, I've found myself drifting more towards the Alt-Right point of view of late.