Thread: Countering AgitProp

Repetition of facts and clear sighted opinion (real opinion - not prejudices) is the lot of the MRA. We have to do it all the time and especially when someone new comes here. And especially when they are femi-inclined.

How many of us have relevant books on the subject matter?

I have quite a few going right back to 'The Myth of Male Power' by Warren Farrell (complete with notes from my meeting with him when he was over in Oz giving talks about it). I have many 'professional' tomes too, not just guru rantings but research and commentary. "Why Men don't Iron"; 'Sexual Persona' - by Camille Paglia; 'Sexual Behaviour in Britain' (1994); Prendergasts, 'Victims of Memory'; Steven Pinker's 'Blank Slate'; - just a few of them. I even have Timocrats book, 'Honour', and of course 'Rantings of a Single Guy'.

Sound authors give deep thought to the subject and gather the facts, as well as using them to form solid opinion. The established authors have the benefit of sound editors, which unfortunately the wannabe authors do not. The latest off the press is Moxon's book "The Woman Racket'. It doesn't have a sound editor and the writing shows, but nevertheless he raises many issues more of less coherently.

I do wish MRAs would keep up. We have to be educated in our subject. We have to be on top of it if we are to engage in arguement. Karl does a great job in making this board available and we can do our part - part of our part - by highlighting and inviting authors. It would save a lot of time if we could simply refer people - people like TERA, who is a nice woman, more than likely, - but in need a LOT of education , and they get AgitProp from their colleges.

Anyway, Here is Moxon extract on an issue central. (My bold emphases)

The Woman Racket -

Chapter 7: Historical Blindsight

The position women are in today is so obviously a good one that those who argue men have ‘power’ over women usually resort to pointing out how clearly women were disadvantaged in the past.

Mere mention of the vote or of marriage or child custody in times not so long ago, closes down debate. But it doesn’t take much probing beneath the surface of what apparently used to be the lot of women, to see that very far from disadvantage, women enjoyed privilege…

It’s a mistake to view the past through the eyes of today. Our own perspectives imposed, anachronistically, on the behavior and thinking of people in former times is unfair. It would be silly to take our notions of social justice in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and, finding such principles not apparent in Victorian and earlier times, to then castigate society in earlier periods for unfairly disadvantaging women. Disadvantaged compared to whom?

You have to make comparison with others at the same time, and take account of what was then feasible.

This is exactly the mistake we make though. We’re blinded to the possibility that conceptions of social justice as they were at different periods in history may have secured the optimum benefits to women under the constraints that were then operating; and that in no sense were women ‘oppressed’, nor men unduly favored.

It turns out that, if we take the blindfolds off, it’s apparent not just that people at the time perceived that women were not disadvantaged, but that indeed women were as privileged throughout history as they are today. The privilege that women enjoy is not contingent on any historical factors, but is biologically based.

It’s neither in pre-, nor late-medieval, but in recent history that supposed incontrovertible evidence exists that the lot of women was as the ‘oppressed’.

Flagship status goes to the issue of the vote…[but] it turns out that the real struggle for the franchise was that of ordinary men – who paid the taxes and were drafted into the armed forces to fight the wars their taxes paid for. These were the people who for centuries, millennia even, were denied democracy, not women.

Where women had a direct interest, they have always had the vote. So it was that from time immemorial women have been enfranchised in their local communities, and when issues that concerned women moved up to the national women, then women were given the parliamentary ballot in an historical blink of the eye.