Thread: Ozy Frantz should not presume to lecture men about misandry

I haven't read much of his stuff. In fact, I only just found out about him. Read this article by him. I'd say that he has been taken by the society police and "educated".

The basis of feminist "ideas that help men" is to save men from their ego. Feminism believes men inherently are born or are taught that they have or learn a ego which manifests itsef in the destructive patriarchy. To help men, feminists feel they need to teach humility to these men as they do not know what it is. A humble man is now saved from the patriarchy so he now benefits from feminism...

Lets go back to reality. Most men don't have an ego starting out(in fact most don't have an ego even as an adult), they learn to be confident or aggressive based of life experiences. Feminists dont like a man who is confident in what he wants so they have made it somewhat of a taboo in society. A confident man wont listen to a women merely because she is a woman. that is not to say there aren't egomaniacs out there (Kanye West anybody?) It is more to say that Feminists interpret any confidence, self assurance, and beliefs in a different philosophy/ideas in a man as EGO. Just like our "fallen comrade" Hugo Schwyzer, Ozy Frantz has been enlightened and is aware that he needs to save destructive men (ie: All Men) from their Ego's

I was a messed up kid with no self confidence because many the women I knew were trying to break me of an ego I never had. I see so many boys like me... Hated for being anything other than zombie melvins who "study", show interest, and participate in "diverse" school activities...

Ozy Frantz and Manginas like him are the reason I am going my own way...

The MRM and especially the FRM is full of guys like this.. The way I see it, they want men (and women of course) to be all under the control of the state and feminism is a great way of ensuring that because men naturally wish to please women and give them what they want.. It is how they impress the haddocks..

Is MGTOW the only answer?

Well, maybe, but only in so much as MGTOW is not defined as much other than what it says.. "Men Going Their Own Way.."..

Which I guess translates to "Men doing what the fuck they feel like and to hell with everyone else"..

Which can be seen to be a pretty mirror like reaction to what feminism has been about for women..

But of course some men like to define what MGTOW is about, which makes it a sort of subculture..

But arguably, that means it is not really MGTOW because the men are following some sort of a belief system?

Paul Elams Zeta Male concept seems similar I reckon..

At the end of the day, any "answers" to the shit men find themselves in can be either shit avoidance or shit factoring..

The smart guys with the abilities to "factor the shit", will usually choose to do that..

Those who lack confidence or abilities will often choose to avoid the shit..

Most guys try and be smart and have a bash at factoring the shit..

Then end up drowned in it..

Quote from felixblue

Is MGTOW the only answer?

Well, maybe, but only in so much as MGTOW is not defined as much other than what it says.. "Men Going Their Own Way.."..

Which I guess translates to "Men doing what the fuck they feel like and to hell with everyone else"..

I'm not sure I see MGTOW that way. I think that I see MGTOW as a golden opportunity to reclaim and redefine masculinity as we see fit. Feminism has relentlessly attacked masculinity over the past 50 or so years. If they'd restricted themselves to what is toxic about masculinity, then there would be little need for MGTOW. However, as we know, under feminism there is nothing good about masculinity.

Their attack has so weakened masculinity that we may well have an opportunity to reshape and redefine it so that masculinity works for us. This is why MGTOW is such a threat to feminism, because MGTOW will not accept any version of masculinity controlled by feminism. Feminists can say whatever the hell they want about masculinity, but good luck getting an army of MGTOW men to accept their version of it. In a sense, if it works, they'll have done us one huge favor, though they had no intention of doing so.

I personally have never defined myself as a MGTOW, but after thinking about it, I am defining who I should be and not letting other people tell me who I should be. Only time will tell if the label still fits the description and not an idealogy...

I think masculinity and femininity need to work together for a greater wholeness, not try and break each other down and end up with nothing.. I don't think men can stand up and say "we will define masculinity, not women".. Then expect to be taken seriously when they then try and define femininity.. Because, logically it can be expected that by the same token women will claim the right to define femininity as they want it..

Too many MRA types seem to be reluctant to allow women to have a say in what masculine traits women value in men..

This is stupid in my opinion because selfishness is not a trait anyone particularly admires in others..

Quote from felixblue

I think masculinity and femininity need to work together for a greater wholeness, not try and break each other down and end up with nothing.. I don't think men can stand up and say "we will define masculinity, not women".. Then expect to be taken seriously when they then try and define femininity.. Because, logically it can be expected that by the same token women will claim the right to define femininity as they want it..

Too many MRA types seem to be reluctant to allow women to have a say in what masculine traits women value in men..

This is stupid in my opinion because selfishness is not a trait anyone particularly admires in others..

You're falling prey to feminist dualist thinking. Women can comment as much as they'd like about masculinity, and we would be loath to ignore their reasonable suggestions.

Feminists, on the other hand, we should ignore outright.

Not sure what you mean by that "dualist thinking".. I agree that feminists are not worth listening to, but many of them are also women and I dare say have many "reasonable" suggestions to make along with the bat shit insane that they often suggest!

I often wonder.. What sort of relationship does a "MGHOW" have with women? Or A woman in particular? Or don't they?

This is something that needs to be considered I think..

And also, how does he relate to the State? In terms of his employment, tax paying, etc..

Quote from felixblue

Not sure what you mean by that "dualist thinking".. I agree that feminists are not worth listening to, but many of them are also women and I dare say have many "reasonable" suggestions to make along with the bat shit insane that they often suggest!

I often wonder.. What sort of relationship does a "MGHOW" have with women? Or A woman in particular? Or don't they?

This is something that needs to be considered I think..

And also, how does he relate to the State? In terms of his employment, tax paying, etc..

Well Ozy Frantz, being a feminist should definitely be ignored, which was the original point.

What I was getting at was that women have a vested interest in masculinity, and their ideas shouldn't be categorically excluded, but in my post, I mentioned only excluding feminist's definition. Feminists want absolute control over masculinity, and MGTOW should ideally be a foil against that.

By dualist thinking I mean that you seem to have conflated feminists and women, if only temporarily.

Concerning MGTOW's relationship with women, well, I think that following MGTOW means having a relationship with women on terms that every man finds acceptable. If the terms are not acceptable, then MGTOW should empower a man to end his relationship. In other words, MGTOW's promise is that a woman get special treatment based on a female's sex, other than what an individual negotiates with another individual. If special treatments are assumed a priori without any kind of consultation or negotiation, then the MGHOW should terminate the relationship forthwith.

Again when it comes to the state, MGTOW would suggest accepting a government which does not provide special treatment to women based on sex. Since this is not the present state of affairs, I would suggest that MGHOW's become political non-entities, and honestly, refuse to participate in the system which is exploiting them. For example, Captain Capitalism had an excellent blog post today about paring down and moving to Mexico. Any MGHOW who isn't burdened by children or family should consider a similar option, if at all possible. It may not be possible to avoid paying taxes utterly, but one can take steps to severely limit just how much one is involved with the state.

Sounds good.. But men are men and women are women.. It is not something that we can pretend can be ignored.. If you know what I mean.. Instincts are strong..

I am of the opinion that MGTOW should be about rejecting the state more than rejecting women.. "Feminism" may well be the most fundamental and underlying reason why I would suggest this.. Because feminism is pretty powerless as a force within the state underwriting it by force..

Quote from felixblue

Sounds good.. But men are men and women are women.. It is not something that we can pretend can be ignored.. If you know what I mean.. Instincts are strong..

I'm not sure, are you talking about the reproductive instinct alone, or am I missing something?

Quote from felixblue

I am of the opinion that MGTOW should be about rejecting the state more than rejecting women.. "Feminism" may well be the most fundamental and underlying reason why I would suggest this.. Because feminism is pretty powerless as a force within the state underwriting it by force..

I'm not suggesting rejecting women. I'm suggesting rejecting women who also demande a priori special treatment based only on their sex.

People should be free to negotiate whatever arrangements they want between themselves. Many women however, expect special treatment based on their sex. MGTOW should incline a man to avoiding relationships with such women, and only negotiated, mutually agreed special treatment should be considered.

And yeah, I don't like the state very much.

Er, Ozy Frantz isn't male, just the beginning of the many points you have missed.

Quote from Unregistered

Er, Ozy Frantz isn't male, just the beginning of the many points you have missed.

And that somehow makes things better?

I found out after posting my critique that Ozy Frantz was "gender queer." Fine. That doesn't change the fact that Ozy Frantz must be absolutely barred from attempting to reconstruct masculinity to suit its purposes.