The Political is Personal

**novaseeker** · 24th-January-2009

“One of the first things we discover ... is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time.” -- Carol Hanisch, “The Personal is Political” in Feminist Revolution (1969).

* * * * *

One of the aspects of the men's movement that has struck me is that the possibilities for making the movement a true, political movement for change seem limited. In part, I see this as a result of the history of the movement – which has not exactly been one characterized by political success. Another reason for it lies in what Steve Moxon describes as the natural male tendency to collaborate only in fixed organizational settings (such as community, workplace, athletic team, etc.), typically in direct competition with other men – something which greatly impedes the ability of men to collaborate on a broad basis simply by virtue of their shared biological sex. In other words, men tend to see other men who are outside of their organizational “in group” as competitors, assess their relative position in the dominance hierarchy, and then begin to assert dominance – rather than collaborating together on the basis of shared interests as members of the same sex, as women can be observed to do.

A related issue are the behaviors known as “cheater detection” -- namely, behaviors that are intended to keep the males who are lower in the hierarchy “in their place”. This manifests itself in all kinds of interpersonal conflict between men – even men involved in MRM groups – as those who perceive themselves as dominant seek to assert dominance and put the others in their place as a means of keeping them down to the position in the hierarchy where the dominant thinks is appropriate. This behavior is to be even more expected when the issues at hand relate to male/female relations – as does the MRM, to a large degree. This behavior works well enough from the biological and genetic perspectives, but it's an extremely poor set of behaviors from the perspective of trying to forge a politically viable movement of men, based on their common interests as men when it comes to relations with women. If Moxon and the studies he cites are correct in claiming that this a very deep-seated, biologically based set of behaviors ... then it seems quite unlikely that a successful political movement can be built around the interests of men as men.

I realize that others have recognized this, and have advocated aligning with another political movement, or collapsing the MRM into a broader based group, such as the family advocacy movement. While these are interesting perspectives, and worth a fuller discussion – which I hope to get to, when I have time – in this brief note I wanted to explore another possibility.

As you can see from the quote above, feminism espoused the idea that personal problems should be politicized – that is, interpersonal issues between men and women should properly be the subject of political action through laws enforced by the power of the state. Feminism has been largely successful operating on this basis, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tendency for women to identify with each other as women, politically, and stand together to a much greater degree behind the agenda that the feminist revolutionaries put forth in the 60s and 70s (and beyond, to a lesser extent). There were, of course, female dissenters, and there still are – but they're quite outnumbered by those who identify with the “sisterhood.”

The same approach won't work for men, for the reasons stated above: from the practical perspective, it seems unrealistic to expect men to unite as men around male issues impacting male/female relationships. That is, the political power of men, in this regard, seems much more limited as a practical matter than is the case for women. Yet clearly many of the issues we face are political – things like divorce and custody law, criminal law, employment law. How then can we, as men, tackle these issues, given that a mass political movement seems unlikely?

One way would be for us to turn the feminist approach around and apply it backwards. That is, for men, it very well may be that the political is personal. In other words, that political change can be achieved, not directly by means of a mass political movement, but indirectly by millions of men making changes in their own, individual personal lives which are counter-revolutionary, subversive of the revolutionary cause, and liberating for men.

What does this mean, as a practical matter? It can mean many different things to different people. To me, an emphasis on discipline, a renewal of focus, and the firm determination to remain aloof when it comes to female approval seem critical – but these, again, are the topics for another note which I hope to write at some stage. And other men may have other ideas about how they wish to lead their lives. But the key thing, it seems to me, is that men should embrace the increased personal freedoms that feminism has given us, and use it to benefit ourselves and subvert the revolution at the same time!

If women wish to be single mothers, let them – but make sure you are not the father. If women wish to be involved in the career ratrace, let them – but be sure you don't fall all over them in the office, don't humor them, and compete with them just as you would with another man. If women try to use their enhanced sexual power over you, rebuff them, and ignore them, and empower yourself in the process. And if you want to use the sexual revolution to enjoy women, go right ahead – just don't cohabit, and don't marry, and don't father any children. Let the women deal with the fallout from this – after all, it's the world they wanted, isn't it?

Objections will be made that this plays into the feminist agenda, that this just means more feminist programming for children and so forth. But surely that isn't any different if men decide to follow the conventional route and marry and procreate – after all, fathers are routinely excluded from children's lives now, and the children are being raised just as feminized. The advantage of an independent, personal approach is that it protects the individual male from adding more fodder to the feminist family courts, and eventually, if followed by enough men, creates social problems that will demand being addressed.

Perhaps men have indeed reached the point where “there are no [political] solutions at this time.” Perhaps, men, it is time for us to go personal, and let our personal lives speak our political agenda, and further it in a most subversive, yet self-empowering, way. Perhaps it's time for us to realize that, for us, as men, the political is personal – and get on with leading our strong, independent, male lives.

**Aug9th-LiveOrDie** · 24th-January-2009

very intruiguing post

**Timocrat** · 24th-January-2009

One way would be for us to turn the feminist approach around and apply it backwards. That is, for men, it very well may be that the political is personal. In other words, that political change can be achieved, not directly by means of a mass political movement, but indirectly by millions of men making changes in their own, individual personal lives which are counter-revolutionary, subversive of the revolutionary cause, and liberating for men. -Nova Seeker

I firmly believe just as you say and have been working to this effect for some time. I have not closed down cooperation with other groups, for there is slow movement there as well. History shows movement go through stages that include café revolutionary stages. We need serious revolutionaries, as history is filled with men over-coming all of what Moxon’s says and getting things done. This is not, and I mean not, to dismiss Moxon’s ideas as they are all true. Just to say they have been overcome many times, and will again.

Because of this I have a mixed response to MGTOW. As you are almost saying as them, or are making their case. I’ll explain after I quote you again.

Objections will be made that this plays into the feminist agenda, that this just means more feminist programming for children and so forth. But surely that isn't any different if men decide to follow the conventional route and marry and procreate – after all, fathers are routinely excluded from children's lives now, and the children are being raised just as feminized. The advantage of an independent, personal approach is that it protects the individual male from adding more fodder to the feminist family courts, and eventually, if followed by enough men, creates social problems that will demand being addressed. -Novaseeker

Sure this is a better spot to be in than having your kids used by the system, having your culture destroyed with your funds and so on. All true, but a man can do better with if he wills it.

Increase your odds to find a better catch, and get a woman not plugged into the decadent culture. Some men who come here to AM have proven it can be done. I’m one of them. We are often dismissed because our opponents say we are headed for a fall like the rest of them, and thus they can easily dismiss us on the whim that tomorrow we may get a divorce. This is beyond unfair, for we are thus pegged as failures in our marriages because it “could happen” instead of it “really happening”. Many men who have found a good wife, have been divorced and thus are wise to what could happen tomorrow, and they often also get tired of hearing men tell them they will fail tomorrow based on another man’s crystal ball. This is another example of Moxon’s cheater detection, or men unable to find one of the good ones say we are not real MRAs, as we will fail soon or don’t really understand what other men feel and thus fail in their hierarchy yet again. This endless cheater detection borders on the absurd.

The best position to carry on, as you have tried to rightly show, is to get a good wife, bring up kids (especially boys) to be prepared and ready to wage the next battle and then keep your funds away from the system to thus starve it with not being stuck in its vise. Then you don’t give it your good heath, your grey hairs, kids, funds and anything else you want to add. Yet for this to work one still must stop placing other men in the cheater detection spot, who don’t deserve to be there for endless attacking other men for little reason.

For this to happen trust must happen first and then other things can happen. Yet trust has often been removed early from young men as the system makes the one relationship that will allow men to trust men (a boy probable good relationship with his real dad) is removed. This is why the system targets this, for men from then on are lucky if they can trust another man after losing this one trusting relationship. In the past trust in dad lead to trust in dads friends, which lead to trust in the neighborhood filled with dads friends and your friends, which lead to community trust and so on. The system has broken down this trust and its lowest level. It is dishonorable in its quest to do this. That is why the way out, first and foremost, is to get dad bringing up his boys like nothing the earth has seen before, Second to find men that will earn trust and make others earn trust, so that they can help one another in deeds (not talk for women out gun us with talk).

Unfortunately we have too many men cheater detection others with real stretches of mental gymnastics, so that they don’t have to trust anyone and cannot try their ideas for real (as only with other men will any of their ideas work) and remain undefeated in their own minds, instead of untried in their ideas.

**Incognito** · 24th-January-2009

Intriguing, yes...I agree!

But...I question whether or not a men's movement is "doomed" simply because of competition between men for a better place in the hierarchy within. Seems to me that every group (regardless of the gender of its members and the goals of the group) has organization, and organizations usually do involve a hierarchy of sorts.

I do agree that work can also be done individually, as noted above. Men can protect themselves (somewhat) on an individual basis, but as a group can effect political change. Good leadership...that's important!

**Percy** · 24th-January-2009

Very clear and concise.

Is that your's NovaS, or from someone else?

One aspect of the reasons for feminist success is conspicuously missing.

feminism espoused the idea that personal problems should be politicized – that is, interpersonal issues between men and women should properly be the subject of political action through laws enforced by the power of the state. Feminism has been largely successful operating on this basis, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tendency for women to identify with each other as women,

What feminism has done is to manipulate social thinking by identifying with CHILDREN, far more so than with other women. That is how they have been successful in getting so many men on their side and all the laws passed. One can barely consider women's issues these days without seeing women peeking out from behind kiddies. Children are used as weapons and shields. No one wants to harm children. No chaps that is.

**novaseeker** · 24th-January-2009

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

Percy -- yes that's my own text. I also agree that the masking of female issues in the garb of children has been a critical factor in the success of feminism. The whole idea of reproductive freedom combined with female independence is to emphasize the bond between mother and child as the relevant familial bond, with fathers being optional "seasoning". This idea is critical, because no concession can be made to the "need" for fathers or the "ideal" of fathers -- if those concessions were made, then the need for the male/female family would be raised, which ipso facto undermines female independence from men. The revolution was smart, comrade.

Tera -- I hear where you are coming from, but almost all of the men I have spoken with who are vets in the movement say that inevitably cooperation breaks down due to cheater detection behavior. It seems wired.

Timo -- Yes. Indeed I am not advocating MGTOW (although that has personal appeal for *me*), but rather male independence and freedom to choose what to do without female approval. That may involve marrying a lovely woman who shares these values. It may involve expatting. It may involve celibacy. But in all cases it involves male freedom.

Thanks again for the responses.

**Percy** · 24th-January-2009

Novaseeker, your writing is far, far better than almost everyone here and I for one am most grateful for your presence.

You bring a clarity to complex issues and express them concisely.

What does this mean, as a practical matter? It can mean many different things to different people. To me, an emphasis on discipline, a renewal of focus, and the firm determination to remain aloof when it comes to female approval seem critical – but these, again, are the topics for another note which I hope to write at some stage.

I look forward to it.

Who does the Grail serve?

**novaseeker** · 24th-January-2009

Thank you, Percy. I am always in development, always under construction, as it were. Pardon the dust

And for the record I have to say I was inspired to a significant degree by this post and the linked writings.

**Gunner** · 24th-January-2009

Very interesting topic.. I didn't read the whole thing, only scan through it.

IMO, it's true. The competitive nature that seems to be a characteristic of most men gets in the way of us being united in a more general sense. It's a shame, especially when there are many men's issues and these days where there are young men out there (some of my friends included) who are struggling with finding a place for themselves in the world. Men in general are being left to fend for themselves. Feminists greatly outnumbered us. I don't think being a collection of "lone wolves" is going to serve our gender that well anymore.

We need more brotherhood.

**Percy** · 24th-January-2009

A point to remember when considering this 'cheater detection' issue which is being discussed in the MRM. Let us not get carried away.

Every virtue at its extreme can become a vice.

There are dark sides even to the brightest attributes.

We can be dazzled bythe dark.

Men observe other men to 'weed out' the chaff. Many men put on armour to protect themselves in battle, but it can also hide their true identity. We mistake the armour for the man inside.

'Competition' serves an end, even though it can 'take over' and become, for many, and end in itself. Men then steal each other's armour as a substitute for manhood.

It is a Positive' attribute of men that they continually 'test' other men, not to 'keep them down' or steal their manhood but to identify weaknesses. Having identified a weakness, that weakness can be corrected. It can make the 'tribe', the hunting party, the society, far more effective. THAT is how men can aid one another.

It is something that the MRM does in spades. 'Testing' one another.

We have to look at the motive.

We carp and criticise. We pick holes in one another instead of focusing on the arguements. We all too often 'play the man and not the ball'. We play 'Mine's bigger than yours' far too much.

We need to be correcting one another for a greater purpose than self-congratulation and preening or putting people 'in their place'.

We fail to ask the question.

Who does the Grail serve?

**ingrate** · 24th-January-2009

Women in unrestrained arrogance have defined what a man should be for too long. If a man chooses to be good rather than nice, Mommie will shame him. You insensitive bastard.

If a man chooses justice and mercy rather than political expediancy, Mommie will shame him. You stupid bastard.

I believe that a large percentage of men are suffering from shame poisoning. I also believe that men suffering from shame poisoning are prone to dick measuring and pissing contests.

I also believe there is a small percentage of men who simply don't measure up. These are men who desert in the heat of battle, willfully choose to be manginas, etc., and should surely be hung by their balls.

These are also the same men who would be concerned about how much rope it required to hang them by their balls. Certainly more than it would take for anyone else. Especially you.

I'd say that this shame poisoning is an evil thing except that Mommie would shame me. I'm not supposed to think in terms of good and evil, Mommie says I have to use positive and negative. Calling something evil isn't nice. You unevolved bastard.

What is evil is a system that takes away a mans children, deceives him with bull like they are concerned with the best interest of the child, and takes away his money, his pride and his hope. You loser bastard.

I'd say this really makes me angry, except that Mommie says I shouldn't be angry. She says I should be nice. You angry bastard.

I don't believe that men are incapable of anything but dick measuring and pissing contests unless they're playing football or some other stupid man thing. You immature bastard.

God created me. A women will not tell me what I should be. No man will tell me what I should be. God is the only one with that power and that right.

Oh shit. Mommies going to shame me. I might have offended some nonbelievers. You intolerant bastard.