Hello all you participants to the Antimisandry club. It appears I messed up my introduction when I first joined. Couldn't figure out how to type in my intro and thought I'd prefer to be quite. However, it seems to be traditional for everyone to introduce themselves, so I figure that I might as well expose myself a little more. Enquiring minds want to know!

I'm not totally new here. Perhaps my reputation has already been formed by my first 4 posts. I am quite opinionated but I try to present myself well. I try to be calm, reasonable, even professional, and to win the argument. Perhaps in the future I will relax a bit and become more casual, maybe not.

I found this site through Google searches. I was wondering if there was anything like an anti-feminist movement in the United States, or what I might call a patriarchal movement, though that terminology hasn't caught on so the closest terminology appears to be the men's rights movement. Well, surprise surprise, it looks like there is such a movement afoot. I became hopeful and encouraged by this discovery so I decided to dip my toe into some politics and make some posts, and see what I learned about what this men's rights movement is about, and in my dreams, to positively influence people with my wisdom.

If you want to know a bit more about my theories about the world, it all started in 1920. I think 1920 is a good place to start as far as identifying the beginning of when the family started to deteriorate, when modern social problems began to develop. I think that wealth and urbanization are likely culprits as to what started the social decline. 1920 is when the majority of Americans first lived in cities, and of course living standards were getting better at that time to. So, in vague terms, when people lived in cities, and therefore had some anonymity, and when people had more wealth, they were able to break social rules and get away with it. They were able to buy their way out of problems and to hide their behavior better. With an opportunity to break social rules the legitimacy of the social rules declined, and people filled the uncertainty of how to behave with selfishness. If you don't know what to do, you do whatever feels good. A kind of disorganization of behavior and a predatory attitude develops. People want to feel good about breaking the rules because breaking the social rules gives them some short terms rewards that they want. So, people develop belief systems to justify them breaking the old social rules, trying to make the old social rules look bad and to make their own short term selfishness look good. This is the source of the changes in people's cultural beliefs.

A key part of the pathology is selfishness or egocentrism. Adults want their freedom, don't want to sacrifice for their children or to put their children first, so what develops is the idea that children are less valuable than adults, or that children are inferior to adults. This leads to parents treating their children less well than the parents themselves were treated as children. So, first you have the healthy generation born in 1900. Problems start in 1920. The next generation, born in 1920, is raised by the adults who have found the emerging liberation from the old ways, are selfish, and therefore shortchange their children. So, the children born in 1920 are given less than the children born in 1900 and are therefore worse off. When those children grow up, in 1940, their society will be at a further state of social decline and therefore believe more strongly in the new social mores and put even lower emphasis on the well being of their children, because, after all, as adults, their freedom means more than the well being of their children. This is the same attitude as the one that started to emerge in 1920. So, the moral of the story is, the children born in 1940 have a double dose of social decline that is foisted upon them by their parents. The children born in 1960 have a triple does for the same reasons.

By the time the 1960s and 1970s come something new happens, in that the new social mores reach a tipping point. Before 1960 people still believed in the traditional ideas of how parents should behave according to their sex roles. Bad behavior was still shunned and in the minority. By the 1960s and 1970s the ever-growing share of people who wanted to change the culture in a more selfish anything goes direction became the majority. This meant that pathological cultural ideas became the norm and the majority could shun the minority, the immoral could shame the moral, morality became vilified, and the laws were changed to enforce predatory cultural behaviors against those who might still object to the new cultural order. This triumph of cultural pathology is otherwise known as the feminist revolution and feminism is the belief system that justifies and celebrates and promotes all the current predatory cultural practices that lead to the destruction of the family, the destruction of human relationships, and the 100 different pathologies that come from this source.

The modern feminist revolution really got started in the 1960s, let us say, and since that time the speed of the collapse of the family has increased greatly. The decline of the family from 1920 to 1960 happened, but it was much slower than the decline that happened from 1960 to 2000. That is because from 1920 to 1960 feminism was the minority, shunned, and under control. When things flipped over and feminism became the dominating majority, family decline became much faster because the forces of destruction were in the driver's seat and were no longer being kept in check by a still mostly healthy culture.

I think of the dichotomy as between patriarchy and feminism, patriarchy being the healthy old days before 1920 and possibly up until 1960, and feminism being the modern era, from 1960 on. Patriarchy is good, feminism is bad, and the most logical way to try to heal society is to try to recreate the values and behaviors that existed in the patriarchal era.

Because modern feminism has the idea that children are less valuable than adults, never ending social decline is in effect built into the system as long as feminism remains the dominant ideology. This means that feminism by definition is unstable, has a limited lifespan, and will create a revolt against it in time. I of course think the sooner the better, but that is not up to me alone. I, however, can do my part to speed the process up.

The reason why feminism thinks of men as the enemy is because the social role of men is to create and maintain families. Feminism seeks to destroy families, so feminism seeks to destroy men.

From a romantic or traditional point of view the man asks the woman out. The man proposes marriage and the woman accepts or rejects. Men need to impress women and hope that the woman thinks that he is good enough for her, up to her standards. Men should then play the role of being the provider for the woman so that the woman can safely put her priority on the wellbeing of her/their children. The man plays the role of being the creator and maintainer of the marriage.

I don't think of men as being more important to the well being of families than women. They simply have different roles to play, different and complementary equal roles to play, in the well being of families.

So, to go through more history, the social decline started in 1920. People noticed this and there was a backlash against the flappers and "new women" who went to bars alone. Prohibition was part of this backlash and I think there was some kind of religious revival in the late 1920s at this time. So, onwards. During World War II many women went to work in the war factories and their was a spike in divorces after men came home from the war after long absences from their sweethearts. This was threatening to the family structure so there was a backlash in the 1950s with the cult of domesticity and lots of emphasis on women going back home to raise children, the baby boom generation, and lots of emphasis on the ideal family such as Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best. Next comes women's liberation in the 1970s and society goes to hell at lightning speed. Then the most recent backlash was in 1995 in America, with crime out of control, out-of-wedlock births becoming a common topic of conversation, and welfare reform being passed to discourage these social pathologies, and the rise of various social conservative movements that seemed to reach a peak all around 1995.

I am hoping that the now rising men's rights movement may form the basis of the next patriarchal backlash against feminism pathology. Maybe this movement will be able to accomplish something significant by 2020 or something. I surely hope that positive cultural change will come from somewhere in a reasonable period of time or else America will be in some deep doo doo.

Enough speechifying. I am rather fond of my own brilliance!

I live in Seattle, Washington, USA. I think I am what is known as a Traditionalist, hence my pseudonym. I am a single white male in my late 30s. Never been married, no kids. I have no horror stories in regards to how my ex-wife screwed me. My sob story is my separation from women, not by choice. In the future I hope to be married with kids and hope to be lucky enough to escape drama. Those MGTOW people rub me the wrong way. Separating from women is the wrong way to go. I think men have a responsibility to fulfill family roles as much as they can, and to fight for political change to the extent that the system fails them. To simply abandon women with the idea of punishing them for the bad system we all live in I think is totally wrong headed and just makes the situation worse. Be a man, take on your responsibilities, and fight for change. That works a lot better than simply selfishly running away.

Now that I have offended many, I am open for your questions. I reserve the right to try and maintain my privacy to the extent I think necessary, but I guess now is my time to be an attention whore so give me what you've got!

Welcome Seattle Traditionalist, from another fellow Washingtonian. I was born in Seattle, and have lived in WA my whole life, though now I reside on the peninsula. I hope you will post a bit more about yourself...and/or what brought you here to this forum.

You don't offend me!

Plus, I know that understanding the MRM as a whole takes time. It seems to be a patient movement.

.........

I think much of what you have written.

But I also think men were the first to liberate as labourers. When the world became 'mass production', men realised they had power as a 'mass group' and started to make demands on the higher class.

From that, it is only natural that creative movements have done the same including women.

I also think Technology plays a big part and that we need some control on a global level. We can destroy this world by the push of a button now a days.

Welcome aboard, sorry it's short n sweet... mild hangover.

An intelligent insight into the moral decline of the masses.

Quote:

Enough speechifying. I am rather fond of my own brilliance!

Splendid. Self confidence is a welcome prerequisite in men sadly so lacking today. Watch it doesn't lapse into something worse.

Quote:

Those MGTOW people rub me the wrong way. Separating from women is the wrong way to go.

I agree and disagree. The realities of the current political and social climate "force" men into detaching themselves from women out of neccesity. It isn't the will of any sane man to impose a self banishment from the alluring and innate draw of women.

I suppose many men here despite their personal difficulties and negative experiences with feminism - still optimistically clamour for a semblance of 'traditional' normality amidst a sea of great social confusion.

Welcome to the forum.

An interesting intro - if somewhat sparse in its historical analysis. For example - 1920 saw the passage of the 19th Amendment and the Last Time that Men and Women had Equal Lifespans.

Since 1920 Women have lived progressively longer - and thus Become the Electoral Majority as a result.

Since 1920 - Women are the Only Group ever granted the Franchise Without the Corresponding Responsiblity to Defend it.

We have since seen Women - Voting in Congress to Send Male Conscripts off to Fight and Die (as St. Geraldine the Emancipator Ferraro asserted was Her Right as a Womyn in her |1984 VP Debate) in wars that they and their Electoral Base hold a Lifetime Exemption from Conscription for...

Just a couple of thoughts for you to develop further...

Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. Geroge Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.

Some "thoughts" with striking social relevance Ohso. The disparity in longevity is one of the most illuminating examples of a institutionalized gender apartheid - entrenched throughout every aspect of society, law and medical research.

Here in the UK, the longevity (DEATH!) gap is seven years between the genders (it's 15 in Russia!). This only differed by about a year, 100+ years ago! Essentially it means UK women, given that they can officially retire 5 years earlier then men at 60, are entitled to a pension and benefits for 12 years longer than men!!!! With mens retirement age set to officially change to 68, "until" womens retirement age concurrently amends it will mean - women will attain a 15 year benefit over men.

Essentially mens premature departure subsides womens longevity. We are a "sacrificed" group from the very day we are born!

Could you imagine the social, legislative and moral furore if women lived on average, less than men - even by a day, would create? Telling, is it not?

As with the benefits to be accrued by marriage and divorce, disparity in gender longevity provides another "profitable" option for many ghoulishly opportunistic women.

Thanks everybody for responding to my intro!

Julie: Understanding the MRM. My impression is that everyone in the MRM agrees that feminism is bad, feminism is the enemy. I'm not sure agreements go much beyond that point. The movement doesn't seem very mature, very organized in terms of what it wants. It is also quite possible that in truth different members of the MRM seek conflicting goals and it may not make sense to think of the MRM as a single thing. If there was such a thing as a patriarchal movement or a bring back the past movement then I could understand what that movement is for and of course I would support it. To simply say I'm in favor of men's rights brings up the question in my mind, what rights for what purpose? It seems indeterminate to me. I assume the MRM will define itself more clearly over time, and likely will break up into 2 or 3 parts so that everyone will take sides and know where they stand. When that happens I think that real progress will be closer. Just first impressions.

As for the rest of your post, I'm a bit confused. You say men were the first to liberate themselves in the industrial revolution so it is only natural that women liberate themselves later? So, men liberated themselves in the 1800s by forming unions against the capitalist class or by being socialists, and then women liberated themselves in the 1960s following the lead of men, and so women's liberation is the natural follow up after men's liberation? I don't quite get your logic or what you are trying to say. I don't really think of the 1960s as being women's liberation, I see it as women rejecting their family roles and duties, and simply trying to make it sound good by calling it liberation. If you want to pursue this topic explain in more detail your alternative theory of the source of women's liberation.


Marx: Thanks for moderating the forum. I know it can't always be easy to be a peer among us and to be the boss man at the same time. I have looked at some of the past posts people have made, and I see that there is a lot of drama behind the scenes that you have had to deal with. I appreciate your efforts to make antimisandry a good site for all of us to enjoy and to spread the word.


Celtic Druid: Men Going Their Own Way. When I first came across this concept, I thought, now society is really going to hell. A woman has no choice but to raise children without fathers if she wants to continue the human race and the man that should be her husband has decided to "go his own way". The MRM shouldn't be associated with such a flagrant abandonment of the family. More fatherless children is exactly what society doesn't need. At the same time, I understand that men don't want to be abused by women, and that men will naturally seek to protect themselves if they fear being harmed by getting involved in a relationship that goes bad. Also, there is the element of punishment against women who chose to embrace feminism, and hopefully such punishment will make going feminist less desirable for women and thus less common. Still, to give your middle finger to the whole female sex because of the sins of society doesn't strike me as progress or even heroic. I would say there is no easy or obvious answer but life is full of contradictions and difficult choices and things that we don't like. We just don't give up because things are difficult. I have some sympathy for the MGTOW mind set, but not much. If those men who go their own way dedicated all their free time to politics and making society more family friendly I'd have a lot more respect for them. However, the purpose seems more to be to have fun, spend money self-indulgently, and tell the world ha ha, I'm not playing your game, I'm better than you, I'm Free!!!


Ohso: I am very aware that 1920 is when women got the right to vote. I intentionally left that part out in my chronology, even though it is obvious. I feel uncomfortable with saying, or perhaps admitting, that the beginning of modern social decline began when women got the right to vote. I am in favor of women having the right to vote and I don't want to promote an argument that seems to be against women having the right to vote. I don't know what the general opinion on this site is about that subject, but I am not ready to say that women shouldn't have the right to vote. I can see that women voting has benefits, and I don't see why women voting has to lead to problems, even if historically, women voting and social problems started at about the same time. I idealize the 1950s as a model to try to recreate to solve America's social problems. The idea that American society should go back to how it was in the 1910s seems too foreign to me. I know it's a bit of a cop out to pretend that the 19th Amendment didn't happen in 1920, but that's my excuse.

Also, thanks for the tidbit that men and women had the same life-expectancy in 1920. I didn't know that. I thought that women lived longer than men since the beginning of time as a part of nature. I'm guessing that better medical care for pregnant women so that they don't die during childbirth may have a lot to do with that. Pregnancy used to be downright dangerous for women, in the good ole days.

Welcome (again) ST.

That was a lot of opinion you gave us. It sets the scene; shows where you are coming from.

Opionions are useful, often, and passionately held.

Up to date clear knowledge is more valuable however. And intellectual skills.

I am surprised that you do not know of all the work against feminism that has been going on in the USA.

The Flagship of the MRM is MensNewsDaily which has held premier position for nearly ten years now. Anybody who is Anybody in the MRM contributes to MND even if in small ways and all the Heavy Artilliary, the Intellectual big-boys fires off there.

Look south to San Diego and see what splendid 'on the ground' work Harry Crouch has done. Look to New Hampshire and see the legal and political work being done there. Get the RADAR updates for a nationwide coordination approach. Get a feed from Jerry Bogg's Male Matters.

Look at the high-value research and authorship work of Dr Stephen Baskerville at Howard University. Look at the phenominal daily output of Glenn Sacks, the 'centre of de Universe' for men's issues. Look at the analyses of 'young turk' David Usher whose articles blast anything feminist that moves. Listen to 'Gangsta' Bernie Chapin's pods. Read Corey Roberts - the grand old Professor.

Send $50 each to Karl Mathews and Mike LaSalle to support their work.

Then there are a host of lesser-lights but highly valued MRAs such as Del Gallo with his Law Practice and Ray Blumhorst with his black ute and home-made, traffic-stopping signs, and a list of many, many other sound men as long as your arm.

And the women. Schlafly and MacElroy, Tersak and Stoddart, Rowback Morse and a growing host of journalists and authors speaking out against feminism and its ills and for men's rights.

Crikey, man, I am across the Pacific, in a small hut on a mountain and so far south that the next stop is friggin' Antarctica, and even I know what great work our American brothers (and sisters) are doing.

<