Thread: Defining an MRA

Good article... there's a couple here I can think of who should listen to it.

Keep up the good work.

The following two points aside I agree with everything in your video, and the whole of it, even that which I do not agree with, is well spoken, articulate, well made and interesting. I enjoyed watching it.

Firstly I disagree with one part; in that the left is not 'owned and operated' by Feminists. The current political representatives of the left are. Obama and his ilk may support Feminism, but they're individuals. I happen to have many liberal attitudes and leftist ideals; that does not make me a feminist. It’s a mistake, to link liberalism and Feminism. It derives from? I think from the fact that Feminism derives from Marxism, and liberalism also takes ideas from Marxism/Socialism, but remember that Feminism is a perversion of Marxism, not Marxism itself. Marxism holds that the political struggle is one of class; this is its most central ideal, Feminism holds that it is one of gender. They’re ideologically incompatible. Modern liberalism is also a perversion because instead of class it concerns itself primarily with race, gender, etc. and has become hostile to orthodoxy (whatever is normal is bad, only diversity is good, etc) so liberal politics may have mutated into something which is closely aligned with feminism and other social problems, and it may be at the root of many ills in society, but that does not mean one must be a conservative in order to combat these things. You reject liberalism because of what modern liberalism represents, but modern conservatives, whom you call neo-cons, are no better however you say these politics must return to their roots. I say this of liberalism; it must become what it was before it was infected with feminist nonsense and divisive policies like political correctness; a political platform devoted to reform and equality, not ‘sham’ equality, huge government, endless welfare, etc. This is as I see it.

Also, secondly, I must ask that you try, please, to keep in mind some of us are not situated so that we can give no thought to social and political approval. I would refute Feminist lies, and do, but not anywhere, not any time. I don’t have that freedom because of the nature of my business and besides the money I earn through it is a more potent way of effecting social change than anything I could ever say or personally achieve without funds in terms of activism.

Dad, 'Liberalism' is from the Whig political orientation, arising along with the Tory Conservatism during the Restoration period after the English civil war. Liberalism is not 'Left' except in America where they just do not seem to understand terms properly.

Both Liberalism and Conservatism are joined in Australia (in the Liberal Party) against the Socialist political orientation (Labour) which arose after the restoration period had 'settled down' and saw the Whigs and Tories pretty well unite against the Socialists.

The Whigs emphasised traditions of Individualism while the Tories were more for Institutional and social traditions. The 'socialists' tried to take the worst of both argueing for the State to lead and control and determine what was 'best' and 'progressive', rather than looking to the past or to accepted mores.

The socialists wanted to re-invent the wheel; the conservatives wanted to build better carriages on the foundations of the past round wheels and solid axles that worked fine; the liberals wanted to emphasis the precedence of individuality and have whatever damned wheels a person wanted in as many sizes and shapes as there could be.

The Americans could not quite understand English.

Very good work, and I didn't disagree with anything said. That's rather a nice day in the MRA cause. This kind of inside sports is what we need more of, as it helps bind the cause on a solid base to move us forward.

*nods*

Well said!

By Paul Elam:

Who is and isn’t an MRA

Hello everyone, Paul Elam here coming to you with another installment for A Voice for Men. Before I start on today’s talk let me take a moment to thank my many new subscribers. I really appreciate your being here. I used to take the time to post personal thank yous to your channel pages, but between this channel, my website Men’s News Daily and working on a book I’ve neglected that for awhile. I appreciate your patience with my lapse in manners.

OK now, so I’ve been asked on more than one occasion to do a video on some of the problem children in the Men’s Rights Movement. On some of the people who inhabit our ranks but they do more harm than good. I’ve been a little hesitant to do this mostly because we have enough problems with divisions and infighting and I really don’t want to do anything more to aggravate that problem. But it is worth a little friction for the sake of clarifying my own position to my subscribers, so here goes.

First, defining a real MRA, at least to me is just as hard as defining what a real man is, and that’s to say that I can’t say what a real man or a real MRA is with any authority whatsoever, all I can do is offer my opinion.

That being said my personal definition of an MRA is very loose, but it isn’t just about being against feminism. A lot of people are against feminism, but you would never know it unless you asked them, and you might not get an honest answer anyway depending on whose listening. They are the silent and quite useless majority, and they are more hindrance than help because they care more about social and political approval than speaking up for their values, and the truth remains that if you can leave your values at the door when you walk into a room you never really had them to begin with. MRA’s in my experience are people who have and act on their values wherever they are. It is what will eventually make the movement an unstoppable force for change. To me you know an MRA as soon as you hear them talk about gender politics.

When someone makes an obnoxious and stupid statement like “if women were in charge there wouldn’t be any wars”, the MRA is the man or woman that stands up and says Hey that’s bullshit and then spouts off a string of names like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indirha Gandhi and anyone of a number of female European monarchs. The MRA is the one person that will publicly rip the covers off of someone who is spouting slanted numbers from an imaginary gender wage gap or making the ridiculous claim that domestic violence is mostly a male thing. So in the simplest of terms an MRA is someone or anyone who sees the emperor has no clothes and more importantly they say so out loud.

The Marxist-feminist hate mongers were successful in hiding behind a thin façade of equalitarianism for a long time simply because no one wanted to challenge them. It was the MRA’s that finally blew the whistle on the stinking lot of them and they continue to do so every time the opportunity arises.

Another group of men, part of the social phenomenon we now call Men Going Their Own Way are also MRA’s in my opinion. These are guys who see through the misandry of modern times and vote with their feet about marriage and about relationships and they won’t play fetch for a woman simply to get laid, nor for attention and approval, and certainly not for a pathetic illusion of love.

See all of this part is easy to talk about. Most of us agree that feminism is the enemy of decency and justice, that it is nothing more than female supremacy dressed up as a movement for equality, and we all agree that the MRA’s are the ones that’s actually doing something about it, but it gets a little more sticky when we start talking about what an MRA is not, but it is an important dialogue nonetheless because in defining what an MRA is not we get the opportunity to rid ourselves of some pretty heavy baggage.

First, a chivalrist is not an MRA. The guy who thinks his purpose in life is to care for women like they were children, to pay their way, to open all their doors, to rescue them from the harshness of the world, to pamper them and treat them like a princess is no friend to men and boys. He is just a trained seal balancing a ball on his nose for a piece of fish, and he is as treacherous and untrustworthy as a man can be. He will sell his brother out over a skirt and a pair of legs, he will teach his sons to sell their soul the same way he has, to live on their knees the way he does because it is the only identity he knows. He sees himself as good and gallant, but he is actually a white knight with a black heart and bloody hands. He may call himself a traditionalist or chime on about his family values but he’s really just interested in getting laid and being popular with women. He has no identity whatsoever without their approval, and he has much more in common with a feminist than he does with us because in every waking moment he is about and only about giving women whatever they want in exchange for their approval, in exchange for their love, and he will walk right over all of our rights to do so, and regrettably I assert the traditionalist must be approached with some amount of caution.

I have no qualms with men who chose and succeed at traditional marriage and my hat is off to them, but I always keep in mind that they are the exception not the rule. The traditionalist who knows their good fortune will not aspire to indenture other men to their path in life. They recognize the risk and vulnerabilities of modern marriage and they do not condemn but rather fully support men who chose not to go that way. They stand behind men who choose to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider and do not let shaming language about that choice pass between their lips, and they see their path in life as one of free will, not of the mandated disposability to which men have been historically yoked.

I feel for families that are in trouble in this culture, but the men and boys bear the worst of that burden, so it is them I am concerned about; not marriage, not women or girls as a group, but men and boys only. I know that seeking justice for them will eventually bring the best to everyone, so I care about nothing else.

Now to me the biggest pretender in the Men’s Rights Movement is the neocon. This is the right wing moron that thinks that a vote for Sarah Palin or some other Republican dujour is a vote for men in general. In fact this usurper is more dangerous than the left wing moron. We already know the left is operated by feminists, we already know their thinking is saturated in misandry, that they embrace whatever they are told to by McKinnon and the rest of that ilk. But that chap from the right, the one who hangs out in the MRA forums and contributes to threads, cheering on the Men’s Rights Movement and weaving in pitches for Republican politics as usual is like a cancer growing near our vital organs.

The modern right offers men nothing more than religious fundamentalism, conscription to traditional marriage and disposable roles for men like that of cannon fodder. All the things that have hindered us from fighting back against feminism in the first place. It still seems clear that elements in the right hold much more actual promise for men than anything on the left but that promise won’t be realized with blind allegiance and automatic votes.

The right must be brought back on track towards small government, constitutional ideas, and it must become openly and energetically counter-feminist to be anything but useless to us. We must hold allegedly conservative leaders to account for participating in travesties like VAWA and the full gamut of feminist garbage that they have either supported with their votes or with their shameful silence. Joe neocon in the comments section doesn’t care about all that, he just wants to push his Republican candidate, so it is Joe neocon who should be pushed right out of the Men’s Rights Movement and into the street where he belongs.

Well that’s it for another installment for From A Voice for Men. I hope you enjoyed today’s talk and see you next time.




I took the liberty of transcribing your little speech so I could comment better on what all you said.

First of all, it is true, at least on the Antimisandry board recently there has been a lot of infighting. Oddly enough, the infighting hasn’t been much about differing points of view, it has been more about personality conflicts and arguments over how activism should be pursued.

As far as actual ideological battles, on the Antimisandry board, it seems to be between the “hards” and the “softs”, but such conflict hasn’t showed up much recently.

So Lester Burnham, you have decided to throw down the gauntlet and attempt to chase out all those not sufficiently dedicated to the cause of men.

I am supposing you would put myself in the category of the dreaded and much despised “Chivalrist” .He who “is actually a white knight with a black heart and bloody hands”. Quite colorful imagery there.

I must say, anger and venom oozes out of your essay at a number of different points. It seems you are really on the warpath against men who are traitors to the cause, traitors to their gender.

You make a statement in your essay that I find quite shocking. “I feel for families that are in trouble in this culture, but the men and boys bear the worst of that burden, so it is them I am concerned about; not marriage, not women or girls as a group, but men and boys only. I know that seeking justice for them will eventually bring the best to everyone, so I care about nothing else.”

So you blatantly proclaim that you care only about men and boys, not about the health of family life in general or about women and girls in equal measure, but only about men and boys?

If you only care about men and boys then doesn’t that make you a male supremacist, doesn’t that make you selfishly oriented, doesn’t that make you a narcissist, only caring about people who are like yourself?

Surely if a feminist proclaimed “I only care about women and girls, I don’t care about the state of marriage, I don’t care about the fate of men and boys, I only care about women and girls.” you would condemn her as a female supremacist, as someone who is selfish as can be, as someone who is a narcissist, correct? Well, given all that, shouldn’t you be condemned in the same way when you say essentially the same thing, just replacing women and girls with men and boys?

You say a number of nasty things about those whom you call “chivalrists”. One theme you repeat again and again that I think is quite wrong is this idea that someone who believes in chivalry and practices chivalry will do anything to please the woman, is a “trained seal balancing a ball on his nose for a piece of fish”, that “he has no identity whatsoever without their (women’s) approval”, that “he is about and only about giving women whatever they want in exchange for their approval”. This whole idea that chivalry is about submission to women, giving women whatever they want, craving women’s approval, is entirely wrong. Firstly, a man acting according to the chivalrous code of ethics is going to be dominant in the relationship because the man being dominant is necessary for the man to fully provide his “provider and protector” role to the woman. Secondly, what chivalry means is not determined according to the woman’s whim, it is determined by what society deems men’s role to be or it is determined by the man’s own internal value system. Chivalry is not about women getting their way; it is about men fulfilling their duties to women.

In your discussion about “traditionalists”, you characterize what might be called the “MRA friendly” traditionalist. “The traditionalist who knows their good fortune will not aspire to indenture other men to their path in life. They recognize the risk and vulnerabilities of modern marriage and they do not condemn but rather fully support men who chose not to go that way. They stand behind men who choose to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider and do not let shaming language about that choice pass between their lips, and they see their path in life as one of free will, not of the mandated disposability to which men have been historically yoked.”

I am curious; do you ever run across “traditionalists” who think like this in real life? If so, I would say they are a disgrace to the whole concept and meaning of being a “traditionalist”. If someone is a traditionalist and has a good functioning traditional type marriage working for them then it seems to me he would want to teach other men how to succeed in a traditional marriage just like he has.

The idea that a traditionalist “will not aspire to indenture other men to their path in life” makes no sense. The traditionalist has found a successful path in life. Such a successful man should teach other men how he succeeded in his family life so that other men can emulate him and succeed in their family lives as well. “They stand behind men who choose to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider and do not let shaming language about that choice pass between their lips . . .” This again makes no sense. If a man played the provider and protector role himself, presumably because he believed such a role was honorable and the right moral role for a man to play, why would such a man “stand behind men who choose to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider”? Why would a man who believes in the value and virtue of the provider and protector role be supportive of men who turn their backs on the provider and protector role themselves? That makes no sense whatsoever.

It seems what you are saying is that you are only in favor of traditionalist men who oppose the values of traditionalism. I wonder how many of these men you run across in real life.

Often I disagree with many of ST's views but the above is an excellent post with many points that are food for thought.

I care about men and boys. I care about women and girls.

I care firstly about Human Beings, and gender second.

I am more likely to care about men and boys, in the main, because men and boys get stick, and the short end at the very least, while so much public policy and resource is provided for women, and usually for mendacious or blatantly untruthful reasons.

When it comes to being an MRA, my fight is against the blatant misandry in public policy. Men's rights as such are human rights. I do not see 'men's rights' as being superior in precedence over anyone elses just by gender.

The issue is the LACK of men's rights vis a vis the emphasis put on women's rights. It is not a matter of tradition and I agree that the old 'provider / protector role has to be earned by women now, since they rubbished it and turned them into 'oppression'.

I also agree that an MRA stands and argues the case whenever he hears a blatantly misandric remark or is confronted by feminist mendacities and lies.

I would however say that those who cannot argue for want of learning how to do it properly are a friggin' nuisance to the MRM. Knuckle-dragging does not win friends or arguements or the day.

Right wing / left wing, Liberal and Republican, seems to be an obsession with Americans, by the way. A pox on them all.

ST

I won't take the time to address most of your post. Too much of it is just not worth it. But you did bring up one point that I think was valid and that should be clarified.

I advocate for men and boys only, not out of supremacy, but because that is what is needed to bring balance to a culture that runs on female supremacy now, especially with help for males like you. THE MRM IS THE NEEDED BALANCE BECAUSE BALANCE HAS BEEN UNDERMINED BY FEMINISM AND NOW OUTDATED CHIVALRY.

The goal is equalitarian, it is justice and fairness, and I am quite confident that in the 22 videos and forty some odd essays and articles I have written for MND and my site you will not find a single word to contradict that.

That is why you are left here to take one statement entirely out of context and try to trump up a case for bigotry and narcissism.

Just like any white knight with a black heart and bloody hands.

Quote from dad_savage

The following two points aside I agree with everything in your video, and the whole of it, even that which I do not agree with, is well spoken, articulate, well made and interesting. I enjoyed watching it.

Firstly I disagree with one part; in that the left is not 'owned and operated' by Feminists. The current political representatives of the left are. Obama and his ilk may support Feminism, but they're individuals. I happen to have many liberal attitudes and leftist ideals; that does not make me a feminist. It’s a mistake, to link liberalism and Feminism. It derives from? I think from the fact that Feminism derives from Marxism, and liberalism also takes ideas from Marxism/Socialism, but remember that Feminism is a perversion of Marxism, not Marxism itself. Marxism holds that the political struggle is one of class; this is its most central ideal, Feminism holds that it is one of gender. They’re ideologically incompatible. Modern liberalism is also a perversion because instead of class it concerns itself primarily with race, gender, etc. and has become hostile to orthodoxy (whatever is normal is bad, only diversity is good, etc) so liberal politics may have mutated into something which is closely aligned with feminism and other social problems, and it may be at the root of many ills in society, but that does not mean one must be a conservative in order to combat these things. You reject liberalism because of what modern liberalism represents, but modern conservatives, whom you call neo-cons, are no better however you say these politics must return to their roots. I say this of liberalism; it must become what it was before it was infected with feminist nonsense and divisive policies like political correctness; a political platform devoted to reform and equality, not ‘sham’ equality, huge government, endless welfare, etc. This is as I see it.

Also, secondly, I must ask that you try, please, to keep in mind some of us are not situated so that we can give no thought to social and political approval. I would refute Feminist lies, and do, but not anywhere, not any time. I don’t have that freedom because of the nature of my business and besides the money I earn through it is a more potent way of effecting social change than anything I could ever say or personally achieve without funds in terms of activism.

You make some very interesting points, sir. I will come back and address them as I don't have time right now.

Good stuff, i never really considered myself to be an mra, but having listened to that it appears i am after all

I agree with you that it makes no sense for men to continue in their tradionally prescribed roles while women throw off all such constraints that previously bound them.

However, I am a ''traditionalist'' in the sense that I recognize the obvious fact that the only possible outcome of this will be the acceleration of the ruinous decline our civilization has already begun.

I think we just need a harsh lesson in why the traditional culture existed in the first place, a lesson that will come when the chickens of all this liberalism come home to roost.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

I agree with you that it makes no sense for men to continue in their tradionally prescribed roles while women throw off all such constraints that previously bound them.

However, I am a ''traditionalist'' in the sense that I recognize the obvious fact that the only possible outcome of this will be the acceleration of the ruinous decline our civilization has already begun.

I think we just need a harsh lesson in why the traditional culture existed in the first place, a lesson that will come when the chickens of all this liberalism come home to roost.

I couldn't agree more. But I do hold out hope that it will actually accelerate us toward repairs as well. People of many cultures have risen from the ashes with new mentalities many times. I don't think that the ruinous end that feminism pushes us toward will be any different.

Human beings are surprisingly resilient creatures, which is good for a species also skilled at shooting itself in the foot. IMO, we will suffer greatly, then overcome.