There has over recent years been a split developing in the MRM that is best described as "statists V Traditionalists".. i would replace traditionalist with libertarians, but, it may be the case that some folk would not understand that so easily!

On all forums, is as if war is being raged, that war is sadly within the movement and although the war is largely conducted under the confines of "gentlemanly agreement to differ" it is also notable that often, the statists find reasons to expel the traditonalists, as the statist are usually the ones running the forums and in powerful positions in the MRM.. Sometimes, even being supported by the state on taxpayers money!! (therefore also compromised by the regulations the state therefore imposes! (Be nice to the gays and girlies!!))

The way I see it, feminism has been an evolutionary "Blip" largely a backwards step socially speaking and the state domination of family life and interpersonal relations is clearly in my mind ultimately doomed, for the simple reason that its a failed experiment.. It is extremely expensive, increasingly so, and increasingly failing to produce the hoped for outcome.. In fact, the reverse!

I see the "split" as not really being a split as such, its more the case that the MRM is not moving forward in the way that suits most men and indeed many women too..

As it fails to move forward, it goes backwards.. back to the feminist roots from whence it arose.. With all those silly beliefs in unworkable "equality" in "rights" etc.. The stock in trade of the feminists..

The movement thus shrinks, ever smaller, with higher and higher relative concentrations of women and feminists staying and moving into it at the expense of "proper" men..

Those who believe in Male head of family and the traditional sorts of lifestyles that where established over thousands of years, tend to react to the feminists abuses by taking on the sort of MGTOW ideas..

Opting out of the system..

That also tends to see them opting out of the mainstream political process and all it entails too..

Many of the best and most active men in the groups like F4J, who risked much and got much publicity, now find themselves cast out from the very groups they made a name for.. No longer wanted when they have matured and seen the writing on the wall..

So, naturally, traditionalists/libertarians tend to give up on the MRM in time as the MRM seems unwilling to campaign against the state, but is conversely trying to get the state to agree to drafting a new set of laws, a rather futile request I believe and even if achieved, a pyrhic victory..

Simple question here..

Who believes in appealling to the state for "rights" and who believes the route forward is to ignore the state and the feminists and simply reject and refuse to co-operate and support in any way an increasingly dictorial and anti family feminist domninated state.. The MGTOW way..

Well, I discovered the MGTOW path by accident. Last year I realized that the way I was living was being promoted by men's activists and thinkers, so now I am identifying as a friend of the men's movement, and an opponent of cultural marxism.

I always hated politics, in part because it seems to pander to the lowest common denominator, regardless of party principles. As a result I am not as knowledgable as others here about the nuances of, for example, the libertarian program. I never had the interest to dive deeply into political theory, though I have been learning more about traditional conservative thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.

Sorry Drex, I'm straying off your point. Your vision of the men's movement appeals to me, though I expect disaster will change people's minds rather than lobbying. I have low expectations from human nature.

Drex, until you pointed out some time ago just how MUCH the State is involved in our personal lives, I didn't really notice it. I mean, of course I was aware, but it didn't really register. One of those things you get used to.

But now, the more I think of it, the more I agree with you. I don't think it's appropriate for the State to be doing work that would be better left to charities and communities. I do think we need some government - to provide infrastructure and oversight to the charities - but it's so far beyond that now I don't know what can be done to change it. Too many fingers in too many pies. Lobbyists are really running the country (mine, at least).

Of course, being American, and having a somewhat oppositional side to my personality, the thought of revolution does have a certain je ne sais quois....

I've always been very against big governement and leery of government intervention. The more we allow government to take over things for the sake of convenience, the more power and control we lose over our lives. With as screwed up as government is, it never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to let it take control over even the most personal aspects of our lives. We allow it to dictate our morality, to make decisions regarding our rights to our children, the use of our personal incomes......

I see something of a push for men to have what women have and I think that's a very scary thought. You don't go with the status quo when the status quo is wrong. The last thing soicety needs is everybody freed from personal accountability and responsibility. I think we need to fix what is wrong, not compound it.

I don't see that we have that choice. Government (both in Brit and the US) is going to go in for more and more control freaking, citizen surveillance - i.e. spying - and polcor. So, short of revolution ...

Take away the state, the natural order returns, and feminism dies an instant death.

The thing is, every power they've taken from us, we've willing given up. We gave up control over our own lives in exchange for a little convenience and safety.

Yes yes as The Emperor says in Star Wars "For a safe and secure society!"

Good responses and it shows that folk are thinking. Thats inspiring and shows that there is much promise..

I think what will "tip" the balance back will be the natural events that occasionally overwhelm society in such a way that it can no longer afford to be so indulgent..

Things like, serious economic recessions, fuel shortages, wars..

When the state cannot afford to supply, it is going to suddenly be the case that ALL the main parties start getting more interested in LETTING people take responsibility as they see fit, rather than TELLING them what THEY consider is the responsible and fitting course...

Already, there is evidence of the start of this happening in the mainstream UK parties..

I have heard from some good MRA's (now sadly off the scene for the usual reasons!) that the state TOOK power off parents, (WITHOUT ANY MANDATE FROM THE ELECTORATE!!) found it could not handle the results (children going their own way!!) and is now trying (Largely and dramatically unsuccesfully because they are teaching feminist style parenting!) to give the responsibilities BACK to parents!!

But,still, they wont do anything constructive to encourage the natural family, indeed, the perverse incentives AGAINST the natural biological family are higher than ever!! (Poor familes in the UK are as much as £100 better off per week when the parents live in seperate homes! And thats a lot of money when you are in the lower bracket of income, £200 weekly or even less..)

TV shows such as "super nanny" have been described as the "states" attempt to put control back in the hands of parents..

Such shows, however, often show where the real problems lie..

Father feel that they are unable to impose any discipline, feminised into submission and scared to discipline their kids in any way, fearful of the overindulgent "career" mothers (thanks for all that state subsidised childcare and state made-up feminine work of "equal pay"!) who would divorce them for stopping little johnny from poking his finger in (the fire?) . By a harsh word..

The MRM is not JUST aboutfamily issues of course, but, I say that a lot of the problems in society are derived from disfunctional families..

The state cant fix em.. So it splits em.. (Thats perhaps the logical approach, avoid stress and risk of "DV") But this leads to more problems in the future and a failure for parents to adapt and overcome their difficulties as used to be the case.. "Seven year itches" dont last forever normally!!

The two poll choices are inadequate. I tend toward the second, but recognise that the State has power,

My main beef is with feminist ideology as it has permeated society and with the State making laws which interfere with personal matters.

Feminism needs constant objection and refuting. That is a large scale educational issue. The State has to be forced to repeal a swag of anti-family and ant-male laws. That is a political issue.

So both are needed.

The State holds that it has a 'right' to order society. It is a 'right' confered by me. If it extends that 'right' into areas that I have not approved then it is oppressive and deserves to be overthrown.

'Going my Own Way' may well satisfy me that I am refusing to play anymore, but it does nothing to either repeal the bad laws and limit the State, or to overthrow the regime.

If I wish to continue as a member of society, enjoying the roads and hospitals, the general orderliness of matters, then I must have a say in how things are done. I cannot 'go my own way' totally.

No man is an Island. When the feminist bell tolls in the family court, it tolls for me.

Indeed percy, you have pointed out the limitations of the poll but obviously I made those 2 choices for a reason..

The third way will be the way, of course.. But, we must choose where we want this third way to be slanted towards..

The "state" will always be, always exist, in some form.. It will always oppress, in some form.. But, it will also always protect, and thats why we validate it in many ways.. Its what we expect.. Trouble is, the state does not deliver, in many ways, it is not able to..

Do we want an army.. Yes..

Do we want a police force? Yes..

Do we want a social security safety net?.. Yes..

But, to what extent to we wish the state to extend its hand? And in what way?

For sure, much of the work of the police force CAN be done by citizens themselves.. But the state will not allow this now..

And the same for social security etc..

The key, for me, is repealing bad, interferring laws, putting some of the law back into the hands of the citizens (reclaiming the law) reducing the reliance on a load of ineffective state agents in sorting out OUR OWN personal issues..

I seriously doubt that many MGTOW truly are MGTOW.. They seem to be going their own way conditionally, or half heartedly.. They are still asking for the state to bring in MORE LAWS, then, they will stop GTOW and return to the fold..

Fair enough, but empowering the state MORE does nothing to empower the actual people..

If the state was to decree a new law "Men shall head their families when they are married" I guess many would see that as victory..

Not myself..

Male head of family is a NATURAL condition in the main, it is not ALWAYS the case, but it can be seen that without the state saying so, it seems to happen and work well..

In the absence of all the perverse incentives and feminist "empowerment" its what would happen...

The only call to the state should be "Let the people find themselves again"..

Not "Please, can we see more of our kids and have equality of opportunity where it suits us and can you ensure equality of outcome when that does not work?"