Human rationality is a scarce
resource. I doubt that anyone would claim that
religion is a rational phenomenon, for example. In the West, religion
has been to a large extent been defeated and replaced by Feminism, Marxism
and Secularism. Secularism may be a rational phenomenon, but Feminism
(being ill-defined and emotionally driven) and Marxism (being based
on unrealistic assumptions) are not. Marxism has almost disappeared
from the World scene, but now Radical Islam is demonstrating once again
the power of human irrationality.
Here is my view on the psychodynamic history of Feminism so far, and
on what it would take to defeat it (apart from Radical Islam). Politics
makes for strange bedfellows, as the saying goes, and I would not rule
out Masculism forming an alliance with Radical Islam, but it would be
hard to imagine the Christian part of the Masculist movement favouring
such an alliance! However, it is true that Catholics and Muslims do
cooperate to some extent at the international level because of the power
of organised Feminism.
Feminist anti-male propaganda builds on the anti-male bias of male
chivalry, making Western men almost incapable of criticising women,
or of judging them by the same standards as men are judged by. For example,
professional sportswomen generally compete in
separate competitions from professional sportsmen. Why? Because
otherwise the sportswomen would never win. Are there any professions
where men and women are segregated because men would otherwise never
get to the top? No -- this would be illegal and discriminatory! Once,
when I raised this issue, one New Zealand man said to me -- as his sole
argument -- that New Zealand men would never agree to abolishing sexual
apartheid in sports. In other words, rationality just didn't come into
it. You had to make allowances and special exceptions for women, and
that was that!
However, Democracy requires equality, and if women are not judged
by the same standards as men, then they should not have the same rights
as men. Women have achieved huge political victories at the expense
of men on the back of slogans about Equality
and/or Equity. There is no such thing as Piecemeal Equality. Either
men and women are equal across the board or they are not equal at all.
The current system of "Piecemeal Equality" -- Equality only
where women want it -- is grossly discriminatory and unfair to men.
I saw another example of this chivalry on New Zealand television recently,
when a British woman was filmed visiting New York as part of a British
series of programmes called "Dickens in America". She was
given a ride in a police car so that she could see what its normal business
consisted of. One incident that the police intervened in was an altercation
between a Black man and a Black woman on a footpath. Each of the two
policemen interviewed one of the couple separately, and the outcome
was that the man was arrested, because he had some sort of restraining
or protection order out against him.
What happened next was that the two policemen were shown posing for
the camera in front of their police car, with an amazingly self-satisfied
smirk on each of their faces -- as if they were cats who had just had
a huge bowl of cream. Police work is stressful, dangerous and has few
rewards, but it seems to me that one reward that these two policemen
got from their job was that it gave them the opportunity to help women
by putting men behind bars. There is really no other explanation for
their posing in front of their squad car at that particular time with
those expressions on their faces. All the Feminist propaganda about
male violence makes it safe for policemen to show pleasure at such events.
Historically, Feminism has always had a strong Lesbian and Bisexual
component, and Lesbian Feminists have been
known to claim that a woman could not be a true Feminist unless she
was a Lesbian. A few years ago, in fact, the entire leadership of the
US National Organization for Women stated that they were Lesbians. The
need for Lesbians to be independent of men has probably always been
present, and it has taken the Feminist Movement to (in effect) push
women into feeling a need for the sort of independence from men that
Lesbians need for psychosexual and economic reasons. The propaganda
around "strong women" is another aspect of this Feminist drive
to turn mainstream women into near-Lesbians.
Lesbians have the strategic advantage that they do not "sleep
with the enemy" (men). They do not have to make compromises, or
tailor their Feminist policies to ones that their male partners would
go along with -- because they don't have male partners.
Feminist-driven policy changes and changes in the law have transformed
Western societies over the last 200 years or so, but each new generation
of boys and girls grows into adulthood accepting as normal (and being
taught to accept as normal) what their parents and grandparents would
likely have regarded as extreme, absurd, obscene or unbelievable. Males,
in particular, have to accept some of these Feminist changes as 'normal",
if they want to get along with their highly politicised girlfriends.
Males internalise these changes and feel that it would be "unmasculine"
to struggle against women for their own political rights -- especially
as this might involve, in part, reversing some of the victories that
their girlfriends have been taught to be so proud of.
I saw an absurd example of this sort of social change on New Zealand's
Channel 4 TV station -- which was relaying Australia's Channel Nine
(at about 10:30 AM on 22 January 2007, NZ Time). The anchors were discussing
some aspect of men's and women's roles with a couple of female guests,
when one of the guests (a dumb-sounding woman) said something like:
"There are not so many really stupid women as there used to
On the face of it, this is a really stupid statement: obviously, there
is not likely to have been any change in the distribution of intelligence
among Australian women! What she meant was that the number of women
who were content to appear to be bimbos had declined, because Feminism
claimed that women were equal to or better than men, and it has been
pushing women to have their own careers, where appearing to be a bimbo
is not usually advantageous.
This is typical of the way that Feminism has changed social reality.
Irrespective of how many women really are or were stupid (however you
would determine that), Feminism has, to a large extent, made it socially
and even legally unacceptable for men to treat them as stupid. Feminism
has also pressured women to appear intelligent (i.e. to behave like
the possibly stupid women who have achieved seniority as a result of
For Masculism (the assertion of Men's Rights) to become a powerful
movement, men need to be able to be as psychologiclly independent of
women's approval as Feminists have been. Feminism, with its strong Lesbian
component, has taught western women that it doesn't matter if men approve
of Feminism or not -- women should decide for themselves what their
political goals are.
Masculists either want to win the Sex War or
they don't. If they do, they need to think about their tactics
and strategy in a thoroughgong manner. Many Masculists have inhibitions
about using particular tactics and strategies. My message to them is:
If the Feminists have used a particular tactic
or strategy to get where they are (i.e. nearly at World Domination),
then we have to be prepared to use the same, or similar tactics.
Otherwise we will lose.
Lesbianism has been crucial to the success
of the Feminist movement. Many people are in denial about this, for
various reasons. Some people are politically correct, and don't agree
with attacking Lesbians. However, it is not necessary to criticise Lesbians'
sexual practices -- just their hatred of men, as expressed first in
media propaganda, then in Law, and finally in the mainstream attitude
to men in Society as a whole.
From adolescence on, men are scared of homosexuality and pracise "gender
policing', to make sure that other men behave in a manly manner. Paradoxically,
the countries and organisations which are most overtly hostile to homosexuality
are actually full of covert homosexuals. Strict Muslim countries, with
their sexual segregation, both have very severe penalties for homosexuality
and a lot of practising homosexuals -- as references to the "sexual
customs of the Gulf" make clear. Likewise, Catholic seminaries
are said to be full of homosexuals, although the Catholic Church is
strictly opposed to homosexuality. Muslims and Catholics are also amongst
the most pro-men groups in today's generally anti-male World.
I am not advocating homosexuality1,
but lessons should be learned from the relatively pro-male stance of
the Muslims and the Catholics. The higher your profile as a Men's Rights
activist, the more hostility and discrimination you will experience
on a daily basis. If you say and do what the Feminists want you to say
and do, on the other hand, women in Western societies will treat you
like the lovely pet poodle that you are. There are hard choices to be
made. Whose side are you on? Do you want the easy
life of a poodle, or do you want to join the Brotherhood on the path
1 Read my lips!
I mean what I say. I was astounded when I met an overseas Masculist
for the first time, and he greeted me by saying, "Thank you for
coming out," and later proceeded to put his arm around me!! What
I am advocating is more acceptance of closer male bonding, but that
is a theoretical position, and is not an indication of personal relationship