rodvanmechelen

Before there were men's rights activists and MGTOW, there were advocates. Like Roy Shenk, Rich Doyle, George Gilder and Warren Farrell. I was an advocate, too. Still am. And MGTOW, in the ghosting sense. Advocates inform, educate and call out. In the sense my Indian ancestors would understand it, we are Raven Spirit people. We speak truths that others will not say, point out what others will not see. As a Raven Spirit person, I am not limited to men's issues, but say many things that need to be said. Such as that climate change caused by greenhouse gasses is a dangerous lie to take our money and control our lives, and the truth that a super grand solar minimum is upon us and, thanks to food shortages that will be most acute beginning in 2028, billions will die. In my opinion, the non-incel MGTOW are best positioned to survive this and come out the other side to, I hope, push against the centralization that threatens to beset us by November 2032.

Financial abortion has long been an MRM issue. There is no rational response to it. Feminists use the same arguments against financial abortion that pro-life uses against baby abortion. Hypocrisy never stops cultural Marxists.

And don't forget to collect your all important male privilege bonds!

In my experience, Aaron Clarey is right that only about 2% of women in the west, or at least in the US, are marriage material. He also says that most men are not marriage material, but I forget his approximate percentage, only that it's much higher than for women. I do know women I would consider NAWALT, most of them are married young and stay that way, and I respect them. There are single women I know who I consider NAWALT, but as others here have noted they have the opportunity in a fit of anger to destroy a man's life. It's not women, but the feminist/cultural Marxist corruption of the legal, economic and social systems that makes the risk not worth taking. As TFM has noted, there's no real point in aiming to pass on your genes as within only a few generations whatever might make you special or unique has been diluted to the same extent it was before you were born. TFM has also advocated that MGTOW (for those of us who are not angry or bitter, only pragmatic, cynical and self-preserving, Aaron calls it ghosting) on the basis of supply and demand: the more men who MGTOW, whether in sex or in marriage, the less demand there will be for women and the less supply of men there will be to fill women's demand. That will raise the perceived value of men. Now add to this that between now and November 2032 we are going to experience a sharp drop in food supply due to the grand solar minimum and the subsequent mini ice age, combined with social and political upheaval, and you have a recipe for a crash and burn of the entire system, a reset that for decades I have referred to as...The Backlash! When that happens, this cycle of sexism will reverse and turn against women. In my arrogant 30s and 40s I thought I could stop the cycle altogether, but human nature is a stubborn beast and not about to change. So I've given up trying to stop it and instead prepare to endure the turbulent times to come.

To gain insight, I recommend you read Eric Hoffer's book on mass movements, The True Believer. That said, from the beginning many second wave feminists were informed by Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and many of his tactics were employed with such success that by the early 70s, male politicians were falling over themselves to be seen supporting feminists. Patricia Schroeder commented on this when she retired. Early men's rights advocates were seen as the enemy but ineffectual. But by the late 80s younger feminists seeking to make a name agreed to debate MRAs on television and radio. Warren Farrell and Mel Feit were often featured, and while I made some TV talk show appearances I was more effective on radio talk shows. We exposed most of the second wave feminist rhetoric as false. But by 1995 so many feminists had been publicly humiliated that they began to refuse to debate us in public forums and, instead, returned to the tried and true tactics of accusations of hate, protest marches, gatherings where they controlled the speakers, incoherent screeching when they could not control the speakers, and the occasional violent outbursts. This has allowed feminists to maintain control over the narrative and to keep the press spreading nonsense like the wage gap, rape culture, etc.

About 20 years ago, I wrote some editorials expressing the opinion that the MRM would ultimately fail and it would require a backlash from women. At that time, I had only some vague ideas about what is now called MGTOW, but having read Atlas Shrugged I had some definite ideas about men going on strike to precipitate a female backlash against feminism. Four or five years ago, I heard about MGTOW and embraced it as men's Atlas Shrugged strike against feminism. But then I learned, first from Martin Armstrong and then from several others, that we are entering a double whammy with both a 200 year solar cycle and a 400 year solar cycle that is likely to shove us into a Maunder Minimum style Little Ice Age, or worse. In the early stages, the state will likely impose ever more penalties on men to support the state and women. But as it gets worse, things will begin to break down. Hundreds of millions, if not billions will die of malnutrition and starvation. We should also note that CME are also more likely to occur during grand solar minima, and if we get hit by one of those, it's back to the 18th century for several years. National and international communities would break down under such conditions, local communities would become paramount, and ultimately feminism cannot survive under such circumstances.

I'll say the same thing I've said for the past 30+ years: just as girls mature faster than boys, chimpanzees mature faster than humans; and just as chimps are not smarter than humans, women are not smarter than men. In fact, the slower maturation of boys could be used to argue just the opposite.

I say we flip the narrative around on them, claim that toxic masculinity is a disorder, and those of us with Toxic Masculinity Disorder are disabled and need to go on disability so we can spend our time in therapeutic activities, like fishing, hiking, camping, etc.

MGTOW: the only rational response to feminism.

First, my tribe's one-year-old reservation is tiny. Second, tribes in the US are subject to the plenary power of Congress, which is to say, subject to all federal laws. President Reagan found it most useful to think of tribes as "being like states." So, on our reservation--and only on our reservation--my tribe is exempt from state law, but not from federal law.

That said, most of our offices and facilities are on "fee patent" land, which is to say it's not reservation land, and those facilities are all subject to federal, state, county and municipal laws.

Oh, and the SH training I have to take is through my employer, which is not my tribe.

Paragraph 42: "We note that the reasonable victim standard we adopt today classifies conduct as unlawful sexual harassment even when harassers do not realize that their conduct creates a hostile working environment. Well-intentioned compliments by co-workers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action if a reasonable victim of the same sex as the plaintiff would consider the comments sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a condition of employment and create an abusive working environment." https://openjurist.org/924/f2d/872/ellison-v-f-brady

In this paragraph, they refer specifically to compliments, but in paragraph 24 they cite Jordan v. Hodel to explain that "a hostile environment exists when an employee can show (1) that he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,5 (2) that this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment."

Hence, this does not apply only to compliments, and as Rita Risser noted in Managing Within The Law, it also created the specifically male "reasonable man standard": "In sexual harassment cases, the behavior must be considered explicitly sexual by a reasonable victim. If the victim is a woman, it's a reasonable woman standard. If the victim is a man, it's a reasonable man standard." http://www.backlash.com/book/sexharman.html

https://medium.com/@jimpreston_36730/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-8b1b7625604d and http://www.backlash.com/book/sexharman.html

For years I've been saying that MRAs shouldn't get upset over the fact more women than men were going to college, because more women than men were going into debt to earn useless degrees. Now, here we are.