rodvanmechelen

Good for him. This is a situation with which I can relate. At the May 2012 tribal council meeting of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the head of our DV program--which provides typical "referral" support for male victims--presented us with a misandristic DV poster, one that typically portrays men as predators and women as prey. I said it was sexist, and I made a motion to reject it unless she also produced one that portrayed men as victims and women as abusers. While the men squirmed and tried to disappear into their seats, the rage from the women was almost palpable as the head of our DV program began to cry. When one of them began to compose a petition to have me all but thrown out of the tribe, I resigned. They thought they were rid of me, but were very upset when I continued to attend and report to our members on the tribal council meetings, which I do to this day. The only way to prevail against bigotry is to expose and oppose it as publicly as possible.

I just tell them, "stop violence against unborn women," and then watch them sputter.

What would it cost to send all the feminists with her?

In the early, 90s, the reason I called my 'zine The Backlash! was that we reflected the backlash against the feminist hate movement. Later, when I was forced out of print and online by The Seattle Times, whose editors did not like us accusing them of what is now called fake news, my focus expanded. But the vast majority of MRM books have been in response to the feminist hate movement.

Susan Faludi's obnoxious tomb, Backlash, was our inspiration for the name. In it, she claimed there was an undeclared war against women in America. Typical feminist froth, full of sound and fury signifying nothing but used to justify more and greater attacks on men.

In the modern context, Richard Doyle was among the very first, if not the first, to speak out for men's rights, and his efforts were entirely a backlash against the feminist hate movement. As were Warren's, although I doubt he would ever describe them that way.

Women can thank Classical Liberalism for recognition of their rights, not feminism, which is a hate movement that originated with Second Wave Feminism. (I know Cathy and Christina claim the feminist label retains viable utility, but they are libertarian and classical liberal respectively and I wish they would just come out and say so and discard the feminist label.)

Men, too, can thank classical liberalism for recognition of our rights, which are now and have been under assault by feminists and others for many decades, now. To oppose those who assault our rights is to stand for Men's Rights.

On the right, Men and Marriage, by George Gilder, which is an updated version of Sexual Suicide (or the Naked Nomad, I don't recall which), is one of the earliest. On the left, Roy Shenk's The Other Side of the Coin also dates to the 80s. Everything of Warren's is great, although we disagree on the role of government, and I agree with Evildl17 that Myth of Male Power is a must read. If you go to my site and click on the Backlash Articles in the left hand column, I have 269 articles there, most about feminism and men.

The so-called equity feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young (both of whom I admire), are classical liberals and libertarians. The dictionary definition of feminism was created by libertarian women in the late 1980s as an effort to co-opt feminists into the libertarian movement. It failed, as all they accomplished was to provide cover for the hate mongering second wave feminists.

I don't watch or read anything involving Paul.

Water vapor comprises 95+% of the greenhouse gasses by volume and 75% of the greenhouse effect, but you don't see anybody suggesting we should combat water vapor emissions. Our climate is driven by the sun, which is currently plummeting into a grand solar minimum that is going to cause a mini ice age. People who prepare for global warming will be sorely disappointed when they can't buy food because of the frosts and floods and droughts that destroy crops.

headingtoshore is exactly right. When I saw the question, I had the same thought.

Good. The more women and girls hate on men and boys for looking at them, the more men and boys will ignore women and girls, and the more women and girls will end up living with cats. Men and boys are supposed to look at women and girls. Feminism is poisoning our culture. The worse they get, the sooner everybody will reject it.

I like Jordan and I've got and read his book, but I'm also a little envious of his success and irritated that he is given credit for being the first to say the same things that George Gilder, Warren Farrell, many other men, more than a few women and I have been saying for decades. Where most of those of us who came before him saw our careers destroyed and our lives threatened, he has enjoyed fame and fortune due in part to the work and sacrifices of those who came before him, and not once have I heard him acknowledge that. In this, he is a lot like Milo Yianopolous. Nevertheless, I respect them both for their hard work, principled stand, and value their contributions.

Just another excuse for attention seeking. Climate is not caused by humans. Global warming ended in 1998. The Grand Solar Minimum began in 2015, and for the next 30 years, at least, global cooling will wreak havoc with agriculture. The food shortages will cause food prices to rise, leading to malnutrition, starvation and food riots.

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.