Category Archives: Men’s Rights Success

MGTOW vs MRA: Abandon all hopelessness

Another conversation I’ve had with a MGTOW.

tl;dr? Your comments are reflective of a very broad swath of men, whom I’d like to address indirectly as I speak with you. Much of your argument is typical of the kind that many MGTOW make: “I don’t know how it can be done, therefore it cannot.” This is an argument from lack of knowledge, and of hopelessness.

They then follow up with ” I will focus on what I can control: my life.” I do encourage men to take charge of their lives and to put themselves first.

At some point, however, one must measure when one’s life is stable and steady enough, to be willing to venture out of the comfort zones, even only if by small increments. My intent is not to convert you to an MRA, but to encourage you to replace hopelessness and helplessness with what MGTOW is really about: men living full rich lives as valuable and self-respecting men.

Forgive the length, the conversation is worth it. Wish we could do this via Hangouts. Interested? Contact me, and we’ll set it up.

“Having men speaking out doesn´t mean that laws will change. I have a hard time to see where things are getting better.”

You are right that discussion does not guarantee results, but no discussion certainly guarantees no results. Having women speak out didn’t mean that laws would change. But they have, haven’t they? I can provide you examples of where people speaking out has created change. I refer you to the Canadian Association for Equality, who have for the first time, since Earl Silverman, have create a shelter for abused men. That isn’t a law, but it’s a change. I could provide you with names of lawyers who actively specialize in men’s issues. That’s a next step. I can refer you Mike Buchanan who has started a political party in the UK based on men’s issues and is running for political positions. Step by step, all starting with talk. Give it time, we’ve only just begun, don’t write things off before we step off of the blocks.

“Instead we have the Yes-means-yes-law and some countries are introducing new laws where men can now get in trouble for flirting with a woman in public. Or airlines who require single traveling men not to sit next to young children.”

Yes, we have two groups, one, being a very-well funded massive power, and another simultaneously operating fledgling movement. Put one drop of red dye in a glass of water. The water is no longer 100% transparent. Add another drop. How long until we recognize that the water has a reddish hue? Remember that we are changing societies–plural. This is a generational task. We are doing this for our grand-children (and hopefully we’ll get to enjoy some of the results.)

“And what is that critical mass? 25%, 50%, 90%?”

That is excellent question–and one should be researched. How does one measure “critical mass?” That we do not know, at the time of this conversation, does not imply that it cannot be done. That would be an argument from lack of knowledge. I’m going to do some research on this for two reasons. 1. I want to know. 2. Knowing and being able to measure would allow us a concrete goal to strive for.

“I think there is more to it then rational thoughts. Biology and the urge of most men to care for women and to protect them at any cost is a huge factor as well.”

Oh yes. We are trying to change hearts and minds–in that order.

“I remember Cenk saying something like “Even if a woman hits you first, you don´t hit her back! That is just different!” And many men feel the same way.”

Yes, he’s entitled to hold very ignorant and thoughtless beliefs. Now, put him in a context with 1000 people who vociferously disagree and see how long he holds to that belief. Hearts and minds… Social pressure, psychology, emotion. It is all part of the equation.

Francis said: “This is very dense with assumptions.”

“I have talked to a large number of women about equality and feminism and while some of them might agree that feminism has taken things much too far, they often refuse to acknowledge that certain “facts” that are propagated by feminists are in fact just myths or flat out lies. Like the “gender wage gap” for example. You can produce statistics from official sources and those women will still claim that there is a gender wage gap and that women are “oppressed”. Again, this is not something rational in my opinion. It seems to be that those women instictively know that being the “victim” will benefit them and they won´t let go of it, no matter how many facts you present. They will constantly change the subject or end the discussion with the usual attacks: “You hate women! You have a problem with women! You are a sexist!” etc…”

Yes. And gravity exists. We do two things: use it, and find work-arounds. Ever ponder on how amazing suspended bridges are?

Francis said: “Cenk is not an enemy, he’s someone who doesn’t accept the argument…”

“Men like him will never change their behavior unless they have been burned badly themself. Sometimes not even then. At least that is my experience. There are some exceptions though…”

But we don’t know that for a fact. If we assume that this is so, as an irrefutable given, we aren’t likely to act on it, are we? Cenk is only one–and notice how many disagree with him. We don’t need 100% acceptance, we need critical mass. I can’t measure it yet, but I can see that it is growing.

Francis said: “MGTOW is not “the” solution, it is part of the solution.”

“I agree with you that MGTOW doesn´t provide a universal solution. But many MGTOW men probably don´t believe in a political solution (like myself). They just try to improve their life and stay safe. And that is a more practical approach then hoping or fighting for a political change, at least in my opinion. It is a solution for ME because it works for ME.”

Full disclosure, here: I am both an MRA and MGTOW. I was MGTOW before the term existed and only became MRA when I saw others doing it, and had an example to go by. MGTOW don’t believe in direct action. I get that, I didn’t for years either. You say “a more practical approach then hoping or fighting for a political change.”

Hoping and fighting for are two different things. The only reason that I was MGTOW and not MRA was because I thought “If I don’t know how it can be done, it can’t be.”

“I have nothing against the MRM, I just think it will not work.”

Two observations. The first is that you are looking at the MRM as though it is a singular static tool. It isn’t. The MRM is comprised of men and women, of all walks of life, of all psychological bents, of all skill, drive, talent and passion levels. The second is that you are again repeating “I can’t see it, so I don’t think it will work, therefore I will not invest in it.” That’s fair enough, and you are entitled to think that way–but it isn’t sound thinking, it is an argument from ignorance. You may not be one of those naturally proactive people, a mover-and-shaker by nature, neither am I, but I do not accept “I don’t know the solution, so I won’t try.” I’m not judging you for it, nor am I asking you to take action. I am asking you to think more deeply about your reasoning, even if it is only to stop thinking as someone who is oppressed.

“And one reason is because women have more leverage in our society. You can´t bargain with someone who is in a superior position. That´s the way I see it.”

Of course you can–if you have the right leverage. It might be financial, psychological, physical, etc. Sun Tzu is quoted as saying “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” and “To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” You have already lost in your mind, and so retreat. Our “war” is not won though violence, but influence. Take one person, and help them change one idea. That’s your drop of dye in the water. The first battle, however, is against our sense of weakness, powerlessness and hopelessness.

“Thanks anyway for your comment. Even if we don´t agree with each other, I always enjoy having a civil and respectful discussion like that. And that is the reason I gave your comment a thumbs up, not because I agree with you.”

Imagine that: people having civil discourse and enjoying it! I encourage you to continue doing do. It makes us more effective and more fun to be listened to.

Tagged , , ,

Single dad gets no help. Young daughter left homeless: Support the Men’s Centre

I think that it’s terrific that women have all the help they can get, but why is it that men don’t have those same services? Men are human beings. I think there needs to be a greater call for men’s services.

I know that I often write about anti-Feminist issues. My real reason for being an MRA is the kind of story that we hear in this video. I remember when I lived on the streets in Vancouver for a short while, very few women were homeless. Those that were of three types: rock-bottom low-end junkies, prostitutes and teenage girls who thought of it as an adventure. Part of the reason there were more men on the streets than women, was because in the end, women could always trade sexual services for a meal or a place to stay.

You can help by donating to The Canadian Centre for Men and Families

Tagged ,

An open letter to Sandman, MGTOW YouTuber

It kills me when I hear conspiracies of “Men would not be ‘allowed’ fertility control methods.” In order to believe this one must believe 1. Men have no voice. 2. Men have no political power. 3. Men are not part of the market and 4. We must ask permission from “our betters” to grant us this boon. This is nonsense.

Are you a Man Going His Own Way? Or are you a vassal to those who claim to be your betters? You can’t have it both ways.

Vasalgel is coming along fine. Help fund it if you would like a one-procedure, effective, 10 year lasting, safe, discreet, non-hormonal and reversible method to control your fertility.

The only reason why men don’t yet have fertility control is because we’re a bunch of lazy bastards who aren’t willing to team up to support those making it possible.

I’ve heard the claims that “The Feminist Lobby is working against us.” Bullshit. The one source that people point to is the Brazilian Dr. Couthino, who merely made the claim that Feminists objected. I have no evidence that they’ve actually done anything other than flap their lips. Vasalgel could be ready in the US in under 5 years, and for the rest of the Western World? That depends on you. I’m doing what I can to make it available in Canada in as short a time as possible. What will you do to bring it to your country? You don’t need to do everything, just do something.

Guys. Send The Parsemus Foundation $10. Now. Sub to their email list. Help as you can.

The David and Lucile Packard foundation granted them $50 k. Very little compared to all of the costs.

Here is what you can do for the price of one sheet of paper, one envelope and one stamp. Write them a hand-written letter thanking them for their support of the Parsemus Foundation. Tell them why you want fertility control. Tell them how it will concretely make a better world by helping bring Vasalgel to market.

Read their mission statement, and write a letter that makes the connection between their accomplishing their mission and supporting The Parsemus Foundation in bringing Vasalgel to market.

Write to:

Tamara Kreinin
Director, Population and Reproductive Health
The David & Lucile Packard Foundation
343 Second Street
Los Altos, CA 94022

Seriously. You can make a difference. You can create change. Take one hour to write a thoughtful and encouraging letter. Don’t get all conspiracy-hatred and fuck-the-wimmenz oriented. Praise them for their excellent deed, and make a direct connection between their positive action and making a better world for men, women and the children we choose to have.

Sandman, you’re a Toronto guy, I’m Canadian too. Use this platform that you’ve successfully built to make a difference, rather than merely freaking people out. I invite you to contact me to discuss the matter. Let’s talk via Skype or Google Hangouts, privately or publicly.

Tagged , , ,

Re: The Men’s Rights Movement is Making a Huge Mistake

“The Men’s Rights Movement” is not a homogeneous group of men. The Men’s Rights Movement encompasses, activists, as well as simple advocates, from all political, religious and cultural variations. You speak of it as though it has ideological tenets. It doesn’t. The sloppiness of your language creates many non-existent issues.Your biggest error is to vaguely conflate “The men’s rights movement” as a whole, with, what appears to me to be an criticism of one unnamed activist group, A Voice For Men.

“Men’s Rights Activists want men and women to be treated exactly the same in every situation.”

False. Men’s Rights Activists expect men and women to enjoy equivalent rights and be subject to corresponding duties, equally. We work and advocate toward these goals.

“Their basic philosophy boils down to this: we’re victims, too.”

False. The basic philosophy is that men and women should enjoy equivalent rights and be subject to corresponding duties, equally, and that the one-sided message that Feminists promote of men as perpetrators and women are victims is false, that men have issues to address, just as do women.

“The men’s rights movement has no answers to the individual men who wants to improve his life.”

And that is not the job of a movement to provide individual answers. It is up to the individuals to do so. May I recommend activists groups that serve men’s interests without self-declaration thereof? Consider The Innocence Project, or The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, both of which involve women who are focused on helping individuals, frequently men. Your understanding of the Men’s Rights Movement is shallow, when you fail to include the entirety of the movement.

You are also setting up a dichotomy, where your way is better, because it addresses the needs of certain men, in certain contexts. Fair enough, there may indeed be value in this, but one need not work only at the micro or macro level. Both can be complimentary.

“While they offer a societal fix to eliminate the damages caused by the Feminist movement, they can’t help the Average Joe on the street who is just trying to improve his day-to-day existence.”

While The Sanitation Department is trying to handle and deal with garbage and refuse from millions of homes, they can’t take out the individual’s trash to the curve and brush their teeth. If you were more precise in your thoughts, you’d never have made such a claim.

“The mistake that The Men’s Rights Movement is currently doing right now, as we speak, is allowing women to infiltrated their movement to become figureheads and spokespersons driving the policy and the weight of the movement itself.”

You haven’t given much thought to your commentary. Movements don’t have policies, organizations do. A movement is not an organization, though it may include many organizations moving toward the same generalized goals. I believe I understand where you’re coming from. You are trying to address the issues that you perceive in one organization, which is part of the generalized Men’s Rights Movement, A Voice for Men. Well, maybe that one organization is making a mistake, and maybe not. I have no evidence that women are driving policies, and even if they were, that the policies are driving a movement in a direction counter to the equitable treatment of men in law and culture.

Further, your whole attitude conveys the notion that you believe that men are weak and stupid, and are unqualified to accurately assess another’s character, for not reason other than the character has a vagina associated with it. Do you really believe that all men are so stupid as to be nothing but dupes?

“They’re [AVFM, presumably] allowing women to rise to the very top!”

I wasn’t aware that AVFM–or any men’s activist groups–had ceded organizational control or ownership to women.

“They are giving power and influence to a gender…”

First, assuming that they is AVFM, do you you believe that an organization can be run by a gender? Organizations are run by individuals. Which female individuals are now in charge of AVFM? Which female individuals are in exclusive charge of CAFE, or The National Coalition for Men? And what negative impact are they having on the consciousness, thoughts and actions of millions of men world-wide?

The truth is that rather than being solution oriented, of aiming for, working towards and achieving specific goals, such as reform in law, you are vaguely waving your hands and exclaiming that the sky is falling because men aren’t treating some female individuals as representatives of some form of gender ebola. You are merely advocating for chauvinism, and are moralistically wagging your finger at those who are actually doing what it takes to influence positive change.

Your whole argument boils down to “Girls got the Cooties!”

And what do you think will happen, if these women turn against AVFM? Hint: look at it’s history. And for the men’s movement as a whole? Allow me to point to the giant curb that many ideologues are being kicked to is made of the bones of the previous ones. The men’s movement as a whole has a simple direction: equivalent rights and duties for all. Don’t want to play nice? We aren’t shutting up. I will tackle this one issue. MGTOW do the very same thing: “No fair play? We go away.”

You repeat that “men” are transferring “influence and power” without having given any shred of evidence that women, generalized or individual when the movement as a whole is doing the very exact opposite, and, if you are referring to AVFM specifically, are failing to make clear lines of who, what, where, when and how, with precise evidence as to what the effects are.

“How do you know if the Men’s Rights Movement was a cause that had a chance to succeed?”

Every time a politician gets booted out, a policy changed, a mind influenced, a character expanded, it has succeeded. If you want to be useful, Roosh, rather than speak about a subject that you have evidently given very little thought, and on which you have done very little research, drive your readership to and have each donate $10 dollars. You want to protect men from Cootie Girls? Help us come up with a solution that controls our fertility. That is a solution for the Average Joe. Ironically, the Parsemus Foundation is headed by a woman.


Washington state court says accused rapists cannot bear burden of proving consent

They who make the claim bear the burden of proof. This one decision is a reversal of the insidious trend away from critical thinking, to support any anti-male, pro-women claim for no reason other than an accusation was made be a woman.

This isn’t what Men’s Rights looks like, this is what impartiality looks like, which, oddly enough is what men’s rights advocates are aiming for, which is what the early Feminists claimed to be working for.

Washington state court says accused rapists cannot bear burden of proving consent

(Reuters) – The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the burden of proving consent cannot fall on a defendant accused of rape, in a split decision that reversed two earlier rulings and prompted fears that dangerous offenders could avoid conviction.

The court in its 6-3 ruling reversed earlier decisions that forced an alleged rapist to establish a preponderance of evidence that a victim consented to sex. The court said such a burden violated constitutionally protected rights and also wrongly interpreted precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“When a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime charged, the State may not shift the burden of proving that defense onto the defendant,” the ruling said.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote, adding that doing so raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

In a dissenting opinion, Washington Supreme Court justices wrote the decision would undo years of progress in rape cases and could allow some sex offenders to go free.

“In 1975, the legislature took an important step toward justice for rape victims when it modified the laws to focus on the conduct of the perpetrator and not the victim. Unfortunately, today’s decision by the majority reverses that progress,” wrote Justice Susan Owens.

In issuing its ruling, the court reversed the conviction of a rape defendant identified as W.R., a minor accused of rape by another minor.

W.R.’s defense maintained the sex was consensual and he appealed his conviction saying his right to due process was violated when he was forced to present the preponderance of evidence that his accuser agreed to the contact.

“This impermissible shift in burden is not merely academic but risks compartmentalizing forcible compulsion and consent, raising a very real possibility of wrongful convictions,” the ruling said.

(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere in Seattle; Editing by Eric M. Johnson)

Tagged , , , , ,

A Jerry Springer Moment at Male Students in Peril

I’ve got more and more respect for Sage, not only as an activist, but as a speaker. He’s getting damned good.

Tagged ,

Did Feminism Get it Wrong?

This is a debate held between Sage Gerard vs Brian Clyne at Kennesaw State University for Men.

Sage Gerard, once again, gives an excellent exposition of the men’s rights side on the topic of Feminism. Excellent job, Sage.

Tagged , ,

Men’s International Conference 2014 Day 2

Day 2: Warning! This video is 10 hours and 45 minutes long, and has a lot of breaks to skip. The excellent content makes it worthwile.

Tagged , ,

Men’s Rights Press conference

I wish I could be there.

Tagged ,

One solution to many woes: make sperm scarce.

The Grim Guy, Lucian Vâlsan wrote a very interesting article: A bachelor tax – not so unlikely in which he describes the Romanian circumstances in the 1980’s under Nicolae Ceaușescu. The Romanian Communist Party decided to increase the birthrate in the country – being dissatisfied with how the population recovered numerically following the World War II. One of their approaches, in addition to starving the population was to tax men over 25 that had no children. This was colloquially known as “the dick tax.”

In this context, of absurd desire of the supreme leader to increase
birthrates and to pay off national debt by quite literally starving the
population gave birth to the so-called celibacy tax of 1986.

To be honest, were this to happen in North America, I would consider this a good thing: it would be a solid legal reason to bring up issues of men’s lack of reproductive rights. You want to tax us as incitement to have children? Provide us the same sort of rights and protections that we have granted women. Were this the case, I suspect that you’d see “marriage” or at least some form of pairing up regain popularity. Something like this is a series of milestone lawsuits waiting to happen.

But for today’s environment, I’m convinced that the best means is still the pressure of withdrawing the benefits of free/cheap dick to women, the withholding of children (making great efforts to not create them, that is), of provision and of protection.”

Feminism can only exist in an environment of where sperm is freely and cheaply available, where dick is an undervalued commodity. When women control reproduction in large part due to men’s lack of decent contraception, in view of men’s drive  to enjoy normal, happy, intimacy as sexual beings and in view that laws involving reproduction work mostly in women’s favour and mostly to men’s disfavour.

Consider: if men were the gatekeepers of their reproduction, if we could control our fertility, there’d be significantly less paternity fraud, less dispossessing men of their homes and goods, less dispossessing of their future salaries designed mainly to bring in more revenue to the court. Feminists would have even less claim to the notion that men are rapists. Of course, they’d still find a way to find the withholding of dick as a form of oppression against women, by “denying” them the “right” to make babies, but honestly, one who seeks to be a victim needs very little excuse. But it would be another means to cause women to re-evaluate how men are treated.

Consider that as men, we literally give away diamonds and our future for the opportunity to give away sperm. We treat our sperm as though it were garbage, we pay to have our future hauled the dump, so to speak.

It’s time to turn the world around. Men, keep your dicks–or at least your sperm–to yourselves. Make it a scarce commodity. I can imagine no greater tool to help change the laws. The sound of thundering biological clocks would shake the foundation of the current legal and political system.

This is one reason to support the Parsemus Foundation with bringing Vasalgel to North America, then the world. Donate to The Parsemus Foundation here.

We do still have our sexual drive, however. In a world where prostitution is legal, but soliciting the service is not, we would have need some outlet. This is where porn, sex toys and sex workers can become an important player in a whole new economy.

We would probably need to create 1-3 generations of men who view their sperm as the valuable commodity that it is. We’d need to ensure that temporary sterilization become a right of passage as soon as the child is able to consent, where parents consider this as a means to protecting their boys. We would need to put an end to sperm donation.

A large part of our world’s problems are due to uncalculated and not carefully premeditated choice in reproduction. This would of course be a large scale social engineering project, but if Feminists have taught us anything, it is that our world’s societies and cultures can do a 180 in one generation. That is spinning on a dime in terms of species time-scale.

So boys: protect your sperm and treat it as a commodity more valuable than diamonds. Our seed is literally the seeds of the future. Treat it as such.

It is time for men to adapt and adopt this as the new male anthem :)


Tagged , , , , ,