Saturday, 25 September 2010

Male Singleness and the Rise of the Men's Movement (or, the Fringe Benefits of Sexual Disenfranchisement)


Why has the pan-Anglosphere men's movement exploded into life in recent years? Even in the late Twentieth Century, the movement was fairly marginalized, with a mere handful of male writers daring to criticize feminism.

Since about 2007, all that has changed. We have made the Internet our own, creating a potent network of blogs, sites and fora in every digital arena. We have made some legal gains (consider the limited anonymity granted to the accused in British rape cases). Many female journalists in the pan-Anglosphere press express increasing concern about the decline of masculine chivalry and the rise of Game, MRA activism and foreign dating sites.

Obviously, the Internet has had a major role in this explosion. The pan-Anglosphere 'mainstream' media reflexively project a feminist, matriarchal perspective since (as we all know) Anglo-Saxon culture is implicitly feminist, anyway. The Internet therefore represents a natural medium for counter hegemonic masculinist initiatives - indeed, perhaps the sole avenue. And of course, the 'mainstream' media are atomizing or declining, further strengthening the masculinist agenda.

A new, iconoclastic spirit is abroad. After hating on men for the past thirty years, Anglo-American women are suddenly waking up to the fact that American men don't like them very much. This explains their shrill denunciation of foreign dating sites, Game, activism, the escort industry and other dynamic masculine responses to their casual misandry. American men are saying: "Ok, Anglobitch - if you hate men, that's fine. I'll just jet off to Russia, Venezuela or Thailand to find a woman who likes men - and thinner, prettier and sexier than you, to boot."


The oddest thing about this is the Anglobitch response - when Anglo-American women have directly engineered these outcomes. Freed by singleness from any need to delude themselves about women, American men have addressed their issues with typical dynamic candor. Their reward is a cacophony of abuse from the entitled Anglobitch and her 'mainstream' media apologists, still steeped in infantile subjectivity and mouthing the same tired, feminist mantras: 'You can't handle a strong woman'; 'men are trapped in the past'; 'women know what they want'; 'men just want an unpaid house-servant'; and so on.

However, another factor is at work in this great masculine awakening, not just the expansion of the Internet and its infinite capacity for democratic, rational discourse. With various national modulations, the Anglosphere has witnessed the steady decline of stable, monogamous relationships since the mid-Seventies. Today, over 50% percent of American marriages fail and ever-increasing numbers of singletons of both sexes proliferate. In some American urban centers, most people are now single and unattached. In the UK, a third of households are now headed by single people, something unthinkable only a generation ago.


Interestingly, the men's movement has burgeoned in accord with this demographic shift. This surely relates to the fact that - without close female kin - many Anglo males can now view western women with a clear, objective eye. When men have wives, partners or daughters, they cannot afford this ruthless objectivity; they have too much personal investment in their female kin. But now, with ever more males living in isolation from females and without emotional links to them, they are free to analyze female insolence and entitlement for the first time.

Let us elaborate. When nearly all men had female partners and children, they had a biological incentive to ignore female privilege. After all, their own wives and daughters were the principal recipients of it. Once a large proportion of men no longer had wives or daughters, however, chivalry instantly lost its ulterior biological incentive. Consequently men began to see women in their true light, as state-sponsored tyrants and pedestal princesses. This, I would aver, is the major reason for the recent rise of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement. When one's wife and daughters are safe in the lifeboats, chivalry makes sense; when one has no wife or daughters, it makes no sense whatsoever. Thus the men's movement represents a conceptual revolution comparable to the European Enlightenment, with the same profound implications.


Many more men are asking: "why should I continue apologizing for women? What's in it for me?" When men are single and childless, the answer is simply this: nothing. Gender objectivity is the privilege of the single, never the sexually enfranchised. Hence, the recent explosion of single men has facilitated a heightened objectivity concerning gender-relations and, ultimately, the rise of the men's movement. I think this a very profound and overlooked fact, and one that might be manipulated to further our cause in the fullness of time. It also explains the middle-class, hyper-rational ethos of the pan-Anglosphere men's movement, since such objective self-awareness always defines the educated and intelligent, never sentimental dullards. Calls for female draft registration and an end to to pro-female educational and legal discrimination all spring from the same source: unfettered objectivity.

17 comments:

  1. Excellent points Rookh.

    They have pissed on the family fire, and now complain how cold it has become.

    Your point regarding the "educated and intelligent" as being the backbone of the MRAs, will result in a small percentage, if we go by Pareto's principle. This would mean that it is the 'lumpys' who may determine the outcome.

    Presently, Feminism holds the media ace card; but if the few smart men can persuade the majority, of the detriment to society, caused by feminism, then there will be hope.

    The prime target, in my opinion, is to win the hearts and 'minds' of the Chavs; by pointing out to them, that all their misery has been brought about by feminism; from their sabotaged education, to their politically withheld job opportunities, al la Harriet Harman's anti-equality Bill, which goads employers not to employ white men.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "When one's wife and daughters are safe in the lifeboats, chivalry makes sense; when one has no wife or daughters, it makes no sense whatsoever."

    This is a great point! I am glad I haven't been in a relationship with a woman in a long time, it allows me to see clearly the feminist movement and how it impacts society.

    "Anglo-American women are suddenly waking up to the fact that American men don't like them very much."

    How true! Finally Anglo-American women realize that men don't like them or need them (we can go overseas to meet good women). American women think their "shit don't stink." American men know that not only does Anglo-American women's shit stink, Anglo-American women LOOK like shit too!

    ReplyDelete
  3. *American men know that not only does Anglo-American women's shit stink, Anglo-American women LOOK like shit too!*

    And that's just the good ones...!

    ReplyDelete
  4. *The prime target, in my opinion, is to win the hearts and 'minds' of the Chavs; by pointing out to them, that all their misery has been brought about by feminism; from their sabotaged education, to their politically withheld job opportunities, al la Harriet Harman's anti-equality Bill, which goads employers not to employ white men.*

    The problem with contemporary chavs is that they have known nothing else but matriarchal, State-sponsored chaos. Convincing them of the perils of feminism is fine in principle, but they no longer know what working-class patriarchy was like. One might as well be trying to convert them to the Greek myths, since patriarchy has no place whatsoever in their consciousness. It died in the mid eighties, after all, twenty-five years ago.

    I broadly accept Pareto's claims, though, and perhaps a thinking elite of counter-feminist males CAN lead the chavs out of matriarchy. Unfortunately, the recent abasement of the British underclass largely obviates the power of middle-class 'rational argument'. Besides, Lumpies produce few male children, an unfortunate biological fact.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rookh:

    This a great article and said a lot that needed to be said. I've brought up this point about chivalry often. People forget that, historically, chivalry implied reciprocal obligations on the part of women. It evolved in an era when women grew up with female saints or, (earlier) female dieties as their role models. Now, Anglo=American women are essentially a race of Amazons, and any male who conducts himself with chivalry towards them will be lucky to escape in one piece.

    I've been dating foreign women for the last 5 years; exclusively so for the last 2. I don't miss these Anglobitches at all. I'd stay single before I ever got involved with another one of them. When I hear them whining that 'chivalry is dead' and 'there are no good men left'; I just remember that when I (and a lot of other guys) offered them a real relationship, they threw it aside like a sack of garbage and ran off into bed with any lowlife they could get their hands on. Now, as far as I'm concerned, they can turn to the metrosexuals, thugs, and punks to 'man the lifeboats' for them; they won't get any help from me anymore.

    Meanwhile, I'm on to more productive issues, like deciding between the three cute girls I met on my last trip to Peru.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Why has the pan-Anglosphere men's movement exploded into life in recent years?"

    My theory:

    Myself, I was a failure when it came to meeting women in my youth (late 80's and early 90's). Some of my friends were much better at it than I was, and I saw their lives quickly become living hells because of the women they had met.

    I think that the 90's was a time when male-hatred was in full-force, and not "subconscious". That is, male hatred was in full force and considered humorous or necessary (think of Lorena Bobbitt or Richard Jewell and many other incidents in that decade).

    Because of this hatred explosion in the 90's, many men from that generation are now realizing how much damage the media can do - and how much they were cheated out of a fulfilling life because of said media.

    Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. *Because of this hatred explosion in the 90's, many men from that generation are now realizing how much damage the media can do - and how much they were cheated out of a fulfilling life because of said media.*

    I agree there was a great deal of overt misandry in the 90s. However, it must be said that earlier decades (if not centuries) also harbored such misandry (what about the 60s?). After all, the Anglosphere is inherently misandrist. And why did it take so long for men to react (almost 20 years) if the 90s was the sole nexus of male misfortune?

    Yet now we have a mass movement. There is a widespread understanding among self-aware Anglo-American males that they have been doubly stiffed in the post-feminist world (women have acquired rights PLUS privileges). Male resentment was always there, of course, but never involved large numbers of single men shorn of all chivalrous delusions (simply because single males are quite a recent phenomenon). Additionally, the Internet has facilitated a pan-Anglosphere revolution that welds Anglo males together in a culture of 'rational grievance'. Simply put, we never had the supra-national power to do that before, certainly at a sub-cultural level.

    The difference is encapsulated by the following observation. I recall a good British men's rights mag from the 90s called Male View Magazine. It was expensive, middle class and by subscription only. It was also rather stilted and conservative, completely blind to the fact that misandry is inherent in Anglo-Saxon culture. I had a few letters published in there read by about 500 British men's rights intellectuals. Today, via the Internet I can instantly reach out to a whole Anglosphere full of single males shorn of all White Knight delusions about Anglo women. There really is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rookh, comment here:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/25/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anglo feminists are a pack of short-sighted fools. Anyone who thought about it for more than a second would realise that disenfranchising males would inevitably lead to negative societal consequences - i.e - they have little to no genetic stake in this society, so they'd be less inclined to work hard, because there is less point (unless they love money).

    Disenfranchising males and turning females against them would have obvious demographic implications too.

    Anglo feminists seem to have screwed not only Anglosphere societies, but also themselves in the longer run. Par brilliance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Male View Magazine - you had a few letters published in it?

    I would be very interested in reading them...

    Do you have them - or know of any links to them?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *Male View Magazine - you had a few letters published in it?

    I would be very interested in reading them...

    Do you have them - or know of any links to them?*

    The letters were pretty good, though written long before I grasped the importance of culture (Anglo-Saxon culture, that is) in shaping misandrist Anglo-American feminism. I was very much in the Angry Harry mold in those days, not really seeing that conservatism merely restates the puritanism that gave rise to Anglo feminism in the first place. Not knocking Angry harry, he is a brilliant writer and activist but I now question that approach and cannot see it seriously challenging institutionalized misandry across the Anglosphere (how can it, when it undercuts itself?)

    I will post them to you if you wish, but I feel we are all now far more advanced activists than I ever was in those days. Young activists today are miles ahead of what I was then, for real.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "After hating on men for the past thirty years, Anglo-American women are suddenly waking up to the fact that American men don't like them very much."

    How true! American women are finally realizing men don't care for them and we can meet good women overseas (who are not feminist or man haters).

    When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American women, I don't know whether or not I should laugh......or vomit!

    ReplyDelete
  13. WONDERFUL WORK ON THIS WEBSITE!

    Islam is the only bulwark against the Anglobitch disease.

    There can be no dignity without recognition/assimilation of a higher Self/Principle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Although I think some aspects of feminism are obviously good when it comes to job discrimination, the forms of feminism read today on campuses are so ignorant and biased it is insulting. Almost every woman I dated had a sense of entitlement of receiving everything and giving nothing. They want the traditional role of receiver but do not want any obligations what-so-ever. The last feminist woman I dated was multiple times richer 1.3 million to my 15 -20 g teaching wage. But she couldn't even go Dutch on a fucking meal! The reality is many of these women don't want equality at all, they are not flexible in their gender roles, the just want and deserve everything

    ReplyDelete
  15. Looking back at this article, I have one minor disagreement with Rookh.

    It occurs to me that these men may not have knowingly ignored the faults of their female kin (as he seems to imply), but they may have been too smitten to notice them. Anglo men are quite romantic - ultimately much more so than Anglo women, truth be told. Sure, Anglo women love romance novels and romance movies and so forth, but they rarely seek out any sort of romance in practice - they shun men of genuine love in favour of those who cannot provide any except to themselves.

    This makes me think that the Anglo woman's attraction to romantic stimuli is more about their perverse desire to submit to a charming, strapping man who'll ravage her and sweep her off her feet using his exquisite charms. Of course, this sort of man is rare in the Anglosphere for a number of reasons (for one thing, many men are wary of getting humiliated and mocked by these women - at any rate, what's the point of sweeping up an Anglobitch, anyway?) and is bizarrely most epitomised by the sociopathic thug, who'll certainly ravish her (i.e - abuse her) and if he isn't mindful of others feelings, why would he care about their opinions? This is quite different from my concept of romance - which is more akin to expressing affection through physical and verbal gestures to your lover. Thugs do not do this.

    Of course, now that we have often been mistreated by these Anglo females, we look at them with a more jaundiced eye. These foolish Anglo feminists and their mindless followers - they should have considered Pavlov! People tend to be averse to pain (whether emotional or physical, but who likes getting their leg broken?) - associate yourself with pain (as Anglo females have succeeded in doing) and you should not be surprised to find a legion of men who want little to do with you.

    What makes it harder to avoid viewing Anglo females cynically is also how much they've disintegrated both morally and spiritually (and also physically) since the late 1960's. In general, the females on the Titanic would've been of a much higher calibre. Combine that with a more romantic view of them and you can see why many Anglo males thought them worth saving.

    So anyway, those are my opinions. Sorry for going off on a tangent.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Women are naturally takers. Nothing will change that. Women derive joy from submitting and receiving and men from giving. Problem is, giving is a much more vulnerable position than receiving. Infinitely more in many ways.

    ReplyDelete