More Evidence That It Is Happening
Thanks to an e-mail which I received about forty minutes ago, I am now informed of a pro-male political initiative called the Men's Voting Alliance. If you visit their website, you will see that they have large, forward-thinking plans. But here is what they say about themselves:
Truly, if men don't begin to exist politically, they will be rolled flat into the pavement in every way that might occur to you. And not only that, but the non-feminist revolution as a whole will not go places if men, as men, don't occupy the vanguard of the operation. Women will never do this on their own initiative, so it is and can only be a male initiative. Of course, electoral politics is only a small part of what it means for men to exist politically, but . . . it's a powerful and important part that should not be neglected.
Here is the website address for the Men's Voting Alliance. I think you'll want to keep your eye on this. I know that I plan to bookmark this and visit often:
http://www.mensvotingalliance.com/
"The mission of Men's Voting Alliance is to unite men's voting power and take action to defend, protect and preserve men and boys fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and subsequent acts of Congress. Civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. We can only accomplish this mission with members who are willing to take action to defend, protect and preserve the rights of men and boys. We must organize, join forces and vote. We welcome all individuals, Men's Groups and Fathers Rights Groups to join forces with Men's Voting Alliance."So tell me, how long have I been saying that men and women are, de facto, like-it-or-not, separate political interest groups that owe no political obligation to each other? I know that does not sound like a pleasant situation, and I reckon it isn't. But, that is just the way things ARE! It's an objectively accomplished fact of history, and I am only the messenger, so don't shoot! Shoot feminism, okay? The guilty party, in other words.
Truly, if men don't begin to exist politically, they will be rolled flat into the pavement in every way that might occur to you. And not only that, but the non-feminist revolution as a whole will not go places if men, as men, don't occupy the vanguard of the operation. Women will never do this on their own initiative, so it is and can only be a male initiative. Of course, electoral politics is only a small part of what it means for men to exist politically, but . . . it's a powerful and important part that should not be neglected.
Here is the website address for the Men's Voting Alliance. I think you'll want to keep your eye on this. I know that I plan to bookmark this and visit often:
http://www.mensvotingalliance.com/
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:01 PM
25 Comments:
Picked up my spirits. Especially after watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZymFMmpOa0
Fidelogen,
As much as I loved your last post, the implications of this one hit a very sour note with me. I don't think generalizing men and women as distinct voting groups is the wrong way to go. The problems with this approach is that it creates an "us vs. them" that isn't healthy for men OR women. I think generalizing half of the species is bad. Why? Because, humans are individuals. I'm certain that all of the posters at Soviet Empire promote communism, but they surely differ in their vision of utopia.
"I don't think generalizing men and women as distinct voting groups is the wrong way to go."
Then, you think it is the right way to go?
I'm not so sure it is the right way to go, myself. But then, the objective facts of history are what they are. . alas!
Oh. . if only we had a social contract!
I think that generalizing WOMEN as a distinct voting group has already happened.
Therefore, we must do the same for men.
As Paul Elam always asks, "What if there were a gender war - and men actually showed up?"
It is ultimately the WRONG way to go Lady Catherine, but it has already happened - and we must counteract it to protect ourselves.
As Fidelbogen said - I am not responsible - I am the messenger - so don't shoot me!
I agree - I also am not responsible - I do not know exactly who is - it started a long time ago - and it MUST be counter-acted.
Oh - off topic - does anybody know where I can buy "acted" counters at affordable prices?
I was thinking of remodeling my kitchen.
Hi buddy, I want to show gratitude for writing such a good feature article, really will support me out in frequent ways…
@ScareCrowe:
Thank you, that was spot on!
"Then, you think it is the right way to go?"
Sorry, I forgot to double check. It's the wrong way to go.
"It is ultimately the WRONG way to go Lady Catherine, but it has already happened - and we must counteract it to protect ourselves.
As Fidelbogen said - I am not responsible - I am the messenger - so don't shoot me!
I agree - I also am not responsible - I do not know exactly who is - it started a long time ago - and it MUST be counter-acted."
Agreed.
@All:
It is assuredly NOT a good idea to turn men and women into separate political power blocs, but. . .
Women, as a group, have been effectively politicized as a group, while men have not been.
And that fact all by itself is the root of 47 different evils.
So, I see two choices here. Either we politicize men as a group, or. . we UN-politicize women as a group.
Failure to do either of the above means that feminism keeps rolling, and getting stronger and stronger, with consequences that we can predict! :(
So anyhow, I think it would be a damn sight more do-able to politicize men than to un-politicize women.
"or. . we UN-politicize women as a group."
Forget it.
As Paul Elam would say, "The toothpaste is not going to go back into the tube".
I would say, "you cannot refill a salt-shaker if there is no way to open it up - except by trying to squeeze the salt back into the holes you sprinkle it out of".
Most women seriously believe that they were once "oppressed", and now that they are a political class - they are not "oppressed".
Nothing could be further from the truth, but that's what the larger portion of them believe.
@ScareCrow:
Oddly, I think that it may indeed be possible to un-politicize women in the long run.
And i DO mean long. . . .
But for the short run, men must begin to exist politically.
Or to be more precise, socio-politically.
I agree Fidelbogen
The very LONG run - like a century from now.
Optimistically, 50 years at best.
"Optimistically, 50 years at best."
Yeah, that'd be optimistic all right!
They should have also mentioned the Ninth Amenmend. The Ninth Amendment addresses rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Warren Farrel tackled this conversation years ago, as if he knew we would be having it :)
He said [i'm heavily paraphrasing], unfortunately, we can't skip to level 3 where men and women understand each other and each other's unique needs, or directly to a "humanist, gender-neutral movement"... Unfortunately, we'll have to go through a male-movement first which will be just as loud and as demanding as feminism, before we reach a middle ground.
Again, I'm paraphrasing a lot, but basically, he didn't believe you can simply call a truce now in practical terms, and we will have to go through a masculinism period first. It can't be skipped.
@AlekNovy:
First off, thanks for featuring "Against the Grain" on your blog! :)
". . we will have to go through a masculinism period first. It can't be skipped."
It's funny, but I have always shied away from the words "masculism" or "masculinism". My thinking in this area is purely political, policy-wonk stuff.
I believe that men need to 'stick together' for practical, policy reasons, in order to get themselves into a position of power, or a position where they can leverage power. If men don't begin to exist politically, the non-feminist revolution will be a non-starter -- because women, on their own initiative, will never start such a thing. Not even if they ultimately support it or stand to benefit from it.
So definitely, the male solidarity part can't be skipped!
Ya, I don't even think he used the word "masculism", I just picked one random word to put in while paraphrasing :D Now that I think of it, might have been "men's movement" he said we need to go through first...
I.E. the idea is that until men's voices are heard, we can't reach a happy medium and trying to work out a balance. Because for so long women's voices have been so loud... that (unfortunately) men have to start shouting now too... before we go "hey, we both got some legitimate things, let's work out a solution/compromise together".
And the solution will of course not be between feminism/mra... The solution will be between men and women.
"And the solution will of course not be between feminism/mra... The solution will be between men and women."
Yes. With feminism in the background, dangling from the gallows, twisting slowly in the breeze. And the MRAs toasting each other with champagne before they disband themselves and go home. .
;)"
"So tell me, how long have I been saying that men and women are, de facto, like-it-or-not, separate political interest groups that owe no political obligation to each other?"
Let me get my ancient history books out. I'm just kidding. IMHO, You are still a young man. Age is just a number (of course getting our bodies to understand such is a monumental task). I'm 46 years of age, yep!
I'm glad it is happening.
@Anon:
Truly and veritably, in veritable truth as it were, you are transfused with the whimsical spirit of youth . .
=] Hey
Admittedly i can't agree with your Grand Vision - out of elementary self-interest as i happen to be not only a woman but also attracted to women, which i obviously can't help - and frankly the naivete of your vision and shorsighted underestimation of so many blatant threats and bits of hardwired human biology adverse to your cause do not help either.
But there are other things i am ...think Roy Batty's girlfriend Pris, T-X and Cylon Number 6 for simplicity... all of these and still neither, still just myself, my semi-artifact existence unmoved by your concerns, your biology, your reproductive strategies.
I can't uncloak even at night, even while sleeping. She looks into my blue contacts and on some days it rips my heart apart because the true colour of my eyes is ruby laser red and as a (para)human woman with a heart i would want her to look in my actual eyes, tell me they're beautiful and love me for myself.
Which will never be possible, and will never happen. Don't ask me why, even the thought is painful, which is why i preferred the metaphor above. It is enough for me to say we have the same enemy and in this we are together, even if we can never be allies.
Despite what i said in the beginning, what you are doing is needed, at the moment you are the lesser evil. You have my blessing. Fight well, return safe. Just one little thing - if you become aware of a (non-feminist, i could not care less for indoctrinated ones) male counterpart of me, i wish you welcomed him as equal. Enough pain, loneliness and suffering.
Vale,
Morinth
"Admittedly i can't agree with your Grand Vision. ."
How verrry interesting, that you believe you know what my 'Grand Vision' is.
As for the red eye thing, well. . most modern cameras (the digital ones, anyway) have special settings or filters to take care of that. ;)
Um...was Cyber Cat Lady um... a bisexual women cyborg thing? :-)
@silentblood: Quite right, with a slant towards gay but overall your summary of the state of things is not wrong. Literally. 'Bisexual woman cyborg thing' most definitely fits. Even if 'eye colour' was a metaphor. Actually make it 'bisexual cyborg woman at war with feminism for its pointless bioconservativism, biosupremacy, general overemployment of logical fallacies, opposition to morphological freedom, hate ideology and more than one of my series ending up dead on my hands as a direct consequence.' i.e. someone who would happily see both feminism and social conservativism gone forever.
@fidelbogen - maybe i was oversimplifying that i 'know'. I read more and understand I should have looked at both power-blocs counteracting each other and the balance or annihilation that WOULD result in a better world for everyone. Point taken, i stand corrected. Btw i agree with the greater half of the things said on the blog.
@folks in general: Reconsidered. Staying a reader. ;) I have to learn counteracting feminist memetics in my everyday life and teach those in need how to do it. Being a (statistically)gay woman i might feel a little lonely here though ;) but you seem to be genuinely well meaning bunch of people and, i kid you not, less prejudiced than the feminist party.
@CCL:
We get all types around here. In the four years that I have kept this blog, I have conversed with commenters from every shade on the cultural-social-political spectrum you could hope to imagine.
Some of whom, I guarantee, you would not like. . . ;)
But then, that's the NF sector for ya. All types....
As for the feminists and their cohorts, well. . they're a bunch of totalitarian thugs.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home