I unearthed an old notebook today while I was digging through a box of stuff, and I discovered the following within its pages. I brushed off the cobwebs and gave the material a quick shine, and I share it now with the fine, cool, intelligent readers of this, the most excellent of all possible web logs:E
ventually, it is bound to happen: some new edition of Lepine or Sodini will blow his stack and waste a few women, and leave behind a written record in which the term "MRA" features prominently. And what will this mean to us as MRAs? Personally, not much. Politically, quite a bit more—but in the long run, it need not sink us.
Personally, it oughtn't mean much at all to us if some violent, unstable person commandeers a mere LABEL, or holds that label in what seems to be a compromising proximity to himself. And as we ought to know by now, the M
cronym is merely a label. Or I should say, it is merely a word—and the word is not the thing!
Now, the feminists are so fixated on this quasi-mythical group of people, that they cannot grok the larger pattern of events and forces swirling into shape around them. They should realize that MRA-bashing will get them nowhere, but they don't appear to know what else to do with themselves. They cannot seem to address the objective state of the world intelligently or effectually, and that is to their misfortune because reality will overtake them.
I mean that feminist reaction to MRAs is mere Pavlovian drool. And the eventual effectuality of their reaction to the non-feminist revolution will be, predictably, on a par with drool. No, they cannot forestall their fate by drooling on it.
Really now, what are they looking for, a "final solution" to the MRA question? Well I surely cannot doubt that they would love to find such a thing.
But even if every MRA on the planet, bar none, was a world-class scumbag, it would not in the least tarnish the pristine core idea that men have rights or ought to have rights. THAT idea must be challenged upon the merits or demerits contained WITHIN the idea itself, and not within a mere personality. The personal is not the political.
So finally, all they are doing is ducking the issue.
"MRAs are asshats, therefore the core idea that men have rights is contemptible." That is what they appear to be saying.
Oh, let them slobber! But seriously: even allowing in theory that your rights have not
been compromised, it is always possible that somewhere in the future they WILL be. Therefore you have the right before all other rights, as a non-voidable precondition
to all other rights, to be eternally vigilant on behalf of your rights. To be a watchdog. If you lack THAT right before all the others, then all the others aren't worth a spit in a windstorm!
So: if you shuck the husk of their talk down to the nubbin of its essential message, the message is this: "Shut up! How dare you disagree with me, and how dare you challenge feminism!" Oddly, it seems that we must wait upon their high permission
before we may speak our minds! But friends, that is not the stuff that revolutions are made of.
I wish to forestall the occurrence of future Lepines and Sodinis, principally by blocking the factors which fuel their growth. The feminists will cooperate if they are wise, but whichever road they take, they'll need to do some soul-searching. They're long overdue for this.
Any box they try to lock us into, we'll bust out of it sooner or later — and most likely sooner.
The fact that certain people alleged to be MRAs have on occasion said some stupid or even downright reprehensible things, in no way compromises the core bill of indictment against feminism, and in no way diminishes the force of counter-feminist analysis. The world is a big place which contains all kinds of people
—and I do mean ALL. That may sound trite, but it bears repeating because some folks can't seem to process the full implications of it.