For the Transatlantic Cable
The following, recently dispatched to a European correspondent, is timely and up-to-the-minute:
"When you talk about your encounter with the women's refuges in Switzerland, you are providing a very good illustration of what is different about matters MRA in Europe v. in the USA. Nothing even remotely comparable to that is happening in the USA. We are miles and miles from initiating any political activism on THAT level, the kind which "goes for the jugular" and attacks the problem very directly at the root by holding the immediate perpetrators directly to account.
"Instead, we have a lot of people just talking on the internet -- basically fighting a propaganda war. And yet. . . steadily gaining on the enemy.
"We ALSO have activism from the likes of RADAR, Glenn Sacks, MVA, NCFM, Roy Den Hollander (who is now ruined financially), father's rights groups, etc etc etc.... all of whom are chewing at different parts of the feminist elephant -- while sometimes aware of the entire elephant, and other times not.
"But as I wrote elsewhere, almost nobody activistic is attacking feminism, by name, as the root of the problem. Certainly, no men's "parties", and nothing that I am aware of based on a platform of "masculism". Back in the 1990s, we had something called the mytho-poetic men's movement -- which was a kind of "masculism", I suppose. But that movement is long since defunct. We have a certain number of MRA writers who like to throw around the word "masculism", but there is not much agreement among them on what that word actually means or might mean or should mean.
"Warren Farrell has done good work, especially in his book which debunks the feminist idea of the wage gap. But my own assessment of Farrell is that he is too much of a wishy-washy liberal. He needs to radicalize himself, and I do not see that happening.
"The difference between the MRM in Europe, and in the USA, can best be understood if you look at the different conditions which governance has reached in each of these regions.
"In Europe, socialism is much further advanced; the political spectrum as a whole is shifted more generally to the left, and supra-state systems of power like the United Nations and the European Union are very, very big. Also, in Europe you have "gender mainstreaming" being overtly imposed (under that exact name) as a unified, organized, systematic state policy.
"This 'gender mainstreaming', in my opinion, is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. I have read enough official European literature on that subject to see that the people promoting it are covering their agenda with a very thin layer of rhetoric meant to deceive the general population. They talk about "equality" quite a bit, and they even throw in some nice words about taking care of men as well as women, but on the whole I see a mass social engineering under way here -- almost like a forced religious conversion. In the end, gender mainstreaming will take from men and give to women, and leave men in a weakened position in regard to women. And alongside gender mainstreaming, the usual feminist innovations are also in effect in Europe -- z.b. false rape prosecutions, bias against men in the criminal justice system, the separation of fathers from their children, the robbery of men in divorce proceedings, general hatred and slander of maleness by radical feminists -- all of these things and THEN . . . gender mainstreaming gets added on top of it, as a powerfully enforced (supra) state mandate!
"Well, as I said, gender mainstreaming is what feminism overall seeks to achieve. But only in certain parts of the world does it march under that exact title. In Europe it is logical for things to happen this way because there is such a centralization of state power where socialism is so far advanced -- and this paves the way for consolidating a lot of feminist operations under one very tightly organized system. And the presence of the EU and the UN adds to that effect.
"But in the USA this is not nearly so much the case because of differences in the general culture, but the political culture especially. Although we have plenty of radical feminists here, just as radical as their European sisters, they are inhibited by local conditions. So, in the long run, American feminists (and left - progressivists) are pursuing the same agenda as in Europe -- but they are doing this in a more piecemeal way, a scattered and fragmented way, and not under the color of official government policy. In the USA, as I see it, the feminists are gaining ground by a combination of highly skilled political manipulating, and garnering support for different parts of their agenda from different parts of the political spectrum. (Putting their eggs in different baskets, you might say.) Plus, they are getting plenty of support from big corporations -- in addition to what they bilk from government and taxpayers. Needless to say, their techniques of lying, propagandizing and grandstanding are much the same as you would see in Europe. A feminist is a feminist, all over the world.......
"And so, I believe that this difference in the political machinery of feminism accounts for much of the difference in the resistance toward feminism that you will see in the USA as compared to Europe. In Europe, things are further along the road and overall worse. This would explain the more organized and politicized nature of the European MRM, and the more bold, direct style of activism that I see happening over there. Feminists and anti-feminists are confronting each other openly and politically AS SUCH, in a way unlike anything in the USA. Of course, inherent (non-political) cultural differences can also explain much of this -- Americans have quite a leaning toward polite social fictions.
"Somebody once said, the "the curtain of fascism is always descending in America, but always landing in Europe." A very clever expression, and we can perhaps see the truth of in the present development of feminist "fascism".
"Getting back to the subject of "masculism": From what I am learning, I can easily see how that would become a European men's "obsession" in particular, given the state of things with regard to gender mainstreaming. This seems perfectly logical, and I can see how the phrase "natural masculinity" might have a more acute, localized, specialized shade of meaning in the vocabulary of a European MRA under the circumstances. Simple action and reaction.
"As for 'equal rights and responsibilities for women', that is a good phrase and I must remind myself to use it as much as I can. Those who want to set up a "real patriarchy" need not bother with such a project. All they need to do is allow "equal rights AND responsibilities", and the feminists will hate the outcome as much setting up a so-called "real patriarchy". Of course, equal rights and responsibilities for women is the very last thing that feminism aims to achieve. Feminism ideally aims to "empower" women to do just about anything they please, with impunity and no moral accountability. In fact, that is the ONLY logical endpoint feminism could ever reach for, since it feeds upon a totally bottomless greed. And "gender mainstreaming", for all its rhetoric of equality, is the very same thing.
"Of course, it is more than that. It is also a way to control the population in general by putting men in chains. This happens because women are "empowered" (propped up artificially) by the state and used as enforcers to keep the general male population in a state of subjection. It also happens because men are divided against men, with male supporters of feminism betraying any men who refuse to self-betray. And so with men effectively kept on lockdown, and women receiving benefits ("empowerments") for cooperating with this plan, revolution against the (male) ruling elite becomes near-impossible. But the serious question is to know if such a plan is feasible and stable in the long run, or whether it contains a fatal flaw. I think it very well might contain such a flaw, or even several such.
"Inherent biological differences? I will say this: although I think it is likely, I am not ideologically committed to either yea or nay. Whatever the truth on that question turns out to be, I am fine with it. However..... I will expect other people (feminists) to "govern their game" according to the rules that either possibility would dictate. Right now, the basic feminist position is "constructivism", and yet feminists and quasi-feminists are constantly wandering on both sides of the fence depending on where they sense the advantage (for women) to be. That is, they are happy to be "secret essentialists" at least some of the time (z.b. they are happy to crow about "women are better at multi-tasking" or such). But the real "secret" is, that if the feminists lost their "fear of commitment" upon this question, then feminism itself would be in pretty serious danger of collapsing. . . . . And that is exactly what they are afraid of!
"Finally, on the matter of gay men in the MRM: Gay men, if they are smart, will realize that feminists are not their friends and will eventually sell them out. But the MRM (or non-feminist revolution if you prefer) is so very very big that it is not really a "movement" at all, but a collection of different movements under a big tent. And gay men will have no trouble finding a place under that tent even if not everybody appreciates them being there -- and let's face it, not everybody will. But gay men will become acutely aware of feminist hypocrisy later if not sooner, and the smell of it will drive them toward other camps regardless.
"And no, gay issues are not something that the men's movement ought to opinionate about. I am all for keeping the rhetoric and the agenda narrow and not getting pulled into other conversations. I only wish that more MRAs would take that principle to heart.
"Well, I will wrap this up now, and look forward to future communiques.