It’s Time for the Manosphere to Mend Bridges with the MHRM
As part of the filming process for The Sarkeesian Effect Jordan Owen and I attended the Kennesaw State University’s Men’s Conference last November – and to be honest, I was mildly skeptical going in.
The split between the Manosphere and the MHRM occurred several years ago, and while I haven’t held the same level of vitriol for A Voice for Men as others within the Manosphere, I’ve remained generally skeptical; supportive of them in our mutual fight against the Social Justice/Feminist Left, but for the most part I haven’t been keeping up on their activities.
After what I saw at the KSU Men’s Conference? I should have been.
Before we get into that, however, it’s worth revisiting where this split came from – not to rehash the past, but to re-examine it through the eyes of a Historian.
The Manosphere and the MHRM come from the same place; they’re both reactions to present-day misandry. Over the past fifty years we’ve completely re-ordered our society, throwing out the basic rules which regulated (IE: made regular) interactions between the sexes (rules which served humanity well for millenia), and replacing them with a corporate/democratic ‘equality’ where we’re all equal cogs in the machine… only some cogs are more equal than others. The Marriage Contract has been de-fanged, while alimony law has been beefed-up. Schools have become more ‘inclusive’, which in practice means that they’ve become more female-oriented, punishing boys for acting like boys. The workplace has embraced ‘equality’, the result of which has been ambiguous HR standards meant to protect the feelings of the weaker sex. The myth of ‘Patriarchy’ is pushed (a supposed society where men conspired to oppress women), justifying a tilted playing-field in favour of women.
The result of all of this has been a world that despises men who fail, while castigating those who succeed. It’s a world that’s excised the masculine role.
It should go without saying that this has harmed women as well – despite what the Marxists believe, there is no ‘gender war’; both sexes are in it together, when one of them suffers, the other does as well. Modern women are discovering just how exhausting it is, being chained to a desk, that those sexy badboys their grandmothers tried to warn them about really are a bad choice for baby-daddies, and that the ‘Patriarchy’ they smashed was made up of their fathers, brothers, and sons.
Unfortunately it’s still a rare woman who recognizes this. The majority are too inculcated into the Marxist ‘gender war’ theory of Patriarchy, too addicted to the easy money of corporate slavery, and they harbour a misplaced anger against all men for the actions of the minority who’ve abused them (the sexy bad boys they picked over the ‘nice guys’ their grandmothers would have approved of).
These problems have been apparent, and worsening, since at least the 1970s, but for a long time the mainstream media managed to keep a lid on things by representing the exception as the norm: the abusive husband as the culprit behind rising divorce rates, the sexist bosses who refused to promote their brilliant female intern, et cetera – the innocent men who were swept up in the system believed that they were the exception, that they’d just fallen between the cracks, that the dominant narrative was an accurate representation of reality.
All of that changed with the Internet.
While women are expected to be the cheerful sex, men are expected to be the stoic one; it’s not in our nature to complain about our lot in life; we’re supposed to be the fixers not excuse-makers. Give us anonymity, however, and we’re willing to open up. That’s when we started comparing notes and realizing just how heavily slanted the system was against us.
This was the primordial sea from which both the MHRM and the Manosphere emerged; comparing notes, learning that we weren’t crazy, researching accurate statistics, and throwing out the mainstream narrative. At first both movements seemed to be moving in lock-step, but in mid-2012 the split happened.
If you ask most denizens of the Manosphere, they’ll describe AVfM as nothing more than “Feminism for men” – the MHRM, meanwhile, would probably describe the Manosphere as “Nothing but a bunch of guys trying to get laid.” These are both gross mischaracterizations.
Part of the reason for this confusion is that at the time of the split, AVfM was overrun by Leftist/Marxist entryists: individuals claiming to support the movement, who were ultimately trying to co-opt it into the same destructive system that we have already: men versus women, blacks versus whites, rich versus poor, all while the ‘enlightened’ elite sit above it all and pass legislation for ‘our own good’. But there’s more to it than just that; even after these entryists were dealt with, there were still some fundamental differences.
The Manosphere is group of radical individualists. We study the principles of masculine virtue, we search out old tomes full of forgotten wisdom, we reject movements and organizations because we don’t need to belong to an army justify our existence; we only need to become better men.
The MHRM, on the other hand, is an army: it’s a guerrilla force.
On the surface it shares similarities to the mass-movement “Human Wave Attack “org-chart of the Social Justice Warriors – “Sign here, pick up your slogan, stop all rational thought, and obey, obey, obey!” – but that’s only a cover. Scratch the surface, fellows: Paul Elam’s gone Fourth Generational. It might look like a lobby group, but that’s just what he wants you to think. What he’s actually doing is changing the narrative.
The MHRM is acting as a lobby group to undermine lobby groups. They’re demanding Equality, so as to destroy what the Left means when they say Equality. They’re occupying enemy territory to salt the earth.
The MHRM and the Manosphere are fundamentally different, but not antithetical. The break was inevitable, necessary even – one side became a guerrilla force, the other a bunch of lone snipers – and the tactics we employ are utterly different and incompatible – but our enemies and our end goals are identical (or, close enough as to make no difference).
Elam’s done a sneaky thing; he’s actually managed to turn the weapons of Leftism back onto the Left. That’s one helluva fait accompli. And if Sage Gerard is any indication, this force is highly trained: he had a group of Feminists begging to join his side at the conference!
This isn’t to say that I expect you to like it over there; we’re the snipers, after all. We speak hard and blunt, we have no interest in building communities, and any softness or sensitivity is grounds for the Banhammer. Elam’s camp is a little too ‘civilized’ for our tastes: it’s apolitical, eco-friendly, and he even lets women in!
But there’s method to his apparent madness. Snipers can take out high-value targets, but they’re ineffective against swarms; with guerrillas it’s the opposite.
So before you dismiss the MHRM as nothing but ‘feminism for men’, take a closer look; there are some interesting currents stirring beneath the surface…
I was reading and commenting at the-Spearhead when one or more of Paul’s Marxists/ feminists showed up. They were properly blasted for their philosophy.
Paul showed up and vilified each one of us who commented. I haven’t cared for the man or his work since then. I will not start now.
Elam’s creating a mass-movement: numbers matter. That means shaving off the rough edges to ensure cooperation. We’re creating a raw, purified extract; we don’t have room for sensitivity.
I see both sides of this as needing one-another. They do things that we can’t do, and we do things that they can’t do – but our goals are in the same general direction.
I read AVfM, I like Elam’s writing, I enjoy Karen’s work, I appreciate that a lot of them understand things.
However, when you even attempt to discuss game over there, and the ways in which the lack of lost forms of masculine behavior are actually part of the problem, you get shouted down and even banned. I can’t stand that kind of behavior, and it’s why I have no respect for the MHRM. They seem to be willingly blind to the fact that some of our own individual behavior as males (corrupted though it is through no fault of our own) is still part of the problem, part of the reason society is in this mess. They instead focus only outward, blaming others for the situation. That’s the worst kind of feminist strategy, ignore the faults of the self, and charge headlong into battling perceived evil.
What things does Elam do that need to be done? As far as I see it, all that needs to be done is to fully recapture masculine behavior within the population, and let the chips fall where they may. We’re living in a society flush with regulatory capture, and Elam is knocking on the door of the regulators attempting to have a dialogue. From my point of view you might as well have knocked on the door to the soviet union in the 1980s and asked them to disarm.
Whatever Feminism says, they can’t alter human nature. Women want children. If you eliminate enough of the men willing to bend over backwards to meet today’s ridiculous requirements for fathers, and in doing so get women what they want, then feminism dies. It will die because enough men will walk away from the societal contract that women as a herd will demand action. All that is necessary to do that is to expand the number of men who read the manosphere and understand it’s precepts. Feminism is almost doing this job for us.
My personal opinion is that MHRM is part of the manosphere. I have used the analogy of Jesus=RedPill. How many different belief systems have resulted from one person, some violently opposed to others? Even still, they stem from the same root.
Yeah, I’m with Legion and Jeremy on this one. When the whole GWW/Bumblebee SHTF, it was those of us who said that women have no part in the Men’s movement that were exiled from AVFM. When Elam went out looking for women to speak up like Pizzey and Straughan when men wanted to speak for men, we were told to shut up. When game and self-betterment were spoken of in terms of endearment and encouragement, AVFM said you’re just PUA and get lost.
So, on those notes, AVFM can go die in a fire. Men don’t want women speaking for them and we certainly don’t want those that “Tuck it in behind” to do so either. I neither support nor endorse anything AVFM has to say. I save my endorsements and link sharing to the Manosphere (You, Aaron, Cail, Dalrock, etc.)
@Sean,
If you note, GWW/Karen (and other women who were formerly regulars on AVfM) has since effectively done and done her own thing with the honey badger radio program. The tone of that radio show is much much much more respectful to the existence and importance of a male perspective than they get credit for. They are women, speaking about the hypocrisy of women, and occasionally praising aspects of masculinity on the side. They do not (really ever) attempt to speak for men. That’s how it should be done, imho. Karen’s a bright woman, she knows the score, and she really seems to have quietly distanced herself more from AVfM on the realization that what is really needed from women is simply calling out the female bullshit, rather than speaking for men or even appearing to speak for men.
I hear you guys, and this is exactly why I think it’s time to bury the hatchet.
Things were said on both sides during the split, and the split served all of us, working to sharpen our swords, but not all of the things said or done – by either side – were entirely fair.
Elam’s pursuing a moderate voice, which has its place, as does our harsher tone. I say that we should treat it as water under the bridge. Get over the recriminations. Look at what both sides are doing, and how we can work as allies with one another. Move forward instead of dwelling on the past.
If I hadn’t met him in person – and been impressed with his strategy as well as his graciousness – I wouldn’t have written this. So it’s a subjective judgment on my part – but all I’m asking is that all of you guys keep an open mind, and consider the possibilities moving forward.
You can’t deny that Elam knows how to get his face out there.
Hmmmmm. What is MHRM Aurini?
My personal response to the liberal/feminist asshattery was to quietly and utterly refuse it. I was happy to discover the manosphere and find out there were others like me and see their insights brought forward…but I never bought into any movement.
I created a temporal bubble for myself where the clock stopped in the 1950’s: my wife is warm, intelligent and respectful. We have our household roles and are happy with them. We have two dogs and are a happy, well adjusted couple. Our daughter is a rancid militant lesbian gay hipster – but I won’t allow her to bring her problems or unhappiness into my home.
Hey – it works! Life is good, we have what we need and we are happy. People are free to embrace the progressive/liberal lifestyle but they are not free to force me to share in the pain and unhappiness it brings. Life is just too damned short for that rot and that is what folks need to remember.
Funnily enough, no mention of MGTOW?
MHRM and Manosphere need to kiss and make up? The “Manosphere” needs to perform the bridge building?
What needs to be understood here, is that it is MGTOW that is the mother-ship and gravitational force and terms like “manosphere” and “MHRM” are but orbital entities. This is why AVFM is trying to do a snatch and grab on the term MGTOW. But that will be a monumental failure. AVFM will never get a hold of MGTOW, and without MGTOW terms such as manosphere and AVFM and PUA and whatnot are completely meaningless.
No, no and no. It is AVFM that needs to do the bridge building and mending. If KSU and any other spin-off operating under the safety of AVFM’s skirt want the support of MGTOW, there needs to be more than just a “skirting around of the issues” as you have presented here.
No cigar.
Question, Davis: I’m more the type who likes to do ground-level awareness-raising: handing out flyers with information, tabling on the quad and in the student building. Simple, boots-on-the-ground style stuff. That sounds like MHRMs to me. And yet, I’ve had my share of criticism for Elam: I thought his thinly-veiled criticism of Jack Donovan as a “self-loathing homosexual” was wildly inappropriate, and weak as all get-out. Jack’s hidden his preference for men: he’s commented on his relationship with his compadre (Lucio? Luciano?) and his encounters with other men on many forums, and he’s never tried to justify them.
Mind you, I have my own problems with the Manosphere, and for a while, I thought Matt Forney was right that “the Manosphere is dead”: I’ve still not gotten over the Sunshine Mary debacle, or whats-his-names fabrications.
Holy Fuck! @Yankee Sean, I just read the wiki entry on YKW. After he did a post on some Satanist and his demonic engine, I lost interest in his views. Usually, where there’s apparent smoke there is real fire. This is one of those cases. What are his core values? IDK Does he know? Homo men not being flaming statists, I’m all for that. Wasn’t the silver lining I was expecting. I’m glad to be generally ignorant of the drama.
Am I seeing a different sort of Aurini of late in terms of the views and logic? I hope its a good thing or at least not a bad thing. There is politics to play if one is to have public support and alliances I suppose, not that I would know. This post makes me wonder if the movie might actually be enlightening (to me) beyond the mere documentation of facts and the implications I figure I already know.
I personally drifted away less because of the “wimmen” getting in (though that is the root cause of why I left MMSL and Athol’s site – the focus changed), but due to the lack of honest and open discussion, while allowing JTO to go on some epic rants.
That guy frankly gave me a bad vibe, never mind coming across as – as stated above – like a male feminist, but trading one set of conspiracy theories in to fit the new paradigm while keeping a number of other conspiracy theories.
I’m willing to take a look and see what has changed.
@Jeremy – I think you make a good point, and frankly, girls who’re willing to bring attention to how crappily men are treated, especially via women’s hypocrisy (and Prizzey’s accounts of female domestic violence, etc.) are also necessary.
If nothing else, some people will at least listen to them before writing them off, if they’re the undecided middle.
I’ll “bury the hatchet” ( a silly thing to say for me since one could argue I was never involved) when I see MHRM members openly admitting that there may be merits to Game and practicing masculine behaviors that they closed their minds to. I don’t see that. Did you get that impression from Elam, Aurini?
Don’t eat the right…eat the MRA
when AVFM stops banning people who oppose feminism to the fullest extent, perhaps.
These are days of strange alliances indeed.
Glenfilthie has the best advice for us as individuals; do what you can to carve out your own bit of paradise, but be willing to take up arms to battle opponents before a problem turns into a crisis.
The problems at AVFM, IMHO, centre around the fact that the women are the moderators. They want to police what men say and think. Whether Karen’s “a bright woman who…. knows the score” is immaterial. She’s a woman in charge (either for real or titular) of an allegedly men’s organization.
I’m sure Paul’s a nice guy. He writes some rather levelheaded stuff, sure. That being said, he’s cast his lots with those that seek to censor, quiet, or otherwise mold men who speak out about misandry more often that one can give him the benefit of the doubt for. One is a coincidence, two’s a trend, three’s evidence, right?
Hah, go look at the thread attached to Paul’s latest piece on this Aurini. I thought my original comment was clear and non-confrontational. I have no problem discussing that point if you disagree, but I got jumped all over by mods and Paul himself. Paul himself and others decided that I should never dare bring up criticism of Paul’s claims/writing/tactics, and they’ve taken a position that I’m wrong. They are unwilling/unable to calm down and take the mild criticism, and as a result, Paul’s now threatening to ban me.
Go read the thread, then come back here and tell me how I was the asshole there. I can’t see it. They jumped all over me, unwilling to accept criticism. They put words in my mouth that I did not say, Paul cheerleaded, then when gave him tit-for-tat on the cheerleading, he threatens to ban.
I got banned on my first couple of posts at AVFM – not surprisingly I was sarcastically critiquing the writing of a woman who contributed to AVFM. Low and behold the author had changed her mind about divorce, DV and CS after having divorced and all the rest… both her ex and her new man contributed glowing reviews of how wonderful she was to back off and be human. Big freaking deal. Now that the misandry cuts the woman she’s changed her mind about it’s usefulness. I got banned by Paul who was white knighting for his female moderator no less ~ for citing the hypocrisy of female selfishness. Yeah AVFM has some problems which closely resemble the feminism they claim to resist.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-jack-donovan/
Yeah – attacking Jack Donovan for standing up for masculinity just because he is gay does not mend rifts.
I too have been attacked in recent months by female moderators af AVfM by making a few comments regarding Game. The very moderators told me in no uncertain terms that I should get the fuck out.
They started using terms like being against gender-stereotypes just like the feminists do. They do this despite 80% of women who would gladly quit their dead-end jobs and being supported by wealthy husbands.
Also despite them being dependent on a broad range of supporters they lash out at anyone. Why the fuck do they do that? And why does Paul Elam even do it attacking Matt Forney or Jack Donovan?
If I were to create an inclusive MRA, then I would take in EVERY MAN who is against feminism – it would not matter to me whether he was a professional PUA, a reclusive MGTOW, a homosexual or a married traditionalists. Since we all share the same views regarding the necessary change in the legal and social system, then why get upset about our differences? And yes – in that regard it would be wise to accept the women, but I would not let them attack Game-aware men just because it does not fit their feminine primary thinking.
While I too respect Paul Elam in some respects, I don’t think that his way is the best one and understand why many men have trouble following him in his quest – simply because he himself fires at them as soon as they try to reach out to him.
MRAs with the same AVfM talking points have been around since the 1920s and nothing has changed. While the Internet could change that it won’t if AVfM keeps alienating the majority of the ‘sphere.