[Dust and light]

Recently at ROK I've read two articles - one crticizing women in MRA, other bashing womeagainstfeminism movement. This reminded me of a phenomenon I saw countless time in the right-wing comunities, which is the never-ending division of the community by cutting off anyone who doesn't agree with them in even the slightest percent.

This is the main cause why these groups are never able to gain any significant power and in the result, can't propagate any of their ideas on the wider scale, even if they are right.

Rejecting women's help in a gynocentric society is like rejecting firearms to fight with cold steel alone, while the enemy has rifles. They can differ from us in 70% of opinions, but still can help us reach the remaining 30% of our goals, and by doing so we can gain power to reach for more. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and choosing the lesser evil is choosing the greater good.

[Texas_Tryhard]

I see the point. However, I'd like to articulate to you exactly why people are critical of women in MRA and #womenagainstfeminism girls. I'll use your example numbers.

Let's say they do agree 30%. What if they disagree, vehemently, 70%, and by siding with them we slide back on that 70% whilst also moving forward with the 30%. That's still a 40% backslide.

By accepting that women frame the discourse on gender relations, we're tacitly accepting the gynocentric society. We're agreeing that men do not get a share in the guiding of society. We're allowing women to move our ideas forward, but through their "70% misguided" lens.

By siding with these women, we're effectively saying that only women get to talk. And that's fucked up.

[BortimusPrime]

It's just natural human behavior. Men pay attention to attractive women more, and women follow what other women are doing that's getting them attention: They still draped new cars with models at car shows back in the 50s, and the model certainly wasn't involved in the engineering of the car. The argument on ROK today that hashtag antifeminist women are ineffective by comparing it to trying to stop African warlords is flawed because you're comparing trying to effect real political change to just trendsetting. Beta suckups will gravitate towards the pretty girls with their "i'm not a feminist" cards, and other women will see them getting attention and jump on the bandwagon.

Edward Bernays got women to all start smoking in the 20s by just getting a few debutantes to do it to start the trend, along with framing it as being empowering for women. (Based on the theory of penis envy, although it seems like putting the Freudian object in your mouth isn't quite as empowering...) Women's attitudes today were largely social engineered through marketing throughout the 20th century, so I wouldn't underestimate the influence of vacuous social media based trendsetting.

[TravelerKai]

In the past, women learned everything they needed to learn from their mothers and grandmothers about how to be a good woman. That was the duty of the matriarchs in a particular family. The Bible even instructed the older women to teach and guide the younger ones. In some ways it has not stopped, but with hedonism in full swing, we have mothers helping their daughters buy thongs and hide them from their fathers.

I do not know if women in MRA movements is truly a good thing endgame wise, but one thing is for certain. We do need women teaching and guiding other women on how to be a lady and take care of a family. Cristina Sommers (sp?) and women like her are definitely needed, and do not deserve the scorn of men in the manosphere and MRA circles. I have not seen any lashing out at her in particular, but if there is any going on, it really should stop. Women tune many of us out. Many outright hate logic. Some women will change their ways if another woman they respect reaches out to them.

[The Beast1]

I'm inclined to agree with the OP. This was what initially drove me away from the socially progressive groups because of the stereotype they had for me (tall, white guy).

That still doesn't mean women should be allowed to post on the forum.

[El Chinito loco]

Women can be used as pawns or for other practical purposes but they should never be given an authoritative voice or leadership in any movement. It's never turned out well at any point in human history to let women hold on to even part of the reins of power.

Most modern day women in the U.S. have strong attention whore tendencies as well. It's too easy for them to attempt to astroturf a movement with their own narcissistic platform.

[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

Why would you assume women are allies?

[Suits]

Women aren't here to help us. They are here to get theirs.

[runsonmagic]

If someone came to you and said, "hey, I'll be you ally - just give me the primary microphone of your movement, all the media attention, and validation for everything I do, with no real consequences to me personally if I fail" would you think they were an ally... or just a clever self-promoter?

[monster]

Im paraphrasing a Nietzsche quote but it goes something like this:

"The 'unenlightened' think that those who are not with us are against us. The ubermensch see that those who are not with us could be with us"

[Glaucon]

I believe we should separate male and female spaces sharply most of the time. Women kill all positive group dynamic in a male group.

Women will never be our allies. They might have good intention, but we all now the old saying about good intentions.....
If men can not propagate their point of view without hiring women, the situation is beyond repair, and only passive resistance is possible. (See Gandhi.)

[scorpion]

(08-12-2014 10:54 PM)monster Wrote:  

Im paraphrasing a Nietzsche quote but it goes something like this:

"The 'unenlightened' think that those who are not with us are against us. The ubermensch see that those who are not with us could be with us"

And even earlier (much to Nietzsche's chagrin):

John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” - Luke 9:49-50

[Ziltoid]

(08-12-2014 02:34 PM)Dust and light Wrote:  

Recently at ROK I've read two articles - one crticizing women in MRA, other bashing womeagainstfeminism movement. This reminded me of a phenomenon I saw countless time in the right-wing comunities, which is the never-ending division of the community by cutting off anyone who doesn't agree with them in even the slightest percent.

This is the main cause why these groups are never able to gain any significant power and in the result, can't propagate any of their ideas on the wider scale, even if they are right.

Rejecting women's help in a gynocentric society is like rejecting firearms to fight with cold steel alone, while the enemy has rifles. They can differ from us in 70% of opinions, but still can help us reach the remaining 30% of our goals, and by doing so we can gain power to reach for more. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and choosing the lesser evil is choosing the greater good.

And by who's will, exactly, is it gynocentric? Without men like politicians, bankers, businessmen, policemen, soldiers, scientists, manual laborers... Women would have absolutely no power.
They have no help to offer us; men built this world, and men facilitated the wreck it has become today. Women do not have the capacity to change the world, let alone fix it. Society will not do a 180 because marginally attractive egocentric women are posting image macros proclaiming how 'anti-feminist' they are.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Right-wing movements always "eat their own." This is because right-wingers are very particularist while the left-wing is very universalist. Even though we see infighting in the left, they are still ultimately united in solidarity.

[The Beast1]

(08-13-2014 05:49 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

Right-wing movements always "eat their own." This is because right-wingers are very particularist while the left-wing is very universalist. Even though we see infighting in the left, they are still ultimately united in solidarity.

Are you serious?
It's easier to hold solidarity when all of the members have a victim complex. Being a victim takes no work. This movement we have basically tells people what they don't want to hear, that we live in a fallen world of scarcity and not everyone can have their section 8 luxury house with food stamps.

Add into the fact that we're about self improvement, most people can't handle that type of heat.

At best, we should tell our female "allies" that if they want to help this movement they can sit down, be quiet, and go about their feminine lives as an example to their less stellar sisters.

[Glaucon]

(08-13-2014 06:20 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

At best, we should tell our female "allies" that if they want to help this movement they can sit down, be quiet, and go about their feminine lives as an example to their less stellar sisters.

I never thought about that. Now that you mention MRA girls seem like they do it for attention whoring...they have some good insights though.

[The Reactionary Tree]

(08-13-2014 06:20 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 05:49 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

Right-wing movements always "eat their own." This is because right-wingers are very particularist while the left-wing is very universalist. Even though we see infighting in the left, they are still ultimately united in solidarity.

Are you serious?
It's easier to hold solidarity when all of the members have a victim complex. Being a victim takes no work. This movement we have basically tells people what they don't want to hear, that we live in a fallen world of scarcity and not everyone can have their section 8 luxury house with food stamps.

Add into the fact that we're about self improvement, most people can't handle that type of heat.

At best, we should tell our female "allies" that if they want to help this movement they can sit down, be quiet, and go about their feminine lives as an example to their less stellar sisters.

Of course I am serious. The left is universalist. The right is particularist. The manosphere is right-wing. It is a place more masculine men. The particularism: no women or gays are allowed at RVF (which is a policy I support).

[infowarrior1]

If the manosphere excludes AvFM I will be inclined to agree. But considering their relabelling of the Men's rights movement to become the "Men's human rights movement" makes them seem a bit iffy. Just my 2 cents.

[The Beast1]

(08-13-2014 06:41 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 06:20 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 05:49 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

Right-wing movements always "eat their own." This is because right-wingers are very particularist while the left-wing is very universalist. Even though we see infighting in the left, they are still ultimately united in solidarity.

Are you serious?
It's easier to hold solidarity when all of the members have a victim complex. Being a victim takes no work. This movement we have basically tells people what they don't want to hear, that we live in a fallen world of scarcity and not everyone can have their section 8 luxury house with food stamps.

Add into the fact that we're about self improvement, most people can't handle that type of heat.

At best, we should tell our female "allies" that if they want to help this movement they can sit down, be quiet, and go about their feminine lives as an example to their less stellar sisters.

Of course I am serious. The left is universalist. The right is particularist. The manosphere is right-wing. It is a place more masculine men. The particularism: no women or gays are allowed at RVF (which is a policy I support).

The irony is, universalist ideals never work out. They grow and grow until the source of their sustenance is gone. Kum-bi-yah groups never work out for the long run and eventually devolve into a caricature of what it once was. The women's suffrage movement all the way to the present is a prime example.

I also doubt the solidarity of the left as a whole group. Just look at feminists and trans women. Gay guys also really do not like feminists. You want misogyny, just talk to a gay guy. I'm pretty sure the cracks we have are also apparent with the left in different areas.

Getting large groups of people to agree on something doesn't normally work. Only the most vocal members get heard and the fringe members of the group begin to feel disenfranchised which is what we're seeing with this antifeminism thing. I welcome women to our cause, but the flip-side is that they need to know where they fall in our hierarchy.

[TheWastelander]

I generally don't like them because they're in it for attention and social approval. Not to mention the hordes of pathetic orbiters they attract.

What new insights could they offer me on issues they have no real fucking clue about that a fellow man who's actually gone through the shit couldn't?

[soup]

Let's be clear about this- those girls may be attention whoring, but there might be guys who appear in the MRA movement who are attention whoring as well.

Knowledge isn't a person. It doesn't have a gender. If someone comes up with a good idea, I'd rather have access to that good idea than not. I'm not saying the female MRAs have come up with anything original yet, but I don't seem them as a threat.

If they start going against it, than they aren't part of the cause. It's pretty simple.

Another thing that can do more easily than us is "come out of the closet". A female is less likely to lose her job if she posts a video that makes un-PC comments than a man.

Whereas someone like Roissy probably wouldn't venture to make a YouTube video discussing the issues because he's trying to conceal his identity, girl writes what can take the same info and do it with less fear of repercussions.

[The Beast1]

(08-13-2014 09:20 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I generally don't like them because they're in it for attention and social approval. Not to mention the hordes of pathetic orbiters they attract.

What new insights could they offer me on issues they have no real fucking clue about that a fellow man who's actually gone through the shit couldn't?

You know, maybe this might be a good idea. By getting the orbiters to follow these women into our circles we can sham these men for being ineffectual and weak while also forcing them to evaluate their behavior.

[TheWastelander]

(08-13-2014 09:48 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:20 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I generally don't like them because they're in it for attention and social approval. Not to mention the hordes of pathetic orbiters they attract.

What new insights could they offer me on issues they have no real fucking clue about that a fellow man who's actually gone through the shit couldn't?

You know, maybe this might be a good idea. By getting the orbiters to follow these women into our circles we can sham these men for being ineffectual and weak while also forcing them to evaluate their behavior.

I think you'll find that a lot of these orbiters ostensibly come from "our circles" to begin with. So I doubt it.

At least that's the impression I got from Matt Forney's observations in his blog post revealing he was actually the mastermind who created "red pill woman" Virginia Robinson

http://mattforney.com/2014/03/24/enterin...nd-profit/

[The Beast1]

(08-13-2014 10:03 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:48 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:20 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I generally don't like them because they're in it for attention and social approval. Not to mention the hordes of pathetic orbiters they attract.

What new insights could they offer me on issues they have no real fucking clue about that a fellow man who's actually gone through the shit couldn't?

You know, maybe this might be a good idea. By getting the orbiters to follow these women into our circles we can sham these men for being ineffectual and weak while also forcing them to evaluate their behavior.

I think you'll find that a lot of these orbiters ostensibly come from "our circles" to begin with. So I doubt it.

At least that's the impression I got from Matt Forney's observations in his blog post revealing he was actually the mastermind who created "red pill woman" Virginia Robinson

http://mattforney.com/2014/03/24/enterin...nd-profit/

That made me vomit. I wonder if any of those guys came from here.

[Duke Castile]

What is the OP proposing?

Letting them come and start writing articles on ROK?

Give me a break.

If these chicks are antifeminist then let them do their thing on their platforms.

If they support us then let them be good little cheerleaders while the men kick ass on the field.

I swear some dudes are mentally women with the drama.

"Oh we're excluding our potential allies that will aid is in change"!

If these broads are truly supportive then they will be so.

How about we practice what we preach amd build, create, and execute.

Women are not needed to solve the problems men let happen.

Women's role in this thing is to agree with the self evident truth that feminism is a toxic philosophy and that's it.