18/08/04

Where's The Men's Movement When You Need it? In Colorado, test scores released this week show vast and increasing gaps between boys and girls in reading and writing. ... Where's The Men's Movement When You Need it? link now defunct

Yes indeed. Where is the men's movement when you need it?

Well, of course, it is growing all the time. But because most of the men involved with the movement are far too busy trying to be polite and inoffensive towards those who walk all over them, progress does remain somewhat slower than could otherwise be the case.

Indeed, on one of the men's forums recently, I espied a post which reflected well an attitude that is all too common among certain sections of the movement.

Here is a line from the post that encapsulates this attitude.

I know that if the men's movement was strictly a hardline movement, we would be considered a bunch of kooks and whacko's, and dismissed as such. 

But, as older readers will know, this is exactly what most people thought when the feminists, the blacks and the gays started their own hardline tactics just over three decades ago. 

"Those feminists, blacks and gays are kooks and whackos!" the people said. "And we shall dismiss them as such."

But, as we know, those kooks and whackos won!

THEY WON!

And they won precisely because they used hardline tactics!

Try saying out loudly at work or in the street that all men are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

People will laugh and agree with you.

Even the men!

And then try saying out loudly at work or in the street that all blacks are stupid. Throw rocks at them. Or try saying that all women are stupid. Throw rocks at them.

Try it.

See what happens.

And then try using different categories in your sentences, like Muslims, Jews, girls, Mexicans, Arabs, gays, lesbians and what have you.

Try it.

See what happens.

Michael Moore recently wrote a best-selling book called Stupid White Men.

What do you think would have happened if he had written a book entitled Stupid White Women, Stupid Black Women or even Stupid Black Men, eh?

Think about it.

In the UK recently, it was discovered that eight times as much money was being spent by government on women's health than on men's health.

There was barely a whimper of protest throughout the land.

And the reason that western 'men' get walked all over in so many areas of their lives is because, by and large, they say, and do, nothing.

They never protest. And they never demand.

They have to be the most pathetic emasculated bunch of wimps ever to have existed on the planet.

And, regretfully, there are quite a lot of them in the men's movement.

And when you hear some of the activists saying that the men's movement would be better off talking politely and discussing matters quietly in the corner, take my advice, don't listen to them if you are hoping to speed up the progress of the movement.

They clearly know very little about history, about activism, about how the real world works, and nor can they see the evidence that sits in front of them.

They are the walking blind.

They are the talking deaf.

They see nothing. They hear nothing. They learn nothing.

Well, of course, I am exaggerating - for effect! 

Even talking about the issues and exploring them is of value; especially if it helps to generate an interest in men's issues.

But the truth of the matter is that those forces - those organisms - that demonise, disadvantage and discriminate against men are not going to be diminished by having polite discussions with them.

Remember: Those organisms are not human!

Furthermore, many of the forces contained in them do not respond to reason, to polite discussion, or even to the truth. Their aim is not to serve reason, polite discussion or the truth. Their aim is to serve themselves.

And anyone who has watched closely the feminists and the politically correct in action over the past three decades knows that reason, polite discussion and the truth are values in which these people have no interest at all - unless it suits them.

They will lie, distort, deceive and cheat whenever they can get away with it - which, unsurprisingly, is most of the time, given that hardly anyone will protest about their various dishonest shenanigans.

They do not play 'fair'.

In the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, there is a long section wherein Harrison Ford is having to fight off all sorts of hoodlums with his fists in order to escape from them. And just as he appears to have won his exhausting battles with them, a threatening baddie wearing a black 'ninja' outfit suddenly appears bearing a large sword. He stands a few yards away facing Harrison Ford, swishing his sword all over the place to demonstrate his fantastic martial art skills. Swish. Swish. Swish. The sword flashes this way, that way, up and down.

How on Earth is the exhausted Harrison Ford going to fight this man with his fists?

There is no hope!

Well, as those who saw the film know, he does not fight this man at all. He simply produces a gun from inside his belt, and he shoots him dead. In other words, he does not fight this particular battle by the 'rules'. His gun contains overwhelming power in comparison to the ninja's sword - no matter how skilful the ninja might be at wielding it - and he uses it.

Bang!

And this is pretty much what men's activists are up against when fighting the feminists and the politically correct. These people do not play by the rules - logic, reason, fairness, truth etc. They get out their guns and just mow you down, shut you out, or try to hurt and intimidate you in some way - if they can. 

"You're a racist! You're an abuser! You hate women!"

Furthermore, of course, when a 'tribe' that employs many warriors to achieve its own self-serving aims comes up against a tribe that employs very few warriors to do the same, guess what?

The first kind of tribe wins. Every time!

And so while it is perfectly reasonable for men's activists to engage only in peaceful dialogue, they are completely wrong whenever they suggest that this is the only way in which the men's movement will progress (more) quickly, and they show themselves to be somewhat ignorant with regard both to the way in which the real world works, and also to the way in which it has worked in the past.

And, worse, they are misleading others; and, hence, slowing down the progress of the movement.

The evidence for the efficacy of employing 'hardline' tactics in order to bring about political change is both overwhelming and virtually indisputable. And those who suggest otherwise are misleading other activists, they are undermining the very people who are doing the right things to progress the movement (e.g. Fathers4Justice) and they are also heightening divisions within the movement.

And that's quite a long list of woes.

Indeed, even though they were all small minorities at the time, the blacks, the feminists and the gays ended up achieving an enormous amount of power by using 'hardline' tactics - and often very highly dishonourable ones. 

Goodness. Most people dare not nowadays even breathe a word that might offend them! 

That's how powerful they have become.

Well. The good news is that 'men' are not a small minority.

Far from it.

So. Perhaps one can imagine just what enormous changes will come about should more men's activists finally begin to adopt the well tried and tested tactics of their opponents.

Those who are hostile to the men's movement would be completely and utterly crushed in the mega-tsunami that would eventually envelop them.

And, most importantly, many of those 'up there' will realise this sooner or later - and some of them already do.

This tsunami is coming.

There is no hope of stopping it.

Finally, if, instead of continually pleading with politicians and officials to change their hateful polices towards men, activists simply made it clear to them that they will do everything in their power to undermine them in all areas of their endeavour until matters are considerably improved, they would begin to be heard sooner rather than later. 

Aggressive Suffragettes On March 2nd, 1912, hundreds of women swarmed through the west end of London armed with stones and hammers. They smashed windows in Regent street, Piccadilly, the Strand and Oxford Street, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. Three women, including Emily Pankhurst, leapt out of a car in Downing Street and threw stones at the prime minister’s house. The women were arrested and led away, but as they passed the Home Office, Mrs Pankhurst suddenly broke free and threw another stone at one of the windows there.  by Lara Mcintyre (3H2) Boroughmuir High School, Edinburgh - 9 min link now defunct

The Stonewall Riots The Stonewall riots were a series of violent conflicts between homosexuals and police officers in New York City. The first night of rioting began on Friday, June 27, 1969 not long after 1:20 a.m., when police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village. "Stonewall," as the raids are often referred to, is considered a turning point for the modern gay rights movement worldwide. It was one of the first times any significant body of gays resisted arrest.

Suffragettes 'were like al-Qa'eda' A new thesis published this week claims that the "so-called heroines" of the fight for the vote for women actually delayed progress by their "carefully calculated, stage managed, cold-blooded crimes".

Suffragettes Planned To Kill PM Suffragettes planned to assassinate the Prime Minister early in the last century and honed their gun skills at a shooting range, according to Home Office advisers investigating the threat.

One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says violence never solves anything.”

“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”

They had tangled before – since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”

“You seem to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom.”

(Thanks to MRA "Gonzokid".)

The Men's Movement Cometh!

LOL!