Going Round In Circles
Every so often, MRAs can be seen engaging in battle, hither and
thither, over the issue of whether or not MRAs are, in general, too
lily-livered and politically-corrected to effect much in the way of
change or, on the contrary, are far too belligerent, one-sided and
This is a very important issue, which I have discussed, and thought
about, over a period of many years.
And I can summarise my conclusions very simply.
Without the belligerence, the one-sidedness and the hostility, matters
for men will simply continue to get worse.
And there is no realistic evidence to be found anywhere to suggest otherwise,
as far as I am aware.
only the aggressive groups ever win
If you look at our History, our Psychology and our Biology, you also soon
discover that only the aggressive groups ever win.
(And if there is, in fact, some small piece of evidence to suggest
otherwise, then it will be buried under a veritable mountain of evidence
which supports the opposite conclusion.)
I have already discussed this topic in various articles listed on the
page entitled Effective Activism,
and in this article I just want to focus
- yet again -
on my belief that addressing gender issues by appealing to notions such
as 'equality' is of little value to the MM.
Indeed, I would suggest that to encourage MRAs to believe
that the route to a fairer, or better, society is best done by addressing notions such as 'equality' will probably be detrimental to society; as
well as to men.
the search for 'equality' is not only a hopeless
task, the very act of searching for it is causing monumental problems
1. The first thing to understand is that, in practice, the search for
'equality' is not only a hopeless task, the very act of searching for it
is causing monumental problems to society and it is allowing western
governments to accrue truly massive powers - at our expense; e.g. see my
piece Equality Between Men and Women
Is Not Achievable and Why
Governments Love Feminism.
Many MRAs seem to understand this.
Nevertheless, they sometimes sneak around the word 'equality' and use
some indirect reference to it instead.
For example, instead of saying that they are aiming for 'equality',
they might say that they are aiming for a society wherein people have
'equal opportunity', or wherein nobody is granted 'Special Privileges' -
or some such sentiment.
But these lofty notions are just as unattainable, and the associated concepts
just as woolly, as when it comes to 'equality'.
Thus, and for example, if you do not think that men or women should
have Special Privileges vis-a-vis each other, then you are seeking
'equality of treatment'; which, as I have explained elsewhere, can never
be found; e.g. see A Permanent Gender War?)
2. And how would you measure 'equality' to know when you have actually found it?
After all, things might look 'equal' only because one of the groups was
given Special Privileges in order to *BE* 'equal'?
In which case, is this really 'equality'?
No. It is not.
And how do we measure 'equality' in general?
By outcomes? Just like the feminists often do?
Men die five years earlier than women. The OUTCOME is not 'equal'.
And MRAs moan about this poor 'outcome' all the time.
While at the very same time forever castigating feminists for measuring
equality by 'outcomes'!
Isn't all this just a game?
So. Isn't all this just a game?
Well, Yes. I'm afraid it is. But this is cleverly hidden by feminists
and governments, who purposely hide what is, in fact, a desire to enrich
and empower themselves, by using the smoke and mirrors so readily conjured
up by continually making references to lofty, unattainable, undefinable notions such as
It is a bit like them forever saying, "Give us more and more power and
money and we will, some day, find those beautiful fairies living in the
Of course, they will never find any fairies; but they will gain a great
deal for themselves by pretending to look for them and by pretending that
we absolutely must find them.
3. Thus, while many MRAs claim to be searching for something like 'equality' and/or
for no Special Privileges, the reality is that they are admitting to
seeking something that they can never find.
Indeed, if you cannot actually get a valid measure of
equality - which you can't - then you cannot validly ascertain whether or
not one side is being given Special Privileges - with matters being made
infinitely worse if the sides are not actually 'equal' to begin with.
And if they are not equal to begin with, then how on Earth can you make them
'equal' without handing out Special Privileges?
if you do hand out Special Privileges to make both sides 'equal',
then you cannot be treating both sides equally.
And if you do hand out Special Privileges to make both sides 'equal',
then you cannot be treating both sides equally.
You are helping one side more than the other!
Of course, to crawl out of this hole, MRAs might decide that men and
women are 'equal' to begin with (which is what the feminists did when it
suited them) and then ascribe any differences in 'outcomes' to
discrimination of some sort.
There are two main problems with this approach, however.
A. If MRAs decided that there are no differences between men and women,
then they might as well decide that the Earth is flat - because they would
be patently wrong. And they would have no credibility - just like the
Indeed, and for example, men are taller than women. This is an
undeniable difference. And, in fact, it is a difference that, on its own,
could have numerous consequences throughout a countless number of life
circumstances which are germane to inter-gender differences.
(And, strangely enough, a study reported today shows that
taller women earn more money than shorter women.)
For MRAs to claim that there were no differences between men and women
at the outset would, therefore, be ludicrous - which is, of course, why
they usually do not make this claim.
But as soon as they admit to any significant inherent differences
between men and women, then it follows that they
cannot expect to determine matters of 'equality' in any really valid way.
In short, if you claim that men and women are not equal at the outset,
then you need to hand out 'inequality' hither and thither in order to
achieve the alleged equality that you are aiming for.
And this would not be 'equality'.
On the other hand, if you claim that men and women are, indeed, equal
at the outset, then you need to have your head examined, because, quite
clearly, they are not.
At this point one often hears the claim that equality just means equal
'worth'. Men and women are 'worth' the same.
"They are different," you will hear. "But they are of equal 'worth'."
And if there is an audience at hand, you will also hear the mandatory
thunder of applause that must accompany such claims.
the concept of 'worth' becomes somewhat intangible,
immeasurable and decidedly unhelpful.
Regretfully, however, this does not actually get us much further than
the notion of 'equality'. It is a step in the right direction - because
it can help to curtail any major imbalances in the well-being of the
different genders - but when it comes to most of the issues with which
MRAs are concerned these days, the concept of 'worth' becomes somewhat
intangible, immeasurable and decidedly unhelpful.
Indeed, one only has to look at the horrors inflicted by feminism - and
they really are many; e.g. see The
Benefits of Feminism - in order to see that all the studies and the
rhetoric relating to 'equality' and 'worth', (and all the hundreds of
billions of dollars that have been wasted as a result) have not done men
any good at all.
Do MRAs really want more of this stuff?
Do they really want to hear more about 'equality' and 'worth'?
Terms which, in practice, have no meaning? - and which usually result
in them getting an even worse deal than they had before?
So, what to do, eh?
Well, I have written about this quite a few times, and so I will not try to answer the aforementioned question here -
except to say this.
If MRAs want to see change, then they need to generate heat.
How and where?
Well, I'm not sure that this really matters - within limits - because I
suspect that most forms of heat will do.
B. If it is assumed that men and women are equal at the outset, then
any differences in 'outcomes' will likely be used as the main method for
measuring the amount of 'inequality' in the system.
The problem here, however, is that any differences that lead to
different outcomes for those who allegedly started out 'equal' are, themselves, different outcomes
- outcomes from earlier events.
The upshot is that this approach inevitably requires us to go back to
the very beginning of time in order to determine where any biases in the
system took place.
And is this not what we have seen happening, over and over again?
"Men are domestically violent because the recent history of patriarchy
taught them that they should be the heads of their households."
"Men are more likely to excel at science because they are given
different types of toy when they are toddlers."
"Men are more promiscuous than women because their DNA has predisposed
them towards sowing their seeds wherever they can."
Interesting stuff, for sure. And I am not suggesting that understanding
these things is a waste of time.
But where, exactly, does this get us when it comes to dealing directly with
gender issues in the world that we live in today?
Indeed, the fact that any differences in outcome can, in principle,
always be traced back to some other differences, simply exacerbates what
is already a fairly horrible experience - feminism and its various
And the more that factors which lead to differences (which allegedly
cause different outcomes) are studied, investigated, debated and
politicised, the greater will be the amount of resources and energy
directed at dragooning the people into conforming to various dictats and
laws that are, allegedly, designed
to counter those differences.
And, no doubt, this will all be accompanied by
increasing degrees of hostility between the groups being studied - with much of
this hostility being cynically manufactured simply to generate funding.
it would be a huge mistake for MRAs to conclude
that men and women are 'equal' at the outset
4. Thus, as indicated above, there are, at least, two very good reasons for believing that it
would be a huge mistake for MRAs to conclude that men and women are
'equal' at the outset, and further that, somehow, these somewhat undefined
and intangible notions like 'equality' and 'special privileges' can all be
ironed out and sorted to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Quite simply, it ain't going to happen.
Worse still, in the real world, when it comes to social issues,
the rights that people are awarded, their privileges, their duties, their rewards etc etc depend mostly on the
amount of heat that they can generate in favour of themselves rather than
upon anything else.
All in all, therefore, the very act of us expending huge resources in
trying to achieve 'equality', or in countering the feminists, with huge
ideological structures and institutions of our own, simply so that we can generate
the same amount of heat, will surely just add
to the billions upon billions of dollars already being wasted every year on
pursuing the feminist agenda.
These billions could be going into science, technology and medicine,
and into providing help for those who are in real need.
And it rather worries me that many MRAs seem to be pushing us in a
direction that will simply help these ever-burgeoning industries, already
created to deal with gender issues, to burgeon even further.
And to what end would this all be?
To search for something that can never actually be found!
Is this not crazy?
Perhaps, therefore, the best way to look at the problems that men face
is not to think in terms of 'equality', but in terms of what, exactly, men
want - regardless of what women happen to be getting.
For example, there a zillion domestic violence shelters for women, but
hardly any for men.
"We need shelters, and we are going to get them."
But instead of approaching this calumny from the point of view of
unfairness' - "Women have got more shelters than men" - a better
approach would be, "We need shelters, and we are going to get them."
In other words, there is no great need to address the issue of 'equality'.
Now, please note that I am not suggesting that MRAs should
never thrust the notion of 'equality'
into the faces of those who need to be enlightened.
On the contrary, any major observable differences in the well-being
and/or treatment of men and women can be very suitably addressed, in the
eyes of many, by reference to notions of equality.
For example, on the grounds of 'equality', it clearly cannot be right
that so much more money is poured into women's health than into men's
health, given that men have poorer health than women.
Appealing to the notion of 'equality' on this issue - at this
particular point in time - will surely help to raise support for the view
that men's health matters must be better funded.
But, in the long run, as one drills further and further into all the
differences - to do with health or otherwise - pursuing the dream of
'equality' not only becomes meaningless and hopeless, it will simply give
rise to much greater inter-gender hostility as well as to hundreds of
billions of dollars worth of resources being wasted every year; e.g. see
A Permanent Gender War?
The upshot will be that we will all be worse off, by far.
As just one example, can you imagine how much better life would be for
so many millions of people, now and in the future, if the billions
expended every year on pursuing, quite fruitlessly, this intangible
'equality' was spent on medical research instead?
So much has been said by MRAs on the question of chivalry being largely
responsible for the huge prejudices that men have had to endure in almost
every aspect of their lives, that I will say nothing more about it here.
When MRAs discuss men's concerns through the lens of 'equality', they
are actually often making matters worse for themselves by arousing the
chivalrous natures of men.
MRA: "Men, but not women, can be drafted in America. That's not fair."
Chivalrous Man: "Oh well. Are men not supposed to protect women?"
MRA: "There are hardly any domestic violence shelters catering for men
but there are hundreds for women."
Chivalrous Man: "But very few [real] men are unable to defend themselves against women."
men, for the most part, do not actually expect (or
want) to be 'equal' to women;
Putting this another way; men, for the most part, do not actually
expect (or want) to be 'equal' to women; especially when it comes to
matters where they believe themselves to be innately superior (such as
when it comes to strength and endurance). As such, it is quite hard to
persuade them otherwise.
So why arouse their chivalrous natures by talking about
It is not a good tactic!
Or, if you prefer, men seem to be doggedly chivalrous, and MRAs are
unlikely to persuade them not to be this way.
So, why even try to persuade them not to be chivalrous?
Why embark on a battle that one is unlikely to win?
6. Unfortunately, however, the most powerful forces in the land,
from government and government workers. And both of these profit
themselves hugely - to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars across
the western world - by pretending to pursue 'equality'; e.g. see my piece
Why Governments Love Feminism.
Indeed, they are using the same tactic that they use when they talk
about the War on Terror.
It sounds great. After all, who wants to live in fear of terrorism?
The problem is that a War on Terror never needs to end, because there
can never be a decisive victory. And it can also be used
to justify the invasion of every aspect of human existence by governments
forever and ever into the future;
and, indeed, by government workers, who are forever seeking to justify higher
The (hopeless and fraudulent) pursuit of 'equality' is doing the very same.
It is allowing governments to intervene just about everywhere. And it
will allow governments to do this forever into the future; because they
will never actually find 'equality'.
women will be demanding better genes relating to their
Indeed, perhaps in ten years time, women will be demanding better genes
relating to their Maths skills in order to catch up with the men. Perhaps they
will want more efficient lungs and muscles, fewer hormones, bigger brains.
Perhaps the feminists will also start complaining about the fact that
men consume more calories than women and that, therefore, they should
compensate women for this most unfair, and unequal, state of affairs.
Where will this all end?
Of course, all this will sound incredibly unlikely to many of you, but
I can assure you that this type of thing will happen if we continue to
Because there will be billions of dollars and huge government empires
that are dependent upon forever pursuing 'equality'. And the power that
emanates from such forces will forever be used to stoke up women's desire
to be more, and more, and more 'equal' to men.
Imagine, for example, that tomorrow, scientists discovered that they
could tweak a human gene that increased, by some small percentage, the
ability of the individual to understand Maths.
How long would it be before the feminists were arguing that females,
but not males, were entitled to have this gene tweaked? - on the grounds
And, before long, there would be gene-tweaking centres for women, but
not for men; as is the case with domestic violence shelters.
This is the type of thing that will happen, in practice, if 'equality'
is the real aim.
Of course, oftentimes one hears it said that even when a 'noble' aim can never be
reached in practice, the very act of reaching for it usually results in
progress of a worthwhile nature.
And many people believe this to be the case when it comes to the search
We might never get there, but if we can just get nearer and nearer and
nearer, then matters will improve.
But, as implied above, the pursuit of 'equality' is not, in practice, a
particularly 'noble' aim.
And, in the end, the only way of reaching 'equality' is for people to
be 'the same'.
Every plant in the jungle must be the same species of
plant. No plant can be taller than any other plant.
Every plant in the jungle must be the same species of plant. No plant
can be taller than any other plant. Every plant must have exactly the same
amount of sunlight and living space. No plant can eat more food than other
plants. No plant must be allowed to be different from the other plants.
And, by the end of it all, we do not have a jungle. We have sameness
and, in fact, death.
And the same will happen to us, if we are not careful.
We will no longer really be human beings. We will just be similar cogs
inside some kind of huge biological machine. A bit like ants.
In summary, therefore, it seems to me that even if 'equality' was
achievable (which it is not) and measurable (which it is not) it would
still not be something worth aiming for.
Now, I know that some of you will still retain doubts about the
So, let me talk about an extreme example of 'inequality' -
the fact that millions of people the world over are suffering from food
Now, one could argue the case for more to be done by appealing to
notions of 'equality'.
"People in some parts of the world have a bountiful supply of food
while other people have almost no food. This is huge inequality, and we must aim for
much more equality."
This sounds like a good political ploy, does it not? - to point out
that this gross inequality of food supply is just so blatantly unfair that
something absolutely must be done to make things more equal.
So, Yes; it is a good political ploy.
But, in fact, we could solve this particular 'equality' problem by making
sure that everybody suffers from starvation!
And this surely demonstrates that 'equality' is not -
in and of itself - a particularly worthwhile goal.
Indeed, and for example again, we can clearly get closer to 'equality'
by preventing others from excelling by discriminating against them - which
what seems to have been happening in the world of education and
employment; in order to bolster the achievements of women.
The men and boys are purposely disadvantaged.
Or perhaps we could get men to live as long as women by spending an
extra one trillion dollars a year on their health needs, or, perhaps, by
refusing to spend any dollars at all on women's health, so that they die
Well, if 'equality' really and truly is our aim - our gold standard -
then, why not?
Thus, if we could get women to die earlier and so live no longer than
do men, then, as far as the quest for 'equality' is concerned, the mission
has been accomplished!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! Women are dying earlier. We now have equality!"
"Hurrah! Hurrah! Women are dying earlier. We now have equality!"
But MRAs who profess to be aiming for equality are not actually aiming
for women to die earlier, are they?
Well, why not? - if equality really is their goal.
In other words, though they might proclaim that their primary quest is
for 'equality', the reality is that, in fact, their real quest is just to
get a better deal for men.
But, just like the feminists, they hide this underlying motive by
cloaking it with finer-sounding words.
7. Many of the issues that MRAs tend to address do not actually arise
from matters that are easily related to notions of equality. For example,
issues arising from matters such as sex assault, child custody, child
support and alimony payments do not usually lead to a consideration of the
state of equality between the genders.
Thus, consideration of whether a man's child support payments are $100
per month or $1,000 per month, has very little to do with 'equality'
between the genders.
Similarly, the appropriate punishment for a sex-assault offence cannot
- and usually is not - evaluated by referring to notions of gender
In other words, for many issues of concern to MRAs, the notion of
equality does not actually have much relevance.
8. In conclusion, therefore, there are many reasons why MRAs should
abandon the search for 'equality'.
Equality cannot be found. It cannot be measured. It cannot be achieved.
Judging gender issues on the basis of it promotes chivalry as well as
hostility. And it allows governments to continue, forever into the future,
to accrue huge powers and resources on the bogus grounds that a state of
equality needs to be found and maintained.
Furthermore, for many issues of concern to MRAs, the notion of equality
is just not relevant
9. My own view is that MRAs should simply aim, overtly or covertly,
directly or indirectly, to dethrone, disempower and/or to de-activate all
those individuals, groups and organisations that they think cause men to be
significantly disadvantaged, while aiming to promote, elevate and empower
all those individuals, groups and organisations that they think will give
men a better deal.
Of course, some MRAs might think that pursuing such a course is just a
sneaky way of promoting some form of self-centred masculism. And, maybe it
is. I am not sure.
But I do not think that this would materialise.
Mainly, for these reasons.
A. The internet flattens all extreme ideas of any significance.
My own included.
B. Women are hugely powerful.
Indeed, they probably do not actually need any major organisations to
look after their special interests - as 'women'.
C. Those currently at the top of the various power hierarchies that
loom over us are mostly self-serving, greedy, malicious and parasitic, but
they are being exposed - all over the place.
And we can expect to see both individuals and organisations that have
been so hostile towards men these past many years being prosecuted
and/or brought down. (And I hope that many internet MRAs will do their
very best to help with this process.)
These malefactors will be replaced by individuals and organisations
that are far more reasoned and fair.
They will look at men and women as 'people' - and they will treat them
And so, quite frankly, in my view, MRAs should not worry too much about
the future well-being of women, because I am absolutely confident that
they will end up being just fine.
When have they ever not been, compared to men, eh?
Men have always looked after the interests of their women - largely, I
presume, because their women have told them what to do!
the vast majority of women ... would actually be
much better off - right here, right now - if we could obliterate all the
various feminist-dominated women's groups
Indeed, I believe - as do many MRAs - that the vast majority of women
(not all women) would actually be much better off - right here, right now
- if we could obliterate all the various feminist-dominated women's
groups, their government-ordained special entitlements and privileges,
their Women's Studies courses, all the anti-male laws and, of course, all
those hate-mongers who call themselves feminists.
And, needless to say, most men would also be better off.
All in all, therefore, it all seems very simple to me when it comes to
thinking about what I need to do as an MRA.
Undermine all the enemies of men - some of which were identified above
- make sure that the internet remains free and available - and everything
will turn out fine!
You think that I'm kidding, eh?
Well, No. I'm not.
I really do believe that this is all that MRAs need to do to 'win'.
If the internet remains free and available - something which MRAs
should fight for - I feel confident that fairness and justice will spread.
I have no doubt at all that women will be quite capable of using it - to
great effect - in order to look after themselves. And I really do
believe that those malicious groups and individuals with power who keep
imposing this hateful ideology of feminism upon us can be replaced -
forcefully, if necessary - with groups and individuals with power that do
Undermine the enemy, and make sure that the internet
stays in good health.
In conclusion, therefore, the underlying task at hand mostly seems
quite straightforward to me. Undermine the enemy, and make sure that the
internet stays in good health.
The rest will follow.
10. Finally, MRAs can do all sorts of things to further the cause - to
get men a better deal.
They can even talk about equality, if this helps to highlight an issue.
They can discuss the usual gender issues, talk about sex, dating,
marriage, religion etc etc.
They can even run a website about gardening - with a link or two to an
There are so many ways in which MRAs can attract people's
attention, and influence their minds to further the cause.
But, at the end of the day, all that really matters, in my view, is
that they identify and undermine the enemy - directly or indirectly,
overtly or covertly - and the rest will follow.
And, of course, it seems quite clear that progress here will take place
far more quickly and far more efficiently if more MRAs value strength
rather than diplomacy, and if they conduct themselves in a manner more
like that of a prosecuting barrister, and less like that of an introverted
Because that's the way that it
works out there.