In my very short time as an observer of the budding Men’s Movement I have been impressed with the analytical prowess of not only those who regularly write articles or run websites and blogs, but also those who intermittently leave comments. The concentration of Eureka! moments induced by the content I have viewed on men’s websites is unmatched by anywhere else I have been on the Internet. However, not everyone who has happened upon this growing movement has been as captivated by the quality of discourse as I have.
There is a certain brand of commenter who announces that the discussions in the men’s movement are unbalanced. Though they don’t necessarily disagree completely, they want to remind us that our analysis is flawed by not taking everything into account. It is true that the biggest challenge of proper analysis is incorporating all relevant information, but I have yet to see a commenter make an argument of this type that successfully invalidates an analysis. They invade the discussion as a champion of ‘balance’ but all they are actually doing is disrupting the scale by adding dusty rocks, broken twigs, crumpled tin cans and all manner of otherwise irrelevant debris.
I have to wonder why they would find it necessary to tell a feather being weighed against a hammer about the importance of ‘balance.’ It would seem that in this circumstance, the most efficient way to promote balance is to somehow address the massive weight of the hammer, rather than ensuring that the tip of the feather weighs as much as the stem. These people would better spend time in their search for equality and fairness if they did exactly what the men’s movement aims to do: strengthen the wills of men and tear down the zero-sum benefits women gain at the expense of men, specifically and civilization, ultimately.
Why, then, do they try to promote ‘balance’ here? Is it because they see us as actually willing to change our minds? Could it be an acknowledgement that what we think will soon have a great effect, and they want us to not forget to care about women? Or, could it be the opportunity to satiate their misandry at the same time as they imagine themselves to be intellectually competent enough to think about a topic as grand as the course of human society?
We are certainly easy targets here. Neither men nor women seem to have any qualms or fears about arguing with men. Both men and women have come to A Voice For Men to tell us we are unbalanced, and that we should be promoting everybody and not just men. I suppose they take issue with the fact that men’s sites honestly state a clear intention to uniquely help men. Feminists lie about their false position of balance by claiming to promote equality, even though they are literally incapable of even conceptualizing what that would mean. The ‘balance’ commenters expect us to be even-handed when feminists clearly are not. That hammer definitely has one end which is heavier than the other.
There is a distinct need for a school of thought unified towards promoting men because this is something men and women will not do passively. There must be articles written that totally fail to address women’s issues, by intent and by design. We need thinkers who conduct skewed analyses of society, especially taking into account how men are affected. This should not be done in ill faith or by sacrificing truth and accuracy, but balance in the presentation is a luxury we must be willing to jettison. Anything less would be selling men short for the unique benefit of women a septillionth time.
Women have immense power over the minds of humanity. It is the power to get people to want to help her. Women have always had the ability to tip the scales of ‘balance’ in their favor by an innate and effortless ability to make people care about their concerns. Feminism represents a lust for the male form of power: forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Both of these powers combined is disastrous for men, and men must have the ability to focus on their issues for as long as this dynamic continues.
The people saying we are not taking everything into account about men and women are duly noted, and they are correct that we leave a lot out about ‘bad men’ and ‘good women,’ among other things. However, our goal is not to produce the most complete assessment of modern society in the West. It is to stop the abuses of decent men by governments at the behest of women, and it is difficult enough to get people to care about the well-being of men without setting our concerns parallel to those of women.