I was really impressed with Paul Elam’s recent article “Why are atheists so religious?” Religion is a subject that MRAs tend to stay away from due to its affinity to offend, so this was a brave venture. Likewise, and with the help of JtO, the AVFM radio show “What if God Was One of Us?” did an excellent job of tackling the atheist connection to feminism. This coincided with the week that the Amazing Atheist (otherwise known as TJ) received a lot of flak from feminists and manginas alike. TJ was less than subtle in a confrontation on reddit with a feminist claiming to be a victim of rape. Few would disagree that the Amazing Atheist handled the situation poorly. It is however clear that TJ was goaded into oblivion, eventually cracking under the pressure. This is a common feminist tactic used to character assassinate opponents.
What is revealing about the whole episode was how ‘moderates’ were very quick to chastise TJ en masse. TJ openly admits to being molested as a child , so this is very telling when we consider his mannerisms, not least his typically volatile and eccentric behavior, both on and off camera. Many called for a complete boycott of TJ’s YouTube channel, some even labeling him a potential rapist. It’s funny how people like PZ Myers  are very quick to stand up for female behavior associated with a victimized past. The same cannot be said when men suffer from the aftermath of a traumatic event, a perfect example being soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder . The eventual breakdown of soldiers is used as a device to trump up levels of domestic abuse against women. This double standard allows women to chop and change between perpetual victim and empowered female, depending on whatever fits the moment. People like PZ Myers provide the ammunition for this to occur.
On the other hand the mysterious reddit rape victim escaped scrutiny for the most part. It seems she was very quick to use her victimhood as a means to shut down discourse, not that discourse is what feminists are after. Feminists are at the heart of the PC culture that we experience today, where free speech is restricted by the chosen technocracy of the political and academic elite. The scurrying of the “moderates” at the bottom of the hierarchy ignites this system like a flame beneath a bonfire. Some feminists are conscious of what they are doing; many are too ignorant to see it. Some feminists are clearly enraptured by the euphoria of female supremacy, while there are always going to be those that actually believe that what they are doing is right. And so, one by one, the misandric policies and data go unnoticed, while radicals are all too aware of the underlying con.
Feminism started out as a strongly classically liberal philosophy through the likes of John Stuart Mill and Mary Wollstonecraft . It’s very important that people understand that the use of the term ‘classically liberal’  is very deliberate. What we sometimes call liberalism today is not liberal at all. Many of the founding fathers of the USA were classically liberal philosophers, inspired by the likes of John Locke.
So what changed? The answer is simple and is not uncommon knowledge among MRAs. Feminism became entwined with Marxist philosophy. Friedrich Engels in particular was very open about his belief that the family was a product of capitalism and property rights . The woman was seen as an instrument of this oppression, and was therefore considered pivotal to the eradication of capitalism. By attacking the family it was believed this would bring Marxists one step closer to the proletariat vision of a communist society. This led to the Marxian inspired second and third-waves of feminism, as well as the political correctness used to shut down dissent. Feminists, like those TJ encountered, are well versed in the art of antagonism and shaming. They know exactly what buttons to push, and they are all too aware of how to ruin a person’s reputation through their reaction to being taunted, thus ending their ability to voice their opinions. It will be interesting to see whether TJ has the guts to talk about feminism again after his scathing fiasco.
PC culture has consumed classic liberalism to the point where ‘liberal’ is synonymous with the leftist Neo-Marxism we have today. Herbert Marcuse, one of the founding members of the culturally Marxist Frankfurt School, was integral in defining what he called “repressive tolerance” in an essay . In a nutshell Marcuse believed that the only way to realize perceived goals was via intolerance towards opposing voices. Justification for this is given by citing aims of creating a more humane society, but as we have seen time and again free speech is far more valuable than any utopian goal. What Marcuse actually did with his essay was create an alarming parallel with Stalinist orthodoxy that occurred in the USSR. It truly is shocking how Marcuse’s techniques are now adopted by so many in the modern political left. That is not to say that others, like politicians of other political slants, are not adept at sinking to lows of character assassination. But no one does it quite like a leftist, as one learns all too well when going up against feminism.
The connection between feminism and atheism is also an important link to the left, which MRAs have recently addressed. Yes, delving into religion can be controversial, but perhaps MRAs shouldn’t stop there. Maybe it’s time that they started to explore that other controversial topic more often – politics. I am of the opinion that MRAs should politically identify themselves in the same manner as basically every other movement in the past and present.
However, today’s bipartisan politics are inadequate. The left seeks to use guilt to make men succumb to disposability, while the right desires men to embrace the traditional role as provider and protector. It’s clear then that the political system we have today is not designed to help men, for men have always been the sacrificial lambs required for the state to exist. It is for this reason that endless excuses, disruptions, and delays are the outcome of those working towards ending male injustice.
Feminists will have us believe that women are the true victims of history, but I would take a job in a factory over the battle of Normandy in a heartbeat. This epitomizes precisely why feminism is a movement driven by all rights, no responsibility, ignoring the hardship that men were faced with in the past. Feminists only seek privilege, supremacy, socialism, and most of all – power. MRAs should learn from this misguided mindset, especially when we look at how the left that feminism is a part of has no concept of the free rider problem. Providing infinite welfare and entitlement is a recipe for the ticking time bomb we are presently faced with. National debt is sinking the whole of society. Children are being raised by incompetent single mothers. Fathers are pursued for alimony by state thugs who deny them access to their own children. It is a culture of irresponsibility and insanity driven by left-wing ideologues damaged by their own disfunctionality, not to mention the resentment stemming from being incapable of competing in a meritocracy.
The left may be the cause of the feminism we are faced with today, but I do not presume that the right, with its traditional values, will help MRAs either. Yes, a small victory has been achieved with the help of the Republicans in the battle against VAWA, but you can bet your bottom dollar that this will only go as far as their white knight mentality will stretch.
It is therefore my belief that MRAs should mirror libertarianism and classic liberalism, the laissez-fares economists that champion skill over affirmative action, and the responsibility inherent to true individualism. Instead of using coercion to take from one group and give to another we should strive to show men, and indeed women, how to be responsible for their own lives. Detrimental to this is political lobbying for more government intrusion. I feel that MRAs should work towards dismantling this system, which allows groups like feminists and corporatists to bribe politicians into compliance.
It is impossible to avoid lobbying altogether at the current climate. I do however believe that MRAs should seek to stand against state influence in almost every sense. It is for this reason that I disagree with anyone who argues that the state can truly help MRAs – you will pay a heavy price for whatever you ask for, much like making a deal with a con artist. The evidence to prove this is stacked to the rafters, both today and in history. Instead of the state the family should be the heart of society, though I do not feel this should be built upon the disposable male model of old. Nonetheless it is by fighting to keep the family alive, the natural enemy of the state, that we can defeat those opposed to men’s rights.