Political Dyslexia

Left or Right?

The problem of this question is that both of these ideologies start out from the idea that material ownership is a real concept, the difference in ideology are simply differences of who they want to control the dissemination of material property.

Material Possession

We think of material possession as a reality, we being the inheritors of the main cultures of our modern world, but not all cultures had the same notions of possession. A good example is when European explorers “bought” land for trinkets. Even today this is characterized in such a manner that leads us to think of Native Americans as either completely naive or stupid. What generally is not portrayed is that likely the reason they took these trinkets is because they thought they were fleecing the Europeans. To them no one owned land, they might fight each other but it wasn't about ownership of land it was about survival. That is not to say they didn't have ideas about possession just that some things we consider able to be possessed they didn't.

The idea of material possession rests on the idea of legal ownership, what is meant by this is; a family owns their home because they legally transferred it from a business, that business owned it through owning the land and the materials used to build the house, they owned these because they legally transferred ownership from others, this is repeated indefinitely but not infinitely. Eventually at the end of this chain you come to a time when no one owned the land or the materials, at that point how did these get transferred legally? Well in truth they don't, because no one owns them, the law invariably gives the first person,or government, who takes them the initial right of ownership.

A by product of the idea of material possession is the idea of material theft. To take something by theft is to take possession of something that by law is not yours. This idea is taken past even one iteration of property transferal. If you bought an item that turns out to be stolen, even if you were not aware of the theft, that item is not yours because it could not be legally transferred to you. This is why stolen property if recovered is given to the original owners even if those who owned it previously thought they had legitimately purchased it.

Both of these ideas rest on the belief that material ownership is a real state of being, that independent of belief or statement there is a true owner of an object.

For this to be true, material ownership would have to pass two tests.

1. Ownership must always apply to an object. If the state of ownership did not always apply to the object then the only reason a person has possession is that at some point someone claimed ownership

2. No force can remove the state of ownership, only transfer it. If ownership is a state of reality then as long as reality exists ownership must exists, much like conservation of energy.

All material ownership is derived at the beginning from a government or person taking possession and stating that they then owned said possession. Because there is no chain of transfer from the beginning of that material items existence, the first test fails.

If material ownership were a state of reality then it would be impossible for said state to change short of destruction of said object. It is possible for an item to become lost, and then through the death of the original owner, unowned, the second test fails.

Intellectual Property

This is not to say that no form of possession can exist, beyond material property rights there is the realm of intellectual property rights. The amazing thing about intellectual property rights is they pass both tests that material property rights fail.

From the beginning of an intellectual properties existence, is it owned? As the direct product of an intellectual exercise, this property and the creation process are intrinsically linked, put simply, yes.

Can any force remove intellectual possession? Because intellectual possession is an expression of individuality and this expression creates the intellectual property then by its very existence the property is linked to the entity that created it. As long as the intellectual property exists it will be owned, again yes.

One thing to note about intellectual property is it is not solely in the realm of art or science. Any creative process, even as simple as constructing a brick wall is a creation process and the process itself is intellectual property.

Left... Right... Reality... Disconnect

Most of those left of center don't want the majority of material possession to be controlled by a elite few.

Most of those right of center don't want what they have worked hard to create, intellectual property, to be redistributed in any fashion.

To this I say whats the problem? While you may not be saying the same thing nothing about the basic ideas are contradictory. The left dislikes material possession and the right wants intellectual property rights.

To those on the right I say, “all intellectual property should be sacrosanct and any material used for said property should be sacrosanct until it stops being used or maintained.”

To those on the left I say, “all people should have the right to use any part of the world that isn't already being used as part of intellectual property.”

What does this mean?

Every person has rights to what they have made or are intellectually invested in conserving. You built a house, the creation gives you intellectual property. You maintain a house, the maintenance gives you intellectual property. You financed a house being built or being maintained, managing the process give some intellectual property but not to the exclusion of full ownership.

No person would have a right to property that they have not through physical or intellectual effort invested in. All those empty plots of land everywhere that are only owned because someone said so in the past would be able to be actually used by anyone willing to put in the work.

What Does This Have to do With Men's Rights

I don't necessarily agree that politics have no place in the MRM but I think everyone needs to acknowledge that every branch of politics has been corrupted by Feminism. So any current political ideology that any MRM professes to me is suspect.

Libertarian, Marxist, or other, doesn't matter to me. No matter what in comparing these ideologies were talking not about better ideologies, or good vs. bad ideologies, but about the lesser of multiple evils. No political ideology that I know of has not been co-opted or corrupted by Feminism.

MRM's will no doubt need to eventually become political, the question is not if we will need to get involved in politics, but are we going to get involved in the corrupt game of politics and then compound that sin by using the same rotting and infested equipment the other side is using. Can we as a movement have the strength to create a new ideology, one that is fresh and free from what is already corrupted?

Marriage & Society: The Invisible Master

In the context of Feminism, traditional marriage is often characterized as an institution that oppresses wives and children at the hands of husbands. In the context of the MRM, traditional marriage is often portrayed as a contract where a man was given the right of control over a woman's childbearing in exchange for providing a livelihood in perpetuity for that woman. Both of of these viewpoints have a fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind them.

Both the MRM's and Feminism's beliefs hinges on the same premise, the premise that the husband was the final authority in a family.

Feminists will say that the husband had all of the power in the marriage and so husbands  ranged from the role of a despot to that of a benevolent tyrant, but a tyrant none the less. The MRM might say that yes a man had more control in a relationship but it was because he payed for it by working backbreaking labor to pay for his families livelihood  and because he needed the authority to be able to protect his family. I'm not going to go further into either of these arguments, in both cases there is enough opinion and argument that one could fill many books, but this shear volume isn't the reason for not expounding further..

Both of these arguments hinge on two, often unstated, ideas, neither of which are true.

1. There is a single final authority within a traditional marriage. 
2. This authority resides within that same marriage.

 Final authority means that when a decision is made no one but that person can change that decision. If this is true for an authority figure then they have final authority. If a husband had final authority then it would mean no one could influence let alone force anyone inside a marriage to do anything pertaining to that family against a husbands will. Even if one discounts the public shunning and vigilantism that happened historically when a man woman or child behaved outside societal norms it is quite obvious that, because Family law existed side by side with traditional marriage.

Society not a husband had final authority when it came to a family.

If there is a despot in marriage it is not a husband nor is it a wife it is the jealous gaze of social convention and the iron grip of the Law. This was true 1000 years ago and is true today. No honest man can say that women were not confined and even perhaps oppressed by their lot in life in the past, but what few woman will willing admit is men had it just as bad, working themselves to death and dying for others.

Was traditional marriage oppressive? Most women were forced to bear children and keep a home and yes both childbearing and housework were far more dangerous and onerous tasks at that time. Most Men, however, had just as little choice in what they were to do. Men were forced to work in what ever job society chose for them, whether it was suitable for them or not and worked as hard as their bodies could sustain until their bodies could no longer sustain them. The reality was that neither man nor women had much choice in what they did nor much chance for improvement, and life was deadly and oppressive for both.

So, yes, traditional marriage was oppressive. But women weren't oppressed by their husbands, no, whole families were oppressed by society as a whole. But feminism has changed this for a great deal of women. For most women marriage is no longer a yoke to force them to conform to societal needs. A woman's choice is almost never infringed upon when it comes to her being, even to the point that it is legal for a mother to completely abandon a baby within the first year of its life with not a single repercussion. A man, on the other hand, who abandons his child, is hounded for child support and/or jailed. A women is considered empowered if she either has a career, or is a strong stay at home mother. A man who does not make much money or worse is a stay at home dad is considered a wimp and a leech.

There are more examples to be made but to any reasonable person it should be obvious that if both men and women were oppressed by tradional marriage and women have been liberated then perhaps its time to liberate men.

It's Time for a New Strategy

The Men's Right Movement has a problem, and its a doosy.

The problem is we think we're making headway.

Recently more people have been bringing up issues that relate to the mistreatment of men. MRM websites have received significantly more traffic than ever before and many people are lauding that men are finally making headway.

I'm sure your asking yourself how can us gaining ground be a bad thing?

Well if we were causing it, it would be great! The problem is we're not. The feminist movement has gotten greedy, they are loosing ground because they have gone too far and continue to do so.

Again you probably ask yourself, isn't it good they are screwing up?

It is, but, at this point the MRM gaining ground is dependent almost entirely on feminists continuing to be greedy. At any point feminists could say "alright we have enough".

We would still have just as many issues. Hell, they could even reverse the last 20 years of feminist changes and life would still suck, but feminists would look great to society. They could say "hey, look at all the things we just did for men."

The reason we have this atmosphere I think is due to the fact that while their is allot of rage, hurt, and indignation in the MRM. But where is the organization?

I don't really see an organized political movement. Maybe it exists, but if it does, its well enough hidden that I can't find it.


A Starting Point

We need a political orginization that:

• Keeps a membership registry that is accurate and has real information.
• Has a public agenda that can be agreed to by 95% of MRA's.
• Takes in donations.
• Makes informational media for the public.
• Organizes protests and marches.
• Has a forum that is open to everyone but is heavily moderated, this forum would be focused towards strategy, not bitching.
• Is at least national to a major country but preferably international.
• Is heavily supported by the MRM community.

Another thing 

I think we need to do is to change how the public sees us by changing our rhetoric.

Currently when I see MRA's talk they talk about how unfair everything is to men. Frankly whether this is true or not few women or men will respond to it. We know this, its one of the things we say is so unfair. So instead of bitching about it, we need to change how we approach the public.

Every issue that effects you as a man, negatively effects children.

While few men and even less women care about a man, most people do care about children.

• We need to address what vilifying men is doing to the children.
• We need to address what ignoring women's domestiv violence on children and men is doing to children.
• We need to address children being used as pawns for women in divorce cases.
• We need to address what not having any rights as child past what a mother gives them is doing for children.
• Etc....

Do you see the pattern? Same problems, just a different way of talking.

Do Men Have Innate Value?

One thing I would like to get clear before I start.


I do not believe a man is ever less valuable than a stranger, no matter the age or gender of that stranger.


I do believe every parent has an obligation to lay down their life for their own children if it is necessary. 


I know some of the things I have talked about might make it seem that I put children before men . I don't think children in general come before men. What I do think is that the feminist movement has highjacked children to their cause and is promoting that women use their children as weapons against men. And worse feminism priorities woman's needs above that woman's own child.


Do Men Have Innate Value?

I continually read about on MRM sites that women do not have to prove their value as human beings, they just by existing are of worth. Men, on the other hand, only are treated of any worth in what they provide and even then push comes to shove and a man is always expendable vs a woman or a child.

The problem is that those who talk of this issue do not address what I think the real issue is, for society in the past to work, men had to be able to sacrifice themselves. To do so, society taught a huge lie to everyone. They said the only worth a man has is through his family and more importantly through his sacrifice. The problem is that this lie is based on a truth and until we separate the truth from the lie we will never convince anyone or the worth of a man.

The Truth

If a father and his children survive, his biggest worth as a mate is derived from his ability to provide and those children detract from that to a new mate. This means he is less likely to atract a new mate. Meaning less chance of those children having two providers.

On the other hand if a mother and her children survive, her biggest worth as a mate is the ability to reproduce and having children is actually a benefit here along with a draw back in the fact it proves she is fertile.

What this means is, as a family, if it is a choice of splitting up your family. Then for your children it is sometimes more beneficial for the mother to survive than the father. This does not take into account other factors such as desirability.

At this time, unfortunately, this is even more the case, because government will take care of a woman and not a man.


The Lie

Something to understand is that while the above reasons apply to a family and they are valid in a very rare circumstance, society has taken a primal response and extrapolated it out to almost every aspect of society.

"Women and children first" is about pressuring men into treating everyone like they were part of his family. Sometimes in detriment to his own family, this is ludicrous on of the face of it.

The reason "women and children first," is reasonable to a small degree however, is that for you to get priority for your wife and child, you would have to give the other men's wife and children priority over yourself. Good in theory, the problem is that for this to work, society must pressure non fathers to go along with the scheme. And the only way this is possible is by teaching men from being a child that they have no worth except as in relation to their family.

Because a women in society is rarely not either a child, a mate or a potential mate, their is no compelling reason for society to downplay a woman's worth.

It is not that men have no worth, it is that for society to work as it has, society has had to convince everyone that men have no innate worth except by through their sacrifice.

Modern Sacrifice

A problem we have now is that while there is no real reason for society to demand this sacrifice the mind set lingers. This group mentality is rooted in family need and a gut level most people understand that need. Most people in a life and death situation would want their own children to survive and if that meant they had to die then so be it.

Because this response is so basic and because society has played on it for so long, this is the reason men are ridiculed when they value their own life, even when they should. Again I believe the only way we can change this is to get society to understand why we have been lying to each other for so long.

Feminism Vs. Feminism

What is feminism? Just by deconstructing the word it is simple to say, feminism is an ideology that is about females.

But actually defining what this means is not so easy. Feminists have an all inclusive philosophy, meaning their are many different types of ideologies that call themselves feminists.


Using this sources I will list feminist ideological principles. Obviously far from definitive but its a start.

• http://migreens.org/awog/2001/2001summ/feminism.htm 

We can then look at the differences in each ideology, and rate them on their ideological treatment of men.

Does the ideology (D)emonize men? Are men considered to be a fundamental problem?

Does the ideology (C)hampion both male and female rights? Are any of their perceived problems specifically target both sexes or target men?


Is the ideology (N)eutral? Neither of the above apply?

Liberal (Equality) Feminism +3

• (N) Stresses the importance of freedom, especially the freedom to choose. 

• (C) Envision a community of equitable opportunity for both sexes. 

• (C) See most stereotypically masculine or feminine traits as culturally imposed. 

• (N) View choice as an absolute right, 

• (N) Seek control over the body and social circumstance. 

• (C) Strive to avoid the imprint of gender codes and the gender socialization of children.

Cultural (Difference) Feminism -0

• (N) Cultural feminism attempts to revalue the feminine aspects that have been devalued by society.

• (N) Celebrates all things female, whether these derive from social, class, or biological. 

• (N) See many gender traits as biological, or at least deeply structured cultural, traits. 

• (N?) Celebrate the differences between women and men, seeing feminine qualities as a source of personal strength and pride and providing affirmation that women occupy the moral high ground. 

• (N) Instead of political change, cultural feminism focuses on cultural transformation, stressing the role of the nonrational, intuitive, collective side of life. 

• (N) Center on the need for women's input in government as guiding, moral voices

Radical Feminism -3

• (N) Stresses the differences between females and males, radical feminism values women 

• (D) Likens males to a separate species. 

• (N) Doesn't care about sexual vs gender

• (D) Believes the violence of the heterosexual male has led to the patriarchal and hierarchical cultures of today. 

• (D) Believes the male oppresses and victimized the female through pornography, violence, and the militarization of the world.

Marxist and Socialist Feminism -0

• (N) Women are seen as a sex class, gendered by society into a secondary position through a systemic sex gender system that dictates social roles, purposes, and norms. 

• (N) These feminists believe that women are exploited as both a sex and a class

• (N) Women are consigned to reproduction and their natures tethered. 

• (N?) Men take the roles of goods production and potentially reach freedom. 

• (N) To change this situation, Marxist and socialist feminists seek an end to gendered socialization, and alliance of oppressed groups, and a beginning of a sharing of the wealth.

Ecofeminism -2

• (N) Women's values as separate from men's.

• (N) Women are seen as in tune with nature and seeking to work in conjunction with it.

• (D) Men have a hierarchical relationship to nature and seek to control it. 

• (D) This view poses the idea that men's control of nature up to now has created a crisis, and ecocide, in much of the world. 

• (N) Look for life- affirming and nonviolent solutions to world problems. 

• (N) See feminine values as virtues needed by the world's patriarchy to survive and evolve. 

Black Feminism +3

• (C) Racism and classism is a problem that lives alongside sexism. 

• (C) Demand that feminists consider the problems of racism and classism along with sexism; 

• (C) Sexism cannot truly be understood without understanding its racist undertones; by the same token, racism embodies sexism. 

• (N) Refuted the stereotypes of black women as matriarchs and superwomen 

• (N) Spearheaded movements to gain economic and political clout for women of color. 

 The next question is if they all call themselves feminists yet as we can see some ideologies are based on demonizing men and some are not which type of ideology actually controls the political will of the feminist movement?

Judgements

 To see this we can go over recent laws and match ideologies to points of law. This should tell us which type of ideology controls the feminist movement, demonizer, champion or neutral.


Affirmative action laws set quotas of women to every man being hired or enrolled. These laws are used to try to balanced a perceived problem of inequality in access and hiring and enrollment practices. Forcing a quota is only the best solution if the main problem is one of perception by those hiring that woman are inferior. This means affirmative action is only a good solution if men are the problem.  If society was not blaming men, better and more equitable solutions that try to solve the issues that lead to women not meeting requirements and expectations would be put into place. Judgement: affirmative action laws are demonizing.

Domestic violence laws are blatantly discriminatory towards men and boys and often blatantly blame men as a gender. Judgement: domestic violence laws are demonizing.

Reproductive rights laws don't blame men but they are not equitable. Judgement: reproductive rights laws are neutral.

Rape laws, in this case all you need to look at is that in most cases legally men can't be raped and in those parts of the country they can be raped it is only by other men. These type of laws specifically target men as a problem. Judgement: rape laws are demonizing.

Parental rights laws are not often directly discriminatory but often discriminate because of other societal issues. Example: one reason courts are less likely to give men custody is that men work more. Judgement: parental rights laws are neutral.

None of this even addresses societal biases, such as judges sentencing based on sex, and other issues. But it is fairly obvious what feminist political power has put its clout behind.

So as I suspected it's not the fuzzy happy feminists who are the real feminists.