15 June 2012

Redstockings to Redbreeches Manifesto

Since there’s been a surge of leftists and male separatists in the MRM, fists pumping in the air whenever Barbarossaaaa and Stardusk make another video, I though I’d lend a helping hand by converting the Redstockings Manifesto from a female perspective to a male one. You can find the original manifesto here.

Considering these MGTOW pretenders like to condemn women as an inherently oppressive class, incapable of treating men with any sort of mutual respect, I felt it was fitting to see how accurate a little tweaking of the Redstockings Manifesto would be. What I discovered was shocking!

For the record, the changes I have made are very minor. Bar a few extra alterations at point II regarding the nature of “exploitation”, all I have basically done is swap the words man and woman or male and female.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Redbreeches Manifesto:


I    After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, men are uniting to achieve their final liberation from female supremacy.  Redbreeches is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.  

II    Men are an oppressed class.  Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives.  We are exploited as soldiers, sperm donors, worker drones, and cheap labor.  We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance women's lives.  Our humanity is denied.  Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.

Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition.  This creates the illusion that a man's relationship with his woman is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually.  In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual women and men are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.

III    We identify the agents of our oppression as women.  Female supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination.  All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of female supremacy: women dominate men, a few women dominate the rest.  All power structures throughout history have been female-dominated and female-oriented.  Women have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force.  They have used their power to keep men in an inferior position.  All women receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from female supremacy. All women have oppressed men.

IV    Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from women to institutions or to men themselves.  We condemn these arguments as evasions.  Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor.  To blame institutions implies that women and men are equally victimized, obscures the fact that women benefit from the subordination of men, and gives women the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors.  On the contrary, any woman is free to renounce her superior position, provided that she is willing to be treated like a man by other women.

We also reject the idea that men consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Men's submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from women.  We do not need to change ourselves, but to change women.

The most slanderous evasion of all is that men can oppress women.  The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of women to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution. 

V    We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation.  We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of female supremacist culture.  We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.

Our chief task at present is to develop male class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.  Consciousness-raising is not “therapy,” which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the female-male relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.

The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other men.

VI    We identify with all men.  We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited man.

We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other men.  We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other men.

We are committed to achieving internal democracy.  We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that every man in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop his political potential.

VII   We call on all our brothers to unite with us in struggle.

We call on all women to give up their female privilege and support men's liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.

In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of men against their oppressors.  We will not ask what is “revolutionary” or “reformist,” only what is good for men.

The time for individual skirmishes has passed.  This time we are going our own way.

      June 15, 2012

     P.O. Box Barbarossaaaa
     Stardusk Station
     Airstrip One, Oceania.

I trust I've made my point. Don't become what you are fighting against.

UPDATE (16/06/12):

Considering Stardusk has decided to suggest that this has all come out of the blue in a video here I will point people here and here. I have done my utmost to be civil with those that have harassed others into obeying the angle of insurmountably flawed female nature, and anti-family rhetoric. Those harassed people include Cajunlouise and Bernard Chapin, the latter being an outstanding fellow whom I have the utmost respect for.

I am starting to wonder whether Stardusk is a histrionic or a narcissistic personality. He has been causing division within the movement for months, and now he has the audacity to step back and play the victim card when he is called out, after inciting leftist radicals and easily led Youtubers like Barbarossaaaa into being more vocal about their absolutist ways.

As for the above article, it demonstrates that the language used by certain people within the MRM perfectly fits with leftists and feminists. If people are uncomfortable with this then that is a personal issue that most likely relates to their own attitudes too. If you want proof of Stardusk's radical language then you will find it here, here, and here.

I am mentally prepared to take flack by those that are uncomfortable with exposing separatist and supremacist absolutism within the MRM. The way I see it, a movement that is no better than feminism is not worth being a part of anyway, though this attitude is only a subset of the movement, no matter what others might suggest.

I want to live in a world where men and women coexist peacefully, and free of indoctrination by totalitarian entities, like the state and ideological bigots. No one - feminist, totalitarian, male supremacist, or any other, will bully me into submission. I’ve been through enough in life to understand when it is time to speak up, and this is one of those times.


  1. I've recently been recieving some pressure from "masculinists" and "MGTOWS" on Facebook, claiming that their way is the One True Way to Freedom.

    It's just complete nonsense. I don't want to be rid of women. I simply want to have women held accountable for their actions, to stop the scapegoating of men, and for all of us to realise that the only path to true happiness is through gender reconciliation.

    There is no Male vs Female solution. There is only a Male + Female solution.

    1. These pretenders need to be exposed. They are no better than feminists, and have no solutions other than more of the same tactics to enflame a gender war and drive a wedge between men and women.

      They're anti-family too, and they have no desire to restrengthen and rejuvinate this necessary bedrock for a stable society.

      Scaremongering and agitating - that is all they are capable of. They're nothing but nihilists and antinatalists.

  2. Well, I think this all comes down to what your values and perspective are. Often times these values are never explicitly stated (or even identified), so the "battles" in the disagreement take place on higher levels than the fundamental source of the difference in opinion.

    I have put much effort into understanding my values and motivations. For me, I value human civilization. I wish it to continue; especially Western civilization since it has been the leader in humanity's technological and intellectual development for the past number of centuries.

    If somebody doesn't give a damn about any of that, there are hundreds or even thousands of disagreements that I could have with him stemming from this one discrepancy. If we are both imperceptive of our underlying values, we can war for many years about countless topics without understanding that our core values are forever incompatible.

    I will find many disagreements if I encounter people that don't care about maintaining civilization in these ominous times. When they are liberated from caring about real results for people, they are free to wander off into Utopian visions wherein they see it possible to defeat millions of years of evolution via a social movement.

    This isn't how I approach improving the state of mankind, so conflict with them is inevitable. The only question is, "How to handle it?" I don't want to engage in a pointless war about irreconcilable differences, so I have resolved to go my own way.

  3. I'm surprised at this. What is the point of personal attacks like this?

    1. The proof is in the pudding John, and I'm sure you read the article. It fits perfectly with a certain type of narrative being expressed in the MRM, and I won't be a part of that. In fact I will oppose it in the same way I oppose feminism.

      What's more, this has been a long time coming because if people allegedly in the MRM want to bully others and force them to obey a certain 'party line', then they are going to bite off more than they can chew eventually.

      I will also not stand idly by and watch the MRM be radicalised, at least not without a fight.

    2. Since you did not, would not, answer his question the first time, I will ask it again. What is the point of the personal attacks?

      I am not buying the haughty indignity as an excuse. Perhaps you should find your spine and go after feminists instead of other MRA's.

      I don't know if anyone sat you down like a kid and told you, but this movement is not yours to control. Deal with it.

    3. I damn well did answer the question, and I thank you not to put words in my mouth. But since you want elaboration, here it is:

      This movement is traipsing way too close to the fire, and if my actions to keep radicals out is offensive to you, then you need to ask why?

      I control nothing, and if you had a genuine problem about that you would have spoken up months ago, when barbarossaaaa and stardusk tried to repeatedly bully others in the movment and control the direction it moves in.

      No, I think the haughty indignation here belongs to you, not me.

    4. It is incredible that you could be this ignorant, both of human nature and social movements.

      I support men who are MRA's and traditionalists, because I know they will exist whether I want them to or not, and because they will do some good for men and boys.

      I support MGTOW, Zeta and others for the same reasons. They will continue to exist and grow, help the men within their ranks and help newcomers see that there is another way to see themselves as men.

      This knowledge lets me know that there is nothing for me to do where it concerns the direction of the movement. It is not a monolithic group and won't be controlled by anyone, especially not some arrogant moron that thinks the movement is traipsing somewhere he doesn't personally approve of.

      You have spent way too much time Daddy Blogging and not near enough time studying the dynamics of social evolution. Wake up, already. Surely you can stop practicing that one, into level guitar riff long enough to read some books?

      This movement is "traipsing" where it is going to go, period, and I am betting that will include many men from many different life philosophies. Once again, you don't have a say in this. None. All you can do is start waging war against other MRAs because you can't comprehend this is not something you can or should control. The entitlement in that is housewife level.

      You have already damaged your reputation, such as it was, and you will do it more damage before this is over. But either way the result will be the same. Anyone that tries to control where the MRM goes will end up a marginalized loser, unless they are smart enough to choose the same path it will eventually take. You're not that smart.

    5. your ahem, answer leaves me with large gaps in my understanding of the problem sir.

      "The proof is in the pudding John" okay, what or who or which piece of content or commentary is pudding a metaphor here?

      " a certain type of narrative" <-- can you be a bit more vague?

      "if people allegedly in the MRM want to bully others" - what people? and bully who?

      finally, kindly define "radicalized" if you would. Thanks.

    6. I added an update to this post for your "pudding".

      Among many other things Stardusk has said that women are "demons".

      But I know you haven't been living under a rock these past few months. Selective reasoning is at play here. I suggest you go back through the events that you almost certainly were aware of. Acting shocked at this late stage is a questionable position at best.

      If you are going to continue to act "taken aback" then I will not be a part of it.

    7. Paul, you clearly aren't getting this. The ones who want to dictate to others about what the MRM should be are the ones who directed you here.

      Stop reverting to babbling and selective reasoning, and ask yourself who have been the ones attacking others. If you don't know then start with the above update. If you don't care then don't act like you do.

  4. more important than making a point, more necessary than being right and acertaining the truth, is the need to conduct oneself in the pursuit of these two things with respect and character, even with those whom you disagree. this is especially true when those with whom you disagree have extended to you their respectful disagreement, and treated you with dignity, when even their criticisms of you have been free of personal attacks or false associations with invented and extremist positions.

    it is disappointing to see you resort to these unnecessary tactics.

    uncle bern was, and is, right when he says everything about the mens movement relies on the character, integrity, and HONOR of its constituents.

    its is my opinion that you have recently, and specifically with this post, failed in all three of these regards.

    i will continue to watch and enjoy the intelligent and informative material you contribute to youtube. your vids and opinions are unquestionably well done and beneficial to the development of a PART of the MRM and its causes, which, due to its consisting of individualistic males, will never (and should never) be a movement that has the same hegemonic ideology and monolithic uniformity that can be observed in the modern day feminist movement...


    my perception of you, the man, and your integrity and character as a person, has inestimably been reduced due to the tactics and means which you have employed to "cleanse" what you perceive to be the "heretics" within the MRM. your approach is one that, at best, can only lead to your own disrepute, or, at worst, may cause fractures in a movement in the formative stages of its developement which it can ill afford. we all know that the one goal the MRM seeks is the correction of an already existent and long established, institutionalized, and fully operant power structure of social misandry, and we cannot expect one another to PERFECTLY come to a consensus on how this must be done. anyone that demands such an unrealistic consensus is only enabling and ensuring that the future of the MRM will be less likely to actually combat the EXISTING and ENTRENCHED misandry of society. your choosing to make war on your fellow MRA's in the name of combatiing what you perceive to be potential and hypothetical ills within the MRM only ensures and condones that ACTUAL real world anti-male society will continue to perpetuate itself unopposed, if the only opposition and future the MRM can offer men is one of infighting and character assassinations from within.


    1. You are entitled to your views.

      But a line has been crossed months ago. No longer will I walk alongside those who want what feminism seeks, and who bully those who do not tow their line.

      If you see fit to call these people part of the MRM then that is your choice. But what I see is a group of radicals that will eat this movement up from this inside-out.

      I'd rather go down fighting than see the MRM become another supremacist group.

    2. Mr E I agree whole heartly, i have set back and seen the progression of this movment from a group who had the understanding that we could not become like those who oppose us lest we become no better than them,but i have learned that watching and waiting pays off everytime for the truth cant be hidden forever they allways show there true colors know you know what your dealing with and there screeming because they have been found out and they dont want the truth, and the truth is they had selfish motives from the begining all of these titles were nothing but a smokescreen to hide the truth they never had a plan in the first place any movement without a set purpose or direction is doomed and can do nothing but fall apart because they only choose to look at one side of a problem, you can not solve a problem by using the same thinking that caused the problem in the first place we must step out of the box and see thing anew in order for us see the solutions.keep speaking the truth and the phonys will reveale themselves and they will fall away

  5. Hey, I have been saying this for months now. Barb and Stardusk are no better than the feminists, their just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    A philosophy of "Men Going Their Own Way" can not possibly do anything to help society. I mean, every time I legitimately challenged them they would throw ignorant generalizations that quite simply make no sense to me in reality.

    Regards to the male suicide problem they keep bringing up and the trends of male victim hoods. Well obviously there is some legitimacy in these issues, you can not possibly blame it all on women.

    Even though they constantly claim that it is in woman's nature to use men, I can not possibly see this in modern society. Men who get married choose to get married. With the divorce rates the way they are today, you can not possibly get away with claiming that marriage is forced on men by society. In fact it is quite the opposite, there is more of a stigma on marriage than ever before.

    In the past when marriage was more popular, families were large and everyone pulled their weight around the home. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge in economics or biology knows that in the past families would have lots of children to work, be it on a farm or otherwise. Children were the adults insurance policy, women were the caretakers of the home and of the children.

    Sure men who were poor had to work hard jobs in mines and such, but they were not being exploited by their woman at home. They were being exploited by the owners of the mine who cared more about hoarding wealth than paying a fair wage. (this problem lead to the introduction of Unions, obviously)

    Furthermore, if we are talking about this time period then it would not have been sitting at home doing nothing. She would have been taking care of the kids or doing some sort of job to bring in income if the kids were too young to work themselves.

    This is not "traditionalism," it is the way things were. Non of these things I have brought up can be considered a "tradition." Certainly not having large families and working in mines.

    There is just so much missing from the arguments they put forward. If you've watched Stardusk's response you will notice that he makes it clear that "he really does not want to make this video," which essentially means that he is to lazy to come up with a proper counter argument. He has repeated this pattern every time I've seen anyone challenge him.

    For the record, I did not consider you to have acted in poor taste in either this blog or your traditionalism video. Stardusk is just upset that someone so prominent is challenging him by trying to start a debate.

  6. You fucked up, RME. I actually do subscribe to libertarianism and a 10% state, but slander is no way to get your point across. The "if you're not with me, you're against me" mentality has no place in the MRM. You won't find any advocacy for marxism, socialism, or 'leftism' in any of stardusk's or barbarossssa's videos, either.

    Here is what I think: there is no place for ideologues in the MRM. Future conflicts in the world will be tribal or religious, but they will certainly not be ideological.

    If I were you I would make peace before it's too late, because you are about to be sent packing. However, if you continue down the path of seeking out the cultural marxists among us, you will find yourself in an isolated corner of the MRM. You're fighting a 20th century battle, dude. YAWN.

    1. This article is not "slander". That is a red herring.

      I made some slight tweaks to the original manifesto, and the fact is that this is EXACTLY what a certain group within the MRM advocate. If that's too close to home for some people then tough! Sometimes you've got to crack some eggs to make an omolette.

      Then you say there is no place for ideologues? Please! The ideologues are the ones suggesting that women are insurmountably flawed, and that the family must be adandoned. For months people have been attacking those who don't agree with this. Now it's time to pay the piper.

      I will not find myself in an isoloated corner. I will find myself distancing myself from radicals. I am prepared to let nature take its course, since I don't want to be a part of a movement that radicals have co-opted anyway.

      Spare me your claims about your libertarian beliefs. If you stand shoulder to shoulder with those that would violate the NAP and property rights then you are no libertarian. You also have no respect for male autonomy if you don't oppose those who don't respect these essential aspects of individual liberty.

  7. You so willingly paint generalize us.

    1-So people with similar ideas/beliefs are uniting for a cause. MRA wants to eliminate the major legal abuses in the system. We want equality and understanding instead of ignorance of the disposability of men. And more importantly, show the sham that modern feminism is.

    2-Yup I agree but let's put it in MRA terms. Men are a disposable. We are considered disposable beings. Our humanity is denied. Violence against men is accepted while violence against women is appalled. The phrase "women and children" is used as shocking, but wait do men not matter?

    3- This point is just bullshit garbage. the closest thing you say is that women are a protected in the eyes of society while men are not.

    4-Again bullshit point. "We also reject the idea that men consent to or are to blame for their own oppression."

    MRA certainly blames these white knights for falling for the bullshit. We are just trying to inform those people about it. And in doing so, change their habits of feeling like they have to be these 'white knights’ to impress women.

    "Solved collectively"? I'm pretty sure that many (including stardust) advocate that we have to make individual choice with the information we have been given. Stardust has stated repeatedly that he does not have a magic solution for everyone. You are the one that saying we have to do what is collectively good for society.

    5-"We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience." Who the fuck thinks like that or even stated anything like this. This is pretty slanderous. We do a pretty good job of presenting data to support, which is just how opinions should be formed. But I see that you like to base your off of emotions and try to slander those against you by linking it to feminism.
    Feminism has a history of presenting misleading or false information.
    6- "We identify with all men." Nope, I pretty sure this is still a very niche group. We are trying to inform a broad adiance.
    I am of the philosophy that the end doesn't justify the means. Others may not be or have a different view of what is good. Many (if not most) advocate for individual choices. But you advocate a collective return to a more traditional family unit which is not always seem in nature.
    Monogamy is rare amongst mammals. Seahorses are thought to be the only monogamous fish. A male snow leopard will mate with any female in heat, and a female in heat will mate with any male.
    7-"We call on all our brothers to unite with us in struggle." No, we don't really have an answer. There are many different camps and thoughts of what we can do now. One of which is men going their own way because the traditional relationship/marriage has such a high rate of failure. And currently the courts heavily favor women over men. If that offends you, fuck off. Just as I shouldn't have a say in your life, you shouldn't have one in mine. I’ve chosen to go my own way, you can go yours.

    "The time for individual skirmishes has passed. This time we are going our own way."
    Our fight against feminist ideology has just begun. And it seems like an uphill battle.
    FYI This is slander in case you didn't know. Oh but slander is just a red haring, right?

    1. I'm not sure you get what I've done here. This is not something I wrote. It was written by feminists. The similarities between this and certain people in the MRM is obvious.

      I don't believe that this reflects all MRAs at all, especially since I am an MRA myself. I do however think that claim is an attempt to justify separatist ideas, and marginalise moderates, which is precisely what I am trying to prevent.

    2. But the people you refer to(barbarossaaaa and stardusk) does not reflect there views. Yet you state "that this is EXACTLY what a certain group within the MRM advocate". This post simplely slanders them. You use adhomin attacks and bite sized shock phases in the comments when you refer to them.

    3. So let me get this strait, you dont have a plan,you dont have a perpose and you dont have an answer but your going your own way?? riddle me this batman ? where the hell are you going? It would seem to me your going nowhere,and if this is the mindset of this movement I have better things to do with my time here on earth then to stand around with my thumb in my mouth trying to figure out where i'm going with a bunch of other idiots who have no idea what the hell there doing, this shit is beyond stupid and i want no part of this foolishness.

    4. Can't you read? All of what you said is air with little to no meaning. I am going my own way. It is a phrase, learn what it means before you comment about it. For me, I plan to be a programmer, hang with freinds and have some hobbies. But I have no plans to even entertain the idea of marriage. I find the risks too high and the cost too great. It is as simple as that, or is that too complex for you to understand.

      So riddle me this joker? Why the hell would I waste my time with women for this ideal family that more then likely falls apart? I think I have a better plan and it is my own.

    5. And thats the problem,going afoul of the direction set by our creator cause's the problems we now have today you were not created to go your own way for this reason,We dont know the way or how to get there without direction we need to go back to our creator for the answers to life,love,relationships and how we are supposed to live going your own way only creates more chaos and problems because you dont have infomation needed to be successful.

    6. I guess this conversation ends here. You are talking to some who doesn't believe in that crap. I find when you talk about religion that any sort of logic, evidence and common sense are no longer relievant. So go listen to your imaginary friend and please don't bore me.


      If you truly believe this then you are covering for a myriad of extremist views, like sex selective artificial reproduction, and women being demons, to name a couple of many, many examples.

      Such intellectual dishonesty is extremely disingenuous.

      Start with my update links if you want to deal with addressing this. If you don't then with full respect, please don't waste my time with dishonesty.

    8. First off stop with this 'extremist', 'totalitarian entities', 'radical', and other catchy junk insults. This is pissing people off and actually causing this hostile divide. Yes, star disagrees with you, but he doesn’t insult you and try to write you off as a radical. You sound like an ass by insulting people in such a manner.

      You attempt (quite poorly) to link them to feminism and Marxism by take a manifesto and parallel their beliefs with it. Many of the points don't fit well or even at all. But more importantly, they don't advocate more government intervention. If you were to truly update, you would support each of your points with a corresponding video with time stamps or blog post of where it is supported. And also show what government programs he advocates. But you didn't. From my understanding, they want the government out of the way. This is a stark contrast to what you try to portray. This is slander and intellectually dishonest, and like you said, it is disingenuous.

      Yes, I saw your updated post. And I have watched the videos (most of them for the second time).

      While I do think a single person more than likely can't raise a kid in an optimal fashion, I don't agree with the traditional family is the answer. And more importantly, I don’t think it should be mandated or limited to this type of family structure. Also why does it even have to be a woman? I would rather see a legal guardian with small group raise a kid then just two biological parents.

      We are surrounded by white knights and entitled consumers. And to find a good ‘mate’, would be much like finding a good apple in a barrel of rotten ones. Also monogamy is just dumb because people change. And in the current environment, a legal marriage puts men at too huge risk.


      Spare me your postmodern “labels are bad” tripe, and understand that in an objective reality labels are how we understand and traverse existence. Weak-minded fools are the only ones that go through life and allow others to prevent them from describing their beliefs.


      Actually their words and views are identical in many ways, especially when it comes to insurmountable female nature, men not being responsible for their sins, and the solutions to perceived oppression being separation of men from women. Barbarossaaaa even advocates for artificial reproduction and sex selective reproduction. SCUM manifesto anyone? Perhaps I will look into the comparisons to that manifesto at some point too.

      “But more importantly, they don't advocate more government intervention.”

      I did not say they did. So shove your strawman.


      Spoken like a true fascist. Who the hell are you to decide who raises children? Other than the parents who conceived them no one has that right. You are an ideological control freak, just like feminists, and you have no respect for the natural order whatsoever! Get back on that horse you rode in on. I will fight your attempt to coerce society based on false premises of “equality” until I am blue in the face.

      I would block you, but you have no Blogger ID. Therefore I will remove your comments from this point on. I’ve just about had it with your false assertions and selective reasoning. Go and build your “male utopia” and fight your “gender war”. I’ll help build bridges and stop statist propaganda dividing society.

    10. Please read before you censor ;D
      Maybe if your lables fit. Your lable are bullshit and are just scare tatics. They have no place in dicussion.

      Da fuck? I am confused now. I don't get your problem, you are calling them fashit, feminist and marxist, yet you understand that they don't want goverment involvement.Do you understand what those words mean? Becaus at this point I am inclided you do not. And now you are trying to link their beilf to the scum menifesto? Wow, so men volintaryly not dating or having sex is equivalent to advocating the death of all men. There is not much I can say to that.

      And how is advocating volintary agreement between individuals of how to parent a child, a true fascist or ideological control freak? My example was not advocating for gorvement run groups to raise kids(it that was what you assumed), just a couple of close friends who adopt a kid. Much like how indian tribes would raise there kids. It seems to me that you are the one trying to tell people there is only your way to raise a kid. So who is the controll freak?

      A family should not be limited just to 1 man, 1 women. But I am not saying you can't raise a kid that way either. I am saying it shouldn't be limited to just that.

      With all the name calling, and now cencorship of other peoples ideas, you burning bridges buddy.

      FYI: Natrual does not alwayss equal good. see Argumentum ad Naturam(Naturalistic Fallacy)

    11. A naturalistic fallacy relates to making statements devoid of philosophical values, and reverting to the conclusion that "it's the way it is because it's natural". Since I am not doing that, and can back up very easily that biological kin altruism is by far the strongest and most stable environment to raise children in you are way off base with your amoral bullshittery.

      Besides, I am not preventing other groups from raising children, as long as they adhere to the non-aggression principle and take responsibility when they mess up. Artificial reproduction is extremely dodgy territory, with lots of social and biological side-effects that fascists and other ideological bigots try to cover up. You are one of those bigots by the looks of it.

      I haven't called Star or Barb Marxists, fascists, or feminists. But the comparisons cannot be denied, unless you are deliberately trying to cover them up, which you obviously are.

      Totalitarians have no respect for natural rights, biological parenting being an example of that. If you want to know what natural rights are then you are in dire need of a serious philosphical education. I suggest you start with that, instead of throwing your inaccurate interpretations of logical fallacies around the place.

      I'm burning bridges am I? You overestimate your group's influence "buddy". I am not interested in your manufactured gender war narrative. I don't see women as any better or worse than men. Anyone who wants to suggest that either group is more infallible can go and take a long hike as far as I'm concerned.

      You are so clueless. I am not wasting my time with you any longer. It's comment removing for you from now and on - timewasting douche!

  8. Ok i tried, but i cannot find where REDBREECHES MANIFESTO was originally posted or cited by stardusk or Barbarossaaaa. I am sure some people in the MRM will agree with this manifesto, but those people are not MGTOW. If anything, this is an idealistic view of people who are just joining the MRM or it is what other people think about us.

    RockingMrE, you are wrong in your perception of us. If you honestly believe that anti-marriage is bad for the MRM then you miss the point of everything.

    If you want to accuse Barbarossaaa and Stardusk of holding these views and saying this shit then please provide a link you their video, comment, or blog post about this. You could be miss interrupting them and using it to attack/discredit them.

    1. Read my update. There is ample evidence of views being parallel with the original Redstockings Manifesto.

      If you don't see it or don't choose to see it, then so be it.

      I have linked to a fraction of Stardusk's vids that demonstrate his radicalism in the update, and I could easily do the same for ArtificialWombarossaa.

  9. Creating these divisions in the MRM is really not very helpful, RME. It seems a little sad that it should have come to this fork-in-the-road. I have to thank you for some of your early YouTUBE pieces; they were very insightful - but now it is time for many of us to move on. Your hatred of the left hinders our coming together for sake of men and boys. All political ideology is second to that primary focus.

    1. Feminism is the left. They are not mutually exclusive.

      What's more, please see my update. I most certainly did not start this divisional rhetoric, no matter what others might say.

    2. I believe this has already been explained. The Left-Right paradigm is a tool we use to analyse philosophy, it isn't an ideology in itself. Whilst most Feminists may define themselves as Left-wing, The Left-Right paradigm itself is ''ideology neutral'' as has been explained.

      I have to second what Mr. Westlake said. I agree that your videos are of good content, but you have begun to focus too heavily upon ''The Left'' and this is not going to aid men's rights.

    3. No, the left-rght paradigm is not "ideology neutral" at all.

      It is however fruitless in the statist democratic system we live in, since all it leads to is bastardisation of various ideologies, with various elitists at the top benefiting from people who don't understand that this is basically rigged.

      The left is totalitarian, while the right, particularly libertarianism (which is what I primarily align with), is interested in giving power to individuals, and expecting people to be responsible for their freedom.

      Feminism is the opposite of this. It expects to create fictitious, legalese, de jure rights, and uses the power of the state to enforce them. The left is exactly the same, and is indistinguishable from feminism when it comes to methodology and philosophy.

      I have no interest whatsoever in voting for left or right in the present paradigm. But anyone who tells you that being a leftist MRA will not limit individualism (and thus lead to misandry) is either lying, ill-informed, or reverting to common deception tactics with co-option in mind, just like leftist heroes like Lenin.

      I deal with a variety of subjects on my channel, with a philosophical slant. Most people who deal with men's rights on YT get suckered into the biggest illusion of all - gender politics. There is no real war between men and women. There is only statism trying to make us fight. I try to cut through all that, but there are too many angry men who cannot focus their anger.

      Either these people are going to have to work at this, or this movement is going to divide into those who want to make positive changes, and those who want to complain via a noise of incoherency. They will be co-opted though in due time, just like the angry feminists were. This time though the moderates will not be pushed aside, not if I have anything to do with it.

      Now, you got a detailed reply from me here. If you come back with more of the same then it’s clear that the illusion of a gender war is far more important to you than marginalising the true threat of statism, and creating individual autonomy and responsibility. Such people are of no interest to me.

    4. Again, what you seem to misunderstand is that ideologies such as Marxism and Feminism (which can be placed upon the Left end of the Left-Right paradigm)do not define the paradigm itself. I reiterate, that the paradigm is ideology neutral, and many confuse it with ideologies attributed to it. Because Marxism is Left-wing, they assume Left-wing must be Marxist, which is doesn't.

      I have criticisms of Feminism and Marxism, I am not here to defend these ideologies, however I still think it is better to look at the problems we face, and look for rational unbiased solutions, rather than merely taking everything attributed to ''the Right'' and positing that as the solutions.

      I don't care what someone's political views are, just so long as they don't effect me. For example famous Feminist Naomi Wolf spoke up against false rape accusations against men. Do I dismiss her argument purely on the basis of her being a Feminist? No, why would I? I may disagree with Feminism, but I am open to listening to people I disagree with in more generalized circumstances. What Naomi said was right, and in the context of false rape accusations, I agree with her.

      This isn't me ''siding with the enemy'', this is me wanting to be moderate and rational. I don't think female nature is insurmountably flawed. However I also don't align myself with the Right-wing. I consider myself a Libertarian, but a moderate one, with reasonable goals.

    5. There is credence in the left-right paradigm, though the democratic system, and statist totalitarianism, fails to allow ideologies to exist independently and peacefully.

      You should click on my blog post on the right side called "How the State Always Wins" if you want to learn more.

      Leftists by the way are far-left, and extremists. That is what the term denotes. They are not classically liberal, like right-wing libertarians. Again, the blog post largely explains this.

      I oppose leftists because they are totalitarians. There is no group more misandric, and feminism is the epitome of this realisation. Any help they give will be outweighed significantly by the downsides.

      I tire of trying to remind people of this, as the trojan horse is let through the door.

  10. I was really disappointed to see ManWomanMyth (to whom I credit my conversion from being a feminist sympathizer) say that it's wrong to call any man a radical. To pretend that a difference in degree is a difference in respect as he did really pissed me off.

    The "same as the feminists" arguments that Barbarossaaaa put forward were specious at best and there is little doubt in my mind that him and Stardusk are going to lose a lot of subscribers soon unless they change their act.

    They had at least some consistency and confidence in what they were saying before, but now, you can tell in their voices that they don't believe the things they are saying. It sounds forced and awkward and I think men are going to pick up on that and look elsewhere. Or they will find some niche and stick to that.

    The one thing that always bothered me about their videos was just how little they saw men or women as having agency, but were completely and totally willing to moralize. That's a big problem imo.

    1. Yeah, MWM was highly responsible for waking me up too. It's such a shame that he can't see how dangerously close to feminism certain individuals are now treading.

      The irony is that SATF is a deflection to fend off opposition, which is exactly what barbarossaaaa claims is being done by his opposition. He is the one doing the deflecting, not us.

      I think that barb and star will think twice about what they say in future. Perhaps this will make them consider what they should be talking about, and that might even make them better contributors to the MRM.

      You are totally 100% right about these people taking away the agency of both men AND women. It's a serious flaw in their reasoning.

  11. You are flirting with a dangerous line, John. I say that with love. You’re acting like a bitch right now. I’m solidly with MrE on this, when you become obsessed with the enemy you become the enemy. You, Stardusk, and Babs (AKA barbarossa)are acting like boarderlines thinking women have cooties and everybody who isn't vaccinated is a sympathizer with women and therefore pro-cooties.

  12. Mmmm reading the comments I can't help notice the oh so familiar, how dare you, outrage when you point out some blindingly obvious flaw that no one will confront for fear of causing offence. Even though you've tied your arguments to issues, somthing I couldn't do I'd just shout: "BUT THEY'RE NUTTERS", your still facing accusations of personal malice, which illustrates nicely the difficulty in arguing with someone who's set against you for strategic rather than ethical reasons.

    I can't say I'm optimistic that you'll be successful on the endeavour you've embarked on but I do think it's a hill you gonna have to charge for the sake of your own integrity. Support from heavy-hitters seems thin on the ground and I infer from the recent output from MRAs that your opposition has been busy mustering support. Something I think is evident here. Anyway, Good luck.

    1. For me it's important to try before I accept that my path is elsewhere.

      Gender politics is one big distraction. Only angry human beings get caught up in such diversions.

      You're right though, these poeple have been mustering support for a long time it seems. No surprise there - it's classic leftist subversion.

  13. Division in the MRM? You just created it! What in the name of all hell are you doing with this article. This is stunning, simply stunning. Barb and Stardusk are radicals? They have never called for the death of females, they seek to take no rights away from women, and they certainly have never attempted to disenfranchise them either. They simply state the facts, state their views and move on. This is one of the worst articles I have read regarding the MRM/MRA/MGTOW. This is shocking, and I can't help but believe because you are married you are trying to insert your life scenario onto others and denounce men who have recanted dating. You have let the vision of your own wife cause strife with other men that have no quarrel with you. What are you doing!!?

    1. What? Stardusk incessantly pushed this idea of a divide between MRAs and MGTOW right from the start. Go back to the video where Stardusk told me that my MRA+ idea was not compatible with MGTOW. That clown has been stating that MGTOW is this separatist ideology, where you can only be a part of it if you are single. THIS IS WRONG, and the founders of MGTOW did not have this in mind at all - it was fabricated by your two heroes, and I have a video dialogue with two of the MGTOW founders to prove it.

      Not only did Stardusk push my buttons with his victim mentality, for weeks on end, but he’s been suggesting that women are insurmountably flawed with total conjecture, while men are just victims (sound familiar – read the above!). Barbarossaaaa even had the audacity to state on his recent video (and I only watched minutes of it in the middle, because I’m sick of his spiteful commentary), that only women are at fault for affairs, because she opened her legs to another man!


      He is absolving men of all their sins, and blaming everything on women, video after video, just like radical feminists. He, as does Stardusk, then has the audacity to suggest that he’s helping women by ending relationships between men and women, which is exactly what radicals like that Communist Briffault wanted. It’s all the same rubbish, just like in the manifesto above, and clearly you won’t see it because you’re too heavily invested in gender politics.

      Come back with one more useless comment defending those bigots and I’m deleting it. I’m tired of dealing with gender ideologues. You’re ruining the MRM, and turning it into another hateful movement.

    2. First off they aren't my idols. I am subscribed to you, Bernard, Girl Writes What, Barb and a ton of others. I listen to all of everyone's videos intently.

      Secondly Barb has said that you can sleep with women if you wish, just don't start families with them, because in the grander shceme of things, they are balanced to the females, also the Western woman's psychology and education has been irreparably damaged by the feminist movement and cannot be fixed as the years progress as it will continue to be more misandric and perversive year after year. Your idea for MRA+ is valiant, but ultimately unworkable, as you are applying car wax to the exterior of the vehicle to fix the broken engine under the hood.

      There is a social engine at work here, that it simply cannot be repaired. Although I don't always agree with your ideas, I don't recall anyone attacking you wholesale for sending hundreds, thousands of men to die in the pyre trying to aspire to your philosophy of MRA+. Which can easily be correlated with NAWALT deflections. You are a good man but I think you were absolutely out of line with this blog entry. As I stated you are using your personal life to effect a broader spectrum of people, and that can never work.

    3. Barb basically espouses a ‘player’ lifestyle, It’s nothing original, and he likes to paint all women with one broad brush with pure conjecture as justification. Stardusk does the same thing, only he doesn't even want sex with women.

      No, the psyche of Western women has not been irreparably damaged – that’s just an excuse to cut off women entirely in some sort of separatist cult. What we have presently is far from ideal, but this 0.0001% type of claim about the amount of good women out there, that Stardusk makes, is also pure conjecture.

      MRA+ is not unrealistic, and I don't appreciate the emotional appeal that Stardusk uses involving potential male suicide, just by getting involved in women. MRA+ is a method to help men avoid abusive women.

      I am sick and tired of the nihilists in the men's movement that think all values should be thrown out of the window just so men and women can be kept apart, like some sort of Jewish Orthodox interpretation of the sexes. There's nothing productive about this, and the above post shows you how far this has been taken into feminist territory. Hell, Barb and Star are even using Communist Briffault's views to back up what they say, and Communists are notorious for wanting to destroy the family.

      What you are failing to realise is that barb and star are gender ideologues, just like feminists. They want to play the game of auto-good, auto-bad between the sexes, and they want everyone to be grateful to boot, because they are empowering women. It’s hilarious, since that is exactly what feminists said about men. Come on!

      If you can’t see through this façade then I’m afraid you deserve to be dragged along with those imbeciles. Personally I will NOT be a part of any generalisations about female nature. It’s fascistic, and frankly extremely dangerous. You might want to go back to my “Dating Isn’t Compulsory” vid, and follow the trail of vids through to this post (see my update above), to see just how much patience I’ve had with those two idiots. Frankly, they’re a disgrace to the men’s movement, and they literally make me ashamed to be a part of it.

      I appreciate your support as a subscriber, but I have no patience for those defending those imbeciles anymore. If their voice gets any more prominent then I won't be a part of this online movement any longer, since many of their hateful views are everything I stand against. Feminist or no feminist - gender ideologues should be opposed.

    4. I would hate to see you leave the movement, because your voice, opinions and ideas are always welcome and very much appreciated.

      However alot of men that are subscribing to MGTOW now do not hate the family, because it is not the average every day man that has destroyed it. It was the feminists and their enforcers in left-wing politics that has allowed the family structure to crumble to deplorable depths. As it stands right now, African American women and their family structure was the test bed for the Left and the Feminist lobby, and it is beyond repair. The rest of America is only maybe fifteen years behind. I can confidently say this, because I myself am African American.

      Yes it may be Nihilistic, but logically this is the only way the movement can go. We will receive no sympathy ( we don't want any ) from Politicians, we are a dispersed individualistic movement, we have no voice, no podium, we are branded as misogynistic beasts, there is no place for us to turn besides inwards. Its a fatalistic view, but as Paul has said, if that is where the movement is going, that is where it is going. No one controls the movement. No Politician on the Right and especially on the Left would even tolerate our voices being within an ear shot, lest they loose the all important female vote that ensures their power.

      I admire your perseverance and ideals, and your maybe naive hope, but alot of us know it is finished. There really is no going back. None of us will ever be alive to see any positive change towards Men's Rights. All we can do is go our own way. Many of us prescribe to Barbs ideas, because as an individual that is all we have control over. Ourselves. We will never change women, or make them see the error of their ways. They will see that on their own as it collapses.

  14. why cant we just agree to disagree and continue on, a bunch of over thinking betas, mrm mgtow blah blah blah, if we were all monkeys on a hill id conquer. I can easily side with mre if i had to state my opinion. Those denying his perspective do fail to see the large picture. The even larger picture is that the mrm is bigger than a few youtube channels. It exists because a certain realiy exists, You want to discuss the nature of that reality and get divided. But if we dont fight the real enemy our destiny has already been decided

  15. RME simply held a mirror up! ANYONE not just Stardusk and Barbarossaaaa... not just those who claim to be an MRA, but ANYONE who becomes dangerously close to making fallacious statements which paint one gender or class of people with one FAT paint brush should ask how truthful they are being to themselves and others. Logic 101 tells us it’s a fallacy. Man, some people are either too stupid or too lazy to THINK or they are so damn ignorant that they are in dire need of some logic and philosophy classes! Wake up people! If you can't take a criticism of your own logic or weak premises then why are you here? Get out of the way and stop wasting the time of people who are fighting hard for positive change! Truth should matter; should it not? RME simply refuses to support poor logic and fallacy and boldly asks MRAs in the MRM to "not become what you are fighting!" If your logic seems to be too embarrassingly similar to the Red Britches Manifesto than grow a pair and admit that you're wrong! Who cares about YOUR righteous indignation? I am an engineer, and I write software and I build complex circuits for various engineered applications. It is a REQUIRED practice to rigorously interrogate our software and rigorously torture our creations to discover the flaws in our logic both software and hardware. When our software or hardware inevitably fails we don't get indignant, stomp around, scapegoating and blaming everyone. We stop and use the failure as a professional learning opportunity. Sure, we get pissed sometimes, but it forces us to continually seek truth and valid logic. Likewise, RME simply interrogated radical MRM logic and warned us that we men can be better than our female predecessors. He's reminding us to learn from history and to focus our efforts in a more logical and fruitful way. I don't think he's saying not to fight hard for change, he's saying if you're going to fight, fight smarter and more intelligently so that we can maximize long term gain and help society evolve.

    Furthermore, attacking RME for reminding us that family DOES and CAN work by using his wife and child as evidence only shows how little your mind is. So what if you ascribe to MGTOW and don't wish to risks involved with marriage. Fine! Go! RME is not saying you shouldn't do it. He's simply advocating for the inalienable and natural rights of man based off a whole body of physiological, biological, psychological, anthropological evidence. That doesn't mean men can't go their own way if they wish to, or that men are not being maliciously oppressed by their government and feminist policy. It means that demonizing one sex to further the other is never right, truthful, or logical. There are good women out there who are intelligent and as fed up with the feminist bullshit that is damaging their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons. Are YOU truly ready to damage YOUR wife, YOUR mother, YOUR sister, YOUR daughter all in the name of the end justify the means scorched earth policy and logic? RME is saying, "find the healthy women and encourage them, marry them." Avoid the mental nut cases with personality disorders; prone to DV and feminist ideology. He saying, fight for the family even if you don't plan on having one; fight for de facto biological rights rather than empowering the state to take over our families and encourage women to behave in the worst possible ways through such empowerment. What's wrong with that?

    1. I don't think I've ever had anyone summarise my entire position so succinctly and concisely before. Thank you for that. unfortunately I don't think there's very much that anyone can do at this point other than oppose and discredit the radicals destroying the MRM. This is why I think the only thing to do now is bail out of identity politics, and uphold the values of individualism instead.

    2. And, I can understand why your introspection has yielded the conclusion. I also think your ideas are based on fundamentals that really cut through the BS of de jure rights. You are reminding us that we can be better than our opposition.

      I surmise the resistance you have discovered here and rightly define as radical leftist behavior by certain MRA's involves the following: The court system is brutal. It literally feeels like you've been put in a blender every single time you enter that court house. And, the tools available to men and fathers to fight back with are arcane. Most men don't have $250,000 to fight with the best "tools." Some would argue the ONLY way to overcome such a powerful force is to not only match that force, but exceed that force in order to affect a change which we so desperately need. The problem is urgent. Men, need resolution NOW, not in a decade when our children don't know us anymore. NOW! Men need IMMEDIATE resolution, but can not find it. The state is ruthlessly ripping us from our children, dehumanizing us, and severing us from our financial strength. This attack is so calculated and viscous that it strikes at the heart of man and cripples us. It is important to remember what MAY seem radical to you are the silent but deafening screams of men raging to save, among other things, their families, careers, and futures. These experiences FEEL like what you would see in a horror film. It is extremely difficult to maintain a circumspect perspective when a feminist judge is hacking you apart, but IT IS POSSIBLE MEN! And, you MUST do so if you wish to succeed against feminist ideology wherever you see it or are victimized by it.

      RME is correct in his assertions. Be better than your opponent or LOSE! The challenge is to learn how to put individualist values into a practical form that men can use daily.

  16. And this claim that RME has somehow "divided the men's movement!" ROTFLMFAO!!! What utter tripe! Wake up! The MRA is wayyy bigger than what you see here or on YouTube... WAYY! And, many men active in their local MRMs haven't even read or watched a single one of these bloggs or vbloggs. They are fighting the real fight; trying to save their families by slugging it out in a feminist court room, picketing court houses, or standing in candlelit vigils in protest of a local injustice, being mentors for fathers, men, and children. They don't have the luxury of whining here on YouTube or various blogs. Anyone claiming RME has "divided the men's movement" needs climb out from under their rock and look around!

    This bolg was a bold move and a strong effort by RME to require intellectual rigor and the spine to look oneself in the mirror and interrogate the validity of our own logic. He should be commended; not villainized. Any person or movement incapable of doing this self-check is delusional, unhealthy, and not worth being a part of. RME has the spine to take a stand for truth and honest dealing within the MRM. What's wrong with that? You have the audacity to criticize all women for being too stupid, or too incapable of change, and yet these little bitches whining about RME's logic test can't look in the mirror objectively? YOU are the ones wasting time; YOU are the ones that will cause harm to the MRM long term. Think about it and "don't become what you are fighting against!"

    I am a man who has fought his whole life against feminist ideology. I've been a victim of crimes before we even had laws to protect minor boys from rape, I was forced to have a child against my will, I have fought seven years in a feminist court room, and a gender biased family court system, I spent $250,000 to protect my daughter from child abuse and win custody of her, I hired a Beverly Hills graduate from Princeton, the president of a leading MRM, and even hired Warren Farrell to be an expert witness, I have given the best years of my life to raise my now nineteen year old daughter all on my own without a single shred of support from my society. I have suffered domestic violence to the point of being run out of town and gaining a move away order so that I could do it. (No VAWA support for me) I have given up marriage, children, a nice house, a great education, and I am still trying to finish my education. My daughter has nearly a full ride scholarship to an excellent college and she WILL NOT repeat the same cycle of violence and abuse that her mother and so many women with borderline narcissistic personalities do. But, she also paid the price of the stigma and horrible loss of her mother at an early age. And, I am just beginning to move on in my life. After all that, I still believe the solution is Man + Woman for children, for healthy families, for gender neutral policies. This doesn't mean you can't be single, it means you can be respected and supported in society for your choice. It means men are given reproductive rights and rights to children and family that can't be taken away. I believe we need to dismantle the feminist machine and avoid building a similar machine for men. Women need to be taught through example that we men are not all that feminism is teaching them to believe. So, hell yeah, don't become what you are fighting against makes absolute sense!

    1. I am humbled by your account of your experiences. You are an exemplary man that has made a great difference, and raised a woman that will not be a part of the feminist machine. If only more in the MRM were interested in doing this, and thus nipping feminism in the bud through parenting. Instead many online are using the MRM as an engine for their own psychological problems, are not interested in making positive change. They want chaos, disorder, and revenge on womankind.

      Alas, you are an honourable man and thus anathema to the damaged individuals now taking over the MRM and trying to transform into a parallel of feminism. I am so impressed by your account that I would be more than happy to feature an article on this site along the line of your two comments above. It's so important that people grow to understand not only what the MRM is becoming, but also what positive changes men like you have made in the face of overwhelming odds. You know where I am if you want to take me up on that offer.

    2. Thanks for your kind words, RME. Few can appreciate the path I have taken, but I know you and others in the MRM can. Men need direction and validation, so I give that wherever I can. I'd be glad to lend a hand and support you. I agree with much of what you have to say.
      I'd like to push back on you a bit with something for you to think about as I know you really dig solving these issues. So, with what I've already stated above about the immediacy and horror of a subsection of men's issues, I give the following: I've been there, I remained "cool hand luke" ... Mr. passive, kind, non-assertive, non-MRA to the judge and court house, and my daughter's school administration, and I was viewed as an enigma. They just didn't know what to do because I looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, but I sure as hell didn't ACT like a duck. I broke their male stereotypes down and they didn't know how to fight me. (How can this be used to create solutions using your philosophy?) Then, I would fly down to LA to spend DAYS churning pounds of petitions, and DVPAs and discovery, etc. My attorney and I bitched and screamed about things together and we were ruthless sons of a bitches legally, and I won my life and my daughter's future back. (Action must happen or men will continue to be damaged and worthless. What actions do you suggest?) The lesson here is to focus that anger properly. Put it where it effects the best outcome. THAT is where your ideas are break down a little RME. I absolutely agree with them, but find them difficult to actualize. Solution? I think validating men's harm and anger then redirecting them with your ideas of individualism does them a great service as many men lack those grounding principles. Without them there is no guiding light and they become self-destructive and self-sabotaging. (writing them off as destructive to the MRM might not be the answer. If not, then what to do with them?)
      So, what to do? It's fine to advocate for individualism on the state side: within congress, at parliament. But, when you are actually in the trenches fighting identity politics, reminding feminist case workers (usually women) that individualism and de facto rights are the name of the game; that they should renounce their own power base as they asked men to do in the Red Stockings Manifesto, literally earns tears of laughter and scorn. Yet, men should still ground themselves in the fundamentals of de facto rights, negative liberty and individualism and that will help them keep that aforementioned perspective, and not allow their opponent to invalidate them and shame them into relinquishing their founding principles and their de facto right to be a father. So, while I agree wholeheartedly, I struggle with the application, and would enjoy combining my experience with your powerful mind to see how that might translate. We may decide to debate this a bit elsewhere..
      I think there are some damaged individuals out there, some are beyond help, other can still be reached. It's a little dangerous to assume that what you may be witnessing is all radical because I argue much of it is vitriol stemming from the horror some men live in for years. Men express their emotions in ways that feminism has demonized; indeed criminalized. It's angry, it's harsh, it's in your face, it bleeds all over us, it's often misguided, and incorrect without proper perspective.(So, how we guide that? Invalidation is not the best answer) I lived with it for seven years, and still live with the consequences daily. It takes a cast iron will to remember women are NOT the problem, feminist doctrine and policy IS.

  17. Defining the battle field is important. We can fight this one child at a time, as I have, and that option is painstakingly slow. It also requires that a man give up EVERYTHING in his life and the finances to support it. It feels like a prison. Many men find that an unacceptable sacrifice. I do too. We can educate the public, and push awareness, but that requires friction like Civil Disobedience until our voice is respected and heard. This will seem radical to many. We can ask these men to check their logic as you have here. (What else can be done to actualize individualism, de facto rights, and negative Liberty?)
    The mirror that the Red Britches Manifesto provided is positive chastisement, but it reminds us of the vacuum of solid solutions for men. I think defining men's issues is such an arduous, tedious, and emotive task that we never quite get to solutions. Defining for many men is psychologically re-living the hell-pain. It becomes a chemical addiction. (Another hint of what you may be defining as radical and harmful) A catharsis and release needs to be had for these men so they can focus their male problem solving gift. MRMs can help here. If I had a voice like you do, I would make a call to men to to stop defining so much and start actualizing solutions. Every time I heard a defining or a complaint, I would validate if warranted, then slam them with "so what's the solution?"