Feminist Jim Crow: Men’s Rights Activist, Define Thyself

... and here's why:

If you box with a dirty fighter and he uses head butts and invites in others to take shots at you, etc., and you insist on sticking with the Marquis of Queensbury rules, you will lose. There are no points for being "better" in your own mind than your opponent when there is no one there to reward you for it. The MRA cause for fair and equal treatment of men under the law and in the public and private spheres has no referee. We either succeed or fail. Feminists have been using the Big Axe of Government to assault men as a class and as individuals for over 30 years now. For MRAs not to face them on that front is to allow them to continue doing what they are doing.

Ignoring them is not going to work. Trying to do the same thing as them when it comes to inflicting injustices and insults (ie, creating men-only places that are open to the public otherwise) won't work because the gov't is in on their plan to make their one-sided agenda a reality. We have to go to where the battle is being fought. Otherwise we will just plain lose.

Deleted

"Ignoring them is not going to work. Trying to do the same thing as them when it comes to inflicting injustices and insults (ie, creating men-only places that are open to the public otherwise) won't work because the gov't is in on their plan to make their one-sided agenda a reality. We have to go to where the battle is being fought. Otherwise we will just plain lose."

In that case, you let them define the war...
Better to define your own battles on your own terms and to be prepared where they are not when they meet you on your familiar grounds, than to fight them half way through their attacks when they have already conquered. ;)

Back to the issue raised, though...

To me, the main issue here is:

Should men and women (boys and girls too) be legally able to create male only and female only gatherings?

Note: this is a little different than having male/female floors of a hotel; since hotel rooms aren't typically gathering places for groups. But it's the point that the article was getting at.

I personally think that men and women should be able to; and I disagree with those that claim that division by gender is the same as division by race. They are very different IMHO, in many ways; not the least of which is that men and women must be able to relate to each other for society to even exist; while the same is not true of different races. So even if men and women have separate spaces, they will also spend time together, or society dies. All evidence I've seen on the subject points to men, women, boys and girls needing at least some social time without the opposite sex in order to develop normally.

What is absolutely wrong though; is that feminists have asked (forced) men to make huge sacrifices to their social structures right from boyhood by eliminating nearly every case where they can develop without interference from girls or women, and at the same time are increasing the number of social structures that are free from interference from boys and men.

So in that sense I agree with the article. Men have a green light to have male-only gatherings again. When this is contested, be prepared to bring the case to the supreme court and challenge based on rulings in favour of women only societies, etc. There's a clear discrepency here. Women enjoy a privilege here because they have it both ways. It's a weak point in feminist philosophy. Laws around it will break if we push hard enough at it.

On the topic specifically of hotel floors being divided by gender. I have to admit that that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Other than the obvious of not having any male-only floors, it's based on an imagery of men as aggressors, not of women wanting some space to socialize, and that's a very negative message for hotels to be giving to the world, especially considering it is against the majority of their own patrons. It's a message based on misandry. That message is insulting, and demeaning; and men have a right to complain about it, and a right to expect similar special treatment from the establishment if they want it.

Sorry lads, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the good thing about the MR movement is that we have multiple opinions leading to multiple efforts on many fronts. The battle on the legal front will continue while it will also continue on every other. What else to say, really?

..because you really don't need segregated hotel floors to "develop normally".

Guess I should write up a story about the public baths with the women only day in my country. Someone, I think an employee (male employees banned too!) sued - and lost.

I agree with you there about hotels.
I was talking more about having divided social gatherings.
The hotel thing is a bit different. Hotel rooms aren't social gatherings. And the info that the hotels is giving out is anti-male. Like I said, I don't agree with that.

On social gatherings, though, I guess what I'm getting at is if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. If the employee sued and lost, then that should mean that men could have a similar event and lock out women. Of course it would probably be a lot smaller due to the guilt complex that's been drilled into men. But legally they should be able to, and should be able to site that case.

At the very least it would be a notable protest.

As I'm sure Gloria Allred could have made clear, there is a specific law against this kind of discrimination in California - the Unruh Act. If a business should try this tactic in CA, I suspect there will be a man somewhere who will be filing suit.

Women only floor in CA hotels? Not likely.

If you ask those businesses why they do it, the answer is simple: because there is demand for it. Men simply don't demend it.
I even discussed this with a friend who used a "women's sauna" once because she was pregnant and didn't want men to see her like that (I wonder why, I find it very attractive ;). She had absolutely no intention of behaving in an "anti-male" way. I think there's a possibility that women are indeed a bit more sensitive with these things. Nonetheless I disapprove of it. Men are told to get over their quirks, too.

"Men simply don't demend it."

You're right. The question I have is Why?

I think its because men have been brow beaten though generations of legal battles by feminists insisting that women be allowed to enter into anything that's male oriented.

Men just don't even want to go there anymore. Not because they don't want to, but because they think they can't.

But really, men deserve things for men just as much as women deserve things for women. And if women continue to have things that are for women only, then men should be able to have things that are for men only. Women can't keep having things both ways here.

If it's wrong for men then it's wrong for women. If it's right for women, then it's right for men.

...feminists have, they always want more. After the hatred of men and the superiority of women, that's the third goal of feminism: getting what they want out of men and society. Feminists are happy to take what they want from average women, too.

Women have had full legal equality since the sixties in most western nations. But since men and women are different, full legal equality will result in different outcomes. It's not discrimination, it's biology. If you treat people equally, the outcomes will differ. Again - it's called "reality" and "biology". Incidentally, this technique is what I call non-feminist analysis or if you prefer, reality-based-reality.

However, go to any feminist site and you'll find huge, endless lists of ranting, raving and whining about how terrible women have it and what society should be giving women today. Of course, none of it is supported by anything even vaguely resembling reality (the world owes women free child care, women should be able to abort children in the 100th trimester, all men should be in prison and pay all the taxes, all women are victims and deserve retroactive raises because one disabled woman in Africa didn't make as much money as her coworker this week, only women deserve educations/pensions/health care because they're victims of big, bad men, etc. etc. etc.), but that's neither here nor there to feminists or the politicians on which they feed. 100% women is still discrimination against women, remember?

Let's assume that the current trend of appeasement continues to it's intended conclusion, and that we implement a Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia with a communist system of economics (i.e. comparable worth, gender-based taxation, the whole nine yards), give women even more rights in terms of human reproduction (if there are any they don't already have), all financed at the cost of the state, deny men ALL access to education, health care or employment, and basically imprison and tag every man alive. 100% women in politics, the workplace, education, everywhere, men reduced to chattel slavery (if that).

Fast forward to that feminist dystopia.

Now imagine what a feminist website will look like at that stage.

Think it will be any different?

Think it will be self-congratulatory, or focus on the "gains made by women"?

Or that the list of "inequalities" will be any shorter?

Has 100% women ever indicated "equality" to a feminist?

Of course not. They're professional victims. That's what they do. The fact that full legal equality will mean that people have different outcomes is irrelevant to a feminist. If we treat people the same, their outcomes will be different because people are different. You see, to a feminist, treating people equally is "discrimination". It's the same sort of funhouse-mirror "logic" that allows them to pretend that everything is a patriarchal conspiracy against women.

And many average women eat this stuff up by staying on women-only floors, or buying women's magazines that pander to their victim/inferiority complexes, or by voting for candidates who promise them the most unearned goodies. Not because they hate men, or believe in a "patriarchal conspiracy", but because it's far easier to believe yourself to be a victim than it is to accept that some of us are more capable than others (I'm NOT suggesting that all men are more capable than all women or vice versa), or to try and accept or overcome one's limitations, whether you're a man or a woman.

Simply put, the solution to the continued dehumanization of men as a vain attempt to soothe the collective (and in my opinion, unjustified), female inferiority complex is simple: we, the non-feminist women and men who accept that everyone is an individual and will have different outcomes in a society which treats them equally, we just say "no". Feminists will ALWAYS complain that they're victims no matter how many privileges and advantages they have, even as they disguise their true intent - getting whatever they want, on demand, as a means of soothing their raging inferiority complexes - by claiming that women are victims, that men are oppressors, etc. etc. etc.

Collectively, women aren't victims of anyone but themselves.

Feminists are expressing their "wants", even if they think of their wants as "needs". Men tend to give people what we think they deserve. But because we're a paternal bunch, we naturally want to do what's "right", and provide women and children with what they say they need. Or want. It's what we think they "deserve". Simply put, we're hardwired to give in to those endless feminist demands.

And guess what? Every time you appease these little feminist dictators, their list of wants gets longer. And longer. And longer.

And this makes the problem worse.

The solution? Raise our standards for determining what we think people "deserve". Stop giving feminists what they want. Then the list of "wants" gets shorter and shorter, until they're fighting over something they actually need, and are forced to PROVE they need it, not using feelings and vague, semi-philosophical, anecdotal musings, but cold, hard facts. We need to start holding feminists to the same high standards they hold us to. In this way, our paternal nature works for us instead of the feminists (who have been exploiting it for decades).

Problem solved. As n.j. pointed out, we might very well get equal treatment if we insisted on it in this manner, but "men simply don't demand it" out of a sense of paternalism. It's time to demand it.

Now, how do we get politicians to figure this out so we - the average men and women of the world - can get these monkeys off our backs and end the continued decline of men's rights and status in society?

Great post below, RandomMan. What you said about explicitly denying education from ALL men, an enslaving ALL men as economic pawns and a massive male prison population are all things any self-respecting moderate or extremist feminist will aspire to.

Indeed, one must not that these things are happening by stealth already. Divorced men are practically slaves to the State who have their property repossessed and redistributed by the State (which is unconstitutional, but of course, in the 21st Century that Constitution is but a text to be consulted if it can advance the liberal/feminist agenda, not for anything else). They can be picked up off the street and thrown in jail at any time. And they are. Indeed, it's hard to pick out any men or women in society in the past who were subjected to such a legitimised slave-like existence as Divorced men are today. They've no right to a fair legal trial, no right to property, no right to accomodation, no right to family, no right, essentially, to individual freedom.

Then you've the fact that 1.7 million more girls complete their SATs every year, and 2 million more women are enrolling to and graduating from America's Universities. Over a mere ten years that's a surplus of 20 million female graduates.

This is all happening under the watchful eye of State education schemes and State education policies. Men are being pushed out of education already, by stealth, and cases like that of Duke University further illustrate the anti-male culture with regard to Higher Education.

Less male graduates? Well then, for one thing, less male wealth. Direct consequence. And less male politicians, because politicians come almost exclusively from the pool of the college-educated.

And you are right; right now gender relations are such that women are poised to take huge swatches of power in the coming decades. They fucking knowing; they are perfectly aware. But the only language we hear is "oppression", "victims", "violence against..." - it is merely a strategy to gain more advantage and power.

Now, how do we get politicians to figure this out so we - the average men and women of the world - can get these monkeys off our backs and end the continued decline of men's rights and status in society?

The current political/judicial systems may be so diseased already that they are not salvageable. We may have to eject the entirety of the current crop of politicians and their legal system counterparts.

It would take centuries to use the current system to redress all the thousands of laws that have Misandry at their core. They have been pumped out in assembly line fashion since the end of WWII and a sad truth about laws under the current system is that it is far easier to get a law on the books then it is to get it off as you merely need the current government to be in favor of adding a new law, but you need both the government and multi-level judicial system in favor of removal.

When a 17 year old boy (and 5 of his friends) are offered a choice of 5 years in prison plus the worse then prison lifetime under AWA and their State registry if they admit their sin, or 10 years in prison and the same life under AWA and their State registry if they don't over 100% consensual sex acts with a 15 year old female peer, there really may be no hope for that system. The disease may be immune to treatment.