dads & things

By Walter H. Schneider
Originally posted at Men’s Rights Post.

You are somewhat discouraged about the lack of progress with organizing the men’s movement, about the hopelessness caused by constant failure to bring any structure into it.

Look at it in another way; and the principles involved are universal.

Feminism has always been present in civilization; long before that. It existed even when our ancestors were still swinging through the trees. It was a social and psychological force throughout the existence of humanity.

Feminism became a cultural force during the past 3,000 years or so. It was more or less prominent during different epochs and areas, but it never was a threat to all of civilization until it became so powerful that it demanded and obtained generous and even excessive funding from governments and from private sources, whereby it became in essence a world-wide state-religion everyone is forced to bow [to] and work to sustain it. That causes the decline of feminism.

As long as the burden it presents is tolerably light, feminism is a luxury that any society can afford. However, through becoming a victim of its own success, feminism grew into a luxury that we can no longer afford. No nation can, and that is the reason why, world-wide, feminism is withering away.

That is not the result of a conscious decision or of any anti-feminist program. It is the result of us having reached the limits of our ability to pay for things we don’t need to survive. It is a question of priorities. For instance, what is most important when we must decide where to allocate our last $100 billion to a specific program that will ensure our survival: heating, eating, clothing or feminism?

You think that is a hypothetical question? Well, consider that we have run out of money and that within about ten or fewer years the demands on our social safety nets (old age security, pension schemes, health care, welfare, employment insurance, etc.) will be exceeding in many states the ability of the taxpayers to support them. Does anyone in their right mind think that funding for feminism will outrank funding for any of those government programs whose existence or absence will literally mean the difference between life and death for hundreds of millions of people? Right!

So, cut off the funding for it and feminism will die….well, not really. It will not die, it just won’t have any teeth anymore. The feminist gynarchia and the global, socialist, totalitarian regime dominated and controlled by it will no longer be a real threat but once more become a dark fairy tale of Utopia and of Paradise on Earth.

Why would the MRM wish to emulate feminism’s success and thereby commit itself to a cancerous death?

The strength of the MRM is that it has no formal structure, not a single, large organization that depends on funding from any source, least of all from the government.

There are, unlike the feminists’ battered women shelters, no bunkers from which to plan and implement the conquest of society and all of civilization, no forts or fortresses to attack or starve into submission, not even any men’s studies programs — through which to plant the seeds for the indoctrination and submission of all of society — that could be terminated by cutting off their funding.

There is only a grass-roots movement that is being motivated through the ever-increasing oppression of its members (who don’t even appear on any formal lists), whose numbers continue to grow inexorably because they won’t take it anymore.

The MRM is like the salt of the earth. Nothing that anyone can do will get rid of it, and all of society will have to adapt to it. It will grow, predominate and prevail as long as it remains as it is: without funding, without formal organization, without structure — and the more feminism succeeds in bringing our society and its economy to its knees, the stronger the MRM will become. In short, the MRM is intrepid.

– Walter Schneider

Bruderheim, Canada
Friday, Mar. 23, 2012

___________

Consider the evidence of the current decline of feminism:

Men’s Rights vs. Women’s Rights

— at http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=men%27s+rights%2Cwomen%27s+rights&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

The n-gram of the incident rates of “men’s rights” vs. “women’s rights” in the volume of text contained in Google Books is an excellent illustration of the effect that the promotion of communism had over time on public discourse. The prominent emergence of women’s rights is a consequence of the promotion of communism (more commonly known as socialism). There were always women’s rights, and they always had trumped men’s rights since ancient times, as even Aristole remarked in a number of instances. However, it had not ever happened that concerns for women rights were engineered to become an all-powerful tool and vehicle for the advancement of socialism, thereby to become a tool for the downfall or at least the deliberate deconstruction of all of civilization.

Some milestones:

19th century — last half

Marx and Engels were by no means the first or only communist pioneers or patron saints, but they did more than most others during the second half of the 19th century to champion women’s rights (abolition of the family and the advancement of women’s rights by promoting “free love” (today it is called “sexual freedom”), and the moving of women from being instruments of production within families to becoming instruments of production for the state that could then be taxed by the state).

Marx and Engels published their “Manifesto of the Communist Party” Dec. 1848/ Jan. 1849. It became the handbook of communists or Marxists everywhere.

The predominance of interest in women’s rights, relative to the static level of concern about men’s rights during that time, emerged around the late 1860s, at a time during which communism made itself felt through many democratic reforms throughout many of the developed nations.

World War I and aftermath

The socialist revolution, with its attendant promotion of women’s rights, was a primary aspect of the political upheaval in the aftermath of WWI. Monarchies vanished, with the few that remained having had their power much diminished. Communism and socialism — both in the guise of women’s rights — flourished. More and more women entered the work force. Women gained a large presence at universities, in the bureaucracy and in politics.

World War II and aftermath

Interest in women’s rights grew right up to World War II and continued the rout of men’s rights throughout WWII and its aftermath, leveling off a little until 1960, as the major concerns at the time were with rebuilding the economies of nations and of the world.

The 1960s — cultural revolution, civil rights movement, student revolution and emergence of radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist feminism)

All of those helped to drive an unprecedented social upheaval, and all of those very much focused on women’s rights, as of course by this time women with socialist or communist or Marxist interests were a major political force that had come into full public view.

The Google n-gram trend-line for that time-period illustrates that the enormous interest in women’s rights (it goes without saying that the interest had a very strong socialist focus) that was already far larger than any interest in men’s rights had ever been, became enormously overwhelming. Not even the rapidly escalating suicide rates for men that began in the mid-1960s sparked the least concern that could oppose the continuing advance of the public interest in women’s rights. The steep increase in the slope of the trend-line for women’s rights during that interval has the characteristics that are typical of a system in positive-feedback mode. Such systems exhaust themselves either through catastrophic collapse or through uncontrollable rapid and fatal decline.

Conclusion

During the past century there was never a balance in public concern for men’s rights vs. women’s rights. Public concern for women’s rights trumped any concerns for men’s rights for more than a century — hopelessly so now, it seems. Civilization is unlikely to adjust itself to become equitably balanced for both sexes, unless the social and economic systems of our civilization collapse or exhaust themselves through a somewhat less rapid decline that will be just as fatal but less violently so.

In summary, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but in a closed system that is a problem. It means that the wheels that run quietly and keep the system running will not get any grease and will burn out their bearings. That will bring the system of which they are a vital part to a screeching halt [unless common sense once more begins to prevail].

–Walter Schneider

Bruderheim, Canada
January 2, 2012, at 10:03pm