I tried to organize my thoughts into semi-readable essay format. I'm asserting opinion of what I see going on. This is to see if anyone agrees with me, disagrees, and why.

Thanks for reading.

The New Feminism: The HiJacking of Civil Rights

The MRA and true Feminism both have a common enemy. This ideological foe baffles Men's Rights Activists into commonly attacking the wrong targets and it turns true egalitarian feminists into puppets for its cause. As with most evil in human society the real "enemy" is rooted in the human sociopathic tendencies to have power, to control, and to dominate others.

Any rational person can realize that the early emmergence of feminism was based in a fairly reasonable idea: women are people, not things, and it's time for society's concept of "common sense" to include not disqualifying a person for being a woman. Except for relatively hardcore extremists, this idea is now a part of the general consciousness of Western Liberal culture and this is a good thing.

What has happened over the past 50 years, however, is that the power hungry have moved into the feminist organizational structure which was established by the original idealists. These individuals are interested in using the cohesive power of the idea of "Feminism" to utilize large groups of individuals in order to achieve personal goals--primarily, power/wealth, dominance, and control.

I venture to suggest that feminism has been hijacked. It has been hijacked by a very specific group of men and women. The women represent the strain of female ideology which has, throughout human history, sought to restrain, disgrace, and punish "male" characteristics. They have always done this through shaming tactics and manipulation of social moral codes. These women are not just the enemy of maleness, however. They also seek to control women through the same process. Feminism has become a shaming mechanism for women. You do what it tells you to do or you're being weak and submissive to the enemy. The leaders have made feminism a tool like most cult ideologies: there is them, and there is us. They are immoral, we are moral. It tries to root the self-worth of a person in how closely they are obeying the tenants of the ideology.

Why would human beings do this? Well, in fact, it makes perfect sense. Restricting female selections of males allows for less sexually competitive (i.e, less sexy) to manipulate more sexually competitive females. It is a means by which they can ensure their own genetic survival in the face of physical disparities. Even more obviously, it gives them power. Human history is an endless string of examples of people convincing their societies that they hold the key to moral righteousness. This makes them Queens of an aspect of the culture and the population.

On the other side of this is the benefits it offers to a certain faction of men. Feminism over the last 50 years has made it more and more dangerous to express sexual interest in a female. In our deep primordial past a failed sexual approach would result in humiliation and maybe a physical reproach from the female. Today, a social sexual misstep can result in the utter destruction of a person's life. Whether it's making a misjudgement with an approach at the work place which slaps you with a harassment suit or getting accused of rape after a night of consensual sex that is regretted in the morning. Maybe you moved too fast for her physically; maybe you rejected her advances, or she moved too fast! Make the wrong move and there are levels of escalation a woman can take against the man legally which could not exist without feminism today. This has lead to the fascinating phenomenon commonly discussed by those who have become aware of the legal situation: men are starting to be afraid to interact with women. This was all part of the plan. Was it vocalized? Not precisely. But it is instinctual. It is instinctual for women to want to make it as dangerous as possible to approach them, and it is instinctual for the most sexually competitive men to want less competitive men to be afraid to make sexual advances.

The more dangerous the advance the more absolutely confident the man must be to make any approach at all. This leads to only the men most certain of success trying to entice females. This allows for females to more clearly identify an alpha male--i.e, a male who is breaking social bounds established by the females--and proceed to try to both destroy him and mate with him. Females will then control one another through shame to try to ensure the alpha male for themselves, and the losers of this competition will seek to disgrace, confine, jail, and eliminate the man they can not have. Either way, only the most aggressive and sexually appealing females will be able to compete and in the meantime any males unsure of themselves will not be trying to compete at all. Most major male feminist seem to be good looking guys who have no problem getting women. The MRA's dear friend Hugo is a great example of this. His story of cuckolding another man while justifying it through feminist terms is downright disturbing. But it also the desired end-point. Repressed male sexuality except for the most "desirable" males and over all female control of both male and female sexuality.

The movement has been hijacked, but we're fighting the wrong people and fighting the wrong way. We're encouraging censorship as long as it is equal. We're playing into the future I've described. Soon only the boldest and most beautiful--those sure of their acceptance and the support of their peers--will be interacting in any meaningful way. We're building our own cage by supporting the social values pushed by today's feminism. We all know feminism is neither men or womens' friends: it attacks everything male and it insists on a lack of female agency. It is as brutish as any patriarchy ever was, it simply plays the game differently.

Thoughts?