I believe I have an general high level view on how this can be achieved. I'm far from 100% sure about this and I'm too lazy to do anything about it. Truth is I'm just an internet keyboard warrior.

But maybe we all have our roles to play. So here's my internet keyboard warrior contribution:

​

The following is the list of our battle fronts. We need to fight on all fronts at all times, but there is still an order to them. Victory on each front will set the stage for victory on the next front:

  1. Ideological Foundation
  2. Awareness
  3. Academia
  4. Business Intelligentsia
  5. Institutional Decision Makers
  6. Bureaucracy

Ideological Foundation

The topics under discussion are so complex as to be impossible to fully explain using the scientific resources at our disposal. And yet, we still have to come to some kind of understanding of the situation. That's where what I call "Ideology" comes in. You just use some kind of logic to come up with ideas on how to describe the situation and try to make it coherent while also respecting the realities that you are aware of. And that's how people end up creating concepts like hypergamy, patriarchy, misandry, misogyny, systemic sexism etc...

When the implications of an ideological concept seems to contradict your lived experience it loses credibility for you, but often if it's contradicting someone else's lived experience, you might not recognize that as a loss of credibility. Often, if it contradicts a scientific result it will lose credibility for most people and if a scientific results supports some aspect of it, it will gain credibility for most people.

Having a strong ideological foundation for your movement helps you to promote the ideas you want to put forwards without being easily dismissed. Understanding the opposition's ideological foundation and preparing ideological arguments that attacks it at weak but structurally important points is going to be very effective at dismissing the arguments of your opponents.

While, essentially by definition, it is impossible to have a complete, correct and coherent ideological foundation, the more progress we make in that direction the better. It's also important that our ideological foundation accommodates legitimate scientific results (it might even be nice if it could accommodate generally accepted but illegitimate scientific results) and a wide variety of individual perspectives.

Personally, my understanding of an egalitarian anti-misandrist ideological foundation has improved immensely. And I suspect that this is true for a lot of other people too.

An example of where I think we still have some improvements to make is in our understanding of intersectional feminism. It's more complex than it seems and I don't even know how to go into it without writing a wall of text, so I'll leave it at that.

It's also important to create a coherent ideology. For example, I've seen some argue that all of feminism should be dismissed on the basis that it is ideological, not scientific. But when you do that, you're undermining your own position, since you won't be able to put forth ideological arguments of your own. The very idea that only purely scientific concepts should be admissible in the discourse is an ideological concept. So it's an argument that undermines itself. Clearly I think ideological arguments are legitimate, which means that our ideological framework needs to be more precise and nuanced in our condemnation of ideological concepts that we want to take down.

Basically, we need our own detailed and nuanced understanding of the situation so that when person A makes the argument that "Patriarchy theory is completely unscientific, therefore nothing you say is worth listening to" and person B replies "Well, there's plenty of scientific papers on the subject and while patriarchy theory says more than just what the science say, the same is true about 99% of the stuff you talk about." person A can just point to a resource that contains the full nuanced stance on the subject.

Back in the early days of youtube, anti-theists regularly pwned theist youtubers by having a better constructed ideological framework than the theists they were talking too. They understood the weaknesses of the theist's ideological framework and often understood theology better than the theists did themselves.

But when anti-theist tried to move towards anti-misandry/anti-feminism, they found themselves in a position where they lacked a solid ideological foundation. As a result half of anti-theists joined the feminist ideology and the other half joined right wing ideology.

I think that the fact that we failed to have built an egalitarian anti-misandrist ideological framework at that time has set the men's rights movement back 10 years.

But to be fair, I don't think it's reasonable to expect such an ideological framework to appear at the snap of a finger. It takes time.

But the lack of such a framework meant that those who attempted to promote it were easily embarrassed, confused and felt stupid.

Today, we have a much improved ideological framework, and we still have a long we to go. But I think it helps explain the increasing popularity of men's rights messages. Which brings us to the next topic:

Awareness

50% of the world's population is men. So in spite of the empathy gap, awareness is not that difficult to obtain. I think we'll see increasing competition from anti-egalitarian men's group (aka modern red pill ideology). Which again highlights the importance of having a solid ideological framework of our own. And it highlights why winning the ideological framework battle will be instrumental to help us win the awareness battle.

But the fact that there are 4 billion men on earth makes it far easier to win this one. So I won't spend much more time on this topic at this time.

I'll just say that awareness gains us members which gives us the resources the win the other battles, including:

Academia

I put Academia in the third spot, because chronologically I expect it to be "won" after the first two. But it's also foundational to the other two. Academic support helps enormously for the creation and maintenance of the ideological framework as well as continue support for awareness.

Interestingly, if your ideological framework happens to be incorrect, this is also where the entire thing starts to unravel as has happened to the catholic church as catholic scientists started to discover that the bible was full of lies. And arguably, the same thing is happening now to much of the misandrist ideology found in feminism.

But of course, the more scientists adopt the egalitarian anti-misandrist ideological framework, the faster progress we will make on this front.

This should put the last nail in the coffin of misandrist ideology, and severely hamper misandrists' efforts to raise awareness of their plight ("Girls, why can't we just say we hate men whenever we feel like it?" is going to be extremely poorly received without the ideological framework to support the statement).

But most importantly, it will set the stage for us to win the next few battles:

Business Intelligentsia

It's called that, because using excessively fancy terms makes me feel smarter and it's the sort of thing that scientific journalists, people who write sciency books and business consultants would use, and their the ones I'm really talking about here.

Science writers: they write about what people want to read (so, awareness helps), they write about the science (Academia) and they write to confirm people's already held beliefs (Ideological Foundation).

Consultants: They want to make money fast by presenting solutions based on things that is well researched and that they can defend when everything goes to shit so they can say it wasn't their fault (it was their fault). Again, ideology and awareness helps a lot here, but Academia is absolutely mandatory.

And what's the importance of Science Writers and Consultants for us? They inform these guys:

Institutional Decision Makers

When I was in college I had an instinctual dislike for authority and I found "pointy haired boss" stories hilarious. I was so ready to be completely unsurprised by the stupidity demonstrated by "management".

And now, decades later (yes, I'm ancient) well... here's the situtation:

High level managers at important institutions are... special. They're responsible for making decisions on such a wide variety of topics that they can't possible understand them all in depth. Meanwhile, in order to get at the top and stay at the top, they've had to dedicate 110% of their attention and brainpower on corporate/government politics and, if they're a true genius luminary they might have the brain power to understand one thing specific to the institution they manage. After that they've got nothing left for making important decisions.

And yet, sometimes an external event forces them to make one of these important decisions.

For example, let's say that you're a top level manager at a company that sells a leading brand of razors. And then recently, to great fanfare, released an Ad that is very opinionated about masculinity. Unfortunately, your customer base absolutely hated it and because you're a completely idiotic manager, you don't have the faintest idea as to why (it was filled to the brim with misandrist rhetoric).

So you read a book with solid academic credentials on the subject, then you hire expensive well reputed consultants to tell you what to think. Provided of course that they don't contradict what you've read in that book and obvious prevailing popular beliefs. You're a not a TOTAL idiot after all (yes you are).

So basically, if business intelligentsia and popular awareness is based on a misandrist ideology, the institutional manager's reaction will be to minimize and sweep under the rug.

If on the other hand if business intelligentsia and popular awareness is based on an egalitarian anti-misandrist ideology, the institutional manager's reaction will be to retract, apologize and course correct.

We've got a loooooonng way to go before we get here. But when get there, then the goal will be to launch boycotts, protests and vote. These will create pressure events that decision makers will be forced to respond to by moving things in the right direction.

And even then, there will still be one more battle, a little I like call:

Bureaucracy

Decision makers make grand statements, but they don't do shit. Eventually someone's got to do the actual work. And if that someone got indoctrinated by an ideology when they were 10 years old. They might keep operating based on that ideology right up until they drop dead at 85 years old, because they really believe in their work. Despite efforts by decision makers to change how they work, they'll always try to align what they do with their ideology as much as they can.

This also applies to decision makers. To a significant extant, decision maker's decisions are forced. If they failed to make the "correct" decision they get replaced (voted out, assassinated, bankrupted, etc...) But they still have some leeway so progress can be slow when the decision maker is tied to an opposite ideology.

I think slow to update bureaucracy is really good because it helps egalitarian principles to win out over time. I believe it's why people like r/MRA_TitleIX is still able to use TitleIX to fight against misandry despite the obvious influence of misandrist ideology in its construction.

​

So, in conclusion:

This is at least 90% speculative. I don't read books. I should. But I'm lazy. According to this roadmap, we ARE making progress. Actual results will be slow to come but once they do start coming we'll make a lot of progress quickly, but there's still going to be residuals for decades maybe even centuries.

Also, there's an ENTIRE discussion to be had about building an ideological framework that is properly egalitarian, not just egalitarian anti-misandry. We don't want to turn into gender swapped feminists after all. But I also think that there's good reason to remain somewhat insular in the near future. But the time when that will have to change is coming really soon.