Why Don't Men March?

StudentOfTheTruth0 · 2021-07-26T07:39:54+00:00

Public political protest marches can be a very effective tool to demand and enact social change. Just as the feminists do it, who are the best proof. Feminism...

[–]streetsweep22 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Comfortable_Ad_574 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The current media, the current old-regime media, is in their hands and they control it. But the media wasn't always feminist. When feminists first started making noises they were mocked and attacked too. But the media turned around as the feminists became more and more powerful. Now they fully control it.

The idea is that we start small but push relentlessly. Even a small event puts out a seed that something is wrong with how men are treated in this society. As more and more events proliferate, more and more awareness builds up, and the current old-regime media "narrative" about "poor oppressed women" and "male privilege" and crap like that begins to be more and more questioned and hotly debated. Eventually it gets discredited entirely and regime change follows. That's how feminists did it and that's how all social change starts. AGAINST the old-regime media and its old-regime notions. The media is always in favor of the status quo but never prevented social change to happen as long as there were relentless activists and rebels against the status quo.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those are just examples to make a point. The most recent history that we need to study is the history of feminism and how they took over the government. In particular, physical presence is crucial. The got in power by constant marching, protesting, disturbing public order, harassing onlookers and sure they got all the media attention.

The lesson from the Arab Spring, Maidan Square and Hong Kong is exactly that social media presence is nothing, physical presence is everything, and social media's role is to organize and coordinate live events.

The most recent history we have to study is exactly feminism's history. They know perfectly well, as should we, that you cannot enact social change by sitting at home and posting on social media. Media attention requires physical presence. Hence the most recent "pussy hat marches". Despite having won, they go all out, as provocatively as possible, exactly to make the impact they want to make. And boy, did they make an impact (feminists in general). We are paying the price of it now.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism cleverly employed the traditional gender roles. "Women complaining about not being treated right" is perceived very differently from "men complaining about not being treated right". The former directly plays into / in line with traditional gender roles, the latter goes 180 degrees against it, which yields an aversive response from the general public.

That's why copying their recipes won't work. You need to shift the underlying perceptions and values first. Doing that is a long slow process and public protests don't help it, quite the contrary in this day and age.

Essentially, feminism was running through an open door (that had been opened by technological innovation). Their demands were to "update the culture" to adjust to the new reality established by technological change. Which would have happend anyway, albeight more slowly and organicly without their protests.

The Pussy Hat and MeToo marches were political campaigns orchestrated by the Democrat party and their affiliated organisations to get the Republicans (i.e. Trump) out of the White House. Those were top down astroturf campaigns, not a bottom up social movement. see also fortifying the election

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The current feminist governmental regime is oppressive, everywhere. So they oppress. In other words they "shut down" any dissent. That's why they are called oppressors.

Now, when a portion of the population is oppressed then then task is to rebel against the oppressors. Yes, three times as many feminist oppressors show up - initially. But social change starts in small steps. Even when you are initially outnumbered and outgunned, you keep pushing. Initially the feminists protests were small in numbers, too. But you keep pushing and building awareness that something is very wrong about the way men are treated in this society, and as the awareness spreads the old-regime feminist "narrative" gets more and more questioned and debated until it gets completely discredited. Then we win and social change takes place.

The real question is WHY were so few men out there, so that they could get outnumbered by feminist counter-protesters? May I kindly ask why you were "dying inside" watching TV, instead of being out there, with the MRA protesters? If twice as many men and women MRAs went out to support the protest instead of sitting at home in front of the TV, they wouldn't have been outnumbered 3 to 1.

Yes, you actually have to do something if you want social change. Instead of "dying inside" you have to go outside. Just a thought.

[–]streetsweep22 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]streetsweep22 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZS_1171 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cindylynn43 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cindylynn43 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cindylynn43 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unjustexistence 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If feminists had worried about their initially small numbers and the hostility and mocking from the press they received at the time they would have gotten nowhere.

But did they stop (or not even start) their protests and marches just because of the chance of a "bad press"? Not the least. With every social change when you are on the right side of history such things will change and work themselves out. The feminists said "to the hell with them" about conservative commentators at the time who warned about feminist excess to come. Now look how they are the oppressors and tyrants.

That exact attitude is what men need today. One, say "to hell with the f*cking feminist oppressors and their f*king feminist media". I will fight them tooth and nail, let the sky fall. Two, men need to think of themselves as a COLLECTIVE, just like women and feminists do. WE MEN ARE IN THIS ALL TOGETHER. That's all that counts. ONE MEN FOR ALL, ALL MEN FOR ONE. Say in their face how much you hate them. Take that, feminist fascist. Radicalize yourself and radicalize each other. Bring it on, let's the fight start. F*ck their media. To the barricades.

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

First of all, men ARE oppressed:

95% of the homeless are men, there are 2000+ women only shelters for that 5% and 0 (zero) men-only shelters for the 95%, 94% of workplace fatalities are men (because nobody cares of spends money or men's workplace issues and safety), men are only 40% of college students, among others because we run affirmative action FOR THE MAJORITY and against a small and shrinking MINORITY), men live 6 years shorter lives (because the vast majority of healthcare resources and research money is spent on them despite living 6 years longer already, 80% of divorces are file and won by women, men lose custody in 78 percent of the cases, men are half (or more, due to underreporting) of the victims of domestic violence yet they are automatically arrested, no matter how much bleeding and wounded, slightly more men than women are raped every year in the US alone if you properly count "made to penetrate" and prison rape as part of the number, 75-80% of violent crime is directed at men, so women are literally 4-5 times SAFER than men, walking down the street but look at their hysteria and the list just goes on and on and on.

So firstly, how about that you educate yourself a little about reality before making stupid summary statements that "men are not oppressed".

Second, what forms in-group preference is shared suffering. So rest assured, keep doing what you (feminists and the government they appropriated) and men WILL form an in-group preference.

Here is some initial evidence: MGTOW. Look it up.

What is true that men's stupid chivalry and out-group preference is a no longer functional evolutionary product. The fact that women / feminists so
ruthlessly, shamelessly and intentionally exploit this structural disadvantage of men says one thing about (most) women: they don't have any moral compass whatsoever. They are cruel, brutal, abusive sadists and oppressors, except the VERY few woman MRAs and MRA supporters. This much is perfectly clear - and that's why they cannot be trusted with political power.

The other thing is that men can and will overcome this biological handicap once it is pointed out to them enough. MGTOW is one early show about what men look like when they completely disassociate themselves from women. More is to follow.

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You are NOT and MRA. In my short experience with you, you are simply a feminist troll and infiltrator here whose goal is to spread feminist propaganda and ridiculous attempts to defend the indefensible when it is committed by women and feminists.

Look, it is totally irrelevant how may times you heard the truth. It still remains the truth.

That you don't want to admit the truth just shows that you are completely controlled by your ideology. Here is an old saying:

If the truth hurts, you are living a lie.

Ponder that.

What "connotations" a word carries and what is harsh or harsher is totally subjective. Your "disadvantaged" is my "discrimination", "injustice", "unfairness", "oppression" and even ...

Ready for this?

Genocide.

Or gendercide.

See, to maintain the 6 years life expectancy difference, given that about the same number of boys and girls are born, it takes about 400 - 500 thousand men and boys to die totally preventable, avoidable, unnecessary and early deaths that are caused NOT BY BIOLOGY, but have purely societal reasons. Exactly like the statistics that you so dislike. Like, yeah, if you are homeless for long, you die. Yeah, if you die at the workplace because nobody gives a damn and spends on your workplace safety, so you are 94% of the workplace fatalities, you die. Yeah, if the overwhelming majority of health care spending and research money is spent on the other group that already lives 6 years longer, you die. If you can't get a decent education any more because of your gender, you are only 40% of college students because of you gender, so you have no future, no perspective of a good life, no hope, yeah, you die. If you commit 75% of suicides as a result of all of the above, you die. If 80% of violent crime is directed at you, so that women are 4 times safer to walk down a street, you die. The gap is also not caused by biology but is purely societal because up until 1840, men and women had the exact same life expectancy in the US. Look it up.

The net result is that 6 million men and boys die unnecessarily a year, purely due to feminist practices and public policies in every 12 to 15 years. That is as much as the Jews killed by Adolf Hitler, total. A new Adolf Hitler effect happens in this country alone every 12 to 15 years.

That is genocide and gendercide.

So feminism is also a mass-murderous, genocidal and thus purely fascist movement and political force. Its hands are dripping with the blood of millions.

So subjective "connotations" and "harshness levels" aside, these facts are the cold hard truths, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DISLIKE THEM.

Now, Trillias, fake MRA, here is the rub. Why exactly are you on this subreddit? If you are a feminist and an enemy of men's rights, this is not the place for you, you see. Why don't you just go back to your natural habitat at FDS or TwoX or whatever feminist hellhole you prefer. But this kind of trolling by an enemy of men's rights is not welcome here, you should have figured that much out already. Just go away and don't come back.

Have a good day otherwise.

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Run that by me again, "Fake MRA?"

Who?

Buddy, my first comment on this subreddit is older than your reddit account. I honestly don't even know how to respond to someone so extreme, I don't even think you would take my response seriously. I could point out that my comment history is readily available and you can see years of my comments demonstrating clearly that the very last thing I could reasonably called is a feminist, but that would make sense. Maybe I'm being unfair and you would actually reconsider all the weird nonsense you spewed all over the place in your little conniption, but someone who has to stoop to the level of calling someone a fake MRA probably won't care.

I'm not interested in proving my virtue, as it were. But all those facts you mentioned, not only was I already aware of them, I've used them in arguments with feminists, so whats the basis behind you accusing me of being hurt by them? As unfair as things might often be for men, they aren't as bad as slavery, or Jim Crow, or the Rwandan genocide, or any number of things that actually count as oppression and genocide. It is possible for things to be horribly unjust while not quite being brutal enough to be considered oppression. You aren't really helping anyone, and certainly not the MRM by sounding like an unhinged extremist. Maybe you're fine with that, and maybe you want people to think that MRAs have no sense of perspective and are wildly hyperbolic, but as a "fake MRA," that isn't what I want.

Side note, I was also called a "fake gay" the other month. I don't know what it is with you people, but I find it all very amusing, so keep it up.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

How old your first reddit comment is is completely irrelevant to the topic, and doesn't make any of your claims true.
This is a meaningless debate about shades, grades and nuances. Like how you define oppression vs. how I define it. De gustibus non est disputandum, as Cicero said. About matters of taste there should be no debate. OK, your view is your view, but I don't need to wait for some sort of Rwandan genocide to happen here before I panic about what's going on, and consider it oppression. Yeah, we have different opinions.
How many times you heard some data is also irrelevant to this debate. The goal is that society hears it at least ONCE, and does something about it.

BTW, I never called you "fake MRA". I simply stated that when you wrote of yourself as an MRA, I didn't consider it true because, in my view, anyway, you didn't sound like one. In your first sentence you summarily stated that "First of all, men are not oppressed" as if your view were some kind of revealed truth. No, it is not, and people can judge what constitutes oppression differently. All the facts I cited contribute to 4-500,000 men and boys dying a year from perfectly preventable, unnecessary and early deaths, compared to women. From purely societal reasons, like being long term homeless, dying on the job, not getting a decent education nor a college degree, suicide and on and on. That many unnecessary deaths combine to about 6 million deaths every 12-15 years. As much as the Jews killed by Hitler, total. A new Adolf Hitler effect every 12-15 years, due to feminist practices, feminist public policies, political preferences, lack of support, help and medical care. In just one country. To me, personally, 6 million deaths in every 12-15 years IS genocide. And genocides are committed by oppressors - just the nature of these things.

This is just a silent genocide, not the noisy, media-grabbing, dramatizable, TV-ready genocides that they put on the news. Mostly, because it happens here, and they don't want to know it, don't want to talk about it.

Then you come in and announce from a high podium, condescendingly, as if talking to little children, that "First of all, men are not oppressed." Got it, you little stupid cabbage patch dolls? Well, that's only YOUR view, your view is not "first of all" to me and it is far from obvious to me, even if it is to you.

In a debate like this, this kind of categorical announcements, announced this condescendinlgy, is exactly what the feminist trolls make, who infiltrate here. So this and much else you write sound like you are arguing the feminist troll point of view, not the MRA point of view.

As for labeling, calling me an "extremist" or "unhinged" are also completely subjective. I consider myself simply factual, you yourself didn't dispute any of my facts or had your own facts. Including the 12-15 year Adolf Hitler-style 6 million deaths. No debate on any on that, only labels and condescension thrown at me. You descended into name calling, not me. The "you are not an MRA" statement, that I wrote wasn't labeling, unlike the "extremist" and "unhinged" stuff, only my view that you sounded, for the most part, the opposite of an MRA. Regardless of your tenure on Reddit.

Anyhow, by the sound of it you are stubborn enough that you won't change of your views, no matter what data I or anybody bring in, and have a hypersensitive ego that gets offended by every little dissent. That matches the spirit of the times, this is the age of offense taking. Everything is appropriation, everything is microaggression or what the crap they call these things. My only problem is that this type of "how dare you say that????" hypersensitivity is usually reserved for feminists and wokes, not MRAs. Just saying.

I think enough is said, by both of us, I am kinda getting out of this ego-driven conversation because I have some men's rights to save, sorry, I am busy with that. Good night and good luck.

[–]willbeonekenobi 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]unjustexistence 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Comfortable_Ad_574 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LastRounder 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LastRounder 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

For several reasons,I belive.

Firstly, boiling point is still faraway to reach.

Secondly, modern western people are to passive mostly.

And, last but not least, huge part of MRA vs Femz war is waged online. And, well, it is not too concerning for commoners. To say more precise, but more rude, noone is giving a shit IRL about this all.

And, BTW, women were not opressed in 70-80th. They lacked several things, plus were not taken seriously often (wich strongly depends on particular woman), but they were not opressed.

Opression is literal slavery, apartheid, and that grade of things. Blacks were opressed, slaves in ancient Rome were opressed. Native Americans were opressed. Women were not opressed. Men are not opressed.

Do men have huge problems, demanding movement about it? Shure.

But please, do not turn "opression" into a meaningless buzzword akin to "rape", yes.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LastRounder 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LastRounder 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

full agreement. A protest/demonstration won't achieve that though.

If you want to be effective in today's media environment, you need to come up with creative protest forms.

Think of the guy who climbed public buildings wearing super hero costumes to raise awareness for the unfair treatment of fathers during devorce.

That's the kind of stuff that is effective in today's media driven environment.

Protests are only effective if you have the MSM on your side already. Just compare the various "right wing" protests in the US and Europe during the Trump era with the BLM and Climate Strike protests.

In today's environment protests are a tool useful only in the late stages of social change. We aren't at that stage yet and thus using that tool would not merely be ineffective, it would be counter productive.

[–]LastRounder 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZS_1171 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am afraid of feminist bullies, just like of any bullies who capture and hijack the government to oppress others. It is of course not feminists themselves who are the dangers, but the government that they captured and that is on their side. Trust me, a group of men can take care of group of uppity insane females, physically speaking. But when the government is on the side of a bullying tyrannical group then we have a big, big problem. That happened in the thirties when a group of antisemitic bullies took over a government and then they used the government's power apparatus to attack the victims. That is going on now with these domestic terrorists called "feminists". Yes, scary. And yes, this must be stopped once and for all, using any necessary legal means.

As for "adorable", go and f*ck yourself, sweetie.

[–]LastRounder 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am afraid of feminist bullies, just like of any bullies who capture and hijack the government to oppress others.

Talk was about street marches, not wining elections. So, If you are afraid of physical violence from bunch of screeching women, than you should quite this community, because you do not have balls in your pants. And don't even start "you don't have to be male to be MRA" song, wimp.

Derailing argument to government shit won't solve your problems.

That happened in the thirties when a group of antisemitic bullies took over a government and then they used the government's power apparatus to attack the victims.

Yeah, yeah, literally Hitler. Irrelevant.

BTW, those jews,who were pussies, like you, ended up as a pile of ashes in concentration camps crematoriums.

Those, who had balls, survived, created Israel and now prospering even being surrounded by enemies from all sides.

See the real lesson in history about Hitler and jews?

Yes, scary. And yes, this must be stopped once and for all, using any necessary legal means.

Legal and illegal, if needed. I do not understand you, western guys. Are you so powerless or what? Regimes may be changed, governments overthrown. Good old riots are reliable way to do that. You all the way talk about democracy freedom and other shit. But I do not recall any politically meaningfull demonstration of will to follow this ideals.

In 2014 when in my country though ideals were violated, people went on the streets and made things right. I was among that people, a 24 y.o youth back than with zero experience of such events, a bit of medical cnowledge, but I had courage to do what had to be done.

But you? You just lament,preach and talk talk talk. Goddammit, how can't you understand, that sometimes talking does not work. That legal means are sometimes not enough. That system was originally created to serve people, not people are here to serve the system.

Either you finally do something about all your western problems with fems, sjw, Russia intervention to your election process and all that shit, or just admit that you are okay to be a slave of system, and close the discussion.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree with you, except one thing.

I am dying to find out the country your live in. Is it Ukraine?

Surprise: I am also an immigrant from East-Central Europe and that is one of the reasons I am a lot more fiery than these Western guys with zero balls.

So I totally agree with you with one exception. The exception is the use of street violence. The police will overpower it and it will be used as an excuse to pass even more draconian anti-male measures and laws. Look how the feminists and wokes are weaponizing the Jan. 6 protests to rein in men, especially white men, even more and more, increase their oppression and give themselves even more power. So street violence will backfire, at least in the West. Moreover, the feminists never used street violence on a large scare and yet took complete power. We can and must achieve regime change peacefully, like they did. Their primary weapon is propaganda and we just have be better at it then they are.

Also, I am not "afraid" of a bunch of screeching women, what I am afraid of is the government behind them that they took over and appropriated. The government's powers are carried out by men, unfortunately, like the police that is mostly men. Sad that men are capable of betraying their fellow men, serving their feminist oppressors, but we men lack any collective thinking and that must change. Policemen should simply go on strike and refuse to arrest abused men on the orders of female judges and such. But it is going to take time, to get there.

As for "adorable" the reason I objected is that it sounds like the typical man-hating feminist mocking, condescending and shaming language that I absolutely don't tolerate from any feminist monster.

Sorry about any offence there, I just retribute for any feminist insult, on the spot, brutally. The feminists are not going to f*ck with ME, that's for sure.

Otherwise go for it bro, I also cannot stand the idiocy and cowardice of Western men. If they remain such cowards forever then they do deserve what is done to them, they can only blame themselves. Maybe Western men are just born slaves, in which case they just deserve it.

[–]LastRounder 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am dying to find out the country your live in. Is it Ukraine?

It is.

Surprise: I am also an immigrant from East-Central Europe and that is one of the reasons I am a lot more fiery than these Western guys with zero balls.

Seems like we share that trait. Also, westerners too long lived like there us nothing to worry about. And also they have not seen what happens when people, who claim to be "for equality, justice and all good things for all" really get to power. 70 years of one of the most opressive regimes ever, that what happens. Mass murders, entire nations relocation, world War, hunger and all other "pretty things". They have not seen this,so thay still think that type of political alignment is harmless.

The police will overpower it and it will be used as an excuse to pass even more draconian anti-male measures and laws. Look how the feminists and wokes are weapon

That depends on a scale of riots. Police is not omnipotent too. Of course there will be blood, but, looks like people never appreciate freedom until it is gained this way. Some things seem to demand human sacrifices. That's really shitty thing, as an ex-military paramedic, I know the price far too well. But looks like it is how world works. Sad but true.

Sad that men are capable of betraying their fellow men, serving their feminist oppressors, but we men lack any collective thinking and that must change. Policemen should simply go on strike and refuse to arrest abused men on the orders of female judges and such. But it is going to take time, to get there.

Well, betrayal or not. Thing is that we are mostly not so empathetic to each other,as women. But, I think, problem is not that men betraying men, but rather in corruption, greed and short-sightness. Sometimes you have to apply unpopular decisions for the future.

Looking on a situation with that Russian-German gas pipe, modern Western leaders are both greedy and short-sighted. And full of hyppcricy. Wich is the most sad thing for the West.

As for "adorable" the reason I objected is that it sounds like the typical man-hating feminist mocking, condescending and shaming language that I absolutely don't tolerate from any feminist monster.

Dude, that was just a provocation and an amusing attempt to shame somebody into action. Do not take it to serious. Altho, who knows what happens. I do not appreciate Breivck, but he managed to do all that shit alone. So even one person can make a difference, if has enough motivation.

Otherwise go for it bro, I also cannot stand the idiocy and cowardice of Western men. If they remain such cowards forever then they do deserve what is done to them, they can only blame themselves. Maybe Western men are just born slaves, in which case they just deserve it.

True enough. It is strange to observe, how powerfull nations, that gave birth to world-spanning empires in the past now degrade to what we see today. That is in the same time pathetic and pitifull. And evokes genuine sorrow sometimes.

Well, I am currently concerned mostly about situation in my country, and we have now far more important problems than feminism. That's why it is virtually non-existant here. I mean, there are some organisations and some people calling themselfs feminists, but that is mostly marginal cargo-cult.

And they have zero representation in parliament. And hardly ever will, because of mainstream political vector here being moderate right, as alvays.

Plus any commie-like and nazi-like ideologies are officially outlawed since 2014, so if you say something too marxist-/commie-like here, you will have trouble. And feminist ideology can be seen as derivative of marxism, no matter is it really so or just seem to be.

So I am mostly satisfied with state of affairs here.

What I really do not like, is, that, if West continue current pro-leftist/feminist/sjw/whatever course, than it inevitably will end up in some huge economical fuck up, wich, due to globalized economics will be felt even here.

Plus, from political view, the more right West gets, the better, because Russia and all.

So femz are part of possible problems.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are totally right, every single word is true. Absolutely, the West's problem is that it is overtaken by neo-Marxist and neo-Communist ideologies and it is heading in the direction of a totalitarian neo-Marxist regime. You and I know what happens next, but these Western guys are totally clueless. They don't believe it can get that bad here. Too bad that's how Hitler came in power in Germany, nobody took him seriously initially. Although at the time Germany had only two choices, Communism or Nazism. With Stalin being there, Communism could have easily meant the end of Europe. Hitler pretty much meant and did the same but maybe Stalin would have been worse, who knows.

I want to return to the East-Central European region from here, the US, because there still are some sane, anti-Communist and anti-Fascist countries there. The reason I cannot go yet is that I have a wife here who is in poor health and I need to take care of her. She would under no circumstances leave the US at her age.

But I have one big worry:

Even if the countries in the region are sane now, the Western neo-Marxist brain disease, in the form of its current manifestations as Feminism and Wokeism, can break still break in. My country is an EU member but is till holding out. But it might take one election, a Socialist type government comes in, they open the borders for millions of immigrants and GAME OVER.

How do we prevent that?

[–]LastRounder 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, they both were on one side till it was convenient. Stalin planned to attack Hitler first, Adolf just was faster.

Oh, sorry for your situation. Hope she will get well.

As for myself, I have chosen Ukraine, because after revolution I finally felt ready to start a family. And here, you maybe do not get luxuries of USA or West, but still have kinda healthy surroundings, wich is absorbing western things without woke bullshit. Like fighting corruption, reforming economics and all, but without rabid left ideas. That's aside UA being my fatherland, ofc.

Even if the countries in the region are sane now, the Western neo-Marxist brain disease, in the form of its current manifestations as Feminism and Wokeism, can break still break in. My country is an EU member but is till holding out. But it might take one election, a Socialist type government comes in, they open the borders for millions of immigrants and GAME OVER.

Well, most of socialist politicians are not too God in anything but jabbering, and pandemic times need effective management. Plus, whole trend after Brexit and quarrels between leaders about wether help or not hard hit countries like Italy, plus this week Poland accused Germany of putting own interest before EU as whole, I do not think that left-leaning rhetoric will be popular in Europe in next 5-10 years. Rather opposite, more self-contented course will be on due.

And about Ukraine. Well, I'd like to see us in Athlantic Aliance, but not in European Union. Be an associate, adopt some ussefull things, have visa-less pass and have new markets and customers to trade with - perfectly fine. But being part of that hypocritical insanity is not much better, than be under Russia. Bot options are unacceptable.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Far from it. You damned only if you don't. Then you can blame only yourself for your misery, oppression, suffering and suicide.

Sorry about this repeat but this "we work x hours" and "more feminists will show up" talk is entirely ridiculous.

That's like saying the French or American Revolutions shouldn't have happened because the revolutionaries worked 6 days a week and had no time to rebel. This is laughable. A revolution can even be introduced by a general strike (men not going to work, that will shake this whole rotten system to begin with) and then go to the streets. Employers who carry out feminist policies like quotas and hiring preferences themselves are part of the problem and need to be attacked, not worried about whether they will dock our pay if we don't show up, due to carrying out a revolution.

Secondly, about more feminists will show up. Did the feminist worry about their initially small numbers and the chance of a "bad press" (which they received)? Not the least. They just kept pushing. As the awareness about their demands spread, public discourse changed and soon, buoyed by these initial successes, more and more feminists were made and more and more started showing up until their numbers became overwhelming.

Same for us. We need to do the exact same. First, say "to hell with the feminist oppressors and with their f*cking media", I will fight them tooth and nail, may the sky fall. Second, say your hatred of them in their face, publicly and on the media. Challenge them at every turn and fight them with fire in the belly. As awareness spreads that something is very wrong with how men are treated in this society, their narrative gets more and more questioned and debated, until it gets discredited altogether and then legislative action follows and social change takes place. Initial successes in these publicity wars will wake up and activate more and more men and they will show up. As the feminists get discredited, less and less women will show up on their side. Soon, our numbers will overwhelm them. That's how you do it.

But if you start with "damned if I do" then forget about it. But you yourself defeated yourself and the rest of us with that.

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's no excuse. We can march on a weekend. The feminists never stopped marching because of "lack of time". They MADE time for it. Civil rights marches also took place as black activists pushed and they MADE time for their marches. All of them fully used the weekends. Weekend means more viewers on TV.

It is like saying the Founding Fathers were too busy working, so sorry, no revolution will take place due to lack of time, and we are still a British colony.

This is just laughable excuse making IMHO. If that's the attitude then all men remain slaves forever. What we need is not being busy working and excuse making, but STOP working and start a GENERAL STRIKE (trust me that will give the system a shock) and then march.

Instead of excuse making for why it is NOT happening, let's start organizing it. A weekend would be just fine.

[–]Bowlnk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Toasty_Weeb 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Read the above comments by others. When feminists first started making noises they were first laughed at, too. That didn't prevent them from radicalizing each other more and more and getting hysterical and hateful more and more. They kept going at it. Now look what's going on now against men. When you start an uprising you cannot be timid. Like "OMG, I will be called a misogynist, the sky is falling!" Kidding me? The whole "misogynist" thing is their invention like all their other shaming language used to humiliate, traumatize and harm men and oppress men. That should be the last worry what THEY call us. Or that they will bully us? What's new? That's exactly what is going on now. It's exactly their bullying we must fight, that is exactly the problem. So men just need to go ahead and use absolutely every and all legal means to end our oppression. Here: if they call me "misogynist" which I am not (this is not about hating women but about ending feminist tyranny) then my answer is that they are fascist, which they are. Now, to the barricades.

[–]Toasty_Weeb 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BloodyTamponExtracto 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Toasty_Weeb 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Toasty_Weeb 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revolutionary_Apple6 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AKfishon 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psuedoscientist500 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

The media is THEIR tool, currently. That much is clear. But the "media" in the Ancient Regime in France was also on the King's side. And the British media was on the King's side during the American Revolution, too. Yet those revolution happened - against the media. Same here. A big part of the fight is about discrediting and removing the old-regime media.

A valid further questions is WHY is the media on the feminist side. It wasn't always feminist. But it turned around as the feminists became more and more powerful with their "protests". No revolution succeeds if the goal is to please the enemy's media. The idea is that we have to start small, but even a small event puts out the seed that something is wrong about the way men are treated in this society. You keep pushing and pushing and more and more awareness will build until the whole current "narrative" about the "poor oppressed women" and the "patriarchy that oppresses them" will be widely questioned and hotly debated. That's how feminists did it, too. In short, you simply force the media to change its tune because we are getting more and more powerful and the feminist side more and more discredited so the media will run from them. That's how you enact social change.

[–]Bara-enthusiast 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The french revolution was largely fought through media BEFORE any demonstrations happend. The revolutionaries spend considerable amounts of time & money to produce printed leaflets, pamphlets and newspapers. Thereby the shifted public opinion (often using lies) against the king.

The demonstrations and public uprisings happend when material devastation (lack of food) and government repression met a population that had been (for the lack of a better word) thoroghly indoctrinated against the monarchy.

The same goes with the American revolution. Long before the Boston Tea Party (and the resulting revolutionary war), the people in the colonies started to produce their own media and built social networks to distribute them.

In summary: Studying these two events carefully, we learn that widespread public awareness and support preceeded the "physical" events in both these cases.

We simply aren't anywhere near the stage where public protests would make sense. Additionally, the times are fundamentally different. Recipies from the past must be adapted. Back in the days there was no internet and thus demonstrations where a means to spread awareness, today this is neither the case nor neccessary. If you want to spread awareness, produce memes that go viral on social media.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Every revolution was also a propaganda war. So will be this.

What I disagree with, is that all this will be resolved in the social media, and that's all that is needed. Quite the opposite is true. Social media often worked to organize and coordinate the "physical" (not violent) events. Like the uprising in Egypt some years ago was all coordinated on social media. But it was the produce the event, not instead of it. So studying history is very important but all the worldwide protests e.g. in 2014 were all social media initiated, organized and coordinated. That's much more recent memory than the others that I only used for example's sake. Many things are different today.

What is also much more recent history than the French or American Revolutions, is the history of feminism. What it teaches us that yes, physical presence is vital. That's how they achieved their power. Being out there all the time, protesting, screeching, disturbing and in the process get all the media attention.

Their "pussy hat marches" and "#MeToo" marches very much happened in the age of the Internet and are very, very recent history to learn from. Even they know that physical presence, marching and protesting are vital. You will get no media attention for simply being on social media. No attention means no impact, there will be no social change.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your elaborate response.

The point that I inaptly tried to convey was that social change (whether revolutionary or evolutionary) happens in distinct phases.

Roughly speaking, the first phase is the awareness phase during which one needs to bring awareness about the cause to as many members of the public as possible. In the past, protests were a useful tool in that phase, since the means of information spreading were very limited. In today’s day and age this has changed. This is what I was referring to in the last paragraph of my previous post.

The next phase is the personal affected ness phase during which you need to convey to people how they are personally affected by the issue. In this phase you need to build widespread support for the issue that you brought to poeple’s awareness in the previous phase.

The third phase is the “effect change” phase. In this phase you employ the support you have built to facilitate institutional change. Now public protests make sense, since you already have widespread support and thus your protest will be received positely by the general public, which tilts the media, which tilts the relevant institutions or forces them into violent repression which ultimately delegitimizes them.

The MRM is currently in late phase 1 / early phase 2. At this stage public protests don’t make strategic sense. That was the point, I was trying to convey.

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My most sober and realistic estimation is that to maintain the life expectancy gap of men dying 6 years sooner than women on average takes about 400,000 to 500,000 completely preventable, avoidable, unnecessarily and early deaths of men and boys every single year just in this country.

That's about 6 million men and boys dying every 12 to 15 years. That is the some number as the Jews killed by Hitler, total.

So feminism is a mass-murderous, genocidal and gendercidal political force and movement whose hands are dripping with the blood of millions. It is like bringing in a new Adolf Hitler effect every 12 to 15 years, in this country alone. Feminism is pure fascism.

What my most sober and realistic estimation does not tell me, however, is how many more millions of American men and boys need to die, and how much more American men need to suffer before something changes this fascist regime. 2 - 3 generations? If a generation is, say, 30 years, that's 90 years and that's at least 4 more Adolf Hitler effects, to the tune of 24 million dead.

Are American men really this stupid and this suicidal (and allowing the murdering of their own sons)? It is beyond belief if you ask me. But go, ahead, American men, go and die. (I am and immigrant from East-Central Europe and an observer here).

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DatEdgyFailure 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DatEdgyFailure 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]power_forward87 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why Don't Men March?
Author	StudentOfTheTruth0
Upvotes	44
Comments	96
Date	July 26, 2021 7:39 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ortz4s/why_dont_men_march/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-dont-men-march.823593 https://theredarchive.com/post/823593

Comments