God Created Twitter to Train the Faithful.

No. 8: On the Difference Between men’s Rights and the Rights of Man

  • Kantbot

  • January 22, 2014

/r/Mensrights is home to two distinct “movements” “Men’s Rights”, and “men’s Rights”. Men’s Rights is anti-Feminist, men’s rights isn’t, that is, capital-M “Men’s Rights” vs. lower-case-m “men’s Rights”. This is the fundamental distinction that needs to be drawn, the two-fold nature or tension present at the heart of the entire thing, it’s the cause of all the disagreement and haranguing about this, and if anything, at the present moment, this is not only a men’s rights issue, but the issue facing the whole “movement”.

“men’s Rights”, little-m, is a social justice “movement” that seeks to insert itself into the existing firmament of social justice “movements”, to take its rightful place among them, to make men into another group oppressed by “Capitalism”/”Patriarchy”/etc. “men’s Rights” is about turning men into victims. Period. As the proletariat has the bourgeois, women have men, sexual minorities have straight people, gender minorities have cis-people, racial minorities have “white people”, Islam has Christianity etc. These social justice causes are Marxist derivatives, which is why it feels so much like “Cis” is a pejorative term and not simply a innocent, taxonomic category like some would have you believe. But who do men have? That’s where things get interesting.

There’s been this insidious transvaluation of values that’s occurred since the 1960s and the beginning of the so-called “New” Left. Being a victim, being oppressed, being marginalized, those things have become desirable characteristics to possess, they confer social and political benefits in the same way that we’re told being white once did. This is why, when you go to TiA, you see so many young people flailing around trying to create minority identities for themselves, because the minority is the new majority. Let me repeat that:

The minority is the majority.

Neo-Marxism is predicated upon a rhetoric of revolution, of putting itself into a position of rebelling, of rising up and overthrowing an establishment class of rulers, and they did, and America is, culturally, Neo-Marxist, economically socialist, and politically fascist, and the oppressed have become the oppressors, while the whole time slyly masking their take-over behind a language of racial and gender grievance. “Intersectionality”, that is, the mutual understanding between the different branches of Neo-Marxism (Feminism, Post-Colonialism, Queer Theory, etc.), has created a single oppressor identity, the Straight, White, Western European, Christian, Bourgeois, Adult, Cis, Able, Psychologically “Normal”, Thin Male.

Where is there even one person who falls into that group though? The oppressor identity, in reality, is completely and utterly empty, Neo-Marxist “theories” have become so granular, and particularized identity so badly that there’s noone left who isn’t part of a minority. In our “Society” we are a majority of minorities all revolting against a group of people that we’re all a part of. The actuality of it is becoming completely unhinged, it’s collapsing, falling apart into a dross of infinite, nonsensical subjectivity.

The word describing this new state is “Post-Modernism”.

“men”, the “men” that “men’s Rights” (little-m mind you) serves, they’ll never be allowed into Social Justice club, because intellectually that would be to finally admit defeat, to uncouple Marxism completely from objective actuality and put the entire burden of the oppressor role unto a non-existent hypostasis. “men’s Rights” is a waste of time, an oxymoron honestly within the wider world of Social Justice. To admit men to the oppressed would be destroy the entire ideology that allows Social Justice grievance groups to exist. It would be the end of Neo-Marxist Social Justice as an intellectual position.

“Men’s Rights”, capital-M, is about a solution to the philosophical problem of Modernity. The difference is between men and Man, as in Hu-Man. Post-Modernism is, intellectually, a very similar problem to the one that came at the end of the Enlightenment, the crisis of European sentimentality, the collapse of Rationalism. “Men’s Rights” is a rejection of Social Justice, of Feminism, of Subjectivism, and of Neo-Marxism. It doesn’t seek to place men within the fabric of oppressed peoples, but elevate all of Humanity out of Post-Modernism.

That’s the difference, that’s the distinction, the antagonism at the core of this sub. There are soft-Feminists, Leftists, and Neo-Marxist ideologues here that want men to become another minority, and then there are those of us who are here to completely dismantle Neo-Marxist identity politics intellectually. I completely reject the mRA, I’m not a part of it, I don’t identify as an mRA and I never will. I will never consent to the mRA claiming to speak for me or representing me politically. Ever. I am an MRA and I have nothing but contempt for this sub so far as it’s about the mRA. Whether or not the distinction is commonly recognized it exists all the same, and MensRights will diverge in these two different directions given enough time, at which point the MRAs will completely divorce themselves from the mRA once and for all and be done with them.

Leave a Reply

God Created Twitter to Train the Faithful.