Why MRAs are whiny mangina losers

The Men’s Rights Activist program is real equality for men and women, wherein women make their own decisions and take the consequences of their own decisions.  It is a logically consistent and libertarian position, but can never be an emotionally consistent position because it is a cold, callous, nasty, hateful position that no one believes in, no one supports, a position that can never be popular.

The only logically and emotionally consistent position.that can ever be popular, is Pauline male supremacism, male supremacism in accordance with the doctrines of Saint Paul the Apostle, a position that condescends to women gently and affectionately..

Don’t be a Men’s Rights Activist.  Be a Male Supremacist.  It is more likely to be politically successful, and you are more likely to get laid.

MRAs pitifully whine about discrimination against men:  Why, they ask, is it that whenever women don’t like the consequences of their own decisions, they demand that someone else (men) make it all better?

To have women independent of male authority while men take the consequences of female decisions is a society that is grossly unnatural in one way, thus hard to achieve.

To have women independent of male authority and also have women take the consequences of their own decisions is a society that is grossly unnatural in two ways, thus twice as hard to achieve.

To answer the MRA question:  Why should women not face the consequences of their own decisions?

It is because women, like children, need special protection, special privilege, are frequently incompetent at making life decisions, and usually need to have their decisions supervised and restrained by fathers or husbands.  Women without male authority in their lives are in trouble.  They are at best to be pitied (widows, spinsters, and orphans) and at worst to be despised (sluts and tramps).  In most societies, in all healthy societies, it is normative for a woman to be subject to male authority.  Any woman not so subject is viewed with pity or disapproval, usually both.

No one believes that women should take the consequences of their own decisions.  Progressives certainly don’t believe it, feminists believe it even less, and not even men’s rights activists really believe it, for to believe in it at emotional level they have to demonize women as sluts, tramps, gold diggers etc, which destroys their relationships with women and results in them ending up alone.

Nor does anyone believe that women should make their own decisions, should be independent of male authority.  Most women engage in doublethink and crimestop while treating the man in their lives with eighteenth century respect and picking up his socks.  For feminists to believe in independence at emotional level, to stop themselves from picking up their husband’s socks, they have to demonize men as rapists, which destroys their relationships with men and results in them ending up alone.

If a woman gets away with not treating the man in her life with respect and not picking up his socks, she feels as guilty about it as if she had been raised in the eighteenth century, and pretty soon she is rationalizing her behavior with one hundred and one reasons why he is evil and hateful, thus does not deserve respect or socks, and, pretty soon, why he does not deserve sex.

Bad tactics

The MRA tactic of demanding equality and whining pitifully about the lack thereof is doomed to fail

It is entirely pointless to accuse progressives of hypocrisy or to demand that they live up to their own standards.  A progressive will find the accusation incomprehensible.  To a progressive, hypocrisy does not mean a non progressive acting contrary to the rules that the non progressive himself has agreed are morally right, it means a non progressive acting contrary to the rules that progressives have agreed are morally right.  These rules apply to non progressives, and only to non progressives.  If you accuse a progressive of hypocrisy, it is like accusing him of racism because affirmative action discriminates against whites.  He absolutely will not understand you.  The accusation can never make any sense to him.

Progressives own the word hypocrisy much as they own the word racism.  A progressive cannot be hypocritical, and cannot be racist.  By definition, only non progressives can be hypocritical, just as only non progressives can be racist.

Progressives cannot be hypocritical, because they are justified by faith, as Christians used to be before the Churches became another megaphone for progressives.

The proposition that women are not entitled to special protection, and especially not entitled to special protection from the consequences of their own decisions, is entirely unsaleable.  No one believes it, not even MRAs.  Every MRA believes in his heart that good women are entitled to such protection.  To hold an MRA position consistently, he has to disbelieve in the existence of good women, which is apt to have bad effects on his sex life.

The MRA position is the genuinely equalist position, and the equalist position is unsaleable.  The only unprogressive position that can possibly win widespread support is that good women, who are normally under the authority of husbands or fathers, deserve special protection, that the social authority of husbands and fathers needs legal and moral support, and that sluts and tramps, women who’s behavior is abnormal and bad, in that they have chosen to be independent of male authority, do not deserve special protection, that sluts and tramps need to face the consequences of their own decisions, that some wicked women, just a few of them, not very many, need to face the consequences of their own decisions.

To rein back special legal protection for women without restoring male authority follows logically from what progressives theoretically believe, believe intellectually, but at an emotional level they do not believe it, no one believes it, no one can ever be persuaded of it.

The only way to rein back special legal protection for women is to give legal backing to male authority, and then rein back special legal protection to those bad women whose own non normative decisions have rendered them independent of male authority.  Women will never be expected to face the consequences of their own decisions, legally, socially, or morally. Independent women will never be legally expected to face the consequences of their own decisions until the Pauline rules once again get legal support as they did back in the eighteenth century.

Male supremacism on the Pauline model is necessary for civilization, since it gives men ability and motive to invest in posterity, necessary for society, because children need fathers, and is the only political tactic capable of achieving the rollback of the feminist imperative that Men’s Rights Activists want.

Tags: ,

41 Responses to “Why MRAs are whiny mangina losers”

  1. Michael says:

    There’s no way in hell that Male Supremacy will ever be embraced in this society. In any event, men who are aware that a problem exists in society, need to stick together and find common ground, rather than bicker with each other over details. Until we unite, the feminazis will reign.

    • jim says:

      The tide comes in and the tide goes out. We will restore patriarchy, or we shall be conquered by a patriarchal people, our men will be killed and our women enslaved.

  2. Wes Carr says:

    When a man can lose half his income, house and even his children, what sane
    man would marry? You have better odds with Russian Roulette. But it is more
    than about women. It is about a system we have been brainwashed to be
    a part of since we were kids. As a man your only purpose is to provide or
    die for politicians or CEOs. Why do you think politicians push marriage? To
    create more taxpayers or soldiers for future wars. Women are no better.
    Janet Reno, Janet Neopolitano, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are
    all part of the same “patriarchy” that Feminists have been railing against.
    Just like in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal
    than others.” Just more hypocrisy.

  3. […] Jim has a post bagging on men’s rights advocates, commonly refered to as “MRAs” but there is a larger point here as well. […]

  4. […] Why MRAs are whiny mangina losers « Jim’s Blog […]

  5. Aaron Swanson says:

    Before I begin, I would consider myself MRA minded. Not some bitch ass mangina feminist.

    Wow, just wow, this massive pile of turd to justify being an controlling asshole towards women is so short sighted & self serving I wonder why I should waste my time even shooting it down, well I know I can’t change your twisted logic, obviously you are some total loser who can’t get a women unless you club her on the head an drag her to the cave.

    True human nature is a bitch, women use social bullying to control others while men use physical force. However if you think you can push for Male Supremacy I got news for you. Generations of Feminist bullshit & boys raised by catty bitch soccer moms has resulted in a generation of Liberal fucktards & toughguise bullies who relentlessly attack other men that make them FEEL insecure to secure mating rights. yknow, put a guy down to convince some bitch he’s the better mating prospect bullshit.

    The moment you pick the role of the “female oppressor” millions of these bitch men will GLEEFULLY tear you to pieces, no dirty tactics too dirty, no holds barred, they’ll all jump on your ass an while giggling stomp you into a pulp. All the while their feminist manipulators will cackle with glee throwing out female approval while they do it.

    Dumb asses like you will be paraded up & down the street as justification off all the hate & bigotry spewing forth from the Feminist camp. SEE, SEE, all men are rapists & oppressors, our cause is just.

    You idiots are all going to jail some day, either from a false allegation or a stab in the back by some mangina that got wind of your ideals. Probably wind up on some NSA terrorist watch list. Enjoy it cause no MRA will be sticking up for you.

    • fidelbogen says:

      My impression is that Jim is useless for any kind of pan-male political solidarity. To him it is more important to be a right-wing alpha male than to express brotherhood with men as a group.

      Blue pill traditionalists and feminists have this in common: they are both hostile toward the crystallization of males as a self-aware political sex class.

      • jim says:

        Organizing XXXs as an interest group is so very left wing.

        You cannot win at that game, so should refuse to play, and denounce the game as illegitimate.

        • no name says:

          “The reader who has followed me this far can surely see Fleming’s tired formulations as abetting and advancing feminism by vilifying men and idealizing women – in short, defending the puritan cancer that is presently rotting Anglo-Saxon civilization from the inside out. In his warped Anglo-puritan perspective, the female can jettison ALL social responsibilities to men, while men are expected to discharge ALL their traditional duties to women without genetic, social or economic benefit. I wish him luck with that.”


          • jim says:

            The blog you link to proposes that men should cease discharging their traditional duties to women.

            Not a practical solution.

    • jim says:

      The moment you pick the role of the “female oppressor” millions of these bitch men will GLEEFULLY tear you to pieces, no dirty tactics too dirty, no holds barred, they’ll all jump on your ass an while giggling stomp you into a pulp.

      This is just the classic left wing argument we saw in the Warmist video “No Pressure”. “Resistance is useless. You will be assimilated. History is on our side.”

      If resistance is useless, being an MRA is useless. You will never persuade leftists that equal rights for men is a purer and truer leftism, because leftists are not required to make sense.

    • xtuj says:

      Status of jimmies: rustled.

  6. fidelbogen says:

    The celebrated UK anti-feminist Angry Harry expressly states on his website that “equality is never achievable”. Would you affirm, on that ground, that Angry Harry is NOT an “MRA”?

    Also: I have known many who might be loosely characterized as “MRAs”, who have openly scoffed at “equality” as a flawed construct — much as Angry Harry has done. Some of these people would call themselves “MRAs”, and others not, but none would take the notion of “equality” altogether seriously.

    Such persons are quite numerous.

    That said, on what do you base your belief that “equality” is a core “MRA” tenet?

    • jim says:

      Here is a sample from Angry Harry

      When two of his legions, in direct contradiction of his orders, engaged with Spartacus and suffered yet another defeat, Crassus’ response was to resurrect the ancient and terrible punishment of decimation. Every tenth man was beaten to death, the obedient along with the disobedient, the brave along with the cowardly, while their fellows were forced to watch.

      These were his very own soldiers!

      Did women ever have to undergo such appalling treatment by their rulers?

      And there are countless examples throughout the whole of history wherein the men have been butchered and murdered while the women have been spared.

      He is arguing that, contrary to feminist mythology, men not only have it worse than women, but always have had it worse than women, which of course is quite obviously true.

      But what we should conclude from that is not “Oh no, how horribly men were mistreated”, but rather “Because men suffer protecting women, women should shut up and do as they are told”.

      Instead, angry harry complains:

      And on the basis of this alleged fact [that women supposedly used to be oppressed], millions of people currently justify wholesale discrimination against men.

      But this is no fact, it is a feminist-fabricated falsehood.

      “Discrimination” is left wing rhetoric. He is buying into the whole left wing ideology that the sexes should be equal.

      • fidelbogen says:

        Would you describe Angry Harry as a “whiny mangina loser”? His prose style and tonality wouldn’t seem to fit such a characterization, but perhaps I am missing something here?

  7. fidelbogen says:

    Jim, you said:

    “But I don’t hear MRAs saying what leftists caricature them as saying: That women should submit and obey …”

    Actually, I can think of at least one MRA who indeed does say such things. And that MRA is yourself. You have said it a time or four in your present blog post, if I am not mistaken.

    So again, MRAs just like you talk male supremacism quite a bit, and that is the source of the “caricaturing”, by leftists, that you refer to.

  8. fidelbogen says:

    Jim: You talk as if you have some definite idea of what an “MRA” is, but to my knowledge there is no “MRA” manifesto or party platform of any kind. If you have seen one, please point it out to me. Otherwise, I will assume that “MRA” is an abstraction or strawman target that exists only in your mind.

    But do you not, then, consider yourself an advocate of male human rights in principle? And if so, why not?

    That said, where do you stand on the question of pan-male solidarity? In your ideal future scenario, is there a particular group of males that you intend to throw under the bus?

    One more thing: you have used the term “mangina” incorrectly here. Just thought I’d point that out. 😉

    • jim says:

      “XXX’s rights activist” is left wing terminology. “Men’s rights activist” is a complaint that leftists are being inconsistent or hypocritical. But consistent leftism, that actually treated men and women equally, would be even worse.

      In the conflicts between men and women, “rights” are not really the issue nor the problem, but rather duties.

      With no enforceable contracts, love is war.

      To reproduce, men and women need enforceable contracts, duties not rights, and children should not have rights against their parents.

      If a husband performs the duties of a husband, his wife is morally obligated, and should be socially and legally obligated, to perform the duties of a wife – which means that under some circumstances he should be legally entitled to beat her with a stick for not picking up his socks.

      you have used the term “mangina” incorrectly here

      Manginas are male feminists. The proposition that men are or should be equal is feminist.

      • fidelbogen says:

        Thank you for making clear that you eschew the concept of “rights”.

        • jim says:

          I strongly believe in rights. But the problem with men and woman is the war of the sexes, which to solve requires duties, not rights.

          • fidelbogen says:

            Given that men’s “rights” can apply to areas other than male-female relations, would you say that your entire ethic (in all realms) is duty-based rather than “rights” based?

            • jim says:

              life, liberty, and property

              Which only make sense as a relationship between heads of households who support themselves.

  9. Mike says:

    Don’t be a Men’s Rights Activist. Be a Male Supremacist.

    As I remember it, we mostly were. The egalitarian bit was more about pointing out inconsistencies with the feminist version of “equal rights” (which inevitably means “unequal privileges”).

    For example, one of the frequent topics of discussion around the MRA traps (I hung around it mid-decade; not sure what it’s like these days) was whether or not women should be allowed to join the military. The two sides of the discussion normally went “hell no, women are useless as troops and will just cause more problems than they solve” and “sure, let’s draft them and give them all the equality they can handle, and while you’re at it make sure that women are exactly 50% of garbage men, dock workers, crayfishermen, loggers, and every other dangerous occupation we can think of, hurr durr lol”.

    None of that is egalitarian moaning. It was just male supremacism staging a fight with a satire of egalitarianism.

    • jim says:

      What ticked me off was the MRA complaint about the expectation and legal obligation that men should economically support women. Of course men should support and protect women. And of course women should obey.

      I hear MRAs saying that only men can do combat, that in practice if women get supposed combat roles, they will just be dressing up as warriors, they will not get actual combat roles, but everyone will be required to pretend. Quite so.

      But I don’t hear MRAs saying what leftists caricature them as saying: That women should submit and obey – not as in fifty shades of grey sex games, but for real, in picking up the socks and treating their husbands with respect.

  10. Jim, you are not far from the Kingdom of God.

    • And I don’t mean that snarky-like. You have basically outlined the traditionalist position on the matter, defended it better than most traditionalists could, and done so without appeal to any divine revelation. And if divine revelation is to be believed, then one shouldn’t need to appeal to it on matters of general order. So it seems you are in the same boat in which Dr. Charleton placed Moldbug,.. near and someday.

      • Red says:

        You’d have a lot more converts if the church itself wasn’t just as corrupt as the rest of society. Christians total inability to cleans and propagate a working church culture indicates that it’s a totally worthless institution that will never recover.

      • jim says:

        Charleton does not like me, perhaps because I have argued with him, not that Christianity is false, but that it is doomed, that like Roman paganism, its time has come.

        Or perhaps because I praised roissy/heartiste as a truth teller

        Or perhaps because I argued that our civilization is founded on Christianity, Christianity is doomed, and if we are going to get a new civilization rather than a new dark age, we need a new basis.

        Christianity is doomed because:

        1. The theory of evolution substantially reduces the need for a creator god. Intelligent Christians no longer appeal to the bible as an explanation of why things are the way they are. The Christian discussion of the effects of hormonal birth control on bonding could have equally appeared on Roissy’s blog.
        2. The progressives, instead of using crude suppression as the communists did, are using the same method as the Christians so successfully used against the pagans. Just as the Christians took over pagan activities using various forms of political leverage, and very gradually emptied out their pagan content and replaced it with Christianity, progressives take over Christian activities, and very gradually replace their content with progressivism. And if any Christian tries to resist this process, progressives will find a forty five year old feminist activist to testify that she was sexually molested by this Christian at the age of eleven, but never mentioned it until now.
        3. Deistic religions are inherently more popular among people who have fathers, and less popular among people who never had fathers. Dismantling marriage dismantles Christianity as a mass movement, leaving it nothing but state power, whereupon it necessarily mutates into progressivism.
        • Well, Christianity has been doomed before.

          As I’ve said elsewhere, the theory of evolution knocks down a single element of the infinite regress problem, which therefore remains just as much a problem. I don’t think Aquinas relied upon Scripture overly much in his condemnation of contraception.

          In the meantime, there seems to be common cause among a remnant of traditionalist Christians, and non-Christians who actually believe their lying eyes. For this I am, and you SHOULD BE, grateful. When the Brown Shirts come to eliminate the new state’s enemies, I will happily deliver my liberal co-religionists into their hands and protect you, Jim. Some folks will undoubtedly need killing, but failure to be enthusiastically Christian will not be a cause.

          • Thales says:

            Hey, the feeling is mutual, Nick, from the other side of the religious divide. I got your back.

          • jim says:

            there seems to be common cause among a remnant of traditionalist Christians, and non-Christians who actually believe their lying eyes. For this I am, and you SHOULD BE, grateful.

            I am very grateful, and I deeply regret the passing of Christianity.

  11. Johnny Caustic says:

    Thank you. I had never made the observation that MRAs really believe in equality. If that’s true, it explains a lot of their bitterness and futility and whininess; they’re trying to bring about the impossible. They’re going to be frustrated for eternity.

    I’d already concluded that the happiest sexual relationship is a benevolent paternal dictatorship. I’m a bit surprised that, even though the MRAs have seen through some feminist ideology, they still haven’t seen through the equalist ideology.

  12. […] Why MRAs are whiny mangina losers « Jim’s Blog […]

  13. Jehu says:

    I’d avoid antagonizing the MRAs much. They serve a valuable function. They heighten the contradictions inherent in Marriage 2.0 and feminism. By calling out the feminists to be consistent universalists, which they NEVER will, they make my argument easier, which is that public politics aren’t about morality but rather just who…whom. My goal is to get non-elite whites to stop worrying and love who…whom, and they’re just making the task easier through their advocacy of marriage 3.0, which will never exist outside a few hothouses.

    • jim says:

      Lost track of these various kinds of marriage. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0?

      • Jehu says:

        1.0—Classic patriarchy. It works. Dissolved only by the 3 A’s, as understood by 1950 and earlier. Children generally assigned to the father in the case of dissolution. Covenant marriage aims at this

        2.0—what we’ve got now—no fault divorce, bad deal overall for men. Not sustainable for a civilization

        3.0—what MRA’s want, doesn’t exist, not sustainable for a civilization. Could exist but the political economy doesn’t favor it

  14. jim says:

    Conservative Christians may LIVE that way (and Charles Murray would tell you even the upper class liberals live that way) but very few Christians vocally support such a thing.

    Even upper class feminists live that way, though they would be horrified to admit it, indicating massive preference falsification. As we saw in the Soviet Union, massive preference falsification is less stable than it appears. It creates the false appearance of stability.

    To propose Pauline male supremacism is almost unthinkable, whereas to propose genuine equality gets almost universal purported consent – but somehow, those agreeing to equality immediately start rationalizing why the equality they supposedly favor requires even more inequality in favor of women.

    Obviously appearances are deceptive. Genuine equality is far further out of reach than male supremacism – whether on the piratical viking model or the more constructive and humane Pauline model.

    Civilization, order, and widespread peace are fragile and difficult to maintain, and our current rulers are doing nothing to maintain them. We will return to male supremacism one way or the other way, and the only question is which way it shall be.

  15. Scott says:

    A lot of MRA’s want to damn women if they do and damn them if they don’t. They don’t like marriage 2.0 for various reasons with the threat of divorce bing #1. At the same time they don’t like marriage 1.0 because they think that it’s a free ride for women. I guess a woman’s place is on the carousel. That being said, while I enjoy Pauline male supremacy in my own home, I don’t think it will ever be a popular social force again. Conservative Christians may LIVE that way (and Charles Murray would tell you even the upper class liberals live that way) but very few Christians vocally support such a thing. A patriarchal reboot could only happen with a miraculous Christian revival or with the full ascendency of Islam. I’m not one of those “traditionalists” who support the latter since that would mean that I’d have my head cut off.

  16. peter horne says:

    rein not reign.

Leave a Reply for jim