In Dr. Helen Smith’s newly released book Men on Strike she offers some advice to men on “what is to be done.” I will focus on her section “Tip 1. Stop letting women run the agenda by controlling the dialogue on sex, gender, relationships, and reproduction.” on pages 143 to 146.
First off my focus is on Traditional Women’s Rights, not so called “men’s rights.” Men’s legitimate rights are the rights men need to fulfill their traditional gender role as men; those are the only rights men are entitled to. Likewise women’s legitimate rights are the rights women need to fulfill their traditional gender role as women; and those are the only rights women are entitled to. Rights are secondary to responsibility; rights are possessed to enable the fulfillment of responsibilities. A claimed right not subordinate to an imposed responsibility is just placing oneself above others and is therefore not legitimate.
Such a broader moral framework seems absent from Helen Smith’s discussion regarding “Tip 1.” What Smith focuses on is that women and those who take the side of women control the debate therefore women have too much power therefore men acting on their own behalf as men should assert themselves. This approach might seem plausible if one accepts the premise that women have too much power and only “pro woman” points of view are being taken seriously. What is lacking however is an overall mission or purpose. If men are to gain more power for themselves what will the newly gained power of men be used for? What purpose will the newly gained power of men serve? The answer seems to be to “make society more fair to men” or to “prevent injustices against men.” No consideration however is given to the question of why women are being given the powers and deferential treatment they are being given. Even more so no alternative plan is being put forward on how women’s needs and interests will be met after the supposed “injustices” against men are corrected.
Do women have too much power? I would say yes, in a sense. What is more accurate to say is that women have too much power in the masculine realm and too little power in the feminine realm. Women are not more powerful than they should be overall; they are also not more powerful than they used to be overall. Women have too much power in the masculine realm; that is the problem. Women’s increased power in the masculine realm leads to a direct loss of power in the feminine realm. The end result is a loss of power overall for women as the power lost in the feminine realm is greater than the power gained in the masculine realm.
The masculine realm of power is direct assertion; the feminine realm of power is the ability to draw support. Masculine power is the ability to take care of oneself. Feminine power is the ability to be taken care of by others. Masculine power is behavioral power, feminine power is emotional power. Feminism is about women seizing masculine power; power that rightfully belongs to the man. The problem with women seizing masculine power is that to the extent they succeed in taking power away from men their own feminine power as women is destroyed. Furthermore because women possessing masculine power is disordered, not according to how life is supposed to be, more feminine power is lost than masculine power is gained. A single unit of masculine power gained by the woman leads to a loss of greater than one unit of feminine power so that a woman’s overall power goes down as her masculine power goes up.
The way I am thinking of “power” here is the ability to meet ones needs or the ability to achieve ones goals.
When the MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) looks at women having “too much power” they are only focusing on masculine power while ignoring feminine power. Their response is then to “take power away from women” to “make things more even” where all men who “get in their way,” the men Helen Smith is referring to as Uncle Tims and White Knights, are the enemy.
I to place an emphasis on the need for men to assert authority and to claim their “rightful role in society” but I always make sure to place men’s assertion of authority in its rightful context; that male authority is only legitimate for the purpose of serving women’s interests. In addition the authority of the man is always beneath the authority of God or the Superior Power. I want men’s power to increase in the masculine realm and I want women’s power to increase in the feminine realm. Men gaining power in the masculine realm and women gaining power in the feminine realm must go together.
MRAs are very unhappy that women have supporters; these supporters being “Manginas” or feminist men and “White Knights” or conservative chivalrous men. Helen Smith is using the term “Uncle Tims” instead of “Manginas” but she is keeping the term “White Knight.” Smith and her MRA compatriots are unhappy that “both sides” have as part of their overall world view a mechanism for defending the interests of women. What needs to be kept in mind is that any functional social system will have “defending the interests of women” as a central theme. The fact that both liberals and conservatives “defend the interests of women” is no surprise because liberals have in their mind a model of how the world should work while conservatives likewise also have a model for how the world should work; both the liberal model and the conservative model including women as a key part of the overall social system that needs to be accounted for. Uncle Tims and White Knights have different versions of how women should be treated but they both at least recognize that women’s interests do in fact matter. The MRA doesn’t like this because he wants to pretend that women’s interests don’t matter and that only men matter. This is a very radical approach to gender relations; a very wrong approach.
From the book Men on Strike page 144:
“When female-centered women and the Uncle Tims who go along with them are the only authority on men, fatherhood and sexuality [in the media], the agenda quickly pushes aside men’s needs or rights, and allows injustice to flourish. I am not saying that all women present gender in unfair ways, but many are liberal academic types who are trying to set an agenda that keeps women’s needs at the forefront and overlooks those of boys or men.”
I agree with the above quote, but I think the focus is a bit off. Why are “female-centered women” and Uncle Tims (feminist men) the “only authority on men, fatherhood and sexuality” in the media? There are two sides to feminism; the power hungry woman and the lazy uninvolved man who eagerly wants to give his power to women to avoid his responsibilities as a man. Both the man and the woman are being victimized in this; not just the man. Also the idea of a “female-centered woman” is a bit odd. It is not women’s job to look after men but it is men’s job to look after women. A “male centered man” is much worse than a “female centered woman.” It makes sense for a woman to be “female centered” in the sense of the woman trying to make sure her needs are taken care of one way or the other. I also object to denigrating “keep[ing] women’s needs at the forefront.” Women’s needs should be at the forefront of social concerns. Gynocentrism is good.
From the book Men on Strike page 145:
“In the war on men, though Democrats may be more likely to pass laws or engage in unjust laws and cultural norms against men, Republicans can often let their chivalry and white-knight impulses take over. So, plan on understanding what is involved in going after both sides.”
MRAs are going to have to take on “both sides” are they? I guess it’s hard being a male narcissist. Also let’s not forget the Christians; Christians don’t like MRA attitudes much either. Men were created to serve women to enable women to serve children. This is the natural order of life. The sooner MRAs drop the male narcissism the better. I for one will always be against MRAs as long as MRAs are against Traditional Women’s Rights; the right of women to be provided for and protected by men. Traditional Women’s Rights come first!