I wish to publicly identify myself as being an MRA or Men’s Rights Activist and as part of the greater Manosphere overall. This does not indicate that my views regarding women or the duties that men owe to women have changed; instead my decision to declare myself to be an MRA is due to a change in what I believe the MRAs and the wider Manosphere overall represent. MRAs and the Manosphere in general represent the reemergence of patriarchy in the secular realm. I myself am part of this reemergence of patriarchy in the secular realm. Therefore I am an MRA and part of the Manosphere as I am part of the wider phenomenon of the reemergence of patriarchy in the secular realm.
There is a lot of baggage and a lot of negativity and a lot of dysfunction associated with the MRA world but that does not change the fact that in the grand scheme of things I fit in with the broader Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) / Manosphere quite well. The Manosphere today overall on average is low functioning while I in terms of my beliefs and what I advocate for am high functioning but me and the Manosphere overall are part of the same “thing”; that “thing” being the reestablishment of patriarchy in the secular sphere.
In terms of my psychological development and how I see the world regarding gender relations I am definitely an MRA and always have been. If I was to try to establish a “beginning” of my MRA path or my MRA psychological orientation I would say the “beginning” was my initial effort to declare my love towards and establish a relationship with the woman I loved the most in high school in 12th grade at age 17. That was when I first established in my mind a romantic identity or romantic persona; a sense of self-worth and purpose based on my love for a woman. I had a very rudimentary sense of asserting myself for the purpose of claiming a moral purpose in relation to a woman. What was “MRA” about this first assertion of myself romantically was that it was based on a self-defined morally oriented self-concept where I was trying to associate the romantic feelings I felt with a moral idealistic purpose that would give my romantic feelings moral purpose and moral value. In other words I was setting up for myself a concept of myself as a man in service to a woman on my own terms for my own moral purpose.
My conversion to patriarchy then in my mid-20s was Stage 2 of my development as an MRA. It was not a separation from what came before; it was instead a continuation and further development of the path I was already on. I believed in feminism and supported feminism intellectually before my conversion to patriarchy but I have never interacted with women romantically from a feminist mindset I would say; my very first intentional deliberate romantic efforts towards women have always been from the origin point of me trying to pursue my own goals with my own moral purpose in mind.
This brings up the issue of what is an MRA exactly? MRAs want to take power away from women; this seeming to be an MRA universal. I also want to take power away from women; this being consistent with the theme of me being an MRA. This desire to take power away from women however may not be the true fundamental core of what it means to be an MRA because in my initial romantic behavior at age 17 that was the beginning of my MRA psychological development my purpose was not to take power away from women; instead my purpose was to assert myself romantically to achieve a self-defined moral goal. So the real foundation to being an MRA may be independent self-defined male romantic identity and purpose. This desire in men to self-assert then leading very quickly to the desire to take power away from women as women’s independent power represents a direct attack against whatever self-defined purpose the man sought to create and assert for himself.
This issue of Chivalry then as it relates to MRAs is an interesting issue. Chivalry, the male duty to provide for and protect women, is something most MRAs oppose but it is something that I as an MRA strongly support. I think the source of the conflict regarding Chivalry among MRAs is that most MRAs see Chivalry as empowering women and since empowering women is bad therefore Chivalry is bad. I on the other hand see Chivalry as disempowering women, as the primary means by which women can be disempowered. Chivalry therefore in my view disempowers women and since disempowering women is good therefore Chivalry is good. The thing is Chivalry raises women’s status and raising women’s status is good. Women should have high status and low power. Chivalry raises women’s status and at the same time lowers women’s power; this being exactly what the goal should be.
Now what is patriarchy, traditional patriarchy, exactly? Patriarchy is the collective understanding of men on what the best way to treat women and organize society is based on male self-assertion and male self-defined moral purpose romantically. What traditional patriarchy and MRAs and the Manosphere in general have in common is that all are based on self-defined male romantic identity and purpose and don’t like women “telling them what to do” or the idea that women define what their purpose as men is. There is the difficulty however that the practice and beliefs of traditional patriarchy are very different from the practice and beliefs of most MRAs today. The underlying psychological motivation of patriarchy and modern MRAs is the same but the outcome of what traditional patriarchy was able to achieve is very much superior to the outcome that most MRAs are able to achieve right now. This is because traditional patriarchy is in alignment with the will of God while the typical MRA is simply doing his own thing and therefore messing things up.
I do believe however that MRAs are indeed Stage 1 or Stage 2 patriarchy; that they are on the right path with a good starting foundational orientation of seeking autonomy and self-defined moral purpose as men and that they correctly see feminism and women’s empowerment as the enemy. They are also correct in their perception that society is very anti-male and female supremacist and that feminists have a selfish abusive mentality towards men. Men are indeed “under attack” in modern feminist society.
I will add however that nothing positive will come from MRAs or the Manosphere until they understand that men are to be in service to women and that men must submit themselves to God before claiming authority over a woman.
I am currently proclaiming myself to be a Traditional Family Activist or TFA. This still holds true. I still think the TFA identity holds value; that the TFA identity offers a blue print for how political activism might be directed in the future. I am thinking however that my primary identity is that of being an MRA; that MRA is the “big tent” that I am a part of. TFAs then would be a sub-set of MRAs or form of MRA.
Consistent with my new self-proclaimed affiliation as an MRA I am radically re-working my blogroll. My guidelines for what I am linking to in my blogroll is that I want the site to be anti-feminist, to be against gender equality, to believe in traditional gender roles as a duty, and to not be racial / white supremacist.
Regarding comments; women are free to comment and those opposed to what I am saying are free to comment. MRAs are also free to comment. I do know that MRAs can get quite nasty in what they say about women and I am not a fan of women bashing. I do expect a certain degree of respect towards women in people’s comments. Try to be positive and socially constructive in what you advocate for. So far my free speech ethic has been quite strong in how I moderate or fail to moderate comments. I intend to maintain that overall approach unless a real problem develops.
Companion article: Rethinking the Manosphere and MRAs