Why Not MRA?


We have decided to issue this statement because we often get questions about our relationship to men’s rights advocates (MRAs). We do support everyone’s rights, men included, as part of our general defense of science, justice, and civilization against the specific threat of Feminism. MRAs do a remarkable and commendable job gathering research that clarifies the actual state of the relative privileges of men and women, which serves to undermine Feminist hate myths and conspiracy theories, but focusing on the misandry can also become a dangerous distraction.

Supremacist authoritarian movements, by their nature, exploit a demographic divide by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even fabricating a dispute between two groups. But, to reduce such a movement to that demographic dispute is a fatal mistake. It plays into the game that the authoritarians have introduced, and tempts us to surrender to the antagonistic terms of that dispute.

This is why far too many undisciplined MRAs slip into simply countering Feminism’s misandrist generalizations with misogynist generalizations. This feeds the fabrication, and can feed Feminism. But, even if it were to be successful, it would simply replace one wrong with another.

This is how, in the aftermath of WW2, millions of innocent German civilians were murdered in a misdirected backlash against the Nazis. This is how the French and Russian revolutions turned into class warfare bloodbaths that ended in worse forms of tyranny. The Nazis, and the French and Russian aristocracies, were undoubtedly supremacists who deserved to be defeated. But joining the supremacists on their terms, engaging their demographic dispute, is not a victory for reason, justice, and morality.

Supremacist authoritarians exploit a demographic dispute, but in reality they are in general conflict with justice, reason, and civilization. As we all know, supremacists have no qualms about attacking even members of the group they claim to champion, if those members refuse to fall in line. The Nazis were no friends to most Germans and Stalin was hardly a kind presence in the lives of the Russian working class. The inter-group dispute is really just a means to power, domination, and the projection of raw aggression, essentially a MacGuffin, a ruse, even if the supremacists themselves are blind to this.

The opponents of supremacism would do well not to be blind to it, however.

It is true that the Nazis aggressively targeted Jews, but only as scapegoats, i.e., a psychosocial MacGuffin albeit a horrific and genocidal one. Defeating the Nazis required more than defending Jewish rights, because they also targeted the French, the Russians, and that majority of Germans who were not supremacists. They corrupted science, assaulted justice, and sabotaged civilization, and these belong to all human beings. Condemning anti-Semitism is important, but reducing Nazism to anti-Semitism is a fundamental mistake. In a sadly ironic sense, it constitutes consent to the terms of the dispute as the Nazis defined it.

Feminists define the dispute as being about men and women. We reject this outright. The dispute is about Feminism and the threat it poses to truth, justice, and civilization, the threat it poses to men and women, therefore we are anti-Feminist.