I do not think that the MRM should be a “loose organization”. I think that it needs to be tightly organized and have a clear direction. Therefore, I definitely think that there needs to be a Leader of the Men’s Rights Movement.
The Leader should have enough power to lead the MRM in a clear, unified direction, but should be short of absolute.
Right now, I do not have a total list of what the Leader’s powers should be because I still need to think about it more, but as I find out what the Leader’s powers should be, I will make posts describing them.
But what I do know is that the Leader should have the power to remove people from the MRM who claim to be MRA’s but who are clearly feminists, manginas, proponents of chivalry, or feminist sympathizers. (I will describe this power in detail in the next post).
As far as who should be the leader of the MRM, several people have proposed that either Glenn Sacks or Angry Harry should be the Leader, or that one or both of them already is the Leader. I suspect that these people say this because Harry and Sacks are two of the most visible members of the MRM. Although it is great that they are so visible (it helps get the MRA message across), most visible does not automatically equal best leader.
I have thought a great deal about who should be Leader, and it is quite clear to me that the best man for the job is Masculist Man. Masculist Man has proven time and time again that he has the strength, the experience, and the resolve to be a truly great leader. Under his leadership, the Men’s Rights Movement will soar to heights that we cannot now comprehend, and yes, he will lead us to final victory over the feminists, manginas, and the chivalrous.
Unfortunately, I would argue that he is a borderline psychopath, and does not possess the intelligence to become the figurehead of a movement. With him as your leader, you would be so eminently mockable that the movement would crumble within weeks and generally by laughed at. Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s true.
Simpatico,
He possesses the intelligence.
He possesses the leadership ability.
He possesses the experience.
He possesses the strength.
…
There is no question that he should be the leader and figurehead of this movement.
There is no way that the movement would crumble or be laughed at with him in charge. Quite the opposite, it would unify and be greatly respected.
And once again, he is not a psychopath. He is a man of great conscience, and has done many great things throughout his long career in the MRA for men’s rights.
He can’t spell to an extent that betrays an under-developed mind.
He loses his temper way, way too quickly to be considered a good leader.
Age and experience are two different things – just because you are old doesn’t mean you are experienced.
Aggression and strength are two different things – just because you shout and swear and stomp your feet a lot, doesn’t mean you are strong.
If there is no question, then why did you ask the question at all?
Masculist Man wouldn’t make a good leader because of his inability to keep his mouth shut when someone else’s opinion differs slightly from his.
It’s obvious to anyone who reads ACLAF or FS that they are neither manginas nor feminist sympathisers, yet here’s a probably 40-something year old man trading childish insults with a couple of 20-something year olds over points that many consider trivial.
For a leadership position, someone like Anonymous age 65 has the wisdom and maturity, as well as the experience and proven leadership ability to head the Men’s Movement. Although, from what I’ve read, he’s not interested.
Thanks for the kudos,Luke.
Simpatico likes to sling mud on others but when someone calls him on something he acts as though he is innocent. Hypocrite asshole.
Luke, while I have great respect for you, I cannot agree to this proposal. Aside from the fact that a single leader for the MRM is at this time, a rather bad idea, I think you should reconsider.
You’re welcome to believe that this comes from my personal dislike of MM, but this is not so. I fail to see any positive leadership qualities in anyone who devotes so much of their time and energy in McCarthy-esque witch hunts against people already on side, instead of providing any actual leadership.
I don’t know what gave you the idea that this person has any intelligence short of echoing what we’ve all been thinking. In this fashion, he has about as much intelligence as George W. Bush.
Again, his leadership ability is drastically lacking, and there is little or no evidence to the contrary.
As for experience, I question your evidence of this.
And you must be confusing anger for strength. Contrary to your argument he has repeatedly demonstrated weakness of character which he has poorly attempted to mask with rage. This is a highly volatile combination, it would fracture the movement.
Finally, a leader must be able to lead, but more importantly, followers must willingly follow. How many would you risk loosing by having such a person in a leadership role? Even if only half followed, there are candidates who could accomplish much more. Take Karl of antimisandry.com for example…
You see, I would argue that, in order to be an effective leader of a political movement, you need to possess the following attributes:
Intellectual rigour (Masculist Man is, without a doubt, one of the least intelligent, least literate adult humans with whom I have ever crossed swords)
Diplomacy (If he were to get any less diplomatic in his dealings with people with whom he disagrees, I fear that he would become a full-blown serial killer)
Unflappability (The last time I came across anything that was so easy to goad into apoplectic rage as Masculist is, I was six years old and was teasing a wasp with a stick)
Accountability (You’re not going to be too easy to discredit as a political figure when you are smeared across the internet, half the time preaching hatred of women and the other half being intellectually humiliated by the likes of me)
Mass appeal (I’ve looked around and have seen about four people who don’t actively hate him)
Strong connections (As far as I can ascertain, Masculist’s two main supporters are somebody who thinks that playing a drum in a marching band is going to bring about the end of feminism, and a man who is so old that he hated women BEFORE FEMINISM EVEN HAPPENED)
The ability to form coherent debate (Absolutely crucial, and yet at the first opportunity, Masculist always, without fail, lapses into homophobic taunts and beating his chest about what a ‘man’s man’ he is, not even realising how open to ridicule he is leaving himself with such statements)
I’m sure I’ve missed some stuff out, but, in summary, the man is a buffoon, pure and simple, and having him as the figurehead of what you hope will become an active political movement is the worst idea since the chocolate frying pan. It would be like giving a monkey a loaded machine gun to play with and then leaving him alone to see what happens, and your entire credo will be laughed off the face of the earth with such a transparent twat as your leader.
Thank you and goodnight.
I question the idea that there even IS a men’s movement, let alone one that can or should have a “leader”.
Okay, that might require some explaining. What I mean is that the men’s movement (for want of a more elucidating name) is presently a hodge-podge of cliques and orgs and schools of thought – with no discernable unifying center other than a drive to generate “blocking energy” against feminism and what feminism has spawned in the world.
Some of these people have no idea what the term “MRA” even means, and a lot of them (despite their evident political leanings) would deny that they are part of any so-called “men’s movement” at all.
Clearly, if you speak of a leader, you must specify precisely WHAT that leader hopes to lead, and WHETHER that something is in fact leadable whatsoever.
All of which appears dubitable – to me at least.
At present, feminism is like an evil empire which has raised up a crop of different enemies, who hate different parts of it for different reasons.
So, we see an eclectic horde of different armies converging upon the battle plain as the clouds of war gather.
However, I seriously question whether this “horde” is, or ever will be, a so-called movement in any meaningful sense – much less one capable of being united under the baton of some charismatic genius figurehead dude……
Yet despite all of my misgivings and caveats, I am optimistic that this “organism” is capable of growth. Indeed, phenomenal growth. Like a force of nature.
With or without a “fuhrer”.
For the reasons he outlines, and because he evidently has the power of abstract thought and the ability to articulate concepts beyond that of going to fuck oneself, I would suggest he is an infinitely more suitable leader than Masculist Ape will ever be.
“Thanks for the kudos,Luke.
Simpatico likes to sling mud on others but when someone calls him on something he acts as though he is innocent. Hypocrite asshole.”
You’re referring to the one typographical error I made in over 200 posts? One typo in literally tens of thousands of perfectly constructed, grammatically faultless, conceptually solid, accurately spelled words? YOU JUST MADE TWO ERRORS POINTING MY ERROR OUT! You utter buffoon! You unutterable fuckwit! All hail the leader! All hail the monkey king! Hang on, aren’t you supposed to be travelling to Canada to murder someone? Is that how you’re going to handle all oppositional views when you’re in situ, Masochist? Because I have to say, I may have to take my vote elsewhere. For example, if there’s a genital wart or an edible mollusc running for office against you, they are definitely going to get my X! They’re just a LEEEEEEEEEEEEETLE bit smarter.
PS. Like the new name? Let’s see if you can do anagrams.
“Clearly, if you speak of a leader, you must specify precisely WHAT that leader hopes to lead, and WHETHER that something is in fact leadable whatsoever.”
That points out a really good question. The first thing that a Men’s Rights leader needs is a clear vision of where we are going. A partial list of men’s goals was compiled a few years ago from soc.men and is still on-line at http://home.comcast.net/~demands-of-men/
A MRA leader can not be someone who accepts and supports historic misandrist feminist accomplishments such as equal parenting, custody, marital rape, domestic violence, female suffrage, harassment, no-fault divorce, female teachers, or so-called “equality.”
A MRA leader should accept help from men who support some, but perhaps not all of the men’s agenda. But he should object to faux men’s activists who’s activities work for feminist goals against the needs and rights of men.
He needs to welcome men of all faiths and of no faith. Marriage and the rights of men transcend any one religion, nation, or tribe.
He needs to welcome men who work on a piece of men’s rights such as advocates against the sexual mutilation of boys, advocates for father’s rights to their children, and advocates opposing the out of control injustice system that imprisons so many men.
It’s a big job. It may be too big for one man or one group of men.
Bob