The following is from a pro-male activist in India. And yes, I do mean
activist. In India, they have taken it to the next level, and they do far more than just talk about how bad things are. Mind you, not that such talking should ever cease as a political activity. In fact -- more, more, MORE. . .if you please! The feminists hate it when you talk against feminism and expose its lies, hypocrisies, aggressions and crimes. Their panic-stricken desire to shut us up is quite evident, and quite revealing of how deeply they fear us.
All right. File this dispatch under "news and views from around the world." The cancer of misandry, in
both its cultural and institutional forms, is worldwide. And so too, the pro-male project is spreading worldwide in response to it. In my customary way, I have color-highlighted passages that I deem especially pertinent:
"Raman Singh, Chief Minister of Chattisgarh - one of the most under-developed yet most resource rich region in India claims - that if son commits a crime, father should be punished. Because, its all DNAs fault. And, since son's DNA comes from his father, so son cannot be anything but as his father's DNA.
"We can laugh at his inaccurate scientific knowledge, we can even get condescendingly depressed about the "future" of the nation - kya hoga is desh ka? (what will happen to this nation?)... amidst all this we might miss that Raman's statement is not an anomaly in our chivalrous society - where maleness means "power" and responsibility for every damn thing under the sky. When men fail in playing up to his "masculine" role for example men who have been victims of rape or domestic violence by women - they are most hated not by women, who clinically ostracise them, but by other men. Why? Because the abused, weak, powerless men (homeless, jobless, penniless, victims of psychological, physical violence, etc) who remind the other "manly" men, the onerous and exploitative burden society and women have placed on men to serve their interest and severity of social oblivion in failure.
"Why do men displace responsibility of all that goes wrong on other men and men only? Because we are trained to feel that being man means being "responsible" - failure in getting the desired outcome is failure of taking responsibility, which obviously translates into being a falure as a man - being a non-man, a sub-human.
"So we don't understand that it is poverty, systemic oppression, greed and individual criminality of humans' and not singularly men's which is responsible for various crimes.
"We need to fight hatred of men and fathers - within ourselves and without in the societies. And for this we need to reject social tendencies to automatically shift responsibilities on men. Creating boundaries between our responsibilities and that which are not ours is an essential. Although like all worthwhile changes its easier said than done. "
A quick afterthought. There is a certain breed of "non-radical" feminist who would quickly pipe up and inform you that misandry is a product of "patriarchy" (which "hurts men too"), and that we should
work with feminism in order to address these concerns.
Well. If "working with feminism" were an operable policy, we would certainly give it a go. But see, that's just the problem. Feminists are, by definition, people whom you
cannot work with. In fact, "feminist you can work with" is a flat-out oxymoron, just as "five-sided quadrilateral" would be.
A feminist you could work with, would
ipso-facto not be a feminist.
The nicely-spoken "moderate" feminists are WORSE than the radicals. With the radicals, you at least know where you stand. But the moderate ones are like
subtle serpents with a slower-acting poison. You don't realize at first that you've been poisoned, but poisoned you are indeed -- and it all carries you to the same end of the same road in the long haul.
We are willing to transact with feminist individuals on one basis only, and that is for the purpose of
negotiation. Specifically, we are willing to negotiate the manner of co-existence between the feminist sector and the non-feminist sector. So in the end, this is all about settling a
boundary dispute between sovereign powers. We frankly do not believe that feminism, as a social organism, is capable of such dialogue -- for that would be tantamount to a radical negation of feminism itself. However, since we understand the politics of gesture, we are willing to extend the offer of negotiation
as a gesture. But know ye this, oh feminist, that when you confer with us under the white flag of truce, you are dealing with a sovereign power, and that diplomatic canons of behavior shall be the order of the day. So if you waltz in here like a lord with an officer's commission, presuming to meddle in non-feminist business or men's business specifically, then we hope you will accept our cordial invitation to the theological place of eternal punishment.
