Now a brand new rad-fem site confirms that they too, know that that’s exactly what happened and that angry rhetoric has been the most important part of moving forward for men in this society.

Boards like this are raising conciousness and making a difference:

Thread title:

Should Women on Campus Try and Stop MRA groups:

altmyalt 3 points 54 minutes ago
and are rather bitter and express a lot of misogyny, hatred and foul language. That is to the detriment of the MRA movement and they need help from more experienced activists to grow into a better and stronger contributor to driving societal improvements.
This isn’t true, it served feminism very well, valenti is still frequently using bad language – and the mrm has only been making headway and started getting taken more seriously since it stopped playing nice.
What there is, is a societal double standard that allows the women’s movement much more leeway and requires much higher standards from men, which is a double standard the mens movement has to challenge and overcome in order to be effective. Men, neither in society or in feminism are supposed to speak up for themselves.
All social movements use anger and angry rhetoric, there is no such thing as a successful social movement that plays nice.
Many MRAs like to blame Feminism for all their issues and creates an impression of two camps fighting
What the mrm is doing is challenging feminism on its anti male laws and propaganda and its exclusion of men from the gender equality movement. An earlier incarnation of the mens movement tried to talk with feminists … it didn’t work – so the angry mens movement was born.
In order for there to be a true gender liberation movement, the people that currently dominate it have to be moved aside.
jdwoof90 2 points 7 hours ago

This is the first fem-sponse:

I think this is very well said. I can find it difficult to understand MRA groups, and this gave me a much more balanced insight. Thank you

So don’t tone down the rhetoric and don’t worry if your feeling angry.

Anger is a natural human emotion to forces that are trying to harm you.

I see angry people, they’re everywhere, personally I’m gonna sit this out.

When I was first involved with the mrm we wouldn’t even say “all feminists”. The boards had clear rules that no generalizing was allowed. We had to be polite and insulated from any criticism by feminists.

That got us now where. That’s the point.

I was in the “be aggressive camp” but most were not.

It’s just nice to see validation from the enemy. They admit in the posting that the angry rhetoric is what got the mrm on the map.

A poor general wants to jump into battle immediately so he can take the land, and in doing so he loses most of his forces and strength.

A good general lets his enemies destroy itself through sabotage/hunger/plague/division/etc.  Then he goes in and takes the land while maintaining his forces.

Why fight when the enemy is already killing itself?

Why fight when the enemy is already killing itself?

Concurring there …

Personally I view MGTOW as a wisely aggressive stance. It is like comparing a poor general (activist movement) to a good general (MGTOW). A poor general wants to jump into battle immediately so he can take the land, and in doing so he loses most of his forces and strength. A good general lets his enemies destroy itself through sabotage/hunger/plague/division/etc. Then he goes in and takes the land while maintaining his forces. Why fight when the enemy is already killing itself?

J.D. – Just to highlight the most important part of what you are saying there.

The aggressive part of MGTOW is simply to highlight the failings/insanity of the Rad Fems at every possible turn, whilst, not committing to direct combat until the terms of battle are in our favour.

Actual anger and angry rhetoric are different.

Very true. I’ve no anger for women. I hate radical feminism to the core for what it has done to both men and women. It’s victims are too stupid to even acknowledge. To be nice to feminists is like playing nice to the school yard bully, you keep losing. I want to drive feminists crazy with even more anger than they normally have. I’m good at p~~~ing people off too.

John Doe wrote:

A good general lets his enemies destroy itself through sabotage/hunger/plague/division/etc.  Then he goes in and takes the land while maintaining his forces.

Exactly, and the same source also advises making your enemy angry to make her even more irrational leading to a more rapid downfall. I actually know women who despise feminism. It’s in its death throes which is why it is becoming even more whacked out and dangerous. They are becoming more irrelevant.

Go forth and anger feminists. It’s a blast, and you’ve nothing to fear. Just don’t do it at work.

I don’t blame feminism for my issues from my blue pill days. I let myself be taken advantage, because I did not set and enforce boundaries.

I bet we see a boom of men’s centers on campus and rise in the notion of MGTOW as a viable lifestyle goal for men 18-22.

The feminists are playing hard ball. I don’t have any skin in the game anymore but I still want team men to win.

I’ve been pretty beat up by these bullies in my life. The thing I hate most about feminism is that the parental alienation damaged my relationship with my son. And it’s just getting better after 2 years of his mom not allowing him to contact me because she was angry that I wanted to be in my son’s life.

I don’t hate women or my son’s mom. It’s my fault, I picked her, but just like the offensive line goes with all they’ve got to knock that quarter back down, I’ll aim my rhetoric at feminists where it hurts if I can.

My favorite is quoting them back to themselves. They hate that.