In my previous post,I talked about what men can do to help each other and ourselves, which amounts to basically establishing an extended network of support groups,or secret societies.
But one problem remains.
“What about all the women”,you may say, “who are working around the clock to influence public opinion and create policies which (admittedly,no less) do harm to men?”.
You are quite right. We are vastly outgunned there. The feminists have a 100 year head start on us, they have 51% of the vote, and the “poor widdle woman” sympathy con on their side.Taking them head-on would be like trying to make a political point about animal welfare by barbecuing a sack full of kittens on national television. No one will remember your point,but everyone will remember the evil bastard who torched all those cute little kitties, never mind the fact that they had rabies.
No, in order to win, we must recruit women to fight our war for us.
We have many brilliant and magnanimous females in the MRM who are working ceaselessly on the behalf of men right now. These women are a credit to their sex, and an inspiration to us in the MRM. Their participation is welcome and refreshing,and much appreciated, but these are not the women I am talking about.
I am talking about the other 99% of women,the women who don’t know about the issues affecting men, the women who don’t care about the issues affecting men, or the women who are seething with a free-floating hatred of men and an ambiguous sense that they need to retaliate against men for some (largely imaginary) wrongs hypothetically committed by a tiny percentage of men over a hundred years ago. What do we do about them?
Again, I have the answer.
On March 31, 1929, a woman by the name of Bertha Hunt stepped into the throng of pedestrians in their Sunday-best clothing marching down Fifth Avenue in what was known in New York as the Easter Parade, and created a sensation by lighting up a Lucky Strike cigarette. Her action would not have created the reaction it did had not the press already been alerted to what was going to happen in advance. Hunt then told the reporter from the New York Evening World that she “first got the idea for this campaign when a man with her in the street asked her to extinguish her cigarette as it embarrassed him. ‘I talked it over with my friends, and we decided it was high time something was done about the situation.’”
The press, of course, had been warned in advance that Bertha and her friends were going to light up. They had received a press release informing them that she and her friends would be lighting “torches of freedom” “in the interests of equality of the sexes and to fight another sex taboo.” Bertha also mentioned that she and her friends would be marching past “the Baptist church where John D. Rockefeller attends” on the off chance that he might want to applaud their efforts. At the end of the day, Bertha and her friends told the press that she hoped they had “started something and that these torches of freedom, with no particular brand favored, will smash the discriminatory taboo on cigarettes for women and that our sex will go on breaking down all discriminations.’”
What Miss Hunt did not tell the reporter is that she was the secretary of a man by the name of Eddie Bernays, nor did she tell him that Mr. Bernays was now a self-styled expert in the new discipline of Public Relations who had just received a handsome retainer from the American Tobacco Company to promote cigarette consumption among women. What billed itself as a feminist promotion of the emancipation of women was in reality a public relations ploy to open a new market for tobacco by getting women addicted to cigarettes.
Years later Eddie Bernays would wax philosophical about the Torches of Freedom campaign. “Age-old customs, I learned, could be broken down by a dramatic appeal, disseminated by the network of media,” he wrote in his memoirs.
Eddie failed to note that he had given the essential definition of public relations and advertising as practiced during the 1920s.
Like the behaviorists, Eddie might have felt that human beings were infinitely malleable when subjected to orchestrated public opinion, but his insight needs its proper historical context to be understood correctly. What he was really talking about was the erosion of custom by the manipulation of passion. Throughout the century, tradition and morals would prove vulnerable to publicity campaigns which gave “scientific” justification for succumbing to passion.
As you will see from this classic example,women as a group have one glaring weakness. That is that many of them can be induced to do things, even things that are ultimately harmful to themselves,such as smoking cigarettes, if they believe that it will somehow have a negative impact on men. This is the Achilles heel of the feminist movement. The very same mechanism that they use to whip women up into an anti-male frenzy can be used to make women do any number of things, from eating at a specific restaurant to buying a certain kind of hand lotion,and in theory, it can even be used to cause women to support the goals of Men’s Rights Activists.
Let me give you an example.
For many years,we have tried to advance our causes under the banners of logic and fairness. Many father’s rights activists, for example, have fought hard to try to get a presumption of joint physical custody of children. They have cited laws which state that favoring one gender over another is illegal, they have debated feminists who are against joint custody,pointing out how unfair it is to use a man’s children to extract money from him, how much psychological damage is done to the children as well as the non-custodial parent.
The response to this is that the women go cold. They clam up.
What should have been said is this: “For too long, men have got away with dumping primary custody on women,limiting their careers and personal fulfillment under the crushing burden of child care,it’s time to make those bastards take some responsibility for once! Support [shared parenting bill no. x]!”. This would have been met with resounding applause and shouts of “You go,girl!”,as full of fallacies and falsehoods as it is.
The great thing is that the claims don’t have to make any sense. Women will never research the long-term consequences or the veracity of any of it. The only thinking they’ll be doing is whether they want to give a standing ovation to the person, or just applaud really loudly while sitting. I will spell it out in full. The solution to the “woman problem” is to create our own “feminist” websites and publications, framing our own issues as I have outlined above, as feminist issues, which will make it past the mental filters employed by your average rabid man-hater to screen out anything which appears beneficial to men in some way.
These man-hating women will absorb our message, internalize it, and then start actively agitating on our behalf believing that they are harming us. This process would be self-sustaining and grow exponentially because women are uniquely susceptible to peer pressure. The trick is to create a lot of these faux feminist propaganda outlets and hype them up like there’s no tomorrow,creating the illusion that there is a consensus on these ideas, then feminist-leaning women will start their own blogs and magazines borrowing our message from the “feminist” media we have created for them and influence still more women.
Again, this is not a technique I have created, I am borrowing it from a group that has toppled entire governments using it, the CIA. It has worked before, and it will work again, the only thing we need are MRAs who are dedicated enough to our cause to put it to work for us.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.