The issue of Men’s Rights has recently come a long way since it first branched off from the men’s liberation movement in the early 1970’s. Formed in response to second-wave feminism, the MRM often opposes what they feel to be societal changes sought by feminists. Today, the Men’s Right’s Movement continues to gain traction among in the West, and also has gained a following in certain developing countries such as India.

Let there be no mistake: feminism is a fundamentally decadent belief system, is inherently destructive to whichever society it embeds itself in, and has been directly or indirectly responsible for the misery of millions of families throughout the world. Furthermore, it is undeniably true that in some countries, particularly in the post-Christian West, men suffer political and legal setbacks as a result of the insidious infiltration of feminism into every aspect of daily life, and that feminists are responsible for many of the culturally imperialist overtures in the deveoping world. We cannot ignore that, for instance, in Sweden, the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet), attempted to impose a so-called “Man Tax,” or that in the same country, a “gender-neutral” pronoun has been artificially introduced to the language by politicians who want to enforce the notion of equality.

We live in an age of where, women are now claiming a very anarchistic and individualistic notion of ‘personality’ and ‘freedom,’ with liberal regimes which sadly, reflect the desires of those women to the detriment of society as a whole. Many MRAs have felt the effects of this, either personally or legally. For instance, it is a well known fact that divorce and custody hearings ultimately favor women, and one can argue that many men are justifiably aggrieved by such happenings.

While this is one of the more prominent concerns of MRA’s, it is not merely enough to oppose the legalistic aspects of feminist legislation, for in fact, such legislative actions on the part of secular-liberal governments the world over are nothing but symptoms of the underlying problem. If it was possible to prove that certain pieces of legislation were nothing more than procedural abnormalities, then perhaps such action would be enough to achieve the purported equality that some MRA’s desire. However, feminist-oriented legislation of the last 40 years has in fact been part of a protracted attack on both family and religious values that resulted in the subsequent emasculation of nearly all social institutions in the industrialized world.

The fundamental problem is with the Men’s Rights Movement, is therefore not that they sometimes engage in legal battles with feminists, but rather that on matters of ideology, they have been too willing to compromise with feminists in the name of equality. While the average Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) claims he opposes the effects of feminism, he also agrees with the feminist agenda by openly stating that his goals are essentially the same as the theoretical goal of feminism: namely developing an egalitarian society with regard to gender. Some Men’s Rights Activists go so far as to clamor for the destruction of patriarchy as being oppressive to men or saying that society should be gender neutral.

While most MRA’s seem to be libertarian in their political orientation, this is even true of the MRAs who would consider themselves to be “conservatives” in the Western sense. We must consider that not a single “right-wing” party in all of Europe or the West, with perhaps the exception of the newly-emergent Golden Dawn of Greece, truly can be considered to represent authentically Traditionalist principles. On the one hand, the liberals constantly remind us of the need for equality, whilst secretly pushing for the disenfranchisement of males. On the other hand, so-called “respectable” conservatives at best engage in the conceit that old forms of relating between men and women can be supported despite the fact that the legal and social infrastructure underlying these has been dismantled since the French Revolution.

The current social and political state in many developed nations mean that so-called “liberal values” are now being propagated across the world as a new form of imperialism. Because the liberal regimes of the world do not tolerate dissent, and immediately suppress those who disagree with the establishment, only a revolution or a revolution-like movement is capable of destroying it. Feminism, being part and parcel of a post-Christian imperialism, therefore must be fought on all fronts, beginning on the ideological front, meaning that one cannot compromise with feminists on any point. Moreover, the current condition necessitates that any attempts to resist attempts at globalization or attacks on the cultural independence of nations, must completely and fully advocated the utter and absolute destruction of the liberal order, by revolutionary means if necessary.

One certainly cannot hold the same ideas as his enemy, yet expect different results, and it is even more foolish to pursue the same ends as one’s enemies because one imagines that there is common benefit for both parties. The fact is that there is no desire on the part of our enemies to compromise with us, and behind their seemingly benign talk is severe animosity, which in this case is directed towards the family structure and men in particular. Therefore, there can be no circumstances under which we can support anything which our enemies support, and no circumstances under which we can oppose anything that our enemies oppose.

Moreover, many MRA’s are insistent upon taking upon the role of the victim, and playing upon the emotions of one’s “rights”. Therefore, rather than embodying the true spirit of a Conservative Revolutionary, he is merely playing by the rules and board designed by secular humanists and liberal democrats who only discuss politics of victimhood and demands for more “rights”. Like Occupy Wall Street, such a movement is ultimately doomed to failure, precisely because it lacks the proper grounding.

The response of MRA’s thus far has not sought any viable replacement. It does not seek to replace feminism with anything other than that which is essentially a “mirror image” of feminism. For example, with regards to feminist individualism, rather than criticizing the rampant, materialistic, and empty individualism of the modern world as being socially destructive, many MRA’s attempt to imagine a separate male independence, which not only ultimately achieves the same goal as feminism, but is just as damaging to society. Similarly, many refuse to realize that liberalism based strictly upon blind egalitarianism is a corrupt system, and instead desire to work within a system which has already ab initio considered such them to belong to a previous era.

We can clearly note that the goals of the MRM (Men’s rights movement) are therefore a “part and parcel” of the modernist worldview, and have nothing to do with a traditionalist remoralization of society. Traditionalist society is not based on the nihilistic notion of equal rights, but rather, upon the preservation of hierarchy and eternal values. Rather that seeking to dignify men by rejuvenating patriarchal gender roles, and defending the traditional family, many MRA’s are now either advocating defeatism or becoming unwitting collaborators with feminists.

As Traditionalists, we should not be taken in by mere appearances. As stated earlier, feminism is a rebellion against the natural order, but the MRM alone will not necessarily overcome feminism in its entirety. Fighting legal battles might provide a temporary respite from the advancement of second and third-wave feminism, but it will never overcome feminism so long the goal is to provide mere equality under a democracy. The truth is that, in the Traditional world, the “absolute man” and the “absolute woman” can never truly be “equal” in the modern sense of the world. Rather, to the Traditionalist, they are complimentary and have their own virtues: Man is represented by the sky, godliness, form, and chivalry. Woman is represented by the earth and the waters, nature, matter and submission. The feminine force is centrifugal with its tendency to chaos, but when aligned the masculine stability, a synthesis results. Thus, the masculine principle must become more fully itself, while the feminine becomes aligned with the masculine.

In conclusion, while the MRM cannot be completely dismissed as a negative force. While Traditionalists should oppose feminism, the current state of the MRM is as yet ideologically and politically unsound. Nonetheless, as a growing movement, and one which is opposed to one of the most scared calves of liberalism, it does offer a glimmer of hope, however dim it may be. If they are willing to turn away from playing the defeatist game of modernist politics, then and only then, can they become valuable allies.