Jafoo

Queefs are no laughing matter. You'll discover this, once you've taken a woman to bed

Toe-Maytoe, Tah-Mahtoe Queef, Pussy Fart

We needn't even go that far. Our perceptions of the external world at this very moment are colored by thoughts , beliefs, and schemas we're mostly unconscious of. The veracity of our memories is a far more complicated subject entirely

"What happened to physical releases?"

Don't be surprised to witness something of a resurrection https://youtu.be/RwhdXeriYzY?si=kKrrAPd5Rk_0dpMZ Especially as twisting a steady profit out of streaming continues to be more elusive than clothes on Sydney Sweeney

What you propose is an interesting theory

Cont'd:

Shellenberger: And it’s interesting what was left out of that identity. People on the Left often leave American-ness out of their identity. They’re ashamed or embarrassed to be American. I do think the Left has gotten better about it. The antiwar movement this time did a better job of attaching itself to patriotic symbols. But as long as we’re not presenting a vision for the future, we’re swimming against the stream of America’s populist culture of aspiration."

MRAs, for the most part, also refuse to emphasize that their cause isn't just a fight to help men, but part of the larger struggle to make America a more free and prosperous land for everyone. And as long as we're not presenting a marketable vision for the future, we're also swimming against the tide

"Let’s define what we like about being American. There’s a lot that I’m very proud of. I can get a business license from the El Cerrito Financial Services Department, and I don’t have to bribe anybody. I can ride my bike with my son to the library, and, at least for now, my librarian won’t call the FBI and tell them what I’ve checked out. I don’t worry about going to jail for saying the things I’m saying to you right now. There are many things that I cherish about being an American, but progressives don’t talk much about those things because we have such a complaint-based culture."

The MRM has also been mostly complaint driven, with very little talk of all the things we love about being citizens of The US. Ex. The most prominent members of The MRM are all professional content creators on YouTube, who enjoy upper-middle class existences, funded by producing YouTube videos and E-Begging. This is only possible in a society that's attained the astounding heights of technological development that The US has. Folks in El Salvador and Somalia have no such opportunities. Hell, as recently as The 2000s, making a living as a professional content creator on social media wasn't even possible in The US!!!

"Polonsky: And that gives the Right fuel to say, “If you don’t like it here, leave.”

This disparity between the fairly rich lives most MRAs themselves enjoy, and the woe-is-me portraits they paint in their public rhetoric gives skeptics fuel to say "You're just a bunch of fucking crybabies" Shellenberger: At some point in the sixties, the Left bought into the big lie that its values were not American values. We actually believed people when they said that about us. I don’t know why it happened, but it did."

From The MRM's beginnings in The 2010s, the movement's leaders took the view that it's values aren't American values. This sort of thinking stems from their core belief that our entire civilization was founded on so-called Gynocentrism, and that to achieve progress, we need to overthrow "The System", and replace it with a Red Pill Theocracy, with Paul Elam serving as The Grand Ayatollah

"Too many figures on the Left, from Noam Chomsky to Michael Moore to Ralph Nader, focus on the negative. I think there’s something hard-wired into humans that attracts us to the positive. John Edwards has had a huge amount of appeal among voters because he describes what he loves about America and then talks about what we have to fix — in that order."

Pretty much every prominent MRA(Paul Elam, Karen Straughn, Tom Golden, Brian Martinez, Alison Tieman, Hannah Wallen, Warren Farrell)focuses on the negative. That's effective in the short term for attracting attention, but leaves everyone demoralized and sapped of invigoration long term. We're going to attract much more support if we enumerate all the things we love about The US, and then discuss the revisions we believe would be beneficial to everyone, male AND female alike

"Apollo does the same thing. The story we tell at Apollo is “America is a great country, and here’s why.” Once we establish that context, corporate greed, pollution, and global warming can then be seen as un-American. That’s a central part of our strategy."

Once we also start telling the story "The US is a great nation, here's why", we establish a context in which things like dysfunctional family courts, Title IX Star Chambers, The Drug War, and a dearth of easily accessible vocational training are exposed as being un-American. This is central to the The Post-MRM's strategy

"Polonsky: All those left-wing figures you named provide an important perspective, though, don’t you agree?"

In the interest of fairness, the intellectual founders of The MRM(Warren Farrell, Erin Pizzey), and the movement's most prominent figures(Paul Elam, Tom Golden, Karen Straughn, Alison Tieman)have provided fascinating perspectives

Shellenberger: Sure, but if you read a book by Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, it emphasizes just one side of America. People have suffered in America; there’s no question about it. There’s been genocide. There was slavery. We’ve decimated our native forests. All of that is true."

MRA screeds also emphasize 1/4 of American history. Yeah, we have launched wars which were poorly thought out and which wasted the lives of many, quite a few of whom were male. Our businesses and corporations have visited all sorts of maltreatment on their employees, and men have often(though certainly not always)borne the brunt of that maltreatment

"But it’s also true that America has allowed people to worship whatever god they choose, that it offers an unprecedented amount of personal freedom, and that, compared to most of the world, we have achieved a freedom from want that our great-grandparents couldn’t even dream of in their day."

While it may be true that "traditional masculinity" is more abundant in parts of the world where industrialization has yet to take place, these are also societies devoid of democracy and civil liberty. In America, we're free to adhere to any politcal or religious ideology we choose, and to adopt whatever form of masculinity or feminity we prefer: We're free to model ourselves after Harvey Specter, Jonah Hill, or Jay Z. The days of the factories employing millions of Americans are gone, nonetheless the transition to a service economy has drastically reduced the number of work place deaths per year, and provided us with a diversity of opportunities for economic advancement which were inconceivable to those who were coming of age in The 1970s, to say nothing of all decades prior

"Obviously there’s a huge amount of suffering in the world, but is there more now than before? For most of human history we’ve had low life expectancies and high infant- and maternal-mortality rates. My grandparents, who were born at the end of the nineteenth century, had terribly hard lives. My grandmother, with no access to birth control, had nine kids. She didn’t even want to have the last child, my mother, because her life was already so goddamn hard."

Goes without saying, most men in days past didn't want that many kids either

"We enjoy a quality of life in this country that the majority of the world longs to have. For all our missteps along the way, and for all the problems we still have left to solve, our history is a story of progress. That’s why I think the label progressive is a good one for liberals and the Left generally. We have an inspiring story to tell. Let’s get out there and start telling it."

Loudly as leading MRAs like Paul Elam and Aly Tieman doth insist that our entire civilization is built on Gynocentrism, fact is we enjoy a quality of life far richer than 98% of the rest of the planet enjoys. For all blunders we've made, and for all the flaws in our society, the American story is one of progress. The Post-MRM thus has an inspiring story to tell, by aligning ourselves with this particular narrative. Therefore, it's imperative to go out into our neighborhoods and communities, and attract the public to our side by communicating to them that we're agitating not just for improving the lives of men, but making America a saner and more gainful place for everyone

Cont'd:

The MRM pursued a similar tactic: Screech and yelp about all the ways that ignoring "men's issues" will bring about The Apocalypse. This hasn't been especially effective, due to the fact that an Apocalypse is something which may or may not occur at some point in the distant future. Most human beings aren't activists, so their thoughts are naturally preoccupied by more immediate events like inflation, cost of fuel, and finding higher-paying employment than what they have now

"Polonsky: But every life-sustaining biosystem on the planet is in sharp decline. Doesn’t that fact have the power to alarm people?

Shellenberger: I wish I could tell you it did. We’re obviously in a disastrous situation, ecologically speaking. But one of the things we’ve discovered from extensive opinion research on this is that when you tell people about the magnitude of the crisis, either they don’t want to believe you or they get frightened into inaction and become pessimistic about the possibility of real change. So first you have to get people excited about a positive vision before delivering the bad news."

Not much of a rewrite required here. The effect of dropping stats on fatherlessness, homelessness among men, etc onto outside constituents has been that they don't want to believe you, or they get frightened into inaction, and become pessimistic about the possibility of real progress. You have to get folks excited with an uplifting view of the future

"As a rule, hope is more sustaining than fear. Scaring people is like giving children sugar: you get a burst of activity out of them, but then they crash. I think we saw this happen with the Dean candidacy and the antiwar movement. Those were campaigns that had a lot of juice for a few months, but then ran out. They ran on anger. What they needed was vision."

The MRM has been fueled by both rage and trying to scare people into action, not on a vision. This has also been the equivalent of giving kids sugar. The movement enjoyed a burst of energy during it's early days, crashed in '19, and has been in a state of stagnation ever since

"Polonsky: I thought the antiwar movement expressed its position with intelligence.

Shellenberger: What I fault the antiwar movement for is that it was never very clear about what it stood for, neither its core values nor its vision for U.S. engagement in the world. The message coming out of the mainstream antiwar groups before the invasion of Iraq was “Let the inspections work.” What kind of vision and values did that elevate?"

Fault The MRM for the same transgressions. It's never been clear about what values it stands for, or our vision for the future. The message one gets out of MRAs has pretty much been "We hate feminism/modern society!!!", and not much more

"Polonsky: It elevated the values of deferring to international authority, creating international consensus, cooperating with our allies, using war only as a last resort."

The MRM elevated the values of deferring to logic, rational thought, and acting in concert with the data

"Shellenberger: It’s hard to see how any of those values is more powerful than “We’ve got to do whatever it takes to protect our families against terror.”

It's similarly impossible to see how any of the values The MRM promoted are more powerful than those promoted by those who champion Title IX star chambers and oppose shared parenting legislation... "We have to do whatever it takes to protect vulnerable people from dangerous predators"

"You saw Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, right? One of the most resonant themes from Fahrenheit 9/11 was that the people who made the decision to go to war not only suffered no consequences; they profited. That violates a core value: that people should take responsibility for their decisions. If there’s a price to be paid, they should pay it. Moore argued that when our elected representatives decide to go to war, they should volunteer their own sons and daughters first. If you’re going to make this decision for our kids, you have to make it for your own kids too. I think that is a bridge value. “Let the inspections work” is a policy position divorced from a larger vision and a coherent set of values."

The politicians and activists who oppose ending the drug war, increasing access to vocational training, making shared parenting legislation the law of the land, reforming Title IX and abolishing The White House's power to declare war without the approval of Congress also profited, rather than suffering consequences. This violates a core value: Everyone needs to be fair-minded, and held accountable for their behavior. "Let cops and prosectors investigate rape accusations on campus" is a policy position, divorced from a larger vision and a coherent set of values

"Polonsky: How might you articulate core values for U.S. foreign policy?" Insofar as The MRM goes, we have to articulate core values for domestic policy

"Shellenberger: I think we need a foreign policy that encourages democracy and human rights. That would be a very different foreign policy from the one we have now, which is supposedly based on national security. I want to see the United States promoting democracy and human rights worldwide. My problem is not that the United States is an imperial power; my problem is that it’s an imperial power spreading the wrong set of values through its oppressive actions."

We need a domestic policy which encourages liberty and justice for one and all, regardless of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. That's very different than the one we have now, which is focused on trying to make life as safe as possible. We need a US that promotes democracy and civil rights, not rights for men or women alone

"I believe in the idea of a “just war,” including U.S. military interventions in Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. That said, I don’t support the ways in which many of those wars were fought. In most cases, including Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, the U.S. bombed civilian families in poor neighborhoods when ground troops could have done a better job with far less civilian loss of life. In Haiti, it wasn’t clear sometimes whose side we were on."

I'm sure most of us believe that violent criminals who've maliciously harmed their fellow citizens and shown no remorse for doing so need to suffer severe punishment, including life imprisonment in some cases. That said, I'm sure most of us aren't fans of Broken Windows and so-called preventive policing, which has done nothing more than perpetuate cycles of crime and poverty in our nation's most impoverished communities

"Not all wars are just, of course, and I don’t believe Bush made the case for war in Iraq. But I don’t think the Left ever articulated a coherent moral vision for Iraq either."

Not all laws are just, not all cops and prosecutors are righteous defenders of The Constitution, and Trump didn't really ever say what he meant by "I stand with the cops". The MRM never articulated a lucid moral vision for the American criminal justice system either

Environmentalism will never be able to muster the strength it needs to deal with global warming as long as it . . . fails to offer Americans an inspiring vision for the future."

The MRM was never able to muster the strength it needed to win changes to law and policy, since it never offered Americans an inspiring vision for the future

"Polonsky: And crawl before you can walk?

Shellenberger: Yes. But I think debates about how to define success hinge on the wrong questions. People within the environmental community love to ask, “Is what we’re advocating extreme enough? Does it really get us where we want to go?” And I think the right question is “Does our proposal give us enough momentum to get us where we want to go in the future? Does it increase our power?”

Debates about how we define success on "men's issues" also hinge on poorly thought out questions. MRAs are prone to asking "Is what we're doing in front of the cameras edgy and hard core enough? Does it get us shitloads of attention?" And I believe the more apt questions are: "Are we putting forth policy proposals that give us enough momentum to get us where we want to be in the future? Does it strengthen our influence over the larger civilization?"

"Polonsky: The all-or-nothing debate reminds me of my activist days in the eighties. There was a certain counter-cultural identity within the peace movement. You had a sense of being more bohemian and hip than the mainstream. That identity was pleasant for us, but I don’t think it served our overall objectives."

Same thing is true within The MRM. Hell, Paul Elam(Star of the documentary The Red Pill, and the most famous MRA on Earth)himself has said outright more than once that his goal was to create "a counterculture", and when MRAs declare themselves Red Pill, then denounce the rest of us mere mortals they share the planet with as Blue-Purple Pill Normies, that's just a more jargony way of saying "We're more hip and bohemian than thou in the mainstream art". Paraphrase Sidney Poitier in A Piece Of The Action: This has all been little more than intellectual masturbation... It felt good, but it never produced life. It never brought MRAs close to becoming anything more than a subculture

Cont'd:

While there's an argument to be made that the world would have been a saner place had we not gone down the road of thinking in terms of gendered rights back in the late 1960s(And stuck to thinking in terms of civil rights for one and all, regardless of gender)that ain't what happened, and there's no turning back the clock now. If we're serious about enhancing liberty for all Americans, not just ourselves, that's going to mean that folks will still be within their rights to identify as Feminists, form organizations, and take part in the political process, violently as we may disagree with them on some subjects

                                                          "In the New Yorker, Kerry even said he doesn’t want to have a foreign-policy doctrine. Well, you need a doctrine. A doctrine is a vision for your foreign policy. Kerry seems to resist vision, and that doesn’t work anymore, if it ever did. You need a bold, exciting vision to bring new people into the political process and create a governing majority. People want a strong leader, and I don’t think Kerry is being one right now." 

Trump(who was mistaken for The Mahdi by most card-carrying MRAs), during his years in office, never articulated a coherent foreign policy doctrine. No candidate in the upcoming election is doing so, and the closest MRAs have come to expressing thoughts on the subject is "We don't want men to die in war", none of which is a vision for The US's relationship to the rest of the world. MRAs and the few political leaders they endorse resist putting forth an intelligible vision on both foreign and domestic policy, and that's not been effective at winning widespread and durable public support. A charismatic celebrity like Trump can win followers temporarily on personality alone, but that support evaporates as rapidly as it appears, without a vision

"Democrats frame their proposals around issues, when they should be framing them around values."

MRAs similarly talk in terms of their pet projects, rather than values

"What really determines how people vote is their core beliefs, not what their position is on an issue like the economy or abortion or healthcare."

What really determines which causes people support is their core beliefs, not what their stance on subjects like shared parenting legislation and Title IX star chambers are.

"If you can understand what people’s values are, you can figure out how to create a governing majority."

No rewrite required.

"Our theory is that even people who are fairly conservative on issues like guns and gay marriage hold a lot of progressive values, especially around economic questions, and the Left needs to identify and strengthen those “bridge values.”

The Post-MRM's theory is that even people who aren't particularly receptive to "men's issues" hold many Textbook Liberal values on subjects like the economy and criminal justice, and that to succeed we need to strengthen and identify those "bridge values"

"Polonsky: Name one.

Shellenberger: Well, the big one we’ve been talking about is the notion that government has an important role to play in our economic future. We know it’s a progressive bridge value because it’s one the conservatives feel the need to attack all the time. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh, or take a look at Bush’s agenda for an “ownership society.”

It’s interesting how seldom we progressives sit around and talk about what our values are. Values are the core beliefs that guide human action. But ever since the rise of religious fundamentalism and all its talk of “family values,” we liberals have shied away from speaking about our values."

MRAs rarely speak of values either

"Polonsky: I read about a speech Kerry gave in Nevada on the subject of the proposed nuclear-waste dump at Yucca Flats. He said that transporting radioactive waste and burying it at Yucca Flats goes against “sound science.” Was that a bridge value he was invoking — sound science?

Shellenberger: “Sound science” is a value, but I doubt it’s a bridge value. I think it’s a value that works among educated liberals. I don’t think a blue-collar Reagan Democrat in the Midwest is going to be moved by “sound science.” Kerry’s preaching to the base with that one, and I don’t think he’s even preaching to the base all that well, because liberals are as wary of science as they are supportive of it. Science is a value-neutral enterprise. It can be used for good or evil."

"Adhering to the data" is also a value, but not a bridge value. It works among MRAs and those adjacent to them, who experience relief when they read a study confirming that fathers are good for kids, or that women commit domestic violence at rates comparable to men. It doesn't exert much influence over the other 80% of America though, who are preoccupied with worries like being able to make their utilities payment by the end of the week, relocating to a less shabby neighborhood than the one they currently inhabit, and acquiring employment that pays more than the barely-above minimum wage that they're making now

"At some point in the sixties, the Left bought into the big lie that its values were not American values. We actually believed people when they said that about us. I don’t know why it happened, but it did."

The MRM of The 10s-today has taken a similar stance, that their values are beyond and apart from so-called "Normie", middle class American values

"Polonsky: What’s the essential flaw in liberal thinking?

Shellenberger: Liberalism is far too complex to be reduced to having a single flaw. That said, there are patterns of thinking that get us into trouble. One of them is the idea that we’ll have more success if we define the problem as narrowly as possible. The way most progressive activism occurs is that scientists discover a problem — say, overfishing. Then somebody funds a few big studies on overfishing. Then the PR people take the studies to the media and get the press to talk about overfishing. And what the public hears is yet another thing that they have to worry about. Here they thought they had a lot on their plates already, and now they have to worry about overfishing! And the solution, of course, is not to eat the overfished fish, or maybe to send a letter to Congress. But the issue doesn’t fit into a broad framework. There’s no big question to be answered. There’s no story or set of values that overfishing fits within."

What caused The MRM to sputter out just as quickly as it arrived on the scene is too complex a subject to explore in the space of one article. That said, there are ways of conceptualizing "men's issues" which lead us into many dead ends. One of those being our predilection for defining our causes as narrowly as possible. Example: Title IX star chambers which expel students(many of whom happen to be male)for rape accusations which are supported by little to no evidence. The standard MRA approach has been to post lots of videos on YouTube, or in the case of NCFM, lobby the department of education, when such a thing occurs. This hasn't translated into significant policy reform or increasing our public support though. In no small part, this is attributable to the fact that A). This all just leaves the public with the impression that it's something else they have to worry about, and B). There's no overarching story or set of values that the goal(Abolish Title IX star chambers)fits into

"Polonsky: A framework that captured my imagination when I was young, and has captured the imaginations of many people, is sustainable living: how do we coexist with other life forms on the planet? Isn’t this a value? Why isn’t it catching on?

Shellenberger: There are a few reasons. For one thing, although a majority of people will agree that we should do right by the environment, if you ask people, “What are the biggest issues facing the country right now?” the environment doesn’t even make the top ten, often not even the top twenty. “Ecological concern,” as we define it, may be a value, but it’s not a strongly held one."

If we ask a majority of Americans "Do you think that men are human beings, and that it's a wise to direct some of our resources to correct the problems which disproportionately affect them?", they'll say "Yes". Then they'll also admit that this isn't anywhere close to their top 5 concerns. "Addressing men's issues" may be a widely held value, but it's not a strongly held value

"A value that is much more powerful is shared achievement. How do we do something great together? The United States is a culture of aspiration. Winning the gold at the Olympics, putting a man on the moon, freeing our country from dependence on foreign oil — they’re all more motivating than “Let’s keep the planet the way it’s been for thousands of years.” That goal actually tends to work against us. It’s not a progressive goal, in either the literal or the metaphorical sense of the term."

Talking about the ways we, as a nation, can achieve superb things together is going to win us more public support than constantly damning society for all of the ways they've allegedly neglected men, while readily sympathizing with women

"Polonsky: But couldn’t you also frame environmental action as a response to a threat? People on the Right have children and grandchildren too, and there exists a genuine threat to the survival of future generations. Why hasn’t that framework been effective?

Shellenberger: People see global warming as a threat, but a very distant one, especially in comparison to terrorism, war, unemployment, and the loss of healthcare coverage."

Continued:

investments in microchips in the sixties. Intel would not exist had the federal government not guaranteed its market."

We'll need to secure the support of a substantial portion of the federal government, if we're to secure policy and legal reforms

"Polonsky: When I hear “Apollo Project,” I think of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon. How do you get people to make the conceptual connection between the first Apollo Project and the New Apollo Project?

Shellenberger: Both are visions of what our country can accomplish. The first Apollo Project put a man on the moon. This new project is a chance to make America energy-independent. Plus, it’s a job-creation strategy. Instead of simply being against offshore drilling and against free trade, which gives Americans the impression that progressives are universally negative, we can be for what the United States does better than any other country in the world: we invent things. Invention and reinvention are defining aspects of our national identity and our culture of aspiration. We can’t compete on lowest wages or cheapest natural resources, but we can invent. We can create whole new industries."

The Post-MRM is similarly a vision of all that we can accomplish as a nation. We're putting forth pragmatic strategies for strengthening the economy and providing a more robust quality of life for all Americans, whereas The MRM of The 10s-today mostly defines itself by all the things it's opposed to: Chiefly, Feminism and Globalism. Which in turn, has left the public at large with the impression that The MRM is little more than a handful of misery mongers on YouTube, who's only talent is endlessly grousimg over all that they're unhappy over. We can create whole new industries, by bringing more men(indeed, more Americans generally) out of the margins and into the larger civilization

"Polonsky: The auto industry, for example?

Shellenberger: You name it. The interstate highway system in the 1950s. The railroads after the Civil War. These are projects that led to the growth of industries. They had some very negative consequences, too; don’t get me wrong. But the point is that the private sector couldn’t have achieved these things on its own; it needed the federal government to play an important leadership role. Apollo wants to do more than inspire a set of policies — we want to define what it means to be American. Progressives need to help people imagine more ambitiously what we can do together. American liberals today are stuck defending government programs that are, in some cases, more than half a century old. We need to reinvent progressive politics by reinventing a strategic role for government that unites Americans and transcends interest-group politics."

MRAs are today similarly stuck rehashing an act they largely stole from Tom Leykis and Phyllis Schafly. We need to revamp our approach and create an intelligible and coherent agenda that unites Americans and transcends identity politics

"Polonsky: The Apollo Alliance’s ten-point plan mentions, among other things, cultivating deserts for hydrogen. Isn’t that a rather far-out idea?

Shellenberger: Compared to what? Invading Iraq? We shouldn’t be shy to brainstorm far-out ideas — that’s how innovation happens. There are reasonable questions about how practical hydrogen cars would be. That’s why Apollo is proposing a diverse portfolio of investments. Hybrids and high-performance cars have to be part of it. Also electric cars and fuel-cell cars. We have to look at improving the technologies to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. We’re probably not going to have an entirely solar-based economy anytime soon, so all of those approaches need to be considered. The point is that the barriers to making Apollo happen are not technological. They’re political."

We also can't hesitate to brain storm far out ideas, when it comes to finding innovative ways of making progress on "men's issues". The barriers to us succeeding are social and political, in that we have to be more crafty than the ladies are, in terms of getting our needs and desires met. This probably means no longer using the word "men's rights" at all

"Right now our government is chronically underinvesting in new technologies because of an ideology that says government can do nothing right. Bush just slashed the budget of the National Science Foundation. It’s outrageous. To say that the federal government shouldn’t play a role in stimulating invention betrays a complete ignorance of American history. Should we not have built the railroads? Should we not have invested in microchips? Should we not have created the Internet? It’s ridiculous, but that’s what we’re fighting against: the notion that we should no longer invest our common assets."

The Biden Administration rolled back the already tepid reforms to Title IX that one chapter of The National Coalition For Men agitated for during Trump's reign. There's not much enthusiasm among The Department Of Education for bringing recess back in K-12s around the nation, or increasing access to vocational training for kids right out of high school either

"The rhetoric of the Right says that the government is alien from the people, that it’s a foreign entity that is occupying us. That’s a dangerous, disturbing idea, because it concentrates power in self-interested private entities — namely, corporations. As much corruption as there is with Halliburton and the rest, we still elect our government. We are our government. We do not live under a dictatorship. Our government is there to represent the public interest. Apollo emerged from the notion that the government ought to reach out and work with corporations and labor unions and environmental groups and make a grand New Deal, so to speak.

Democrats frame their proposals around issues, when they should be framing them around values. What really determines how people vote is their core beliefs, not what their position is on an issue like the economy or abortion or healthcare."

MRA rhetoric similarly dictates that "The System" is alien from the male population, that it's an evil force that has it's boot on our necks, and that the only hope lies in it all collapsing so that we can build The Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, one free of all prejudice and bias towards men. The result has been that guys are increasingly retreating from public life and into fantasy worlds of comic books, video games, and paperback fantasy novels, which in turn guarantees that our public institutions remain in the clutches of either The Woke Left or FOX Non-News Conservatives, both of whom hold highly simplistic ideas about men. On those rare occasions we did offer policy proposals, we framed them around "issues", instead of around values. This has failed to win widespread public support, for the simple fact we humans decide which causes to support based upon our core beliefs

"Polonsky: And a lot of people have signed on to that notion.

Shellenberger: Yes, but we’ve also designed Apollo in a way that conventional-thinking Democrats don’t really get. John Kerry and company haven’t really picked it up and run with it because they see the world in terms of separate issue categories: one box for foreign policy, one box for the economy, and one box for energy independence. Apollo breaks out of these boxes by telling a story about America’s past and future. Too many Democrats are stuck in abstract, single-issue categories that mean little to American voters."

MRAs similarly view "men's issues" as being in a category which exists separately from topics like the economy, providing high paying jobs, crime control, acess to first-rate housing and state of the art medical care, etc etc

"Polonsky: Do you think this is a very important election?

Shellenberger: Yes, but not in the hysterical way that most liberals do."

The upcoming election in 2024 is important, but not in the hysterical way that most MRAs believe it to be.

"Because even if the Democrats win, it would only reinforce the belief that what they’re doing is basically right, and I think what they’re doing is basically wrong."

Because even if The Republicans(who are ostensibly more sympathetic to The MRM) win, it would only reinforce MRAs belief that the philosophy which undergirds the movement is well-thought out and beneficial to America, even though the evidence doesn't back this up

"They want to restore the Clinton-era politics of small proposals, deficit reduction (as opposed to investment), and fuzzy foreign policy."

On the few occasions in which MRAs have come close to making policy proposals, they've pretty much expressed a vague desire to return to a romanticized view of The 1950s, one which never existed anywhere except in Leave It To Beaver and other sitcoms of that era... Rolling back no-fault divorce for the sake of keeping marriages together(creating a nation where men and women alike have FEWER civil liberties, in other words), bringing back the factories that once provided several million men with a middle class existence(even though automation has eliminated the need for a large-scale factory work force), reducing immigration down to pre-1965 levels, even though The US has an aging "native" population that won't be able to keep the economy viable on it's own, without regularly importing workers in, and creating a nation where everyone who identifies as a Feminist is run out of town on a rail and denied the right to assembly

Here's another one... The Men's Rights Movement, at least as it's existed from 2014-the present. Whatever knee jerk-reaction one has to the notion of "men's rights" itself, everything in the following article is equally applicable to The MRM https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/350/can-the-left-get-it-right.

Quote: "Sensing a political and business opportunity, Shellenberger and a close friend cofounded Communication Works, a political-strategy communications agency. “We were twenty-four and didn’t really know what we were getting into,” he says, “but we had the basic sense that progressive organizations had something to say and weren’t very good at saying it.”

Adaptation for our purposes: Organizations working on men's issues similarly have things they want to change, but haven't been especially effective at communicating their desires to the general public, clearly and effectively. The fact that the only time most Americans have heard the term "MRA" mentioned is in the occasional sneery, dismissive reference in a sitcom is testament to this.

"Six months later Shellenberger left the company to “question our most basic assumptions about what it will take for progressives to start winning again.”

Here in '24(The Red Pill - A much ballyhooed documentary about The MRM - was released in '16. It didn't bring about the sociopsycholgical revolution so many MRAs were predicting at the time. Just as An Inconvenient Truth didn't turn the public vegan, or create a world where everyone prioritized climate change over economic development), there's ample cause to question The MRM's most basic assumptions about what it takes to succeed at all

"He came to the conclusion that “complaint-based activism” was ultimately ineffective, and that single-issue progressive organizations and social movements had, in many cases, become special interests."

Same's true of The MRM, only in an even more disastrous way. Not only is "men's rights" itself a niche, single issue cause, but every cause under the heading of "men's rights" can also be broken up into single issue causes: Father's rights, campus due process, access to solid health care, domestic violence policy, etc etc. And once one digs into each of these topics, the wisdom of continuing to approach them as gendered problems(as opposed to American problems, which invite the attention and energies of us all)becomes extremely dubious

"Some of Shellenberger’s own prior victories now appeared hollow to him. “Nike made some commendable reforms in those factories,” he says. “They fired abusive managers. They replaced carcinogenic glues with water-soluble ones. They even allowed some of their plants to unionize. But we’d been pushing for something much bigger — that Nike more than triple the wages of its workers, worldwide — and we didn’t get close to delivering that. All we had was a set of complaints and demands. We didn’t have a positive vision for the future of the industry that would help Nike become a force for good in the world. The Nike campaign taught me the limits of protest politics.”

The MRM was moderately succeful during it's heyday, by using social media to bring attention to subjects that weren't especially new https://reason.com/1994/07/01/man-troubles/ During The Trump Administration, there were mild revisions to Title IX, and a few more male domestic violence shelters opened. All those victories have been exposed as hollow, now that The 2020s are upon us. The revisions to Title IX were promptly reversed by The Biden Administration, with no one but MRAs and Feminists taking notice. Those male-only DV shelters don't see much traffic, on account of the fact that men aren't generally eager to use them. Prominent MRAs like Paul Elam try to explain such failures by asserting "Society is just too Gynocentric and Blue Pill to understand our genius". It's entirely possible that he's correct, but I just can't shake the suspicion that the truth is far more prosaic... Like Greens, MRAs also failed to present the public with an uplifting vision of the future they could enjoy, if they support "men's issues". They also encountered the limits of protesting, yet reacted by screeching and stamping our feet on social media more loudly, rather than adopting not only new tactics, but a more productive way of conceptualizing "men's issues"

Polonsky: The New Apollo Project is pretty ambitious. You’re talking about a $30 billion annual investment from the federal government. What makes Apollo a new concept, as opposed to just a bundle of old progressive proposals?

"Shellenberger: What makes Apollo special is that there’s coherence in the values it represents, the policies it proposes, and the language it uses." The Apollo Project ultimately didn't pan out, so as such I don't propose that we put forth an equivalent for "men's issues".

The Patron Saint Of The MRM, Warren Farrell, has been on a crusade to persuade both the local and federal government to set up task forces for men and boy since at least The 90s, with very little to show for it. What I'm proposing: Whatever strategy those of us who are "Post-MRM" pursue, it must be one with coherence in the values it represents, the policies it proposes, and the language it uses.

"Talking about the millions of jobs that will be created by accelerating our transition to a clean-energy economy moves the environmental movement away from its focus on eco-apocalypse and uninspired technical microfixes, like fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars."

Talking about the gargantuan boost to our economy that will be created by getting several million people out of prison, off of welfare, and into steady work(plus making vocational training more readily accessible), in an era where The US is facing unprecedented competition from an endless array of emerging overseas markets moves us away from The MRM's fixation on fantasies of what prominent MRAs call the coming Fempocalypse https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?si=uLI5K4ggCJziI49v , and towards a vision of the brighter future we can all attain, men AND women alike.

"Environmentalism will never be able to muster the strength it needs to deal with global warming as long as it is seen by the American people as a special interest."

The MRM was similarly never able to gain widespread public support, due to it being a niche hobby, mostly among a handful of people online.

"And it will continue to be seen as a special interest as long as it fails to offer Americans an inspiring vision for the future."

No rewrite required here.

"The strength of any given political proposal turns more on its vision for the future and the values it carries within it than on its technical policy specifications. What’s powerful about Apollo is neither its ten-point plan nor even its list of endorsements but rather its generous, inclusive, and hopeful vision."

That'll be one of the many things which distinguishes The Post-MRM of today-forward from the movement of the 10s. Offering a generous and hopeful vision, which focuses on making America a saner, richer nation for all citizens. NOT a movement that's focused exclusively on simply helping men

"Apollo’s underlying values are about improving the lives of working families and the environment and national security and the economy. Apollo aims to put an end to the “either/or” thinking that has characterized environmental proposals. There may be all sorts of good, progressive policies out there, but they’re only Apollo-worthy if they’re big and bold, and good for workers, communities, the environment, and business."

The Post-MRM's underlying values are similar: Helping not just men who aren't doing well, but also reducing the material burdens of working families, keeping our crime rates low, reducing the number of tax dollars out of everyone's pocket at the end of the year, providing pristine neighborhoods for all Americans to live in, and strengthening our capacity to remain economically formidable, in an era where we're facing increasingly fierce competition from foreign markets. We forego the "either/or thinking" which characterized The MRM of The 2010s. Within The Post-MRM, by contrast, policy proposals are only viable if they're expansive, bold, and beneficial to workers, communities, businesses, and America as a whole. They can't just be good for men only

I think voters feel that if they were to have dinner with Kerry, Kerry would judge them on how smart they are, whereas if they were to have dinner with Bush, he would judge them on their values."

Currently, most voters believe that Woke-leaning holders of high office like Biden and AOC would judge them on whether or not their language is sufficiently "non-problematic". Whereas if they were to have dinner with possibly MRA-sympathetic politicians like Josh Holloway and DeSantis, they would be judged on whether or not their values are "Patriotically Correct"

"Polonsky: Being good for business is the difficult leg to add to the stool.

Shellenberger: None of this is easy. But neither was going to the moon. Look, the federal government has always played an important role in supporting strategic industries. We did it during the New Deal and World War II and created the most productive industrial base the world had ever seen. And keep in mind that America’s electronics industry would never have been possible had we not made strategic investments

The Internet has defintely set activism back several centuries. Entirely too many of us moderns are convinced that posting crap online is the equivalent of knocking on doors and recruiting supporters out in reality

Must be