Generating Heat

MRAs need to generate heat rather than formulae.

One of the things that drives me nuts - yes, yes, I know, yet another thing - is the belief among many highly-intelligent MRAs that there is some objective theory - probably based on biology, psychology, history, anthropology, law etc - that can lead us all to a state of happiness and general contentment with each other; particularly on gender lines. But there is no such thing. And, as such, it is largely a waste of time trying to figure out what such a theory might be - time, I might add, that could be fruitfully spent doing other things - such as engaging in some form of direct activism!

An example.

I have just discovered a formula which is absolutely perfect. And it tells us how we can maximise the average amount of happiness in a society. This formula will also maximise economical success and reduce to a minimum the amount of crime. It will also produce the most healthy of children, psychologically, physically etc. etc. And it will revolutionise our educational systems and make them maximally effective.

In fact, it is an amazing formula. It maximises everything that most of us would want maximised, and it minimises everything that most of us would want minismised.

There is no doubt about it. This formula is the best that is possible. And all the scientists agree. This formula is perfect.

Problems solved?

Hmm. Let's see.

this formula tells us that women should stay at home looking after the children,

Amongst other things; this formula tells us that women should stay at home looking after the children, and that men should go out to work.

So, is this what we do, by decree? Do we demand that all the men go out to work and that all the women stay at home? After all, this is what the formula says we should do. And it is a correct formula. There is noooo doubt about it.

But what if millions of women do not like this idea? "This is unfair," they say. "Why cannot we have careers?"

And my point is this.

From this state of female dissatisfaction alone, there will emerge a veritable mountain of problems. And so this perfect formula will have to be tampered with in order to make these women happy.

But once you have tampered with this perfect formula, there is a price to pay. Something that was as perfect as possible has been degraded. 

And, hence, some group, somewhere, will have suffered from this degradation. 

They will have lost out.

No way are they going to put up with this!

And so the formula will need to be readjusted again.

And again. And again. And again.

And, before long, this perfect formula will be ignored, completely corrupted, and, effectively, discarded; as everyone tries to maximise their own piece of the pie.

What a waste of time. Because this perfect formula, in practice, got you nowhere.

Of course, one could argue that now that we have a perfect formula, everyone must conform to it - whether they like it or not. For example, those women will just have to stay at home and look after the kids.

But is this what we would really want? ...

(Stalin - who killed tens of millions - so that people would conform to his communist ideals.)

And, of course, my real point is this.

If my perfect formula cannot actually lead to anywhere that is deemed to be satisfactory by nearly everyone, then neither will your more complicated theories do so; no matter how wonderful and detailed they might be. After all, my formula is perfect, and you cannot better it, and yet still it does not work. 

In other words, as an MRA, I would suggest that you do not waste your time trying to find a formula or a theory that will 'work', because it will get you nowhere.

Furthermore, circumstances tend to change very quickly indeed, and any formula or theory will be out of date and invalid - woefully so, for much of the time - well before you have figured it out.

In some sense, the attempt to find a formula or a theory for arguing the case for more rights for men and for less discrimination against them etc etc, is also akin to the search  - now abandoned - by old economists for a "just price" for every good on the market.

The notion that there was such a thing as a "just price" -  a 'fit and proper' price - something that would be calculated with reference to various parameters, moral considerations and philosophical deliberations was completely futile, and a "just" price for goods and services was totally unrealistic in practice.

The only "price" that was sustainable in a complex society was the "market price"; a value which is simply determined by the statistical laws of supply and demand, and by the various input and output costs of delivering a product or service; all of which shift around because they are dependent on so many different moving variables.

most "rights" that are accorded to people are nowadays 'calculated' ... on the basis of how much political pressure can be brought to bear

Similarly, in practice, most "rights" that are accorded to people are nowadays 'calculated' and judged not with reference to some higher authority - such as a god or a 'theory' - but on the basis of how much political pressure can be brought to bear on those in government, how much money supports one position or the other, how many people have a vested interest in the matter, how much attention can be attracted; and so on.

In other words, the various "rights" that are accorded to people largely depend, loosely speaking, on the amount of heat and pressure that can be generated over the matters of concern.

In other words, forces to do with the flow of people's money determine the current price - the 'market price' - of goods and services, and forces to do with the flow of people's voices - their psychology, if you prefer - determine the rights that are accorded them.

And in much the same way that the amount of goods and services that people can purchase depends upon how much money they can spend, the rights and privileges that are accorded to people depend upon the amount of psychological heat that they can generate in favour of themselves.

Here is one of my favourite examples that helps to demonstrate this point.

Should we spend the same amount on each cancer?

Well, if we spend £10,000 on each cancer, then 10 man-years will be saved but only 2 woman-years will be saved.

Is this fair?

Surely, women need more money!

Well, to solve this 'problem', we could spend five times as much on breast cancer as prostate cancer, so that the number of lives saved is equal across the genders.

But would this be fair? - because now we are sacrificing five man years just to save one woman year!

(Every time we spend $5000 on breast cancer to save one woman year, we could have spent it, instead, on prostate cancer and, hence, saved five man years.)

So, what is the 'correct' solution? The 'fair' solution? The 'equal' solution? The 'scientific' solution.

Well. There isn't one.

It does not exist.

But, of course, there is, indeed, a political solution; a practical solution. And here it is.

The money that you hand over to each cancer group is in some way proportional to that group's ability to affect the number of votes that you get. 

And this is why, for example, the amount of money being spent on women's health concerns by western governments is vastly more than the amount spent on men's health concerns.

Quite simply, the women have generated more heat.

it is the heat that counts

In practice, therefore, it is the heat that counts, and there is no perfect formula that will provide a 'correct' or 'just' solution to this imbalance.

Because it does not exist.

There is no solution - 'scientific' or otherwise - that will give us 'equality' in this area.

Indeed, generally speaking, in most areas relating to gender, the evidence and the facts are always twisted to advantage women (and government) at the expense of men. And, in practice, one cannot escape from this by appealing to some kind of perfect formula or theory.

Indeed, in practice, our rulers simply try to minimise the amount of fuss and aggravation that people cause them while forever attempting to empower and enrich themselves further.

That's the way that it works out there.

The upshot of all this is that in order to change the situation that prevails - e.g. the anti-male laws, the misandric rhetoric, etc etc - there needs to be applied a considerable amount of heat. The 'evidence' on its own is not enough. The data and the statistics are not enough. The 'science' is not enough.

And, of course, a truly excellent example of this derives from the fact that despite the huge negative effects on societies that arise from fatherlessness - effects which are clearly attested to by the facts that surround us, as well as by the data and the statistics - western governments have continually created laws and policies that actually encourage fatherlessness!

And, loosely speaking, there are two main reasons for this.

feminists have generated far more heat than have fathers

Firstly, the feminists have generated far more heat than have fathers. Secondly, fatherlessness and the breakdown of families empowers those in government; e.g. see Why Governments Love Feminism.

In conclusion, therefore, my view is that until 'men' start undermining, or threatening to undermine, very significantly those forces and those groups of people who are the cause of the problems that beset them, they will achieve very little.

And while quoting various formulae, theories, statistics and facts will very often help with such actions, on their own, they are of little value in practice.

Indeed, in practice, heat alone is very clearly often good enough!

Let me put this into simpler words.

"I don't care what you think. I don't care what the evidence is. I just don't like what you are doing to me and to my fellow men. And if you continue doing it, I will undermine you."

Furthermore, MRAs should have no moral reservations about attacking very viciously those people who support the feminist agenda. After all, apart from demonising, disadvantaging and discriminating against all men, these people are costing us billions of dollars every year and they are causing a great deal of misery throughout most of society (e.g. see The Benefits of Feminism). 

And, finally, MRAs should never forget that one of the main aims of those who support the feminist agenda is to break down the relationships between men, women and children - regardless of the consequences; and even though, for most people, good relationships are the most important aspects of their lives.

They are trying to mess up your relationships. 

Yep: They are trying to mess up your relationships. 

With much success.

In other words, these are very nasty people indeed. And MRAs should be going after them and undermining them, not talking politely to them.

"The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." ("The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971). 

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman) 

" "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." - from Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p.537. 

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronan, 1988 Houston National Organization for Women {NOW} Conference for Women.). 

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.  MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...  From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985: 

Politically Correct Medical Funding Britain's top cancer expert attacks the political correctness that influences too much medical spending. Karol Sikora - a leading cancer specialist

Certain diseases become fashionable in the public consciousness and so attract more political support and attention.

At one stage in the early Nineties, we had the absurdity that the number of people in Aids counselling, helplines and other jobs exceeded the conceived number of sufferers. Moreover, for every three Aids victims there was one Aids organisation. A fortune was wasted on lecturing people who were never at risk.

Breast cancer has become a hugely fashionable cause, eagerly taken up by politicians and the media, yet prostate cancer wins nothing like the same attention.

This is despite the fact that 20,000 people die from each of the two diseases every year.

There are more than 20 charities working in the field of breast cancer, but just two for prostate cancer.

Life-Saving Prostate Treatment Denied Funding "A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body."

Effective Prostate Cancer Drug Blocked CareToLive, a non-profit corporation, is suing FDA officials on behalf of terminal prostate cancer patients over the decision not to approve Provenge, a new life-extending prostate cancer vaccine, 

+ The FDA continues to ignore the cries of the 30,000 men dying of prostate cancer each year, and refuses to protect their health and well being as they are sworn to do."

There has been only one approved treatment for late stage prostate cancer in over 42 years. The FDA decision was unprecedented in a late stage disease where the FDA special Advisory Panel of experts voted overwhelmingly that Provenge is safe and effective and no viable alternatives exist.

1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetimes. Over 30,000 American men will die from prostate cancer this year.