Black_Rose
26th November 2011, 23:17
I decided to post this because I might find the perspective of some restricted users, especially those who actually subscribe to this stuff, interesting.
It is rather short from the aptly named blog, Patriactionary:
Namely, I’m interested in the premise a not-insignificant portion of the MRA side starts from – that we need rights and activism to demand that women give us permission to be men. That is an abdication of man’s natural role, that of leader. We don’t lead our women because they give us permission, but because that’s just how it’s supposed to be, baby.
So then, what is a reactionary to do? Perhaps the proper reaction is a revolution that says we will no longer collectively frame our responses in reaction to women. Instead, we will lead and the women will react. Or to put it another way, go make us a sandwich.
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/reactionary-revolutionary/
I wrote about the MRA before:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/mras-mens-right-t163568/index.html
It is rather short from the aptly named blog, Patriactionary:
Namely, I’m interested in the premise a not-insignificant portion of the MRA side starts from – that we need rights and activism to demand that women give us permission to be men. That is an abdication of man’s natural role, that of leader. We don’t lead our women because they give us permission, but because that’s just how it’s supposed to be, baby.
So then, what is a reactionary to do? Perhaps the proper reaction is a revolution that says we will no longer collectively frame our responses in reaction to women. Instead, we will lead and the women will react. Or to put it another way, go make us a sandwich.
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/reactionary-revolutionary/
I wrote about the MRA before:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/mras-mens-right-t163568/index.html