An excellent piece from HAVEN Project X. Launched a year ago, this is from their Substack channel:
“The HAVEN Project X is a safe space (haven) for men to explore, understand and navigate the world increasingly driven by feminism. The insights, posts and articles curated in this space designed for the lay man.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
‘When men stopped pushing back, bureaucracies filled the void with feminist doctrine — not because it was better, but because it was unopposed.’
‘Contrary to its rhetoric, feminism does not thrive on strong, self-confident women. It thrives on weakened, self-doubting men.’
Interesting analysis. I have always wondered why feminism, with its mad claims, was not rejected out of hand, as appears to have been largely the case in non-Western cultures. (Though that may change.)
Many years ago, Carle C. Zimmerman analysed the cycles of flourishing and decline, in his book Family and Civilization.
From Brave AI:
‘Zimmerman argued that civilizations progress through distinct stages, beginning with a “Trustee Family Type” in early periods, followed by a “Paternalistic Family Type” during their peak, and ultimately declining into an “Atomistic Family Type” as they enter a phase of decay. He posited that the development of the atomistic family—characterized by the breakdown of parental authority, increased divorce, declining birthrates, and the erosion of traditional marriage—leads to societal disintegration.’
In his book, he also notes that Eastern cultures (not only Islamic, but also Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian etc) appear not to have gone through the cycle of flourishing and decline that the West is prone to. Unfortunately, he did look deeper into this. If only he had!
Many years ago, Australian social commentator Ronald Conway posited (in his last book) that OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is a deeply embedded feature of Western civilisation, and is responsible for a lot of things that can’t otherwise be explained. He noted that foreign students of his who were Christian, seemed to share this trait, whereas foreign students who were Buddhist (for example, or Confucian, Hindu, or whatever) were largely free of it. They had a different mindset.
Perhaps we men in the West need to cultivate the ability to step back three, four, five paces from life, so we can see the bigger picture, and so a kind of bigger picture wisdom can reach us. We might then be less willing to remain compliant and ‘just silent’ with regards to certain things. We’d still work and earn a living, as a man should, but it would not be our exclusive focus any more. Other things would matter too. We see the bigger picture now. Things, previously neglected, or dismissed with an airy wave of the hand, would then start being addressed, positive values sustained.
The men’s movement appears to be doing just that.
Well, that’s my ramblings, which have gone on long enough!
LikeLiked by 3 people
An excellent summation. From my experience I think the crucial factor in this is that its “middle class” boys and men. And the key institutions the feminists got a hold of were the Universities and then the Polytechnics and Colleges as these sought University status. It is no accident that the epicentre of all things “woke” including feminism are the Oxbridge and Russell Group, which are not coincidentally the feeders to our “elites”. For much of the rise of feminism its activity was mainly relatively hidden from the wider population who in reality have remarkable little influence on our direction except at those rare occurrences national elections. Having now spent a couple of decades of supporting charities for male victims of domestic abuse it is striking that these often arise out of “grass roots” activity it is striking how these soon meetup with hostility and “blocks” with Local and National government as feminists seek to block, usually successfully, their growth. Whether through strategy or accident the initial “capture” of University life and therefore the professions that actually run things in our society feminists have set the agenda for our institutions. My one hope is that the site of there greatest triumph, through University control of teacher training, Education in general will undermine their success. Partly because it brings the esoteric nonsenses such as choosing genders etc. out of the Universities and Public services into the open and partly because in becoming the boring orthodoxy rather than exciting radical, it will find increasing numbers wanting to rebel.
The piece on the EU vote is a good example. Through a minority vote , through due to abstentions, a policy gets through in a largely ignored institution. In support of the “Istanbul Convention” (itself repudiated by Turkey where it was formed). Framed as being specially nice to women and girls which we know is deep within our collective psyche, it takes courage to appear so mean as to oppose it, no doubt driving so many abstentions. Easy to dismiss as coming from a powerless talking shop. But a part of the “framing the debate” which feminists have been so busy with.
Crucial to this “framing” because it gets men (of left and right) on board are Domestic Abuse and Sexual Crimes. Because these are so clearly what gets men on board with the wider agenda. Hence the constant war on anyone even pointing to the facts, that these are not “gendered” nor remotely common. A prime example is the current, probably futile, attempts to get an Inquiry into the grooming gangs. For this would expose cultural and ethnic influences and undermine the idea that the majority of men irrespective of race, ethnicity, tribal influences are; “rapists and that’s all they are”. Remember all this was going on while feminists were trumpeting “rape culture” in Universities and hapless students caught in “regretted sex” cases and needing “consent” training. And the victims represented on the Inquiry advisory board quit because the feminist minister was trying to “broaden” the scope away from the focus on the well known specific cultural/ethnic context.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sometimes, feminists trumpet rape culture only with a little trumpet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ew9jnj2p1o
LikeLike
Indeed. The TERF war is interesting in this context with right wingers happy to line up behind Julie Bindel and Dr. Stocks despite their case being based on the idea that any and all males over puberty are potential rapists no matter how effeminate or imbued with the need to be feminine. The obsession with toilets is yet again a framing of their position that all men are inherently bad. Deflecting from the real problem that if males or eunuchs compete in women’s sports, games etc. no women would win anything. And of course the feminist contention that biology is not relevant goes out the window.
As a hapless Minister pointed out there isn’t a “toilet police” nor likely to be one. Nor in fact are gender toilets common in the real world in this country. Apart from the University and the Royal Exchange Theatre I’ve not come across any deviations from the time honoured Mens and Womens Toilets anywhere. in my conurbation. Apart from the odd canny lag trying to get into the much cushier women’s prisons there is no evidence of the supposed ever present danger to women. But again playing up the “threat” to women mobilises not only feminists by also men keen to be seen as white knights… but in doing so feeding the narrative of universal sexual predation by men! Yet another “proof” of universal misogyny, toxic masculinity and the need for lots of special rights just for women.
LikeLiked by 3 people