Every social movement creates the fanatics whose extremism creates a backlash. The feminist movement is now dominated by such fanatics. Will they cause a backlash against women, or do we have another choice?

Nothing works so well to recruit a new member to the movement than to wake up one morning and hear the Feminazi B52's rumbling overhead as they dump tons of Agent Orange on your personal rice paddy, defoliating your life and livelihood the way the US Airforce did in Viet Nam: pragmatically, and without remorse.

If, after the clouds of smoke settle, he trudges out to his devastated rice paddy and, with a sigh of resignation sets out to restore his life, rather than run off to join the war, who can blame him? War seldom makes sense, the battle between the sexes least of all.

So I give this desperate man the names and addresses of a few organizations, encourage him to visit our link page, read the Organization News articles, pick one, and join the fray. Maybe he will, maybe not. The real question is, if he does, then, once his personal situation is settled (as much as it can be), will he stay and fight the good fight, or, like most others, will he wander off, content to ignore the screams of his neighbors as the pop feminist fires roar through their homes?

"This is best for me," he might feel, "and my children," he might rationalize. But is it?

Banners of the New Rage Women
"Best interests of the children" has long been a battle cry of the Divorce Court Dames. A red banner of war fluttering on an acrid wind above the shock troops of the New Rage.

Here, the pinched faces of the Clan MacKinnon. There, the glittering eyes glaring out through thick folds of flesh over the jowls of Andrea the Hun. Along side, looking more like Roman rabble than Irish poets, the partisans of Patricia rumble and swash their bucklers as Gloria, in her all-red armor, harangues them to hatred with her antimale yapping.

As we all know, they really don't care about the "best interests of the children." Well, maybe they do, sort of; but their purpose in saying so is not for kids' sake, but to use as a multiple warhead missile they can fire over the crowds of unprepared men who, as everybody will now tell you, for it is a commonly known "fact," behave badly.

Anti male stereotypes notwithstanding, the "best interests of the child" is an issue that should preoccupy the thoughts of every divorced father, but not in the sense most think.

If a divorced dad is able, finally, to resolve the custody and support issues of his case, restore his relationships with his children and get on with his life, he is ignoring that what may be settled for him today will almost certainly consume his children tomorrow in their own relationships.

This is not in the best interests of his children. So what? He's fought his battles, let them fight theirs. If he can beat the pop feminist barbarians back from his borders, who cares if they turn to attack his neighbors? They may consolidate their position sufficiently to attack and destroy his children, but none of that need concern him -- eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow he dies.

Now there's a responsible attitude. Were I his children, I don't know how much respect I'd have left for him after suffering through a post-20th Century pop feminist holocaust. None, maybe?

This isn't merely an academic question. A lot of college students email me, and it's of real concern to them. They're keenly interested in making the world a good place in which to build communities and raise children. They want to know why their parents aren't doing anything to resolve these issues, and why their parents are foisting off responsibility for the next revolution onto them.

An Inevitable Backlash!
Out of respect if not love for them, for their hopes and dreams as well as our own, every man, no matter how reluctant, should stand up and be counted in this next revolution. Better now, while we can realistically hope for a swift end, than to wait until there is no escape.

Yes, the backlash is inevitable. For more than a decade the unemployment rate among men has been higher than among women. Most of the homeless are men. In almost every age group, most of the dead are men. Men do most of the dirty, dangerous work. Men receive less education, less quality of life health care, less welfare, more criticism, more condemnation, less leniency in court, less support from the community, less love, more castigation in the popular press, more hate, more derision, and, by far, more responsibility.

Men care and die for the welfare of women and children. To be male is not to be a domineering patriarch, but for most, to be condemned to the salt mines of male responsibility.

In response, the pop feminists who have been liberated by such responsible men yammer and hammer, carp and whine, wheedle, wail, and drive more and more men back up against the wall of women's presumed oppression. If this continues, there can be but one response: backlash.

When you can't get through, after a long period of time, out of frustration, either you take it out on yourself and become suicidal, self-destructive, or you challenge the society -- and one way is to become "terroristic." Women and Love, St. Martin's Press mass market edition, 1989, Shere Hite, p 641

In the evolution of every social movement, this moment comes. Always has, always will. Or will it? Must a backlash be? That, for us, is the question. Must we stumble blindly along, letting the force of the "invisible hand" of millions of individual spur-of-the-moment decisions make our choices for us? Or can we control our own destiny? If so, how?

Reluctant revolutionaries
Throughout history, revolutions have been staged by the majorly pissed. Perturbed to the point of fanaticism, they generalize their few real enemies into the tramping feet of a million devils and call upon good people everywhere to join their brave battle against badness.

The pop feminists are a case in point. Robin Morgan says all heterosexual sex is a man raping a woman, Marilyn French writes that all men are rapists, Andrea Dworkin shrieks "fuck" dozens of times per page, Mary Koss does a study of rape on college campuses for Ms. magazine, the next thing you know every newspaper in the country is shouting one in four women will be raped or sexually assaulted during her life. "Take back the streets!" they shout. "Mandatory arrests of men in all domestic disputes," they demand. Avert your eyes, steer clear, make way, let no man dare pollute a woman's life with his presence.

Fanatics.

Are you willing to see your sons or grandsons get that way? Are you able to sleep well at night knowing your daughters or granddaughters will almost certainly become tomorrow's whipping boy? Or can you see beyond the TV in front of your comfortable chair to the possibility of doing something before it's too late?

If we wait until the angriest, most egregiously wronged men who have nothing left to lose organize to march, riot, do whatever it takes to satisfy their sense of justice, then we are no more innocent than the otherwise decent Germans who woke up one morning to discover that oaf Hitler had come to power. It's time to open your eyes, see where this imprudent path is leading, and...what? Join a men's rights group? Start a local chapter of fathers uber alles and picket the National Organization for Women (NOW)?

Well, maybe. But maybe there's a better way. The equalitarian way.

Time to MERGE?
Organizations like NOW demand equality of results, then push programs that demonstrate those results better make some more equal than others. Women have rights to reproductive sovereignty, men don't; that sort of thing. Equalitarians take a different view, that we are all and must be equal before the law, and beyond that, well, if you want to make the grade, you have to earn it.

A hand-out is charity. Nothing wrong with charity, but it is voluntary. The Feminist Majority wants charity to women to be mandatory. Mandatory charity is slavery. Slavery is hateful to Americans. Next time some femigogue of a college professor preaches slavery, just say no. Petitions are a great way to do that. Gather signatures, stage rallies, let University administrators everywhere know there's no place for slave mongers on campus.

What if a major metropolitan newspaper or TV studio engages in biased or bigoted reporting? Protest. The one thing the media hates more than anything else is to have a bunch of protesters picketing them. It calls their credibility into question. Doesn't have to be hostile or hateful like the New Rage women's "Take Back the Night" marches. Carry signs, have a paper prepared you can hand out explaining what the fuss is about, and otherwise be friendly. Hand out carnations. "Flower Power" can be fun.

Infiltration can be fun, too. Join NOW or the Feminist Majority Foundation, then demand they change their agenda.

Or join an equalitarian organization. There are lots of feminist and men's organizations listed on our link page. Contact them, ask for a copy of their charter or some equivalent, and see if there's something there for you.

I'm a founding member of the first US chapter of (the now defunct) MERGE: Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality. Bet you didn't know that, but it's true. You could do worse than join MERGE, but that's not your only option. If you don't like any of the existing organizations, start your own.

And once you start, what is there for you to work on? Lots of things.

Demand complete information. If a women's studies professor says women make only 71 cents on the male dollar, demand a break-down by sex and wage category as well as hours worked per week. Both male and female truck drivers at United Parcel Service, for example, make union scale, therefore any pay disparity is the result of more or less hours worked, not male managerial sexism.

If your local newspaper runs an article about how women are the primary victims of domestic violence, obtain a copy of the latest Bureau of Justice Department statistics that show otherwise, round up your team, and demonstrate outside the news office demanding unbiased reporting.

Why Become a Reluctant Revolutionary?
Ultimately, we all have the option to look for a safe haven where we can just ride out the coming storm of male rage. There are compelling reasons, however, why we shouldn't do that; it's better if the revolutionaries are reluctant.

Think about it. If somebody is majorly pissed, they're gonna want a little pay back. And, whaddya know, if they can get away with a little, then why not a lot? Before you know it, the cure is worse than the disease.

A reluctant revolutionary, on the other hand, wants to go home. Every day, he hopes the revolution will end so he can get back to the things that really matter, like Star Trek. The minute he sees the opposition wave a white flag, he'll be ready to negotiate. Sure, from experience he will learn to watch out for false attempts to negotiate peace, and he will grow cautious, but, by and large, he will be eager for an end to this ridiculous war.

That's why you need to get involved now. The longer you wait, the more likely the backlash will erupt out of a desperation that will ignite the angry flames of fanaticism. Far better to be a reluctant revolutionary today, than to look back on today with regret tomorrow.

Regards

Rod Van Mechelen

Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.