The Anglo-American men’s movement has generally internalized the Darwinian worldview, at least as it pertains to gender relations. Unfortunately, this world-view can be used to legitimate male expendability. Moreover, the Darwinian model explains institutionalized misandry quite well – especially military gendercide, biased divorce laws and negative media representations of men. Indeed, many feminists and White Knights cherry pick aspects of evolutionary psychology as conceptual justification for male disposability, female hypergamy and other misandrist agendas.
The contemporary men’s movement remains marginalized because it seeks to mimic feminism. MRAs complain about the Sympathy Gap they experience, assuming they will reflexively attract the same sympathy and support as misandrist gender-feminism. They won’t of course – least of all from the male elite, who view them with bemused contempt. How, then, should the men’s movement proceed? If men are biologically programmed to compete for status and sex and view other men as expendable, how can a cogent and effective men’s movement ever develop?
The answer is that it won’t – at least, not in the way feminism has developed, with political patronage and government grants. It must choose a different road, one that acknowledges public indifference to men’s issues. In short, the Sympathy Gap needs expanding, not contracting – and reciprocating in kind. Since men are treated as expendable mercenaries, they should embrace that role – sever all social bonds and obligations, shun permanent relationships and generally view the world with cynical detachment.
The strongest man is he who stands alone; and no man demonstrates this truth more than the mercenary male, striding from land to land without bonds, commitments or ideals. Stunned and shaking, the elite and its feminist allies already tremble at this rising tide of masculine disengagement.