His website Return of Kings was planning a ‘meetup’ this weekend in a number of cities, and when the Feminist media found out about it, they had to be cancelled to protect his members. In the process he’s been subject to a quite extraordinary bit of media slander and persecution. It’s a damned dangerous thing to openly challenge the Feminist narrative.
But I’m a little surprised to find that many men’s rights writers are turning on him too. This seems wrong to me.
Roosh is lately promoting something called NeoMasculinity. It’s a little philosophically noisy for my taste, but at it’s heart it looks to be a return to more traditional roles for both sexes, with a bunch of the Feminist brain washing stripped away. There may be some quibbling around the edges but this seems to me to be a thing that most men’s rights advocates should support. Strangely, and in my mind tragically, this is not so.
Here’s my take on it.
The west needs men and the influence of strong leaders of men. We are ‘thin on the ground’ in Europe and only a little better here in the states. How long do you think it will take for the women of cologne to realize that the only thing they need to do to avoid being raped in the streets is to wear a burka? If we leave our society to be run by women and men who think like women, then our civilization will be lost. It’s a desperate situation. Anything and anyone that promotes a pushback on Feminism and the feminine imperative should be actively encouraged.
But Roosh has spent a long time trying to teach men who had little success with women, to be more successful, basically by acting more masculine in a way that women appreciate. His past role as a 'pick up artist' makes him a little unpalatable to the men's rights movement. In my view Pick Up Artists like Roosh’s people may be taking a juvenile approach to pushing back on Feminism, but it’s better than nothing. And one day those men may mature into something worthy of real admiration. Roosh seems to be personally doing so to me. But none of that will ever happen until men 'take the red pill' and abandon feminism. By giving so many men justification to do so, Roosh is certainly helping the broader cause.
The problem I think, comes from the way Feminists have used the virtues of men to destroy women. Real men have a sense of honor, so women use that sense of honor against us. Real men take responsibility and honor commitments, but women have stopped fulfilling their half of the deal that allowed men to do so leaving men paying their half of the social contract and getting nothing in return. Feminism has destroyed women, but it’s damaged men as well by destroying them.
If we want to get all that back, we have to put women in a situation where they understand the costs of their decisions, and begin to see a more traditional role as a virtuous thing worthy of respect. The shrillness of Feminism and it’s pervasiveness in the media prevent that. Roosh and the PUA community argue that if men don’t get the deal from women that justifies their honor and commitment, they should deny it to them. They should treat women the same as women treat men under feminism, with selfishness, deceit and manipulation.
We can argue if that’s a path to a solution. In point of fact I’m not sure it is. But the existence of a radical male position to balance the scales against radical feminism is certainly productive. You don’t have to agree with Roosh to admit that net on net, his effect on the larger conversation will be helpful.
The slander he’s gotten in the media is shameful. But he’s a resilient and creative guy who knows how to make the most of publicity. In the end showing Feminism and the media it dominates at its worst (and this has certainly been them at their worst - try googling 'making rape legal' for a sample) will probably help his cause. And in that way it also helps men, and is another step toward the changes we need to preserve some semblance of a free society.