The great game vs. MRA debate seems to have subsided, for now. Maybe they haven’t. I only paid passing attention because I don’t really care. Oops, I just wrote that out loud.
But I do find the split interesting, if not for the reasons outlined by the debaters themselves. 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.