And it Continues (The Knowledge is Spreading V) can be found here.

Tod Kelly, the man who penned the Daily Beast piece The Masculine Mystique has written more on a Blog called Ordinary Times.  It’s called Take Two Red Pills, Call Me In the Morning: The Sudden and Surprising Rise of the Men’s Right Movement.  It goes into a bit more depth regarding how his article came about and is very much written in blog blog format (more personal and laid back).  It is still quite a fair article.  What really stood out for me was this:

Unfortunately for that at-risk male, the MRM might just have the single worst political instincts of any civil rights groups I have ever encountered. In fact, as you will see if you read the Beast article, the movement’s insistence on pushing aside its more moderate leaders in favor of its most comically vitriolic makes it untenable for a mainstream politician or policy maker to align themselves with MRM causes.  (Imagine if you will the effectiveness of the 1970s feminist movement if it had publically rallied around its Andrea Dworkins and marginalized its Gloria Steinems.  Or if the Civil RIghts Movement had bet all of its chips on Stokley Carmichael and left Martin Luther King, Jr. as an unknown without a flock.)

Commenter Dean Esmay (a managing editor for A Voice For Men) countered this beautifully:

And the greater point is this: these nice fellows you want to represent the movement? They’ve been there for decades. I could rattle off a list. Warren Farrell likely the only one you’ve heard of but there have been countless others. Names you never heard, at it for decades with soft voices and polite manners and receiving in response one of two things: people politely nodding and agreeing that they had a good point but doing nothing, or, still calling them loser misogynist weirdos who can’t get laid whiners etc.–basically everything said about us now, regardless of the fact that they were unfailingly polite about things.

Pick almost any issue we talk about and with rare exception, unless it’s something very topical (some latest false rape allegation in the news, some specific wrongly convicted man recently vindicated) and you will find there have been thoughtful, well-spoken, reasonable people speaking to these issues for decades. I know one group that’s been at it since the 1990s spekaing [sic] to Congress and state legislatures of the travesties of our domestic violence laws–they get head pats and polite nods of agreement, and/or savagely attacked. Either way, nothing gets done.

So what I would say to you is this: I would save your fears about who leads the movement–I think you are wrong to think John is going to ever be a big movement leader because he’s far more of a lone agent and not prone to liking heading up organizations anyway. That’s not his thing. He likes being himself, not a group leader. More to the point, leaders will emerge over time and people will follow those who seem most effective at getting things done. More to the point, the movement will picks its own leaders; what you really ought to worry more about is how the mainstream people like yourself react. You show open-mindedness, which means a Warren Farrell might get through to you–although somehow he really didn’t even though he’s been at this decades. But he’s that unfailingly polite nice man who never speaks in hyperbolic terms or even raises his voice in anger. And he’s ignored.

So the greater concern should be to society: how long will society continue to ignore these issues, and insult those who bring them up? The more they insult, deride, ignore, marginalize, dismiss, gloss over, roll their eyes, and shrug, the more likely the leadership of the men’s movement will the the Malcolm X types, because if scaring people is the only thing that works then that’s what’s going to happen.

Unfortunately, some violence has already occurred. (See Thomas Ball.  The man who immolated himself on the steps of Cheshire County Courthouse).

But his greater point is this, those polite and even voices are those that have been, and will continue to be, ignored.  There’s little drama and nothing eye catching.  There is not reason for any media or politician to pay any attention to them what-so-ever.  Polite doesn’t cut it when it comes to getting attention.  Now, one write’s articles that stir emotion, then after a while, the media comes running.  They are heard.  They may not be listened to, at least not yet.  But they are now a definitive blip on the radar.  Then you bring in the big guns.  Those who are blunt enough to stir emotion, but are reasoned enough and rational enough to do it in such away that arguing with them shows the unreasoned emotions of the other side while bringing the truth to vibrant light.  We saw some of this in the ABC article and they responded the only way they knew how. They deleted these comments.

In the end, Truth will out.  Keep at it Ladies and Gentlemen.

(H/T Viva La Manosphere)