The emails continue to flow in to my in-box in response to Sunday’s Glenn Sacks show. Right now, they’re running about 5-1 in favor of Glenn and against me. Sample:
Whether you are an evil man or merely a wretched
brainwashed void I do not know. But I know without doubt that your cause
is repugnant and wrong. And whether you are eventually made accountable in
some way only time will tell.
Matilde the chinchilla has been reading some of these impertinent missives and is becoming rather cross! (I can tell by the way she nuzzled close to me while she had her almond this morning that she was feeling protective.)
To be fair,that invective is characteristic of most, but not all, of the criticism I’ve received. Some has been more eloquent and civil, like this recent comment by Stanton.
Anyhow…
I’m not going to become a one-issue blogger. By tomorrow, I promise something on a topic other than men’s rights and pro-feminism. But there is one topic I wanted to touch on today. When we were first chatting about doing his show, Glenn asked me if I ever read Men’s News Daily. I admitted I was familiar with it, but rarely visited. Given that our topic for the show was the men’s rights movement, he asked me to take another look at it. I’m told that MND is perhaps the single most important website for men’s rights advocates. (I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not, but given the look and feel of it, I suspect that Glenn is right.)
In preparation for Sunday, I spent some time reading the various articles and following the various links at Men’s News Daily. The topic of the site never came up on the show, but I do have some reflections to share. MND has an eclectic list of articles, some of which have precious little to do with men’s rights issues. (Today I find links to articles on China, Iran,guns, and Social Security, for example). Not surprisingly, the politics of the site are solidly right-wing. Many columnists from the likes of Townhall or the National Review can be found spouting their consistently conservative views at MND. That’s not surprising, of course. To the extent that they share a political vision that transcends anti-feminism, it would seem safe to characterize most men’s rights advocates as right of center, though with libertarian rather than authoritarian leanings.
Now, I’ve spent many years in friendship and dialogue with conservative men. But most of the conservative men I’ve worked with on male issues come from a different strand of the men’s movement than the rights advocates do. I’m talking, of course, about Promise Keepers. Back in June of last year, I posted a brief summary of the men’s movement. I argued that there are actually four distinct groups with radically different approaches to men’s work:
1. The Men’s Rights Advocates, represented by everyone from Glenn Sacks to Warren Farrell to Men’s News Daily to Stand Your Ground.
2. Pro-feminist Men’s Groups are where my heart lies. They include the likes of NOMAS, Men Can Stop Rape, and XYOnline. Important leaders include Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel.
3. Mythopoetic Men’s Groups, represented by the important work of Robert Bly and the Mankind Project.
4. Christian Men’s Groups, represented most famously by Promise Keepers. (Others include International Christian Men’s Institute, and New Man Magazine.)
The first and fourth groups have much in common. Both Men’s Rights Advocates and Christian Men’s Groups take a variety of traditionally conservative positions. Both are highly critical of the feminist movement; even the briefest visit to the websites of their various affiliates will make that much clear. Frankly, I’d be willing to bet that most of the American membership of both strands of the movement voted for President Bush.
But pro-feminist men and Christian men’s groups also, surprisingly have something in common: they both place their emphasis on the ethical and behavioral transformation of men. If you go to Men’s News Daily or any other Men’s Rights site, you won’t read much about the responsibility of men to change. Men’s Rights Advocates believe that men don’t need transformation, they need defending! The enemy of the MRAs is feminism and those who have helped to spread feminist influences through our courts, our schools, and our culture. But the MRAs don’t believe that their members ought to engage in critical self-examination. They don’t believe that MRAs primary responsibility is to help other men grow and mature. They rarely mention discipling or mentoring other adult men. In the MRA world, men are victims of both a feminist hegemony and individual women. Blame is never placed on men themselves.
Christian Men’s groups, as I’ve said, almost always share that same hostility to feminism. But visit their websites, and you will see that the emphasis is NOT on defending men but on changing them. Read, for example this article from this month’s New Man magazine: Talk Your Walk. It briefly tells the story of a man learning to become more humble and learning to better express his feelings to his wife and daughter. It’s also a lesson about the real goal of the Christian Men’s movement; as the article says:
Jesus sets the standard as the perfect role model, the only example necessary… It’s a wise man who practices the character of Jesus in order to develop gentleness and self-control in speech.
Now friends, that’s a tall order. Whatever else may be said of Christian men’s groups, they are most decidedly not "defending men just as they are"! They are not interested in blaming men’s suffering on women. Rather, they are interested in guiding men to become ever more Christlike, a process which surely is long, intensive, and requires much in the way of mutual support and hard work. Most pro-feminist activists are also interested in helping men develop some of those very same characteristics cited in New Man; most of us (regardless of faith) are big believers in "developing gentleness" in men!
And over at Men’s News Daily, I find many things that Christian men’s groups would find objectionable. To give just one example, at the top of the page, there’s a link to poker babes. In two words, we’ve got sexual objectification of women and a promotion of gambling. That’s not a link you’ll ever find at Promise Keepers! The Christian men’s movement, as one might expect, places a huge emphasis on male sexual purity. For example, helping men win the victory over porn addiction is a critically important, perhaps even central, focus of the movement. But to put it mildly, I haven’t found anything negative about porn at any of the men’s rights sites. Indeed, to the extent that they are discernible, the sexual ethics of most Men’s Rights sites are decidedly libertarian if not positively hedonistic. (For a blunter example of what I mean by the connection between MRAs and hedonistic exploitation, check out this blog hosted by Men’s News Daily. Warning: not entirely work safe.)
I am an evangelical of a sort, though with fairly progressive views compared to the stereotype. Over the last few years, I have been to one rally and a couple of small group meetings of Promise Keeper (PK, as it is called). Though I disagree with many of the conservative social positions of its members, I have far more respect for PK and its allies than I do for the men’s rights movement. That respect is rooted in the understanding that the fellows in the Christian Men’s Movement are, like pro-feminist men, doing the hard work of individual and social transformation. Pro-feminist and conservative Christian men are both committed to ending the sexual exploitation of women. We are equally committed to creating "new men" of character, self-restraint, courage, and gentleness. We have much about which we disagree, but we do agree on the need for men to be transformed. In that, we share something that our MRA brothers do not.
I’ll have more on the similarities between pro-feminist men and Promise Keepers another time.
UPDATE: Men’s News Daily has a link back to this article with the charming headline:
AMBUSH: Pro-Feminist ‘Girlyman’ Hugo Schwyzer Takes Potshots at MND’s Politics, "Hedonism"
Ambush, huh? Where can I get the pro-feminist "girlyman" t-shirt? Oh, and I am not a miltary historian — what exactly is a "potshot"? What’s the etymology? I’d like to know, so I can know whether I am being accused accurately.
And they have another banner linking to Glenn’s site which reads:
Glenn Sacks Gores Misandrist and Feminist Apologist Hugo Schwyzer…
Huh. Gores. I’ll go inspect my torso for signs of injury. (Oh, and I like the play on Glenn’s name — "sacks" can be a fine verb in that sentence,if only you add a comma after it.)
*offers more almonds for Matilde’s obvious distress*
Matilde, as a rodent, does not normally like felines. But you are obviously a discerning and special Kat.
The comments and emails you’ve been getting are simply astounding.
Your graciousness is equally fairly impressive too! :-)
If you go to the blogs of these self-proclaimed men’s rights activists, you’ll see all sorts of pin-up pictures of women, usually with hostile captions.
Oh if only women would STOP posing for all those “pin-ups” then men would have nothing to exploit.
I certainly share with you, Anne, an eagerness to provide women with well-paying alternatives to selling their bodies in any of the facets of the sex industry, from “pin-ups” to prostitution.
But the fact that some young women make poor choices out of economic necessity does not mitigate in any way men’s responsibility to not objectify them. I have a far higher opinion of male self-control than that.
You’re right. And if women started wearing burquas, men wouldn’t stare at their cleavage. Once again, we must remember that if it has a penis, it’s blameless.
I see cleavage, I stare. Discreetly. I’m a normal male, I like to look at pretty women.
Am I “sexually pure”? I have thoughts about sex just like any other man I know. I don’t cheat on my wife, and wouldn’t dream of doing so.
So, are you now going to tell me that I need to change?
Men objectify women because there have always been women who let them.
No, Scarbo, not necessarily. But there’s all the difference in the world between a momentary appreciative glance at a woman on the street and lustful staring. (If you aren’t sure of the difference, ask a woman — most know the distinction between a complimentary look and the penetrating gaze).
If your staring is perceptible either to the woman at whom you are gazing, or to your wife, you bet your boots you’ve got a problem.
And if you’re buying magazines to look at ‘em, or going online to look at ‘em — yup, you’ve got work to get done. And brother, it can be done.
Hugo,
I don’t beleive you really understand the men’s movement. I think you’re trying to put people into neat little boxes and label them.
For instance: Mens news daily. Most of my mens activist friends loathe this fascist site. Its by no means a loved site amongst vast swathes of us. Of course Glenn would cite it as being important, he used to write there (maybe he still does, I dont know).
Secondly, you only seem aware of a very small number of men’s websites. This is not entirely surprising, as some of the more important ones are hidden. Nevertheless, you can’t characterise a movement based on such a limited view of it.
Thirdly, the men’s movement isn’t really a top-down, ideologically driven movement like the feminist movement is. Its very much a grass-roots uprising. Most of these guys are not making money out of it, we don’t have professorships in posh universities that pay us to talk about these things all day long. We do it because we’re sick of men like us never having a voice in the media on gender issues, we’re sick of being constantly characterised as rapists and abusers, and we’re sick of the injustices we see happening around us.
Lastly, I am bisexual. And I’m a very commited men’s rights activist, and I don’t think you have the first understanding of men like me so stop spreading bigotted views about people you don’t understand. I don’t think you are a hateful man, but I do think you are planting seeds that can grow into hate.
I don’t think you see us as individual human beings. I think you’re more dedicated to upholding an ideology, whatever the costs. Please Hugo, don’t put an ideology before real humans.
I’m leaving now because I know you’re all going to start pissing on me and I’m really not in the mood for it.
Sorry to see you piss and run, David.
Hmmm…I didn’t see David’s post as a “piss-n-run” affair. Some generalizations can go so far before they’re no longer applicable, right?
Not that I disagree with you, Hugo, but the first question that came to mind after I read David’s comments was, “Is he an exception to the rule?”
If none of this makes sense, I blame it on work.
Well, as someone who has been teaching courses on men and masculinity for years, has worked with groups ranging from Men Can Stop Rape to Promise Keepers to Big Brothers to the Boy Scouts to NOMAS, David doesn’t get himself off on the right foot with me when he questions whether I know much about the men’s movement. Again, as my post pointed out, the men’s movement is multi-faceted, in ways that go beyond the capacity of any blogger to describe.
For the record, Michael Kimmel’s “Manhood In America” provides a very similar encapsulation of the men’s movement as a whole, though he and I interpret things a bit differently. (That could be a whole other post.) Now, if David doesn’t think Kimmel has any credibility on men’s issues, that’s another matter — but it’s a bit like saying that Phil Jackson doesn’t know basketball.
Men’s News Daily receives an astonishing number of hits and is regularly cited as representative of the men’s rights movement. The fact that David doesn’t list any of his “important but hidden” websites makes it impossible to respond to him as to whether there are other segments of the men’s rights movement that are in complete disagreement with the MND crowd. If you have a men’s rights site that is demonstrably more influential than any of the ones I listed, send it on over!
Obviously I can’t list every men’s website out there. I carefully picked just a couple that would be representative. Warren Farrell is one of the fathers of the men’s rights movement; few would argue that. And Men’s News Daily gets cited frequently and gets more hits than any other men’s rights site out there.
…And while David demands respect for the complexity of the men’s rights movement, he is dismissive of the feminist movement, calling it “top-down”…
I’ve also, as even Glenn Sacks pointed out, taught Gay and Lesbian history. As a straight man, I’ve worked as an activist on gay issues for years. (Hello? All Saints Pasadena? Flagship church of GLBTQ affirming Episcopalianism?)
Are there gay and bisexual men in all four groups of the movement? You bet. There’s no question pro-feminist men are the most publicly receptive to gays and lesbians, but I am well aware that gay and bisexual men, both out and closeted, can be found throughout the entire men’s movement.
I couldn’t help myself, I had to come back. I guess I hoped for some kind of bridge to be built between my world and yours.
I have to say I’m feeling more depressed than ever. I didn’t demand respect, I just was pointing out that I exist. But you only seem to want to think about things that can be neatly labeled, categorised and simply placed into groups. Anything outside of those top-down imposed labels and you don’t seem to show any interest in it.
I don’t care how many degrees or fancy-sounding groups you are a member of, you clearly don’t understand me or my friends and you clearly show no interest in understanding us either.
The fact that MensNewsDaily.com gets a lot of hits has no relevance to whether it speaks for the men’s movement. Its primarily an American conservative website, and I guess it gets a lot of hits from conservatives. So what? I’m not an American, and I’m not a conservative. And guess what: there are lots of us non-american non-conservative out there lol
Equally, the fact that its been cited as being representative of the men’s rights movement just shows that there are others out there with an equally narrow view.
If you are a scholar you should greet something that doesn’t fit into your current model with interest, not dismissal or distain. To embrace the new and the unknown is the only way we grow.
Then help me, David — give me one of your important but hidden websites. Prove me wrong! Please, with all respect, I am interested. But simply telling me you exist without providing much else is not enough to help your cause.
“Men objectify women because there have always been women who let them.”
Really, there’s nothing that’s not women’s fault. Even if one man shoots another, I’m sure a woman is to blame somewhere. His mother?
It’s the women of Afghanistan’s fault that they have to wear the burqua. If they wanted to, they could just take it off, no? Sure, they’d get killed, but they still have a choice.
*kindly offers Matilde some more almonds*
No one, of any complexity, can be slapped with a label and put in a box. No one. To me the most important thing is to listent to each and try to understand. I don’t think David is doing that very well. But, I’m new here, so I’ll stop with that.
I don’t think David is doing that very well. But, I’m new here, so I’ll stop with that.
I don’t agree with your criticism of David. However, Hugo doesn’t listen very well. When a man posts something Hugo doesn’t like, he just labels the man a “misogynist.” Most of the feminist dweebs here behave similarly.
Um, where did I label David a misogynist, Jeff? Help me out, my friend.
And as always, Jeff, try and restrain yourself from using even mild epithets like “dweeb” I’m sure it’s just code for “misguided and wrong”, but still… I do want to keep even this heated and difficult discussion reasonably civil.
My understanding of potshot is that it’s a classist insult against those who hunt for food (thus, the pot), but those who hunt for sport. Could be wrong.
that’s by those who hunt for sport..
DJW is basically right, although the language of class war is profoundly unattractive. The expression is in common use here, to “take a pot-shot” is to snipe at someone. As for the whole “Mens’ Rights” mess, I’ve posted a tangential response on my weblog.
I don’t agree with your criticism of David. However, Jeff JP doesn’t listen very well. When a liberal posts something Hugo doesn’t like, he just labels the liberal a “conservative.” Most of the conservative dweebs here behave similarly.
Well, sneering at people who have a compelling reason to hunt from those who do it for the sheer fun of it ain’t too pretty either :)
Of course, this ugly form of classism is pretty much entirely antiquated here in the states.
We have the same common use meaning as in NZ.
Well Amanda, I live in America, not Afghanistan. And do you think that its men’s fault that women allow themselves to be photographed in “sexually objectifing” ways to be displayed anywhere from porn magazines to suggestive billboards on the freeway?
Come on now, feminist women have to take some responsibility for your “sisters” who are doing absolutely NOTHING but harm to your cause.
And Hugo, as for finding alternative well-paying jobs outside of the sex industry for these “ladies” - maybe they should try to get some self respect first. If a man is falling on hard times, he usually gets a “real” job - perhaps low paying, but generally respectable. I have yet to hear of an epidemic of men selling their bodies out of economic necessity.
And what is with all of these labels all the time? Does it really matter how many gay, lesbian or bisexual people support one cause or the other? Aren’t we all humans? Why do these “groups” find it necessary to point out their “differences”. I think many people couldn’t give a damn who you go to bed with.
I have yet to hear of an epidemic of men selling their bodies out of economic necessity.
May I recommend John Preston’s book Hustler as a starting point?
David, here’s Getting People to Listen To You 101: the ‘no tagbacks’ game will not get you any respect. If you think that you will be screamed at, go elsewhere. If you have something to say, by all means say it–but “Here’s what I think, now I’m running away so I can’t see you reply, haha I’m back again!” is ludicrous.
I don’t agree with your criticism of David. However, Jeff JP doesn’t listen very well. When a liberal posts something Hugo doesn’t like, he just labels the liberal a “conservative.” Most of the conservative dweebs here behave similarly.
When you can support your nonsense with facts, come back, “zuzu”.
Well Amanda, I live in America, not Afghanistan.
It doesn’t matter, Ambrose. Amanda is a professional victim. How dare you question her victim status, even by implication?
And do you think that its men’s fault that women allow themselves to be photographed in “sexually objectifing” ways to be displayed anywhere from porn magazines to suggestive billboards on the freeway?
According to Amanda, Hugo, and most of the goofs who post here, everything is the fault of men.
Come on now, feminist women have to take some responsibility for your “sisters” who are doing absolutely NOTHING but harm to your cause.
No, they don’t, and you can’t make them! Nanner, nanner!!!
And Hugo, as for finding alternative well-paying jobs outside of the sex industry for these “ladies” - maybe they should try to get some self respect first.
Sadly, you’re missing the point. The “patriarchy” prevents those women from getting self-respect.
As a side note, I’ll say that I find the entire sex industry appalling and I don’t support it economically.
If a man is falling on hard times, he usually gets a “real” job - perhaps low paying, but generally respectable. I have yet to hear of an epidemic of men selling their bodies out of economic necessity.
And what is with all of these labels all the time? Does it really matter how many gay, lesbian or bisexual people support one cause or the other? Aren’t we all humans? Why do these “groups” find it necessary to point out their “differences”. I think many people couldn’t give a damn who you go to bed with.
My friends who have a homosexual orientation don’t buy into the whole “agenda” that is spouted on this blog and in other places. They don’t see themselves as helpless victims, and I don’t see them that way either. They are friends and I love them as much as I love any other friends.
Hugo, in the bible isn’t there a phrase that says: “Seek and you will find”?
I beleive that is a fundamental law of our world. But if one seeks understanding, you can’t cross your arms skeptically, roll your eyes and defy people. You have to seek with an open heart. Thats just my view anyway. I’m not a scholar.
Hugo, there is a window opportunity here, you could have acted as a great healer between two groups, but you can’t heal and reconcile through confrontation. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland with the wonderful, albeit shaky, efforts to reconcile the Protestants and Catholics. The only way to begin true healing is to first take a realistic stock of the situation and take into account people’s strong feelings. One of the parts of that is dropping the inflamatory jargon, badges, codes and identifiers from the era of confrontation, they have too many bad feelings attached to them.
Reconsiliation also comes through emphasising common ground. There is a great more common ground between our views and yours than I expect you might think.
I really dislike labels for people (straight, bisexual, catholic, protestant, consevative, liberal etc). I beleive nothing promotes conflict and hate in this world so much as this tendency. I beleive it also diminishes people’s complexity and depth; it turns people into 2-dimentional characters who then become easy targets to hate by members of a different group.
I know I’m loosing here. I don’t have any fancy theories or credentials to back up what I’m saying. And I don’t actually think I have the rhetorical skills to convince any of you guys of my point of view. But I just wanted to make my voice heard. Thanks for that opportunity.
I really dislike labels for people (straight, bisexual, catholic, protestant, consevative, liberal etc). I beleive nothing promotes conflict and hate in this world so much as this tendency. I beleive it also diminishes people’s complexity and depth; it turns people into 2-dimentional characters who then become easy targets to hate by members of a different group.
Amen, brother. At last, someone posts something sensible here!
I know I’m loosing here. I don’t have any fancy theories or credentials to back up what I’m saying. And I don’t actually think I have the rhetorical skills to convince any of you guys of my point of view. But I just wanted to make my voice heard. Thanks for that opportunity.
Don’t sell yourself short, brother. All their supposed “fancy theories,” “credentials,” and “rhetorical skills” are like cow dung, only a lot useful.
You have spoken the truth. You have demonstrated wisdom. Thanks for shining light into this infernal darkness.
Jeff JP
Hugo,
Have you heard of this site. I wouldn’t say its an important but hidden website, but it certainly doesn’t noticed as Mens News Daily does.
http://www.mensactivism.org/
Defining Misogyny Dr Hugo Schwyzer
http://www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion.pl?topic=999944
Hi Hugo; nice site. I appreciate a man that takes sides without regret or hesitation. It is important for men to make clear where they stand at all times.
Unfortunately for most men, they are unable in the current matriarchal totalitarian system to take a stand outside of the values and belief-systems that you propagate. You have a professional value to guard as well–you wouldn’t be working in a community college as a ‘professor’ without towing the feminist angle. So this site of yours is as much a reflection on your professional dogmas as it is on your personal belief systems.
The ‘men’s rights’ movement isn’t anti-female, it is anti-feminist. It is important to make that distinction. The modern feminist is the individual on a vindictive mission to marginalize men and men’s rights. To think that feminism in its current totalitarian form wouldn’t expect a political backlash to its ongoing war against men is pretty laughable. I, like you, am highly educated. I went to the best schools. As a military historian, as you claim, you should know that when you have a population within a nation-state exposed to decades of oppression that eventually that population is going to rise up and unify to stop it. When someone is constantly slapping you across the face, eventually something is done to stop the slapping.
Hence the new men’s rights movement.
Look at some of these statistics (I didn’t make them up, honest):
+ Over 92% of all divorce filings in the United States are initiated by women using “no-fault” legal venues. Why are men found at fault in the clear majority of these cases and punished for decades over them when the marriage contract is severed under “no-fault” conditions? That is blatant anti-male discrimination.
+ Over 96% of all child-custody cases default to the mother. Why is that? Again, anti-male discrimination at work. Add to that the clever marketing feminist jingoisms like “single-mother”, or “single parent”, and that is no different than dehumanizing the Jews, Blacks or other human groups by a totalitarian political agenda. If men are not parents to the children they have with their wives/girlfriends/lovers, then just say so. Be honest and tell men they have no parental rights because in the current feminist fascist system, men have no such rights.
+ There are over 35,000 male suicides every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. I don’t see one single article on your website addressing this national epidemic.
Modern feminism is radical anti-male oppression. That is what modern feminism is. There is no other way it can be explained. When you take colleges like yours and look at enrollment, 8 out of 10 students are female. This is the national trend. Where are our young men?
The Pendulum has swung too far into the corner of radical feminism and that is why websites such as Men’s News Daily have begun to appear. I have been tempted to start submitting articles to Mens News Daily for publication, a position that I wouldn’t have even considered five years ago. But today, the purposefully irreconcileable nature of modern feminism demands that men form their own groups to counter the new evil brought upon them by modern feminism. There is no other way to describe the system of ideology that modern feminism is in regards to men and men’s rights.
This means I have taken a side too. I choose freedom from modern feminist perversion, the goal being to distance men from modern feminism in all of its forms. That is the healthiest choice for men. For men in America today, men are the breast, and the modern feminist is the breast cancer. That may help clarify to some of your feminist readers how men feel about this important male issue of our day.
Obtestor
Hugo, one more thought. What does your modern feminism do for men?
I look forward to your reply.
Obtestor
It doesn’t matter, Ambrose. Jeff JP is a professional victim. How dare you question his victim status, even by implication?
…
According to Jeff JP and most of the goofs who post here, everything is the fault of feminists.
…
Come on now, men’s activists have to take some responsibility for your “brothers” who are doing absolutely NOTHING but harm to your cause.
No, they don’t, and you can’t make them! Nanner, nanner!!!
On to Obtestor:
Look at some of these statistics (I didn’t make them up, honest):
So where are the links to peer-reviewed studies?
+ Over 92% of all divorce filings in the United States are initiated by women using “no-fault” legal venues. Why are men found at fault in the clear majority of these cases and punished for decades over them when the marriage contract is severed under “no-fault” conditions? That is blatant anti-male discrimination.
I’m sure Trish Wilson, who’s more familiar with family law than I am, can address this more thoroughly, but you do realize that “no fault” means that no one is found at fault. New York, which surely accounts for more than 8% of all the divorce filings in the country, does not have a no-fault system, meaning you must sue for divorce on certain grounds, and someone does lose. That’s not the case in no-fault states.
But I suppose if you think of child support awards as “punishment,” you’re going to think of a no-fault system as one where there’s a winner and a loser.
+ Over 96% of all child-custody cases default to the mother. Why is that?
Maybe because that’s the way the parties worked things out. Many grown people manage to come to their own arrangements about child custody based on what’s going to work best for them. And, perhaps you got the statistic from pulledoutofmyass.com, but last I heard, joint custody was quite a popular arrangement.
Again, anti-male discrimination at work. Add to that the clever marketing feminist jingoisms like “single-mother”, or “single parent”, and that is no different than dehumanizing the Jews, Blacks or other human groups by a totalitarian political agenda. If men are not parents to the children they have with their wives/girlfriends/lovers, then just say so. Be honest and tell men they have no parental rights because in the current feminist fascist system, men have no such rights.
I think I hear violins.
+ There are over 35,000 male suicides every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. I don’t see one single article on your website addressing this national epidemic.
Perhaps you could point some out. Is this a common thing written in suicide notes?
It doesn’t matter, Ambrose. “zuzu” is a professional victim. How dare you question her victim status, even by implication?
…
According to “zuzu” and most of the goofs who post here, everything is the fault of men.
I’m sure Trish Wilson, who’s more familiar with family law than I am,
That’s a laugh.
And, perhaps you got the statistic from pulledoutofmyass.com, but last I heard, joint custody was quite a popular arrangement.
Hey, Hugo,
Are you going to admonish “zuzu” about such comments, or do your rules apply only to men?
Jeff JP
Again, anti-male discrimination at work. Add to that the clever marketing feminist jingoisms like “single-mother”, or “single parent”, and that is no different than dehumanizing the Jews, Blacks or other human groups by a totalitarian political agenda. If men are not parents to the children they have with their wives/girlfriends/lovers, then just say so. Be honest and tell men they have no parental rights because in the current feminist fascist system, men have no such rights.
I think I hear violins.
Thanks for providing such a blatant example of your misandry. I guess you support paternity fraud.
No, but I do not support whining.
No, but I do not support whining.
So when men voice legitimate grievances, you call it “whining.” Who cares?
There are legitimate grievances, Jeff, and then there is whining about the totalitarian feminists and how the term “single parent” is somehow equivalent to lynchings or the Holocaust.
Now, which of those do you think I was addressing?
There are legitimate grievances, Jeff, and then there is whining about the totalitarian feminists and how the term “single parent” is somehow equivalent to lynchings or the Holocaust.
Now, which of those do you think I was addressing?
Be clear next time.
Interesting comments from all. At risk of being labeled a troll, I’ll post my $0.02.
I think both sides need to work toward the middle. I think the “Save the males” movement is backlash for the blatant anti-male tone in this country. Nearly everything in the media from commercials to TV shows has many anti-male biases. Males are depicted as bumbling fools, who without their motherly females, could not find their posterior with both hands. Example: their is a commercial for Dodge Caravan with a motorcyclist being picked up after it ran out of gas and his motorcycle being stored in the van. The catch line is “Dad just had to have a motorcycle.”
On the other hand men need to remember what their role is (which is difficult vis-a-vis above). Their role is to be the missing part of their woman. Men are here to complete and not compete with women.
Did we have sexism against women in America? Sure. Is it still that prevalent. No more than sexism against men, and I would submit that women are discriminated against quite a bit less than men. If women truly wanted men’s repsect, then they would try to level the playing field. Which the playing field is level. A woman applying to professional school (post-graduate) has a better chance of being accepted than a man.
In closing, I happily accept equal rights for race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc. I will always reject preferential treatment.
+ Over 92% of all divorce filings in the United States are initiated by women using “no-fault” legal venues. Why are men found at fault in the clear majority of these cases and punished for decades over them when the marriage contract is severed under “no-fault” conditions? That is blatant anti-male discrimination.
It’s true that mostly women file for divorce, but men are not found at “fault” nor are they “punished.” What do you mean by “punished”? Not getting custody of their kids? It’s not “blatant anti-male discrimination” that women file for most divorces. It’s simply a fact.
+ Over 96% of all child-custody cases default to the mother. Why is that? Again, anti-male discrimination at work. Add to that the clever marketing feminist jingoisms like “single-mother”, or “single parent”, and that is no different than dehumanizing the Jews, Blacks or other human groups by a totalitarian political agenda. If men are not parents to the children they have with their wives/girlfriends/lovers, then just say so. Be honest and tell men they have no parental rights because in the current feminist fascist system, men have no such rights.
The reason mothers most often get custody of the kids is because most often parents settle out of court, deciding on their own that mom should have custody because these parents recognize that mom had been the primary caregiver of the children and that she should continue in that capacity. Of the 10% of divorces that go through court, more than half of the fathers who contest custody get some form of it, most often joint legal custody.
There are over 35,000 male suicides every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. I don’t see one single article on your website addressing this national epidemic.
Straw-man argument I often hear from men’s/fathers’ rights advocates. You forgot to mention the men who kill their wives, ex-wives, and children every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. That’s a part of the “epidemic” that is also blamed on dads not getting their way in divorce and custody hearings.
“It’s the women of Afghanistan’s fault that they have to wear the burqua. If they wanted to, they could just take it off, no? Sure, they’d get killed, but they still have a choice.”
I think that has more to do with religion than being a woman.
And if you think that the dangers of Islamic oppression relates only to women… ask the family of Theo van Gogh.
“The reason mothers most often get custody of the kids is because most often parents settle out of court, deciding on their own that mom should have custody because these parents recognize that mom had been the primary caregiver of the children and that she should continue in that capacity. Of the 10% of divorces that go through court, more than half of the fathers who contest custody get some form of it, most often joint legal custody.”
I hear this argument made very often regarding the custody issue and I have to ask: do you really believe this yourself?
Parents decide out of court. Here’s the common scenario: Since women stand a 90% chance of winning custody and men less than 5%, any decent lawyer will advise his male client that he’s wasting his time. The reason that in contested cases men win more than half is that in these cases the mother is a clear danger to the kids rather than that there’s some bias in favor of men. When women have custody 90% of the time, to suggest such a thing is simply ludicrous! Men settle for what they can get now only because they have no money and no chance of winning.
Second, in most states — like my home state of NY — there is no such thing as joint custody. There is an intention that will state under what conditions the NCP can have input in decisions and a generous visitation schedule, but there is no mention of the term “joint custody” in any law book or case law anywhere. Either you have custody or you don’t — simple as that.
By George I think he’s got it!
(If accused of agreeing with Prof. S on anything I’ll DENY it) ;)
“MND has an eclectic list of articles, some of which have precious little to do with men’s rights issues. (Today I find links to articles on China, Iran,guns, and Social Security, for example).”
After all, it’s called Mens News Daily nnot Mens Rights Daily.
“Not surprisingly, the politics of the site are solidly right-wing. Many columnists from the likes of Townhall or the National Review can be found spouting their consistently conservative views at MND.”
Safe bet! Bear in mind those columnists “spouting” are linked to, not AT MND
That’s not surprising, of course. To the extent that they share a political vision that transcends anti-feminism, it would seem safe to characterize most men’s rights advocates as right of center, though with libertarian rather than authoritarian leanings.”
Unsafe bet.Mens Rights Advocasy comes from a broad range of the political spectrum, including those disillusioned and disenfranchised by the strange bedfellows that hihacked the desired equality (or at least parity)of the Womans Movement into what has beome modern Feminism.
aj, Islam does not require women to wear burqas; that’s a Taliban rule, not an Islamic one.
And keep in mind, that Christian fundamentalist oppression is definitely something to fear; ask (the late) Matthew Shepherd’s family.
There are over 35,000 male suicides every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. I don’t see one single article on your website addressing this national epidemic.
Straw-man argument I often hear from men’s/fathers’ rights advocates. You forgot to mention the men who kill their wives, ex-wives, and children every year related to divorce/child-custody issues. That’s a part of the “epidemic” that is also blamed on dads not getting their way in divorce and custody hearings.
Just because you
a) can’t address the merits of his argument, and
b) change the subject,
doesn’t make his argument a “straw-man argument.” Thanks for your fine example of femi-dweeb diversion tactics.
Go back to your stupid hate blog and post there.
But I suppose if you think of child support awards as “punishment,” you’re going to think of a no-fault system as one where there’s a winner and a loser.
Where did I ever mention child-support? That is your dogma, not mine. I am talking about the ability of a female to walk into any lawyer’s office in the country when she has a bad hair day and sue for divorce. As for the New York State divorce industry, show me one case, even pro-bono cases, where a female is denied a divorce that she requests. The intent behind that paragraph I wrote was that the marriage contract on its face today is an anti-male legendary scam and has no inherent pro-male value, and it is also a legal instrument to provide a vehicle of racketeering against men. So let me guess–you are an anti-male right’s feminist and that is why you threw in the child-support snip into your reply? The child-support racket is another topic entirely, but it certainly aired your biases rather well. That is the nature of a system of fascism. The oppressed have no voice and are dehumanized by the oppressors as the Jews were dehumanized by the Nazis. This is how men are treated today in matriarchal totalitarian America.
No-fault divorce laws must be changed to fault-specific to protect men from (RICO) racketeering and corrupt organizations (divorce courts and divorce lawyers). Organized crime could only dream of having such a racket at their disposal. Tort reform must be mandatory to protect men from further terrifying anti-democratic abuses. This means scrapping the current divorce racket entirely, sending in the FBI to lock down the criminals involved and then rebuilding it from scratch using democratic reforms. You know, eliminating the matriarchal fascist legal-components of our current system. If men wanted to live in a police state, we would all move to North Korea.
And, perhaps you got the statistic from pulledoutofmyass.com, but last I heard, joint custody was quite a popular arrangement.
You obviously aren’t paying attention to the facts. Joint custody is popular? That is pretty laughable. How many men in this country have joint-custody of their children through the American matriarchal totalitarian family courts? Men in America do not benefit whatsoever from joint-custody because it is a myth. A lie. There is no such thing as joint-custody in this country for men. Radical feminists have fought against joint-custody for men and their children from day one and they continue to do so. The only joint-custody relationships that men enjoy are those they can work out themselves with a non-hostile spouse out of court. Do you have any more lies to send our way? Check out your feminist debate handbook again for help.
I think I hear violins.
Of course you do. That is why the new men’s rights movement is becoming so powerful. Soon, you will hear nothing but a pro-male anti-feminist orchestra drowning out your violin.
Obtestor
La lubu,
Point being…its not a woman / feminist thing.
Straw-man argument I often hear from men’s/fathers’ rights advocates.
Really? Those figures on male-suicide in America are 100% fact, not logic-fallacy. Too bad the so-called domestic violence industry (feminist myth) can’t produce similar facts to support domestic violence funding.
Did you know that in Massachusetts that the state legislature passed a law to keep domestic violence statistics out of the hands of the people? You can no longer get that information via Freedom of Information requests.
I can see why too. When you make $billions of US tax-dollars a year to suppor the myth of domestic violence, they have an urgent agenda to keep those statistics hidden from honest citizens.
Obtestor
Straw-man argument I often hear from men’s/fathers’ rights advocates.
Really? Those figures on male-suicide in America are 100% fact, not logic-fallacy. Too bad the so-called domestic violence industry (feminist myth) can’t produce similar facts to support domestic violence funding.
Of course they are 100% fact. However, please consider the source of the complaints about your statistics. The person who posted them spends huge amounts of time bashing men and fathers at her hate site.
Parents decide out of court. Here’s the common scenario: Since women stand a 90% chance of winning custody and men less than 5%, any decent lawyer will advise his male client that he’s wasting his time. The reason that in contested cases men win more than half is that in these cases the mother is a clear danger to the kids rather than that there’s some bias in favor of men. When women have custody 90% of the time, to suggest such a thing is simply ludicrous! Men settle for what they can get now only because they have no money and no chance of winning.
Any good lawyer will tell a nonprimary caregiving father that a judge will recognize the parenting arrangements already in place by the parents, and with the best interests of the child in mind, that judge would likely award custody of the children to the parent who had taken on that role. Most often, that parent is mom. The lawyer is trying to prevent a costly custody battle - which is in dad’s best interest.
It’s not correct that dads who win custody win because mom is unfit. Most often, it’s because he has the money to fund litigation until mom is forced to give in to his demands. Plus, with the advent of “conciliation courts” in the U. S., parents who contest custody are put through a battery of custody and psychological testing, parenting classes, mediation, and other costly add-ons to divorce that make money for professionals who make their living from divorce and custody cases. These kinds of divorces and custody cases cost in the six figures - and dads aren’t happy with the results because they either did not get the sole custody or 50/50 custody they went after.
Trish: Straw-man argument I often hear from men’s/fathers’ rights advocates.
Obtestor: Really? Those figures on male-suicide in America are 100% fact, not logic-fallacy. Too bad the so-called domestic violence industry (feminist myth) can’t produce similar facts to support domestic violence funding.
Men who commit suicide in the midst of divorce or custody hearings have had problems in existance during the marriage such as depression, personality disorders, and alcohol and drug addiction. Don’t blame the divorce for the suicides.
By the way, you’ve said nothing about the men who murder their wives, girlfriends, ex’s, and children and then take their own lives. There were two recent cases of men in the midst of custody battles killing their children. One set his child on fire. Would you blame mom and the divorce for that, too?
Still don’t see any links to these statistics you’re throwing around, Obtestor.
“Any good lawyer will tell a nonprimary caregiving father that a judge will recognize the parenting arrangements already in place by the parents, and with the best interests of the child in mind, that judge would likely award custody of the children to the parent who had taken on that role. Most often, that parent is mom. The lawyer is trying to prevent a costly custody battle - which is in dad’s best interest.”
I’m afraid it’s just not that simple. Here’s my story:
I’ve been married for several years to a woman who has bouts of violent rage. At the urging of our counselor I began to simply try to distance myself from her to avoid violence during these times — trouble is we have a daughter together. Oh yeah — we both work and both share quite equally in our daughter’s care.
Anyway, two years ago I made an attempt to extricate myself from one of those situations and when I did, she first stood behind my car holding our then 2 year old daughter and then laid her in the driveway behind the car to prevent me from leaving. So I shut off the car and got out at which time she punched me in the head.
I talked to four lawyers to see what my options are and every one of them told me I didn’t have a chance of gaining custody despite the danger she place our daughter in, despite her violence and despite the fact that we equally care for our daughter.
That’s four lawyers — two men, two women.
So tell me how that fits into your paradigm?
That fits because your experience is not the universal. You’ve also left out several facts, such as who is the primary caregiver now, when these rages began occurring (and what the caregiving arrangements were after they began), whether you’ve made a record of these incidents, and how much of a fight you’re going to have on your hands, because litigation is really damn expensive.
Because if she’s the primary caregiver and has remained so in the face of incidents which cause you concern, but maybe not enough to report to police or take over caregiving duties, yes, you’re going to have problems convincing a judge to award you sole custody.
Of course, even though you live in a non-no-fault state, you don’t have to go through the courts to get a divorce if you can get both parties to come to a mutual arrangement.
Trish: “Any good lawyer will tell a nonprimary caregiving father that a judge will recognize the parenting arrangements already in place by the parents, and with the best interests of the child in mind, that judge would likely award custody of the children to the parent who had taken on that role. Most often, that parent is mom. The lawyer is trying to prevent a costly custody battle - which is in dad’s best interest.”
Craichead: I’m afraid it’s just not that simple. Here’s my story:
The plural of anecdote is not fact. ;)
OK, I’ll bite (I know, I know)…..How can we say with such statistical certaintly precisely how many suicides are caused by one particular kind of problem?
I mean, most of those poor souls have multiple problems, right? How do we know with the kind of certainty you’re asserting that the child custody situation was the issue that broke the back of these people’s will to live?
Men who commit suicide in the midst of divorce or custody hearings have had problems in existance during the marriage such as depression, personality disorders, and alcohol and drug addiction. Don’t blame the divorce for the suicides.
By the way, you’ve said nothing about the men who murder their wives, girlfriends, ex’s, and children and then take their own lives. There were two recent cases of men in the midst of custody battles killing their children. One set his child on fire. Would you blame mom and the divorce for that, too?
Hey, keep blaming men. The professional men-blaming game here is epic. The system has been so grossly unfair to men that it creates in them a feeling of hopelessness and despair that they cannot legitimately seek relief. I am not a psychologist, but that is what I view is the main mechanism pushing men to such desperation. If you were forced into such a system where you knew before going into it that you would lose no matter what the result or circumstances leading up to it were, you would become desperate too. That is what ‘no-fault’ divorce does.
That is not dismissing the horrible reality of realistic violence situations occuring around divorces today, but merely recognizing that divorce and child custody must mean more than “prizes” for one side (the ultra-majority of cases being women). Men don’t like to lose their children any more than women do, but women are vindictive in stealing their children away from fathers in divorce and custody cases. The deaths of women, children and men themselves could be prevented if a fair and equitable divorce system was put into place and the current system scrapped completely. You can’t complain about violence via fascist oppression if you do not recognize the very evil that creates the conditions of violence in the system your ideology created to work against men. Again, that is not excusing the violence by no means, merely recognizing that there is an underlying causal factor to the violence. We know that a very small percentage of men (and women) become violent during divorce, so why do they do so? Most men just ’suck it up’ and take it, examining the statistics.
The reason why ‘domestic violence’ is so suspect is that domestic violence figures are covered up intentionally so funding for massive domestic violence socialist programs are not lost by the states. It is an industry like any other Marxist entity. Some stats beyond government control that we do know about are that 30% of women admitted to hospitals every year with injuries do so to themselves–ie…slipping and falling accidents. Domestic violence figures are grossly misrepresented by the domestic violence industry on purpose, and that is to keep the dehumanizing aspects of their anti-male, pro-feminist totalitarian agenda steaming along without interference.
Now, if you look at the violence figures for divorce and custody phases, it is clear they are probably much greater because the male citizen finally realises the con-job they are under and becomes desperate as the divorce industry system of fascism works against them. I can understand why those figures are probably greater because men have no stake in the system and they are not equally represented whatsoever. You can’t steal from people and then expect them to smile about it, I suppose. If you do, then that is a moral relativist position and logic fallacy. In conflict resolution both parties have to be convinced that they have won something, not one party winning decisively over the other. Modern feminism teaches not to negotiate with the modern male and to ignore conflict resolution. When you create such a system of irreconcileability, violence may result. Just look at all the other systems of violence created by governments around the world that stem from state-defined conditions of irreconcileability.
This has to do with feminist lies as well. Lies for example that women are a ‘minority’, when in fact they represent a clear majority voting block at 52% of the total registered voting population. You can’t take a population within a nation-state that is the majority voting population, give them special rights which separate them as citizens from other populations and then call it ‘democracy’. No, democracy doesn’t work that way, well, not if you want a system that isn’t a perversion.
So the politicians know that women are not a true minority but they play the game to get women to vote for them. Politicians promise women minority status and protections and all the related schemes and perks that go along with that status. Think about it. If a majority population promised to vote you into political office election cycle after election cycle just because the politician promised to keep your special rights going, would you do it? Of course you would. This is what currently occurs in America even though men are the true minority in the country. White American women are the most overrepresented majority given special rights in America than any other group. Vastly overrepresented and a tyranny of the majority.
So you can blame men for their post-divorce violence all you want to, but that is just like telling black people to go back to the back of the bus and use black-only bathrooms again. If blacks were told to go back to the back of the bus and use black-only bathrooms, I would expect them to revolt. I wouldn’t sit there and wring my hands and histrionically and with great feminist exhibitionism whine that they were revolting. Common-sense tells me that we don’t tell blacks to go to the back of the bus anymore.
Then why do feminists do it to men who are the true minority in America, while women are the clear majority and yet get full minority privileges?
That is fascism. Think about that truth.
Obtestor
For the most part, everyone is doing a very good job of keeping it civil here. Thanks.
For the MND defenders, I am interested in your response to my criticism regarding the “pokder babes” and the pin-up pics, as well as my defense of Promise Keepers. That was the largest point in my post, and the one no one wants to talk about. Somehow we’ve ended up batting statistics around again…
“That fits because your experience is not the universal. You’ve also left out several facts, such as who is the primary caregiver now, when these rages began occurring (and what the caregiving arrangements were after they began), whether you’ve made a record of these incidents, and how much of a fight you’re going to have on your hands, because litigation is really damn expensive.”
The situation is status quo. If I have no chance of gaining custody then I’m damn well not going to leave a little girl at the mercy of someone with no self control.
Yes — it’s all documented, several pages. I’ve been back to see two of those lawyers so far and both stand on their original prognosis.
You know, we’ll probably agree on most gender issues, but I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone can think that there isn’t massive bias against men in the family court system.
For the MND defenders, I am interested in your response to my criticism regarding the “pokder babes” and the pin-up pics, as well as my defense of Promise Keepers. That was the largest point in my post, and the one no one wants to talk about. Somehow we’ve ended up batting statistics around again…
Hi Hugo, here is my spin on that issue. I think the feminist movement parades a set of double-standards regarding shantily-clad women in all forms of advertising and media.
You have one feminist angle proclaiming that the modern female should be ‘free’ to do what she wants to do, express herself, have free sex with anyone and everyone she wants to, parade nude on television and in advertisements and never regret doing it for the ‘greater good’ where the good is the advancement of women.
Then you have the second group of feminists that views such instances as the ‘exploitation’ of women and wants to stop it.
I don’t have a problem with MND using those advertisements because feminism has not drawn up a consensus on the issue themselves. Why should men take a beating anymore than we are by opening ourselves up to defending chivarly?
Imagine that. On one side of the feminist political spectrum you would have a militant feminist group proclaiming that men were trying to subdue women, preventing their ’sexual identity freedoms’ and on the other side of the feminist political spectrum you would have feminists celebrate it and then try to use it to their advantage somehow to marginalize men in some way. Both sides would take advantage of men on the issue so it is best left alone.
In America today, those advertisements reflect the true relationship men have with American women anyway. We should make prostitution legal, because it appears that any relationship with most American women is a form of prostitution right now. It may not be formal, but it exists. At least if prostitution were formal, men would know where they stood within the system.
That’s all for me. Thanks for allowing me to post my thoughts here and I can be contacted at the e-mail address provided in my handle if anyone wants to chat further about these important issues.
Obtestor
Obtestor, you’re right that the feminist movement is divided on these issues. But again, I’m struck by the absence of a coherent sexual ethic among men’s rights’ defenders. I know what PK’s sexual ethic is — could someone from MND defend theirs? How is my use of the terms “hedonistic” and “objectifying” NOT applicable to what is found at Men’s News Daily?
Hugo-
Please read my last one or two posts and show me how that fits into your view that the reason men lose in family court is because they don’t parent directly enough.
The oppressed have no voice and are dehumanized by the oppressors as the Jews were dehumanized by the Nazis. This is how men are treated today in matriarchal totalitarian America.
I’m sorry to go off-topic, but does anyone else find this incredibly offensive? Feminists are characterised as whiners and perpetual victims, but I’ve certainly never heard a feminist use such a offensive analogy.
thisgirl, I’ll see that and raise you a
So you can blame men for their post-divorce violence all you want to, but that is just like telling black people to go back to the back of the bus and use black-only bathrooms again.
Think about that one. As far as I can tell, the claim is that holding violent people accountable for their violence (if they are men) is the moral equivalent of a return to Jim Crow.
I’ll repeat my previous query: Anyone whose trumpeting that 35,000 suicides caused by family court claim want to explain the methodology that discovers this causal link?
Good point, thisgirl. Let’s all leave Holocaust analogies out of this. It’s easy to get swept away on the wings of self-righteous rhetoric (I am guilty myself from time to time), but as the great-grandson of Jews killed in the Shoah, such references have no place in a debate on contemporary gender issues — from either side.
Obtestor: The oppressed have no voice and are dehumanized by the oppressors as the Jews were dehumanized by the Nazis. This is how men are treated today in matriarchal totalitarian America.
thisgirl: I’m sorry to go off-topic, but does anyone else find this incredibly offensive? Feminists are characterised as whiners and perpetual victims, but I’ve certainly never heard a feminist use such a offensive analogy.
Not to mention it’s time to invoke Godwin’s Law: the first person to bring up Nazis officially loses the debate.
“I’ll repeat my previous query: Anyone whose trumpeting that 35,000 suicides caused by family court claim want to explain the methodology that discovers this causal link?”
Whether it’s been demonstrated as causal I kind of doubt since at best it could probably only be demonstrated as sequential. The studies I’ve seen — and I’d have to go looking — report them as suicides occurring among divorced men within a short timeframe afterwards. These are also usually compared with women of a similar population who show a much lower rate of suicide.
On the other hand, men in general show a hugely significant risk in terms of suicide which is pretty much ignored as a health issue.
Craichead, are you familar with the logical fallacy of
“post hoc ergo propter hoc”?
I’m listening to Glenn Sacks’ show now. Hugo, you are doing a great job staying above the sarcasm. I hear a lot of “men are victims” mentality coming from Sacks and some of the callers. I agree with Barry (Ampersand) that the men’s and fathers’ rights movement operate from a zero-sum stance. I’m glad you had a chance to get the pro-feminist male point-of-view out there. More people listen than call into radio shows, so there’s no telling who actually heard what you had to say.
What struck me the most are the commercials. They’re all services for men designed to part them from their money, especially regarding divorce and custody services such as lawyers and private investigators. Rather than try to help men work towards finalizing their divorces and moving on with their lives, the people who make money from these kinds of cases will keep the animosity alive, all in the name of making a buck. It’s disguised as fighting for their “rights.”
Here’s a quick article on male suicide:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/15/divorce.suicide.wmd/
Also, Glenn keeps putting words in your mouth and misrepresenting what you are saying.
Obtestor, you’re right that the feminist movement is divided on these issues. But again, I’m struck by the absence of a coherent sexual ethic among men’s rights’ defenders. I know what PK’s sexual ethic is — could someone from MND defend theirs? How is my use of the terms “hedonistic” and “objectifying” NOT applicable to what is found at Men’s News Daily?
I think that the term ‘hedonism’ applies moreso to modern secularism than it does the traditional Christian male viewpoint. I am not a representative of Men’s News Daily, am just a reader of the site, but I do like MND because much of the information that MND posts can’t be found in the mainstream media. Sites like MND are becoming more popular because the mainstream media ignores issues important to men. MND fills the information gap that existed for so long as the feminist-dominated mainstream media sought to control all information flows.
Now, getting back to the term ‘hedonism’, as I said, I am thinking that hedonism today is best defined as “secular hedonism”. We bombard our young men with scantily-clad images of women day after day after day, and our young men are taught not to be loyal to women today because women find overt male loyalty to be a hostile, oppressive act.
Nearly 29% of all single women in America aged 18-39 have one child or more and are alone. Our young men are taught to not pursue these women but rather engage in secular hedonism where there is no price for the ‘pleasure’. The bombardment of anti-Christian messages today, messages that make any Christian male out to be a ‘kook’ and their values ’suspect’ and ‘extremist’ does nothing more than pad the statistics of these single women. If we force young men away from moral values, they will absorb feminist secular hedonist values. If some fantastic-looking feminist female is giving a young male free sex and then she becomes pregnant with a child, what benefit does a young man have to engage with her as a family unit? None, whatsoever. The male candidate has no legal standing whatsoever. These single women are single with children because they decide to be, not because men do not want to have families. It is politically and economically dangerous for men to engage the modern female in marriage today.
So MND’s use of those advertisements, to me, is nothing more than a website using a venue where the consumer finds them to be popular and that draws income to the site. Our young men today like advertisements such as those because that is what they are bombarded with in films, television and print media. There are females more scantily dressed on MTV than the advertisements used on MND, in my opinion. But we don’t hear too much about MTV’s ‘glamour girls’, perhaps because they are a left-wing site. Young men are trained today, ‘resocialised’ to engage with that form of advertising.
I would rather see our young men marry, but that is counter to modern feminist theory. As long as there is a war on marriage, men will seek shelter in secular hedonism, the closest viable form of marriage that they can hope to possibly acquire in the modern state.
Obtestor
Craichead, that article also pointed out this fact: “[Howard Markman, Ph.D] pointed out that men tend to have a higher suicide rate because they are more likely to use guns to kill themselves, whereas women attempt suicide with less lethal methods, such as poisonings or cuts.” The real key would be to ascertain suicide attempts. Women attempt suicide at higher rates than men, but are not as successful in killing themselves. Otherwise, the study doesn’t prove anything we already know - men overall have not formed the social/familial supports that women have formed, and that leads to isolation in the worst of times. Rather than blame divorce for male suicides, it would be a good idea for men to learn to gather support systems around themselves so that they are not so isolated in times of great stress. The pro-feminist men’s movement has addressed the cultural conditioning men have to be “strong” and “stoic,” and it works towards helping men learn to create better support systems. That’s the “patriarchy” Hugo had talked about extensively on Glenn’s show.
Hugo,
I studied psychology in college and what you were discussing Sunday night with Glenn Sacks is just your own unprovable musings to discredit the men’s movement. Furthermore, if you want to further discredit the movement then you would say they are not religious based. Another falsehood. The Pope has spoken out publicly against feminism. A minor detail you seem to have forgotten or missed. Who is the Pope? He’s the leader of the largest religion on earth: Catholicism. I’m sure you’ll dismiss this out of hand like you did with the statistics that went against your belief system on Sunday night.
And finally, if you are indeed a proponent of Zero-Sum-Game, then why the strong negative opposition from you? Can’t we all just get along?
Wow, you really do know how to flip the blame, Obstetor:
“our young men are taught not to be loyal to women today because women find overt male loyalty to be a hostile, oppressive act.”
????
Find me one feminist who considers LOYALTY oppressive.
But even if what you said was true, it wouldn’t excuse men’s bad behavior from a Christian perspective. As Christians, we are called to be salt and light. If folks don’t like our salt and light, that doesn’t mean we can say “oh, the heck with it, I think I’ll go and play in the cesspool with you.”
I think the sexual ethic of MND can be pretty much summed up by one of their bloggers cropping the head off the picture of the woman modelling feministing.com tshirts (sorry, I don’t know who the picture is of!), then using it as an example of how feminists are hypocritical and objectify themselves. Because, of course, any picture with breasts covered or uncovered is inherently sexist.
Good point, thisgirl. Let’s all leave Holocaust analogies out of this. It’s easy to get swept away on the wings of self-righteous rhetoric (I am guilty myself from time to time), but a