SAGE McLAUGHLIN WRITES:

I should say that I find the idea of a “men’s movement” not merely quixotic but wrong. The basic premise is that there are political and social interests that are specifically male interests, which all men share in common and which must compete with women’s interests to prevent men being defrauded of their due. One of the reasons people used to argue that the universal franchise was an absurdity was that each vote rightly belonged to the entire household, and that a husband and wife could never have different, much less opposed, political interests. The post-Hobbesian (or rather post-Cartesian) view of human beings as atomistic cosmic exiles, each with his own unique interests that stand opposed to the interests of every other individual, has been very destructive. 

What is needed is a movement which places families at the heart of things, and there is something truly accommodationist about spending one’s energies establishing, say, the legal presumption of joint custody following a divorce. I’ve been watching men’s movements of various kinds with interest for quite some time, and I’ve never become active in them because I’ve always sensed that there is something basically evil about the notion that men ought to be construed as a distinct political grouping fighting over the tainted spoils of the family court system. An overmastering bitterness and self-pity, obvious from both the tone and the content of the literature it has produced, animates every “men’s movement” I’ve yet come across. It looks suspiciously like feminism, and is built on similar socio-political premises. 

I’m more than sympathetic to that bitterness toward feminism and the women it has produced—I feel it in my gut, but I recognize it as an ugly flaw in my character that I must work to extirpate. Any party or movement based on such feelings and on such a thoroughly mistaken view of humanity will constantly produce misogynistic heresies and deformations such as Roissyism. And for the record, the navel-gazing, neo-pagan Freudian lunacy of the Robert Bly set isn’t going to get men any lasting satisfaction either. 

The feminist attack on masculine authority is not, at bottom, about misandry. It is about misanthropy, expressed through a demonic attack on the family. Its source is not really the desire to see men brought low, though that is necessary if Christian civilization is to be annihilated. It is much, much easier to believe otherwise, but I urge all men of a conservative bent to resist this self-flattering lie! Its source is a hatred of the feminine, borne of Satan’s fear of the Blessed Virgin, Throne of Gold, whose submission to the will of the Father has laid waste all of the Enemy’s pretensions to lordship over creation. The only answer for a diseased spirituality is a healthy spirituality (as the Catholic commentator Mark Shea always says). The answer is not ideology, which always pushes a truth until it becomes a falsehood, but tradition. Christian tradition is the only “men’s movement” that interests me. Everything else is straw.

                                                                       — Comments —

Laura writes:

It seems that a period of heightened male consciousness is necessary to enable more men to lose their inhibitions about openly criticizing feminism, to martial male drive and intelligence toward the cause of defeating feminism in its various manifestations and to articulate masculine interests, especially on behalf of developing boys. But I agree with Sage that this is not enough and is furthermore dangerous if carried into a full-fledged cultural movement. A men’s movement does not offer a holistic sense of purpose. At best, it can educate and refute, but not transform society. At its worst, it creates a male counterpart to feminism.

Jesse writes:

I would like to add my voice to the argument about the wisdom of a “Men’s Movement” or more particularly the Men’s Rights Movement. I have personal experience debating people in the Men’s Rights Movement and I must say I do not like what I see. I am pro-patriarchy and pro-family but I am definitely not in favor of the mainstream beliefs promoted by the Men’s Rights Movement. 

In my view, the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is even worse than the feminist movement. I say this because the mainstream feminist culture does believe in protecting and supporting women to some extent while the MRM is opposed to any support and protection of women. Indeed the MRM promotes equality between men and women to a radical degree, more so than typical feminists do. The MRM is very anti-family and anti-marriage, constantly talking about and promoting “the marriage strike” and producing websites like “Dump Your Wife Now.” They talk of how marriage is a bad deal for men and how men should avoid marriage at all costs. They are against child support as well; they seem to be against any imposition of responsibility upon men. 

If there is one thing that Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) hate more than anything else it is chivalry. Chivalry is the great enemy of MRAs because chivalry imposes responsibilities and duties upon men towards women and there is nothing that an MRA hates more than the idea that men owe certain duties and obligations towards women.This concept of chivalry is important and yet your typical MRA is strongly opposed, proponents say that feminism can’t survive without chivalry and that therefore chivalry is bad. If someone says they are a Men’s Rights Activist or that they are in favor of “men’s rights” ask them if they are in favor of chivalry, ask them if they think that men should “provide for and protect” women. If they are opposed to chivalry and opposed to the idea that men should “provide for and protect” women then you can be quite sure they are anti-family and will only bring further destruction to the family unit if their ideas are implemented. 

I am against feminism because feminism doesn’t protect women as well as patriarchy does. MRAs are also opposed to feminism but they are opposed to feminism because it offers too much protection to women in their view. Traditional patriarchy and men’s rights attitudes are even further apart from each other than traditional patriarchy and mainstream feminism is. Keep this in mind.

Rita writes:

You are so right that the men’s rights movement is tainted by self-interest and misogyny. I guess it’s human nature to go from one extreme to the other. The women’s rights movement started off in a moderate way and did some good until it was seemingly hijacked by those with a far reaching political agenda. I suspect the same thing has happened to the men’s movement to some extent too.

Men love beauty and I have observed that the beauty they like to look on most and be close to is a lovely woman. I understand their anger when so many Westernized women, let themselves go OR are still attractive but use their attractiveness to seemingly use and abuse men. Not all women do this, mind you but the places men (especially young men) go to meet women, let’s face it, we’re talking barrooms here, are not conducive to getting to know someone in a real way. In an artificial environment with alcohol flowing and music thumping loudly, it’s no wonder it’s so hard to make a real connection. To top it off everyone is playing “hard to get” and keeping their options open in case someone better comes along ( I suspect, in the case of men, this is related to all the women “available” on porn related websites)–how does anyone ever get married anymore???

My impression of the Roissy type blogs is that the barroom is the main kind of environment men are trying to meet women in. They’ve been disappointed and now many of them have given up on having a real relationship and they just sleep around. They would shudder to think that the word “settling” might apply to them, but that’s exactly what they are doing. Wild , debased sex with “hot” young women notwithstanding, they are settling for so much less than life has to offer. The same goes for young women.

Our young people need so much more guidance on how to meet a future spouse and how to keep their mind on the prize, the only real prize of a loving marriage and family (other than knowing God). Oh yeah, and there’s this little watering hole called church where people meet members of the opposite sex too. Yes-there are hypocrites and imperfect people in church. One will have to sift through the sand to find the gold there too. It takes effort. It’s not a fairy tale or a movie where the beautiful girl is always a sweet nurturing, mother type and the handsome man is a protective, provider type. People need to spend time together to learn about the qualities (or lack thereof) in their potential mate. It seems young people want to skip these preliminaries that are so important!

I guess my point is that I understand all the anger and frustration among men and women but parents need to stop letting the Roissys of this world educate their children. Be a parent. Spend time talking to your children and guiding them. Tell them why porn is harmful. Tell them what a good man or woman looks like. Tell them where to find them. Set the example by BEing a good man or woman. Have a rich social life with like-minded people so you can introduce them to the sons or daughters of these nice people. Tell them what your years of experience have taught you. You know stuff! Make them listen or deal with the consequences!

Furthermore, go to churches that aren’t afraid to deal with these topics. We are tired of being entertained at church. Church, your pretty songs and rituals can’t cover up the decay any longer. Give us and our children some meat and potatoes! We desperately need your help!

If parents and Churches won’t guide their children, Roissy will. Is this what we want?

Please follow and like us: