Of course all these issues you mention are important. And men must protect the interests of men, as well as of all of society. I’m not advocating abandoning these important issues or an end to the fight to address these injustices. But I think this is better done through organizations of men who are focusing on social matters and public policy. For instance, an organization of men – and only of men – that fights to protect the institution of marriage would necessarily involve protecting it for the benefit of men as well as women, but it wouldn’t focus exclusively on men in the way feminism focused exclusively on women. An organization that fights against overweening control of the state would fight the state’s control of marriage, which allows for abuses in particular against men. This excessive control by the state is at the root of many violations against men in the arena of family and marriage.

 

An organization of men that asserted the need for male control of politics would argue for why this benefits all of society, not just men.

 

It doesn’t have to be a men’s rights organization to be an organization with an exclusively male membership. Historically, this was the case for many important organizations. Women simply weren’t allowed to join, but the men didn’t justify this exclusion by talking about men’s rights or men’s interests only.  They often excluded women specifically so they could take the broader view of the world.

 

I believe strongly that men should organize in exclusively male organizations, that men should lead society and govern, and that women, while having their own organizations and participating in a subordinate role in other organizations that are for both men and women, should generally be tangential to this public project.

 

 

If men organize, on the other hand, purely under the banner of men’s rights they will further destroy the moral legitimacy of male leadership. With leadership comes responsibility. It’s a cliché but it’s true.

 

                                    — Comments —

Stephen writes, “Issues in which men are the primary “victims” don’t even show up on agenda’s – let alone platforms – of the parties and organizations of the political right.”

There is a simple explanation for this. Most women are indifferent to the fate of random men, and — as you note — only begin to take notice of such issues “when someone they know becomes affected.” [Laura writes: Sad to say, this is not true either as many women today actively conspire in the undoing of the men they know.] Furthermore, most men are also indifferent to the fate of random men. This is not because humankind is crazy, but because men are generally called to “suffer the slings and arrows in silence”, and being overly-concerned with this would have rendered our species extinct a long time ago. Obviously nature considers this a feature, not a bug.

There is a frequent call that men need to abandon this most basic, chivalric ideal of “women and children first”, and leave women to their fate. But that ideal is written on men’s hearts by their Creator, which can be proven by it’s universal quality. There is not, nor has there ever been, a civilization in which men stay at home and send their women off to war. That goes against Natural Law, and is an idea that goes against the inherent wishes and instincts of the majority of women and men.

Men don’t wish to be thought of as “victims”, and adopting victimology-language tends to lend the whole movement an air of homo-eroticism (as is discussed in another thread). Furthermore, any fight that pits men against women is doomed to fail. Most men won’t join it (because it is emasculating and they would rather risk suffering than hurt women), and women will generally shun men who do. Demonizing women is a losing proposition. Even if you can convince a man to espouse such a system in theory, most of them would break down when it came time to actually implement such a system. Or the changes would be made, and the men would then resort to vigilantism instead (which would defeat the purpose of the changes).

Think about it, Stephen. If it were your wife who had been raped, and you knew that the obviously-guilty attacker would not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, would you merely shrug your shoulders and be grateful that the rapist had been freed, in order to protect the innocent? Probably not. You would probably decide to take matters into your own hands, and the man wouldn’t see another sunrise.

This is one of the underlying reasons why black-on-black rape incidents are so grossly underreported. If the woman comes crying, nobody calls the cops. The man is more inclined to simply grab a gun and finish the bastard off. Black men are shooting each other at record rates over possessions, the most valuable one being women. The rule of law is clearly for the benefit of the accused, when dealing with rape.

A more productive tactic would be that taken by the Innocence Project, of depicting FRA as an affront on justice. Justice, and the pursuit of it, is an inherently manly trait and virtue. Everybody wants to see justice done, and nobody wants to be on the side of injustice. We should all be working to reform the system, to make it more just. That this would benefit men disproportionately is then a mere side-effect, and not the goal.

And finally, I think that we will have to simply swallow the fact that rape is very difficult to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and that false imprisonment is an inherent danger in any criminal justice system that attempts to punish such crimes of consent. But it is clear that the high rates of false-incarceration and accusation point to a system that is in need of severe reform.

Vanessa adds:

Laura writes: If men organize, on the other hand, purely under the banner of men’s rights they will further destroy the moral legitimacy of male leadership.

This is very true. Feminism was about female supremacy, and we can also see where that landed us. So does a movement toward male supremacy merely shift us closer to the center, or drive us off the cliff in the opposite direction?

I’ve always supported the Christian ideal of patriarchy because I believe men, by their very nature, to be more able to act in an altruistic, moralistic, and future-oriented manner. I believe God designed men specifically to take on a leadership role in family and society, to be more broad and fair in their applications of justice, and to be less inclined to narcissism and pettiness. This is not because I think women are “bad”, but because I think men and women are inherently different, and therefore designated to take on unique roles.

Much of the more-volatile MRM rhetoric destroys this impression of men being fair and caring arbiters, who are best-placed to lead and manage civilization for the benefit of all. They often sound like they are only “out for themselves”. It is, in a word, emasculating. That is unfortunate, as much of what they are saying deserves to be heard and examined, but most readers won’t be able to get past the stomach-churning “woman are evil” commentariat. 

Dan writes:

You believe organizations of men are needed to get the reforms required for men to enjoy equality with women… Further, you argue that these organizations only have a hope of success if they pitch their existence as helping ALL of society, not just men. And that this is hard-wired into men and therefore unbreakable.

Your reaction certainly explains why Feminists the world over seem to be unable to comprehend that men are, you know, getting mad at them… It seems, men are genetically unable to ‘hate’ women like women can ‘hate’ men. Or so you hope.

Personally, I think women are deluding themselves if they think men have not already been pushed beyond the bounds of this genetic compulsion. Look to the hook-up culture for the future of men’s regard for women. The one thing that feminists seem to be unable to get through their heads, is that when you turn women into nothing more than a competitor with a vagina, you reduce her ‘value as a woman’ to that of…her vagina. I could be wrong. I guess we’ll find out with the advent of decently lifelike RoboGirls, the legalization of Prostitution, or ‘direct neural stimulation’ cyber-sex….

MGTOW, PUAs, the Marriage Strike, a whole movement of pissed-off guys…. How much more evidence do women need that they’ve royally[messed] up?

To Vanessa:

You expand a bit on this whole ‘men don’t care about other men’ meme, and I do admit, it’s quite true. But it’s also not. Think about a man’s connection to his ‘team’ (sports, work, stamp-collecting, whatever). Men LOVE to belong to groups, as long as that group has a goal, and a viable chance at success.

The Mens Movement may have been ineffective for the last few years, but keep a couple of things in mind; the Men’s Movement has been actively suppressed since it’s very inception, with the use of everything from social castigation to official ‘repercussions’ for participation – only the Internet allowed unfettered communication. Since then, we’ve exploded in size every year. And don’t underestimate the damage women themselves have done to the regard men hold them in over the last few decades. When I was younger it would have been shocking to hear a guy refer to a woman as a ‘f–k hole’. Now, it’s common. And no, I don’t mean in MRA circles…I mean at Nightclubs and Coffeehouses.

Yay ‘Slut-Feminism’.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. Characterizing the MRM as ‘Homo-Erotic’? That’s funny. It’s also a classic shaming tactic historically used by feminists to break apart Men’s Clubs (and supplant them with ‘Women’s Clubs’), or any other gathering of men talking about subjects not Female-Approved(tm). Can people not find something other than “Yer Ghey” to insult us with?

Laura writes:

MGTOW, PUAs, the Marriage Strike, a whole movement of pissed-off guys…. How much more evidence do women need that they’ve royally[messed] up?

Women? Messed up? No, it couldn’t be! As I’ve said time and time again, women are doing everything right and have ample reason to be proud of themselves. You have really enlightened me. I never considered that feminism may have drawbacks.

And don’t underestimate the damage women themselves have done to the regard men hold them in over the last few decades.

That hadn’t occurred to me. By the way, do you regularly visit websites you know nothing about, reacting in a knee-jerk fashion to the latest post?

The one thing that feminists seem to be unable to get through their heads, is that when you turn women into nothing more than a competitor with a vagina, you reduce her ‘value as a woman’ to that of…her vagina.

Tell that to them.

It seems, men are genetically unable to ‘hate’ women like women can ‘hate’ men. Or so you hope.

Ah, I get it. So that’s what you mean by men’s rights: the right to hate. That’s great news. Nothing like raw hatred to make a man happy. You have proved my case. Just as a feminist sees a potentially dangerous patriarch in all men, you only see women who are evil. There is truth to this because many women are evil and all women are flawed. But it’s a partial truth and the victims of feminism are not just male.

I’m sure the men’s movement will continue to enjoy success and flourish.

Stephen writes:

Vanessa writes,”Think about it, Stephen. If it were your wife who had been raped, and you knew that the obviously-guilty attacker would not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, would you merely shrug your shoulders and be grateful that the rapist had been freed, in order to protect the innocent?”

You seem to have me confused with someone who actually believes that Elam’s advice should be followed. I do not. My point is that the unaddressed underlying grievances need to be addressed – not pooh, poohed as being “too gay”.

Vanessa, This is very true. Feminism was about female supremacy, and we can also see where that landed us. So does a movement toward male supremacy merely shift us closer to the center, or drive us off the cliff in the opposite direction?”

Seeking to redress unjust laws does NOT equate to male supremacy.

If you stop and think about it, addressing the issues that primarily affect men WILL have a benefit not only for men, but for women, children, and families as well. A lot of well-meaning people seem to dance around the truth of why fewer and fewer men are marrying. It’s explained as immaturity, etc. But, when asked, most men who chose not to marry will tell you that it is about the lack of legal protections they will have (Glenn Sacks did a post about an actual survey done a couple of years back – sorry, I wish I had the link handy – in which something on the order of 90% of all young men responding indicated that they feared for their rights (including their roles as fathers) due to the legal advantages given to women, and the societal attitudes towards encouraging women to divorce (and take their ex’s to the cleaners).

The National Marriage Project (U of Va) has been tracking the steady rate of decline in marriage. Others have demonstrated how this decline has tracked with changes in divorce law. The threat to marriage comes not from lazy, immature men, from homosexuals trying to usurp the institution, nor even abortion-on-demand. The threat comes from the legal disenfranchisement of men by way of law that significantly advantage women (typically, but there are exceptions, especially as more women earn higher incomes than their husbands) over men in the event that marriages fail. And, even when men don’t stand to lose out as much financially, their lower income will simply be used against them to solidify the view that they are incapable of being custodial fathers. Also in a woman’s arsenal is the ability to make false accusations of DV, child abuse, and even child sexual abuse – and to have the power of the state back HER play, and remove him from his home, and consider him guilty (until proven innocent) I could go on with more ways in which the laws work to discourage men from marriage, but I think you can get the point.

Trying to cajole and/or shame young men into marrying isn’t going to resolve the issue – at best it can only make for a higher percentage of unhappy marriages. Preventing “gay marriage” does nothing to redress the serious legal issues facing men. Ending abortion will not persuade men to marry women they impregnate (child support, as determined according to set formulas, tends substantially cheaper than “half” of everything a man has/earns should he marry, then be divorced).

If one wishes to see the institution of marriage make a come back, it is going to be vital to reform the laws – not to make men superior, but simply to level the playing-field. yes, in that power will be taken from women, it can be cast as “harming” women (which is why women, as a whole, will never go along with such reform); but it is actually about seeking equity for the genders. Each individual circumstance would be judged upon evidence, not measured against the current standard, which reduces down to “men=bad, women=good”.

Disparage it as “gay”, if you must; but men are going to have to address such issues critical to men – because most women aren’t going to help. But, failure to do so IS going to lead to things getting worse. Marriage is just “canary in the coal mine” type indicator of where society as a whole is headed as men are selectively legally disenfranchised.

Stephen writes:

Vanessa writes, “Much of the more-volatile MRM rhetoric destroys this impression of men being fair and caring arbiters.”

Unfortunately many male-advocacy issues (which have little or nothing to do with actual legal protections and equitable rights for men) tend to get lumped in with the loosely (poorly) organized MRM. I understand your concern regarding them.

However, I also see this situation as a by-product of men who are actually seeking reforms having to cast about for support (from where ever they can get it) due to the failure of better organized movements to recognize and support their efforts. The MRM did not start out seeking the support of the left and feminists (as they would be natural enemies), but rather petitioned the right, and social conservatives (with whom they shared many other interests and common goals), only to be rebuffed and rejected.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

“I know not,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” [Josh replied, “he was gay!”]

Then He said, “What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground! 11So now you are cursed [with alienation] from the ground that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood you have shed. 12If you work the land, it will never again give you its yield. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

Laura writes:

Again, Stephen accuses us of making the argument that legal reforms that redress wrongs to men are not necessary. That is a distortion of what we have said.

Vanessa writes:

Dan writes, “You believe organizations of men are needed to get the reforms required for men to enjoy equality with women…”

Nowhere do I see either Laura or I advocating for “gender equality.” I believe that all humans are created equal, but the idea that men and women should be treated the same by society or the law goes against the ideal of complementarity. Women should be treated as women, and men as men. Such a difference in treatment is unequal, by the strictist definition of the word, but it is still just.

“It seems, men are genetically unable to ‘hate’ women like women can ‘hate’ men.”

Is that what this is? The right to equal hate? I think you are a poor representative of the MRM, and such an argument is completely counter-productive. Why should any woman write or speak out in favor of a movement that is based upon hating women? Should black people champion the KKK? Should the Jews support the neo-Nazis?

I freely acknowledge that men are capable of true misogyny. My point was that such a state is not the natural one, and that the majority of men not being misogynists, the more productive tactic would be to frame MRM issues as part of the greater good. That was a tactic that worked quite well for feminists, after all. Like should do like, if they wish to produce a similar impact.

“The one thing that feminists seem to be unable to get through their heads, is that when you turn women into nothing more than a competitor with a vagina, you reduce her ‘value as a woman’ to that of…her vagina. I could be wrong.”

The one thing that masculinists seem to be unable to get through their heads, is that when you turn men into nothing more than a competitor with a penis, you reduce his ‘value as a man ’ to that of…his penis. I think that this is a pretty general statement of the state of our intersexual relations today. Many women view men with a general sense of contempt and objectification. Although I suppose men are generally seen as “talking wallets.” Shouldn’t repairing our society be based upon expanding our view of the opposite sex beyond their utilitarian value?

“Oh yeah, and one more thing. Characterizing the MRM as ‘Homo-Erotic’?”

In my defense, I did not mean to say that I thought the MRM was homo-erotic, but that their rhetoric may open them up to that charge. However, I do note that a significant portion of MRM commentary is devoted to “how men are better than women.” I agree that men are better than women at some things, but not at others. Going on and on about women’s superior abilities and talents is one of the more annoying aspects of feminism, and it’s not more appealing when men do it.

I have never said that men should not be free to organize or promote themselves, as they wish.

David C. writes:

Interesting discussion. Just a couple of minor points. I think you ladies are right that men will always feel foolish joining men’s groups to advocate for men only. God said “it is not good for him to be alone.” 

Laura and Vanessa, I broadly agree, but please use your terms carefully. For example, distinguish between patriarchy and misogyny. I think, I hope, that is possible to be a patriarch without being a misogynist. In the last few days, I have had to make my daughter return to school – she has been “bludging” as we say in Australia, and avoiding school. I have also had to get my wife to take the tablets she needs for her wellbeing. And deal with problems caused by my other daughter and son. All this was “patriarchal” activity, not driven by “misogyny” I hope. 

My problem with the men’s sites is that I dislike “players” who take advantage of young women. I also dislike the bitter attacks on women as a sex. I am not a “pedestaliser”, but the language used is becoming increasingly offensive and strident. And I agree with Vanessa’s point, which I take to be that men should be able to stay calm and cope. I sometimes think that men’s generally patient and tolerant response to feminism is rather a tribute to my sex!

Laura writes:

I ask that anyone commenting at this site show a modicum of respect for the effort that goes into it by reading what I have written in the past. The idea that I confuse patriarchy and misogyny has no basis in what I have written. I do not use the word ‘misogyny” often or loosely. Here is an extended discussion with Kristor about the meaning of patriarchy. I have used the term patriarchy often and I have used it entirely in a positive sense. I have never said that patriarchy and misogyny are the same thing.

Stephen writes:

“Again, Stephen accuses us of making the argument that legal reforms that redress wrongs to men are not necessary. That is a distortion of what we have said.” 

Vanessa asked the question: “So does a movement toward male supremacy merely shift us closer to the center, or drive us off the cliff in the opposite direction?” 

Thus, in so many words, it would appear as though she is advancing the position that if men act on their own behalf, then it is seeking male supremacy. I took her remark to be shaming language, especially given her inference of men who would (dare) to seek justice through legal/political means as being seen as homosexual (or, at least, leaving themselves open to being labeled as such). [For the record, I’ve seen a number (many, many) of self-identifying gender-feminists who insult MRA’s with taunts like “you must be gay”; so it comes as rather a surprise to encounter the same from those who would seem to identify themselves as anti-feminist.] 

So, it wasn’t so much that she was saying it was a bad thing – just implying that it was “gay” and “male supremacist” to do so. 

By the way, in as much as Laura entertains Josh’s radical view that the Men’s Rights Movement is, at it core, homosexual in nature – despite his truly laughable arguments, not backed up with one substantial example of his claims – would seem to indicate that Laura too is open to dismissing the goals of sincere MRA’s as “gay.” Please tell me I’m wrong.

Laura writes:

As I understand Josh’s argument, he is not saying that feminists or men’s advocates are engaging in sexual relationships with the same sex. Dan’s comment that Josh is simply accusing men’s advocates of being practicing homosexuals is wrong. Feminists and men’s activists are indulging in self-love and in an aversion to the opposite sex.  In that sense, they have the same philosophical and practical stance as radical homosexuals. Though they are very likely having sexual relations with the opposite sex, they are advocating rebellion against any genuine claims by the opposite sex on individual freedom and personality. Thus they are advocating the annihilation of self (which can only be balanced in relation to the opposite sex) and the annihilation of society, which requires procreation.

I know many basically decent women, by the way, who have been seduced by the false arguments of feminism. They genuinely believe feminism is good and that women have been historically victimized by the majority of men. They are in error.

Stephen writes:

David writes, “I sometimes think that men’s generally patient and tolerant response to feminism is rather a tribute to my sex!” 

Sure, it’s really macho…but, a quick glance at the world around us indicates that it has been entirely ineffective. An abject failure, perhaps. 

Say, what is the difference between “being strong and silent, and taking it like a man”, and simply “hanging on in quite desperation” (the “English way”, if you get the reference)? And, for that matter, how can one tell the difference between when someone is demonstrating  leadership by remaining calm from when they are  simply failing to act? Appears to be basically the same thing to me.

Laura writes:

Stephen writes, And, for that matter, how can one tell the difference between when someone is demonstrating leadership by remaining calm from when they are simply failing to act? Appears to be basically the same thing to me.

Well, I think any responsible parent can tell you the difference between authority and tolerance for rebellion. Male deference to feminism was partly due to naturally decent qualities and the desire for easy harmony but it also stemmed from laziness and self-interest. Ultimately, it was not admirable. Men share blame for the historic success of feminism. Parents often trade authority for the ease of friendship. Friendship with children is good but not when it overrides the larger interests of the child and hierarchy in the family.

David C. writes:

A man on his own can’t solve all the problems of the world. He has to deal with the situation in which he finds himself. A sensible man adapts. If he is faced with an unfair system, he has to deal with it as it is, not as he wishes it were. I believe that men are, mostly, adaptable and inventive. Many of the men at The Spearhead have had bad luck, but some have simply not reacted intelligently to the new social realities. If I were a young American man, I would certainly be considering going on a personal “marriage strike”, unless I were very certain of a possible wife’s good intentions and character. I have made my marriage work, but this has been partly good luck, good timing, a more friendly environment to men in Australia, and the Grace of God. 

I can be “macho” here in my home because my wife tolerates and even likes it. And the legal system here in Australia is less reflexively anti-male. But I think I have the sense to know when being “macho” will not work. I work in a good job, which happens to be largely dominated by women. Striking “macho” poses at work will not get me anywhere. 

Men get very little social support, and we have to do most of the thinking for ourselves. Laura, you may remember my detailed analysis of recent papal remarks on marriage. Reaching that point took me literally hours of thought and study. If I were to wait for my local Catholic paper to state plainly that husbands are heads of households, I would be waiting a very long time. I once made a muted reference to this point in a book review I wrote for the local Catholic publication. The Editor, no doubt knowing on which side his bread was buttered, took it out. I think I can recall, in decades, only a handful of positive references to men as fathers and husbands in Catholic media. And a grand total of about two sermons that supported husbands in their traditional role. Mostly we get nagged. Even a natural patriarch like me gets a little worn down by the relentless negativity in the Catholic media. It has been an object lesson in the way in which ostensibly male authority will bend to the prevailing wind. When was the last time a Catholic bishop, a pure patriarch himself, supported patriarchy in the Catholic home?

 I have noted, acidly, that the only time the local Catholic Church puts men first is when they are asking for money.

Laura writes:

Men get very little social support, and we have to do most of the thinking for ourselves.

All traditionalists, both men and women, get very little social support and have to do most of the thinking for themselves. Men get very little institutional support and a significant minority have experienced undeserved havoc in their personal lives. But the  idea that there are no decent women to marry or that women cannot be converted by a loving and forceful man is extremist exaggeration, the sort of exaggeration you find among feminists. I know quite a few women who are rhetorically feminist but lead lives of devotion to their husbands. They give their  men a lot of feminist flak, but don’t act upon it. They are still guilt of complicity because they openly support the sort of destructive feminism that leads other women to more serious offenses.