REX writes: 

I have a question regarding your position on the Men’s Rights Movement.

The way I see it, you have repeatedly rejected the MRM because, fundamentally, you see it as representing the same type of divisive ‘gender particularism’ which exists in the feminist movement. In your view, the MRM is flawed because it goes against your basic view of sex relations, which is one of reciprocity, cooperation, and mutual appreciation of complementary characteristics. Men’s Rights activists advocate gender egalitarianism just as feminists do, although they attempt to highlight the potential advantages which men can reap when they thoroughly and clearly understand what this means in the modern world. For instance, the MRM activists typically reject the idea of imposing gender-specific ‘responsibilities’ on men as a whole, and tend to encourage the same sort of ‘inward focus’ and narrow self-interestedness routinely encouraged by feminists. 

Here’s my problem with your criticism: At the root, your opposition to the gender-specific self-interestedness encouraged by the MRM is based on a sort of ‘imagined collectivism’ which you seem to project onto society. The simple fact is that our society has become highly individualistic — perhaps ‘atomized’ is the most accurate word to characterize it. And in an atomized society it is totally pointless to speak of ‘duties’, ‘responsibilties’ and ‘obligations’ apart from those which arise solely from direct voluntary choice. In such a culture, a person can voluntarily choose to accept responsibilities or assume duties, such as when he decides to take out a loan or freely enters into a binding contract — but outside of such contexts it is essentially meaningless to speak of such things. This is, in my view, the error in your criticism of the MRM: you say they are backing away from their ‘duties’ (i.e. discouraging marriage, provisioning behavior, etc.), but this claim requires a non-atomized culture to be meaningful. MRAs understand that the culture is not collectivist, and so they are trying to adjust things to create a level playing field, a playing field which isn’t skewed toward either gender. Of course this involves men becoming more self-focused, but that is the only rational decision available in a culture where self-focus is the only viable option. 

It would be different, perhaps, if we were living in a non-atomized culture, a culture characterized by strong communal ties, a much higher level of homogeneity, etc. But that isn’t our situation. We don’t live in a culture where responsibilities can be ‘imposed’ on persons outside of voluntary choice. So, my question would be, how can you possibly speak of men possessing ‘responsibilities toward women’ (and therefore reject the MRM’s self-focus approach) as a group when our culture doesn’t even recognize ‘groups’, it only recognizes individuals? 

Thanks for whatever response you give.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing.

First, you characterize my basic view of sex relations as “one of reciprocity, cooperation, and mutual appreciation of complementary characteristics.” That is true, but not complete since I also recognize the necessity and good of male authority. Sex roles are not just complementary. They are hierarchical as well.

Men’s rights advocates say they seek equality with women and aim to redress the inferior status feminists have imposed on them.  They seek to counterbalance feminism with “men’s rights,” envisioning some hypothetical state of fairness and justice, or at least saying they envision some hypothetical state of fairness and justice. Feminists also claim to seek fairness, but this is a dishonest pose, a cover for the pursuit of superiority for women. Men’s rights advocates say they want equality too and generally do not argue for patriarchal authority. This may be because they labor under a sincere, but misguided belief in radical egalitarianism or because they know that an explicit affirmation of male leadership entails some formal recognition of male responsibility. Some seem to detest the notion of male responsibility because they genuinely detest women and want to owe them nothing.

Male authority, on a practical level, is necessary.  But it is more than a practical necessity. It is rooted in human nature and in the nature of God. Men’s rights advocates do not seek the restoration of the traditional father or male head. That generally does not seem to be their goal although certainly there are men who do advocate this, men who do criticize feminism and who do not fit into the mold of the typical men’s rights supporter. Typical men’s rights supporters speak of equality with women, but at the same time relentlessly assert the morally superiority of men. They offer some token acknowledgement now and then that women may be capable of good, but mostly they demonize women and offer virtually no acknowledgement of the good women may do or the harm done to women by feminism. They would just as soon see women sink or swim their own. Just like feminists, they say women should have a choice to be either careerists or homemakers. This is true. Women should have some choice, but our culture must affirm one of these roles as superior since they are mutally exclusive. Men’s rights advocates will argue that women are not very good at being careerists, but they are remarkably silent on the subject of what women are good at and how they might be enabled to do what they are naturally good at doing.

Feminists exaggerate. They sin by hyperbole. Men, they suggest, are all guilty of the crimes of the few. So it is with the men’s rights mentality,which assumes that every woman is a shallow hypergamist. Many women areshallow hypergamists, and perhaps all women are partly shallow hypergamists, but the men’s rights supporter generally also believes women are incapable of selfless love. Society works best when each sex acts as if it expects the best from the other at the risk of being disappointed rather than each sex acting as if it assumes the worst in the hopes of being pleasantly surprised. The men’s rights advocate and the feminist rarely admit, except in the most token or half-hearted way, the good in the other sex. 

You say that the emphasis of men’s rights supporters on rights rather than duties is necessary. We no longer live in a collectivist society. You suggest we face some black-and-white choice between the individual and the community. But the purpose of duties is also to ensure the happiness and welfare of the individual. A radically individualist society does not help the individual flourish because each individual naturally possesses what the psychologist Rudolf Allers referred to as the “will to community.” Both this and the drive for some individual power or realization are basic to human nature.

Adults instinctively yearn for others. Children cannot, and will never, raise themselves and the old cannot survive on their own. The institutionalizing of the young and very old, is that want you mean by a society that is individualistic? That seems more like extreme collectivism to me. If anything, the more advanced society becomes, the longer is the period of dependency for both the young and the old. Your argument is similar to that used by feminists, who say interdependence and community are things of the past while at the same time advocating new forms of interdependence and community. Saying that community no longer exists doesn’t make it true. The sweeping changes of the past 150 years or so,  the vast technological differences between today and yesterday, sometimes give the impression that human nature itself has changed. But this is an illusion.Walk into any hospital. Spend a few minites with a ten year old. Some things haven’t changed at all.

The problem isn’t simply that our world has become more atomized. In some ways it has, but it’s also become more collectivized by impersonal institutions. These tread freely on the individual.

You say, “And in an atomized society it is totally pointless to speak of ‘duties’, ‘responsibilties’ and ‘obligations’ apart from those which arise solely from direct voluntary choice.”

If there are no such things as duties and obligations then the men’s movement makes no sense because neither men nor women have any duty to restore fairness to men.

The sphere of “direct voluntary choice” is significant but quite small. When I drive into a city, I cannot choose to drive anywhere I wish, but conform to roads already laid out. I am naturally obligated. Driving on the sidewalk or into buildings would not be to my benefit anyway. Similarly, all people are constrained somewhat by what society teaches them is good, by the roads that are laid out for them. I think you don’t mean that it is pointless to speak of duties but that it is pointless to speak of certain duties. You seem locked into the same blindness feminists possess, the same refusal to see that society is not just a quarrel between men and women.

 

                                                                                                         — Comments —

Josh F. writes:

I would tell Rex that first, there is no “men’s” movement; there is only man’s movement. He is right that we are becoming a highly autonomized society. Our liberal orthodoxy persuades us to seek this  radical autonomy as an illusionary stand-in for free will. And so what  is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman  in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke. If there is one thing we know about “feminism,” it is that it has destroyed femininity and is destroying woman. This is the mirrored  goal of the “men’s rights movement.” Destroy masculinity and all that it entails and the white male liberationist is “free,” AND CAN STILL CALL HIMSELF A Man!  But real man cannot accept these imposters. He must call forth to expel or convert the various radical white male liberals (atheists, homosexuals, anarchists) or this “men’s rights movement” will become a simple matter of cheap imitation and  diabolical collusion; all the way down to asserting that a real man and his movement is of the homosexual atheistic anarchist-type. This is the direction that the “men’s rights movement” is moving. And this  is why there can be no real men to be found within this radically liberal collective.

Stephanie Murgas writes:

I thought it was interesting that Rex described our society as individualistic, or as he put it, “atomized.” I don’t know very much about physics, but I know enough about the intrinsic components of those parts to offer something, I believe. Originally, atoms were thought to be indivisible. Now, we know we can exploit those unstable parts of atoms to change the qualities they have, but we know that in the lab they must obey conservation of mass/matter. Without going on too much, I must bring up that as far as I know, most of our math work, “proofs” etc. take place in the context of a closed system. That leads men to assume that the entire world lives in a closed system, that there is nothing we can do to affect the changes that seem to be coming. Thus for most men, it is all about giving up and declaring everything lost. But I do not believe in a closed system, I believe in an active, transmutable, evolutionary world, and I believe that men who take up the banner of something to be won, something to strive for, will be rewarded in both this life and the next. Then truly can an individual be crowned above the crowd, if even for a day. All that seems to be lacking in society is the proper incentive.

Jesse Powell writes: 

Speaking as a man, what bothers me the most about the men’s rights movement is that it represents men rejecting their duties and moral responsibilities as men; they attack and undermine what being a man is all about. As a man it is my duty to protect women and to create a functioning order for society overall and men have roles and duties in the overall social order that they are bound to uphold. The MRA, with his blatant disregard for upholding and maintaining the overall order of society, represents a threat to the well being of the community and a danger to precisely the populations that I as a man am bound to serve and protect; women and children. 

My purpose in being against feminism is to reverse the harms done to the community by the feminist anti-male and anti-child agenda. My purpose in being against the men’s rights movement is to minimize the potential harm that could be done by the MRM’s anti-woman and anti-child agenda. My goal is not to serve the interests of men or to serve the interests of women, my goal is to serve the interests of the society overall, and it needs to be kept in mind that it is the interests of children that ultimately come first ahead of the interests of either men or women. 

I consider myself to be a part of the patriarchal community, not a part of the men’s rights community. There are standards that I seek to impose upon any men who seek to join the patriarchal community and the first and most important of those standards is the acknowledgment and acceptance of men’s duties towards women and the next generation. An MRA can’t expect to be welcomed into the patriarchal community while seeking to undermine and attack the fundamental values that those in the patriarchal community adhere to.

Bruce writes:

Laura writes:

“Society works best when each sex acts as if it expects the best from the other at the risk of being disappointed rather than each sex acting as if it assumes the worst in the hopes of being pleasantly surprised.”

and

” But the purpose of duties is also to ensure the happiness and welfare of the individual.”

I feel you have inadvertently fallen into using secular, utilitarian arguments of which you do not really approve, and do not believe. You don’t really believe that society should be organized so that it ‘works best’ – because ‘best’ can be defined so very differently by different people/groups. And you certainly don’t believe that the happiness and welfare of the individual is the primary goal of society: you believe neither the happiness bit, nor the individual bit.

These are, indeed the priorities which have led us precisely where we are now. Lacking an underlying Christian purpose, these principles of efficiency, and individual happiness/ welfare degenerate into merely competitive, selfish short-termism. As you know. But I think you got carried-away by the argument here!

Laura writes:

Yes, that’s a good criticism. It’s easy to slip into this logic, which ultimately is not persuasive. However, since liberals so often use personal happiness as justification for radical social innovation and for feminism, it’s important to point out that even by the standard of individual well-being modern individualism is a failure for many.

Rex responds:

“… You say that the emphasis of men’s rights supporters on rights rather than duties is necessary. We no longer live in a collectivist society. You suggest we face some black-and-white choice between the individual and the community. But the purpose of duties is also to ensure the happiness and welfare of the individual. A radically individualist society does not help the individual flourish because each individual naturally possesses what the psychologist Rudolf Allers referred to as the “will to community.” Both this and the drive for some individual power or realization are basic to human nature. …” 

I think we’re speaking in different modes: when I referred to the atomized nature of modern American society, I was making an objective statement. You seem to be making a normative statement about the usefulness and desirability of community and about its role in the developmental process. I’m not really trying to start a discussion of this sort. I don’t think it’s a bold statement to say that Americans have a much weaker sense of community when compared with the Americans of two generations ago. Probably the main reason behind this change is the decline in cultural homogeneity. Communities are held together by a dominant culture; a dominant culture provides the complex of authority which is necessary to regulate the relationships between community members. Only in this context is it possible to assign ‘roles’ for individuals and then expect that those roles will be carried out as a matter of submission to cultural authority. People won’t take on certain ‘roles’ unless they understand where those roles come from, why they make sense, and how they fit into the larger design. People respond to incentives, and it is simply nonsense to expect that they will continue to take on certain roles unless they can clearly see the explanation behind them. 

Again, this is why I said that it is pointless to speak of ‘duties’ outside of a consolidated community. Today, any attempt to ‘police’ the roles of people in society is destined to fail, unless of course it is backed up by physical punishment. When you lose the sort of ‘authority’ derived from a dominant common culture you also lose the ability to ‘police’ the roles which people adopt in society. Today we don’t have a dominant culture, we have many individual subcultures jockeying for position and rubbing up against one another (hence the term ‘multicultural America’). 

Also, keep in mind, I’m not arguing the point of whether community is ‘natural’, only that the sense of community no longer exists in America as a whole. 

“… Adults instinctively yearn for others. Children cannot, and will never, raise themselves and the old cannot survive on their own. The institutionalizing of the young and very old, is that want you mean by a society that is individualistic? …” 

No, by ‘individualistic’ I mean a society in which there is essentially no dominant common culture, and so there is no concomitant pressure for any individual to adopt roles which may be less immediately economically beneficial but better for society as a whole. People don’t just ‘do what’s best for society’ without a clear sense that this directive stems from a universally recognized source of authority. This isn’t to say that people behave in an altogether anti-social manner in larger numbers, just that it takes something more for people to see how their selfless behavior fits into a larger whole. 

“… If anything, the more advanced society becomes, the longer is the period of dependency for both the young and the old. …” 

That seems to be true, generally speaking. However, this isn’t pertinent to the question of culture. We’re discussing the individualistic culture, not the requirements of civilized life. 

“… Your argument is similar to that used by feminists, who say interdependence and community are things of the past while at the same time advocating new forms of interdependence and community. Saying that community no longer exists doesn’t make it true. The sweeping changes of the past 150 years or so, the vast technological differences between today and yesterday, sometimes give the impression that human nature itself has changed. But this is an illusion.Walk into any hospital. Spend a few minites with a ten year old. Some things haven’t changed at all. …” 

Again, I don’t take argument with the idea that human beings are naturally social; my point is that there does not exist a universally recognized source of cultural authority in modern America, and so it makes absolutely no sense to speak of ‘duties’ in such a context. Perhaps new, more consolidated cultures will emerge from the mass of marginal subcultures which exists today, and perhaps these cultures will be more in line with natural human tendencies. But that isn’t a matter of concern right now. 

“… If there are no such things as duties and obligations then the men’s movement makes no sense because neither men nor women have any duty to restore fairness to men. …” 

Fairness is a moral quality; MRAs are mostly interested in legal changes which would help to reduce discrimination and give men an equal playing field. There needn’t be any grand moral foundation in order for men to have equal treatment under the law. 

Also, when I spoke of duties/obligations, I was referring to those which arise from interpersonal connections (including, but not limited to, connections between men and women).

“… The sphere of “direct voluntary choice” is significant but quite small. When I drive into a city, I cannot choose to drive anywhere I wish, but conform to roads already laid out. I am naturally obligated. Driving on the sidewalk or into buildings would not be to my benefit anyway. Similarly, all people are constrained somewhat by what society teaches them is good, by the roads that are laid out for them. I think you don’t mean that it is pointless to speak of duties but that it is pointless to speak of certain duties. …” 

Yes, I meant duties in the context of interpersonal relations (mentioned above). However, since you mentioned it, it’s worth noting that you actually could drive off the roads — perhaps driving through a park would get you to work faster than sitting in traffic — but the drawback would be that negative consequences might follow. There’s a chance that you would not be caught, in which case you wouldn’t even suffer any negative consequences for shirking this ‘obligation’. Remember, human behavior is driven by incentives; here’s a tough question: what is the incentive for adopting the sort of roles which you encourage here for men? 

I don’t think you’ve successfully argued my point: the duties and obligations which you believe men should assume, and which the MRM generally disregards, are only sensical in the context of a dominant culture. America doesn’t have such a culture, and so we have a hyperindividualistic free-for-all in which everyone is allowed to adopt whatever role suits his or her fancy at any given moment. A century ago, Americans held very different attitudes; Americans believed strongly that community was important, that personal investment in the community was essential for health, and that the general culture should be kept such that it made it possible for people to have faith in the future. How can you continue to insist on maintaining the same duties and obligations for men when the whole cultural foundation which produced these things has all but disappeared?

Laura writes:

Feminism required the conditions of cultural and racial defeatism in order to thrive. It was not an isolated phenomenon and could not have emerged if white Christian civilization had not first lost pride in itself and the will to survive. It is not possible to effectively argue against feminism or for the restoration of Western patriarchy without examining these larger cultural and racial factors. It is not possible to effectively defend traditional sex roles without examining the reasons why the white European race no longer wishes to have many children. Why is this so? Whites have no affinity for their own people. They either do not care if their culture and race survives or actively wish for them to die or be transformed into something entirely foreign. They do not believe in truth. They do not trust that God loves them. It is not possible to effectively defend patriarchy without defending the truths on which our culture is founded and defending the white race itself from vilification. Liberalism is our dominant culture, but it is founded on falsehoods and underlying misconceptions of reality. 

[T]he duties and obligations which you believe men should assume, and which the MRM generally disregards, are only sensical in the context of a dominant culture. America doesn’t have such a culture, and so we have a hyper-individualistic free-for-all in which everyone is allowed to adopt whatever role suits his or her fancy at any given moment.

 I entirely agree that these duties and obligations only make sense in the context of certain culture. Why care about future generations? We do not pursue our duties to our ancestors unless we genuinely love what they loved and feel the bonds of kinship. That’s why I have not argued against feminism alone, but have looked at it in the context of our culture and people as a whole.

You say, How can you continue to insist on maintaining the same duties and obligations for men when the whole cultural foundation which produced these things has all but disappeared?

The white European people have not disappeared. The truths on which Western Civilization was founded are not false. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say to men that it is worth taking on these duties and obligations. Civilization is created by ordinary people passing on their beliefs and hopes to their children. Imagine the Israelites arguing during the Babylonian exile that they were no longer the dominant culture and therefore it was not worth pursuing any duties or obligations to each other. That would have been suicide. Instead, they possessed conviction.They knew God stood with them and they preserved their own blood bonds to each other. No one can prevent parents from perpetuating the past in their homes. Perhaps you are removed from the thriving counter-revolution. It may not be the dominant culture, but it is producing far more children than the dominant culture of liberalism.

You say,Fairness is a moral quality; MRAs are mostly interested in legal changes which would help to reduce discrimination and give men an equal playing field. There needn’t be any grand moral foundation in order for men to have equal treatment under the law. 

I call the principle of equality a grand moral foundation.

Rex writes:

“… Feminism required the conditions of cultural and racial defeatism in order to thrive. It was not an isolated phenomenon and could not have emerged if white Christian civilization had not first lost pride in itself and the will to survive. …” 

This is interesting, particularly in view of the fact that it was white females who developed the ideology in the first place. Apparently they missed the PSA on the importance of white survival.  [Laura writes: Neither men nor women would have tolerated the ideology of feminism if cultural survival was considered critical.]

“… It is not possible to effectively argue against feminism or for the restoration of Western patriarchy without examining these larger cultural and racial factors. It is not possible to effectively defend traditional sex roles without examining the reasons why the white European race no longer wishes to have many children. …” 

But aren’t you ignoring the fact that the present America is radically different in terms of racial composition as compared with the old America which featured the ‘traditional sex roles’ you speak of? The white category is down to roughly 60 percent (probably lower when you consider the uncounted millions of illegals who will undoubtedly be ‘legalized’ at some point in the future), and among children it is a clear minority. [Laura writes: Obviously, these statistics are proof of the cultural nihilism I was talking about.]

To me, it seems that it is not just about ‘arguing against feminism’ because our environment today is totally different. How do these realities factor into your defense of ‘traditional sex roles’? [Laura writes: Exactly. As I said, it’s not just about arguing against feminism. Liberalism devours many aspects of society; feminism is one part of that assault.] 

“… Liberalism is our dominant culture, but it is founded on falsehoods and underlying misconceptions of reality. …” 

I don’t think ‘liberalism’ is our dominant culture, I think that America possesses many cultures, with no single one holding a dominant position. Liberal values may be pervasive, especially among the elite, but clearly there is no common cultural script from which everyone reads. America is an empire, and rulers of empires almost never care about maintaining a ‘common culture,’ they care mostly about collecting taxes. [Laura writes: Liberalism is the reigning worldview. One finds it in various forms and degrees of intensity. The belief in equality and non-discrimination as the highest principles is apparent among yuppie Manhattanites and “conservative” Evangelicals.] 

If I were to poll 100 random American citizens on an issue as fundamental as, say, childrearing, I would not be the slightest bit surprised to receive a range of answers which could easily lead one to believe that the survey was conducted by questioning persons from all over the globe. Clearly this wouldn’t occur in a country with a common culture. 

“… We do not pursue our duties to our ancestors unless we genuinely love what they loved and feel the bonds of kinship. …” 

And what are those things? What should we love, geocentrism, indulgences, witchburnings, etc.? [Laura writes: I am talking about Western Judeo-Christian culture. Even those who were not pious among our ancestors embraced Christian culture.]

I think you may be romanticizing the past a bit in your quest to reassert so-called ‘traditional sex roles’. Cultures have often been held together by sheer necessity: straying from traditional norms often meant losing a competitive edge against other communities. Thus, it’s not ‘love’, but competition which determines the continued existence of a given culture.

Also, I think your focus on ‘race’ is a bit misleading here, because historically there has never been a culture based on ‘White/European’ people. There have been cultures founded by European ethnic groups, but not by ‘Europeans’. And these ethnic groups did not rally around their ‘common race,’ at least not exclusively; they rallied around religion, nationality, language, family traditions, politics, territorial ambitions, etc. How does this apply to ‘white Europeans’ in America? I think race is important, but clearly it is not enough to guarantee in-group loyalty; obviously it didn’t prevent those two World Wars which involved millions of ‘white Europeans’ slaughtering each other. [The European people inherited and developed Roman-Greco culture and melded it with pagan traditions and ethnic distinctiveness. This is the culture brought to America. Though it has always evolved and differed according to ethnicity, there is a common identity. What is unique today is the decline in numbers and dominance of white European people in their own nations.]

“… The white European people have not disappeared. …”

No, but the cultural foundation which gave meaning to ‘traditional roles’ has.

 “… The truths on which Western Civilization was founded are not false. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say to men that it is worth taking on these duties and obligations. …”

 And here’s the central problem: most men today aren’t interested in the ‘truths’ which underlie Western Civilization, they are interested in preserving the material wealth which they obtain through their own hard work. I think the point of disagreement here is this: you seem to be saying that these duties and obligations are still meaningful because men should value community and should be concerned with the future of civilization. What I’m trying to communicate is that, presently, they are not concerned with such things, and there is no reason to expect a massive change in attitude anytime in the near future. In such an environment, it seems perfectly reasonable for men to be treated equally under the law, and for them to focus on self-betterment. Why should men accept such responsibilities when they can’t even be sure that their energies will be reciprocated? The Internet is filled with stories of hard-working men who fulfilled the ‘duties’ which you refer to but who were nonetheless stabbed in the back by their partners for one reason or another; what advice would you give such men, that they should ‘suck it up’ and blindly adhere to the ‘truths’ of Western Civilization?

Laura writes:

You say, “[M]ost men today aren’t interested in the ‘truths’ which underlie Western Civilization, they are interested in preserving the material wealth ..”

In every culture, most people are interested in preserving material wealth, not busy articulating or defending the beliefs that provide meaning. But material wealth depends on morality; the economy and government are founded on non-materialistic values. It is always the minority that determines the tone and outlook of society. Today, the people who are interested in ideas overwhelmingly accept liberalism. Their influence is widespread. They have established the conditions for the social breakdown we see.  The ideas and principles that have set this breakdown in motion can indeed be rejected.

“The Internet is filled with stories of hard-working men who fulfilled the ‘duties’ which you refer to but who were nonetheless stabbed in the back by their partners for one reason or another; what advice would you give such men, that they should ‘suck it up’ and blindly adhere to the ‘truths’ of Western Civilization?”

And the world is filled with men who have brought children into the world and who are loved by them. Fatherhood is its own reward and that is true even for the man who has been abandoned. But even when fatherhood is not a conventionally happy experience, the man who has fulfilled his duties to others has infinitely more than the man who has not, even if he has been left by his wife. I don’t worry about the man who has been betrayed as much as the woman who betrays.  She has lost everything important while he still has his humanity.

What advice would I give men who have been left and betrayed? I would advise them to love their children. I would advise them to preserve their manhood from narcissism and fear. And I would advise them to have confidence in God. That is the greatest truth. God is there. 

Josh F. writes:

Rex asks, “Remember, human behavior is driven by incentives; here’s a tough question: what is the incentive for adopting the sort of roles which you encourage here for men?”

The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.

One thing that is clear about the MRM is that very few of those in the movement seem to have any real concrete battle with a woman in their lives. All the battles are largely abstract, implied, distorted and/or exaggerated by the liberal media. Very few in the MRM seem to have what it takes to create a lasting commitment to a woman or even the desire to do so. This is an indication of their fundamental liberationist essence. The goal is to get all the benefits of being a man without doing anything to actually be a man. It is an attempt to maximize one’s radical autonomy by simply asserting one’s right to radical autonomy. I am man, but I have never acted manly… Oh what freedom!!!

Thus, we arrive at “equality” and a “default elite” firmly in place amongst a collective of man imposters.

Mdavid writes:

The white European people have not disappeared.

This is true, but just barely, and the remaining palefaces don’t look promising from a Darwinian point of view. In 1950, whites were 28% of the world’s population. By 2060, they will be 9%. While nobody knows the future, best estimates are 5% or less very soon (demographics are like battleships; trends can be turned, but not quickly unless we are talking about going down rapidly due to war or disease). So a non-biased, scientific look suggests whites and white culture are slated for extinction. They ruled the world for over 500 years and did a fine job. Time for somebody else, methinks, and it will be interesting to see who steps up. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

The truths on which Western Civilization was founded are not false.

No, but the beliefs that constitute Western “Civilization” today are indeed false. Keep in mind that a young Western man living in this real world today has no experiences that match your abstract, historical view of WestCiv – he has no authority himself, and knows that children are a serious threat to any family authority due to required legal child support regardless of the mother’s behavior; he also knows women are prone to divorce and that custody is unlikely and fraught with dangerous traps where he can be falsely accused and abused by women with little recourse…and to top it off, his very masculine nature is anathema to the world around him. Let me be clear that I’m not whining or complaining, merely noting the practical reality (full disclosure – I’m a happily married man with a large family). But this is the real world men today live in, and talking about male “obligations” to this society seem odd; in fact, I often recommend to my fellow male friends to protect themselves from their girlfriends/wives, both financially and legally, if there is the tiniest hint of discord. This is merely common sense.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say to men that it is worth taking on these duties and obligations.

If he is intelligent, wary, and knows how to navigate the treacherous cultural seas we currently float in, I agree. But he should choose his mate very, very carefully, and protect himself regardless. For the not-so-bright and trusting men this era, I would recommend becoming a monk. Seriously.

Imagine the Israelites arguing during the Babylonian exile that they were no longer the dominant culture and therefore it was not worth pursuing any duties or obligations to each other. That would have been suicide.

Yes, but this culture deserves and needs suicide (which is a moot point, since it’s going down regardless of what I want). I note that if I were an Israelite, I wouldn’t have a problem with your analysis. But I’m an American circa 2010 in a pagan world, and thus look forward to the day when this culture enters the dustbin of history. I do hope what comes out of the ashes matches natural law, or it too will vanish quickly.

Laura writes:

Then let’s keep the flame alive. Whatever culture emerges from the ashes will not invent itself anew. 

You write, “Keep in mind that a young Western man living in this real world today has no experiences that match your abstract, historical view of WestCiv – he has no authority himself, and knows that children are a serious threat to any family authority due to required legal child support regardless of the mother’s behavior; he also knows women are prone to divorce and that custody is unlikely and fraught with dangerous traps where he can be falsely accused and abused by women with little recourse…and to top it off, his very masculine nature is anathema to the world around him.Yes, I agree a man should choose a mate very, very carefully and should value steadiness in a woman above all.”

Some of this is overblown. A man does have the natural authority of his role as father even when he is divorced. Usually children want and seek out their fathers. And most men get some kind of partial custody of their children. These situations you describe happen and are real, but it also often happens that a man is completely trusted by his wife and children and they look up to him for everything. This situation provides its own terrors and uncertainties; it’s interesting how little the burden of being loved is discussed at men’s sites and how little they refer to the complete trust children place in their fathers.

Unilateral divorce is a great injustice. It is one of the greatest wrongs in our society today. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to reverse the laws and attitudes that make it possible. But let’s remember that most men are not left by their wives.

Jesse Powell writes: 

In addressing the central point of Rex’s argument, that “duty towards others” on a principled basis can only be supported in a cohesive society with a common culture; I very much disagree with this concept. “Duty towards others” exists intrinsically within a human being, it comes from within the person and is an expression of the moral character of the person; it is not dependent upon any well functioning external system of rules or ethics. First comes the intrinsic duty of the individual person towards others, then the culture and laws of a society develop to enforce obedience to the moral duties and obligations that the person has a duty to follow anyways. 

Think of the moral value that one should not steal. It is wrong to steal property from another. Now, why is it wrong? Is it wrong because the culture says it is wrong? Is it wrong because it is illegal? No, it is wrong because it is intrinsically harmful and destructive; the character of the act itself is what makes stealing wrong. Because stealing is intrinsically wrong the culture shuns and thinks badly of those who steal; because you can’t have rampant theft going on the government makes stealing against the law to punish those who steal to protect society from the thief. 

The important point is that actions have an intrinsic moral character to them regardless of how atomized or cohesive the culture is and regardless of how well a society is ordered. “Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.

Max writes:

I enjoy your blog quite a bit. It’s rare to come across a woman who has a head so firmly on her shoulders.

I would have agreed with you regarding the MRM a few years ago. What changed? Six years ago, I got married, and like a dutiful trad Catholic, we had a couple of children right away. Prior to getting married, my wife talked a good game, but all that changed within a year of getting married. First to go was obedience — she said she would only obey commands that were “fair”. By “fair”, she meant she only had to do tasks which she wanted to do, and only the way she wanted to do them.

And I slowly found out that this happened to most of my friends. We were reluctant to talk about this kind of thing to one another — we all stoically viewed these as family problems that we should deal with internally. We all, individually, had the idea that if we grew in charity and holiness, that our wives might eventually recognize this, and try to do the same. This, sadly, hasn’t worked.

So I was suckered into marrying a woman that is really a feminist at heart, and as a faithful Catholic I can’t leave, ever. So, of course, I’ve taken to council my single friends not to marry, or at least not to marry American women. How is one to know, if so many of us were deceived?

Over the past year, things have improved a little, because I’ve been reading a lot of pick-up/game material that is circulated by the MRM. It disgusts me, but it works. I can end the screaming matches she started in minutes rather than hours. I can win an argument from time to time. I can get her to obey me occasionally. Because I act like a jerk now. Understand that before, I wasn’t a wimpy, milquetoast pushover, by any means. I was just overly rational; I believed I could convince her that I was correct by posing rational arguments and treating her like an adult. Instead, I use sarcasm, “negs”, and inspire jealousy. I hate this — it’s all contrary to my personality, but it works.

I hold no hope that I can ever be happy in this life; that has been removed from me. I can but continue on this path that I foolishly started down when I said “I do”. I just hope that I can keep things manageable so my wife doesn’t file for divorce, and I won’t be too miserable. If my wife divorces me, I’ll lose everything. I’ve had a friend go through a similar thing a few years back — married to his wife for 20 years, had 3 kids, she cheated on him, filed for divorce, and as she had no income during the marriage, he was ruined — lost the house, both cars, most of his retirement savings, and 2/3 of his income for the rest of his life. Real fair. That’s why we need an MRM — we don’t live in a society that is interested in a level playing field, nor incentivizing women to stay with their husbands. The MRM will be necessary so long as there is no fault divorce and alimony.

I do hope and pray that in a generation or so that things will be better, and return more to normalcy, at least for the sake of my sons. But right now, I don’t see society as worth saving. If anything, it would be best if everything burned to the ground so we could build it anew. This world that we live in is the logical conclusion for the heresy of modernism.

Laura writes:

You say, First to go was obedience — she said she would only obey commands that were “fair.” By “fair,” she meant she only had to do tasks which she wanted to do, and only the way she wanted to do them.

Are you in the habit of issuing commands to your wife? In a marriage, a wife is obligated to obey but a husband is obligated to love. And when he wants something of his wife, he does not command her. He politely asks her to do something with affection and respect. The same is true of parents when they ask something of their children. They do not boss them around like servants.

I cannot diagnose what has gone wrong in your marriage, but it could just be a phase, a very rocky period. If your wife has changed dramatically since the time you first married her, she may change just as dramatically in the future. I am sure you pray for her and love her. You chose her. She is the mother of your children. I’m sure your children give you immense pleasure. Since you are a Catholic, you know that the most important marital issue for you is how you uphold your vows not how she upholds hers. Whether you are doing the right thing determines your future. There are far worse fates than an unhappy marriage. You are wrong to fear or bemoan suffering. You are committing a serious sin by telling other men not to marry. That is evil. The fact that you have freely chosen a woman who does not please you is not justification for denouncing the institution of marriage or for suggesting that men go outside their culture to marry. You are in grave error  in this advice, similar to feminists who go around publicly complaining about their husbands. 

Your personal trials have not convinced me of the need for a men’s movement. Men should assert their authority in the world, but we don’t need a men’s rights movement for that.

By the way, you say all your friends are experiencing the same marital difficulties that you are. It’s true that feminism has damaged the respect wives should have for their husbands. Nevertheless, I live in the real world too and your picture of a world with no good women strikes me as distorted. I know many women who love their husbands and take care of them selflessly.

Max responds:

You write, Are you in the habit of issuing commands to your wife?

Not especially, except when important. Even then, it begins as a polite request, then a stern one, then a command. I do not want to get too much into detail, but suffice it to say, I do not make unreasonable demands, nor expect my wife to be my slave.

I do not expect you to diagnose my marriage. You are correct that it was my choice. I know that I’m stuck with it. I pray daily that my suffering might purify my heart and make me more like Christ’s. I reject, however, that you say I am in grave sin counseling others not to marry. Paul did the same. I accept my own suffering, but do not wish the same for others. Unlike what Protestants will tell you, there are ways of serving the Kingdom of God that do not involve marriage and children.I do not denounce the very institution of marriage; among right-minded people it is a good and holy institution which deserves reverence. I do believe that marriage, at least with regards to the modern American woman, is at best a gamble with the odds stacked against its success. I honestly believe that mass celibacy on the part of males would be the best answer to feminism; if most men stop giving feminists what they want (i.e., financial stability with which to be irresponsible), there will be a shortage on the supply side, and in order to attract men, they will have to change.

As far as marrying outside of their culture, what is our culture? American culture is far from homogeneous. I’d posit that there are just as many differences between a Californian and a man from South Dakotan than there are between, say, a Virginian and an Italian. And most of what is distinctly American about it is not worth saving. It’s a society founded by tasteless, iconoclastic, dissident heretics.

And I never said there were no good women — they number very, very few. I doubt I’d read your blog had I thought that. I do honestly believe that there is little way of knowing a good one from a bad one prior to marrying them.

Laura writes:

If you are married to a woman who is rebellious and resentful, I have great sympathy for you and hope you are successful in showing her what she has become. Otherwise, you have no choice but to separate yourself from her inwardly while still remaining a family. Fortunately, you have your children.

Paul counseled early Christian missionaries to adopt celibacy so they could devote themselves to Christ. This celibacy was for a specific purpose. His recommendation was not comparable to celibacy for a man who may face an unhappy marriage or divorce. What do your single friends say when you propose a life of no sexual relations at all? There are ways of serving God that do not involve marriage, but they require celibacy. I think it would be great if a significant number of men declined marriage and publicly adopted celibacy as a sign of protest against the feminist assault on marriage and in order to devote themselves to cultural renewal. That would be very effective. But these men would have to stick to the program, declining sex as well as marriage. Otherwise, it would only be a venture in narcissism and revenge.

When you spoke of marrying outside our culture, I presumed you meant marrying an Asian woman, or perhaps a Russian, not an Italian or French woman. European women are not so eager to marry Americans and often are very feminist as well. A man marrying an Asian woman will encounter other problems that come with interracial marriage.

Mdavid writes:

Then let’s keep the flame alive. Whatever culture emerges from the ashes will not invent itself anew.

Certainly. Hope springs eternal. In fact, we have no choice. We don’t choose the truth, nor the era we live, we can only play the hand we were dealt (or go hang ourselves; not a palatable option). But men still have a serious obligation to work against Western culture for their kid’s sake. I’m sure my Western ancestors would gladly help me torch the remaining rubble before it corrupts their (few) remaining progeny. What can be created on the backside remains to be seen, but it’s all that is left. [Laura writes: We shouldn’t work against Western culture, but for the best in it.]

Some of this is overblown. A man does have the natural authority of his role as father even when he is divorced. Usually children want and seek out their fathers. And most men get some kind of partial custody of their children.

This is an interesting response. The fact a child might seek out his father against his mother’s will leaves me scratching my head as to how this is “natural” authority. Rather, it sounds like responsibility with zero authority. What does he then do, say “Hey, assuming that you are in fact my child (he better test!), I missed your childhood and, um…exactly what is my role here besides sending checks to your mother?”

In truth, men have only as much “natural” authority over children as the culture decides. It is the mother who has natural authority over her children as nurturer; men, otoh, derive their authority from law, family structure, or ability to provide resources. In this culture, he has less and less of these: the government provides for kids, he has few family rights left, and a mother may abort at will or not allow a man to be part of his own child’s family (especially if she finds another man of higher status). Let us think of the unwashed norm here, not the upper educated crust who blogs.

…it also often happens that a man is completely trusted by his wife and children and they look up to him for everything. This situation provides its own terrors and uncertainties; .

Sure, it happens. But often? I think it is so in my family, but also believe it is not typical. Heck, it doesn’t even match my own experience as a child, and I came from an intact family. I had little or no trust of my father (nor mother) by age 7 or so (and they are decent folk, nothing against them, they were simply not trustworthy as a guide in this harsh world – hey, it was the ’70’s and they were ill equipped to deal with it).

But let’s remember that most men are not left by their wives.

You are correct. Only 53% of marriages fail, and only 70-80% of the time the wife dumps the husband. So a man’s marriage has an impressive 60% chance of success (woo-hoo!) of which he has less and less say. Note this doesn’t even consider the growing number of baby-momma’s pocketing child-support checks from men, many struggling to find work.

it’s interesting how little the burden of being loved is discussed at men’s sites and how little they refer to the complete trust children place in their fathers

I can’t speak for other men, but my mind is otherwise occupied. I have five sons, and let me just say what keeps me up at night is not the burden of being loved! It’s that they absolutely can’t be too careful living in this feminist dystopia (hat tip: Laura). I’m far less worried about my daughters, who will live as privileged citizens.

Laura writes:

Your daughters will live as privileged citizens? But from the societal norms you describe, they have an excellent chance of living either as divorcées with no mates (divorced women are much less likely to remarry than divorced men) or as single mothers. They may suffer from the depression that is common after abortion or from infertility. Is that what you mean by living as privileged citizens?  

By the way, the divorce figures you cite are not correct. According to the National Marriage Project, a couple marrying today has between a 40 and 50 percent lifetime chance of divorce. That is still very high.  However, for those with incomes over $50,000 the divorce rate is 30 percent lower. Marrying at the the age of 25 or older reduces the risk by 20 percent. A couple who maintain a religious affiliation have a 14 percent less chance of divorce. [This comment has been edited since original posting to correct the staitsics I used.]

In truth, men have only as much “natural” authority over children as the culture decides. It is the mother who has natural authority over her children as nurturer; men, otoh, derive their authority from law, family structure, or ability to provide resources.

A father’s authority, in all but the most extremely matriarchal societies, is bestowed by nature and culture. It’s true that a father who is never present has little authority. Many divorced men maintain natural authority over their children, who instinctively and universally feel a strong bond with fathers who are present in their lives. The natural authority fathers have over children is apparent when one examines the prevalence of psychological disorders and social dysfunction among children who have been raised only by their mothers. Children who live with their fathers are overwhelmingly healthy in comparison.

I had little or no trust of my father and mother by age of 7…

That is unfortunate, but uncommon. Most children respond to the love of a father and, as I said, feel a strong connection with their biological father.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Laura says, “There are far worse fates than an unhappy marriage.”

It is good that you say this, but I think there must be a million people out there who will fight tooth and nail to try to prove you wrong, that’s how miserable they are with their spouse. In some cases they dump the spouse really hard to take up with someone else and then find much happiness with the new one. I know because this occurred in my family. I guess this is the exception that proves the rule!

Laura writes:

Divorce is wrong, even when it causes happiness.

Josh F. writes:

I am not sure what either Max or Mdavid were offering up that suggested the necessity of a “men’s rights movement?” What exactly is a man’s  incentive to join a collective of hopelessness? What does it say when  this hopeless collective seems to suggest it is entirely powerless at  the individual level? Is it absolutely “unmanly?” Does Max not see the challenge before him and how the MRM is actually willing to provide him with the white flag? Six years… That’s a paultry effort when one considers that a 50, 60 or 70 year commitment was in the works. Modern liberal female is inherently unfaithful, but so is modern liberal male (atheistic, homosexual, anarcho-libertarian). That your wife has decided to quit (not necessarily divorce, but unwilling to embrace truth) and you have decided to stay in a hopeless situation doesn’t  mean you haven’t also quit. And make no mistake, man isn’t a quitter and traditional Catholics don’t resign themselves to despair in the face of weakness. The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its  liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy). Nothing in the MRM motivates man  to conceptualize himself as possessing God-ordained free will and with it the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy. This is a most powerful position to be in, but because a large swath of the MRM  collective is of the liberal persuasion, this stance is out of the question. Just witness Mdavid’s response concerning “palefaces” not looking good from the Darwinian perspective; the Darwinian perspective  is false and irrelevant, but Mdavid uses it nonetheless to give us a sense of inevitable extinction. This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final  liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.

Jesse Powell writes:

Rex said:

“. . . .you seem to be saying that these duties and obligations are still meaningful because men should value community and should be concerned with the future of civilization. What I’m trying to communicate is that, presently, they are not concerned with such things, and there is no reason to expect a massive change in attitude anytime in the near future.”

Mdavid said:

“Yes, but this culture deserves and needs suicide (which is a moot point, since it’s going down regardless of what I want).”. . . . “But I’m an American circa 2010 in a pagan world, and thus look forward to the day when this culture enters the dustbin of history.”

Max said:

“. . . I don’t see society as worth saving. If anything, it would be best if everything burned to the ground so we could build it anew.” 

Mdavid said:

“But men still have a serious obligation to work against Western culture for their kid’s sake. I’m sure my Western ancestors would gladly help me torch the remaining rubble before it corrupts their (few) remaining progeny.”

What do the above quotes have in common? The above quotes seem to eagerly condemn to destruction “community,” the “future of civilization,” “this culture,” “society,” and “Western culture.” These are the statements that have come from the men’s rights supporters in this thread. I find it interesting that in none of the above statements is the enemy “feminism” or even “liberalism,” it is always the entire collective that is to be condemned and destroyed. 

This thinking is very wrong headed. Society should not be destroyed; it indeed should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Society needs to be rebuilt, not destroyed, and the process of rebuilding society has already started. The destruction of society will not facilitate the rebuilding of a new society; the destruction of society would only make the rebuilding of a new society more difficult. There is no contradiction between trying to preserve the parts of society that still work and seeking to change the culture in the areas where it doesn’t work. 

Why is it the men’s rights supporters love to talk about the destruction of Western civilization and how great this destruction is? Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.