PATRICK writes:

Here is a moving testimony at The Spearhead from a man whose wife watched the movie Eat, Pray, Love. She was so affected by it she told him she no longer loved him. Eat, Pray, Love  is a toxic celebration of feelings (only destructive feelings, because non-destructive feelings e.g. gratitude, are boring); a denigration of duty, and therefore a denigration of true love. The comment is a good example of a philosophy (hedonism with a dash of nihilism) applied directly and in an unadulterated form.

However, the comments from men that follow the post are disturbing.  The appropriate reaction to evil is not to become evil oneself, but to remain moral.  Simply identify and explain the evil – and pursue the good.  To wallow in resentment and bitterness leads nowhere. 

The “anti-marriage” ideology is deeply misguided.

Women receive a lot of criticism for what I call lifestyle divorces, but I also think some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce.  Occasionally good men will be blindsided. Being a victim of betrayal, however, is one of the many possible misfortunes of life.  How we react to misfortune is more telling of character than how we react to good fortune.  So my sympathy is with the victims of lifestyle divorce, especially the children.  But it is not acceptable to engage in immoral behavior because one has been victimized or because others have been victimized.  Isn’t that one of the central mistakes of feminism? 

Laura writes:

Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of Eat, Pray, Love, is an enemy of love and marriage.

Unfortunately, this post at The Spearhead inspired the typical, vulgar misogynist tirades there. All men are victims. Every woman is evil. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ideology except bitterness, bile and loneliness.

However, one commenter does make a good suggestion (unfortunately, with lots of four-letter words). He says the husband in this case should simply leave the house for a few days and not tell his wife where he is going. He should then return and treat her with cool indifference.

Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.

                                                            — Comments —

Brad C. writes:

You stated:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

I found this comment intriguing, but I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Could you elaborate?

Laura writes:

The worst thing that can happen to any person in a marriage is that he (or she, of course)  fail to act honorably, to live up to his vows and to behave with kindness and consideration to his spouse. One can never control the behavior of a spouse or force a spouse to act well or lovingly. But one can always preserve one’s own integrity and that is basic to everything else in life. Women suffering from EPL Syndrome rarely go on to establish successful relationships with others or to preserve healthy relations with their children. Most of all, they hurt themselves.

As Socrates said in Plato’s Gorgias, “men are made happy by the possession of temperance and justice, and miserable by the possession of evil.” He further said,

And so, Callicles, we come to this necessary conclusion, that the temperate man, being, as we have described him, just and brave and holy, is entirely good; and the good man must do well and honorably whatever he does, and he who is doing well must be blessed and happy, and the bad man who is doing ill must be miserable…”

A. S. writes:

You cannot understand the men’s rights movement without understanding male vulnerability to law enforcement, state institutions, and the court system.

Your analysis of the motivations underlying the bitterness and anger of the contributors to “The Spearhead” is deeply flawed, as illustrated by this sentence:

“Men have nothing to fear in marriage other than the loss of their own honor. That is the only thing that counts and it is something each man controls and no wife can destroy.”

This analysis comes from projecting your own positive experiences with the power of the state onto men. You are wrong. If men thought that family courts would treat them fairly in divorce, then might be afraid of such banalities as heart break and loosing their sense of self. However,men have a very different experience with the power of the state.

1) When you see a police officer, you see a chivalrous gentleman sworn to serve and protect you. When a man sees a police officer, he sees a bully who is looking for any excuse to crack open a skull, drag the man to prison, and charge him with resisting arrest.

2) When you see a social worker, you see a sympathetic voice who is paid to help. When a man sees a social worker, he sees a cold and heartless enemy who does not recognize his humanity.

3) When you enter a family courtroom, you enter with the expectation that you will be treated at least fairly, and likely chivalrously. When a man enters a courtroom, he enters the lair of the Devil.

I have followed your thoughtful commentary for some time, and I admire your intelligence. However, your opinions regarding the status of men, and the men’s rights movement, often miss the target. The reason is a complete asymmetry between your life experiences and those of most men, myself included.

The experience of most men with the power of the state is dehumanization, brutalization, and finally dispossession.

Laura writes:

You mischaracterize my views. I have bitterly complained about the destruction of marriage and the need for civil resistance to the state, which now stands in direct opposition to the institution of marriage. It is not only men who suffer from this destruction but the children, mothers, sisters, and friends of those who divorce their spouses.

I do not object to efforts by men to join together and change divorce laws, resist sexual freedom, which is inherently destructive of the family, and protect paternal rights. After all, I have called for presumptive paternal custody. That is the traditional way to prevent female abandonment of marriage. What I object to is the demonization of women and the outrageous denial of the interests of children that is apparent in this thread at The Spearhead. Let me give you a few examples. Here are some quotes from the thread, with my apology to readers for the vulgarities and with my comments in bold:

Rejoice, single men, but reserve a sympathetic thought for those afflicted by marriage today. They are our brothers, and even the beasts of burden deserve better than their fate.

…..

Spread the message far and wide. Marriage is dead. Feminists killed it.

[In other words, don’t marry. No woman is worth marrying because some women are not worth marrying.Tough luck for children, for the old and for the vulnerable of society. Tough luck for civilization at large.]

99% of all women would drop their perfect man and runaway from a great relationship if the guy didn’t want to buy a simple overpriced ring they fantasize about. Or if he didn’t get the right gifts at the right times. Shallow trinkets override a real relationship.

 [Ninety-nine percent of women are materialistic whores.] 

guarantee that this was a serious learning experience, never again will I believe what a woman tells me just because I’m starting to feel old. Now I’m seriously considering paying a woman to be an incubator. I still want more kids, especially since my only son didn’t make it out of the hostile environment that was his mother, but I’m definitely not going to rely on honor and integrity in a woman to be my guarantee in the future. 

[This man will never trust a woman again because he was betrayed by one woman. In other words, all women are evil.]

 This leads me to think that probably all women can be that “volatile”. Today’s women make me think of a crazy killer with a machine gun in his hands. Amazing how toxic they have become in one or two generations.

[Again, all women are the same and they are killers.]

*ck her hard before she f*cks you, because it’s a comin’!

Blitzgrieg the b*tch without mercy.

……..

I’m 48 and I fucked a cute (8 or 9) 24 year-old Saturday night on our first date. She didn’t even accept the money I offered her afterward, for missing a night of work. She has her daughter tonight, so we didn’t go out. Friday night, I nailed a married woman I’ve been seeing for about 2 years.

So, yes, I’m home all alone, tonight – having eaten at Kentucky Fried Chicken for less than $6, instead of blowing a three-figure sum in an overpriced restaurant on a Monday night. And so yes, there’s some good relationship and dating knowledge here on the part of several people, including, but not limited to, me.

[Screw women and commit adultery if it feels good (thus betraying another man.) Women are not human beings. They are morally inferior to men and nothing more than sexual chattel.]

 I would also like to draw your attention to this recent post by William F. Price, founder of The Spearhead, in which he talks about the purpose of the website and of the men’s movement at large. He writes:

Women rebelled against their social obligations and limitations and threw them off. Men, too, can do the same.

The wrongs of some women justify the wrongs of men. Men are liberated from their responsibilties to others. I see no mention by Price here that the real enemy is the state or that the real enemy is a philosophy which both men and women have endorsed. What we see here in these pieces is an ideology pitted not against state control, as you suggest, but against women. Not every men’s website is part of this movement. But, as it is expressed here, this “spiritual awakening,” as Price calls it, is against the interests of children and society every bit as much as feminism is. It is a philosophy of liberation and revenge notwithstanding its many valid and truthful criticisms of feminism. The crimes of the few do not justify revenge against the many. 

Patrick writes:

There is an angry response at The Spearhead from “Hawaii Libertarian” to my post. Here is part of the response with my comments interpolated in bold.

[NOTE TO READERS: THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT CONTAINS VULGAR LANGUAGE.]

 Here’s the e-mail that Wood received that got her emoting about our little “community of hateful misogyny” here at The Spearhead:

PATRICK writes:

Here is a moving testimony at The Spearhead from a man whose wife watched the movie Eat, Pray, Love. She was so affected by it she told him she no longer loved him. Eat, Pray, Love is a toxic celebration of feelings (only destructive feelings, because non-destructive feelings e.g. gratitude, are boring); a denigration of duty, and therefore a denigration of true love. The comment is a good example of a philosophy (hedonism with a dash of nihilism) applied directly and in an unadulterated form.

However, the comments from men that follow the post are disturbing. The appropriate reaction to evil is not to become evil oneself, but to remain moral. Simply identify and explain the evil – and pursue the good. To wallow in resentment and bitterness leads nowhere.

First of all, “Patrick” what exactly is “disturbing?” What was said in the commentary that could be seriously considered “becoming evil?” [I think the use of pejorative terms such as “cunt,” “bitch,” etc. is evil. Not as evil as murder or other grave sins, but evil nonetheless. Therefore the use of profanity is legitimately characterized as “becoming evil.” The use of such profanity demeans not only the intended target but also the user. It also denigrates all women, not just the women with whom you are angry.]

Is it the language you disapprove of? [Yes] Well guess what, this is by and large a male space. We have salty language here as most any space dedicated to male fellowship and camaraderie. Does vulgarity in male dominated conversation offend your religious or moral sensibilities? Than don’t use such language yourself…but to say that using such language is “disturbing” or downright “evil” is nothing more than hyperbolic hyperventilating. [ I disagree. While the use of profanity is not the gravest of all evil, it is still evil. I therefore do not think I am overstating things or engaging in hyperbole.] You might want to grab a paper bag and start taking some deep breaths.

Is it evil for the men who expressed their anger with vulgarity at the woman who saw this movie and decided it was time to divorce her husband and forever alter the lives of their two boys? [Yes, it is. It is always evil to use such pejorative and offensive terms. Would you use racist terminology to describe a black person who committed an immoral act?] You think such a woman doesn’t deserve epithets like bitch or cunt to describe her? [She deserves unequivocal moral condemnation and censure. She should be denied custody of the children and not given any alimony. That is a response that deals with the problem. Name calling does not solve anything and just makes men look bad.] Especially when many of the men here have been similarly betrayed by their ex-wives or mothers who destroyed their families over such selfish decisions like the author of Eat, Pray, Love? What you are seeing here is not disturbing…it is the legitimate reaction of the righteously disturbed! [Anger, even rage, is a legitimate emotional reaction to such conduct. I just don’t think it should be expressed through profanity.]

Disturbed by the cultural approval and encouragement that promotes this shit in the first place! [I do not approve of the culture of no-fault divorce.]

“Patrick” continues:

The “anti-marriage” ideology is deeply misguided.

Misguided? You will not find a consensus on the topic here at The Spearhead. What you will find is a universal recognition of what a scam and raw deal Marriage 2.0 has become for Men in the present day, feminist-influenced culture. [You are correct that there may not be a consensus on this issue. Allow me to clarify: I think opposition to marriage is misguided because I think marriage, properly defined and protected is a good social institution which benefits both society and the individuals in the marriage. I do not believe in no-fault divorce, I do not think custody should go presumptively to women, nor do I think alimony should be awarded where a party ends the marriage simply out of a sense of dissatisfaction. I used the term “misguided” because I think the antipathy toward marriage is justified, but on a deeper level – wrong, and hence misguided.]

Women receive a lot of criticism for what I call lifestyle divorces, but I also think some men are willfully blind to “red flags” which indicate the likelihood of a future lifestyle divorce. Occasionally good men will be blindsided.

Time to cue the disturbing language….

Occasionally good men are blindsided?!?!?

What the FUCK are you talking about? When a woman decides to break up her family over a “lifestyle” decision, even if the Man in question is oblivious to the ‘red flags,’ how does that excuse the immoral decision for such a woman who simply follows a pop culture movie’s example into divorce court? [That is not what I said.] This looks like you’re blaming men for the immoral, family-destroying and selfish decisions women like the Eat, Pray, Love author made! [I am not. I am simply stating that some men place themselves in a situation in which they will be victimized in the future. You marry a women with an “I hate Men” t-shirt and an Andrea Dworkin collection, chances are you will suffer.] What about personal responsibility? [I’m a huge fan of personal responsibility] What about Ms. Lifestyle Divorce trying to “communicate” and “work it out” with her oblivious husband? What about such women actually trying to live up to her marriage vows of “til death do us part’ instead of contemplating divorcing him and upending the lives of their children so she can go and “find herself,” by fucking swarthy, handsome strangers in exotic locales? [I entirely agree. That was the main point I was trying to make.]

Being a victim of betrayal, however, is one of the many possible misfortunes of life. How we react to misfortune is more telling of character than how we react to good fortune. So my sympathy is with the victims of lifestyle divorce, especially the children. But it is not acceptable to engage in immoral behavior because one has been victimized or because others have been victimized.

So let’s get this straight…it is not acceptable for Men to express outrage and anger with some curse words at this instance of a woman deciding to break up her family after seeing a fucking movie? [As I stated earlier, no it is not. Outrage and anger is a justifiable reaction. The use of profanity is not.]

Josiah writes:

I don’t know if you have been able to continued reading the comments over at The Spearhead. The “Hawaiian Libertarian” said that most [as in nearly all] women are not worth marrying and that men shouldn’t get married. He claims to be married with children so one must ask why he’s telling other men to not get married. He has never been divorced. I think it’s because he has failed to be a true patriarch. He may have married a woman wearing an “I hate men” t-shirt. He’s miserable for whatever reason, and he’s trying to spread his misery to other men instead of manning up. It would have been bad enough if he kept his misery to his own family. His wife and children are the ones getting hurt since his anti-marriage attitude has to be coming out at home. Trying to spread his anti-marriage message to other men is truly evil.

Jesse Powell writes:

I see that the men over at The Spearhead have worked themselves up into a frenzy again over us here at The Thinking Housewife not catering to the men’s rights line that men must never be held morally responsible for their words or their actions. 

Looking at the initial part of this thread; the beginning exchange between Patrick, Brad, and Laura; I don’t find anything offensive being said by either Patrick or Laura (or Brad for that matter); Hawaiian Libertarian, over at The Spearhead, on the other hand, apparently disagrees; so much so he thought it worthy to devote an entire column over at The Spearhead solely for the purpose of “rebutting” the supposedly offensive comments uttered by Patrick and Laura. 

What did Patrick and Laura say that was so wrong? It is simple really; Patrick and Laura sought to impose an ethical code of conduct and responsibility upon men for their actions and for their words; nothing more than that. 

I to have come under criticism from the men’s rights crowd. What was I being criticized for, at base? Exactly the same thing; for daring to seek to hold men morally responsible for their actions and their words; for daring to uphold a vision of what it means to be an honorable man and for daring to condemn men who fail to live up to their responsibilities as men. 

I ask you, what is wrong with seeking to promote morality and virtue in men? What is wrong with trying to create a societal standard of how men should behave? Does anybody really think society would be better off if all the expectations of good behavior that are currently imposed upon men were removed? 

It is obvious, I would think, that in order for a civilization to function codes of moral conduct need to be imposed upon men. Codes of moral conduct need to be imposed upon women as well, but that is not in dispute; men’s rights supporters have no problem with the idea of moral obligations being imposed upon women, they only take issue when moral obligations are imposed upon men. 

The purpose of this website is to promote ethical behavior in both men and women that will ultimately lead to a rebuilding of this culture and a renewal of the health of family life. Obviously, in order to teach ethical behavior to both men and women the responsibilities of men must be mentioned. Any time the responsibilities of men are mentioned the men’s rights supporters will howl in righteous indignation how terrible it is to dare to suggest that men owe any responsibilities towards anyone other than themselves. This is simply a fact. There is no possibility of promoting moral values without including in your teachings the responsibilities and duties of men, and as soon as you mention what the responsibilities of men are the men’s rights supporters will rise up in a chorus of condemnation; attempting to shut the mouth of the offender so that the responsibilities of men will never be spoken of and never be heard. 

The supporters of traditional family values cannot allow themselves to be bullied and controlled in this fashion; they must speak up for what they believe in, let the men’s rights supporters be damned!

Please follow and like us: