YOUNGFOGEY writes:

The incoherence of Asher’s original comment has already been pointed out by others, so I will forego that.

When I read his comments, I couldn’t help but think of a guy who had a crush on some girl as a teenager and found her pregnant by some other dude. What clearer sign of rejection can there be than undeniable evidence that this girl wasn’t against the idea of having sex, she was just against the idea of having sex with him. I don’t deny that such an experience would be very painful. It would be. Indeed, it might be painful enough to cause a man to engage in casual sex with multiple women as revenge and to adopt a worldview that allows him to dismiss women he perceives as similar to those who rejected him. This is what Charles and Kristor are picking up on and labeling “whining.”

The worst part of the men’s rights movement is that much of it promotes this kind of whining. It also promotes the idea that we’ve seen here again and again that men have a natural inclination against raising a child they did not sire that is so strong they cannot overcome it. This is just flat stupid. I wouldn’t deny that indeed there will be problems in that scenario that have to be addressed, but that is what a man does. He addresses problems. The truth is that any child I live with and provide for, whose trust and devotion I earn, who respects and obeys me is “mine.”

By encouraging men to shirk responsibility in the ways it does, the men’s movement keeps many men immature. This will not work in the long run. If men want to see a return to patriarchy, they have to act like patriarchs.

Laura writes:

This reminds me of the previous entries here about fatherless children gravitating toward men who are strangers and lapping up any attention they can find from men. Children adore their fathers. And, their fathers, in the most meaningful sense, are the men who care for them.

                                                                 — Comments —

Janet writes:

I have repeatedly seen the rather firm assertion made here by various commenters that a man will not marry a woman who has a child from another man. Worse, that a man who does such a thing is less than a man somehow. This assumes several things:
 
1) That a woman who may have made a mistake as a teeenager or young woman is beyond redemption and unworthy of ever being a wife.
2) That several of the readers here who claim to be Christians (I am one of a few protestants who do believe that Catholics are indeed Christians) dismiss the atoning power of Christ in the lives of people who have committed sins that we ourselves have not committed, namely, having a child out of wedlock.
3) That a man who would take on the role of a stepfather is somehow less than a man.
 
My father, who was a widower with 5 young children, married a woman who had 2 children from another man when he met her. Their father was no where to be found, which I’ll grant you made it much easier for all parties involved when issues of discipline arose. But never have I nor anyone who knows my father, a man greatly respected in his home and community, seen him as a lesser man because he took on this role.
 
I agree with you, Laura, on the degenerate state of American womanhood. I also agree with you that in most instances today, the women who are single mothers are probably not suitable wife material. But I would never go as far as Asher did to condemn every single mother to a life alone without the companionship of a husband. And from what I have seen, there are men who concur with that line of thought.

Marissa writes:

I was reading the comments on Asher’s point of view, that he since he cannot find an acceptable wife, he is going to be a dishonorable man.

To this, I say; be the man that the kind of woman you want would want to be with.  What honorable, gentle, chaste, traditional-minded woman is going to want anything to do with a man who goes out drinking and whoring, or a man who thinks that such behavior counts as having a good time?  Good women are simply not attracted to a man who has given in to his base, animal passions like this.  It is a deadly weakness in a person and only disaster would follow in marrying such a man. In order to prevent herself from becoming the kind of woman Asher doesn’t want, a woman must avoid the kind of man Asher is.

I know that eligible ladies of the proper age who are truly devoted to God, who are also not called to religious life are extremely hard to find, but we are out there.  We are looking for men who go to Mass, not for men who frequent clubs.  We are looking for men ready to sacrifice themselves as we are ready to sacrifice ourselves.  We look for men who are family men in every way; in their bearing, their demeanor, the way they treat their own parents and other people’s children, and most importantly, we look for men who are not afraid to be found on their knees in prayer.  However, if this description does not fit you as a man, then either truly become a man of God and family, or stop complaining about not being able to find a wife.  If you found her, she would not consider you anyway.

Nearly every day, I hear someone, man or woman, complain that they can’t find anyone good to have a relationship with, but they never consider how who they are will affect that.  They just expect the “perfect” man or woman to fall in their laps with no effort on their part to be the perfect woman or man themselves.  It just ain’t going to happen that way.

To you, Mrs. Wood, I must express my sincere gratitude for your posts.  Though I am often too tired after work to do anything more than scan the day’s posts and comments, they are edifying and encouraging to me.  I cannot wait until the day my fiance and I are married and I can stop the sham of pretending that I am a “liberated” young woman and truly free myself to start and care for a family.  I have no illusions that it will be easy, but at least it is worthwhile, unlike filing endless records and writing endless business letters.  I was already convinced of the traditional life before I found your site, but I know that you are helping many people realize what exactly is wrong with the world they were raised in.

Katherine writes:

Given the significant inequity for men in Marriage 2.0, it’s quite easily understood why young men are unwilling to “take responsibility” and marry women – especially those who bring the considerable baggage of extant children with them. [In years gone by, a man might well have been able to easily and happily take over the headship of and existing family (a woman and her children), but unwed mothers today tend not to be grateful that a man would be willing to sacrifice his own interests and “settle” for her damaged goods; instead, such women today feel that they are “settling” for the nice guy who would be their white-knight. Their feeling of having to settle for the guy (who so low-down the socio-sexual totem pole that he has to “settle” for her) tends to make the women of today resentful, and is more likely than not to result in an unhappy union – and, likely, infidelity on her part] 

It seems every time I read something on your blog, I get the distinct impression that you (and your group) believe the proper corrective action is to change the hearts and minds of men – to be better leaders – then everything will just fall into place. I consider this rather naive. 

Much of what you all find distaste full about the MRM is, again, a direct result of the current legal system. Man adapt. They also have. When the system puts them at a disadvantage should they be “responsible” and marry, then they will simply refuse to go along. Glenn Sacks posted a survey of young men, and their attitudes towards marriage on his blog some time back. IIRC, of the young men who planned to forgo marriage (a majority of young men, overall), more than 90% of them specifically cited their concerns about their rights in the event of a divorce as one of their primary reasons for that decision. 

I keep trying to tell you that unless you actually seek legal redress for the injustices men face, all your efforts at changing hearts and minds is little more than arranging deck chairs on the sinking marital institution ship. 

I agree with you regarding the harms to society that come from irresponsible and hedonistic behaviors. I just think you’re missing the point on what the root cause for them is [not to mention throwing the baby out with the bath-water in terms of rejecting an organized (for legal and political reform). MRM just because it attracts bad elements – no one outside the MRM is actually doing one blessed thing to try to correct the real legal issues. 

As far as restoring a form of patriarchy, I’d offer the following as suggested reading: One of my favorite all-time bloggers went by the name of Novaseeker. He had a knack not only for grasping the realities of circumstance, but also of relating his perspective to others. He’s been silent for some time now; yet, today, I see he has posted a very insightful response to The Elusive Wapiti’s In Defense of Patriarchy.It’s long, but I believe it’s worth the while to read what he has to offer.

Laura writes:

Yet, outside the few who represent an organized men’s movement, there are no others (groups) who bother to address the issues critical to men in meaningful (legislative, political, and via legal action).

This is not true. Look at Allan Carlson, who advocates a repeal of no-fault divorce and the return of family wages for men, as well as a full program of measures to support the traditional family. Look at the website Tradition in Action, which defends patriarchy and male authority. Look at the three legislators who recently introduced legislation in three different states to repeal no-fault divorce. They were all women. Look at small family organizations, such as the Pennsylvania Family Forum and Ozarks Marriage Matters, around the country fighting the degradation of marriage and the epidemic of divorce. 

I have advocated the repeal of all affirmative action for women, all laws and regulations requiring employers to hire women, and the return of customary economic discrimination in favor of men. I have not seen men’s rights groups forcefully arguing for this important change. I have also criticized the women’s vote (which was the result of male legislative action, I might point out) and would happily vote for disenfranchisement for myself. Are you telling me this does not represent serious legal and political reform? Are you telling me I am not “doing one blessed thing” to try to correct the real legal issues? Look, I am not saying this to pump myself up as some great defender of men. I am saying it to point out to you that the men’s rights movement is not, as you argue, the only place where serious concern for the interests of men is found.

Men’s rights organizations have articulated important measures that would protect the interests of men, but very few of them (please point to one) have a holistic view of society and address equally important issues related to men, such as illegitimacy. The crisis of illegitimacy is far more harmful to society – and to men – at this point than the crisis of involuntary divorce, as serious as that is. Furthermore, they absolutely refuse to distance themselves from misogynist exaggeration. They simply won’t do it because they are inspired in part by revenge. Show me a men’s website that takes a forceful stand against hate and emphatically rejects juvenile marriage strikes or jury nullification in rape cases and I will show you a website I can support.

I keep trying to tell you that unless you actually seek legal redress for the injustices men face, all your efforts at changing hearts and minds is little more than arranging deck chairs on the sinking marital institution ship. 

But, I keep trying to tell you, my friend, that the change in attitudes and thinking is even more important than legal issues. You simply won’t listen. Men and women need to understand, after years of feminist indoctrination, why male authority is important, why female-initiated divorce is an epidemic, why women cannot enter the workforce in large numbers without doing damage to relations between the sexes, and why femininity and masculinity must be cultivated from early childhood. You will have no legal changes until there is this understanding. You may take note that there is no epidemic of female-initiated divorce among Orthodox Chassidic Jews or among the Amish. Why is this? After all, they are under the same laws as the rest of America? Why are women not leaving their homes in these communities? Why aren’t men losing custody of their children? The reason is that in both cases their entire culture honors masculine authority; respects the separate realm of feminine accomplishment; and upholds childrearing as a sacred duty and noble calling. Their hearts and minds are in the right place. There is no men’s movement among the Orthodox Jews or the Amish.

… unwed mothers today tend not to be grateful that a man would be willing to sacrifice his own interests and “settle” for her damaged goods..

Well, this is quite a sweeping statement. I can tell you from personal observation that there are quite a few single mothers eager for a man to enter their lives who would be a husband and father for their children.

It seems every time I read something on your blog, I get the distinct impression that you (and your group) believe the proper corrective action is to change the hearts and minds of men – to be better leaders – then everything will just fall into place. I consider this rather naive. 

 Then I suggest you read a small sample of the hundreds of entries here that severely criticize women. I have spent most of my time doing just that. Feminist bloggers who read this site would be dumbfounded by what you say.

Kilroy M. writes:

I would like to encourage your readers, those who have taken an interest in Asher’s story, to read this anonymous testimony at VFR. It provides an intersting comparison. It is my view that both Anon and Asher suffer in a similar manner and for the same reasons. While Asher has simply decided to remedy this by capitulating to hedonism, Anon has not capitulated, but appears to find himself in an existentially worse position. 

Another point I feel I should make is that, despite my own disagreements with Asher’s ideas (the most obvious being his advocacy of abortion) I think you have all taken the wrong approach in engaging him here. It is my view that he is a symptom of the disease of modernism, so-much-so that he has become its agent to escape the immediate pain of its effect on his life. Of course this is not a wise choice, but a sick man does not heal by being reproached. 

Men have a vested interest in their families on a very basic level: if the interest they vest in is theirs. There will therefore always be a strong tendency for men to be disinclined to raise somebody else’s child. I’m no biologist, but there’s probably a scientific reason for this: safeguarding one’s own patrimony etc. While I find the reductionism of the Darwinians to be almost inhuman at times, there is no denying that biology is nevertheless a powerful force in human decision making and can be the basis of very strong emotional reactions to things. I, for one, would not like to raise another chap’s child. Some commenters have intimated that a man should not feel this way – that I’m afraid is a little naive and ignores human (in this case, male) nature. The normality of this feeling (its root in nature itself) is evidenced by the fact that over countless generations we have established traditions that encourage marriage, monogamy and frown upon divorce and adultery. This is unhappily reinforced by the stigma of bastardry (I say “unhappily” because it is punitive to an innocent party). 

That does not mean that I think the woman should have aborted or that a woman is unmarriable for having the child out of wedlock, or that single mothers are somehow “inferior”. It does mean however that my connection to my child is in large part due to the fact that it is genetically co-mingled with my wife, but also with me. The child is a living expression of the passion of my love for my wife: two flesh becomes one. This connection is absent from a couple where there is a child from another marriage present. Thisn cannot be ignored. Men who nonetheless commit in situations like these are transcending their mere biological instincts and are to be highly commended for it (also they have provided an invaluable service to a child who is starved of fatherly love, the Catechism describes this as a high moral calling if I remember correctly). This is possible only, however, in a society in which healthy manhood predominates. 

Therefore, it is, I’m sorry to say, a little silly to expect men today, who have been on the receiving end some of the most vicious and vile mysandrist policies over the last several decades and whose manhood is wounded and defective as a result, to be expected to rise to this level as a matter of norm. This is unreasonable. Perhaps that is what Asher is referring to when he claims that none of you “speak to him” (I am speculating here, just trying to understand things from his perspective). He says he uses porn. A healthy man doesn’t do such things. But you are all judging him as if he were a healthy “man” who is being negligent in his manly duties. This reminds me of feminists and their co-ideologues whose response to any male issue is “grit your teeth and bear it, stop being a baby” or “get over it”. Silly and insulting. Men have needs. If those needs are not met, or ridiculed, this will lead to frustration, reaction and in turn perversion. It will also lead to genuine misogyny in the long run. Pornography, the excesses of the Men’s Rights Movement and Game Theory are symptoms of this.

To suggest that Asher needs to act like a patriarch to remedy his situation, or to be surprised that his present actions would not be acceptable in a bygone era (two points made by commenters in relation to this debate so far) therefore misses the point entirely. Asher cannot be a patriarch because he lives in this era. He is a lost man. He knows he is lost, and sees the task of finding himself futile. Anon, by comparison appears to be “found” (to keep to the analogy) but feels no less “at a loss”. This is obviously a far more complex issue than some of the commenters here have assumed it to be. We’re individuals, but we dwell in a given environment. I think we should consider how the forces of incentive and disincentive work on men today if we really want to understand why they act the way they do. By the way, those forces are almost never in the domain of men to start with. Perhaps this is where the debate should be had.

Laura writes:

Most commenters, including Alan Roebuck and me, acknowledged that marrying a woman who has already had a child by another man is not ideal at all. To repeat, for the fourth or fifth time, we were responding to Asher’s claim that he had two choices: marry a woman with a child or marry no one. We have acknowledged that men have a biological imperative to raise children that are their own. You are telling us nothing new. The evolutionary psychology of men is well known. It is important to note that while men have this aversion to raising children of other men, they also have a very strong innate aversion to celibacy and to childlessness. Men have a natural drive to procreate and Asher has presented two options: a woman with a child or no one. So it is not true that remaining unmarried will “solve” Asher’s predicament, if seen purely from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Men also have an evolutionary drive to seek fertile women and a young woman with a child is clearly fertile.

To repeat, throughout history, despite a biological drive to the contrary, some men have raised children who are not their own and adjusted to these less than ideal circumstances. It is true that in most cases they married widows and it is much more complicated to marry the child of a man who is still living. These circumstances are not ideal and are problematic. Still, many thousands of stepfathers have raised stepchildren well.

Everyone agrees that men have been harmed by feminism and that feminism is not good. We agree that this era is not the same as past eras; where we disagree is whether men are the same type of beings they were in different eras and whether men can still summon traditionally masculine qualities.  Most, though not all, commenters here believe Asher will be happier if he marries and has children with a woman who already has a child than if he spends his life alone or in aimless pleasure.  Kilroy’s accusation that we are unsympathetic to Asher is incorrect. The exact opposite is the case. We have taken his happiness quite seriously. As Charles said, of Asher’s life now, “I cannot imagine finding lasting happiness in this type of a life.”

There are many children today without fathers. Children universally want fathers. They stand a very good chance of significant problems in adulthood because of fatherlessness. Neither Kilroy or Asher have acknowledged the existence or the needs of these fatherless children though they have spoken at length of the emotional and biological needs of men.(Asher has repeatedly said in this recent entry and the previous discussion with Alan Roebuck that he wishes more women had abortions.) Needless to say, they have not acknowledged that women, even women who have had a child, have suffered ill consequences of feminism. I realize that Kilroy would probably say that regardless of what the needs of children and women are, the needs of men have been neglected and men are damaged goods. But in saying this, Kilroy speaks as if men are machines, not human beings. We are not talking about physical illnesses or mechanical malfunctioning, but voluntary behavior. It is not impossible for Asher to marry a woman with a child, love her and love their children together. He is a man with choices, not a machine who has been switched off.

Many commenters here have more sympathy for children without fathers than they do for grown men. This sympathy is natural and good. Society cannot flourish unless it looks to the needs of the most vulnerable. Both Asher and Kilroy apparently believe that we are headed for total societal collapse because men are too wounded. Men are lost and there is nothing that can be done in the type of circumstances presented by Asher. Other commenters believe that this is not so. Men can still act with masculine initiative in a sick society. Loving a decent woman with a child, bearing new children and caring for them, is an act of masculine initiative. 

Asher writes:

So, Laura, this is where the rubber hits the road. It seems abundantly clear to me that God, or evolution, has instilled in women a mothering instinct, to care for and nurture children. But He, or it, has instilled a very different instinct in men, which is to pass on their genetic lineage. This is hardwired into all men as surely as the mothering instinct is into women. Recently, I spent five weeks dating a thirty-one year-old church-going woman who was intent on being a mother, no, we did not have a sexual relationship because I actually want a wife, and we also talked about adoption. I agreed that I wanted children, but was adamant that I wanted my own children. Her response was that this was “just selfish”, which actually touches on the men’s rights movement and their wariness of you. What you are doing is verging on what that young woman did to me. You are condemning the hardwired instinct of all men to prefer their genetic ineage to those of other men. 

I do not have a haughty disregard for women who get pregnant at sixteen by eighteen year old thugs. I have a haughty disregard for a society that would allow those thugs even a ice cube’s chance in hell of breeding in any circumstance. The fact that I don’t want to deal with the offspring of such a circumstance is simply an objective fact of male nature. 

If you want men, like me, to care about greater society then you need to work for a social environment where those men have a very good shot at perpetuating their own genetic lineage. [Laura writes: For heaven’s sake, that’s exactly what we are doing. Please stop saying we can do nothing that is worthwhile and then reprimanding us for doing nothing!] Instead, you are protecting the genetic lineage of men who are at odds with the society you want to protect and preferring their lineages to men like myself. Hence, my behavioral response to fall into indifference to the fate of the society that your children will inherit. First, get me my lineage, then I will care about other men’s lineages. You need me more than I need you. Yes, I might die alone and childless, but you will go to your grave knowing that you bore children into the living hell that our society will become if it continues down this road. If things keep going the way they are, I’d rather be me than you. 

For what it’s worth, on a hedonistic scale of one to ten I’m probably a three, if that. However, anything outside of a “one” pretty much puts you in the liberal camp, which means almost the entire population of the US.

Laura writes:

Now you are telling me that my answer to you is no different from the comments of a woman who said you should not want your own natural children at all. Really, this is too ridiculous. You presented a case where you had a choice to have your own children by choosing a woman who already has a child of her own or having no children at all. I tell you to go with the former and then you lecture me for ignoring the fact that you want children of your own!

You say that I essentially called you “selfish” for wanting your own children. In fact, the opposite is true. I have tried to respect your desire for children of your own under the available circumstances. After all, you can have children of your own with a woman who already has a child.

First, get me my lineage, then I will care about other men’s lineages.

I’m afraid even with your lineage, you will be indifferent to others and society at large.

Yes, I might die alone and childless, but you will go to your grave knowing that you bore children into the living hell that our society will become if it continues down this road. If things keep going the way they are, I’d rather be me than you.

To paraphrase your words at the beginning of your initial exchange with Alan Roebuck, we live in two different moral universes.

Asher writes:

This entire conversation has gone completely off the rails. I only, selflessly, gave my personal circumstances as a reason as to why the current tactics traditionalists are using to fight the culture wars is almost certainly doomed to failure. The methods available to most men today to survive this world emotionally and socially make them objectively at odds with the manner in which traditionalists are trying to reassert morality in society. 

I’ve gotta say, Laura, that this is probably a hideously damaging sequence of posts for people coming from your position. Any young men reading this who are struggling with coping in the modern world are seeing nothing but vicious shaming of someone who offered his own personal circumstances as a useful discussion tool to investigate how the traditionalist movement might reach young men. What happens is that the task seems so imposing that your commentators, almost to a person, are reverting to condemning me as a worthless, dishonorable boy, not man, who has no business expecting to be a husband. I decline to argue that point, but I will point out that it would be a description of the vast, vast majority of unmarried, and many married, men.

Laura writes:

 You write, The methods available to most men today to survive this world emotionally and socially make them objectively at odds with the manner in which traditionalists are trying to reassert morality in society.

In what way is the situation of men today at odds with the traditionalist goal of restoring authority in courtship and marriage? We condemn single motherhood. We advocate chastity before marriage. We abhor feminism. We advocate that women spend their young adult years preparing for marriage and motherhood, not career, and that fathers and mothers reassert their authority over their young daughters.

In what sense is this at odds with the needs of men? Granted, we cannot bring this about right away. That is logistically impossible. But tell me what you would have us do instead. After all, we have already recognized that the exisiting situation is very damaging to men and to women. So please don’t respond that we need to acknowledge that men are suffering because we have already done that, as you may have noticed from many, many of the posts at this site.

Tell me specifically what should be done right now to make your particular situation better. 

Youngfogey writes:

I don’t have much time, but would like to respond very briefly to Kilroy.

I think in my comment with which Kilroy took issue, I did acknowledge that there was real pain behind Asher’s claims. I agree wholeheartedly with Kilroy about the wounded nature of most men and how that limits their abilities to act in the ways they ought. Yet, the nature of Asher’s original comments, at least to my reading, seemed to place at the center of his worldview his victimization, not his own masculine ability to pursue a mission for the benefit of others.

Asher specifically asked what traditionalism could do for him. Well, one answer is that traditionalism can help him to shift the focus of his worldview from his victimhood, to his power. In short, traditionalism can show him how to act like a patriarch.

Alan Roebuck writes:

There is much more I could say about Asher and his situation, which is perhaps the central personal dilemma of modern American man. For now, let me just respond to Kilroy M. saying:

We need conservative evangelism, which delivers the bad news that people are lost and society is crumbling because of the false and destructive system of liberalism, along with the good news that liberalism is false, that human life does make sense, and that there is a better system in which the individual can participate.

We are calling people like Asher to repent. This does not mean “instantaneously stop thinking and acting like a lost liberal.” As the Greek word of which the New Testament word “repent” is a translation (“metanoia”), repenting of liberalism means to acknowledge that one has oriented his mind and soul toward a false and evil system and to turn one’s inner orientation away from liberalism and toward conservative truths.

And by calling on him to repent we are not superciliously condemning him. We are calling on him to get saved.

And just as the new Christian generally does not know very much about the system in which (and Person in whom) he has faith, the one who has repented of liberalism cannot be expected immediately to begin thinking and acting conservatively. He needs to be catechized in conservatism. He needs to begin participating in the conservative “means of grace,” the activities through which the individual has his mind and spirit strengthened. The essay I’m currently working on explores further the analogy between Christian evangelism and “conservative evangelism,” by which I fundamentally mean the process of propagating conservatism, both individual belief and social organization.

At this point of my thinking, I would identify some of the conservative means of grace as: Reading good conservative blogs (which are just about the only popularly-available places to read good traditionalist conservative thought), attending one of the all-too-rare churches that teach the actual Christian religion, having fellowship with like-minded persons, exposing oneself to quality works of art, seriously reading serious books on important subjects, finding an important endeavor to which one can contribute.

Bottom line: If Asher recognizes the evil of liberalism, he needs to stop defending his liberalism. He needs to acknowledge its futility and to turn towards conservatism. We are not calling on him to become perfect immediately. We are calling on him to begin a process of sanctification, and to stop badmouthing those who are calling on him to better himself.

Without repentance from liberalism, then even if there were a way quickly to make society significantly better for men who want to be married, Asher will not be able to benefit much from it. And with repentance, Asher will begin actually to develop (or to strengthen) the fortitude, understanding and character he needs to withstand the wilderness of liberalism.

Charles writes:

Asher wrote:

“If you want men, like me, to care about greater society then you need to work for a social environment where those men have a very good shot at perpetuating their own genetic lineage.” 

This social environment Asher longs for does not happen by accident. Asher, if you really want what you stated above, then start to work for that in your individual life. Participating in the hedonistic lifestyle you have described means you are enslaved to feminism. You have given yourself over to it’s precepts. If you discard that lifestyle, and return to the Christian way, then you are no longer a slave to feminism, but have asserted that you want a better way —– even if it does not happen overnight for you. 

I repeat, this social structure Asher longs for does not happen by accident. Men must know what they want, assert themselves positively as they work for what they want, and refuse to settle for anything except the best. If we want society to change, men must start leading the way. The best starting point is in our individual lives and then in our families. 

Laura wrote this in response to Asher’s post above: 

“[Laura writes: For heaven’s sake, that’s exactly what we are doing. Please stop saying we can do nothing that is worthwhile and then reprimanding us for doing nothing!]”

 Yes, and I agree. Laura’s weblog is the most supportive of men that I have seen on the web…………and she has my thanks.

 Asher wrote:

 “First, get me my lineage, then I will care about other men’s lineages. “

 This is no one’s job but yours.

 Asher wrote:

 “Yes, I might die alone and childless, but you will go to your grave knowing that you bore children into the living hell that our society will become if it continues down this road. “

I have thought about this and the risk having children entails…………for them, not me. However, there is no future for a culture or nation without children. If we want a future we must risk having children regardless of the circumstances swirling around us. If we do not have children and train them up in the way they should go, then society will most certainly deteriorate. Children who reflect our views of Christianity and traditionalism as they grow into adults are a bulwark to further societal destruction. However, -beware! – training them is not the job of the church or the school; rather, it is the primary job of the parents to do so. 

Finally, I like what Alan Roebuck wrote: 

“Bottom line: If Asher recognizes the evil of liberalism, he needs to stop defending his liberalism. He needs to acknowledge its futility and to turn towards conservatism. We are not calling on him to become perfect immediately. We are calling on him to begin a process of sanctification, and to stop badmouthing those who are calling on him to better himself.”

 Repentance is never easy because we must admit we have been wrong. Yet, it is the only way to have effective change.

 Where does a single man get purpose in life? It is not in hedonism. Asher’s life matters. I have more sympathy for him than he realizes.

Kilroy writes:

“[N]o external force exists that could stop him.”

That says it in a nutshell.

Please follow and like us: