THERE IS a lengthy highbrow discussion at the men’s website, The Spearhead, in response to the post here in which I said that a wife can never deprive a man of his honor and character. I have not read the whole Spearhead entry, but I have glanced at it. To give you an idea of the tenor of the discussion, or at least of some of the participants, one reader writes of me:

She is worthless, untouchable filth. She should have been aborted with a chainsaw.

Hawaiian Libertarian, who moderates the discussion and who has not deleted threatening comments such as this, falsely states that I do not accept comments here. I accept the comments of anyone who writes to me, provided they are civil and to the point, as is clearly stated on my home page at the bottom of every entry. He also falsely states that I am a reader of The Spearhead. I am not, though readers do occasionally send me links from there.

Another reader in the discussion states that I have said all men must marry. I have never said any such thing, but this appears to be a common rumor about me in the manosphere. I have said that men who don’t marry should decline intimate relationships with women and I have said that men should not seek to destroy the institution of marriage or urge other men to never marry. 

I have also said repeatedly that the surge of female-initiated divorce is one of the greatest injustices of our time. No-fault divorce is wrong. All divorce is wrong. Women who leave their husbands for any reason other than danger to themselves and their children violate the sanctity of marriage and do wrong. Men should have presumptive custody of children. There should be no government-benefits or garnished wages for single mothers.

However, because I refuse to say that involuntary divorce and harassment by the state can destroy a man’s integrity and his honor, I am the object of withering hatred and threats at The Spearhead. The men’s movement brooks no deviation from the view that men are holy victims.

Men are not the only ones injured by female-initiated divorce. Children, mothers, sisters, and friends are too. And, of course, women are not the only ones who divorce their spouses without their consent though their rate of doing so is much higher than that of men.

I will not be accepting comments in this entry from anyone who participated in the thread at The Spearhead and who did not object to this violent language directed towards me, as well as to the threat by another reader there to disable my website.

                                                              — Comments —

Jenny writes:

Oh dear! That was said about you? I couldn’t say that about anyone. Last summer, while traveling the blogging bunny trail, I happened to stumble upon a seemingly harmless blog which had a list of links along the side. My curiosity got the better of me, I clicked over and over for a long time, and what I read bothered me. I looked at a couple of blogs like the one you have referenced and a few others and was quite shocked to say the least. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine such statements being made about women and the institution of marriage, etc. I remember going to town one day and looking at the men around the hardware store wondering what they must be thinking of me — a modestly dressed housewife and mother. It has taken months to push what I read to the back of my mind.

Laura writes:

There is a meme in the manosphere that no woman can be trusted, even or most especially the conservative woman, who only wants to financially subjugate all men so that she can live a life of idleness. Interesting, how this is exactly what feminists say. Then there is the “hypergamy” meme, which says that women only choose men on the basis of status. There is also the “women have always worked” meme that says careerism in modern women is no different from the work women performed in previous ages. There is the “foreign women are always better” meme too.

David Casson writes:

I have read neither the article you mentioned nor the commentary that follows. I cannot be bothered. You are right to say that anyone who stands up for men but refuses to consider happiness and integrity beyond their reach — and, I would add, anyone who continues to have faith in women, recognizes that women also have legitimate grievances, or believes the damage done between the sexes can be repaired in time — is soundly smashed at the ever barbaric Spearhead. The men there do not realize they are becoming the real enemies of men. They are the real enemies of men (and women, of course, but that does not bother people who cannot recognize the humanity in women) because they want us men to give up on the possibility of joy, peace, and dignity in our personal lives, as well as the possibility of one day enjoying a culture that supports positive and harmonious relations between the sexes, which itself is a source of happiness. In my angrier days I fell into line with the guys at The Spearhead. I cannot do this any more simply because I do not have the strength to be miserable all day, every day, and because I love women and want them to be happy, too. It is worth noting that women are also suffering much today. What is needed on all sides is compassion, listening ears, acknowledgment, patience, and persistence. Those are the things that can really turn this Battle of the Sexes around. The anger and hatred that characterize The Spearhead only makes matters harder for everybody.

You have my total sympathy for the unfair and cruel treatment you are receiving at The Spearhead. The participants owe you a serious and heartfelt apology. It is sad and unfortunate that they cannot see the great support and sympathy you show men in a world that usually heaps blame and punishment on us instead. It is you who are the friend of men, not the guys at The Spearhead. As you have stood for so long behind me and all other men, I now stand behind you and here express my condemnation of the totally undeserved treatment you’re getting at that website. Those fools do not know which way is up.

I encourage you never to look at their website again; it is not worth the trouble. They will never treat you as you deserve to be treated and they will never be anything for you but a source of a constant and unrewarding stress. Likewise, I now vow never to read their website again, and I urge all who support Mrs. Wood to follow suit. This is for no other reason than this: The Spearhead is worth none of our mental and emotional energy. Let’s apply our resources where they will be productive.

My sincerest best wishes to you, Mrs. Wood, and also my gratitude for your work.

Laura writes:

Thank you. You are in for a severe whipping.

David responds:

So be it. Never again will anything they have to say make a shred of difference to me. I write them off for good. 

Joe Long writes:

A man who thinks his honor is in ANYONE else’s hands to be destroyed, has already lost – or more properly, never truly entered the lists in the first place.

Bonald, of Throne and Altar, writes:

I’m appalled by the way they’re treating you at The Spearhead. Ever since their defense of masturbation last September, I’ve thought that theirs was a vile website, but this latest incident has reminded me just how loathsome they really are. The thought of men becoming a mirror image of feminists–defining ourselves by our “rights” rather than our duties–really horrifies me.

I’m glad you don’t let these attacks bother you much. You’re an inspiration to all of us defenders of patriarchy.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Your e-mail reminds me that I have been meaning to write about the wonderful developments at your website, Throne and Altar, which is now filled with many excellent book reviews and essays. It is exciting to see such lucid and thoughtful articulation of Christian patriarchy. Congratulations to you. I hope to be posting more from your site soon. 

A “female that is ashamed to be female thanks to females like you” writes:

Your blog should be renamed ignorant housewife from the Ozzie and Harriet era. 

You are a bane and a pariah to the womens rights movement everywhere. 

Laura writes:

It must be strange to think people who lived sixty years ago and held views that were common then were ignorant.

I am honored to be a pariah to feminists, women who trash our culture, demonize men and glorify family breakdown.

John Purdy writes:

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of your supporters. I’ve read a few articles on The Spearhead and found some of them interesting and there is justice in some of their criticisms of liberated women but if their boys object to a woman like you then they are truly fools, as well as depraved. I’ve been where they are and it is, at minimum, a sour and dismal place. At worst, it is a malevolent and destructive attitude.

Women like you are doing an invaluable service and provide hope that there may yet be a future.

Ignoramus non carborundum!

Roger G. writes:

You being so pro-man and such an unremitting antifeminist, I was dumbstruck by the raw hatred expressed at The Spearhead. Nevertheless, we are traditionalists here, and I at least must congratulate the fellows there for perpetuating a fine American tradition. Here is some perspective on this from popular culture.

Brittany writes:

I do agree that there are too many divorces that are initiated for stupid reasons. Physical abuse, however, is not the only reason that a women should divorce. Even in the Bible, adultery is considered a reason to divorce. If a man is too lazy to support the family that is a good reason and also mental abuse is pretty bad to. If your husband is degrading you by calling you obscene names and isolating you from your friends and family that should be a good reason to get a divorce. 

I do not think mother custody is the problem because most kids are closer to their mothers and mother custody has been in effect since the 1850’s.

Laura writes:

[This response has been edited.]

In Matthew, Christ says:

“But I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman committs adultery.” (Matt, 5:31)

“Unchastity,” or porneia, does not refer to adultery but to a couple living together without being married. If divorce were permissible on the grounds of adultery, then a husband or wife would only have to be unfaithful to be free to divorce.

Jesse Powell writes:

On the issue of paternal custody, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that “mother custody has been in effect since the 1850’s.” What is more accurate to say is that the shift away from father custody started in the 1850s. Cultural changes and prejudices tend to change very slowly and I believe how society developed is that father custody was taken as a given, as a universal with maybe some exceptions for extreme circumstances, before 1850 and that starting in 1850 a slow shift towards mother custody began to emerge. I should add, father custody did not mean that the child would only be with his father and would have no contact with his mother; father custody meant the father would decide who would act as the child’s caregiver; the father very often would allow the mother to continue in her parental role at least to some extent. 

So, in 1850 the presumption was still father custody the great majority of the time. From 1850 to 1950, a complete reversal took place and mother custody was presumed the great majority of the time; 1950 could be seen as the zenith of mother custody, when the presumption of mother custody was at its strongest. From 1950 to the current day, the strength of the mother custody presumption has been declining; modern feminism has actually weakened the presumption of mother custody, men and women being “equal” and everything. 

In 1850, the investment of both the father and the mother in the well-being of the children was very strong; the idea behind father custody was that the man was in charge of the well-being of all the members of his family; he was responsible for his wife and children; just because the man got divorced that didn’t mean he was no longer a father. If the father wanted to give the responsibility of child care to the child’s mother that was just fine. Under this arrangement both the father and the mother would be heavily invested in their children.

As a societal ideal, father custody is best because it is consistent with both the father and the mother making large investments in children. Still, in the current cultural climate the shift towards father custody is the result of women lessening their investment in their children, not the result of men strengthening their paternal role. Father custody is a good ideal to strive towards but only in the context of recreating the kind of family relationships that existed before the 1850s, before family breakdown took hold. Father custody has to be based on men increasing their investment into their children, not based on women withdrawing from their maternal role. The number one way that men invest in their children is by investing into the well-being of their wives; namely, protecting their wives from the necessity of entering into the paid labor force.

Please follow and like us: