“Activist” designation challenged.

2007-06-28

Tom of covent garden said, “Why do you think all the top men’s rights activists are pro-feminist? (Warren Farrell, Glenn Sacks, Marc Rudov, Michael Kimmel, Robert Connell, Wendy McElroy).”

I disagree that the afore-mentioned persons are “top men’s rights activists.” Not even close. The very top was the late Prof. Emeritus Daniel Amneus, author of “Back to Patriarchy.” His book was the most far-reaching ever on the subject. Unfortunately, it’s out of print. Several others would qualify as “top” before the afore-mentioned writers, none of whom are activists.Ã‚Â Richard Doyle

13 views

Didn't make Oprah's Book Club.

And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

The Biscuit Queen

WLS…excuse me? Who are you talking about?

Richard…I can understand your definition of leadership, and thus can understand your not including these men as leaders. I would propose that there are many kinds of leaders, one of which is someone who people look up to and take direction from.
WLS

You didn’t listen to your `general,’ who commanded you to NOT work “towards change directly (letters . . .” but just SEND MONEY, SEND MONEY. He calls it `professionalism.’

A lot of the `writing’ is bullogna: front-loaded with spin and sometimes flat-out falsehood. One of its unfortunate effects is that people don’t become acquainted with the true workings of the lawmaking apparatus and other policy forming institutions, which limits their ability to become effectively directly involved. It’s part of an effort not so much to actually change anything in the real world, as to promote an, in significant part faux, media personality or showbiz character, for the consumption of those already converted to or inclined toward the men’s movement or fathers’ rights.
Richard Doyle

John Dias correctly pointed out a seeming contradiction in my posting regarding Professor Amneus’ status as activist/writer. Initially Amneus was an activist. In the early 70′ he invited myself and other activists to meet, 1st at his home and later at a conference room at USC Los Angeles where he taught. There we formed the second coalition of fathers groups (The 1st was CADRE, which faded away) Men’s Equality Now (MEN) International. (Over the years internal disputes arose in both the aforementioned coalitions, and rival coalitions formed. MEN International presently exists in name only) Later Amneus was known mostly for his brilliant, and so far unmatched, writings.

Biscuit Queen, if you define activist as someone who writes and speaks on a subject, then you are correct in stating certain writers are activists. I won’t dispute that. I did not intend to demean their efforts, and apologize to any who took it that way. My definition of leadership, and I don’t intend to impose it on others, is the accomplishment of building organization/s capable of achieving certain goals. Clear thinking and absence of self-indulgence are necessary. Please visit my website (mensdefense.org) for further info.

To all: I’m too involved in my writings to participate much further in these discussions, however interesting they are.
The Biscuit Queen

Mr Usher, well said. I think there are many issues which are not covered under marriage (rape sheild and presumption of guilt, boys in education, affirmative action policies, workplace harrassment laws, etc, but there are indeed many which are covered under marriage.

But which is the cart, and which is the horse? If marriage is more sacred, then we will have less presumptive mother custody, but if we have presumptive joint shared custody, then marraige will be more sacred as women have little to gain by divorce.

So which do we fight-pro marriage or pro joint custody?

That is a tough question. I agree fully that pro marriage is MUCH easier to swallow for most americans. Feminists have painted the fathers movement with a “controlling abuser” brush, making it easy to dismiss. But pro marriage does not mean those who still divorce will not still have presumptive mother custody. SO how do you propose to deal with that?

I am very interested in your ideas. As a Christian as well I have long thought that many of the men’s movement and Christian movement’s goals were compatable, and this is the largest one. I have understood that the MRM has had by necessity kept separate from the Christian movement. Yet here is a way which serves both. How do you feel about that? Also, do you feel we can be profamily and not be anti-gay? (There are gay men who face issues because they are men, and while my opinion on homosexuality is driven by the Bible, I do not feel that the MRM should take an anti-gay stand. They are still men, and deserve to be represented by our movement.)

anyways, I look forward to your response.
The Biscuit Queen

“The “line” in a sense very much does need to be drawn, because the difference between working for change in the outer, real world, and an introverted, role-playing—sometimes commericialized—game for the choir is escaping too many.”

I still do not see it. Who do you see playing an introverted, commercialized game for the choir-what does that mean?

And I would put forth that we need many people working towards change directly(letters, protests, etc), and we need people motivating and directing those people. Glenn motivated and directs the energy of many of us so that instead of thousands of individuals making little noises we are a unified force of change. He is sort of a general and we the foot soldiers. Both are needed.
WLS

The trouble is there are too many children whose parents are not going to resurrect their marriages, and it’s impossibly hard to believe any solution to the marriage problem will be definitive enough and come soon enough to prevent, at the very least, another, probably larger generation from joining their ranks.

Family court reform—equal rights to custody and equal responsibility to support—out of concern for the acute needs of children, will rightly continue to be the focus of and job-one for fathers’ rights advocates. Progress there should actually help marriage, in that some current incentives toward divorce would lose their attractiveness.

Two bills to establish covenant marriages—elective no-fault divorce—failed last session in the California Legislature due solely to lack of interest, rather than opposition. I tried to drum up some support—the bills were interesting steps in the right direction, I would also like to end the `joke’ of marriage—and found precisely, absolutely none.

No-fault, or a prohibition on, divorce is no more practical, no more likely to be re-instated, than statutory father sole custody.

The Republicans won in 1994, BTW, and the child support system—IV-D and all that—was by then already very well in place: the key federal legislation having passed in 1975, 1984, and 1988.
David R. Usher

All of the high flyers in the movement play important roles in the movement. Some are theorists, some are street activists, some are writers, some are organizers. None of us has all these skills. I knew Dan Amneus well. As an early activist, he had moments of great brilliance — but his theme seeking automatic sole-father-custody was not remotely politically feasible. He was a valiant warrior and we learned a lot from him.

However, we all have shortcomings too. Some of these shortcomings are very serious. This hurts the credibility of the leader, and causes disruption in the movement. Some support “gay/lesbian rights” — NOW’s final agenda to create the mother-mother marriage. Some are more interested in face time, and don’t cooperate with others. A few are in it to make money, and really are not interested in change. Some are political idiots. The list goes on because none of us is perfect.

First we must all understand that most men in this movement are recovering feminists. We were all brought up to think that way. We are each trying to extricate ourselves from a lifetime of indoctrination.

In “Fatherless America”, neo-paternalist David Blankenhorn aptly described the root problem of the men’s movement. We complain a lot, we act like victims, we seem to approve of divorce as an institution (and don’t try to end it) — but we just don’t want all the problems that go with it. This is exactly what feminists do to. In short, the majority of this movement is still treading water in the middle of deep feminist water. This must change !!!!

I assert with utmost confidence that “Marriage values” is the key to winning. Everything we complain about rises because of public policy wrecking marriages for no reason whatsoever. Marriage values makes us stop complaining and work towards marriage-positive policy and legal change. There are several first priorities here: Ending no-fault, reforming VAWA, and changing federal funding patterns to support programs that expect marital responsibility and assist spouses work through the common problems of marriage and aging (when one of them asks for help) is extremely important.

Republicans won in 1992 on “family values”, which was basically the same thing. But they had no sensible secular policy to back their wispy ideas up. So they did the feminist thing and blamed men for all the problems after taking office, and creating an even more aggressive child support state. Promise Keepers failed for the same reasons. These two huge movements rose on marriage values, and died for lack of useful policy direction. This tremendous political energy is there for the taking. In fact, the pent-up angst of voters is far worse than it was in 1992. All this movement has to do is to assume the mantle of “The marriage movement”, push “Marriage Values”, and the rest of America will follow. But we cannot do this as “men’s rights” activists. We must do it as marriage movement leaders.

So far, few men’s organizations and other leaders have been willing to try this approach. Perhaps men are so comfortable with their foot stuck in the same 40-year-old latrine they don’t want to win. I think they do.

I make a promise to all: Those who pursue Marriage Values with me are sure to succeed. The majority of political, moral, religious, and secular leaders in other “movements” are all in some way seeking the same answer — because the majority of their problems also rise from a lack of marriage too. This points to landslide success if we pursue it and stick with it. There is no way feminists can attack us and look good. In fact, feminists don’t have a chance fighting us on “Marriage Values” turf.

To those who doubt: Marriage Values certainly cannot hurt us. So I offer a personal guarantee: If Marriage Values do not work, your misery will be gladly refunded and you can go back to doing things the traditional way.
WLS

The “line” in a sense very much does need to be drawn, because the difference between working for change in the outer, real world, and an introverted, role-playing—sometimes commericialized—game for the choir is escaping too many.
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

Richard Doyle wrote,

“I was merely trying, admittedly poorly, to point out the difference between writers and activists. No criticism toward writers was intended. Indeed, I have largely moved from activism to writing.”

And yet in your initial post, you wrote,

“I disagree that the afore-mentioned persons are “top men’s rights activists.” Not even close. The very top was the late Prof. Emeritus Daniel Amneus, author of “Back to Patriarchy.” His book was the most far-reaching…”

You juxtapositioned a written work by Amneus (who you seem to identify as an activist) with a list of people who you apparently now consider writers (but not activists, in your view).

Amneus is an activist because of a book he wrote, while people like Warren Farrell and Marc Rudov (who have both written books and appeared in popular media outlets) are not activists, but rather authors. Are we really comparing apples to apples, here? Did you mean to say that since Amneus wrote a better book, he is an activist, and yet all who fall short of his writing achievements are “not even close” to being activists because of the content of their writing?
The Biscuit Queen

Richard, I think that the distinction between activist and writer is a fuzzy one at best. Glenn publishes his newletter which includes many calls to action, he has organized several very successful campaigns against advertizers and manufacturers of misandrous products, and he also acts as a spokeman for the movement. I think he would qualify as both a writer and an activist. I think you would also count as such.

More to the point, I think that the line need not be drawn. They are active through writing. We need many activists of many types. F4J is one type, Glenn and Warren are another type…folks who get out there are talk to people about the issues are another type. Not everyone will bring to the table the same talents, but I think we cannot afford to pick and choose who gets called an activist because their methods differ from others.

Tom actually went so far as to call them feminist. They are not pro-feminist, they are simply not anti-woman. They realize that by framing things in the light of how men’s issues effect women, it allows more women to buy into the MRM. Now some of us did not need that to realize men were getting shafted, but many have been so hoodwinked by feminist dogma they need to see how it is effecting them personally before they will rethink things.

It sucks that so many people are too selfish to care until it comes to roost in their own backyard, but if that is what it takes, then so be it. An example is the Duke rape case-some of us were appalled at the damage the false allegations did to those boys, period. Some people had to hear how prosecuters are now gun-shy about prosecuting true rapists and that effects women. Ideally everyone would not need the threat of women being hurt to care about men, but again, if it gets the same results, then that is what we have to do. Either way, if prosecuters start demanding real evidence and accountability of accusations, then we got what we wanted. The more short term gains which are won this way means the more aware people will become. That cannot be a bad thing.

Now leaders? I think they do count as leaders, but I would like to hear more about who you think are the leaders, and what your definition of leadership is. I mean that sincerely. I feel it is tough to comment on it when we really don’t have your full POV.

Dw2girls, I am very sorry that you misconstrued a part of an arguement I made literally 3 years ago and have harbored such animosity for so long that it has made you not willing to even consider the content of my posts. I am part of the MRM, and will continue to be for the sake of Dave and our 2 sons. I would think you would have more respect for my husband than to assume he is some trained lap dog. I respect my husband more than any man on this planet, and he deserves every bit of that respect. If you choose to insult me that is fine, but please leave him out of it. Your beef is with me, not him.
scottkirk

for those that have not yet read “SAVE THE MALES” by richard doyle…go out and get it…It’s a clearinghouse of facts and staitistics written in an angageing fashion…
quite comporeable to warren farrels “myth of male power”!!!
WLS

And one could go further and distinguish between writers of fiction, entertainment journalism, political and social issues journalism, more technical and scholarly stuff, etc.
Richard Doyle

John Dias said, “Question for Mr. Doyle: What have you done for us, lately?”

If my 40 years in these trenches and my 30 plus years of editing The Liberator count for nothing, I submit that I have recently published “Save the Males” (www.mensdefense.org) and am working on the 5th revision, besides preparing an ecumenical article for the next edition of The Liberator.

To others who commented on my discussion of activists: I was merely trying, admittedly poorly, to point out the difference between writers and activists. No criticism toward writers was intended. Indeed, I have largely moved from activism to writing.

To anti armchair generals: I thank you for your kind words, even if the analogy to Mt. Rushmore was a stretch.
anti armchair generals

Jon Dias 7
Go to Mount Rushmore and ask the four faces the same question you asked Mr. Doyle

What have you done for us, lately?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rushmore
amfortas

Gordon Bennett. Now there is Biscuit bashing too.

For God’s and Men’s sake folks. It isn’t a competition to be the ‘top’ MRA. No one is perfect and no one has the best analogies or stories or actions or websites or TV shows or radio broadcasts. Every small inroad and path to sanity helps. Lots of different people with different approaches and different niches are working their butts off trying to make a difference.

Don’t decry the efforts of good people. Don’t give aid and comfort to the enemy.

SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the Main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!

By Arthur Hugh Clough
1819-1861
DadWith2Girls

John Dias —

“This is exactly the infighting that hobbles any political progress.”

It is a good thing that the original American Revolutionaries did not subscribe to your self-defeating theory.

You would be a British citizen today, and quite proud, I’m sure.
DadWith2Girls

The most frightening word that Biscuit Queen uses is — “we.”

She assumes she is included in any MRA dialogue.

But then again, this is a woman who enjoys training dogs.
Joi

“You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

There will always be “critics” inside and outside of any movement/organization.

Yet, it usually turns out the biggest critics seem to turn out to be the biggest scabs that contribute little to the advancement of any organization.
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

DW2G and Richard Doyle:

This is exactly the infighting that hobbles any political progress.
scottkirk

anti armchair general…knowledge is power…
The Biscuit Queen

Well, since you had nothing but an insult to add, I guess I said nothing you could disagree with?

I also guess you are not planning on attending?
DadWith2Girls

BQ — “Both will be at the Men’s Equality Congress in DC in a few weeks, to discuss with other leaders of the men’s movement where we should go and what we can do.”

Is this the notorious Biscuit Queen of dog-training fame? Will she be conducting a workshop on “dog” training — i.e. how to recondition non-compliant MRA’s to be suitably docile and servile?

Biscuit Q. — didn’t you once write about how your dog-training techniques transferred seamlessly to your own husband’s “training,” right?

How is your “good boy, nice dawg” doing these days?

What Pavlovian rewards do you have in mind to bring the men’s movement to heel?
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

Question for Mr. Doyle:

What have you done for us, lately?
anti armchair generals

scottkirk 5,
I did not know that the style of discource had a name”rogerian communications”.
An activist lawyer who was a supporter of reforming Title IX explained that try to agree on any pints you can as long as you can get your point across. Thanks for enlightening me
You are also right that feminst has absolute hegemony over media. Only a few ulta-conservative papers and websites dare to challenge them. Defining hegemony

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
scottkirk

first.. I would not let “tom of covent garden” set the course of dialogue…
but these men are successfull for varying reasons, and each come in at a different angle…

And with the feminist’s having full absolute power over the media and all other similar outlets…maybe these men are employing a type of rogerian tactic of communication..

A rogerian communication style is to first agree with youre apponnnent, let them be heard, then shift the conversation ever so gently to youre positions..
And the age of feminist hedgemony…I would say that the rogerian style would be the most effective approach..
The Biscuit Queen

Wow.

What is going on with all the animosity towards Glenn lately?

Glenn Sacks and Warren Ferrall are both published authors of men’s issues. Both get regular airtime discussing these issues and both give the MRM respectability and moderation.

Both work tirelessly to promote the cause of men’s rights.

Both will be at the Men’s Equality Congress in DC in a few weeks, to discuss with other leaders of the men’s movement where we should go and what we can do.

Will any of you?
anti armchair generals

R.F. Doyle
In my some 30 years of participation you are the top men/fathers rights activist who worked tirelessly when there seem to be no hope. As I have mentioned earlei when feminist f….d, media made major headlines. Mens responses were not printed or reporters were rude in person or phone.
In leglislature or Democratic Party meetings I was ignored, ridiculed and put down. Only current State Senate President Mike Miller was always friendly.
I had assumed that late Prof Amneus was a pseudonym. I made and assumption and you may know what they say about assumption. You make an a,, of yourself.
Also I was not aware that named activist were pro-feminist, just ambivalent.
You are my hero, role model and rescuer. Imperfect as you may seem to be for others, Your good deeds outweight some misstakes you may have made (I don’t know any)
roadkill1965

I disagree. To me, they are activists, because they are ACTIVE. They are actually out there doing things for the cause, even if not everyone agrees with their methods. They are giving face-time, appearing on television shows (especially ones geared toward women) to counter some of the anti-male views. Glenn is especially good at garnering support to get male-bashing laws voted down.
Virtue

Oh I am going to be watching this thread.

“Activist” designation challenged.

Prohibition News

Economic Collapse Blog

Pacific News Feed

Search

Amy Alkon

Donna Laframboise