The Men’s Movement, as it exists and as it could be

 

(This article appears on the front page of the current issue of Transitions)

 
Let’s face it, the men’s/fathers’ “movement” hasn’t moved in over 30 years.  Part of the reason is fierce opposition from entrenched government officials (judges, legislators, etc.) money-grubbing lawyers, feminists, SNAGS (sensitive, new age guys) and assorted other factions.  But a more damaging cause of our failure to achieve justice springs from within.  As Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

 

I submit that intra-movement factionalism, egotistic ambitions and even the naiveté of newcomers are the root causes of our failure.  These suicidal phenomena have impeded progress right from the beginning.  Soon I expect to place an article on the sad history of the men’s/fathers’ movement on the Men’s Defense Assoc. website (See below).

 

This movement has many philosophies and aspects.  There are so many “organizations” I can’t keep track of them or their acronyms.  Some are one-man endeavors consisting of a pajama-clad zealot with a bedroom computer.  Others are nation-wide operations with talented and numerous followers.  They are by no means restricted to the United States.  Many of these groups are narrowly-focused, concentrating on single issues because they may have personal significance to the leader or leaders.  Examples of such single issues are divorce and child custody.

 

To address that example, I believe that father-bashing is but one aspect of a larger anti-male phenomenon, and that misandry (hatred of men) itself should be of greater concern.  I submit that pursuing single issues are unproductive approaches.  Fathers are but a subset of men, and alleviating fathers’ problems alone still leaves us with the underlying misandry, which will bite us again in another area.  It is like cutting off one head of a many-headed hydra.[1]  I submit that, in order to correct injustice or inequality directed at fathers or at men in general, the entire hydra must be attacked.

 

Many reform proposals have been posited over and over for the last 40 years, and the same speeches given.  Each suggestor and spokesman usually operating under the naive assumption his ideas are new and unique.  I believe that our movement has been bogged down for decades by debating minor issues and prematurely proposing various tactics, however excellent they may be.  To make analogy, individuals have been butting heads against this massive wall of misandry for decades, all getting bashed heads out of it.  I suggest that the way to knock the wall down is for us all to back off, form up, and all hit the wall together.  It will come down no other way. 

 

The above requires certain mutual agreements beforehand.  I suggest it is imperative to determine philosophic Ends before addressing Means of achieving those Ends.  As another analogy, builders cannot build a long-lasting house without a foundation; neither can we build an effective movement without constituent groups agreeing on a common philosophy.  We must build the foundation of our movement before building upper storey rooms.  A common philosophy must be broad enough to include all reasonable approaches and narrow enough to exclude approaches that are actually harmful to that philosophy.

 

I have long proposed the following End: “To preserve the traditional nuclear family through restoration of equal dignity and equal (not identical) rights under the law for all male persons across a broad spectrum of life, including divorce, employment, health, crime punishment and image.”  Anything essentially similar to this will do.  Endless arguments over trivialities must be avoided.  Whatever End is eventually chosen, it must precede debating or proposing Means to that End.  Without such an understanding of Ends, we cannot know who we are – and who we aren’t.

 

The anti-male phenomenon and its gestalt are so massive and intricate, ranging from the obvious to the subtle, that neophyte would-be reformers with limited experience, however brilliant they may be or imagine themselves to be, cannot fathom the problems and solutions.  Oscar Wilde, a dead white male, said, “ In America, the young are always ready to give those who are older than themselves the full benefit of their inexperience.”

 

In the interest of broadening the base of the movement and making it more acceptable to the public at large, it may be necessary to include elements primarily concerned with issues of health and personal growth – or introspection, elements not primarily concerned with external discrimination against men and fathers.  That, of course, is a matter for consideration by the mainstream.

 

Our philosophical differences are not as great as personal ones.  Egotism is a huge problem.  Some “leaders” fancy themselves the Messiah, and would sacrifice the movement itself in pursuit of leadership.  Every barnyard rooster is king on his own dung heap.  Taking a clue from Lucifer in Milton’s Paradise Lost, the motivating principle of some seems to be “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”  Someone called it “the Fidel Castro syndrome,” meaning there can be only one Revolutionary hero.  Consequently, many reform organizations have been parochial and militantly independent.  They have even been compared to a circular firing squad.  Historically, we have been unable or unwilling to choose leaders of that firing squad, persons who could reform the ranks from a circle into a line, a firing line facing actual enemies.

 

There is enough talent and resources dispersed throughout the men’s/fathers’ movement, internationally, to successfully confront the enemies of justice if those talents and resources can be properly coordinated.  If we ever mature to the point of shedding egotism and agreeing on an End that all our disparate, legitimate elements can accept, we can then marshal these resources and talents.  In order to know what’s going on beyond our little circles, to know where to direct our attentions and activities, we must be fully educated on issues.  Therefore, the resources mentioned above should include worldwide common information forums such as The Liberator or Transitions and a website, perhaps modification of an existing one.

 

The internet has potential to greatly enhance communication, despite the many pips squeaking therein (The numerous tangential subjects addressed on movement blogsites – arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? serve only to distract us from concentrating on our goals).

 

Such a combination of forces and resources would be overwhelming, constituting a force equivalent to or greater than that of feminism.  The resultant “Manpower” would create the political clout necessary to achieve the goal all of us so desperately need.

 

Of course, a juggernaught like this is more easily conceived than constructed.  In theory, if the aforesaid internal problems could be overcome, the best and most efficient construct would consist of a unified organization with democratically-elected leaders chosen from the most capable.  Men’s Equality Now (MEN) International, the last credible attempt to so unify the movement, came to naught.  So practically, in view of situational reality, the most we can probably hope for at present is a greater degree of cooperation among major existing groups.

 

I would urge the top leadership of ACFC and NCFC, perhaps even CRC and the Men’s Health Network (there may also be others of significance) to resolve to pursue intra-movement cooperation.  If these several large ? relatively speaking ? coalitions seriously act in concert, and movement writers take up the cause, the smaller groups should be swept along like lifeboats in the wake of the Queen Mary.  Sure there will be the usual nitpickers and ankle-biters, but their influence would be minimized.

 

As probably the longest-serving living activist, I would be willing to serve in any supportive or coordinating, but non-administrative, capacity current leaders might choose.

 

For anyone desirous of further studying the problems and solutions, I recommend the book “Save the Males” (5th revision in the works), a compilation of many years studying these issues.  It is described in detail at www.mensdefense.org.

 

 

Richard F. Doyle, Editor Emeritus, The Liberator

 

 

________________________________

 

[1] A monster in Greek mythology that had nine heads and was killed by Hercules.  When one head was cut off, another grew instantly in its place.