Requiem for Dr. Daniel Amneus

I read the Garbage Generation some time ago.

A truly outstanding piece of work. I have never read anything so comprehensive and so illuminating.

I have not read any of his other works, but my guess would be that – as you suggest – Daniel Amneus will probably one day be recognised as one of the most insightful advocates for fathers and fatherhood ever to have existed.

The ‘problem’ with Daniel Amneus’ writing, in my view, is that he is so damn meticulous – looking so closely at just about everything to do with ‘family’ – that it takes a good deal of time to get through his work.

But there is no question in my mind that he stands above all of us in terms of his understanding of the importance of men and fathers to ‘society’.

I think that the main difference between the likes of Daniel Amneus and Stephen Baskerville is that the former was attempting to put society under a microscope – in a kind of academic sense – whereas the latter is more of an ‘activist’ who recognises that you have to keep things much more simple for us less able folk!

http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Dr. Amneus was my primary mentor when I came into the movement as a novice in 1988. I turned my car radio on, and he was doing an interview on KMOX-1120 AM (a clear channel station). I darned near ran off the road. I could not believe what was coming out of my radio. He was the first MRA to be media-savvy that I am aware of. I called him right after the show, and the rest is history.

Dan was one of the few MRA’s who wrote from a scholarly, documented perspective (still true today). I learned that lesson from him and use it today. Most of my work is analysis written with full footnotes.

Dan’s major thesis was that automatic father custody would end the divorce revolution. Of course, this is correct — but absolutely politically unattainable. Dan’s thesis was picked up by some truly crazy/angry/loud MRA’s, who poisoned the theme because they came across as woman haters. Dan privately agreed with me that getting automatic father custody was impossible, and that it was more realistic to simply understand the relationship between automatic mother custody and divorce, and seek more reasonable policy.

At the time joint custody was the objective of the movement, led by Jim Cook. As we know, joint custody effectively did little in terms of establishing enforceable rights or actually improving paternal parenting time, and it did nothing to reduce child support in the majority of cases.

I flew to Ca. and had lunch with him about 12 years ago. It was a truly memorable moment. He was the nicest guy you could possibly care to meet — extraordinarily polite and a gentleman in every way. He remarried sometime in the late 1990′s.

One day, when the MRA succeeds, Dan will be in the history books. Until then, it is up to us to document the history of this movement.

His books can be read for free online. I highly recommend everyone read them. Its a good foundation for understanding many things.

The Garbage Generation: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

The Case for Father Custody: http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-55.htm and http://www.fathermag.com/news/3788-fathcustbook.shtml

The War Against Patriarchy: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6396087/The-War-Against-Patriarchy-by-Dr-Daniel-Amneus

Back to Patriarchy: For sale cheap at Amazon — http://www.amazon.com/Back-patriarchy-Daniel-Amneus/dp/0870004360

What an ignoramus I am. I need to be told of such men and such works. I am an ordinary man whose head has been immersed in my own work and families; my own small perspective.

Mr. Doyle, you reprise a Eulogy. Many men in the MRM bring back to us the earlier works and earlier writers/thinkers/activists too. You and they do us a great service. Even the voluble amongst us need educating.

[...] Doyle Requiem for Dr. Daniel Amneus 2008-11-22 at 6:34 am · Filed under Child Support & Custody, Men’s Rights Activism, Vox Populi [...]

Let us not forget Sonny Burmeister either ….

… and Asa Baber, who was the only full time paid MR person, who columnized for Playboy. I often thought that was an awful place for MRM, which Asa agreed with me on. It was the only place that would pay an MRM’r. He was not as forward-spoken as I would have liked, to which he responded that he was always at the limits of what Christie Hefner would tolerate.

I read The Case for Father Custody 7 or 8 years ago now and it changed my thinking about fatherhood and marriage. He had tremendous insight into the nature of marriage and the father’s role in marriage.

I read the first few chapters of “The case for Father Custody”. The only “Fathers’ Rights” book I’ve read to this point is “Taken into Custody”.

So far I think the book lets Judges off the hook. It seems to imply that Judges are all as ignorant as the hillbilly judge who thinks people are nothing more than cattle. In my opinion, judges and lawyers are intelligent people, who make their living feigning ignorance. They are not unlike our politicians, who Jesse Ventura equates to Pro-Wrestlers, in their ability to “put on a show” and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Our judges and lawyers know that they’re making “mutilated beggars” out of our children, and what makes it so intolerable, is that they’re fully aware of the fact. It’s the main reason why the abolition of our Family Courts is essential. Injustice of this magnitude cannot be swept under the rug. Nothing like this has ever been perpetrated against women as feminists would have us believe.

What I like most about what this man has to say so far, is that the responsibility to change the situation rests on the shoulders of the men it’s happening to, as he puts it “who else”. More men need to do what John Mutari and others are doing. Stop paying the child support. We all know it’s not really child support, or legal, and to keep paying it is unacceptable. Refusing to pay extortion doesn’t make you a deadbeat, paying it does.

What exactly is a *deadbeat parent*?

Is a deadbeat parent someone who stops paying so-called child support because they cannot, in good conscience, continue to pay the unwarranted court imposed financial obligation?

Is it someone who refuses to pay because they are systematically denied equal custody of their children?

Is it someone who refuses to pay what amounts to extortion in order to *visit* their children twice a month … someone who has the self-respect to reject the role as *visitor* to their children?

Is it someone whose arrears skyrocket because the amount awarded is extortionate?

Is it someone who refuses to pay because *he* is denied the equal protection of our laws when it comes to decisions about parenting … someone who was ordered to pay as a result of a blood test, or DNA test, and was denied any other option?

Is it someone who refuses to pay the extortion because *he* is a victim of paternity fraud?

Of course not … we should all know better than that.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who pays the so-called child support … which enables the courts to continue kidnapping millions of children from one of their parents … in order to extort hundreds of billions from them and the duped taxpayer.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who pays the so-called child support … knowing that the courts are violating their inalienable, constitutionally protected rights … knowing that their thoughtless actions put all Americans at risk for loss of liberty.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who values their paycheck, and their driver’s license, more than their own children, and the future of our country.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who does not have the courage to *do the right thing* for fear of incarceration.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who would rather pay the extortion than accept an equal role in raising their children.

The *deadbeat* is the parent who by paying the so-called child support insures that their children will be the next victims of this injustice.

Richard Doyle,
Thank you for poignant Requiem for Dr. Daniel Amneus, a modern day Socrates, whose passing we would not have known without you, as about Socrates via notes of Plato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
Since we all are mortal, when R.F. Doyle eventually leaves this world, I hope there is equally articulate and knowldgeable writer to do a Requiem for you.
Your flagship, The Liberator, was the glue that kept fathers-men rights movement together and informet. When there seemed to be no hope, like when Walter Mondale, a presidential candidate in 1984 proclaimed “I’m a feminist”
and media hysteria about “repressed memory sydrome” etc
it seemed that feminist victory was inevitable.
But your editorials kept up the hope. I had seen somewhere that “Once you give up hope, there is no hope”

I’m almost glad Dan Amneus isn’t around to see what has became of the men’s/fathers’ movement, or of the coalition (MEN International) that he, I and several others started in his living room in the 1970s.
Normally, technology improves things. Not so these days. The blogosphere has been invaded by disgruntled men (mostly justifiably disgruntled) with access to the internet. Some are knowledgeable on the issues. Some are not. Much of the input is irrelevant to directly correcting the unfairness to men that is permeating law and society. Everyone considers himself an expert. It’s a bloody Tower of Babel, with everyone running in different directions.
If firm action isn’t commenced soon, whatever chances of success this movement does have could disintegrate. The only hope might be for the long time activists and leaders in the movement (they know who they are) to drop their suicidal independence, and form an ad hoc committee to define and address the problems. How about it Old Guard? Can you do it, or do you prefer to remain like barnyard roosters atop your individual dung heaps?

I’m not aware of any long time leaders other than Stephen Baskerville. Focus has been brought to the issues by MND and http://www.angryharry.com. Even if there is angry noise to go along with it.

Stephen Baskerville is one man who does what he can.

If there are other leaders thay have been staying home alot.

Leading is an active verb.

That’s the trouble, Denis. Most newcomers aren’t aware of the long time leaders. And, you’re right; most have been staying home a lot, not leading, nursing egos. Reminiscent of the Devil in Milton’s Paradise Lost, some seem to prefer to “reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” Being generals of nothing seems more important than being mere captains in a real organization. A few would sooner break the movement than not be its leader.

I talked with Daniel about the time The Garbage Generation was being published. He sent me an audio tape he had prepared to present his thoughts and introduce the book. I must have been a great disappointment to him.

He had developed a philosophical perspective on why the generation was producing so many “deadbeats.” In other words, he presumed that all the propaganda was true and tried to work out why society, and men particularly, had gone bad. I was the messenger that his underlying assumptions were all wrong.

It was part of the struggle back then. He wasn’t the only one. It’s still sometimes difficult to wrench people free of their personally developed philosophies to consider the facts. It is an apparent fact that people who identify with the movement are no different than everyone else. Everyone has an opinion.

MND has tried to be a “big tent” or an intersection for Father’s Rights advocates, divorced men, men abused in various ways by the legal system, and other men we might describe as “MGTOW”ers, (or, “men going their own way.”).

They are all here. But I do lament the dearth of active and cogent contributors for these topics.

Elsewhere on the web, the ever church-going and fully employed arch “pro-feminist” Hugo Schwyzer (married 4 times and counting), has outlined his answer to question, “what is the Men’s Movement“?

In sum, Herr Doktor Professor Schwyzer explains that there are four distinct social branches of the Men’s Movement — MRAs being one of them.

Naturally the author is biased toward his own group — the “pro-feminists” — and thus places his world-view at center, where “MRAs” are held as eccentric.

Leveling his bias, we find that Hugo has identified four main branches of gender-identity politics:

1. MRAs – or, “Men’s Rights Activists”: — I would call-out Dr. Stephen Baskerville as the intellectual leader of the Men’s Movement. His appeal is across social and racial lines, and he rightly targets the Family Law system as a racket and a primary means of social control.

2. Pro-feminists: — (typified by Schwyzer and lead by Academic male feminists like Michael Kimmel), are really the male face of entrenched feminism. In general, these are men who present themselves as advocates to feminism and feminine superiority. They are a nasty mix of “kiss-up-kick down”, and the Stockholm Syndrome.

3. Christian Men’s Movement — Promise Keepers, et al. These are men in search of a tangible connection with their role as men in a world where sex roles have blurred in the service-economy generations.

4. Mytho-Poetic: — As you might imagine.

I like Hugo’s post, but I would argue that there are just two main segments in men’s gender-identity politics: Pro-feminists and MRAs.

The other groups are comparatively less organized, and certainly less vocal. Young “Christian Men” and the tiny Mytho-Poetic group are subsets within the political forms of Pro-Feminists and Men’s Rights Activists.

In that light, any competition for the term “Men’s Movement” is between political factions of the right and left. (It must be this way, because Feminism has captured the Democratic party.)

But I think MRAs have captured the imagination of the media and the Internet collectively, because it is an authentic movement of men directly effected by the legal system — or those so threatened by it, that they now view marriage as a “trap” to avoid.

Yet the people who have the most chance of controlling the “funds” related to men’s concerns most certainly fall under the “Pro-feminist” agenda.

And never more true now the Obama/Biden era is at its dawn.

Just think of the pork barrel spoils about to erupt like rivers* throughout the government sector. Block grants galore. It’s FDR II.

Where is the “Men’s Movement” in all of this? Out of pocket and “going their own way”.

*apologies to Dave Usher

If people are looking for some magical leader to emerge and put an end to the suffering you’re not living in the real world. Even if a leader did come forward, willing and able to be an effective leader, would people recognize him? I doubt that most of you are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices that an effective leader would encourage.

We no longer live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The land of decree, and the home of the slave, would be a far more appropriate description. It’s not just a father’s/men’s rights issue. What’s happening to fathers/men and children is a symptom of a much larger problem. Don’t look any further than your bathroom mirror for the leader who will deliver you from this bondage. It’s a lifestyle choice, that each of us will have to make as individuals, which will ultimately lead to our combined success.

If you’re happy living the life of a slave, and having the government intrude into every aspect of your life, just because that’s what everyone else is doing, don’t expect to see any change in your lifetime. As a recent article posted in this forum put it, “start going John Galt”. I’ve been going “John Galt” for the last fifteen years and it’s working for me.

The buck needs to stop with you.

I think Mike just started a potentially powerful discussion. It provides a set of organizaing concepts and shook lose a thought or two in my mind. Perhaps what I’m about to say is easiest for me to see. I’m a specialist. I performed research on child support and have written a lot about it. People immediately identified me as a more general form of fathers’ rights advocate – which is ok with me – but perhaps confusing if I’m taken as someone trying to define the whole business. (I am personally in favor of human rights and believe fathers – and their children – are human.)

If you get into one thing – like child support – you soon run into the wider world. During one of my presentations at a CRC annual conference, I opened the floor to any question at the end rather than asking people to focus only on my subject – child support. It seemed absolutely clear that everything was related to everything else. Child support, even though I could study it as a specialty subject – didn’t suddenly become the problem it is today without being entangled in a lot of other things. It’s all related.

Nonetheless, I am a specialist on the subject of child support. (I’m also more generally an analyst etc. so I do other things.) As such, I’m going to continue to write about the child support issue. Since what happened in child support reform changed the legal definition of marriage and family – I certainly write about that too.

Now here’s the point. I rarely find someone who’s working on describing the whole tree. There are guys like me who are more specialized. A philosopher here, someone with an interest in the balance of power there, any number of would-be grand architects for a movement, etc. We all tend to have a special focus and perspective based on our particular specialization.

I don’t know if the story of the blind man trying to understand what an elephant looks like fits this situation because I don’t recall the story well – but it might. I often see people trying to define it all through very heavy emphasis on their strong feeling about one piece.

Even Mike’s comment about Hugo putting “pro-feminists” at the center of his world view seems worth reflecting on. Hugo is not the only person who puts his piece and his perspective in the center. It’s like the days before understanding that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth.

One of the things I find frustrating in all this is the way activists fail to see the value in what others are doing or have done. Back in the beginning, I even had people calling me at home advising me to focus on something else because they thought it a better political strategy; not understanding that I’m quite well qualified to do the work I’ve done in the area of child support and that my analysis of child support is based on years of actual professional level research.

My effort in this area was monumental and I achieved important success. I have scientifically defined reasonable levels of child support. But to say so to a group of fathers’ / men’s advocates is sometimes worse than talking to myself. The typical response is a range of opinion from “there shouldn’t be any” to “equal parenting comes first.” But no, I’m not discussing political strategy. I’m reporting that there is such a thing, in fact, as a reasonable level of child support and I have discovered how to define it – scientifically. It’s a fact.

Yeah, I would like to see Mike’s comment opened up. I wrote something as a comment last night but thought, … Nah! They probably don’t want to talk about it.

I see 3 of the groups Mike describes. 2 will go somewhere but the MRA is not one of them as it stands. (Only what I have learnt)

The religious side is on it’s own now. For years it has worked alongside the feminists without really understanding what that meant. Now that it does, it is coming together even though there still is disagreement like over which cookies to bake. But on global scale things have changed and one thing that is their challenge is that they have lost a generation. Not much different to the complaints of the feminists.

The pro feminists have the ability to research and gain funding. They are making everything father and man friendly.

The MRAs are on the outside. I learned very quickly from being told flat .. that the work is needed and it is going to be hard at first but if you can’t control the men, the doors have to shut fast and tight.

People do want to help all the way up but they won’t take on dangerous activity.

PS. I am just saying what is real out there. It is not a personal thing.

With regard to Mike’s comment: there is a substantial number of individuals in this movement (leaders included — names intentionally not mentioned) whose sincere beliefs are comprised of a paradoxical intersection of MRA and Pro-feminist thinking.

This combination is self-defeating: MRA’s cannot get support from social conservatives who would help us because they see a lot of this movement as being a bunch of whining liberals who deserve the problems they brought on ourselves. To the extent individuals in this movement active or passively support feminist goals, this is indeed true. Folks of this ilk do not oppose no-fault divorce. They support same sex marriage (a socially and politically fatal mistake for this movement).

In addition, many in this movement do not understand the profound tactical, strategic, and political importance of being “the” marriage movement.
In “Fatherless America”, David Blankenhorn told the nation that the father’s rights movement is a whining collection of angry men who seem to have no salient goals or issues. I was shocked when I read it — he was indeed correct. This movement has not budged far from 1990′s methods.

The fact of the matter is this: When we complain incessantly about lack of parenting rights and outrageous child support orders, we are actually complaining about the lack of OUR marriages. We would not be here today if N.O.W. had not taught America to fear men in marriage.

As a result, no men’s organization has ever been able to achieve major legislative successes.

And, we are not the only people complaining. Single mothers complain incessantly about poverty and lack of health care. States are going bankrupt under social expenditures. California is teetering on this edge. And politicians are still unable to fix the problem via $800 billion in social expenditures, most of which is spent to band-aid the problem.

We look like idiots complaining about our little problems when we could step forward as real men, reclaim the institution of marriage, put our arms around the women and children of this nation, and promote changes to public policy that will give most everyone what they want and need.

I have said many times, and I submit again to all, that we can only succeed politically by “being” the marriage movement and then proposing sensible legislation and policy changes to restore a viable marriage market, remove perverse incentives that exist in federal funding programs, and to encourage marital responsibility and never reward a spouse who is irresponsible to the marriage.

Feminism reigns solely because it convinced everyone that only feminists are capable of looking out for women, caring for them, and protecting them. We have four solid decades of statistical data proving them wrong. All we need to do is confidently assume our natural roles in society, and stand up for heterosexual marriage.

Over the past three years, I have broken through the glass ceiling of some of the leading think tanks, secular organizations, and religious organizations who are all as upset as we are. We are in a position to teach them how to win. All we need to to is rephrase our language, stand up for marriage, and GitRDone (realizing it will take many years).

I think we are ready for this. We have demonstrated an ability to block federal legislation and U.N. Policy most of the time. That is the first measure of political stature. Under “Marriage Values”, we will definitely be able to muster the necessary across-the-board political support to be successful.

With all due respect Mr. Usher …. I didn’t think there was much hope for the MRA to actually care for men’s needs.

It is always going to be an ideology fight. Well, you are both wrong. Women have always had a woman’s affairs and men had one also.

Correct me if I am wrong … but isn’t that what the blacksmith was about?

Now we live in big cities rather than small communities. Now we are global. All young people are educated on a global level.

Best religion just hurry up and decide which one is the true God. Then we can go back … but until then … men need to be cared for. And women need to be cared for.

PS … Mr Usher, please just don’t choose the bankers to be the one true God.

If a men’s/father’s rights movement exists at all, (outside of the handful of self-proclaimed men’s/fathers’ rights groupies on the internet) it would be the hundreds of thousands of fathers out there who’ve never even heard of the so-called movement.

You can’t have a “movement” with a few hundred or a few thousand people.

David Usher is right. What drives potential supporters away in droves is the lack of action by a group of people perceived as sore losers, and habitual whiners, who take no positive steps forward. So-called leaders, who advocate voting for Obama because they didn’t like how McCain handled a father’s rights question presented to him at a public rally, are more useful taking up the rear.

The real “leaders” of any so-called movement are the thousands of people who refuse to cooperate with the system, by bringing legal action against the courts, and by refusing to pay the extortion demanded.

Somebody advocated voting for Obama? Oh my!

You’re partly right merck. Sure, the press had a field day dismissing fathers’ rights advocates for a while, characterizing them as you describe and as the men’s version of NOW and such. But I think we’re past that.

Fathers’ rights groups are quite successful when they offer useful services to fathers – i.e. the guys you call the leaders of the so-called movement.

But you also seem guilty of not recognizing that anyone has done anything of benefit.

Julie,

I hate to tell you this. marriage is everybody’s business and the lack of it is everybody’s problem. If you think the future has anything to do with participating in N.O.W.’s gratuitous gender war, you are seriously mistaken.

Its a shame the men’s movement was dumb enough to participate in this street war for so long. But now that some of us know how to get in front of the problem, along with a huge array of other political interests, N.O.W.’s days are numbered.

If you are sick and tired of the problems women sustain in the absence of marriage, you might as well get on the bus with me. If you refuse to get on this bus, you are on your own. I don’t have time for those who are either feminist trolls or unrecovering complainers.

I hear what you are saying Mr. Usher. And I think ‘marriage’ is a good thing to get into for those whose first marriages have worked well. They can help new marriages and/or those who have hit hard times and/or just problems that need sorting out.

I have known for some time I am limited with my involvement. I married .. but it didn’t work. It would be extremely hypocritical of me to stand for this.

Let me see if I have got this form of arguement right, Julie. Just as an exercise in recognising self-delusional crap in place of thinking.

I used to be strong, fit and healthy, but it didn’t work and now I am a knackered old shite. So it would be hypocritical for me to advocate being fit, healthy and young.

The mind boggles.

I am grateful to Mile LaSalle for creating this forum for discussion within the men’s movement, even if it has become somewhat of an ego-blasting Tower of Babel. However, I believe he may have given undue credit above to one “professor” Hugo Schwyzer who claims there exists “four distinct social branches of the Men’s Movement, MRAs being one of them.” Schwyzer further advocates that “pro-feminists” not only belong to the men’s movement but are its center, and MRAs are “eccentric.”
To challenge Schwyzer’ thesis, permit me to quote from pages 182-183 of my book, Save the Males (www.mensdefense.org): “In the last few decades, a faux “men’s movement” has come into existence masquerading as representative of the men’s movement. Many of its adherents, sponsored by NOW, bleat the feminist party line. Made up of pop sociologists, sex-melders and reluctant males of mixed sexual persuasion with a hair shirt agenda, they are thoroughly domesticated, housebroken creatures who hold their manhood cheap—apologetically in fact. They denounce masculinity, convinced there is something wrong with the traditional male image, which they derisively term “macho.”
(And 6 paragraphs later to save space here) “Presumptuously masquerading under the banner of “Men’s Liberation,” these traitors would liberate us all right, from our manhood! Men do not need to be liberated from being men; we need liberation to be men.”

I am in agreement with Richard Doyle.

Note my comment above regarding the “pro-feminists”, namely that they “are really the male face of entrenched feminism,” wherein brainwashed feminist/chivalrists actually advocate for feminine superiority. As I said above, these men are a “nasty mix of kiss-up-kick down, and the Stockholm Syndrome.”

My purpose in quoting Herr Schwyzer is to provide an illustration of what passes for “men’s issues” in academia and in government social policy.

Case in point: Yesterday I turned on CNN and found a roundtable of four professional women — including the moderator — who spent the entire show blasting men for waging a “WAR ON WOMEN”.

One evil woman – a smug and snorting prosecutor – kept calling for any and all crimes against women to be treated as federal “hate crimes”.

She reassured the audience once or twice that “not all men are bad. – some men protect women!” (Yeah, like her staff of male prosecuting attorneys. Good dogs, all. Here, boy, have a treat. Now heel!)

Her venom was palpable and chilling. Truly a piece of work.

I would call that hate speech — brought to you by CNN with a smile.

I too am grateful to Mike LaSalle. ditto AngryHarry.

I disagree with the premise that N.O.W. taught women to fear men and thus caused the current state of marriage. This is naive and simplistic thinking at best. N.O.W. certainly is an extremist group full of hysterical reactionary women. It has significant influence in the Democratic Party. But women on the left and women on the right have BOTH to a large degree bought into the idea of female entitlement, and female superiority, and female victimhood. I’m talking about typical and average women and not the small percentage of women politically involved or in college. Women en masse have taken advantage of their unfair advantages even if groups like N.O.W., Feminist Majority, Emily’s List, have helped create the political framework for them to have these myriad advantages (along with the many many male politicians without whom they could not have have accomplished their goals-and who have sold out their own gender-current and future generations). I doubt that many women other than those in college, or the political activists, have any idea what N.O.W. is saying these days. That’s not say these groups don’t manage to have their ideas infiltrate the broader culture-I’m sure they do. For example, Fortune magazine recently did a story on Domestic violence. No surprise that in the story only men are perpetrator’s and only women victims. It was all about helping female employees—-again. I doubt that the author and the editorial board that put the article in the magazine were influenced directly by N.O.W.. But what does it say when a group of people choose to not do good journalism and instead follow blindly the current politically correct thinking? It says two things. 1.) They are lazy. And, 2.) it says that they choose to follow thinking that have political advantages for a particular group (women). N.O.W. did not directly cause this. Self-centered thinking did. Wanting to be politically correct did. Female pack-mentality thinking did (you know the “Sistahood”, “you go girl!”). Victimhood thinking did. Wanting more entitlements did.

So how to account for the widespread disenfranchisement of fathers from their own children, and their loss of income (current and future), loss of home, etc. etc.? How to account for the many other unfair advantages of women in other areas?

1.) The widespread selfishness and self-centeredness of American women whose numbers far exceed the college students and activists aware of the activities of N.O.W., Feminist Majority, Emily’s List, etc. Women who “want it all”.

Malignant Narcissism.

2.) A generation of men who came of age at the same time as the modern feminists in the 1960s, the Baby Boomer men, the vast majority of which sat by as their gender was being sold down the river-and said and did nothing. Whereas the mass of baby boomer women have been self-centered for decades, only to grow old and disillusioned by feminism’s false promises, the mass of baby boomer men have sat by silently for decades.

That’s how we got in this mess.

Subsequent generations of men have been handed a messed up “institution” called marriage by those who ravaged it before. Those who ravaged it now occupy political office and leadership in other areas including education and business-but those who ravaged it also includes those masses in 1.) and 2.) above.

Marriage is on life-support in America. Those that were instrumental in putting it in this condition [e.g., 1.) and 2.)]really should not be surprised if it expires.

This is not a rant. Picture me in my yoga position.

I agree that most women in the media, academics, politicos, lawyers and many others are *hate-mongering-man-detesters on steroids* and the men who sniff around their skirts are disgusting and pathetic degenerates. The people who scream the loudest about hate and violence are often the worst offenders.

My point is that you can read all the books you want on the subject, become the best informed person on the planet when it comes to gender issues, and none of it means anything until you stop playing the game, and stop feeding the beast. There is a huge profit motive behind this injustice, which has to be neutralized before there will be significant success.

If you were asked the simple question, “which is more important, your job and your driver’s license, or your children’s lives and futures”. Most men would probably say that their kids are more important than anything, but their actions reflect the opposite. You can’t have it both ways. If the system is so screwed-up, illegal and immoral, then you can’t justify giving them your money.

I think a lot of people take my comments the wrong way.

I’m not on some kind of ego-trip, or promoting a book I’ve written, or promoting myself as a potential “father of the year” candidate, or claiming to have the perfect child support formulae. I’m speaking out because I want to see change. ***Everyday that goes by*** without resolving these issues means more destroyed lives, more pain, more suffering and more death.

There is a sense of urgency here guys, and potential supporters need to see a sense of urgency when they’re having their lives and families ripped to shreds; not a bunch of intellectuals discussing the better child support formulae. I hope you can see where I’m coming from.

I would also like to thank Mike for having this forum.

Richard Doyle;

… not to mention the government’s fake fathers’ rights advocates including spokesnut for their own not-so-grass-roots movement, the National Fatherhood Initiative. Obviously, we got to them because they were forced to pretend that their family destroying pork-barreling war against fathers was a program to create strong and healthy fathers – give them what they need, so to speak. Open hatred of fathers and fatherhood just wasn’t publically acceptable anymore.

And then there’s those displays of mercy – forgiveness on fathers’ day if they’ll turn themselves in as criminals and try to work something out. Kings used to do that when people were charged with treason for disagreeing. They’d set aside the death penalty if the culprit recanted and begged forgiveness. It’s one of the reasons democracy eventually triumphed over monarcy.

“I think a lot of people take my comments the wrong way.”

Well, that does not include me.

I’ve been hearing what you say.

If men stop playing the rigged game-that rigged game will either die or change-and the current game is no longer tenable for men.

I’ve been saying the same thing.

And suggesting that women are infantile such that they have been “taught to fear men” and are incapable of choosing to not behave in a way that is damaging to men is to not be an MRA but to be a chivalrist-yet another variation of giving women another pass.

No thanks. I’ll walk rather than buy a bus ticket.

Having read “The Garbage Generation” several years ago, I just finished re-reading it. While I didn’t necessarily learn anything new, I found re-reading not only worthwhile but its arguments to be more self-evident as truth. It is such an important work that I suggest not only reading it but re-reading it.

Combine government enforced matriarchy its corequisite growth of social pathologies, the ubiquity of Marxism/feminism/PC/ignorance/narcissism/amorality/victimhood/entitlement thinking, along with the likelihood of the Second Great Depression, and it’s difficult to imagine the survival of the American Experiment, if not many of its people as well.

While many wonder where a true leader for the rights of children and fathers might emerge, I’m thinking more along the lines that it’s too late for that, that the current and incoming leadership will need to take heed from and apply Amneus’s work if we are to survive as anything resembling a free and prosperous society for more very much longer.

In short, we can no longer borrow our way into prosperity while continuing to wage war on the nuclear family, and when the house of cards do fall we won’t have moral the fortitude and societal pillars to get us through it this time around.

Damn, my comments are not showing. OK one more I will try.

I just want to share something about MRA and feminist men. I know I am not as good as others here and I know I have a lot to learn of the situation. And I know I come across wrong. But I am not a quitter that easy.

Anyhow…. I held a meeting that allowed the MRA to speak to the feminist men. It could have turned bad from my speech but the MRA in charge totally used the situation to his advantage and brought in the right men to speak from personal cases.

But when I spoke as a speaker in the meeting the no.1 feminist man in the country stood up to protest. I did not know he was in the audience because I didn’t know who was who. I felt way out of my league I can tell you.

He was in a defensive position and stated to all including a politician speaker that it wasn’t their fault and we don’t understand how powerful the feminists are. That was a big man in society coming down to our level.

At the end of the meeting I spoke with him and he defended himself again saying, “I am not like these guys. I am pro feminist”. Then I said I had been waiting to meet him but he was out of the country. Then I named men who are important and said they told me to find him to speak up.

Oh, and speak up he did. A whole week was set aside in my city for men. Then came even bigger meetings.

I gave him his balls back. OK, that is very bad of me to say it this way but I think you can comprehend what I mean.

My point is that the MRA and the most feminist men are in the same field. It is just that the feminists feel that they can do at least something.

When the MRA gets its act together it will snowball. The MRA is the centre of the MRM not the feminist men.

So what is the MRM? What is a MRA? What is a man and where do women fit in a man’s world?

The way I see things from feminists … they seriously think they are living in a man’s world.

Awesome, I can comment.

I just want to add more to my above comment. A door can open another door.

I now can hold a meeting with the most important feminists in the country to hear from the men’s side. They have already told me, “Hold the meeting, we will get the numbers”.

The meeting I have to hold for them has to be from speakers of the pro feminist men. So, I had to learn to play the game and I am still learning.

I can have pro feminist men speak up from expertise and I can blend in speakers from MRA.

I am just sharing, BTW. I had heard that the no.1 problem of the MRM is that they don’t realise they don’t need to slash away at the forest to make a clearing any more. The clearing exists and they need to build. But others are wondering if the MRM can actually build.

Please speak back to me if I am going about this all wrong. I don’t want to be know as the bad girl who destroyed the MRM for it becoming mainstream if it really doesn’t want to.

“So what is the MRM? What is a MRA? What is a man and where do women fit in a man’s world?”

Julie – The number one cause of all male problems today is their inability to clearly answer those questions you pose. The number one cause of this inability is their unwillingness to view those questions as important. The MRM’s first purpose is to cover this major inability, so the MRM can only fail – no matter what it does.

A true man needs not be an MRA. He only needs to answer your questions with depth, conviction, and wisdom. And he can only do so if he’s strong enough to deeply reflect on your questions.

That so many men ignore your questions…should tell you just how much work most men need to do.

MMX, Thanx for your reply. You say,

The number one cause of all male problems today is their inability to clearly answer those questions you pose. The number one cause of this inability is their unwillingness to view those questions as important. The MRM’s first purpose is to cover this major inability, so the MRM can only fail – no matter what it does.*****

I am somewhat taken back by your comment. I didn’t know this.

But what I do know is the the MRM must not fail. And it seems strange that men speak of masculinity as something being taken away from them when they don’t know what is means. I guess in the context I see it used, it means their “mana”. *that is the Maori word NZ has chosen to describe it.

Mana means:

I . Authority, control
2. Influence, prestige, power
3. Psychic force
4. Effectual, binding, authoritative
5. Having influence or power
6. Vested with authority
7. Be effectual, take effect
8. Be avenged.

When men’s masculinity is stripped away, their power as a man and father are taken away.

When a women’s femininity is taken away it means the same thing.

This is the power bestowed on a person that is spiritual. To take it away means to break that person. To enslave that person. To not allow that person to be what the person is meant to be as a human being. To strip them from their rights. To take away their soul. To shut their voice.

……

If this is the case then man is a human being with spiritual, emotional, physical and characteristic traits he was born with.

To force him to be feminine is to go against his natural identity. Gays and trans and bi sexual are not an exclusion of a man if they were born a man. They have made a choice for whatever reason to be this way. There will be outside and inside influences that made him choose this path.

…………

To be an MRA would mean to be an advocate or activist making a stand towards men having their Mana or on behalf of their Mana. (manhood)

The MRM is a collective consisting of individual, groups and teams who care for men in any sort of way.

…………

To continue from above….

Ok, so that all makes sense. I think. (smile)

I guess the complication comes from men thinking their rights have been taken away also from the gay movement. That the gay movement exists only by stripping heterosexual men’s mana.

But this is not how the gays see it. They consider the heterosexual man to the norm in society while they are the minority of the men. They see there stand for Mana an inclusion of the MRM. Sadly, they have felt that the MRM was excluding them. That they are the enemy. Strangely enough, they do not consider the feminists to be their friend either. And why should they. The feminists took their mana also.

With this being the case, the gays became part of the GLBT community. GLBT, means gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans sexual.

Bi-sexuals are not necessarily a part of this movement. I am not sure why they are included but then the 70′s was the sexual revolution.

Anyhow …. they have gone their own way which leaves the MRM to be hetro-sexual and metro-sexual men who are the only ones not in a collective.

So then… as a conclusion, the man is hetro/metro, the MRA is advocates and activists for the hetro/metro and the MRM is the collective.

Although the MRM is also the collective including GBT. After all, they have the same health issues and other manly issues such as fighting misandry.

I think maybe the reason why no-one talks to me is because I am aggressive and they are either afraid of me of can’t be bothered. I must change.

PS. Richard Doyle … thanx for monitoring my comments.

“And it seems strange that men speak of masculinity as something being taken away from them when they don’t know what is means.”

Finally someone says something profound.

I could easily post here until morning (it’s 10:30 PM EST) discussing this and the post at large. (But I have been working without enough sleep for days and that won’t happen tonight.)

But briefly:

Men derive their masculine identity to a significant degree by their natural role as protector and provider. Men by their nature love women and children-they exalt in being their protector and provider. Has the modern world made this irrelevant?

Not in the least.

But in the West, females have spent the greater part of 5 decades denigrating and diminishing men and masculinity. They have stopped valuing men and their uniqueness for all this time-and have shown no restraint in wanting to make sure men understood their position. America is saturated with some of the world’s most repulsive females.

Women still need men in the West-more than ever before. They don’t-for the most part-have a clue that they live lives of privilege and favortism.

The better part of 5 decades means almost 2 generations have passed.

(To illustrate a point:)

You know, it’s been almost 70 years since when America was unambiguously united in the understanding of fighting a “just war”: WWII. Since then, America has had it’s share of international conflicts, but very very few alive today (and for quite some time) have understood the concept of a “just war”. 70 years. Every conflict since WWII has shown America to be divided and conflicted about it’s purpose. One can have their own geo-political beliefs about these conflicts-but my MAIN point is that America has been dis-united and conflicted in this matter for all this time. Now America is divided and confused about dealing with an enemy who has no division or confusion about it’s purpose. This conflict and dis-unity has lasting effects culturally. For one, it makes understanding (and seeing) a “just war” difficult.

Try to extropolate that reality and reasoning to the 50 year war on masculinity. Men are confused and often divided. It’s NOT that their masculinity has been taken from them. No. It’s that it has been ignored and denigrated…ridiculed…diminished…by Western WOMEN. For ~50 years.

After 50 years, there have been no men (or relatively speaking, very few men) to serve as living examples (and teachers) as to just what masculinity means. Just like a “just war”.

Julie, et al;

There is no use having round table discussions and debates between feminists of either sex and MRA’s other than the loving of the sport. In fact, I refuse to debate feminists and for good reason. women’s studies groups often put up MRA’s to debates so they can disassemble the debate and come up with a spin line or strategy to stay on top of the situation.

In fact, this very long comment thread goes nowhere. There are no answers here, no take-aways, no action items. That is because the gender war is a waste of everybody’s time. It is as idiotic and pointless as gang fighting Oakland.

Now, when everyone is completely sick and tired of leg wrestling, give the marriage movement a try. We have answers that speak to all men and women. We have education items that walk away from the gender war and teach men and women to avoid feminism like the plague. We have policies that will discourage marital irresponsibility, and always inure to the benefit of the spouse most responsible to the marriage.

Why leave your foot stuck in the toilet doing this nonsense when we can take charge of the mess, rebuild trust between men and women, and rebuild stable the communities and economy we all want?

Some folks think I’m kidding about the marriage movement, but I’m not. The political pieces are coming together, and they are large. This will happen. All MRA’s and recovering feminists will have a lot more fun accomplishing real gains in the marriage movement than playing tiddlywinks in the alley. Get ready to jump in, the water is awesomely fine.

I’m hoping to be able to make a fairly major announcement in the next few days, another in January — the first of many to come.

Julie – A man’s mana can never be taken away from him. But it can be surrendered or perverted.

A man surrenders his mana when he expects his women, jobs, possessions, government, society, schools, media, parents, buddies, or other men to both define and be masculine FOR HIM.

And a man perverts his mana when he exchanges his spiritual role for either a political, emotional, or materialistic one. (The spiritual role is more difficult, so a man perverts his mana by opting for a less demanding role.)

The MRM must fail because it’s a mixture of two very different types of people. The first, as you described, are truly about “individual, groups and teams who care for men in any sort of way.” The second, as I have seen, PRETEND to care for men, but are really trying to be an entity to which a man surrenders his mana to.

The first type of person tells each man, “You don’t need me. You just need to re-discover the strength you’ve always had, the strength you were meant to have.” While the second type of person tells each man, “You NEED me. I am strong! Follow me! For you cannot do anything substantial without me!”

When the mixture separates, the MRM will be effective. But until that happens, the MRM must fail.

You can’t communicate with a feminist, any better than a Skinhead or a Klansman, because you will never breach the hate. Feminists are the most powerful hate group to ever exist on this planet and their days are numbered.

Any attempt to reason with a feminist only demeans and demoralizes the person who tries.

The ego-driven babble continues. This thread began as a eulogy to Dr. Amneus, the most brilliant theorist this movement has ever known – and probably ever will know. The book, Save the Males (www.mensdefense.org)constitutes a compilation of his philosophy.

“Dr. Amneus, the most brilliant THEORIST this movement has ever known.”

http://www.mensdefense.org/Amneus.htm

Daniel Amneus was married and divorced twice having two children and two grand children.

Hmm, theorist seems an appropriate title for him, after all…

I’ve read Garbage Generation twice. Both times I’ve concluded, “Ahh, so THIS is what happens when men surrender their spiritual legacy.”

The good news is that any individual man can re-acquire his spiritual legacy at any time. It’s as simple as picking up a pencil, or putting on a pair of pants. The bad news is that any individual man can avoid re-acquiring his spiritual legacy at any time, by pursuing one of many avenues that deny the importance of his spiritual legacy.

Thank Richard for participating in the after-article discussion.

And 78th happy birthday.

Allow me to quote Dr. Amneus, as taken from your book:

If judges did to women what they routinely do to men — if they deprived them of their children, their homes, their property, their role, and compelled them to work and share their income with their ex-husbands, those judges would be torn to pieces by mobs of frenzied women.

This is the Family Law system encapsulated.

Amneus was ahead of his time — and still is.

But while the origin of these ideas have been sadly ignored by the popular media, it turns out the ideas themselves can’t be contained.

Case in point: I have been reading Alec Baldwin’s book — A Promise to Ourselves.

(Seems like I have been reading it forever. Actually it’s a short and easy-to-read book. But most evenings I spend my “reading time” reading outloud to my kids. Since I started Promise, I have read –outloud– Sterling North’s Rascal, HG Well’s The Invisible Man, and now we’re in the middle of Well’s The Time Machine. Alec will have to wait in line for that book review!)

Baldwin’s book is tour de force of the broken and profligate Family Law system. His story is the same as mine, and the same as millions of other men around the world (and including the 1.3 million individuals who visited MND over the past year.)

Anyway, if Baldwin weren’t so socially entrenched in Hollywood PC, I believe he might be inclined to agree with both you and Dr. Amneus.

“If judges did to women what they routinely do to men — if they deprived them of their children, their homes, their property, their role, and compelled them to work and share their income with their ex-husbands, those judges would be torn to pieces by mobs of frenzied women.”

______________________________________________________

In my opinion, this is the highest possible compliment you can pay to women, if in fact, the statement is true.

We may never know, because it will never happen to women.

The fact that fathers are allowing this to happen to them, does not speak well of men, and is the only reason it continues to happen.

There may be a million sociological reasons why men continue to allow this to happen and none of them are adequate justification.

When men no longer stand for this treatment, it will stop.

“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Being generals of nothing seems more important than being mere captains in a real organization. A few would sooner break the movement than not be its leader.

MMX’s counterpoint is salient, if fatally idealistic:

The first type of person tells each man, “You don’t need me. You just need to re-discover the strength you’ve always had, the strength you were meant to have.” While the second type of person tells each man, “You NEED me. I am strong! Follow me! For you cannot do anything substantial without me!”

If this were true, all men are surely islands, and John Donne was wrong after all.

Angry Harry wrote about this some years ago: in the age of the Internet, Organization will come to men whether they like it or not.

Sometimes the only way out is through.

I for one am not campaigning for a position…not General….not Captain….Never once did I say that or imply that.

I have been posting here for years. Longer than the current list of “columnists/writers”….I say my piece…I give my opinions and perspectives and ideas. I’m opinionated. Very opinionated. I can defend my opinions, perspectives, ideas quite well.

I know from what I heard back either here at MND or in emails that my ideas resonate. Guys relate. That’s good enough for me.

My ideas resonate so much so, with a few writers here (one mostly), that they wish to sell some of these ideas as their own as if they now have a patent on these ideas. LOL! Okay. BFD.

If I wanted to be a General or Captain I would be doing things differently.

But I’m in agreement with AngryHarry.

I for one won’t put my fate in the hands of those who want to have a place in history . I’ve become too cynical for that. I know I can save myself. Other men can save themselves. If my ideas resonate-good. Hope it helps. The culture is changing. Young men are turning their backs on marriage and they know why.

Revolutions don’t have to be loud. There doesn’t need to be formal organizations. Men are already coming together via the internet. MND has daily meetings and those that want to voice their opinion in these meetings do so. Thanks Mike.

Mike LaSalle & AngryHarry are the Generals.

To hell with the internet, we need to go back to quills and parchment.

The Declaration of Independence contains 1328 words.

The Constitution contains 4400 words.

Think about that for a while.

“MMX’s counterpoint is salient, if fatally idealistic”

Actually, you completely misread me.

My point is that being a man requires a SPIRITUAL conversion – after which you realize that you can do what needs to be done, become what you need to be, and succeed in any endeavor you truly attempt. Such a conversion can only be done ALONE. No one else can help you, and they can especially never do it for you.

Dr. Amneus’ book is a rejection of that necessary spiritual conversion. It’s a long list of reasons that such a conversion is impractical, impossible, and downright dangerous. It is the philosophical underpinning of the decision to reject one’s spiritual legacy as a man.

Hence, compared to a man who has undergone this spiritual conversion, both the book and any man who treasures it will fall significantly short.

These comments are definitely food for thought. Really good.

I would love more than anything to hear a run down of the men’s movement from the 70′s also.

I only get to hear the women’s side on this. These feminist women tell me that men were mean and that they would say, “Women should stay in the kitchen”.

Yet, I know from non feminist women that the feminists were a worry for them and they thought, “This can’t work” and now think, “OMG, they thought men were bad … they have seen nothing yet!”

And then others tell me that their mothers did want to work part time and their dads did want for them to have this choice yet the dads were treated badly by society if their wives worked. They were judged as incapable of being a provider and whispers would happen not just behind their backs but in front of them”.

There is revolution here.

Another thing I have heard is from feminists whose mothers were pioneers in the women’s collective as suffragettes.

They have told me that their mothers would say all these things about women can do anything but in the home they put the males including their brothers on high.

And that when they started the move, “Women can do anything” there was disagreement from women and mothers who believed it should have been, “Children can do anything”.

………

It is hard to really understand what happened when people who were witnesses of it are not the ones speaking up.

In my entire life I have not once seen a man resent or diminish what a woman has honestly achieved and earned. I have never seen a man afraid of a woman’s success that has been honestly achieved and earned.

I’ve known throughout my life a huge number of men who resent the multitude of unfair advantages and unfair “achievments” of women.

Me too, Denis.

I don’t know any men except the few online who want to treat women badly.

Most of the men I hear from and who have had enough strength to speak up in public are damn good men and fathers. They are soooooo awesome.

They don’t even mind learning about anger management. Truth is; I don’t mind learning about it either and I don’t know any women who thinks it is a bad idea for them to control their anger also.

The one thing I find is that men can be and are many, many times dragged into the FC after years of things working out well. I think it is about money most of the time.

It is as if the mother wants the father to sign an agreement to say she can collect taxes or a benefit for the children but the man is more than giving in that he continues to let the children decide any day, any time where they want to say.

Shared parenting is the new way and women are carefully calculating how best they can win instead of caring for the children.

You have no idea how many women I receive phone calls from that are just purely calculating a way to live off men.

And I have to say this. Feminists are furious now that men are speaking up. They are not furious at the men but at the women.

Oh but for all., I must speak up for single mothers also. I cannot just say women in general calculate.

Many single mothers are sucked into fear through women’s counselling. They are told to take the parenting issues to court because fathers have the RIGHT to pick their children up from school. It is that bad. Most have no idea how bad things are. Everything men speak up for,. women’s groups counter.

Lawyers tell women to say things against men just to make sure they are not left high and dry. I get complaints from women who don’t want to say the man abused them. The women feel coerced into saying things they don’t want to say. OK, this is rare but it exists.

Women are also complaining about women’s refuges hotline saying, “They told me they will send the police around to take my children off me if I don’t follow through”.

And if they even dare to contact the husband or father they DO lose their children as the women’s refuge directors are also the directors of Children’s services.

They go hand in hand.

Who said this?

Whether liberal or conservative, pro-feminist or antifeminist, black or white, religious or secular, American males in the late twentieth century were challenged by a world in which traditional gender roles had been thrown into flux. The causes were manifold: the Vietnam war raised doubts about the merits of men identifying themselves as protectors or warriors; a burgeoning feminist movement and changing structure of the business world challenged males’ perceptions of themselves as self-reliant individualists and providers; and the growing chasm between home and work and lessening of fathers’ contacts with their children as a result of divorce seriously impaired their roles as mentors and disciplinarians. Given such social solvents, many American males often appeared as missiles in search of a mission. But that they pursued different paths in their quest and arrived at different solutions should not detract from the fact they were engaged in a common enterprise.

Referencing my post #14 above, it has come to my attention that Hugo Schwyzer may have been influenced by a retired professor of History, one Edward L. Gambill.

Or it may be the other way around, as Professor Gambill’s book, The Uneasy Male: The American Men’s Movement, 1970-2000 was published in 2005 through iUniverse, and Hugo’s web post was published in June 2004.

Here’s a quote from the preface of Gambill’s book:

During the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the mass media perceived the men’s movement as primarily consisting of pro-feminist, men’s rights, or fathers’ rights groups. Sometimes touted as vanguards of a massive upheaval, such groups actually attracted only a small fraction of the membership found in feminist associations, had far less political influence, and constituted only a dim counterpart of the women’s movement in public consciousness. Other male ventures in the nineties
that were spiritual or religious endeavors had more participants, if sometimes only at the intellectual level, spawned more extensive media coverage, and left a more indelible public impression. However, the mythopoetic phenomenon epitomized by Robert Bly and Promise Keepers’ rallies launched by Bill McCartney waned almost as quickly as they arose.

Whatever the origin of the central idea, much of what Hugo posted about the historical roots of the “Men’s Movement” can be found in his book. You may glean this even from the chapter titles:

Chapter 1 Groundswell
Chapter 2 Nocm/Nomas
Chapter 3 Divorce Reform/Fathers’ Rights
Chapter 4 Men’s Rights/Unification
Chapter 5 Custody
Chapter 6 Support/Visitation
Chapter 7 Mythopoetic
Chapter 8 Promises
Chapter 9 Black
Chapter 10 In A Woman’s World
Chapter 11 Political Postscript

From what I have read so far, Dr. Gambill’s book is a very well constructed academic assertion. The monograph deserves significant deconstruction. Readers may expect a vigorous discussion next week.

Readers should also read Richard Doyle’s Save the Males for its profound insights and contrasts.

Amazon links available below:

The Uneasy Male: The American Men’s Movement, 1970-2000

Save the Males.

“But that they pursued different paths in their quest and arrived at different solutions should not detract from the fact they were engaged in a common enterprise.”

Does this imply that as long as Johnny, Phil, Tommy, Mark, Luke, Tyrone, Terrell, and Xavier all TRIED to hit the same target, then we ought to give them all the same amount of credit?

Or does this imply that we ought to evaluate each man’s attempt to see which (if any) are viable, and which (if any) are better-than-viable?

More fascinating history from Gambill (p.21):

Entertainment celebrities lent further credibility to the concept of gender transformation. Foremost among the Hollywood male proponents of a feminist revolution was Alan Alda, whose roles in television and the movies had already made him a household name. By the mid-seventies Alda had joined the National Commission on the Observance of the International Women’s Year, become a prominent spokesman for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, and was one of a small group of male contributors to Ms. magazine.6 Also occupying a prominent place in the feminist pantheon was television talk-show host Phil Donahue, who underwent a critical evaluation of his assumptions about gender roles after a divorce in which he received custody of his four sons. The process disengaged him from his staunch Irish Catholic upbringing and converted him into a strong supporter of feminism, a stance reflected in his daytime show and increased popularity among a largely female audience.7 Meanwhile, other celebrities were pushing the concept of gender role changes beyond the issue of equal rights; in performers such as Boy George and Michael Jackson some theorists saw a melding of the sexes and emergence of an androgynous society.

I remember all of this growing up in the 70s and 80s. I remember the Phil Donohue show in which he invited hetrosexual men wearing kilts to discuss their habits. He wore one himself, as I recall.

(Coincidentally, Boy George — now 46 — was just found guilty yesterday of “handcuffing a male escort to his bed and beating him with a metal chain as he tried to flee after a naked photo shoot.” Riiiight.)

Earlier, Gambill makes two critical observations regarding the history of the men’s movement:

If the dividing line between the factions [of the men's movement] was sometimes initially vague, the consequences were significant. One fork in the road led to unlimited support for women’s liberation; the other veered in the direction of men’s rights. (p.13)

As seen from the feminist (or pro-feminist) fork,

Since women were the primary victims of sexual oppression… they should be the focus of liberation. Men’s deprivations paled in comparison, and thus men “must give up more privileges first” before addressing such concerns. (p.20)

Thus it appears to me that the primary requirement of feminism is that “men must give up” power to women (and like it, buster).

(BTW – the modern version of the feminist archetype can be seen in Bernard Chapin’s post here, wherein woman are encouraged to use sex as a political spoil for pro-feminist Democrats.)

As it is, how can the true “Men’s Movement” support a social system that requires men to “give up” power to women? This just doesn’t make sense, and it reminds me distinctly of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, where anyone who is perceived to have advantage over anyone else must wear weights around their necks and glasses purposely designed to cause headaches!

The feminist archetype also requires men give up power in respect to reproductive rights.

Hummm.

David Usher makes an excellent point in his article, From California, With H8, published on MND 2008-11-14, to whit:

Same sex marriages are therefore not equivalent or similarly situated for the purpose of asserting an equal rights claim of action on which high courts could justify issuance of broad orders forcing states to perform or recognize “same sex marriage”. Rather, the above analysis suggests that courts must ban same sex marriage, on its face, to protect fundamental constitutional equal rights of men and women.

Same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it would create three inherently unequal classes of marriage. Feminism’s core demand — that men must give up power to women in matters of reproduction — is the very element (codified in the form of Roe v. Wade) that skews any presumption that each of these three classes of married people would have equal access to justice.

Just boggling.

MMX said,

Does this imply that as long as Johnny, Phil, Tommy, Mark, Luke, Tyrone, Terrell, and Xavier all TRIED to hit the same target, then we ought to give them all the same amount of credit?

Credit for what? For being there?

Sure, I’m happy to give Warren Farrell credit for being there, as does Dr. Gambill.

I don’t have to agree with Dr. Gambill’s conclusions or personal biases. But so far as I read it, his historiography is thoroughly researched and the monograph itself is of a high standard — as to be expected from a professional Historian.

Or does this imply that we ought to evaluate each man’s attempt to see which (if any) are viable, and which (if any) are better-than-viable?

I’m in agreement with you there. The old “encounter group” presentations employed by Warren Farrell was a 70s fad that has little relevance to me as I ponder these issues in 2008.

The history of the Men’s Movement is interesting to me objectively, but this “Movement” has no practical connection to me in day-to-day reality –except that it is a world-view that helps me interpret the environment I encounter from breakfast till night.

But any self-appointed and self-aggrandizing MRA “leader” is more than likely to celebrate himself as the masses of men he supposedly represented.

So say I.

Just keep it coming. This is great information. Everything makes sense.

I heard something last night that was interesting.

“The men and women are different today than the 70′s and 80′s. But it is the 70′s and 80′s people in a bubble making the decisions. They have been on a 30 year plan that is coming to fruition. But truth is … they are not really in touch with the people living in today’s environment”.

……..

BTW, I saw a movie/documentary type film on the Vietnam war. It was terrible what happened to the American soldiers and their allies. Some were even left behind without a care. And they were tortured and died terrible deaths. I can understand it being a major time for men to question things.

Oh, also … I think men have in the passed given up for women. I don’t think the giving up applies any more to the majority. The social environment has changed particularly in the last decade. …. Oh, that’s funny. It re minds me of people who don’t keep up to date with progress in their careers.

Maybe it IS time for a revolution.

With apologies for steering off subject, I thought the following link may be of interest.

Perhaps our messages ARE slowing getting out.

http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/

“The Men’s Experiences with Partner Aggression Project is a research study at Clark University and is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.”

“Denise A. Hines, Ph.D., Clark University Department of Psychology, is the lead researcher on this project. She is conducting this project in conjunction with Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D., Bridgewater State College Department of Social Work, and the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women.”

“Our goal is to better understand the experiences of men who are in relationships with women who use violence. Extensive research has shown that men are at risk for sustaining partner violence in their relationships, yet few studies have investigated their experiences, and there are few resources available to such men. This is an under-recognized problem in the United States, and by conducting this research project, we hope to provide much needed information on these men, their relationships, and their needs.”

“We are seeking men between the ages of 18 and 59 who have been involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship in which their female partners have used physical aggression against them (e.g., slapping, hitting, grabbing, pushing, punching, beating up, using a knife or gun, etc.) within the previous year. If this describes you and you are interested in participating, please click on the Click Here to Participate link in the left-hand column to access the online survey.”

Hopefully this will be “legitimate” research.

Mike LaSalle,
I appreciate your authorative analysis of various men/fathers rights activists and MRA and pseudo- MRA groups.
What is your opinion of this article “Feminist in chief”?
Nothing seems ever enough for feminist. It remainds of the old adage “If you give devil one finger he wants the whole hand” Link to the article.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped1208pollittdec08,0,4881068.story
Somehow the feminist positions Obama has taken—on reproductive rights, pay equity, domestic violence, Title IX—don’t seal the deal.

I read David Ushers article on same sex marriage. Yet what Mike LaSalle has written after has eluded me.

*********
Same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it would create three inherently unequal classes of marriage. Feminism’s core demand — that men must give up power to women in matters of reproduction — is the very element (codified in the form of Roe v. Wade) that skews any presumption that each of these three classes of married people would have equal access to justice.
********

I don’t understand what this means?

NZ has marriage for gays/lesbians. There next thing is for gays to adopt children and foster children as care givers.

I want to share this article with you.

Damn, I deleted it from my e-mail. It was the curriculum for high school children in America.

It is pre study for debate at school. Questions are asked like:

So when did you realise you were heterosexual? Who taught you this? Was it you parents or your environment?

Are you aware that hetro sexual men are the most rapists and that gay men are much safer to be around?

*** the questions go on and on like this. One mother complained and the English teacher who has to teach these youth said that they are intended to get students ready for University and to be thinking critically.

Personally, I kinda think that was the AIM behind feminist studies. The women were the glue to the family and they had to take the women away from their position to destroy the family.

They would not have conquered any other way. Men would not have forfeited their wives and children. They were too drawn to it. They were bred for it just as women were bred for child rearing. Just my opinion BTW.

It is all about divide and conquer. And to be honest if no-one made a fuss over homosexuality we would not have another gender war. We would not be so separate and hateful. Did you know the UN recognises 11 genders?

How on earth do you bring 11 different genders together for one true agenda?

We were not prepared for what really is going on. We are still not prepared.

Hey guys, if you want for me to post the curriculum for real … I can get it. I know which organisation sent it to me. But then maybe you already know.

Anyhow if it helps … just say you want it.

Re: My commment #57 above, to whit:

Same sex marriage is unconstitutional because it would create three inherently unequal classes of marriage. Feminism’s core demand — that men must give up power to women in matters of reproduction — is the very element (codified in the form of Roe v. Wade) that skews any presumption that each of these three classes of married people would have equal access to justice.

I would like to hear from David Usher on this. David, have I got this right in terms of your Amicus Brief?

The idea originated here in 2005:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/06/23/redoing-nature/

by
Denis

From Redoing Nature, 2005/06/23 at 9:36 AM

“She stated the issue succinctly when she said ‘Marriage is targeted for deconstruction’. It is. Same sex marriage is all about that AND much more. Gay marriage will not just be a fatal blow to marriage as it has been for 2000+ years. That is only ONE goal. The SECOND goal, after homosexuality is legally legitimized by same-sex marriage, is to further enshrine in law another protected ‘minority’ with extra protections, powers, and privileges. These will show up after same-sex marriage is adopted. I’m talking about the promotion of the gay agenda in schools (already being done in some states but without the legal backing same-sex marriage will provide), enforced affirmative action in corporations, government, and lawsuits against churches, to name only a few. The creation of a very powerful small group that the vast majority are hostage to. This is most ‘un-libertarian’. It can also be looked upon as the next phase of radical feminism and the general war on men. Most people have not linked the gay agenda to the Radfems so much of the anti-male efforts will be more stealth-like and therefore very dangerous to men. How many men today are versed in Family Law and thus have any idea whatsoever about how their rights and status as husbands and fathers has been virtually decimated? The Gay Agenda-Radfem political operatives have many many other things in store for hetero men. And you men won’t realize what has hit you until it is too late.”

“The goals of the same-sex advocates are much wider than most people realize.”

And also here in 2005:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/10/10/gay-marriage-the-new-willy-horton/

by
Denis

From Gay Marriage – The New Willy Horton, 2005/10/11 at 7:37 PM

“I realize that the high failure rate of marriages in America would imply that heterosexuals do not provide a good example for the institution. Destroying marriage and the family has been the goal of feminists for 40+years. It was done by taking legal rights away from one partner (the man/father)and giving more and more to the other partner (wife/mother). Incentives are provided to encourage divorce. Hostility between men and women is constantly being created via the media, the legal system, the government. As the center of gravity has shifted in marrigae(as a result of this radfem onslaught)from one man & one women to the government and the woman, the men, and there rights have been pushed aside and pushed back-way back. Gay marriage will put a nail in the coffin for any hope that heterosexual men can have equal standing in a marriage as a husband and father. This IS part of the radfem and gay agenda. I am willing to bet money that far more lesbians are pushing for same-sex marriage than the gay men.”

Has David moved the ball forward on this thinking?

Hi, Denis. Thank-you for your effort in this thread. Soooo, you figured this out in 2005. I had just discovered the Internet in 2005.

I really like this site. Everyone seems OK to discuss things that men knew 40 years ago for those of us that have been in the shadows.

MMX, thanx so much for your e-mail. I do try and read what is available online. I even try to lease the books at the library but we don’t have many of them. So, I can only learn most from what others discuss.

You guys are awesome.

20 years ago NZ was 20 years behind Australia. And Australia was behind the UK and America.

Now because of computers and the Internet and global business, NZ is on par with the rest or the world. Having a global movement well organised of feminism also means we are socially up to date.

But still. It takes effort to catch up. I learnt how to use the computer through study but I had no idea that there were sites like this where people discuss things and pass on information.

This is just wonderful. And even the people who are in the shadows and yet to learn are going to appreciate the effort all of you put into this.

Sometimes, I think I am speaking up publicly just to re affirm people’s ideals and learning. NZ is so much smaller than America.

I have to make a PUBLIC APOLOGY to all those who may have read my words and taken what I said as the truth.

I am referring to comment no: 62.

Have you ever read something quickly and made a mental note only to find that what you thought was said was not what you took as truth?

This is a big lesson for my credibility when I become a writer myself.

The question asked in high school are:

-What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

-When and how did you decide you were a heterosexual?

-Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

-Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

-Do your parents know that you are straight? Do your friends and/or roommate(s)know? How did they react?

-Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be who you are and keep it quiet?

-Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyles?

-A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. So you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?

-With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

-Statistics show that lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Is it really safe for a woman to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?

-Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

-Would you want your child to be heterosexual, knowing the problems that s/he would face?

I think I was wrong to brush off David Usher’s idea of a marriage movement so quickly.

I think I was wrong to not listen more.

And I think this picture is becoming very clear.