Requiem for Dr. Daniel Amneus

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?

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.

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!

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.