How to Stop Single Males from Gleefully Destroying the Republican Party
And 60% of Married Males Consider themselves to be Quasi-Single
On the eve of Election 2008, a woman came onto a Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) forum to say “I guess you guys can all give up now because it is clear the public does not agree with you.” She was referring to the ongoing Republican holocaust that started in 2006 and could easily extend into 2010 and 2012 if the Republican Party does not change.
I was stunned by the woman’s mistaken impression that American men had not influenced the election who were interested in their “rights” or at least “interests”. Apparently she had not noticed, for instance, that the Ron Paul Movement, that largely stayed home on election night, consisted mostly of young, single males who had at least a fuzzy sense that they were not being represented in Washington DC and that the Constitution was not being followed. Apparently she had not noticed that Bob Barr, also backed mainly by young single males, robbed John McCain of North Carolina and Indiana…two traditionally bright red states.
This woman was, however, correct that the part of the MRM that calls itself “the MRM” is often a little too cosy with and identifies itself too much with a Republican Party that clearly has to start pandering to single males or perish on the dustbin of history.
On Friday I received a newsletter from the National Organization of Women (NOW) with a link to their radical feminist agenda for 2009. Cleverly, these witches had put their plans for the unconstitutional victim-feminist oriented Violance Against Women Act (VAWA) at the bottom of the newsletter. They deviously left out any mention that their ideology connected “sex tourism” (defined as having sex in another country) and “mail order bride dating” (defined as dating a woman who might not be an American) to “sex trafficking”.
By placing their most vile anti-male agendas and ideologically driven definitions at the bottom of the newsletter, or leaving them out altogether, any young American male receiving the epistle would not know that the NOW considers it a top priority to have all men background checked before being allowed to say hello to all females online. They would not know that the NOW considers false abuse charges to be great tactical moves in what they want all women to believe is a war against men. Male readers would not know that NOW leaders like Kim Gandy consider feminism to be a zero sum game where men are always expected to take the short end of the stick in resolving any (manufactured) “problem” between men and women.
So what impression would young, single American males get from the NOW Newsletter?
Well, the newsletter brilliantly show-cased NOW’s desire to “Stop Abstinence Education Funding” and then described an apparent $183Million in unconstitutional federal funding, earmarked by Republicans, designed to tell mostly age-of-consent females not to sleep with males until marriage. The newsletter does not mention that this funding probably came via the annual Commerce Justice & Science appropriations bill HR 3093…the same bill that annually gives rabidly anti-male feminist “shelters” and groups more than $300Million via the unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Injustice.
Most of the single men reading their newsletter would obviously be infuriated that the Bush Administration used $183Million of their tax money per year to teach largely age-of-consent females to avoid dating males…especially via bogus claims such as “AIDs goes through condoms.” Anyone who believes that abstinence propaganda, as practiced by Bush neoconservatives, has not turned many young women into neurotic anti-male basket cases, hasn’t tried dating many Christian American women lately.
Why is it so obvious that single men would be infuriated at the Bush Administration upon learning this via the feminists?
Because, and don’t shoot the messenger for saying this, statistics show that the overwhelming majority of single men want premarital sex and even casual sex. Statistics show that 60% of married men want extra-marital sex. The national support by men for polygamy is probably far above the male support for gay marriage…not that anyone is bothering to survey what heterosexual men really want.
One does not build political power by telling a base that you represent the opposite of what they want.
So what rocket scientist in the Bush Administration and Republican Party decided to play up an anti-premarital-sex attitude that neither Nixon, Reagan or George H.W. Bush had dared to emphasize after the sexual revolution permanently changed the world?
The answer: Karl Rove did this because he got the wrong message from the reaction to Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewsinsky. Rove also felt that young single males would back the War on Terror fervently enough that the party’s social agenda could focus on winning and keeping older females. These aging baby boomer females, including the disgustingly anti-male Hillary Clinton supporters that McCain obsequiously courted, are, as in the days of Queen Victoria, intent on controlling the sex lives of male heterosexuals, especially those their own age who might be married to them.
In short, Karl Rove decided that the best constituents for the Republican Party would be those older women who would hate a man for sleeping with someone like Monica Lewinsky.
From interviews I conducted on many young American backpackers who traveled Europe this summer, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons why single male Americans said they liked Obama was because they were sick and tired of the “religion as politics agenda” of the right and the not-so-hidden agenda of wanting people punished for having sex.
These young men are determined to see the Republican Party become history.
How does the party stop this from happening?
Simple. The Republican Party must start saying “No” to any more references to male heterosexual behavior as evil. Even with behavior that is bad, the Republican Party does not have to consider itself obligated to fret about it more than anyone else. No male voted for Bush in 2004 because he wanted more sex police.
The Republican Party must completely accept the agenda of the traditional MRM, published every day at sites like Mens News Daily, MediaRadar.org and OnlineDatingRights dot com. The party needs to concentrate on punishing women and women’s shelters for false rape and abuse charges and oppose the current trend to think of prostitutes and strippers as being victims of men who need to be taxed or arrested for wanting to “exploit them”. Police sex stings need to stop. The party needs to openly humiliate the Democrats for implying that dating women in other countries is “sex tourism” and “sex trafficking” by definition. The Republican Party, representing males, should lead the charge to pare down any national sex offender registry so it removes any man who was charged by a feminist who simply “regretted” sleeping with him, as well as any men who had mooned a police officer or streaked at a baseball game or had been caught having sex with another adult in the backseat of a car or other secluded area…or anyone who would not be on the sex offender list if they had done the same activity in another state or if the partner had told the truth about her age.
Republicans need to understand, as the conservative Supreme Court justices certainly do, that stalking is a subject that radical feminists get to define and exploit to the detriment of men. The now-ubiquitous “Restraining Order” has made the USA hazardous to live in (and especially be married in)…because of the fact that neocon Republicans and feminists revel in the idea of having a National Stalker Registry that can brand innocent men for life who may have just wanted to have the last word in a verbal argument.
Just about every American man I meet in person agrees that the Republican Party needs to do most of the above immediately if it wants to survive.
The party really needs to say “We value men and women who value men as our core constituents”.
In addition, it would help get male votes if the Republican Party’s Pro-Life affiliates openly stated that their real agenda is not punishing everyone for having sex out of wedlock. Because they do not state this, they are not trusted by men and women alike.
I would also highly advise the Republican Party to recognize that American men would not have hated a president that they liked if he had fooled around with Monica Lewinsky and told the truth about it.
If Clinton had said “Hillary and I are different people and we are getting a divorce”, he’d be popular with men now. If Clinton had not tried to bed women by giving the feminists everything they wanted, he would be seen by more conservative men in a better light than they see him now.
American managers want the option of sleeping with coworkers.
A US business executive recently told me “I really didn’t want to vote for the leftist Obama but the fact that I sometimes have an affair with an employee forces me to try to avoid the Republican vengeance machine”.
In other words, he wants to avoid voting for the party that considers Hillary to be a victim of Bill.
He sees the Republican Party as the “Avenge our dear Hillary Party”.
Think about that.
What upset a lot of American men about the incorrect view Fox News took of the Monica Case, is that every anti-feminist knows that the main tenet of Marxist feminism is that relationships should not be unequal…that employers and college professors should not date their employees and adult students.
Men in Europe, Russia, the Middle East and Asia are NOT willing to give this up and, indeed, I know American college professors who teach in Europe so they can have affairs with their adult students….something that would leave these brilliant men terminated and impoverished at home in the USA.
Even it if holds to a mild “sex is better after marriage” mantra, which I do NOT recommend talking about if politicians want the male vote back, I would advise the Republican Party to shy away from Marxism if it wants to survive.
| More from Jim Peterson
Stumble It!
December 8th, 2008 at 6:04 am
“From interviews I conducted on many young American backpackers who traveled Europe this summer, the #1, #2 and #3 reasons why single male Americans said they liked Obama was because they were sick and tired of the “religion as politics agenda†of the right and the not-so-hidden agenda of wanting people punished for having sex.”
With respect to whatever polling skills you may possess I’m gonna need a lot more data to draw conclusions here beyond the opinions of “many young backpackers”.
The fact is there is NO “religion as politics” agenda and there is NO “not-so-hidden agenda of wanting people punished for having sex”. Maybe some religious leaders hold this view-and maybe some lobby politicians. That’s no different than anybody else wanting to influence the government. But I fail to see much influence getting enacted into law.
Where the “F” is that in the GOP Platform? Other than religious leaders themselves (who are also rarely given much public media attention other than one of them is caught being a hypocrite)I have never heard of the GOP espousing the points you state.
“A US business executive recently told me “I really didn’t want to vote for the leftist Obama but the fact that I sometimes have an affair with an employee forces me to try to avoid the Republican vengeance machineâ€.”
Are you freaking kidding me?!! This is relevant? BFD-An executive votes for Obama because he wants to f*** an employee?
Your premises here are ridiculous.
There is no point for males-young or old-to support either the GOP or the Democrats. They should vote in ways that, when possible, can strategically limit the damage one party or the other plans on doing to them.
I’m not a defnder of the GOP-they are f-ing idiots.
Having irrational fears that the GOP is gonna go after them for having sex or gonna go after them for f***ing an employee is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all year.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Jim does in my viewpoint have a point. That is the Anti Heterosexual War on Men by the GOP, must stop. Or they simply will find that Men have no incentives to vote for the GOP again. This is a War on Male sexual attraction toward Straight Females. It is an attempt to criminalize male behavior.
Funny thing there is no equivalent when Women prey on minor males. No demands by the GOP that those “Wicked Women” be taken out to the Wood Shed, and punished. Quite the contrary. Only Men are held accountable. Republican hypocrisy is obvious.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:06 am
The War on Heterosexual Men is being waged by both parties.
The GOP has the chivalrists.
The Democrats have the Manginas.
This is old news.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Beside the fact that the success of the porn industry validates my observations that most American single males think like I described (but may still vote Republican because the alternative remains horrendous), my interviewing skills are very good and I feel I can better extrapolate real life discussions with Americans toward my understanding the “national mood” than if I tried to extrapolate my experiences of reading blogs and comments of others online toward understanding “reality”.
For instance, in real life there is a lot more resistance to feminists than online. The MRM is somehow not yet tapping the general hostility to feminists.
And I believe that this is partly because, although the “official MRM” recognizes the ill effects of Republican Chivalry, we don’t explore just how deep the resentment of Republican chivalry really is among average males, especially in terms of putting women on a sexual pedestal and wanting to “protect” them.
Every blog seems to have a certain “clientele”. The people one meets in real life better represent the average person…I guess I tend to meet upper middle class types (mainly not “backpackers”) who are on business or vacation in Europe.
I stand by my observation that Obama won because young and middle aged single males, including a large percentage of US servicemen and women, were sick and tired of the Republican version of the Social Nanny State that Bush set up with the help of 8000 administration employees, many of whom were ueber-chivalrous religious freaks or had otherwise had a neoconservatie big government attitude.
The mention of federally funded Adult Abstinence programs tends to make men’s blood boil even more than it does when we talk about the $300+ Million per year for the Office on Violence Against Women.
Both Reps and Dems are selling men out in Congress via these large earmarked omnibus bills.
The existence of federally funded adult absitence education, especially as part of $183Million per year of federal taxpayer money, says that the evangelist preachers, many of them total hypocrites in their personal lives, had more than just the ear of Republican politicians. My next article will be about the corruption involved where groups give money to politicians for their campaigns and they get repaid in programs that are designed to fix “problems” that, regardless of whether the greedy group is feminist or evangelist, are always designed to regulate male heterosexuality or propagandize against it.
Social conservative males can get along with the rest of us males very easily.
They only have to think of Reagan and Goldwater and the right of men to be free of government regulation of both their business lives and their social lives.
YES…Republican Chivalrists joined the Manginas to make dating employees and adult college students an offense that could get men fired and sued for horrendous amounts of money.
I left the USA partly because I had owned a company where two gorgeous secretaries wanted to sleep with me and I did not feel comfortable doing so.
I figured that one only lives once and the rest of my career would be in cultures where I could do that if I wanted to (whether I am personally happy in a relationship now is beside the point).
I guess it hasn’t been discussed much in MRA circles but the average American and European man on the street, when asked what the main problem of feminism is, almost always mentions the feminist attempts to stop men from dating employees and adult students in colleges.
It is a big deal and Republican politicians were on the side of men against feminism in the 1980s…only to completely fold and join the other side when Ken Starr outrageously investigated Monica Lewinsky in 1998. Monica should have kept her mouth shut which was her legal right, unless she was trading sex for Clinton’s cooperation on legislation.
Sure…conservative males hated to see this liberal mangina of a President sell the rest of us down the river in order to get laid. But if he hadn’t sold men and the country down the river, what he did with a 23 year old intern was a man’s prerogative…or at least most men thought so until 1998 made it so both political parties talked PC on the subject.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Many top members of the Bush Administration were like Karen Czarnecki, at the Department of Labor in charge of the 21st Century Workplace, who is a vile radical feminist. Just Google her name and “feminism”.
Karen should have been removed from office for her regular appearances on NPR where she joined a feminist cabal once per week over the past few years in order to attack men for normal behavior.
Why did Bush put someone like that in charge of helping to shape the “workplace”?
Because he is a mangina, but only half as bad as Biden.
Since when is there supposed to be a federal position that tries to regulate or influence corporate workplace environments?
You can bet Karen strengthened sex harrassment laws to an extent that we, as yet, don’t even know about.
Meanwhile…take a look at TV programs like Dr. House where men commit what in real life would be considered “sex harrassment” all the time.
These progams are now like a fantasy because they show men doing what would be punishable in court in real life.
Hollywood is actually fighting back by giving men, on a few irreverant non-PC TV shows, much of the freedom of speech that they would want in real life…but which they no longer have in real life.
Dr. House taps into the reality of how men think. The Republican politicians join the Democrat politicians in trying to force men to behave or stay silent against their nature.
December 8th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“Beside the fact that the success of the porn industry validates my observations that most American single males think like I described (but may still vote Republican because the alternative remains horrendous), my interviewing skills are very good and I feel I can better extrapolate real life discussions with Americans toward my understanding the “national mood†than if I tried to extrapolate my experiences of reading blogs and comments of others online toward understanding “realityâ€.”
Ahhh. sure.
The only thing that the success of the porn industry validates is that a whole lot of people are’nt having very much good sex. They are alone and/or isolated either outside a relationship or inside one. Porn is a poor substitute for the real thing if the real thing is good.
Extrapolating the popularity of porn to support your claims as to how single American males think is to think like a liberal Constitutional jurist-creating what does not exist out of whole-cloth.
It does’nt take much for you to “know” you are “right” does it?
“I guess it hasn’t been discussed much in MRA circles but the average American and European man on the street, when asked what the main problem of feminism is, almost always mentions the feminist attempts to stop men from dating employees and adult students in colleges.”
So that is what the average American and European “man on the street” says is the main problem of feminism eh? You have been busy I guess to be able to get enough input to be able to say what not only the average American male thinks but also what the average European male thinks.
Funny. I don’t know many men who have problems dating employees or adult students in colleges. I do know men who have problems dating bitches on the job or bitches in college though. The reality is that neither place is ideal for meeting women for dating purposes. Women in college are career oriented and so are many women at work. But I’ve been a proponent of the idea (for a very long time) that the majority of American women are “damaged goods” anyways. Damaged by the influences of feminism whether in the media, the schools, by the courts, by the sense of entitlement created by the government and the lap-dog politicians….on and on. Now THOSE are good reasons to leave America-not the problem of not wanting to have sex with “two gorgeous women who want to sleep with you”. LOL!
“The Republican politicians join the Democrat politicians in trying to force men to behave or stay silent against their nature.”
Ahhh yea. This has been true for a very long time. Long long before George W. Bush.
GWB will be remembered for keeping America safe after the 911 attacks. That is the best he can hope for. Maybe Roberts and Alito too.
There are a lot more negatives however. Big Government. Wanting to be a better version of liberalism. Katrina. He’ll get blamed for the financial crisis. Not being able to lead effectively. Alienating his base. There’s more.
But:
“not-so-hidden agenda of wanting people punished for having sexâ€.
and..
“the fact that I sometimes have an affair with an employee forces me to try to avoid the Republican vengeance machineâ€.
…are not even issues and are not even on the radar.
(except for the irrationally paranoid and those who really think having to have an affair with an employee is really an important matter).
(Sexual Harrassment Laws are a Democratic creation-but like everything else the GOP goes along. The “vengeance machine was also created by the Democrats.)
December 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Hi Denis,
In the 1980s, the issue of “sexual harrassment” was the #1 men’s right issue as I remember (in the 1990s, the #1 issue was “stalking”. At the time, relationships with coworkers and students were still not under attack. The Marxist feminists were only going after “positions of authority”. Men resisted, especially the men in authority in Congress.
But that resistance is long, long gone. Connie Hair made sure of that when, in 1998, she convinced the impressionable Jim Robinson at FreeRepublic to turn the grass-roots conservative movement into a vengeance machine against Bill Clinton for cheating on the “innocent” Hillary. Fox News then picked up on this and American men now live in a Marxist sex police state where even coworkers and classmates are off-limits and you better not even get porn spam in your inbox if they can see your computer.
Hillary supporters were able to heavily infiltrate the Republican Party because of their fury over Bill and Monica. They were welcomed with open arms as long as they pretended to be conservative. They were welcomed even more after 9-11 when they called for the balls of every male chauvinistic Muslim male.
Anyway…
I was not saying that relationships with employees was now a major men’s rights issue…but that it once was before the feminists made so much headway…and, for men living in Europe, it still is a considerable issue because WE ARE STILL ABLE TO DO IT without being sued.
In effect, what you just said would be like ridiculing a Russian who was mad that Napoleon had captured Borodino when Moscow was already in flames. Except, from the point of view of a European man or American living in Europe, Moscow is not yet in flames.
About pornography…most men have nothing bad to say about it and its use DOES help portray just how ingrained premarital sex is to the majority of American males. I think it backs up the otherwise questionable statistics that 60% of married men cheat on their wives (and probably do not want to vote for a party that wants vengeance against them for that – both parties do of course).
The MRM does not have to defend pornographers, however, because they have plenty of money to defend themselves.
They always get instant restraining orders, for instance even on attempts to force the actors to wear condoms.
I note also that the porn guys will not help us!
The editor of Hustler told me that “the jerks who constitute our readership don’t care about legal issues”. I think he was lying on that. I think he wants to maintain a tenous alliance with feminists and will avoid us for that reason.
Anyway, your confrontational style is healthy because nobody should hold any article to be sacrosanct. Be sure to question Marc Rudov’s premises in the same manner.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:28 am
especially via bogus claims such as “AIDs goes through condoms.â€
Who said the virus “goes through condoms”? Ever heard of a broken condom? One of my children is a “broken rubber” baby, and another is a “broken rubber/pill failure” baby. This argument of yours is so specious it defies rationality.
Anyone who believes that abstinence propaganda, as practiced by Bush neoconservatives, has not turned many young women into neurotic anti-male basket cases, hasn’t tried dating many Christian American women lately.
This is even nuttier than your last statement. Of course you can’t have pre-marital sex with a Christian woman. Do you not know what being a Christian means? And you blame Bush for you not being able to nail a good girl?
Your vitriol most definitely does not help the MRM.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:12 am
[...] 9, 2008 by J. Tobias Reuel Apparently the Male-Rights Movement doesn’t think the GOP is giving them enough freedom to have promiscuous, accountability-free [...]
December 9th, 2008 at 6:18 am
The main reason why you see MRAs dating foreign women is because too many Americans get indoctrinated by federal programs and it does not matter if that indoctrination is left wing feminism or right wing feminism (I-don’t-need-men puritanism for instance).
There is nothing wrong with a traditional virginal woman as long as she was raised in a decent community and doesn’t fear and loathe males the way too many Republican-Christian communities indoctrinate the she-folk to do. I won’t even start on the American book “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”.
Abstinence Education Programs are not something an MRA has to argue in favor of. It is not a man’s right to have the federal government fund that sort of thing. It is a conservative principle to do away with all federal programs that touch on issues that the US Constitution mean to be states issues.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I seem to have angered a Romney 2012 supporter:
http://politiwatch.wordpress.com/
This guy has his head totally in the sand about the American electorate and NEVER would have lifted a finger to help MRAs on any issue, especially the Violence Against Women Act, regardless of what I just said.
I never met a Romney fanatic who cared about the US Constitution. Obama would have had a 47 state win against that guy.
The ONLY way for the Republican Party to win again is if it promotes following the Constitution, not “Family Values”. The MRM can win touting the Constitution as well. It is our only hope.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Jim – in this article you are leading a schism between MRAs and conservatives.
I don’t think that is a good idea. I prefer to emphasize commonality with conservatives over confrontation.
I think most MRAs acknowledge that many conservative American men tend to idealize women — beginning with mom.
This tendency is reinforced by the natural protective instincts of men, as well as socially-conditioned customs like chivalry.
But I think there is a fundamental moral problem in turning people into icons — including mom.
Women are not Icons.
Conservative Republican men around the country know in their hearts that this is true: women are special. And therefore we give them a pass.
But I can’t do that. On principle.
So we have the stuff of a schism.
What’s the point of stirring that up?
December 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
You make a point that one should not thumb the socons in general as long as Dave Usher thinks the Heritage Foundation might finally get with the program of giving men their rights back. But that Romney guy was no conservative. I got into Internet arguments with Nanny State Romney people all last year. Romney people believe in maintaining government programs and he thankfully has zero chance of winning back any following or having influence on any legislation.
It is a major conservative principle that you do NOT get the federal government in states rights issues. In order to defeat VAWA, we have to drive that home. It is our only defense against VAWA. Dave Usher, Marc Rudov and Glenn Sacks would back me up on that point I am sure.
So the part about Bush’s strange federal spending on things like Adult Abstinence Programs and (what I did not mention) Faith Based Initiatives are not conservative and, frankly, most conservatives know that and discuss it.
Marc Rudov makes a point of telling Fox News audiences that 60% of married men cheat on their wives so maybe they should not be married in the first place.
Also, Glenn Sacks regularly discusses the injustices of innocent men getting on the Offender Registries and Marc Rudov discusses how men end up in the registries due to false accusations.
Furthermore, both Glenn and Marc constantly imply that men constantly engage in pre-marital sex and need to be protected from the frauds and injustices that can result from their having innocently done so.
Everyone constantly derides both Republican and Democrat politicians for letting us down and the misguided chivalry issue is mentioned several times a week in practically everything an MRA writes.
The schism was only highlighted above because I said that the Republican Party might want to consider changing its focus on social conservatives and focussing instead on single males.
I maintain that they would get more voters.
I was very surprised to see two people above seem to get upset that I suggested that an unconstitutional federal government spending program be removed in keeping with our desire to remove federal funding for feminist organizations.
In real life I never meet men who would feel that the feminists should be defunded while church organizations get more funding. Better to get government out of our lives from the left and the right.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“I was very surprised to see two people above seem to get upset that I suggested that an unconstitutional federal government spending program be removed in keeping with our desire to remove federal funding for feminist organizations.”
I might be surprised also if I could see which “two people above” you are referring to.
Who is upset that you “suggested that an unconstitutional federal government spending program be removed”?
I’m mainly curious because a common issue I seem to have with your writing is that you make generalizations without having sufficient convincing proof or having a strong enough rationalization.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Mike said:
Conservative Republican men around the country know in their hearts that this is true: women are special. And therefore we give them a pass.
This is not really accurate. Yes, real men have a part of themselves that needs to protect the one’s they love. We are the hunters, and if we’re not, we don’t thrive.
But it seems to me the men you’re talking about are not these men. You’re talking about men who a whipped – i.e. wusses. The one’s who will do anything (including debasing themselves) to get laid.
There are most definitely contingencies of these in some churches (who are convinced this is what they’re supposed to be like). These men have poor self images and are exceedingly grateful their women deigned to lower themselves to their levels. I know a preacher who is married to the ugliest woman I have ever seen, and he considers himself really lucky. He will do absolutely anything she wants. Arguing with him that this is not biblical is a waste of time. He is not the head of the household, and the Bible says he is supposed to be. It is better for him to be the boss (for him and also his family).
I’m not sure we will ever get these guys to understand what we are talking about. We may be able to get them to see some of the obvious wrongs (maybe), but they’ll never, ever be on our side. I think the best we can do is to keep them from being actively opposed to us. Besides, I think the vast majority of American men are no more than mildly misguided, and these we can easily convince. But we could also easily drive them away.
I know exactly what it’s like for most of these guys. I was raised in the sixties and seventies, and was taught that women wanted “sensitive” men. It wasn’t until my mid-thirties that I learned the truth (the hard way). Most of our lack of support is from men who are exactly like I was. If I can be re-educated, so can most of them.
We can reach them. Or we can drive them away.
Understand what I’m saying, Jim?
December 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The Romney guy is having a civil conversation on the matter now. Someone else showed up and said I wrote a good article:
http://politiwatch.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/new-gop-strategy-pander-to-horndogs/#comment-18
December 9th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hi Denis,
It is hardly in question that most single men want premarital sex. What other seeming generalizations have I made in any recent article?
Do you see any issues with Marc Rudov’s articles? You know that he constantly reminds even Fox News viewers that most married men cheat.
It was not necessary for me to even bother saying I interviewed anyone. I only said that because most people understand that I do NOT live inside the USA and, therefore, you could say that my understanding of the new American reality might be limited for THAT reason.
Most would say I have a very good handle on American politics after fighting IMBRA for 2.5 years.
We made a legal breakthrough on IMBRA today that I cannot talk about now.
It is well within journalist integrity to use anecdotal evidence although one must be fair and show the other side.
Having a comment section showed a lot of fairness on that end.
Squiggy,
Yes. I constantly tell men not to ever sell themselves out to women. But I would answer the “is chivalry necessary” different than Marc Rudov did on Laura Ingraham’s show.
I believe that chivalry should be a man’s choice and not mandated by a government.
Women love it when you are chivalrous to them.
I would give my life for my girlfriend.
But I will completely refuse to be background checked under IMBRA and VAWA if she immigrates to the USA.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Denis: Everyone knows that conservative males are split between libertarian Republicans and socons. By saying this, I am not making a bad generalization nor does it necessarily require links or backup as few journalists would feel the need to have to do that.
I could get the statistics but, as Mike said, there is a schism in the Republican Party and the question is whether we talk about it…or do we let it fester as we lose the 2010 and 2012 elections.
I certainly won’t accept a socon presidential candidate in 2012. It will have to be someone like Reagan or Nixon, the type of Republican President I grew up with.
I am sure you know Marc Rudov regularly says that 60% of married men are cheating and so they are probably not all that happy. Will you say you have a problem with his writing and his generalizations?
The 2008 election showed that conservative young single males stayed home. Sure, many of them were MRAs but most were thinking of issues like Bush’s religious initiatives and the feeling he did not care about the Constitution. Sure, many were even socons who did not like McCain anymore than libertarian Republicans did. You have the right to disagree with my observations on what they told me online and offline were the reasons on why they stayed home. But I was the one who was talking with them.
Squiggy: the people we have to reach out to should be the largest collection of potential MRAs.
I don’t see chivalrous socon males as a large target base to go after, but I am good at convincing them myself regarding things like IMBRA and VAWA.
If Mike or Bernie want to only go after socon males at MND, that would be fine. But Marc Rudov and Glenn Sacks are far from socons themselves and I have never seen the MRM as being a socon movement.
I just got a legal breakthrough agreement on IMBRA going today…so I might not have to work so hard in the future.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Women love it when you are chivalrous to them.
I would give my life for my girlfriend.
But I will completely refuse to be background checked under IMBRA and VAWA if she immigrates to the USA.
Head of household means being the boss. That’s what I have been talking about.
Define chivalry. If you mean opening the car door, I guess that’s fine, though you can take that way too far. If she starts to expect it, you blew it.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
In a sexually focused culture and a large, rich, feminized government, women win, men lose.
I feminist male friend of mine observed that in America women have all the power because they own all the pu$$y, However crude, he suspect that he is correct.
In the 1960’s during the sexual revolution, women rights grew more powerful, while men’s rights have been erased.
Today a guy does not even have to commit a crime to get sent to prison – he may only mention it or look at a picture, etc. Guy will lose 18 years of income, children, personal property and a home, because he got angry when he walked in on his wife having sex with her co-worker. We’ll, everyone will say, he had it coming…she felt afraid.
I suspect that If tomorrow all men stopped lusting, women would lose.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Neither major political party represents the MRA’s. The reason is simple, mens rights advocates have failed to effectively organize. If a political candidate knew he had to give recognition to the issues MRA’s favor or he would not get elected or keep his job once elected, then you would see a significant change. At present they, elected leaders, have nothing to fear for supporting unlawful, unconstitutional and just plain wrong goals of feminism, liberalism and the immoral desires of those that hate men and society as a whole. Infact, these “fringe groups” , feminist, homosexual, liberals and other groups who represent something other than behavior most decent people exhibit, have way too much influence. These groups, are by percentage of the population, very small. Homosexuals are only three percent and the rabid feminist only a few percent more.
The MRA’s and other decent people outnumber them a thousand to one. With effective organization, we can turn this country around. We can wake up one day, and we truly do have equality. WE truly will have a healthy economy. WE will have a country that is a great place to live and is getting better.
We will still have the “deviats” they just won’t be controling anything anymore. Decent people who are socially,legally and morally responsible will be in charge. The deviats will be allowed to live the life syle they choose, they just won’t be allowed to force it on everyone else.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
*Define chivalry. If you mean opening the car door, I guess that’s fine, though you can take that way too far.*
Chivalry is something, which shows a self-sacrificial admiration for a specific woman, that a man must decide for himself, not have the government or others decide for him. A man should have the right to stop showing this chivalry at a moment’s notice. No woman earns the right to its continuance.
That should be one of the top 5 mantras of the MRM.
A man has the right to stop showing such chivalry any time he feels the specific woman does not deserve it anymore.
VAWA, IMBRA and other laws are the government deciding FOR US, how chivalrous we have to be. VAWA says a man has to continue showing chivalry to a specific woman long after he has decided she no longer deserves it.
1) So we are expected to marry women knowing VAWA has not been overturned? Hell no.
2) So we are expected to submit to background checks to say hello to women because we have nothing in our pasts but maybe some serial killer will try to meet a woman? Hell no.
But on standing in the presence of a woman in a social situation…that actually reaffirms the patriarchy and I am all for that…as long as it remains the decision of any given male to be that way or not (when it is expected, the man loses his right to decide for himself).
We all know the theories of Marc Rudov. His interview with Laura Ingraham turned ugly when he completely rejected the entire idea of chivarly. But IMHO, individual males can still be seen as gentlemen without selling out other males, ignoring red flags or selling out their own desires to be PC.
So, for instance, if I am on a date with an American woman, I will stand up when she stands and pull out her chair, but if she shows me a red flag by telling me the last man she dated acted rude when she tried to break the date at the last second saying “this isn’t going to work”…I am going to tell her that it wasn’t nice of her to call the guy up at the last second to say that (this really happened on a date in Manhattan 5 years ago).
On the same date, if I would rather do the waitress across the table rather than the lawyer seated across from me at the table, then I will politely not pursue a relationship with the lawyer, whether she is a feminist or not.
I also think it is overly chivalrous to date one’s own age if there are more desirable adult women available and willing.
A man should quickly find out how a woman has treated other men and recognize that she will treat him the same way if he doesn’t ask her how her thoughts of the previous man might someday affect him.
Back to chivalry: Society expects men to walk on the side where road traffic is most likely to clip someone. When a fight with flying glass broke out once on a street in Hoboken, I automatically pushed the woman I was with to the side and shielded her with my body. She appreciated that her date was willing to risk injury to protect her WITHOUT getting into the fight itself in order to do that.
If the Mumbai attacks had occured while I was eating with a woman at the Taj Mahal, I hope I would not have hidden behind her but, rather, shielded her or pulled her quickly with me out of the line of fire.
Having said I would shield a woman with my body, I am not a fan of the idea that a man should enter into a fight with another man to “defend her honor”. I did that once when I was 19 and the woman, a neighbor, did not even bother going to the hospital with me to get a scar stitched up afterwards. She said she wanted to dance. When she got older she wanted to marry me. I said no.
The MRM needs to concentrate on making very sure that every man knows not to fight other men about a woman, unless she is really in danger from a maniac. So, for instance, Joe Biden has no business fighting the MRM.
*In the 1960’s during the sexual revolution, women rights grew more powerful, while men’s rights have been erased.*
But it was men who led the Sexual Revolution.
I would lead an army into battle over it. Would anyone hear fight with machine guns on the other side?
Our troops in Iraq have fought pitched battles with Al Qaeda who wanted to stop the Americans from buying local Iraqi pornography.
So US troops are fighting those who would enforce the idea that premarital sex is bad.
Hugh Hefner and the men who liked Bettie Page’s pinups finally said “Enough is Enough” to the culture of sexual repression of Males.
The feminists cooperated at the time.
This idea that the sexual revolution was a bad thing is a theory that most men would disagree with, not out of chivalry but by their own interest.
Remember that 60% of married men cheat on their wives.
This fits what scientists say is the natural desire of males to be polygamous. Scientists say that ugly and poor males would disagree with this and good looking and rich men would agree with it.
If a man is angry that a woman cuckolded him in the past…he needs to understand that many alpha males stand ready to help women cuckold their husbands while it is alpha men, if any, who are going to win the fight against feminists.
So the MRM must not argue about whether the sexual revolution was right or wring. As with the Republican Party, the opinion has to remain neutral.
It is not an MRM issue that we all agree to leave each other’s wives alone…although it certainly wouldn’t be a very good idea to say its fair game either.
Aside from the men who might be insecure about losing their own women to other men, it is mostly women, as they grow older, who oppose sexual liberty…polygamy. Men tend to want lots of women while women tend to want only one man.
Before Christianity, most societies involved polygamy where richer men had all the wives and tons of poor men had to go without women at all (kind of like men in terrorist societies now).
Christianity was sexually Marxist in that it tried to get richer men to take just one and leave some for the poorer men. Since it isn’t natural for richer men to want to do that nor for men to promote monogamy, the richer Roman men fed Christian “Marxists” to the lions and alpha males have spent 2000 years fighting religously PC males on this subject and other matters of dogma. The French solved the problem via their current mistress culture. American males solved the problem via the Sexual Revolution, which I maintain was a male sea change in thinking (remember the “what sort of man reads Playboy” ad campaign) that needed women to cooperate on.
IMHO, it is chivalrous and putting women on a pedestal to say they should be virgins to other men. Now I prefer to date virgins myself, but I do not want them to be virgins when I am finished dating them. It is no business of the Republican Party, let alone the MRM, to get involved in regulating dating behavior either by law or by pressure.
The main writers for the MRM seem to be saying the opposite of this anti-sexual revolution creed. I can see Glenn Sacks and Marc Rudov agreeing that the sexual revolution took women off the pedestal they had been on and is the only thing the feminists have done RIGHT. But let them tell you that themselves. Ask them. Let them directly take on the subject of whether MRAs should be bad-mouthing the sexual revolution.
Marv Rudov has stated he likes isn’t into marriage but premarital sex. In addition, you can find an article or two where he is OK with abortion because it can save a man a lifetime of child support. From what I understand, he is against Roe vs Wade because it does not give the MAN the right to decide not to be a father. You won’t see him say that he thinks a woman should have a baby and RAISE it herself after casual sex with a man who doesn’t want one.
Of course he can change as he turns 54 and sticks with one woman. That does not mean younger men will change until they are his age.
The theory that the sexual revolution of the 60s is responsible for the wrongward turn in the feminist movement of the 80s…is not going to be popular among MRAs much less men in general.
My theory is that the feminists went wrong in the 80s when they noticed that the men they were sleeping with were dumping them for younger sexually active women. That was the problem of the older women, not the men, who were enjoying themselves as men should be allowed to.
You can say that the 1980s anti-male turn in the feminist movement could have predicted as the free-loving young women grew older and saw themselves replaced by younger women…but men should not go back to a Victorian style society simply because it makes the older women happy and more secure.
Glenn Sacks constantly slams those who would criticize the sexual life of a heterosexual man.
I really don’t have anything in common with a man who would want to take my right to premarital sex away or try to convince women not to have premarital sex with me or other single males.
*Neither major political party represents the MRA’s. The reason is simple, mens rights advocates have failed to effectively organize.*
We will not WANT to organize if half of us are against premarital sex and the vast majority of males notices this. I have long known this to tbe the main problem with the MRM getting its act together.
I cannot see anyone funding a movement that rejects chivalry and premarital sex at the same time. This is because most people see the opposition of a man to premarital sex as a great sacrifice which represents the ultimate chivalry (misguided IMHO).
Heck…IMBRA makes some MRAs feel nervous because they associate dating foreign women with sex tourism (IMBRA is about regulating all men in terms of communicating with all women…but some guys just see it about having sex in Paris).
I cannot stand anyone who, having already stuck his neck out on VAWA and other anti-feminist issues, would be hesitant to criticize IMBRA because he might look like he is promoting sex tourism.
*If a political candidate knew he had to give recognition to the issues MRA’s favor or he would not get elected or keep his job once elected, then you would see a significant change.*
Correct. But any politician reading Marc Rudov and Glenn Sacks would see one person praising Sarah Palin while the other defends male sexual behavior.
Any politician reading this would see that my insistence that the Republican Party is doomed if it continues to promote abstinence…met with some opposition from some regular MND readers.
So a Republican politician might make the mistake of continuing down the road to ruin.
There is no consistency of message in the MRM.
*At present they, elected leaders, have nothing to fear for supporting unlawful, unconstitutional and just plain wrong goals of feminism, liberalism and the immoral desires of those that hate men and society as a whole.*
It depends what you mean by “immoral desires”.
Do you mean we should tax strip club patrons (a major MRM issue that Glenn Sacks discussed was anti-male)?
Premarital sex is constitutional. I agree with the NOW to end all federally funded abstinence programs. I disagree with the NOW in that they want a federally funded VAWA.
Conservatives are against federally funded anything.
*Infact, these “fringe groups†, feminist, homosexual, liberals and other groups who represent something other than behavior most decent people exhibit, have way too much influence.*
Correct. Unless you are adding the vast majority of men, who like premarital sex, to what you mean by “liberals”. If you mean that, then this is why the Republicans are doomed (unless half of Obama’s crew is arrested for corruption and the Muslim world turns Hillary into a joke – which will probably happen).
I would say those heterosexual men, who aren’t fundamentalist evangelists, have way too LITTLE influence because the feminists and homosexuals are only supporting us hetero men where our interests directly coincide but not an inch more. Republican politicians, speaking for so-called family values of the FEMALE DOMINATED narrow Christian constituency, have been stepping in then to harm those males who disagree with them.
So, for instance, when feminists and gays threw men who date foreign women (either for marriage or sex) under the bus, Senator Brownback decided that we all wanted just sex and threw us under the bus as well.
This vicious attack from the right turned me off to anyone wearing Christianity on his sleeve ever again gaining political power in the US.
The minority of fundamentalist evangelical males still has an unfair power advantage over the rest of the heterosexual male electorate who disagree with the feminists and gays who control the Democrats as well as with the fundamentalists on the right.
*These groups, are by percentage of the population, stvery small. Homosexuals are only three percent and the rabid feminist only a few percent more.*
Correct, except I think homos are 6%. Meanwhile, hetero married males who cheat on their wives are 60% of married men.
Until now, socon males have been conducting a “bait and switch” where they get men like me to agree with them about Godless feminists and gays…and then they pass federal adult abstinence funding to tell non-feminist women not to sleep with men…as if we are Godless rejects as well.
I want to see more than just Dave Usher writing arti
Socons have to INCLUDE the single males by not criticizing our non-evangelical lifestyles…or they face extinction and the MRM will never be organized.
*The MRA’s and other decent people outnumber them a thousand to one. With effective organization, we can turn this country around.*
As long as “decent people” does not exclude those who like premarital or even extra-marital sex.
The MRM is going nowhere if it thinks it is a right-wing Christian evangelist revival.
*We can wake up one day, and we truly do have equality. WE truly will have a healthy economy. WE will have a country that is a great place to live and is getting better.*
If “getting better” means I can finally have 4 wives.
Of course, I will settle for a society where US women are not put on a pedestal either by feminists on the left or fundamentalists on the right who say they need to be warned against evil men who might have designs on them.
*We will still have the “deviats†they just won’t be controling anything anymore.*
As long as deviant only means a radical feminist or someone fighting for gay marriage and gay blood donation.
If you see a government banning hetero pornography on the other hand, you will be waiting forever to see many more men join the MRM, much less get such a political party in power.
*Decent people who are socially,legally and morally responsible will be in charge. The deviats will be allowed to live the life syle they choose, they just won’t be allowed to force it on everyone else.*
And visa versa.
Decent people will always be those who don’t try to get the government to cram any ideology down anyone’s throat.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Mike…
As long as MRA’s such as yourself continue to sleep with conservatives and allow sites such as MND to shamelessly shrill for the republican party and it’s agenda of forcing their way of life (sexual repression and male financial enslavement to women). Along with it’s very own special version of big government on the rest of us just like the socialist democratic party…As someone who has been studying gender issues for 22 yr’s I will not under any circumstances trade one form of oppression for another by supporting the MRM with either my time, money or political support…
December 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Ok Jim why it seem obvious to me and the other regular guys, it seems I need to explain a little more. First “deviats” are those who have crazy ideas, ie take away guns to have a safer society, doesn’t work, never has , never will! or lets wreck the family, lets put women who are flighty, emotional and illogical in charge and see what happens. Well its obvious, a disaster has happened.
I am not against premarital sex, most people want to to “test drive” before they buy. But men need to be extra careful, you bed some woman, you meet socially, and bing, bang boom, you have a child, a child you have to pay for, even if it breaks you, but you have no real rights to. The idiot, who looks around and say “abstinence will work” is not looking at our sex crazed society. People don’t wait and they ain’t gonna change. Most men adopt monogamy, after they “grow up”.
What is needed is an effective form of birth control for men. Once, some young guy, who is horny and out chasing everything with a skirt, once he can say, “Ok honey, I desire you and want to do it with you, but I don’t want kids” The women will not like that the man can say “NO” to unwanted children and the women have to accept that fact. That from that point on, having a child will be a mutual decision. The feminist won’t like it at all, but most normal women, ie those with some sense and reasoning, will welcome the fact that they are not the only ones making sure an “accident” does not occur.
As far as political parties are concerned, well the first major political party to wake up and smell the coffee, ie MRA are on the move and it’s vote their way or look for a new job, that party will dominate and dominate for a long time. It could be the Republicans or the Democrats. I think it will be the Republicans, but who can say at this point.
I don’t know where this 60% of married men cheat came from. Most men are not that stupid, if you screw around, you lose all you have, your home, your kids, your money and your life. I think thats propaganda, the feminist spread to demonize men. Oh, men are not saints, there just not stupid and most know what the cost is for such behavior. Men will cheat, it’s gonna happen, but not as frequently as some questionable statics would lead you to believe.
Men are not morally superior, we are just held to a higher standard than women have been and the cost for “doin’ wrong” is very high for us. A woman does wrong and they try and pet her on the head and explain away her behavior. If I or any other man does wrong , they fire up the electric chair.
” Getting Better” means that we are freer, healthier and more prosperous. You will be able to live any way you want to, even if that means you live as a “deviat”. And as for a Christianity never holding power in this country, yes it will. It was when we started going secular thats things started going down hill. It is simple, really , freedom and rights have responsibilities atached to them. Immorality leads to tyranny, if you have no personal restraint, and no you don’t have to be a fundementalist, just know the difference between right and wrong. Immorality leads to someone, ie the government having to put limits on you.
Self control, like what Christianity teachs, is what makes and keep people free. You don’t need any government tyrant telling you what to do, you know and you don’t create undue problems for the rest of society either.
You really have to understand why the feminist and the other “deviats” are now out of control. Remember that government, the one that has to put limits on behavior, because some people have no self control. That government, or those in it, took a look and said “Mmm, if the women rebel against their husbands, this will create some serious social problems, problems we can capitolize on. We will have more and more power , until oneday we will be soo powerful and controling , that noone can stop us. Well, those stupid bastards have failed to study history, those oppressed will one day have no choice but to stand up and stop them. And we will stop them and have a moral, thriving and growing society.
Lastly, the MRA,MRM or whatever you want to call us, will soon or later get our act together. It is rather like Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb, many experimented and tried to develope one, but Edison suceeded and the MRA’s will need someone with a light bulb that works ie a central idea that everyone will follow behind, even the hard heads who swore they would rather reign in hell than follow in heaven. The cream will rise to the top and OH boy what a sight that will be!
December 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Dabir Dalton said:
Naturally, I disagree that MND “shills” for the “republican party”, and actually I would like to see an example of this if you can point one out.
I tried to be clear in my last post that I do have serious problems with ultra-conservatives.
It’s true that I have given special consideration to Christian views on politics and society. But my allowance in favor of “Christians” is as much a personal reaction against general “Christian-bashing” as it is agreement with traditional Christian social views. For example, I do think abortion is a general evil. At the same time, I am a pragmatist, and I certainly don’t spend any time protesting abortion clinics or wagging my finger at strangers.
Pre-marital sex? So what? I did that all through my single years.
Porno? Two-dimensional naked babes have their upsides and their downsides, just like the 3-D variety.
But sleeping with someone else’s wife? That’s over the line for me.
Prostitution? Not for me, but I wouldn’t for a minute deprive anyone else the right to buy or sell consenting adult bodies as they please.
So where’s the ‘republican agenda’? I don’t have one.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Jim, I always pay attention when you write a piece and have left it a tad late responding to this one. You make some good points and place a foot on solid ground when talking of the money buckets handed to feminists and anti-male crusades by Politicians.
But the other foot is in mud.
Let me take a few of your assertions and set them where they ought to be rather than where you place them. The whole linking of these assertions to the American Political Party system is to my mind way off beam, almost irrelevant. From where I stand the Democrats and the Republicans, like the Conservatives and Labour Parties elsewhere, are both anti-male. But that’s as maybe. Both sides of politics courts the female vote and disempower men. Both fund Feminism.
You claim, “statistics show that the overwhelming majority of single men want premarital sex and even casual sex. Statistics show that 60% of married men want extra-marital sex.”.
That may be correct. I do not know. But it is hardly a Political matter. It is however a Charcter and Integrity matter. It paints a disgraceful picture of American men. Is this what you wanted?
I find such claims to be pure misandry not far away from ‘All men are Rapists’, or ‘There are no good men around’. You astonish me.
You also misuse this ‘want’ word. You attribure wants of this depraved sort to ‘most men’. Well, want some might but the better natures of far more older and wiser men try to hold such base ‘wants’ in check. That is maturity. And what we ‘want’, a mature man knows has to take a back seat to what we need.
You say, “A US business executive recently told me “I really didn’t want to vote for the leftist Obama but the fact that I sometimes have an affair with an employee forces me to try to avoid the Republican vengeance machine.â€
I would like to know who that business ‘executive’ (16 year old mobile phone salesmen are called ‘Executives’ here) was as I do not want to invest in any company that has people with such shoddy, irrational thinking making business decisions. His ‘affairs’ are his business of course but to vote on the basis of his personal bonking regime – or Bill Clinton’s for that matter – is fatuous. I hope he was a young man and not an immature chap whose Charcter development had stopped at 18.
You say, “Beside the fact that the success of the porn industry validates my observations that most American single males think like I described”.
The porn industry is driven by women. What conclusions do you draw about women’s thinking? You seem to avoid that aspect and plant the responsibilty entirely in the men’s court.
Most single males are young and immature. The ’success’ of the porn industry, which is predominantly female in nature, shows, if anything, the self same lack of Character and Integrity I spoke of. Perhaps you should be looking to the Quality of the men you seem to want to bring into your political discussions – and the MRM.
Sure there may well be men making money from it, indeed playing the role of ‘Producers’, but it is largely to the benefit of women who not only outnumber men in the Industry by some three to one but get paid considerably higher to the tune of some ten to one. It is merely another form of prostitution. The Character and Integrity issue is just as pertinent for women.
Finally, you make the ridiculous claim, “Before Christianity, most societies involved polygamy where richer men had all the wives and tons of poor men had to go without women at all (kind of like men in terrorist societies now). Christianity was sexually Marxist in that it tried to get richer men to take just one and leave some for the poorer men.”
Christianity did not such thing as an untested initiative. These societies you speak of do not exist aymore. They failed. The basis of western Christian morality regarding marriage, sex before and outside marriage and so forth was established by Roman Law well before Christianity came along. Christians adopted it from Rome. And the Romans laid these Laws down due to the excesses of depravity and debauchery, polygamy and wall to wall bastards which was destroying its society.
Your emphasis in this article is reminiscent of the arguements made back in 100 BC in the Roman Forum. Defend debauchery and try to claim it is a natural ‘want’ of men all you like. It is a fatuous arguement now as it was then. Such ‘wants’ are socially destructive.
The natural consequence of the abandonment of Character and Integrity has significantly affected our world. Not just Men and Families, but our Justice systems, our Financial systems and our Political systems too. Address that.
December 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I cannot agree with MND having a particularly Pro-Republican bais. Libertarian perhaps, but even that is drawing a long bow.
Mike laSalle, a man who has consistently maintained a balanced approach to Politics and Men’s issues, shows time and time again just why he should be admired by all of us. He permits this Portal to provide a wide range of views and a very healthy level of debate.
That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says, when he speaks for himself – which is rare. Some of us are a little more rigid
(my old bones) and do not so readily admit to our youthful indiscretions. (Although I have no doubt that few of us have been quite as clean and pure as we’d like).
Although I have never had the pleasure of talking with Mike or even meeting him, I count him among the few men that I hold in High regard. In terms of ‘modern’ media and the rise of the International ‘common-man’ discourse that is the Internet, Mike will be a Legendary Editor/Publisher in years to come.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Amfortas: I missed your response 1.5 months ago because the software didn’t allow authors to see responses (but commenters get notified). It may be of interest that I lost posting priveleges at Mens News Daily because of the above article.
Any Google search will show a 90-95% rate of premarital sex in the American adult population.
About the 60% of men cheat theme: This is Marc Rudov’s baby! Please argue with him about his statements that most married men are unhappy. I disagree that it is a character issue so much as a “I should not have gotten married” issue.
And, believe me, the MRM has no business talking about “character” because we will completely disagree on how to define that. Leave that, please, for married religious men to define on some religious forum.
Also, when the dust is cleared and men’s “wants” and “maturity” are quantified…I believe that many of the most mature men will disagree with the idea that monogamy and Christianity are necessarily the best life constructs for every man. The Republicans can promote marriage POSITIVELY (without reference to abortion and pornography and premarital sex) but, no, the Republicans and the MRM certainly do NOT need to ignore the tens of millions of young men in the American electorate to focus on the supposedly “wise” social conservative older men. That would be suicide for the MRM.
The Romans recognized that monogamy had to be the “official way to go” because they didn’t want a frustrated class of poor men going without and rebelling (in much the same way that Muslim terrorists are often young men who got the short end of the stick when their elders married multiple women).
You may dislike pornography but plenty of mature men like it.
The businessman who said he had to vote for Obama was 50 years old (with a 25 year old girlfriend) and he was very correct when he noted that smart single college professors prefer to teach outside of the feminist North American schools so they can have a social life.
It is a Men’s Rights issue that professors and businessmen can have affairs with college students and employees without losing their jobs or getting sued.
Are you suggesting that college professors should be removed for having affairs with 18+ students?
It always was an men’s rights anti-feminist issue to stand up to feminists on this point until the Monica Lewinsky case, which I am sure most men viewed as a case of Clinton being hypocritical regarding his support for feminism. It is a shame that the Republican Party hoisted the banner of feminism for real when they criticized Clinton for doing something that they had DEFENDED in the 1980s as a private matter between a man and a woman.
I consider the day the Republicans turned against men was the day that they took Clinton’s affair in earnest instead of as an example of hypocrisy.
The porn industry is run by MEN for MEN. We can argue that forever. I know the industry and it is dominated by men with a 95% male customer base.
The “backpackers” who forewarned an Obama victory to me were, to a large extent, US SERVICEMEN backpackers. These guys were all over the place on leave.
If I had not had my posting rights taken away because of the above article, I would have highlighted that much of the feedback I have been getting are from US servicemen and vets (including many who write to me at Veterans Abroad).
MND has more of a socon readership than any of the MRM blogs out there. But, by that, I mean it has maybe 5 regular readers who are socon and that is that.
It will be death to the MRM if we let Phyliss Schafly be our spokesperson. Being anti-feminist and being pro-male are different things of course. Phyliss recently “threw us a bone” when she deigned to mention VAWA in a long diatribe against feminism that containted precious little in terms of a desire to give men back their rights.
The Republican Party will sacrifice itself on the alter of stupidity if it continues to attack what most men want (mostly, it is sex and that is where the MRM will sink or swim). The statistics are public on what most men want and, no, the MRM has no business concentrating on the supposedly “older and wiser” men when we obviously completely disagree on how to define that.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
By the way, the polygamy issue would only be hot in the USA today if older businessmen were still able to get lots of hot young women to want to date them.
But feminism has told hot young western women to AVOID rich older men…so you only get polygamy being an issue in isolated non-feminist societies such as some Mormon communities…and then you see the media and their evangelist allies defaming these groups with a broad brush by highlighting possible cases of sex with minors.
Where I live, outside the USA, it does become an issue whether you want to marry A when B and C are in love with you and just as gorgeous.
Most of the guys who can’t relate to this last sentence neither have an A, B or C to consider. One might also say that the man with the best “character” might attract multiple terrific women who make it impossible for him to choose. Men with flawed characters might be lucky to find just one woman and hope she stays with him as he hangs onto monogamy as his “right”…meaning his right not to have her leave him to join the other women who are with the other man.
Obviously, the MRM will have its hands full for at least the next generation just combatting the hatred that feminists in western countries have taught young adult women towards older males.
But the MRM hasn’t begun to discuss this issue of hatred towards males on the dating scene…despite making references sometimes to “misandry”. MND concentrates too much on the back side of relationships instead of the Front End.