Gay Marriage- Who Cares?

Gay ‘marriage’ will be the final nail in the coffin, IMHO.

And not before time. I agree, the Institution is buggered and adding buggers into it will not save it. It just might make it more ‘fair’ and ‘equal’ if we think or death as equal for all after the event.

But the Patriarchal MRAs and their Fundemenatalist zeal is countered by the many more in the MRM who want marriage, just in a different form, retaining some of the Sacremental, human, man-woman qualities which have stood the test of time in providing the best environment for personal growth and the growth of healthy children.

Feminism showed up the fault-lines of ‘traditional’ marriage and drove a rock-splitter in, shattering the old exploit-the-male aspects. That is ironic considering that Feminists claimed that it was women who were being exploited. A backfiring lie. No man with a brain wants that back again. We have been abused and exploited for too long.

Wow, I thought I had stumbled into the Daily Kos. What a rant! Sure, go ahead and pick on a poor choice of words (“sanctity”) and show what is going wrong with marriage.

Why not show what is going wrong with humanity itself? After all, marriage is made up of flawed people living in flawed societies. Be sure to keep belittling Conservatives while you’re at it, it adds to your credibility.

The people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Blame Conservatives, blame the Mormons, blame the Baptists, blame me. But the fact remains that this little item is the popular choice, and I repeat: Marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s been that way for a heckuva long time, and does not need to be redefined by law to please the choices of a loud minority.

I understand, indeed sympathize with how you feel, gentlemen. I just call it like I see it.

You managed to score points against enemies and piss off a bunch of ready made supporters in one article. What a waste.
The juxtaposition of gay marriage to divorce is too important to waste by including theocracy paranoia. I guess pro-lifers are theocrats also?
The local peu do-intellectual self important elite that have populated this site…a la Alkon et al, and their weak attempts to be, lacking btter words, cool with the peeps by besmirching the faithful is a losing strategy.
MRA’s know we are weaked by lack of coherant causes in the aggregate of our numbers, now comes this to alienate the faithful, for no good reason except some silly almost populist appeal as counterintuitive as that sounds. I mean nothing sells better in a crowd of proffesional pontificators than a bash on the conservative/Christian overlap.

Gosh man you missed a solid opportunity to REPEAT an oft made point (It ain’t breakin new ground my friend…but it bears repeating often) and let MRA’s bask as the smoke clears from the gunbarrel. Instead, me and many turn and walk away shaking our heads thinking “he coulda been a contender”

Paul Elam, you wrote a powerful story about sex registry for minor”s life ruined. Yet in California gay sex offenders were not required to register retroacitively as as were heterosexual offenders. There was an alleged homophopic co-founder of NCPAC who was once quoted as saying I don’t care if they are married to Micky Mouce as long as they are conservatives. The NCPA was feared by politicans. The co- founder died of AIDS. Link.
“Remember NCPAC? I think the Urosevich/Computer Voting …3 posts – 2 authors – Last post: Jan 7, 2005
roots go back to the whole NCPAC roots of the late 70s. … Terry Dolan was gay, and he died of AIDS. He died after a short but intense …”
In our area was a men’s rights organization that had a radio show. Despite being deeply in debt, I donated my small lottery winnings to it. On the phome he spoke very affectionately with Gloria Steinem. I no longer understand MRA goals.

Chris,

I appreciate your heartfelt comments. But I think you are missing the point here. Pointing to the co-opting of small government, conservative ideals by the religious right isn’t theocracy paranoia. It’s a reality that has a socialist in the white house at this very moment, in my opinion.

And the implied rhetoric about pro-lifers being theocrats, is far beyond reason.

And in all honesty, I think you could do with a tad more perspective. Taking a shot at talking heads that use religion to sell books is not taking a shot at the faithful, and I do trust that many of the faithful can see that. Perhaps not the ones that seek theocratic laws, though.

And that is as it should be.

When you google this site you get the following description:

Urban, Professional, Sophisticated, Libertarian and Conservative News and Commentary since 2001.

As a libertarian, I am a conservative of the Ron Paul variety. I think small, unobtrusive government means just that, without an exception to fit the PC mandates of people who imagine that Rush, Sean, Bill, Michelle and Ann, et al, are any kind of support to the MRA movement whatsoever, or to small government conservatism.

These were the same clowns that portrayed Paul as a lunatic to get him out of the way.

And we have been ignored and marginalized by them as much as the left.

In seeing that, I have no inclination to protect them. And for the record, I am not a contender for anything other than my own integrity.

That too, as it should be.

Mr. K,

I appreciate you fine comments on the piece about Ricky Blackman. A sad story indeed. And I share your outrage and concern that gays could be held to lighter standards. I don’t support any part of the gay agenda and hope that was not mistakenly inferred from this article.

I think understanding the goals of the MRM can be difficult. There are a lot of different voices. But I harken to a quote you put in your post from the NCPAC co-founder:

“I don’t care if they are married to Micky Mouse as long as they are conservatives.”

It is narrow, reductionistic, but one I understand. I don’t care what political party an MRA is, as long as the focus is on the rights of men in this sexist culture. I prefer to think that the real support will come from real conservatives, but I couldn’t force myself to allegiance with those who undermine men.

And I think if we are honest, we know we have been sold out by both parties. The republicans have more promise, but only with rehabilitation. I also take it, since I see conservatives as more prone to personal responsibility, that they can take the hit for mistakes when they are pointed out.

“It was no doubt feminists that put marriage on life support. We should mourn that and look to the future for renewed hope that some day men and women will share life again with love and dignity. But today, MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.”

Dead nuts on target.

The feminists are indeed the reason marriage is dying-along with the millions of women all along the political spectrum who selfishly used the advantages the feminists gained for them. They destroyed marriage for future generations. They destroyed fatherhood now and for the future.

Make no mistake-the feminists started this mess-but millions of women did their part also. And it was a BIG part. Let them fix the mess they created.

NYT has a story of scientist study of single women doing “mate poaching”
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/do-single-women-seek-attached-men/ Quote:
“Noting that single women often complain that “all the good men are taken,” the psychologists wondered if “this perception is really based on the fact that taken men are perceived as good.” To investigate, the researchers quizzed male and female undergraduates — some involved in romantic relationships, some unattached — about their ideal romantic partner. ”
Maybe single women get what they deserve? More marriages on the rocks. More men wondering what went wrong.

Paul Elam
I also appreciate your clarification, even though it appears that the quote about Micky Mouse was mine when in fact it was by NCPAC co-founder and most visible figure of that “Trojan Horse” organization.
You are such a talented and persuasive writer. It would be a shame if you were not a Real McCoy. Perhaps some of long term MRA activist have become disillusioned by flash in the pan personalities who are motivated by something else that what appears on surface. About another NCPAC personality (anonymous quote.)
““He’s very folksy, but he’s tough. Charlie will pat you on the back one moment, stab you in the back the next.”

Mr. K,

I understand. The trick, I think, about being the real McCoy is in who gets to define it.

Needless to say, I can’t please everyone, and I am old enough now to not try.

I have been at this for more than twenty years (activism, not writing) and one thing I have learned is that MRA’s are not monolithic. Most of us will disagree on some things, more on others, but I do think anyone who honestly examines the body of my work won’t mistake me for a liberal or a feminist.

In fact, I think my work paints me as straight up MRA to the core, with no other agenda at all.

I do appreciate your kind words about my writing, and I hope you enjoy more of it in the future.

What is most important to me is the bottom line. Men are being attacked with slow extermination in this culture. This is our sons we are talking about and my only allegiance is to them.

Thank you for reserving judgment based on one article.

Oh, and sorry, I knew the quote wasn’t from you, but I see where it looks that way. I will correct.

We should not confuse the idiocy of uninformed conservatism with the issue of gay marriage. Liberals are equally idiotic in proposing gay marriage in the first place. That conservatives do not understand the underlying dynamics is an issue for education.

We should be very glad that Conservatives oppose gay marriage, even if it is for polemical reasons.

Conservatives did not oppose no-fault divorce, and we ended up with marriage being the funnel into the welfare state.

If Conservatives had not opposed gay marriage, we would be far worse off than we are now. When any two women can marry each other, the future of fatherhood will be fully aborted, and feminism will own America.

There are tremendous opportunities for MRA’s to become politically dominant. We must educate conservatives on pro-marriage reforms that reverse the mistakes of the past (such as no-fault divorce and entitled illegitimacy). Marriage-absence is the greatest problem America faces. The negative impact on women, men, and children is horrendous. I am having substantial success at both the state and federal levels. It takes time to change minds and belief structures, but it is happening.

Now, if we intend to fulfill the roles real men are supposed to do, it is up to us to lead this country out of the disaster it is in. We cannot lead by complaining out our own bruises, rather, it must be through “Marriage Values”, which speaks to all women, pushes legislators to back off policies destroying marriage, and restores men (or Patriarchs) as respected individuals in the fabric of society.

Real men look out for women and children. Feminists stole the idea and assumed roles as alter-patriarchs. By all accounts it is a total disaster. All we need to do is take our roles back — which can and will happen when we deliver a strong and energetic message re-establishing unfettered heterosexual marriage as the social norm for the benefit of all.

Nobody knows these issues better than MRA’s. MRA’s cannot be bought off. There are a few talented MRA’s with the writing and leading skills to generate a political revolution in America. If we work this together, we will win. America is a mess and everyone is looking for answers. Man, do we have them. Now, let us do something with them.

Some very good points for debate, Mr Usher. And well stated.

I have many initial rebuttals, especially that there are more important and relevant battles for fathers than this, which was, after all, the point of the piece.

I will, however, give your views more time to digest. They are worthy of more consideration than a knee-jerk from me after one read.

Hello Paul

Brilliant piece. As usual. Very impressive.

I only have one objection; your notion that women did what they were told to do in the olden days.

I do not see much evidence for that view.

Both men and women were probably more tyrannical back then when it came to the family – with good reason, would be my guess.

But in much the same way that you castigate some MRAs over their gay marriage stance, I would castigate you for agreeing with the feminists by suggesting that women used to be ‘oppressed’.

(They were not; in comparison to men.)

But you have surely just handed over to the feminists every justification that they need for promoting feminism!

I quote you.

“Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told.”

I nearly died when I saw that!

Regards your view that traditional marriage has gone for good; I agree. In fact, I agree with EVERYTHING that you said (apart from the obedient women bit).

99 out of 100! LOL!

You are a great writer.

——

@David

In my view, traditional marriage will never come back. There are far too many forces stacked against it.

——–
@Denis

Yo! Nice to ‘see’ you.

——

Re: “Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told. I’m sure it was a nice world for the control obsessive …”

The true meaning of patriarchy and marriage (and in my experience of most MRA’s) is not about dominance/submission. Feminists would like us to think it is, so we fight them on their turf and lose the battle.

While some men and women have abused their personal power within marriage in western civilizations, the patriarchal tyranny feminists object to exists only in Taliban and similar Muslim religions which all of us object to. Similarly, guns and cars can be used improperly, but we do not let feminists run those shows because a few men screw up.

Heterosexual marriage is simply a structural necessity for a stable, cooperative, productive society. Everything beyond that is dangerous feminist terrorbabble. The sooner MRA’s understand this the better.

We look like wimps complaining about our problems. Feminists look like wimps complaining about their problems too — which invokes the alter-patriarchy card feminists use successfully because, after all, men are still supposed to care for their wives and children (even after feminists abort marriages).

This movement will be a dead movement so long as we cave into feminism and accept our lot at the back seat of society. Marriage is entirely salvageable, moreso than ever given the fact that marriage-absence is the leading factor driving so many of America’s pressing contemporary problems such as poverty for women and children, lack of health care, home loan defaults, child abuse and neglect, etc.

America is looking for answers. MRA’s who deliver a solid marriage movement message calling for restoration of the protected and largely unfettered institution of marriage, who positively engage the majority of women who know damned well that single motherhood leaves them short of cash and human family resources, will find themselves leading the next political revolution.

Now, does this movement want to lead a transformation of America, or are we going to sit on our collective pity pot at the nearest men’s abuse center (a.k.a. a bar) and accept our lot?

What if we ignored the gender war (which is not winnable head-to-head)? Marriage balances matriarchal and patriarchal interests in prosocial manner. Feminists took over both roles. What if we went around feminists to recapture the seat of patriarchy — and our necessary cooperative esteemed roles in society? This is how the marriage movment can and will work restoring both the institution of marriage and the roles of men — but only if we make it happen.

Damn, you’re good David.

But I think you keep forgetting about all those forces that are stacking up against ‘forcing people to do what they no longer want to do’.

1. There is now an internet. You can no longer FORCE an ideology into the minds of people by controlling the information flow.

2. How are you going to stop warring couples from splitting apart? Are you going to force them to live together?

3. Will people really want to be married to the same person for 100 years? – as their life expectancies increase.

4. When sexual diseases are finally conquered, do you not think that there will be a new ‘phase’ in our thinking about relationships?

5. What about genetic engineering and, hence, also gradually losing the DNA bond between ‘relatives’?

The tide on so many fronts is just sweeping traditional, lifelong marriage away.

Besides which, does not marriage oppress men more so than women; in many ways?

I understand what you WANT to happen, and WHY you want it – but I just do not think that you can swing it that way.

It seems like a lost battle.

Hello Harry,

Good to see you. I have decided to take a shot at writing a screenplay. The working title is: The Essay That Disturbed EVERYONE LOL!

I must say that I find your critique the most cogent and supported. Unfortunately for me, I wrote this piece after several exchanges with self proclaimed patriarchs (on MRA boards) who maintained they wanted to return to the days when men were in charge of the family and women were submissive.

Of course I knew better than that.

Clearly I should have taken some R & R after those discussions and not just gone straight for the keyboard.

It’s the horror of being obsessive, my friend.

Now I will have to write ten more pieces to get this off the front page, lol. But while it is here, I do think it will serve it’s purpose.

Stephen Baskerville said, and I quote him loosely, -Marriage has more to fear from heterosexuals than homosexuals.-

I don’t think we have too far to look to see how spot on Dr. Baskerville is.

Thanks for your kind words about my writing.

I am really enjoying the spirited exchange between Harry and David.

Had feminists subjected themselves to such internal scrutiny and intellectual honesty, we might not have needed a MRM.

I think, and no, this is not a “can’t we all just get along,” moment, that everyone is essentially right here.

Were marriage not, in it’s current and traditional forms, such an abusive trap for men, I would be out here posting anti-gay marriage jingles. And some day I might.

All I am saying is that if your racehorse has a broken leg, you either have to put it down, or fix the leg if it is fixable.

Then you can think about putting it back on the track to race, or breeding another horse.

Harry, re:

1. the internet provides the possiblity of this movement actually teaming up to displace feminists from their faux seat of assumed patriarchy.

2. When marriage is no longer an institution permitting one spouse to steal the assets of the other for no reason whatsoever, much of the warring will stop, and the troublemaking spouse will be in much more of a mood to work things out. Secondly, see what Mike McManus has accomplished educating women about what happens when you get a divorce or have a child out of wedlock. He has reduced the divorce rates by 20% in 2 counties with nothing more than unfunded volunteers. This has nothing to do with forcing anybody to stay married or not. Remove the perverse feminist incentives destroying marriage and everything will take care of itself.

3. Those in loving married relationships aren’t interested in trading horses in the middle of a race.

4. Stds will not be erased. They will evolve just like the flu.

5. DNA engineering will be used for perverse reasons by some, but will not impact the core of marriage. Even if SSM becomes the law of the land, most lesbians will use a guy to get his money.

6. Marriage absence oppresses the entire bourgoise class. Only the very rich can afford serial marriage. In case you haven’t noticed, all the yammering about poor single mothers, the lack of health care, etc exists because of marriage absence. We can harness that vast discontent by giving women a real answer, which all the feminism and socialism in the world could not possibly afford to pay for. The 1994 Republican family values landslide was powered by this discontent. Unfortunately, Republicans didn’t know what they were doing and made things worse. This discontent is more tappable than ever, and “Marriage Values” policies have both the answers and the ideologies to end the feminist gender war. The gender war will be a war only so long as we are willing to fight them head on. If we walk away from that game and make them fight us on Marriage Values turf, they have nothing to fight with.

. I don’t care what political party an MRA is, as long as the focus is on the rights of men in this sexist culture

Unless they are Christians. You and the Amy Alkon-types can’t see the damage you do. Exactly how does pissing off a natural ally help anyone?

Squiggy,

Christians are not any more monolithic than conservatives or liberals. Many Christians don’t favor government intrusion in their lives, even intrusions that may be seen as consistent with their religious beliefs.

They see the doctrine of their church as a code to govern their own lives, not a mandate to govern the lives of everyone else.

And you are quiet wrong in your assumption that it matters to me if an MRA is a Christian. It doesn’t at all. I just take exception to ideologues who see the men’s rights movement as a place to further their religious ideals, rather than simply fighting the injustices against men wrought by feminists.

For once anyone makes this movement about a particular religion, or set of religious ideals, they are not, in my mind, an ally, but a hindrance.

I know many Christian men who feel this way, and their main complaint, of course, is that some of their fellow believers resort to the tactic of “Well, you are not a real Christian then, if you think that way.

Again, not the actions of ally’s.

I am a MRA. Not a CMRA. But that does not at all mean that I can’t cooperate and work with people of different faiths.

There can be no “traditional marriage” without fatherhood being supported both in law and by the broad culture. It is the weakest link in marriage today (and has been for some time). The argument for traditional marriage is 25 years too late. What replaces marriage after it fully expires is not likely to be a good replacement. THAT is not a men’s rights issue. Again, this should have been thought through by all those who attacked fatherhood and especially by those who stood by and watched. If the Men’s Movement is all about saving society then I’m afraid it is doomed to fail. If saving society and the so-called marriage movement is all about restoring fatherhood in law first, and then in the broader culture next, then it can and should be aligned with the men’s movement. Now you just have to get the mass of women (who have no incentive) to support this concept. Support men and fathers first, and support this “institution” called marriage second, or third, or….The chivalrists are just as bad as the manginas.

Hello David

You said, “1. the internet provides the possiblity of this movement actually teaming up to displace feminists from their faux seat of assumed patriarchy.”

The internet is great for fomenting rebellion and dissent – i.e. breaking things down – but, thus far, it is fairly hopeless at uniting people towards a ‘complicated’ set of aims – the disunited MM being a good example, I think.

But your notion of, “teaming up to displace feminists,” is spot on, in my view – because most MRAs of all persuasions have ‘common enemies’ – with the feminists being high on their list.

And having a common enemy which must be attacked is a great way to unite people.

2. ” Remove the perverse feminist incentives destroying marriage and everything will take care of itself.”

In practice, this means destroying a multi-multi-billion dollar organism comprising the vested interests of millions of people – e.g. of government workers.

This will be difficult.

Thus, I do not swallow the notion that, “everything will take care of itself.”

Much, much more is needed – e.g. a massive reduction in government, and governmental power.

We will never really destroy feminism while millions of government workers and associated ne’erdowells who benefit from feminism remain in the picture.

3. “Those in loving married relationships aren’t interested in trading horses in the middle of a race.”

Indeed, but these people stay married despite feminism. They are not blown apart by it.

Furthermore, most people are either not married OR happily married, at this point in time.

And I am not sure that feminism is actually the sole cause of this.

In other words, if feminism and its associated male-hate industries disappeared tomorrow, would MOST adults, these days – and in the future, as per my previous post – actually CHOOSE long-term monogamous marriage?

I suspect that it would take some considerable ongoing pressure to achieve this.

In the old days, religion and poverty probably kept people together. And their travel was also very limited, which kept people in the same locality for generations.

Thus, their opportunities (of ‘escape’) were very limited, and they could also keep an eye on each other and make sure that everyone followed the norms.

Times have changed a lot since then!

4. ” Stds will not be erased. They will evolve just like the flu.”

Oh Ye of Little Faith.

I am sure that we will soon find a way to make STDs nothing more than a temporary irritation.

Well, let’s hope so!

LOL!

5. “DNA engineering will be used for perverse reasons by some, but will not impact the core of marriage.”

Within the next 50 years, millions of people will be demanding better genes for their offspring so that they are not ‘disadvantaged’; e.g. when it comes to disease or disability. This will gradually destroy the DNA relationship between parents and offspring.

We will never stop this, in my view.

6. “We can harness that vast discontent by giving women a real answer, which all the feminism and socialism in the world could not possibly afford to pay for. ”

I agree.

In fact, I agree with most of what you are suggesting with regard to how we might engender a force to defeat the feminists – I only have minor quibbles.

But while I think that your ideas are excellent, I also think that they are hugely optimistic – so optimistic, that I do not believe that they are achievable.

I do believe that the MM will one day come to rule, and that it will eventually disempower the feminists and send them to Oblivion. Indeed, just like you, I am sure of it.

But something tells me that long term monogamous marriage won’t be the result.

LOL!

I think that a powerful MM will end up imposing far more interesting ideas about how the world should work in the future.

Indeed, you and I have had this type of conversation before, a few years back. And I have thought about it often.

And I just cannot see a strong MM heading in the monogamous marriage direction.

Yes, if you look at the Christians and the rightists, but not when you look at the lefties and the libertarians.

I would say that there is a good chance that the MM will arrange matters so that men who are married with children have every right that a mother has, and that the person who breaks the marriage contract leaves the house and the children, etc etc, but I cannot see monogamous marriage being a high priority in itself.

And the fact that such marriages might be ‘good for society’ might not even have much of a bearing on the issue.

In my opinion, it is, “What is best for ‘men’,” that will win the day when the MM finally becomes powerful.

It might be monogamous marriage.

But I suspect not!

Harry…nice seeing you as well my friend…

Harry,

MRAs and Christians have the same fundamental understanding of what marriage should be, however each tend to view the problem from different perspectives. Christians see it as an ablation of morals (true). MRA’s see it as an ablation of men’s fundamental rights (also true).

But neither group understands how the feminist game works in fooling all men and women (Christian and otherwise) to blame all of society’s problems on men. Feminists contravert the natural protective instincts of men and apply it to enforce their socialist public order.

Most young and uninformed men fall for this. Men of all stripes tend to blame other men for everything, that is of course until a divorce or child support order teaches them otherwise.

The only way out of the feminist game is to get in front of the feminist game that has divided and conquered men for 45 years. The marriage movement not only does this, it enlists the active political support of all those women out there who were baited into doing what feminists wanted and now live in poverty and “have to do it all”, waiting in line for some suit in Washington to come fix the car for them.

ush

Hello David

I do understand your reasoning which, in a nutshell, is suggesting that MRAs should get behind Marriage Values – mainly for two reasons.

1. With Marriage Values (a fairly simple, non-complicated, previously tested set of values) being, once again, high up in people’s estimation, the feminists will be clobbered.

2. With traditional marriage being, once again, “the norm” in
society, men will be able to reassert their rights more or less
automatically; i.e. without further ado. Everything else will fall into place.

Thus, in short, you are saying that Marriage Values is a reasonably
simple concept around which MRAs can unite – which is a good idea from the activist point of view – and also that these Marriage
Values ***ALONE*** can eventually destroy the feminists.

I agree! I agree! I agree!

But, I just do not think that bringing back traditional Marriage Values as the norm can be achieved – for many, many reasons, some of which I have mentioned somewhere above.

For example, in the murky depths of cyberspace that I inhabit, I do not see MRAs (or ordinary men) protesting about the decline of
marriage – with good reasons, I suspect; because marriage no longer seems to appeal very much to them.

Indeed, do you really think that men, these days, are hankering to
be ‘tied down’? (And the same goes for women.)

Sure, there are millions who would desire marriage, but there are millions who would rather not. And herein lies a major problem.

For example, whereas in the past you could inflict an ideology of
‘confinement’ upon people relatively easily, it is nowadays becoming very difficult indeed to do such a thing.

And you also have to ask yourself how, exactly, one can arrange for
such a huge, and ongoing, psychological force to be maintained on the population in order to keep Marriage Values high up in their minds.

IMHO, we would, nowadays, have to be living under a very powerful
state apparatus to inflict such a force.

Do we want this?

And, in practice, if we had such a powerful state then, surely, it would not be long before feminism (or something equally sinister) was back in town.

After all, it is surely no coincidence that the rise in the power of the feminists mirrors the rise in the size of the state!

And this is why, in my view, the best way in which to disempower the feminists (and their associated allies) is to reduce the power and
size of the state.

Now, we could say, “Let’s do both!” – i.e. argue for Marriage Values and argue for a reduction in the state – which is, in fact, what I tend to do on angryharry.

But, in my heart, while I think that the latter is achievable, I
suspect that the former is not – for many reasons; only some of which I have already mentioned.

In other words, I think that we can bring about the disempowerment of the state – and, hence, feminism – particularly given that millions of people have had enough of so much state control, and the
huge expense of it; but I do not think that we will be able to build
up a force strong enough to promote STRONGLY and maintain STRONGLY traditional marriage.

As I said earlier, the internet is great for breaking things down
(in this case, the state) but it is not very good at sustaining a united force in order to build things up – such as marriage.

(Similarly, I suppose, at the individual level, it is easy to
destroy a happy marriage, but not so easy to maintain it.)

But what, I think, will rise and rise and rise via the internet, is the power of ‘men’.

I can already see this happening all over the place – slowly.

Sure, I can see many more groups arguing for Fathers Rights and Marriage Values, but there are many other things that ‘men’ are also aiming for – aims which are decidedly not conducive to lifelong traditional marriage.

Now, there are certain things that, because of their biology and their makeup, tend to be common among men. These common ‘things’ will tend to summate throughout cyberspace and they will start to exert a big force.

Those things which tend to be more various among men will have less force – and they might even cancel each other out to some extent.

And so my view is that if you look closely at the natures of men –
particularly of men-who-sit-at-screens (which, I agree, are not
necessarily a good representation of normal men) – then you will see
where we are likely to be heading.

And, in my view, traditional marriage is going to be one of those things which is so ‘various’ among men, that it will never rise
quite high enough to win the day – whereas other things – such as getting the state out of your hair – will!

LOL!

Well, I live in hope!

All,

1. Marriage Values does not force anybody to do anything. There are no mandates. Marriage Values returns us to a more minimalist government, and gets government out of the business of arbitrarily destroying marriage by ending entitlement of irresponsible personal choices.

2. A lot of men who do not want marriage have arrived at that conclusion because they know darned will that marriage is very likely a suicidal proposition. I believe that many of them “still have a dream” (that is biological in nature), which motivates them strongly to help work for Marriage Values.

3. Over the years, I have seen the movement do some very wise things and some very stupid things. The leaders set the goals and execute them, the rest of the movement has historically been quite supportive of any effort that makes sense.

4. We have forty five years of experience in this movement proving that the only way to get the system “out of your hair” is by ending the divorce revolution right where it starts. This is a completely clean issue, attractive to everyone, that feminists cannot effectively oppose. Despite superhuman efforts, we have never been able to enact effective shared parenting laws, reasonable child support laws, enforceable visitation laws, or reasonable divorce laws in any state. That is because divorce is a feminist enterprise — fighting feminists on their turf is like jumping into the swamp to wrassle the alligator.

Now, if everyone is sick and tired of not getting anyplace after 45 years of doing the same thing over and over, perhaps it would be wise to get behind Marriage Values and make the alligators wrassle us on dry land.

ush

Again, I have been enjoying this lively exchange. It leaves me with a question for both of you.

Is there really anything about the concept of avoiding marriage, or even advocating it’s collapse, that is in actual conflict with changing legal policies that incentivise divorce and fatherlessness?

Personally, I am not buying that there is.

I find myself here reading Harry’s posts, nodding my head, saying yes, yes, yes.

And doing the same with David’s.

And I think, though I could be wrong, that it is because we all more or less believe in the concept of marriage under parameters that support it as a cohesive unit and defend it from the myriad of destructive forces that it faces now.

The social trend to not marry in the first place is intact and growing. And it would seem to me that the only way to change that is to change the laws that make it such an unattractive and destructive institution. And it would also seem to me quite fitting that until those laws are changed that the path of avoidance is the wiser one.

That being said, I think the message is clear. Marriage is dead. Long live marriage.

Hi Paul,

Advocating for a boycott of marriage by men or the demise of marriage in any way is political suicide and plays directly into feminist hands. When we do that, we are seen as being the problem, and we immediately lose the political support and connections with those who would follow our lead. Baskerville took a huge drubbing over his article telling men not to marry or have children. Paul Weyrich walked away from him entirely. It took Baskerville quite some time to recover from that mistake.

We know more about the source of the problem and how it works than anybody else. If we do the right things, the larger mainstream to conservative movements will listen to us and eventually become willing to change federal laws.

While I agree this will not be easy, we have a historical reference guiding us. Republicans won a historic landslide in 1994 based on “family values”. They didn’t know what they were doing and messed it up horribly. Republicans are totally out of power and the party in total disarray. I submit that brilliant leadership on our part can and will bring about another Republican landslide based on Marriage Values. This time they will know what they are doing because we will be feeding them the policies.

ush

Remember that Dave Blankenhorn, blamed “father absence” on “paternal choice” in his book “Fatherless America” [pg 22]. Everybody from Heritage Foundation to Promise Keepers on down believed him.

Blankenhorn is the slick triple-talking feminist activist (and former Saul Alinksy community activist) who fooled republicans into the welfare reform package they adopted. I know this guy so well that he cited my fathers group in “Fatherless America”, [fn 48, pg 297] in pretending that the father’s movement consisted of a bunch of malcontents who wanted their divorces and don’t want to pay the consequences.

But with myself, Baskerville, and Maggie Gallagher chasing him around for a citation (which he has never given), his clout in Washington has diminished substantially.

When we advocate marriage boycotts or in any way do anything to further destroy the institution of marriage, we are committing political suicide. When we advocate for rebuilding the nation via restoring the institution of marriage, we establish ourselves as being a movement worth listening to and following.

Paul:

Thanks for the reply. I mean no disrespect when I say its what I expected. But I am just like you, a libetarian conservative, and not of the mainstream conservative talker type, though I hasten to add, thank God for them or we’d be awash worse than we are.

I frankly don’t know any authors that are Christians first, and conservatives second, who have written as you allege, to sell books, and thereby bypassed their values.

At risk of being obama-ish, this isnt about me so I dont want to go on about how you misunderstood me. Brevity of format is at fault sir. Once I found your site Ive been a huge fan of your plainspoken manner.
Usher, as usual, does a great job of re-centering the issue. I hope though not at the expense of the very real points to be made by the simple contrast between gay marriage, divorce, and the churches mindless inconsistency on the two.
As Usher suggests, plain spoken family advocacy is a sure winner. As trite as it sounds, offering positives generally gets folks attention. Thats sad because it sort of reflects the lack of depth with which some think things through, bacause a good cautionary negative ought to be sufficient in most cases. But lo.

Anyway, good to see some healthy discussion here for a change. This place has been so quiet I’d linked the sound of crickets and a windstorm as a backdrop while I read.

Everyone must understand how feminists (David Blankenhorn, presiding) ran the Republican revolution off a feminist cliff.

Blankenhorn wrote “Families First: Report of the National Commission on America’s Urban Families”for H.W. Bush, John Ashcroft, Chairman. Blankenhorn temporarily moved into the Governor’s mansion to write this report and I spoke with him several times and sent him a lot of documentation.

Lets show them what we’ve got.

Marriage as an institution will remain between man and a woman. We proved that even in the state of California. In my discussions with Brian Brown of NOM, seeking some kind of mutuallity or common ground, he stated that he tried
reaching out to MRAs but his attempts were rebuffed. The conservatives are natural allies of father’s rights, but the
libertarian’s dislike of both political parties seems to doom both men and women’s affinity for parental rights, partcularly when men attack all women as feminist. They are not. I feel most women support equality between the sexes, but oppose equality same-sex parenting. There is a huge difference.

I can understand after reading the dicussions that the libertarianism espoused by Paul Elam and the conservatism of David Usher and others in the father’s rights movement has a common origin and espoused by Ronand Regan in his
“Reason” magazine article,

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for
less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” says Regan.

Fathers who lost everything through the divorce process come back to the resistance to a heavy-handed government of liberalism, socialism and feminism and their whole-hearted embrace of the homosexual agenda (which itself is a form of
libertarianism) and accompanying bitterness to everything government. I understand what Paul says and his statement
about “who cares” about the homosexual agenda. This is libertarianism/anarchism. Libertarianism plays into the hands of the homosexual agenda.

But I find myself siding only with children in this discussion because of the long-term effects of divorce on children. I am sure most of us have read the expert psychiatrists, MD and attorneys, including Judith Wallerstein and “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce.” Even more compelling are the statistics on the dysfunctional sexuality of homosexuals given the status of “normal” by the APA, and the instances of pedophilia, rape by homosexuals and the out and out domestic violence perpetrated by lesbian on lesbian.

Who in the hell says that rasing children by gays is a good thing? Opposing gay marriage is correct, if only for the children’s sake.

Hi Chris,

I agree, brevity of format is a real issue in places like this. I also thing that a part of the problem is a generalized frustration that men and conservatives have about the sorry state of things as they exist, my frustrations included.

Just for the record, I didn’t mean that the authors were Christian first, conservative second, but I do see many of them as Christian by convenience, especially when addressing flash point issues that generate both polemics and book sales from their target audience.

I agree with the lions share of David’s thoughts and have become a quick fan of what he is doing. And I agree, family advocacy can hardly be a bad thing.

But, I think it is also a matter of priorities. And I put this to you, David and Mr. Godbey. If forced to choose allowing gay marriage or no fault divorce I would quickly side with gay marriage. Personally, I prefer neither, and see neither as a friend to the family, but as I estimate the consequences of both to families and children, it is no fault divorce that certainly does the most harm.

By light years.

That was the real intent of my piece, and any confusion that it was written with a focus to defend gay marriage is my fault as the writer.

So in the end, I do stand with my conclusions. I don’t think anyone is harming anyone by fighting gay marriage, and it is likely a good objective. But I stand by my opinion that there are far worse threats to the family an I don’t see any pundits on Fox News that even act like they know those things exist.

That, in my mind, is worth speaking to.

I don’t see many men, and in particular MRA men, seeing an advantage to the so-called marriage movement. The feminists made destroying marriage among their first goals-and this never would have happened by the efforts of the feminists alone, if millions of women did not go along. Now that it is becoming clearer to women that this is having a negative affect on women (chickens coming home to roost), men are supposed to resusitate marriage on their backs? I don’t think so. Restoring fatherhood will restore some balance of fairness back to marriage-and this will take a long time, and a lot of effort, against very large and very strong forces. 40 % of children today are born out of marriage-the vast majority without a father at home. The best way to reduce that percentage is by cutting the state down to size-and making government-as-father and provider/protector no longer available. David can go ahead and push the marriage movement but it is not likely that the mass of men will get behind it. Some will. A great many will not I believe. By simply not playing the game of marriage (and taking chances) marriage will follow the typical end-of -life cycle. It’s easy to step aside. And what do we lose? Not very much to lose anymore. I have known many men who married and later regretted it. Now if the aim is to be a “real man” and protect women and children well, again-on whose back will this life support rest on? Not mine. Women want that protector role from the government. How many of them want smaller government? Men were always expected to be both protector and provider for women and children. Women wanted the provider role and got that in spades. Women contributed far more to the destruction of marriage than the men did. For 45 years feminists and useful female idiots brought us here. For 45 years eveyone else sat by and watched. What makes anyone think that now “everyone” is going to stand up and set things back to what they were? They did not for 45 years-and will not in the next 45 years. Hell, most males are raised in female headed households-many don’t even know what being a man is about much less traditional marriage. Women have gotten what they asked for. I have better ways to spend my time and energy-and it centers around the rights of men and boys first and foremost. The marriage movement should have spoken up 25 years ago. I’m afraid it is too late.

Hi David. As always good points. And as I have already said, I have become an admirer of what you are doing.

And of course, there is still a but.

It comes from this, from you:

“Advocating for a boycott of marriage by men or the demise of marriage in any way is political suicide and plays directly into feminist hands. When we do that, we are seen as being the problem, and we immediately lose the political support and connections with those who would follow our lead. Baskerville took a huge drubbing over his article telling men not to marry or have children. Paul Weyrich walked away from him entirely. It took Baskerville quite some time to recover from that mistake.”

I have to say that I am a bit of a purist on this and clearly lack the political acumen you possess.

So I will say what I have to say here, and henceforth just focus my attentions on where we agree. I see no benefit in us trying to get the other where we won’t go. lol!

As to the boycott of marriage, I don’t care what it means politically or whose hands it plays into. I am, with all respect, not an advocate for any political party, even libertarians, except as a far second to the cause of men. And what I see is legions of men destroyed in divorce courts that would not be there if they weren’t married.

I have dealt, in my counseling days with more than my share of men who ate a gun rather than live through what happens to them on all fronts when their families are destroyed in those courts.

I have even know a couple of men who turned those guns on their wives as well.

I support family advocacy and legislation, but it is not sufficient to address the suffering of men in the here and now in the real world.

And reinforcing the massive social denial we have about the treacherous morass modern marriage would for me, not be advocacy, but an outright betrayal.

I don’t care who sees me as a problem because I take this position. I don’t care about the political support and connections because I am not in politics, and indeed I see no support from politicians, nor have I ever.

If Weyrich disowned Baskerville for giving what by all measures is sound advice to men, then if I were Baskerville I would have opened the door for him.

Or as my father always told me, “If you can leave your values at the door for anything, you never had them to begin with.”

MRA’s, at least this one, don’t do what we do for accolades and acceptance. In fact, we have learned to press on without it often getting kicked and spit upon on the way.

We are always subject to the misinterpretations of others. It is quite the norm.

And yes, I know that is politically naive. Guilty as charged on that one.

But for me this is about men suffering; men dying; and men being flattened by a system that is designed to flatten them.

I’d never advise men to disregard that in favor of the political objectives of others. In fact, I try my best to tell men living in this world that is venomously hostile toward them on all fronts, “Take care of yourself, because your government, your justice system and even those you sacrifice for will so often take you down.”

I’m hardly lying to them.

So my position to men, whom I don’t imagine for a moment need me to guide their lives anyway, is still that maintaining any illusions about marriage can and will get you broken, pillaged, jailed, raped and dead.

It happens all the time.

In the interest of brevity:

1. Men will not restore marriage by themselves, nor am I suggesting it. Most countries over the millenia fell over backwards caring for their families and women and children (female-centric). Feminists figured out how to apply female centrism to “collectively” replace husbands with village government. This is an abysmal failure. Most single mothers pay a dear price for it and are well aware it is a disaster. Feminists only deliver more poverty and trouble for women. Most women will go along with restoration of marriage so long is it can be done with a smooth transition. All we have to do is show them the policies and the politics to make it happen.

2. Female centrism over the millennia explains why the MRM has never gotten out of the starting gate. Men are supposed to die for their country and care for women and children. The MRM will succeed only when it begins to look out for women and children in ways that make feminists look like the dirt bags they are.

Hi Paul,

1. No need to call for a boycott that is by all accounts in full swing of its own accord. By the same token, there is no gain in committing political hare-kare calling for one. If there is no political advantage in doing something, there is no reason to do it.

2. It is not impossible to find a decent wife even today. I found one. You just have to measure her thinking and stability very carefully, and do it from above the beltline.

3. The gender war does result in a lot of violence. There is a lot of anger to be turned into love. Anger is the most dangerous in the absence of hope. The same guys who were ready to kill somebody are also the same guys who dedicate themselves to the success of this movement with the most vigor. Our job is to convert all that anger into the most useful directions.

4. Polemics begets polemics, war begets war. We cannot expect to change political minds if we are seen as being radical as feminists always are. The best way to politically isolate the enemy is to let it do the “stupid” dance all by itself. When we stop playing tug of war with feminists and let go the rope, guess what they fall on?

5. You can’t shove a mule on to the cart to save your life. The best you will get is a good kick in the face. Get out a carrot and the mule will follow you anywhere.

6. Most drunks won’t walk away from the bottle of hooch until somebody demonstrates by example how much better life is on the other side of that door. All we need to do is open the Marriage Values door and invite every miserable man, woman and politician to march through the door with us.

Hello Everyone

Just three things.

1. Marriage is gradually dying even in places like Iran – where feminism barely exists and where religion is strong.

To repeat myself; the internet (even in Iran) is going to destroy the ability of governments and religion (and other powerful forces) to coerce people into staying married.

And even if half the people believe in marriage, and half don’t, then, overall, it will tend to fail.

2. We cannot even agree to support strongly Marriage Values round here (e.g. me, Paul and Denis) so how on Earth, David, are you going to get *sufficient* support for this institution across the board in the general population?

For example, you claim that women with children will wake up to the poverty that our current situation leaves them in.

But this does not seem to be happening, does it?

They still vote for Obama.

3. When people flocked to Ronald Regan for Marriage Value politics, the internet was not a major force. It barely existed. I do not think that the same type of support would happen again; particularly given also the HUGE forces that are stacked against lifelong traditional marriage – forces that are growing all the time (e.g. those to do with medicine and science and DNA etc etc,)

The latter posts by Paul and Denis left me gobsmacked – and cheered me enormously – because I think that MRAs, and men, are generally heading in their direction; though, of course, the fathers groups have different goals.

As far as Marriage is concerned, I think that the best that MRAs like Paul, Denis and myself can say is this. …

If the marriage splits up, then the deal for men has to be much, much improved – on many fronts – or we will continue to make a huge fuss about it!

But, of course, this is not the same as promoting marriage.

Nevertheless, if men were to be given a much improved deal – on many fronts – following marriage breakdown then, of course, my guess is that far fewer marriages would actually break down – which would, of course, be a good thing.

If MRAs mostly believed in Marriage Values then, David, I agree that we could probably muster up much, much more clout throughout the system.

But MRAs do not mostly seem to believe in this.

What most MRAs do believe, however, is that feminists and their policies have got to go.

THIS is what **unites** MOST of us – not marriage.

Indeed, my guess would be that reducing the size and power of government, and getting rid of the feminists, would garner support from many more people these days than would Marriage Values.

But even if this was not true, the fact remains that the ‘breaking down’ of something (e.g. the government and the feminists) is a whole lot easier than building up something (e.g. Marriage Values).

So, why don’t we all focus on doing the breaking down bit first?

LOL!

Now, I know what David is going to say here!

He is going to say, “But if you allow all these marriages to break down etc etc” then you play right into the hands of the feminists – on many fronts!”

For example, millions of women and children will need support and protection, and so the feminists and governmental interference will have many ‘good’ reasons to exist.

You just cannot abandon the women and children!

In other words, if you don’t have Marriage Values, you end up needing government intervention and justifying many feminist policies – the very things that MRAs want to get rid of!

I agree.

But if we clobber the feminists and the government, so that this protection of women and children is not actually forthcoming, then the incentives to divorce will tend to disappear.

And my view is that this tactic will be more effective.

Now, I am not saying that Marriage Values should not be endorsed. I do endorse them.

But, in practice, most people are no longer going to swallow these Marriage Values because they do not need to! (Welfare etc etc).

It is only when the feminsts are clobbered and the government reduced in power that Marriage Values will actually seem like a good idea to many people.

At the moment, men are saying, “No Thank You, because marriage is suicidal,” and women are saying, “No Thank You because I do not need a man – the government will do just fine.”

In other words, get rid of the feminists and the governmental interference FIRST (something which gets a lot of MRA support, and also support from others) and then Marriage Values will appeal much, much more to both men and women.

Harry

Just one more thing! – as another example of what I am trying to say …

Telling women nowadays that feminism has brought them no major benefits is rather like trying to convince lottery jackpot winners that doing the lottery is a waste of time.

They won’t buy it.

But if you cut down the lottery handouts so that they are miniscule, then people will more likely realise that doing the lottery is not such a good idea.

But you have to cut down the lottery winnings (e.g. the welfare handouts to women) FIRST – before they will change their minds about the doing the lottery.

Similarly, if you want women to appreciate Marriage Values, then you must, FIRSTLY, remove all those things that tempt them away from these Values; such as the feminists and the government.

In summary (LOL! I can’t keep my mouth shut) there are three good reasons why the breaking down of the feminists and the interference of government should be more of a priority than Marriage Values, in my view.

1. Breaking things down is easier than building things up.

2. The number of people – and MRAs – currently concerned with Marriage Values is much smaller than is the number of those who are concerned about the nefarious activities of the feminists and of government inteference.

Indeed, the Marriage Values lot are mostly a subset of the others.

3. Getting rid of the feminists and government interference will lead to Marriage Values becoming more important in the eyes of people.

The reverse, however, will not necessarily be the case.

Indeed, I can easily envisage a whole load of government interference and feminism surviving (and/or arising) even if Marriage Values do rise to the fore.

Just imagine how awful that would be.

Government inteference, feminism AND marriage.

Harry,

1. MRA’s that avoid marriage or speak against it are not getting their rights … they are cutting them off.

2. MRA’s are far different than the average person. We are upset about the abortion of our “rights”, and can’t see beyond the nose on our face to understand what caused it and figure out what to do with it. So, MRA’s have spent 45 years throwing men’s rights ping pong balls at the wall, and still don’t understand why they don’t stick.

3. One has to be a student of human nature to understand why Marriage Values works. Women just want to have kids and eat. They take the shortest path providing the most likely success. This is not about lotteries, it is about entitlements undermining and destroying the institution of marriage (Moynihan warned us in 1963 that this would happen — he was right). Change the incentives and the behavior will change.

4. The Republican revolution of 1994 proved that lots of people fundamentally understand that the lack of marriage is behind their personal and financial problems. This problem is bigger than ever.

5. Marriage Savers has PROVEN that marriage education works. All they did was to send volunteers into public offices to point out to women what would happen if they divorced or did not marry. Divorce rates were slashed by 17.5% over seven years, and in 7 cities they were lowered by 48% or more. These are stunning results for an unfunded volunteer program, which does not even include reform of no-fault divorce laws.

5. Marriage values calls for marriage-positive changes to state laws in addition to community marriage education. The two together will reduce divorce and improve marriage rates by a minimum of 60-75%.

6. MRA’s have a choice to do something that works or to keep throwing ping pong balls at the wall. Debating in blogs accomplishes nothing, and I am not going to waste my time on anyone (feminist or MRA) who has their foot stuck in the toilet. If you want to waste your time on the MRA pity pot, be your own guest.

7. I suggest it is much smarter to do something that promises every man exactly what each of us wanted all along. Now, this will take a while, and many of us will not see these benefits in our lifetimes (unless we take the time to wisely find a gal who truly understands the value of having a husband).

8. Our role as fathers says that we have a primary responsibility to give to our kids something we could not have ourselves — a successful marriage. If we are the wise and truly dedicated fathers we say we are, we will do this because it needs to be done. I guarantee you from my own experience that this is far more fun and rewarding than spending life preaching to a small choir and trying to make angry ping pong balls stick to a teflon-coated wall.

You have said some very important words. Marriage is a legal state and one of the most restrictive a man will ever enter. To mix in any thought about sex is just to miss the point. Marriage is legally defined and nothing else. If two men wish to put themselves into this legal straight jacket then all that shows is that Gays are in the end just stupid men.

Trouble is a lot of MRAs just don’t like homosexuality. They see it as a threat.

A better way forwards is for men to stop defining themselves in terms of sex and sexual relationships. Surely there is more to us that that!

You go too far David.

1. “MRA’s that avoid marriage or speak against it are not getting their rights … they are cutting them off.”

Well, that rather depends on what they want out of life. Surely, if they wish to “avoid marriage” then they are entitled to do so?

Furthermore, do unmarried men not deserve (or have) any rights worth fighting for? – such as those to do with employment, and a decent criminal justuce system etc etc

Of course they should have such rights, but many of these rights have nothing to do with marriage.

2. “MRA’s are far different than the average person. We are upset about the abortion of our “rights”, and can’t see beyond the nose on our face to understand what caused it and figure out what to do with it.”

That’s a bit patronising, isn’t it?

Not all MRAs can’t see beyond their noses.

3. “So, MRA’s have spent 45 years throwing men’s rights ping pong balls at the wall, and still don’t understand why they don’t stick.”

In my view, they failed because they were too polite. A bit more aggression, such as employed by the gays, the blacks and the feminists, would have helped a lot.

Besides which, the first MRAs were, surely, mostly concerned with father issues.

But father issues didn’t get them anywhere then; so why now?

Furthermore, there was no workable internet until 10 years ago, and so there was no way that the older MRAs had a hope of getting through the politically-corrected walls of the media.

4. “Change the incentives and the behavior will change.”

That’s exactly what I said! (e.g. my lottery example)

5. “The Republican revolution of 1994 proved that lots of people fundamentally understand that the lack of marriage is behind their personal and financial problems. This problem is bigger than ever.”

And this somewhat supports my contentions rather than yours!!

Marriage Values as a priority does not work.

It evaporated after Regan.

6. ” Debating in blogs accomplishes nothing, … ”

I agree – which is why I am rarely here – unlike yourself.

LOL!

I do loads of other things for my activism.

7. “Our role as fathers says that we have a primary responsibility to give to our kids something we could not have ourselves — a successful marriage.”

It seems to me that this sentiment has less to do with the men’s movement – and men’s rights – than it has to do with some kind of family movement.

David, you always seem to want to limit the MM and the activities of MRAs to issues concerning ‘the family’.

But there are many other issues of concern to men.

Harry, there is nothing more to be said here.

1. I rarely converse in blogs. this is the first time I have done it in ages, and only because Paul Elam has the guts, ability, and wisdom to venture outside the cave.

2. It is not I who goes too far, rather, those who sit around and complain about fathers rights and then do nothing to fix it don’t go far enough.

3. MRA’a who avoid marriage and then complain about fathers rights are free to do as they wish, but they will never attain the rights they profess to want. Most of them will end up in a paternity suit. It they want to do that, its not my problem.

4. I will not respond to any more of your evasive counterpoints. Where you don’t understand what fathers actually are supposed to do (providing a better future for their kids — which is what so many MRM’s claim they want to do), there is much more to be fixed than I am willing or able to do.

Its so easy to sit around and kvetch, and so much more fun and useful to actually do something.

Such is the case with much of the rest of this sorry movement (that for some reason remains very happy being the victim of its own monolithic whining inertia).

I know that isn’t nice to say, but thats the way it is, so it is being said — like it or not.

In 1996 I organized the first and largest protest in the history of the men’s movement, held in 25 cities. We did that in 10 short days, and most of the movement jumped in energetically. We killed the sequel to First Wives Club and made Time Magazine. It was the first of several large protests we organized, the largest was in 1991 — the “Bridges for Children” protest held on on Father’s Day in 225 cities around the world.

Today, everybody is sitting on their weepy rear ends and wondering why nothing happens. When somebody sets out to accomplish something, the only thing I see is excuses why nothing could possibly work.

I got news for you. We didn’t get put a man on the moon with excuses why it can’t be done. You get what you deserve.

There are a number of former MRM leaders actually accomplishing things in the real world. I will not name them but you would all know them if I did. All of them gave up on this movement years ago. I’m seriously thinking they made the right move, and seriously wonder why I even bother trying to organize this sorry movement to actually accomplish a victory that would finally disempower feminism.

Harry, I have nothing more to discuss with you. When you are finally ready to live life in the answer, then there will be something worth discussing.

Correction: largest protest this movement ever did was in 2001 — the “Bridges for Children” protest held on on Father’s Day in 225 cities around the world. the wayback machine did not get all the files, so this page only shows 101 cities.

The principles today are the same but the target is different. Then, we organized and demonstrated. Today we must organize, politicize, and legislate. The most crucial factor here is the politics, and nothing flies better than Marriage Values.

I tend to agree with Paul – “Gay Marriage – Jump on in the waters fine”. If gays think that marriage will guarantee commitment in this no fault divorce era we live – go ahead and feel normal.

However, changing social policy to accommodate a group of people who’s lifestyle precludes procreation of children is ridiculous and destructive, since they are one generation from extinction (barring recruitment or sperm banks).

Gay marriage would enhance the supply side of the Divorce industry and the demand side of the Foster Care industry.

The Domestic Violence industry and the Child Support Enforcement industry may have a tough time choosing who to victimize, but it may allow CSE to legally justify (once and for all) that non-biological parents must be forced to pay child support.

Hello David

1. If we are all so useless, then why are you here? – ‘wasting your time’.

Indeed, after all your years of experience, I would have thought that you would have given up flogging such an allegedly dead horse.

2. “In 1996 I organized the first and largest protest in the history of the men’s movement, held in 25 cities. We did that in 10 short days, and most of the movement jumped in energetically.”

So what went wrong – given that it was such a great idea? – a great idea that, in fact, failed.

i.e. not such a great idea after all, was it?

3.

The internet is the key to the MM. It is the most powerful activist tool ever invented; just like the printing press was in its time.

You keep marching. I’ll keep writing.

4.

I could point to many victories that I have had in the UK in terms of changing people’s points of view, but I tend not to talk about them for ‘activist’ reasons.

I also have a backlist of emails claiming that my website has actually changed people’s lives, has empowered them hugely, has taught them a great deal, and/or has helped to alleviate some, if not much, of their depression.

And, at the moment, I am posting emails to journalists that will help to wake them up.

Last week, I was posting to numerous university groups across the UK.

Three weeks ago I was talking – as an MRA – to the very man who was responsible for the leaking of the information concerning UK MPs’ fraudulent expense claims to the newspapers – something that has had a huge impact in this country and that has caused support for the Labour Party to crumble.

And I do other things too.

So, David, do not tell me that I am wasting my time – because this is evidently not the case.

5.

Some people are good at writing, some good at being comedians, some good at marching, some good at legislating, some good at climbing political ladders, and some good at rolling around the internet and moaning about feminism.

Round here, we meet the latter.

But some time soon we will all begin to link up. And it is those who have practised all the arguments – on their various forums and websites – who will then begin to exert the most power.

And, quite frankly, telling MRAs that they are wasting their time does not help very much.

Finally,

6. “I will not respond to any more of your evasive counterpoints.”

I never engage in such game-playing. Maybe I misundertood what points you were making. Remember, I don’t necessarily read your words in the same way that you do. And I’m also not an American.

Hello Jim,

This piece about Gay Marriage might interest you …

http://www.angryharry.com/es-Gay-Marriage.htm

Harry,

Sure, there are lots of horrors to be leaked about governmental abuses. I have spent thousands of hours leaking abuses myself (see the RADAR reports about the ABA, for example).

Leaking them usually fixes little — they just figure out another way to do the abuse within the existing machine structure. Often times they don’t do anything. Sometimes the leakers end up in jail or persecuted by FBI (I have seen this happen to folks I know quite well).

Marriage values will change the machine structure. Nothing less than that will change anything for the better.

Hello David

I call a truce.

No hard feelings, eh?

Harry

Harry,

Truce accepted.

I’m not saying that MRA’s should drop everything. What I’m saying is that when dealing with the outside world, every one of our issues is much more strongly stated using Marriage Values principles.

I guarantee you it works. here are examples of two Missouri state laws we got passed that nobody else has been able to touch. They were both passed using early Marriage Values language, whereas before the legislature did not listen.

See:

Missouri Moveaway law, the toughest in the nation

Missouri statute requiring support modification for military reservists

But these laws only corral the problems — they don’t address the larger problems marriage absence causes for everyone. Contemporary marriage values language addresses all MRA issues from the indelible language of Marriage Values.

Give it a try, my friend. It doesn’t get any better than this.

In no way Harry have you wasted your time and energy. You have inspired and opened the eyes of a great many men. You are one of a very small number of “big names” leading the charge as a Thought Leader. You are an intellectual force-and some can’t play in your league.

Oh yes, David, I WILL give it a try.

I am always very keen to seek more effective ways in which to scupper the feminists, not only on the internet, but in personal conversations and in social chit-chat.

And, as you know, you have to be armed to the teeth when attacking feminism and PC, or you end up being ‘frozen out’ or mocked in some way.

My own advice to you would be this. Always point out how various groups actually PROFIT from all the misandry and anti-male agenda; e.g. as Prof Baskerville.

This opens the eyes of many to WHY and HOW they are being duped.

Best

Harry

Thank you Denis.

Harry, take a look at this MND posting about fatal child abuse, and see how I worded it.

I beat down a huge effort by Missouri Bar Association feminists who threw symposiums all over the state to try to kill it.

All I did was to point out that 2/3 of fatal child abuse is caused by unstable single mothers who move around a lot from one place to another. I never even mentioned fathers rights. The moveaway law helps reduce serious and fatal child abuse. In Missouri, children are no longer chattel of one parent, nor can they be dragged around like furniture at the whim of the custodial parent.

This is one of many Marriage Values points that work the larger truths. Give it a try.

Jim, I think the DV industry will have a heyday with gay marriage and related DV issues. Their policy will be simple. When the couple is gay, both are perpetrators. When lesbian, both are victims.

Assuming an equal amount of gay and lesbian marriages, the resultant stats can be averaged in with heterosexual couples, pointing the finger at men all over again.

That was a joke, sort of.

Hello David

“Harry, take a look at this MND posting about fatal child abuse, and see how I worded it.”

Spot on.

And now, I quote my good self; …

… around 5% of the population are either socially and/or emotionally highly dysfunctional.

Therefore, where children are brought up by single parents, some 5% of these parents are going to be highly dysfunctional.

Indeed, because highly dysfunctional adults are the very ones most likely to end up as single parents, the percentage of those children with single parents who are highly dysfunctional must be quite high – probably many times higher than 5% …

Nevertheless, sticking with the overall 5% figure just to make the point, the probability of children ending up solely in the hands of dysfunctional parents drops from around 5% (for children of single parents) to around 0.5% when two parents are around.

As such – and to generalise – whatever dysfunctional traits, harmful to children, that one considers that parents might have, it is clearly the case that one of the very best ways of protecting children from the effects of them is for children to have TWO parents!

Actually, when it comes to socially dysfunctional the rate may actually be higher.

1 in 5 Young Adults Has Personality Disorder, Study Finds

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2141910/posts

How many of these come from single mother homes? How many come from lesbian homes since these account for 80 percent of homosexual marriage homes?

The study was funded with grants from the National Institutes of Health the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the New York Psychiatric Institute.

Hi Harry,

Percentages speak volumes. Unless half of America is personality-disordered, there is no explanation for the nonmarriage, divorce rate, and/or illegitimacy rate. Humans have not changed in the last 50 years, our governmental systems have and feminism came into political prominence. Because of this, our family structures changed. Ultimately this resulted in the social disasters we see today.

In term of divorce: feminists claim that any kind of family disagreement or dissatisfaction is bad for children — that shotgun divorce is warranted — starting with a restraining order. The fact is this: children learn how to resolve conflict by watching their parents. When parents don’t do well at this, kids still learn how not to deal with life. In those situations kids decide they won’t grow up to act like mommy and/or daddy.

In terms of child abuse: marriage reduces child abuse and neglect because there are two parents to handle all the family responsibilities — neither parent is as likely to get totally stressed out. Secondly, if one parent tends to be excessively disciplinarian, this tends to be kept in check by the other parent. Having two parents doubles the chance kids will be raised both disciplined and feeling loved. In marriage-absence, one parent has to do everything. The chances that one parent can handle everything and have the nurturing and disciplinary skills necessary is substantially reduced.

Mothers do tend to be more nurturing, fathers tend to be better at maintaining discipline. Mothers teach kids to be careful. Dads teach kids to see how high they can climb on the jungle gym. Both these messages are necessary — and rarely delivered in marriage-absence.

The next time you see somebody yammering about domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect, you have some strong ammunition to respond with.