Concinnity, Conviction and Commitment
I learned a new word recently and am now pledged, of course, to use it in a piece as though it‘s been in my vocabulary since grade school. I even managed to work this one into the title.
Concinnity.
For those of you that this fine word has eluded in the past, as it has me, it means:
Harmony in the arrangement or interarrangement of parts with respect to a whole.
And it would seem to be a word apropos of the times where it involves the men’s rights movement, and a concept direly needed.
There seems to be a rift in the movement between proponents of gay marriage and advocates for family values. And I say seems most intentionally, because from the outset this is an erroneous and misleading definition in terms.
Searching high and low, I have found no MRA’s that have taken on the cause of promoting gay marriage. They don’t exist that I know of, though I could have easily missed something in a movement so comprised of scattered voices.
There are some, like myself, that view it as a non issue and a waste of time. Most of these are MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) minded fellows who are much more worried about the personal and legal hazards of heterosexual marriage than they are the supposed dangers of gay marriage to the culture.
So perhaps we can jump start the walk toward concinnity with a more accurate and honest description of the problem, keeping in mind that there is no absolute and monolithic mindset on either side of the fence.
The rift, if we have one, is between some MGTOW’s and some family values advocates. Or to be shorter, and more succinct, those that promote traditional marriage and those who think it should be avoided. In my mind, it is a rift that has been largely manufactured from within our ranks and is purely unnecessary.
Indeed, with some balanced perspective it is easy to see where these two camps complement each other and have the possibility for productive synergy, via concinnity.
First, the very reason that family advocates in the men’s rights movement exist is because the institution of marriage has been crippled and reduced to a hazard zone for men and children, and to a lesser degree, for women. The efforts of activists to change this is important and laudable. We will have marriage for some time, and growing numbers of people are losing their freedom, property and family bonds to the state enforced intrusions we now allow.
These would be the same intrusions, by the way, that drive many MRA’s to speak out against involvement in the institution in the first place.
Being motivated by the same factors would seem to be a motivation toward concinnity as well, but for reasons beyond my grasp we are in a movement that never seems to miss an opportunity to divide and implode.
I hope eternal it is just growing pains, and in fact believe it is.
And part of the pain of that growth is born from facing honest assessments and taking appropriate action, regardless of how we wish things were, or how we think they ought to be. Advising men to invest in marriage because we are trying to make changes in the laws is like telling people to keep smoking because we are working on a cure for cancer.
The very idea is as unsound as blindfolding men and pointing them toward the mine field with marching orders and an “atta boy,“ and it sadly reflects an abject indifference to their mangled bodies when inevitable explosions come.
Such are the results when we forget that being a men’s rights activist means advocacy for the men themselves, not necessarily the institutions that they have historically served.
And in taking this unfortunate stance we take from the movement what could be the one-two punch against the current paradigm by boycotting marriage and simultaneously pushing for reforms in family law. Instead, in the folly of this divide, we turn that flurry of punches inward, and suffer the self inflicted wounds of infighting.
We rob the movement of the concinnity that could actually result in inertia and momentum, breeding destructive divisions; taking the move out of a movement that has still not found its initial stride.
I will always support work to change family law and to lessen the stranglehold the legal system now has over our parents and children. I consider the men and women who pursue these changes an indispensable asset to the men’s rights movement.
I also support men and women who warn of the pitfalls of modern marriage, and caution men in the strongest possible terms to avoid it.
I am one of those with such a message and I won’t do much in the future but turn up the volume.
When marriage has been made safe again, the dynamics and the message, at least my message, will change.
Till then, I hope we can see the wisdom in supporting efforts toward change on all fronts, in keeping our fingers off each others throats, and in helping children and men avoid the gallows till some badly needed changes occur.
Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men.
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Paul,
Well said. I am a strong marriage values proponent, as marriage is the best and safest place for children, women, and men, and is the ultimate protection against excessive State intrusion into the personal lives of its citizens. But I completely understand your avoidance advice, and agree that our positions are not mutually exclusive.
An analogy: The table grape boycotts of years past were designed not to malign grapes themselves, or to destroy grape production, but to bring pressure to bear so as to improve the working conditions of those who grew and harvested those grapes — the folks who made grapes possible. I can urge people to eat fruit and describe how healthy and delicious grapes are, even as I understand why others urge people to avoid them in the short term so as to serve a greater long-term purpose. The goal, after all, is not to destroy the desire for grapes, but to make the “grape experience” better for everyone. There would be no point to the boycott, and it would be a lose-lose situation, if grapes were allowed to disappear in the process of protecting those who make them possible and improving the experience for everyone. It is because grapes are so good that those who boycott them can be viewed as making a sacrifice, rather than acting selfishly.
So it is with marriage, which must survive long enough to be improved for the benefit of all. I’m the carrot; you’re the stick. A good combination, indeed.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Paul, I first want to say that you are very special to the MRA in many ways and have wonderful gifts and knowledge to contribute. I would be mad to question your worth, lol.
Even personally I think you are a neat guy.
But I think you are putting too much of your own personal grievance onto others. It seems normal for people to do so. Just look at politicians. They get into politics to either gain financially themsleves or to change some hardship they endured. (Ok, so that’s not exactly how it goes, but they DO get into politics for selfish reasons)
1. Marriage is not going to end. It is too big a world with too many cultures and it is too ingrained in humans and too important for their well-being.
You just need to look at the UN movements which are well funded to see that destroying families is not the end goal.
2. What many men are doing is instead of stopping marriage altogether, is making it safer. They are promoting ways to make deals that are legal at the beginning of the marriage so neither side walks out a loser. They are also promoting better relationship understanding.
Even legal workers, advisers and legal societies speak up these days about the consequences of political reform around marriage. OK, they haven’t been doing it for long but you must admit no-one expected what is today’s reality.
Really, at the end of the day, it comes down to ‘no-one’ was prepared for the consequences.
3. Pro family groups don’t just say, “Hey, gay marriage is wrong”. They know after gay marriage comes gay foster parents and gay adoption. It is unfair to push this on heterosexual families. I personally don’t want gays raising my children or future grandchildren. And that is a choice I should have as a right.
But this is not what conservatives seem to me to about. They seem to also say, late abortions are not a good idea, legalising drugs is not a good idea, lowering the drinking age is not a good idea, lowering the age of sexual consent is not a good idea, making America and western countries like China is not a good idea where you can only legally have 1-2 children and those who are disabled like blind, deaf or have mental health issues are forced to be sterilised.
Even Obama recognises the family movement; the conservatives; to be of vital importance as a way to balance the progressive moves.
………
It seems to me that without knowing it, you are willing to promote the radicals in feminism.
What do you propose to put at the bottom of the cliff for all the men who suffer from your way of thinking? What do you propose to do about the violence between men that will increase? What about depression and increased drug and alcohol use? What is your solution for all the males born to single mothers by choice when you promote men not marrying and becoming fathers?
It is such a tricky thing to totally change the social ways in humans.
Anyhow, just my thoughts.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“I also support men and women who warn of the pitfalls of modern marriage, and caution men in the strongest possible terms to avoid it.”
Calvinist, Christian churches are still pushing traditional marriage on unsuspecting males, telling them they are the head of the family, telling them they have the responsibility to make the marriage work and shaming and blaming the husband, when the little Mrs. pulls the nuclear divorce option. I told one pastor that his advice to husbands is considered domestic violence behavior in any court of law in America today. He didn’t have a clue, but a few weeks later they had some woman show up at the men’s group. She encouraged men in our group to visit boys in County lock up. She said they were there because they had fathers who “didn’t step up to the plate.” I expressed my ire to the pastor over this bigoted woman coming to the men’s group. I gave him info, showing how men are driven from their children’s lives then blamed for being absent. I never went back to that “men’s support group” after that meeting, just sent emails trying to wise-up the clueless pastor.
It seems every support group and institution in America today is infested with some kind of radical feminist program, or propaganda. Where can a guy go to get moral support when family, church, law, school and society are all laboring under some misandrist prejudice?
August 31st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
And Julie, I appreciate your thoughts.
I don’t think many social commentators do what they do so much with the idea that the world will change on their words. I know I have never had that expectation.
What I think most of us do is document the world around us, though our own eyes, hopefully knowing that things are seen differently through the eyes of others.
I am not sure what you mean by grievance, as I have so many, lol.
But the idea in this piece was not so much to complain as to offer an alternative to what is happening, while doing my best to honor anyone who is doing more than just talking, even if their coarse of action differs from mine.
I hope that most read it that way.
Paul
August 31st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Traditionalists have failed miserably in their efforts to save marriage. Now that marriage is close to flat-lining they are becoming more vocal about the need to save marriage. They will even undermine the men’s movement in their outspokenness. It is laughable that marriage is considered the “safest” place for men. It is gambling with your future-with your life. A gamble with long odds against any man. This position is not the same as being a “proponent of gay marriage”. I am not. In fact I was the very first to discuss, here on MND, the very subject of gay marriage being a mortal threat to heterosexual marriage by being a direct threat to the uniquely male role of fatherhood. That was years ago: pre-Paul Elam, pre-David Usher, pre-Glenn Sacks. But the fact remains that those who are most outspoken for preserving traditional marriage have continually failed in protecting it at every step-going back decades. Their sons are paying the price. MRAs attack the feminists on this outcome. I agree with that. They were determined to destroy marriage. Millions of women took the advantages that they were given to them by the feminists. They too deserve blame.
But my greatest damnation goes to you baby boomer men who sat by and did and said nothing. Feminism would not have gone nearly as far as it has without your laziness and naive complicity. You are, and history will prove me right, the weakest generation of “men” this nation has ever produced.
If you want to save traditional marriage, by all means get out there and do something about it.
A great many men are bypassing marriage. The “never-marrieds” is at an all-time high. I too “caution men in the strongest possible terms to avoid it.” Funny-The many men I talk to consider it more than just talking.
August 31st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hi Paul. I don’t want to challenge you or anyone else here. That would be too easy as a part time student who has access to university databases in America plus… and a person on the ground.
The Internet men’s movement has a mind of it’s own. Sure it is someone’s eyes. Such a shame it is not someone’s eyes who studied.
Anyhow, I was told MND was the leader in the men’s movement and I am shocked TBH.
But anyhow, let the real life men’s movement continue and let the internet be a place to vent.
I’ll tell you what shocked me mostly about America; That is: hardly any of the groups involved in a 3 main movements knew of each other. Now at least through being interviewed for studies they have met. lol
August 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hi again, Julie. As you can see reading through the comments, there are indeed many perspectives. As it should be.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Hi Paul, you say (below)
***Hi again, Julie. As you can see reading through the comments, there are indeed many perspectives. As it should be.***
Yes, I agree.
You are a good sort.
FOR SURE!
But as you say … or should I say, as you mean, lol …. each to their own.
You are an American and your country is soooo big that one opinion means little in your world whereas I, who lives on a small island being New Zealand has to handle the clickiness, and care about a reputation that can either make you sink or swim.
We all have to face some consequence but depending on our countries, it varies.
I think I will stay with the smaller countries that work through Fidelbogan at counter fem. But I wish MND the best none the less.
You are a wonderful man, Paul.
Keep up the good work! God bless!
August 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I am one who thinks marriage offers nothing to a man. Of course this is just a personal feeling based on my personality and thinking. I go further than Paul Elam and would say it is intrinsically wrong for a man. That is not to say some men don’t thrive in marriage. But to me they are just captured animals. Some are so pathetic that they are willing to grovel and debase themselves simply to obtain the with held approval of a woman. Many men are just enchanted by the magic orifice.
If you add on top of this all the chains the state will load you once married the image becomes truly terrible.
As for Gay marriage all I can say is that I am bewildered that they should want such a thing. I do not understand why there this urge for official approval.
There are other things I don’t understand. Many MRAs who support marriage say that it is because it is better for society and better for children. What makes these people so self- sacrificing? Are not they arguing that men should sacrifice themselves for the good of others. I think we have done this for too long. And where did it get us apart from spat on as the woman exited the cave.
I expect I sound bitter.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:26 am
Paul–
First, I want to welcome you aboard as the new editor.
I am one of those MRAs who oppose same-sex marriage–not the ideal, so much as the practicalities of its implementation. For the same reason, I think marriage today is a bad idea for a man–not the ideal but its implementation under modern (anti-)family law.
I’ll focus on one of my objections to same-sex marriage.
Most suggestions for same-sex marriage include a “presumption of parenthood” provision that makes two spouses of the same sex the presumptive parent of a child born to either. That presumption cannot be overcome by any rational means. Under this new definition of parenthood, biology doesn’t matter.
For men, this means a strengthening of “presumption of paternity” laws. In short, if you’re a husband, and your wife has a child by another man, you’re the legal father with all the concomitant obligations–biology doesn’t matter. A man cannot overcome the presumption by any rational means.
For women, this introduces a “presumption of maternity” into law for the first time. If you’re a wife and your husband fathers a child by another woman, you’re the legal mother with all the concomitant obligations–biology doesn’t matter. That presumption cannot be overcome by any rational means.
This provision would eventually destroy opposite-sex marriage. This issue can be resolved, but few proponents of same-sex marriage are willing to acknowledge or address it. Until it is resolved, I’ll remain opposed to same-sex marriage.
September 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I have been a men’s rights activist for decades. My second marriage is where I had two children. My third marriage to my present wife was difficult. She had older children moving on, mine were younger. Her oldest is 35 my youngest is 20, we are really enjoying our lives today. and are happy with each other.
Most of my married friends – except for two gay men who are married – are unhappy in their marriage. Several want out but fear losing so much money and property. (Sissies – be a man, move on) What I can’t stand to see is a wedding where the female getting married is treated like such royality from the wimpy getting down on one knee begging – with women calling it romantic and men going along – to the wedding where all are so expectantly waiting for the queen to show up in her white dress as all stand and the organ blasts away to “You may kiss the bride” as if she is granting a favor – and all the while we know that there is a real good chance it will all end in divorce and she will be trying, supported by her mother and sisters “to get every dime you can get” … It’s a grand charade with equality playing no part. For most men within five years she will be telling him what do do and complaiining about how he does it. I have seen this story too many times while feminist pretend that women are at a great disadvantage with moronic men.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I would like to apologise for my ideas around men and marriage. I received an e-mail explaining that non-marriage for males means freedom.
I hadn’t thought through my ideas and did not consider how feminists had also considered marriage to be a trap for women. Even though the majority did end up marrying, at least they changed the things they didn’t like.
………..
I had known as a young person living through the 80’s that many men did not marry a second time yet I thought because statistics are showing marriage increasing that things may have changed.
But then again some men were refusing to marry in the 50’s and 60’s because they felt the world was doomed.
It may be that the statistics don’t give a true story of what is going on.
Also, ….. I just want to clarify that I don’t personally think men not marrying means men will be violent. I took that idea from a book whose research was funded by the world bank. It was about Africa and how men were less likely to be lost in the world of violence if they married and raised a family. It is very likely that if Africa was like America where there is plenty to do and jobs that give you opportunities to travel and so forth, men will not be left to feel like their life is lacking.
In fact, I do agree that marriage traps men. I have heard similar from a young age. And I think that if the payoff is negative then men would be silly to take part in it.
Anyhow, thanks for setting me straight.
You can only know what you know and if you don’t really understand something then you can only learn.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Here is the link about the book, if anyone is interested.
http://tinyurl.com/m9rn37
October 20th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
If one takes a cursory look at how ‘historical’ marriages were conducted, you would find that many older cultures realized that taking on a wife was considered a burden to a young man with prospects.
Thus, there was a dowry. This dowry ranged depending on the class of people involved. It could have been a few sheep and an ox, or it could have been gold coins. Ultimately, he was taking on a woman *plus* something else to act as incentive.
I don’t have anything resembling an exact timeline on when this happened, but it was only a bit prior to the Industrial Revolution where the dowry started to vanish, and the swap came around to where the man needed to ask permission to marry a woman of his choice, and no longer received added ‘perks’ to induce him to marry.
Many marriages were either arranged by the girl’s family, in some cases with no say by her, or if she did have a say it was to express her approval toward one male or another.
Marriage was, until recent history, about procreation and providing a stable environment for the raising of children. Young men of prospects and means often had to be induced to engage in this arrangement via some form of bribery. However, it was good for society and (was) the most stable place to raise children.
In today’s society, however, people get married for ‘love’ and numerous other reasons. Love, as enjoyable as it is, is an emotion and is thus irrational and certainly not something that lasts forever. Combine that with the lack of family/outsider influence, and you can see easily why modern marriages are a complete disaster.
Getting married to someone for love while all gooey and romantic, is inherently illogical and bound to end at some point. Thus, the very high rate of divorce. And when you are looking at someone you are infatuated with, you view that person through rose-colored glasses and often-times only see what you wish to see. The influence of family, church, or other outsiders helped to stave off many of the incompatibility issues which would result in more marriages failing.
And lastly, it is so damn easy to get a divorce these days. Far, far easier than it is to work at making a marriage work. Marriages like anything else in life require work to make them good. If you wish you keep your car running well, you change the oil and give it regular maintenance. But many people don’t view some aspects of their marriages in that same regard. And that is why they fail.
Ultimately, marriage is still the safest place to create an environment where children can grow up well-rounded, healthy and productive. Marriages now are no longer safe, thanks to the incredible selfishness of both men and women, the laziness of people to work through problems, this ‘disposable’ mentality which has infiltrated nearly every aspect of our society, ‘entitlement’ to happiness, etc, and last but certainly not least….the vast interference of government into the sanctity of marriage much to it’s detriment.
Marriage nowadays is a minefield, with a wide range of risks for young men. Any man with any level of intelligence will consider these risks VERY carefully before engaging in it. And that is precisely why marriage rates are at an all time low.