Socialism Fills the Manhood Vacuum

“To end Big Government and restore individual liberty: 1) grow a pair, and take control of your destiny; 2) associate only with proponents of small government; 3) never elect socialists and progressives; 4) stand up to women in every aspect of your life.”

I’ve got these covered. I’d add organize and/or support pro-male/father groups as well, only because the war is so far lost men need a collective voice again, even if it is a small fish in the large cesspool. Thanks for a fine morning read with my coffee.

Well I don’t believe big gov will solve anything, but I also know that unbridled capitalism is brutal. Railing against socialism (the usual response from the right) is not enough. I am tired of being played by both sides. We need a plan for how we can defend the rights of the average person against both Capitalism and Big Gov. You say socialism demotivates the go-getters but I’ve been kicked around by both government organizations AND businesses I’ve worked for and there isn’t anything (within the law) I can do about it. So I’m demotivated too, and capitalism is part of the reason.

OK, so whine on about being a victim. That’s real manly, and sets a good masculine example.

The superior man would set forth examples of how to deal with this while maintaining his mature masculinity – I don’t see where you do that above, beyond exhorting the reader to ‘grow a pair’.

The problem is that most men today do not know what ‘growing a pair’ looks like. How about this: when your woman begins to exhort you in public, hand her the car keys and invite her to drive herself home. Then leave. How many men do that today?

As you note, men do not have to accept abuse. The trick is training men to notice when they are being abused, and helping them with appropriate actions when they are. We see so many TV shows (for instance) where men are both treated like, and act like, jerks that there is no social measure for men that take care of themselves. We need to be discussing that.

Bring out ‘the list’ of grievances without solutions, and you are only participating in your own further feminization.

Stellar. You just broke through a membrane. One of the best articles i’ve ever read. Cutting-edge.

Where does the line start for the gonad weigh in? I can see this quickly disintegrating into an argument about who has the biggest pair, when perhaps a more fitting exhortation might be to “wise up.” Yes, all sides have historically exploited the male role, harvested the male role, for what they could glean from it. I fully agree with Marc’s comments about the left’s exploitation of men, but would merely point out that “male disposability” is a firmly entrenched tenet of the right as well. Conservatives have never spent a dime they weren’t forced to on men’s occupational safety and health, because it hurts business profits, and men are the first to die when capitalist foreign interests become threatened.

We male slaves are just that valuable of a commodity to all exploiters. Military roles, occupational roles, and lack of Offices of Men’s Health, Violence Against Men, etc. are all major areas that contribute to men’s disposability. Considering how I’ve stood up against male disposability in both leftist and conservatives camps, I guess I would need a dump truck to carry mine around in, except I don’t measure my manhood that way.

The measure of a man these days, in my opinion, lies largely in his ability to assess the entire field of play in the gender wars and strategize effective solutions, even if he is only an army of one, even if he is only incrementally furthering the betterment of our disposable sex.

However, standing alongside other like minded men is an exponential empowerment I recommend for all males. Join a men’s or father’s organization of your choosing so you don’t have to go it alone, or carry over sized burden’s placed on you by unrealistic, ego-shamers of what the male role should be. It’s also monumentally rewarding and empowering to see the synergistic achievements that can be attained when two (or more) men shoulder a load to heavy to be carried by one.

Leave your individual politics, religion, etc. at the door and work with other men on common ground for the improvement of all males. The stakes are too high not too, and the common ground of oppression and rights infringement that all men share today is massive. – IMO.

Excuse me, Mr. Ron Robinson.

To anyone who READS my articles, it is obvious that I do not whine, despise whiners, am not a victim, despise victimhood, and ALWAYS offer solutions.

The manhood vacuum is alive and growing, and, hence, so is socialism.

@ Ron Robinson

The most strenuous thing I have done today is try to understand how you went from reading Rudov’s post to the conclusions you came up with in your comment.

It is baffling to me.

Whining? Are you serious? Not only is this not whining, it is an example of just the opposite on a grand scale. Marc isn’t just telling the girlfriend to drive herself home, he is, using his real name, standing up publicly and challenging the whole culture to do much more than that.

I was pleased that he did not even respond to the lame attempt to challenge his manhood for simply pointing to a problem and describing how it happened.

That explanation, in a culture of gender ideologues and supposed manly men who don’t want to hear it, is the first step to fixing anything.

Marc Rudov was the first to pierce through the mainstream media blackout of men’s issues. He is frequently a guest on Fox News. He is a guest on many radio talk shows. He is single handedly stirring up debate and causing more and more men to think with their brains. Women too. Marc is right to point out that it is the men who have to change. “Men” since the 1960s have been silent to the advances of feminism and it’s assault on the rights of men and boys and have as a result, passed on a world for succeeding generations of males that is remarkably worse. Marc’s is a doer. Thank you for all that you do, Marc.

EXCELLENT POST MARK!

YOU SAY: “Weakness. Inaction. Apathy. Fear. One never links such terms to our Founding Fathers, great men who risked their lives to break the yoke of tyranny and establish a bastion of individual liberty.”

Great men before us have seen what you and many other men see Mark….

-”Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society”-Aristotle

rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com

There’s one key fatal error here. Small Govt. is NOT the antithesis of Big Govt. Both are equally dangerous for different reasons; if the govt. is too big, you end up with Feminism/Socialism/Communism. If the govt. is too small, you end up with directionless chaos where only those born into privilege gain the upper hand while the majority suffer because of the abuses of the privileged.

The Founding Fathers had the right idea by advocating a Republic–Rule by law rather than consensus/democracy/mob mentality/American Idol politics. But in order for a law to matter, it must be enforced. Without enforcement, laws are meaningless, impotent platitudes. This means that the enforcement of a law requires an enforcer– someone with enough power to make sure that law is followed. This requires a form of dictatorship, a ruler or a king. Any other type of leadership will automatically result in the dilution of authority, which eventually leads to a democracy– mob rule.

Of course, we all know that man’s nature often fails him and for ever good ruler, there are ten horrible ones. So while the solution calls for a leader who cares for the interests of those he serves, this cannot be accomplished because of man’s tendency toward corruption.

This is the reason why history records the jostling back and forth between the extremes of one leader vs. multiple leaders.

As history and common sense will attest, the solution is always one leader. This the model. This is the best type of government. But the major problem has always been (even with multiple leaders) man’s limited capacity.

Thus the solution is not big or small government but rather how to adequately address the lack of capacity to lead as a single ruler.

It really looks like, socialism has become MRA’s version of feminism’s patriarchy.

Marc, excellent, all. Especially “Manhood is the willingness of a male to seize control of his destiny”. Best definition I’ve ever heard. Mega-kudos.

And by the way – Marc, and Paul? I didn’t think Ron Robinson was talking about Marc’s article – I thought he was replying to Ray Merk. Not sure, but I hope so.

Marc,

I would really like you to go on the “No Spin Zone”….(blah)…and talk to ol Bill about what they just passed in the house about MANDATORY 5 YEARS in PRISON….(along with a felony)….for a MAN losing his job and falling behind on Child Support…..sponsored by a REPUBLICAN……voted through with almost 100% agreement???????

These JOKERS in Washington have put a target on ALL Men, Boys and Families in this country……

But as they say….when the President meets with N.O.W. more than ANY other group since taking office………it’s gonna get BAD……..

Let’s see if ol Bill will let you on to talk about something passed in the dark of night to DESTROY us…….

Ben Forze,

You seem to be infatuated with government and “leaders.” Leaders? How about dictators. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid enacted ObamaCare by fiat, against the will of the people. This is Big Government.

Big Government is totalitarian by design and in practice. Only eunuchs want to be ruled.

Man’s limited capacity? Sounds like socialist/feminist propaganda. Maybe it’s your projection.

If man has limited capacity, why would you entrust him with the reigns of government?

Small government is not only the opposite of Big Government, it is the ONLY government of a free people. Some people, it turns out, don’t want freedom.

Marc,

It would help people laugh less at your ridiculous used car salesman argument if you actually bothered to crack open a history book once in your life. The fingerprints of man’s fallible tendencies are all over the crime scene of his leadership efforts. For every Constitution written, there’s a genocide waged. For every disease cured, there’s a “freedom” erased. Man’s leadership isn’t without it’s merits. But has never been without its fatal faults just as your essay would appeal to a naive, flag-waving girl scout who never quite bothered to learn the ABC’s of government.

In fact, your argument is so ridiculous in nature that it ironically relies on the same silly Feminist justification for reducing man’s civil rights under the tyrannical Obama administration. Feminists are all about changing the nature of the argument into an over-simplified version of good v. evil; man is bad, Feminism is good. Control is bad. Absolute freedom is good. To say this type of approach is intellectually dishonest would be an understatement.

If I wanted to adopt your “chick logic,” I could easily turn the argument around a la Feminism’s abandoning of common sense reasoning and argue that your refusal to examine the argument and specifically address its merits is indicative of your emasculated education. I could conveniently attack your childish attempt at demonizing the opposition as nothing more than an emasculated Feminist’s last ditch effort to protect her self-esteem in the face of a superior masculine argument–one that actually made sense and didn’t hide behind pretentious Feminist posturing. I could equate your refusal to read comprehensively as your own Feminist fear of “freedom”. Such fear-based argumentation tactics belong in pink mini-skirt. Not in man’s argument.

And regarding leadership/ruling–everyone is ruled without exception, from father-son relationships to teacher-student dynamics to proper husband-wife hierarchies, being ruled is a necessary way of life. You’re just childish enough to assume that we won’t be “ruled” under a smaller govt. That’s called “Anarchy,” and it’s been tried before–another history lesson you obviously missed.

The problem is you’re naively equating leadership with some inherent evil. Man’s necessary leadership position is vital to the foundation civilization. My argument has never questioned man’s inherent capacity–this is the very thing that makes him qualified to lead in the first place. No, it has only been to express a rational aversion to man’s destructive tendency. Again, an argument based on history not hysteria.

The fact that man SHOULD lead is not in debate. The argument, if you bothered to read comprehensively, revolves around his inability to lead PROPERLY.

Ben, I have no idea what your point is.

You’ve most definitely got Marc wrong.

Squiggy, so you have no idea what’s being said, but you just know that Marc is right.

Brilliant.

My sincere apologies to Mr. Rudov and Mr. Elam… allow me to clarify a bit.

Let me start what could end up to be a rather lengthy comment with the observation that blogging about masculinity is an inherently feminine act. That’s why I stopped blogging about masculinity a few years ago.

I never arrived at a satisfactory solution (for myself) to that dilemma. Perhaps I simply need to accept it.

I did indeed thoughtlessly tar Mr. Rudov’s excellent thoughts with a brush of my private and solitary making.

The making of that brush proceeds from one thought only: that much of what one can readily discover and read on the web today amounts to whining and bleating about ‘men’s rights’, ‘…studies’, ‘…theory’, ‘…issues’ (I’ll let you fill in those ellipses yourself).

There are certainly those of us who find the studies and theory part interesting and worth discussing. But how do we resolve the contradiction that blogging about our masculinity (or lack of it) is an inherently feminine act?

I would posit today that we must simply accept that fact, then be certain to accompany our discussions with posts about concrete actions and acts (behaviors) that support and enhance our masculinity — and most importantly that we make manifest in our lives that we do not accept the endorsement or ‘confirmation’ of feminized men as our credentials for entry into the forum.

Observe my search count of certain key words on today’s opening MND page: rights – 6; victim – 2; studies – 12; theory – 3; abuse – 3; assert – 0; provide – 0; challenge – 1; femi* – 8; mascu* – 0; protect – 1;

You tell me: what’s missing? What’s the general tone set by a scan of the page?

Viewed in this light, it should come as no surprise that I mentioned ‘whining’ in my previous comment.

I take issue with exactly half of Rubov’s final conclusions. I certainly agree with his assertion to grow a pair and take control of your own destiny – but how? Are there any false paths that may mislead me? Am I more masculine if I shave my chest and grow my patchy beard as a commercial I recently saw suggested to me? But where I vigorously disagree is with his assertion that we should ‘associate only with proponents of small government’ (I would engage and change their minds) and his assertion that ‘stand up to women in every aspect of your life’ (this assertion betrays that Rubov fundamentally misunderstands the masculine perspective of mens’ collective and individual relationships with women. (I’ll be glad to explicate on this if given the opportunity.)

I agree: there is an absence and vacuum of manhood. What we do about it as men practicing mature masculine values is another question, and the answers are not as obvious as portrayed on TV or in most of what you read.

I would put forward that more of us should practice the ruthless compassion of being more honest about the difference between masculine posturing and authentic masculinity.

@ Ron Robinson

“Let me start what could end up to be a rather lengthy comment with the observation that blogging about masculinity is an inherently feminine act.”

Well, quite honestly, that is where I quit reading. (actually I did scan over the rest without relief).

With all respect, that sort of myopic mentality is precisely why we are in bad shape. I know, The Duke wouldn’t have no cotton pickin’ blog, but then this is not The Duke’s time.

I appreciate your apology, but much more so the one you extended to Mr. Rudov. I am honestly, though, just plain over individuals with ever increasing ways to spin the very unhealthy idea that men should shut up about manhood.

I trust the people of the male studies initiative, which is the most audible voice in the media for men since, well, since Marc Rudov, are similarly unimpressed with ideas of their being gagged…or shamed.

I don’t think I mentioned anything about gagging, silencing or shaming anyone.

I think what you are taking issue to was my statement that blogging about masculinity is an inherently feminine act?

We say that actions speak louder than words (my confession to my feminization, since I am… blogging) but yet what we are taking action (writing) on are things someone else explicitly did not say… yet we reach our own conclusions based on our own wounds, not on what was actually said… (just as I did in my original comment here) again a distinctly feminine act.

Many agree that the ability to face or confront difficult truths is one of the most powerful of masculine traits. But are we to deny the extent of our own feminization in this society? Is there a man present in this discussion who would make the absolute assertion that he is not feminized at all? Far better perhaps for the truth for us to acknowledge some extent of feminization and work forward from there than to try to deny it – no matter how vigorously?

You want to deny it, yet I wish to examine it openly. It’s not myopia, it’s clear vision. Failure to begin from first principles, not denial of them, is the reason men are in such bad shape. I agree that the Duke probably would not have bogged about manhood or masculinity (perhaps about horses or guns) but as you note, this is not the Duke’s time.

It’s not my intent to gag or shame anyone – after all, I am here and speaking myself.

Go back to the word count offered in my previous comment. I would ask: how can we supplement these overwhelming memes with positive measures and editorial contributions that speak to a man’s power as well as just assaults on that power?

What Marc was saying was pretty clear. When the government grows big it intrudes into our lives more and more. Consuming more and more of the fruits of our labor is itself an intrusion. Almost 50% of our working population does not pay Federal taxes and yet they get a net positive from the Federal government anyways. The Federal government is funded by the other 50% who do pay Federal taxes. Does anyone seriously believe that today’s Federal government truly needs to be this big. The correlation of the growth of government aligns with the timeline of feminism since the early 1960s. There is much I and others could say about this. But suffice to say, that all these entitlements involve transfer from those who pay taxes to those who do not. From those who stand on their own two feet and pull the wagon while the others sit in the wagon. Can anyone guess who the men are here? For me the most telling statement is this one:

“I certainly agree with his assertion to grow a pair and take control of your own destiny – but how?”

Everyman who is truly a man has to hear his own voice inside himself to know what the answer to that question is-and then to follow his own path. We all have to face our own challenges and then rise above them. If a male has no idea how to “grow a pair” and “take control of his own destiny” then he has not grown into a man.

Sadly, 40+ years of feminism has produced males who have no idea.

A quick summation of the linked Hillary Clinton article:

“We will be funneling more and more U.S. taxpayer dollars to women in other countries. For those who are men, in other countries like here: you’re out of luck! [cue evil cackle]“

Apparently I have small balls. I stand up for what I believe in, serve in my countries armed forces, and am a strong proponent of men’s rights, but alas my testes are withered and shrunken.

Goes with being a socialist. God, if only I’d known.

This article discusses the forced distribution of wealth, but it sounds more like a rant against communism than a real enlightenment of socialistic values. I’m a socialist, because I believe profit-driven self-interest does not result in affordable hydro, available healthcare, or humane (and effective) jails. You only have to look at the literally hundreds of studies that show how damaging the privatization of those public works is to realize the importance of SOME government “redistribution of wealth”.

For some people it’s a short step from “everyone’s kid should have a good education, regardless of how rich their daddy is” to “successful individuals must be punished for their success”. To me, it’s a vast divide. I know many socialists who are ALSO Politically Correct Feminazis; but they are two distinct philosophies.

Enlightenment of socialistic values? The progress of humankind can be traced along capitalism’s ascendency. It hasn’t been a straight line but it has moved humanity forward. The arc of progress hasn’t been fast enough for anyone and has occurred over generations but what has socialism proven? Socialism has left more people impoverished over longer periods of time. And many more dead at the hands of communist dictators. Trouble is America doesn’t practice true capitalism but a newfangled quasi-social-capitalism. It’s been this way before Obama. Socialism is a big lie. Even The former Soviet Union and China are seeing that. Today’s socialism in America is about the taxpayer footing the bill to save millionaires and billioaires, investment bankers, union members and their bankrupt retirement plans, pampered government workers and their bloated incomes and retirement plans (also heavily in debt). Hell most people would rather be poor in America than in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Beijing, Pyongyang. We softened up the population by turning half the population (females) into entitlement junkies. I’m guessing that what is causing you to be a socialist is your shrunken testes. There are physicians who can check that out ya know.

GHill? Funny how it was capitalist America that dragged the world out of feudalism, and fascism, and communism. Emulating the American model has brought literally billions of people out of poverty (and it’s still going on).

Socialism doesn’t bring anyone “up”. It just drags people down to the same, “equal” level. Well, except for the people who are “more equal”.

For the record, no one is striving for equality.

Those who buy that socialism is about economic equality have already lost.

It is just another guise for tribalism, getting special benefits for some groups at the cost of the rights of other groups.

“Manhood is the willingness of a male to seize control of his destiny, face all adversity, take responsibility for his decisions, and fight for his rights…”

So why, I want to know, does Rudov never seem to write/talk about something that other, far less famous MRAs complain about? Namely, the lack of better male birth control methods? (For starters, search on RISUG and the IVD.)

If making sure you don’t have children before you’re willing and ready isn’t “seizing control of your destiny,” what is?

And please let’s keep in mind that ALL methods can fail, so it only makes sense for a couple to use more than one method. For those who would argue that no adult female gets pregnant these days unless she wants to, I say, tell that to the thousands of women who had first-trimester abortions last year. Women and men alike are just plain lazy when it comes to contraception, because planning ahead isn’t “romantic,” even when you’re already married. It’s time to think about more important things than romanticism, but laziness isn’t the same as “wanting” to get pregnant.

Finally, for those who DO care about making sure men have access to near-foolproof contraceptive implants, remember that 1) Big Pharma has every reason to believe that MBC will not be a truly profitable industry unless they see men openly asking for it on TV and the radio, 2) men have to be willing to help raise funds, and 3) one easy, non-inflammatory argument they could make would be “my wife and I can’t afford more children right now! We need more backups!”

In short, don’t expect a supply without a visible demand.

Of course, too many single men don’t see the point of using any extra male methods when they already have to use condoms, but……it’s their loss, as many will learn one day.

Forgot to say: Another new male method is Pro-Vas, a tiny titanium clip. (It’s reversible.)

Also see, from AlterNet: “Are You Using Anything?” by Cara Gardner (2004). It’s about the RISUG injection and the economic roadblock – namely, the fact that since it lasts for years and thus can’t be sold over and over, like pills, Big Pharma is naturally less enthusiastic about such non-hormonal methods.

For a lot more articles, see http : // www . newmalecontraception . org / news . htm

For getting faster access to such methods:

http : // malecontraceptives . org / activism . php

@ lenona:

Fathers are horribly discriminated against in regards to parenting rights.

The answer is not for men to give up becoming parents in the first place via crazy chemicals…

…the answer is to end the parenting rights discrimination against fathers.

@ Mr. Knight:

Um, can’t you read? As I hinted, quite a few men – whether they’d call themselves MRAs or not – WANT better male birth control.

However, a man needs to put his money where his mouth is.

I realize some people are horrified at the idea that there is ANYONE who doesn’t WANT to be a parent – or who even wants to delay parenthood. However, I can think of only one person I’ve ever met who thinks becoming a parent is automatically a good thing, no matter what the circumstances. (Example: When JFK Jr. crashed his plane, I said: “Oh well, at least they didn’t make orphans out of any poor kids,” and he was shocked and said “what do you MEAN? It’s TERRIBLE they didn’t have kids!” He wasn’t a Kennedy fanatic, either – in fact, he’s a Republican. Sheesh.)

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to get sterilized – or for not wanting to use hormonal methods. That’s why I pointed out that there ARE non-hormonal (but yes, chemical) methods – and non-chemical barrier methods.

Let’s face it. Prevention is better than cure, and even if you DO want a child, it’s almost always better to have one with a woman you’re willing to marry first – and preferably when YOU’RE ready for it. (I asked Bernard Chapin about MBC and, essentially, he saw no reason to raise money for foolproof, reversible male methods because “condoms work pretty well.” What’s weird about that is that earlier, he wrote some columns about Robert, a good friend of his who had an accidental(?) child with his long-term girlfriend – and eventually found himself in the custody battle from hell. Had Robert been using some device that only a doctor could remove, at least he would have been better able to think twice before having a child with that particular woman. Condoms, like pills, are too easy to forget to use – and both can fail even if you do use them.)

I do believe that, outside of the world of pro athletes, rock stars, and movie stars, MBC will make little noticeable difference in society. Why? Because men in short-term relationships already use condoms, usually, and men in long-term relationships tend to trust the women they’re with. However, that doesn’t change the fact that if YOU’RE the one who doesn’t want a child at the moment, your fertility is YOUR responsibility. (Some dolt from Indiana whose name I can’t recall at the moment wrote an article about how he would never use MBC; he compared it to having to do the dishes against his will and said that a smart man simply breaks a few dishes so his wife will give up any silly ideas of equality and take over. Clearly, it had never occurred to him that his wife or girlfriend just might try to trick him into fatherhood – or that even when the pregnancy IS a real accident, child-support laws still have teeth these days.)

To quote a well-known writer, from 1998: “Just as pregnancy is a risk of sex, so people behaving badly is a risk of love. All the more reason for men to protect themselves. How many women, after all, carry unplanned pregnancies to term because their boyfriends deceptively promise to marry them or otherwise support the child? It’s the oldest story in the world!” (I.e., women should take on the responsibility of protecting themselves too.)

Besides, how seriously will the general public take the issue of fathers’ rights when, at the moment, there are quite a few men publicly demanding the legal right (on TV) to abandon their unwanted children? (Compare that number to those men who’ve gone on TV to demand better MBC. Interesting, isn’t it?)

Oh, and here are three other benefits from MBC:

1. It will help expose adulterous wives sooner.

2. It will save men the anguish they experience from unwanted abortions. (So I’ve heard.)

3. It will give men everywhere far more social bargaining power with women who want babies.

So what are MRAs waiting for?

lenona:
“Besides, how seriously will the general public take the issue of fathers’ rights when, at the moment, there are quite a few men publicly demanding the legal right (on TV) to abandon their unwanted children? (Compare that number to those men who’ve gone on TV to demand better MBC. Interesting, isn’t it?)”

No worse than women who demand the legal right to terminate a pregnancy no matter what. In fact even as much as it may bother me (as in if I were the father of the child said woman wanted to terminiate) I can understand and ultimately agree with “her body, her choice”. On the other hand for some reason my, as a man, parental rights are not in my hands but in the hands of the woman carrying the child and then the courts. In fact there are lots of instances in which men who actually are trying to be in their kids lives are being actively pushed away by mothers and courts that are more than willing to help them. Funny thing about society is that it somehow simultaneously says that men need to be better fathers while at the same time trying to keep them out of their kids lives. The reason that happens is because the ones that shout either (and probably both in some cases) of those messages profit from that message.

It’s a catch-22 depending on what the mother wants.

If he wants nothing to do with the child it won’t matter if the mom says otherwise. If he wants to be with the child it won’t matter if the mom says otherwise. Oh if what he wants just happens to be in line with what she decided then its all good….

@Danny:

No worse than women who demand the legal right to terminate a pregnancy no matter what. In fact even as much as it may bother me (as in if I were the father of the child said woman wanted to terminiate) I can understand and ultimately agree with “her body, her choice”. On the other hand for some reason my, as a man, parental rights are not in my hands but in the hands of the woman carrying the child and then the courts.
______________

I believe that’s because once the child is born, it has rights that cannot and should not be signed away, even in advance. That’s why in many (most?) states, even a woman who WANTS to let a man off the financial hook cannot do so.
________________

In fact there are lots of instances in which men who actually are trying to be in their kids lives are being actively pushed away by mothers and courts that are more than willing to help them. Funny thing about society is that it somehow simultaneously says that men need to be better fathers while at the same time trying to keep them out of their kids lives.
__________________

Of course that’s wrong and needs to be changed. However, change may have been underway for longer than you think. As far back as the 1970s, unwed fathers who didn’t want the mothers to give up their children for adoption HAVE been able to get custody – though that probably happened most often when there was an extra relative to look after the child while the father worked. (You can read of a case like that in “Changing Bodies, Changing Lives.”)

I like to imagine a billboard:

“Don’t believe in abortion?

“Don’t want her to get pregnant either?

“Men…..get (X). Take control of your OWN life.”

@lenona:

Don’t want your daughter or son killed by abortion?

Don’t wan’t your son or daughter stolen from you by ‘family’ courts?

Simply don’t have children!

/dumbest.answer.ever.

The men’s movement has to address what happens when the woman is pregnant and wants to kill the baby over the father’s objections. THAT is fathers rights.

The men’s movement has to address what happens when the kids are born and ‘family’ courts render fathers visitors instead of parents. THAT is fathers rights.

All the caterwauling about men taking chemicals just avoids addressing those situations. That avoidance is crippling to the men’s movement.

@Danny:

Signing on to “her body, her choice” is the death warrant of biological fatherhood. When you do that, how can you expect paternal rights to magically reappear after birth?

Regarding “Big Government can’t marginalize a man without his consent (he votes socialists into power)”:

Not true. Women vote.

Regarding “a woman can’t dig a man’s gold without his consent (he votes her into power)”:

Every man should get a premarital contract, a ‘pre-nup’, to protect his money. By doing so, he takes away the wife’s incentive to leave, which protects his overall family situation.

Lenona:
“Of course that’s wrong and needs to be changed. However, change may have been underway for longer than you think.”

Well as we can plainly see despite being underway for so long its still happening at a snail’s pace or we wouldn’t have such cases.

“As far back as the 1970s, unwed fathers who didn’t want the mothers to give up their children for adoption HAVE been able to get custody –though that probably happened most often when there was an extra relative to look after the child while the father worked.”

Let me ask. Were unwed mothers held to the same litmus test of having an extra relative around to care for the child while she worked or to work to help with mother with income?

“I like to imagine a billboard:

“Don’t believe in abortion?

“Don’t want her to get pregnant either?

“Men…..get (X). Take control of your OWN life.””

While that sounds nice and would probably work very often as someone said in those cases that said birth control fails we would be right back to the position of “its her body, her choice” and “once you ejaculate its all in her hands, even after the child is born”. So while the extra methods of birth control would be nice they still won’t fix the anti-male bias of the system that places the fate of a man’s parental role almost entirely in the hands of the mother and the courts.

And as for support for more methods of male birth control. According to what mainstream media (and some feminists) say men are irresponsible jerks that will bang anything woman they can get their cocks into and then leave them hanging if a baby comes along. Based on that wouldn’t logic say that men would want more methods of birth control which would allow them to have lots of casual sex without as much fear of pregnancy? And from there supposedly we live in a society that works to benefit men (patriarchy I think they call it). If that were the case then wouldn’t would the drug companies be tripping over themselves to get this bad boy to market?

Mr Knight:

You made your points. However, you’re still not talking about the fact that not only do some men WANT better MBC, but have the gall to blame the lack of it on some feminist conspiracy, based on the nutty idea that the average woman is supposedly very worried about having too FEW babies rather than too MANY. (If that were the case, why do 80% or so of the random women asked about the idea of MBC respond by saying “I wouldn’t trust him to take it”?)

Danny said: “Let me ask. Were unwed mothers held to the same litmus test of having an extra relative around to care for the child while she worked or to work to help with mother with income?”

Well, in the 1970s, I doubt it.

And:

“And as for support for more methods of male birth control. According to what mainstream media (and some feminists) say men are irresponsible jerks that will bang anything woman they can get their cocks into and then leave them hanging if a baby comes along. Based on that wouldn’t logic say that men would want more methods of birth control which would allow them to have lots of casual sex without as much fear of pregnancy? And from there supposedly we live in a society that works to benefit men (patriarchy I think they call it). If that were the case then wouldn’t would the drug companies be tripping over themselves to get this bad boy to market?”

Not so long as doctors keep claiming that “men don’t want their genitals messed with.” Doctors don’t talk like that for nothing.

Danny said: “And as for support for more methods of male birth control. According to what mainstream media (and some feminists) say men are irresponsible jerks that will bang anything woman they can get their cocks into and then leave them hanging if a baby comes along. Based on that wouldn’t logic say that men would want more methods of birth control which would allow them to have lots of casual sex without as much fear of pregnancy? And from there supposedly we live in a society that works to benefit men (patriarchy I think they call it). If that were the case then wouldn’t the drug companies be tripping over themselves to get this bad boy to market?”

Not so long as doctors keep saying “men don’t want their genitals messed with” and men don’t bother to say “doctors are wrong.” I.e., doctors don’t talk like that for nothing, especially since we Americans don’t hang on their every word the way we used to.

It’s ridiculous the way some men try to argue that they want better MBC but the “feminist conspiracy” is keeping it out. They just don’t want to admit that they’re in a very small minority.

Lenona:
“Not so long as doctors keep saying “men don’t want their genitals messed with” and men don’t bother to say “doctors are wrong.” I.e., doctors don’t talk like that for nothing, especially since we Americans don’t hang on their every word the way we used to.”

As most people know men are socialized to not invest in their own health care (usually by way of playing up the silly notion that “real men” don’t need to see the doctor which is just a decoy to cover the real reason, to keep men toiling away for the benefit of The System) so chances are the men are scared of medical are getting their fears from that socialization. This is just another thing that men need help with, kinda how like it seems to be that when women have a problem the whole world is expected to help them.

And besides I thought that the notion of men wanting the right to “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” and hit the road was ingrained into society (or at least that what some who push the feminist idea of patriarchy say anyway). If that is the case then why would the phrama companies listen to doctors instead of listening to what men supposedly want? So are big pharma and doctors a bunch of money grubbers or are they out to serve men?

“As most people know men are socialized to not invest in their own health care (usually by way of playing up the silly notion that “real men” don’t need to see the doctor which is just a decoy to cover the real reason, to keep men toiling away for the benefit of The System) so chances are the men are scared of medical are getting their fears from that socialization.”
____________________

And men couldn’t possibly be the ones that encourage that type of machoism, just as boys dare each other to do dangerous stunts?

Last I heard, a wife is more likely to be dragging her husband to his annual checkup than laughing at him for making an unscheduled visit to the doctor.

And Big Pharma listens to its market researchers, period. (There are quite a few reports suggesting that men aren’t that interested in using MBC on their own initiative, at least, which is why I suspect that when it comes to ordinary, anonymous men, most of the consumers will be men whose wives and girlfriends BEG them to use the methods as backups to their own methods.)

Lenona:
“And men couldn’t possibly be the ones that encourage that type of machoism, just as boys dare each other to do dangerous stunts?”
I never said they didn’t. And I also know that The System is ultimately responsible for why women judge each other’s looks so harshly despite that fact that women encourage such behavior.

“Last I heard, a wife is more likely to be dragging her husband to his annual checkup than laughing at him for making an unscheduled visit to the doctor.”
No she saves the laughing for her coworkers at the water cooler where she makes casual fun of him for not going to the doctor more regularly. Calling him a coward and a baby and whatnot.

“And Big Pharma listens to its market researchers, period. (There are quite a few reports suggesting that men aren’t that interested in using MBC on their own initiative, at least, which is why I suspect that when it comes to ordinary, anonymous men, most of the consumers will be men whose wives and girlfriends BEG them to use the methods as backups to their own methods.)”"
So is this also the reason why an actual Viagra for women is just recently making a big buzz? I’d like to see said reports you mention.

@ Ron Robinson
“when your woman begins to exhort you in public, hand her the car keys and invite her to drive herself home. Then leave”

Waaw, you are the man, and what do you do when she exhorts you at home? Hand her the keys to the house and leave?