by Angry Harry
MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) need now to prepare for the horrors that are in store for them. Over the next two years or so they are going to see their countries continue to decline both economically and socially, and they are very likely to find themselves also having to deal with an increased threat of terrorism. The prospect of deadly viruses being unleashed being particularly high in terms of probability. Feminism and political correctness are going to exacerbate all these problems.
I will not waste your time here listing the numerous ways in which they will do this, because I know that most of you are already well aware of how, and through what mechanisms, these two ideologies exert their powerful malign forces. In other words, you do not need any further lessons from me.
Indeed, you all know that these two ideologies are bound to destroy completely our countries and our cultures some day, and that this will probably arise through a process of deterioration rather than catastrophe - assuming, of course, that we can avoid an attack by deadly viruses.
Well, in my view, we are now very close indeed to meltdown, but, more importantly, the public is beginning to sense this too. Those with insight and intelligence, many of who will sit in powerful positions, will also clearly be aware of the doom that is impending unless some strong action is taken.
And, in my view, MRAs must now capitalise on this perfectly valid growing sense of doom by pointing out to whomsoever will listen to them that the destruction of feminism and political correctness could help considerably to alleviate the situation.
In other words, I would like to see MRAs focusing less on the outrages that men so often have to endure (family courts, misandry in advertising etc) and more on stirring up fear in the public about the impending awfulness that is going to arise unless we do something about these ideologies.
Here is just one example of what I mean.
MRAs are well aware of just how outrageous are our family courts, and they protest very strongly about the appalling way in which men are being treated by them.
Well, what I am suggesting is this.
Instead of focusing strongly on how outrageous are these courts, it is probably now better for MRAs to start pointing out more strongly to the world that the actions of these courts are going to make our societies much more unpleasant; particularly for women.
When times are good, people will not respond to such a message. But when times are bad - which they are now - such a message is very, very powerful.
Let me put this same point across more crudely.
Very few people ‘out there’ care about the injustices that men face - which is one of the main reasons that the MM has been so slow to grow - but millions of people - women included - will be terrified by what the future has in store for them if MRAs can implant the right connections in their minds.
And the portentous current situation (economically, socially etc) will make their minds very receptive indeed to such connections.
In other words, it is time to change tactics and put the fear of G into them.
Furthermore, the intellectual debate within the MM needs to move on - for the old timers in particular.
There are two main reasons for this.
Firstly, experienced MRAs will already be very knowledgeable about the structures and dynamics of those forces and systems that are the causes of men’s problems; and they must be bored to death with having to keep regurgitating their ideas in different forms simply in order to keep their audiences interested.
And so, moving on to explore the horrors that await the masses unless feminism and political correctness are kicked into the backwaters of history will help to prevent their interest and their enthusiasm from flagging any further, and it will also open up new intellectual areas of interest to them that might, in fact, be quite fun to explore - particularly given the new technologies that seem to be appearing on the horizon.
As just one rather lurid example of this, I was reading an article the other day that explored the development of lifelike female robots to cater for … well, I shall stop there.
Secondly, experienced MRAs already have at their fingertips - either in their heads or somewhere online - all the evidence and arguments that they need for their various battles, and there does not seem to be much point in spending too much time continuing to try to add to this particular body of knowledge.
The future, however, is unknown. And so getting ahead when it comes to exploring this future in terms of the gender relations that might arise would likely attract a whole new audience.
In conclusion, therefore, I think that it is time for MRAs to move forward, and that they should try to spend less time focusing on men’s grievances (which nobody cares about) and more time on the added societal destruction (which many people will care about) that will likely take place if feminism and political correctness are not abandoned.
Clearly, this cannot be done overnight. Both our knowledge-base and our mindsets will take some time to evolve and to adapt. Indeed, it has taken some years for the MM even to become significantly aware of the well-documented connections between feminism and political correctness and Marxism/communism. (Indeed, it took about two whole years of persistent email spamming to my mailbox by other MRAs to get these connections implanted into my thick, narrow-minded skull.)
But the time is ripe.
We have a large number of intelligent, active MRAs among us. These MRAs have mastered the internet. Their writing and communication skills have improved enormously. There is now a definite sense of cohesion and purpose within the MRA community. And there is fear out there.
Let us now, therefore, explain to the world what serious troubles lie ahead unless, that is, people wake up to the fact that if they continue to support policies and rhetoric that alienate and aggravate their own men, they will do so only at their own peril.
Finally, I would like to thank Mike LaSalle for all the work that he has done over the years and I want you also to know that MND is read by many Brits. The number of times that I have come across British MRAs talking about MND or “that American site” is countless.
I notice, however, that this month’s donations to MND do not look very good. This alarms me, because I can assure you that if MND ever goes down the tube then the whole movement will suffer a very significant setback.
So, please, please, please do dip into those dusty wallets of yours and get donating. We can change this rotten world and transform it into a completely different experience for men. But the longer that this takes, the more years will you spend of your very limited life on this planet being poisoned.
So, if you come regularly to MND and enjoy all the goodies then please do ensure that you give something back.
Financial contributions - even small ones - can go a very long way indeed towards helping Mike (and, hence, others) to engage in battle with our mutual enemies - of which, regretfully, there are very many.
-AH
sgmlee said,
April 3, 2008 at 6:49 am
sgmlee said,
April 3, 2008 at 6:50 am
Jim Peterson said,
But that is because the media is trying to stop us at every turn. Heck, if the US Army Times did not have a feminist editor, the US military would be reading about VAWA and IMBRA every day and the troops in Iraq would be on strike. But the editor of the Army Times IS feminist. So nobody in the US military is learning about any of this.
Look at my article on the specific journalists whose editors (New York Times, Pittsburgh Tribune) have openly thwarted their attempts to help us. The article was called “A Feminized American Media is Incapable of Telling the Truth” and the link is here http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/25/a-feminized-american-media-is-incapable-of-telling-the-truth/
April 4, 2008 at 2:53 am
Virtue said,
April 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Angry Harry said,
We ARE making progress. For sure. Albeit very slowly.
Here, for example, is a senior UK judge sticking his neck out today in one of the most popular UK newspapers.
http://tinyurl.com/6h4xw5
(UK judges rarely make public political statements at all; never mind launch into wholesale condemnation of government policies through the media).
In fact, I was so shocked to see the judge’s words that I thought he must have read my article above! LOL!
He is doing exactly what I am suggesting - pointing out the horrible future that will unfold if feminist-inspired policies are not dismissed.
He is not talking about the ‘unfairness’ towards men when it comes to families, he is talking about the future horrors.
And, in my view, the time does now seem to be right to push those buttons, because there is nowadays a great deal of uncertainty and unhappiness about the future in the minds of the public.
April 5, 2008 at 11:19 am
steven deluca said,
The short sighted at AAUW and NOW are positively gloating about the gap in men’s health and education, and at the ease of taking money from men, but when they see it all fall down, they will run in panic looking for the few strong men left, and those men will say … like the original “Swept Away” film by Wurtmuller (was it?) when she comes begging for a piece of fish, … thinking her body is a good enough trade… wash my pants… or “iron my shirt” …
I don’t see many men and women really getting along as women judge men so harshly. In today’s paper some preacher is asking his congregation to have more sex (and to communicate, share, in many other ways) and the writer wrote how the men were likely “thrilled” and the women “horrified” and I can only wonder what young males think about being “male” to read that. Males are so disgusting that women are horrified at the thought of more sex with them??? Is that like white people being forced to swim with blacks in the south not that many years ago. How can people even write such lines as if they assume all of us see the world through feminist eyes.
At every turn men have sacrificed, in work, higher deaths, and feminist lie about small change that they think they have coming. In health we men paid more taxes for their medical benefits and women complained that men were giving them less. In the military more males are dying while young women are getting more money than young men.
Locally the feminists, last week, are still claiming that 1 in 3 women are raped or sexually assaulted. 30 years ago I thought that this would be “fixed” by now but the only thing being “fixed” is another generation of boys who will never be men.
April 5, 2008 at 8:49 pm
anti armchair generals said,
What an accurate depiction of men’s predicament your article is. About 30 years ago (before the Internet era) R.F. Doyle and his publication, The Liberator was the nationwide source for me. When I was still reading several newspapers a day. I saw The Washington Times story about Mike LaSalle and his website Men’s News Daily. Now it’s my favorite site.
sgmlee,
For years I also had difficulty in deciphering all the acronyms the pro’s used. Even in this story I assume MM meas the same as MRA. (Angry Harry explained full name as Men’s Rights Activists)
April 6, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Joi said,
Men in general are a “resented” class, and popular culture has venomous rage towards all men.
Men are systemically discriminated against in all facets of life and this has become socially accepted.
April 9, 2008 at 9:05 am
Angry Harry said,
LOL!
April 9, 2008 at 11:50 am
Denis said,
A good way to stir up fear among the public regarding impending awfulness-especially for women is by commenting here:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/whos_oppressing_who/P45/
April 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm
poiuyt said,
[1] It still takes people of conviction to stand to speak or listen at speakers corner or around capitol hill.
[2] It still takes people of convictin to queue in the rain or cold to vote down and vote away this wretched way of life that “breaks the golden rule.”
And then even in the streets one has to confront other unpalatable truths concerning this society.
[3] Even people of conviction and good ethics know that all the goodies of this society only accrue on account of the “breaking of the golden rule”.
April 11, 2008 at 1:16 am
Roger Knight said,
The Germans were once stifling indifferent to all who warned about the Jew-hate and the terrors imposed upon the Jews.
But those 250 pound packages from the sky exploding all over the place seemed to open their ears a bit, and having Allied soldiers force march then through the death camps and bury the bodies convinced them that such state sponsored hatred is not a good idea.
But when a Darren Mack reacts by shooting the tyrant and killing the wife who enlisted the aid of tyrants, everyone just says he should not have done such evil and Glenn Sacks closes his columns to comments because many of us who have experienced this terror disagree.
Why that Darren Mack is no better than Nat Turner and Sparticus! He is as bad as those Sobibor Jews rampaging their way out of the death camp!
I would like to contribute to MND. But unfortunately I am tapped out. Every dollar I have is spent feeding myself and keeping myself alive. But if it is any compensation consider this:
It is easier for me to get my hands on a knife than it is to get my hands on a dollar.
And I am extremely angry at my fellow Americans for turning their backs on what made our nation special. For not giving a damn until this nightmare happens to them. And then for committing suicide without taking some of the tyrants with them.
But I don’t need to be violent or make threats. No, not at all. For when the crisis comes, the bulk of the citizenry needs my assistance, I will simply ask,
“What are you offering me? I owe this society the allegiance that a German Jew owes Deutschland. Now you are in crisis and you want my help. But when I was in crisis it was not worth FIVE MINUTES OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME!!!!!!!”
April 11, 2008 at 4:56 am
Angry Harry said,
That’s true - but this is who **we** are. We are MRAs whose activism takes place on the internet. This is OUR part in the movement.
Others will take up the battle elsewhere. And they are increasingly doing so; e.g. the judge that I mentioned above.
Roger “Men are not listening because they believe their own wives would never do this to them and that when it happens to their brothers they somehow “deserve” it.”
No. Men ARE becoming increasingly aware of what is going on. I see evidence of this all the time. At the moment, they are not much aware of the growing men’s movement, and they are not positively engaging in activism, but they are definitely becoming very aware of the injustices that men continually face. And they are complaning about it.
Unfortunately, however, the mainstream media does not allow much in the way of criticism of the feminists etc etc because they are either dominated by the feminists, or they fear them. And they also fear losing their female audience.
Thanks to the internet, however, and thanks to sites such as MND, we will, eventually, break through.
Please also remember that the internet is ‘international’, and that Europeans and Americans together only constitute about 13% of the planet’s population.
In other words, there are other forces on the way.
April 11, 2008 at 8:15 am
lieweary said,
The answer is to reach out to the men who have been treated unfairly, and making them realize that what’s happened to them is an aberration of history and not at all normal. In the US and UK they’ve been brainwashed into accepting femifascism, but there is no reason why men should support a system that treats them as inferior to and less human than women. That’s contrary to the norm of history, and it’s even contrary to feminism itself– as written, rather than practiced.
In most countries men actually have rights, and they will have rights again as soon as they work up the courage to speak out. And it doesn’t even have to be a majority of men.
April 13, 2008 at 9:58 am
Glenn Sacks said,
April 13, 2008 at 11:03 am
Denis said,
Contrary to history-yes.
Not contrary to feminism written. Feminism has been anti-male, anti-father, and anti-family from the beginning.
Some quotes from early feminist “scholars”:
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
Ice And Fire - Andrea Dworkin”Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students - Catherine Comin
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
“‘To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
Scum Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”
Against Our Will p.6. - Susan Brownmiller
“We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”
- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women
” How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”
In “Female Liberation” - Roxanne Dunbarr
“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.”
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”
The Woman’s Room - Marilyn French
“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children….”
“Functions of the Family,” WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…”
- Sheila Jeffrys
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman - Barbara Jordan
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”
(Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) - Catherine MacKinnon
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
- Catherine MacKinnon
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan
“All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck”
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000.
Feminism is a hate movement. Is now. Always was.
To think otherwise is to fall prey to feminist brainwashing.
April 13, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Angry Harry said,
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to work very well. Ask those who have run men’s help groups how much support they have gotten from men who have been treated badly by the system. Hardly any. Furthermore, the point is to get **other** people also to care - and, by and large, they do NOT care about men.
“what’s happened to them [men] is an aberration of history and not at all normal.”
Not really true. Men have always been treated badly compared to women throughout history - and most certainly throughout the past few hundred years in the west.
and making them realize that what’s happened to them is an aberration of history and not at all normal.”
April 13, 2008 at 7:16 pm
NotNOW said,
One force that is moving in our direction is the Duke rape case. Another lawsuit has been filed against the school, school administration, Duke Univ Medical Center, that bitch Tara Levicy, and a host of others. The Duke Rape Case lives on, and we need to make sure everyone knows it.
Another force is the economy. Gentlemen, I have examined closely the global economic situation and it is quite bad. Trust me, it is going to become much worse. he most important point for us to remember is this: tax revenues are falling everywhere, and hard. Governments are running short of money. California for example is expecting several billion dollars of shortfall this year. Many states are beginning to consider early release for non-violent drug offenders etc. Noe is a great time to question every stupid feminist program’s existence on purely economic grounds. It would be wise for us to begin to write our legislators to say the following. I am sure you can come up with more:
“It really is neither productive nor cost effective for the state to NOT jail men over child support.”
“The federal government no longer can afford to offer states financial incentives to unfairly jack up men for phony child support issues.”
And most significantly IMO:
“There is a direct economic cost to government due to family breakup. That cost is paid in crime, incarceration, welfare and dependent programs, lost productivity and worker quality, school programs, drop out rates, etc.”
“Boys no longer want to go to college. We are sacrificing our futures on the alter of some bad ideology. We need ALL of our students working to their full potential so that we can compete in the global marketplace. We need to find out what is wrong and fix it.”
April 13, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Angry Harry said,
April 14, 2008 at 12:34 am
Robert Stevens said,
Yes very soon society will collaspe, it say so in the bible! A monumental battle will ensue, the forces of righteousness ( men) against the forces of evil and tyranny. In Gods universe, good will win, but folks, its gonna be a battle.
I don’t believe as of yet that the situation is irreversable. The MRA’s can slow, if not stop the destruction. Oh we will have to rebuild society, we will have to outlaw feminism and political correctness. Make the punishment for such activity very severe. However, those that survive the coming collaspe, are very likely to agree and very few, if any of the “hatemongers” ie the feminist and the politically correct are likely to survive. When people realize that these people are responsible for the misery and hard living they are enduiring, they likely won’t live long enough to stand trial for their crimes. we will simply get rid of them!
People will then have to pick up and rebuild and never tolerate them or their bad ideas any more. We will go back to common sense and common law, a simple and fair system of justice. Everybody is trully equal, there are no” special priviledges” for women or other “sacred cow” groups. Everyone is held to the same standard. Oh sure the women and the other “whiners and demanders” will cry and say it is not fair, but it is fair and for the first time they will have to “grow up” or face the consequences.
April 14, 2008 at 7:25 am
lieweary said,
April 14, 2008 at 8:12 am
Angry Harry said,
Is the Duke case being portrayed as an example of what *usually* goes on in rape trials? - or is it being portrayed as an exception - i.e. a rare event?
April 14, 2008 at 8:50 am
lieweary said,
April 14, 2008 at 10:23 am
anti armchair generals said,
I either forgat or did not know that you were a Brit. Duke has gotten some play on Interned, but MSM has largely put it on back burner. It was surprising that so storn stand was taken against the procecuto, Mike Nifong. A different type of prosedutor Jim Garrison ruined Clay Shaw’s life with flimsy evidence involving President Kennedy’s assasination. Oliver Stone even made a move portraying Garrison as a hero.
Amother Duke type case hapened at Colorado univeristy. A feminist prosecuto, plaintiff’s lawyer who was married to a member of Board of Regents got press fan the fires.
When a respected journalist Bruse Plaskett wrote a book “Buffaloed” the lawyer threatened to sue puvlishers and they backed out. So he self-published it.
Eventually the Unversity settled since the courts, and court of public opinion gave the school a short shrift.
Link to the book “Buffaloed” at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Buffaloed-Gender-Fueled-Season-Scandal/dp/1599710250
April 15, 2008 at 8:46 am
NotNOW said,
“Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion
Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.”
Yeah let’s keep separating men from their kids.
THE MONEY IS GONE; THERE IS NO MORE MONEY FOR THIS CRAP. NONE.
April 16, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Walter Schneider said,
There is a war on families and fathers. What are men good for if not primarily to be fathers and to thereby ensure not only the propagation of our species but also the continued evolution of our society, first and foremost (given the origins of the MRAs that posted their comments here) the prospering of the Western culture and the good use of its foundation, the western cultural heritage?
The successes of Western civilization and its positive impact on all of civilization are without a doubt due to the important role that fathers played in families, as the creators of and the providers, protectors and teacher for their children. The ongoing demise of our culture is without a doubt at least in large part caused by the loss of the appreciation and respect that our society once had for its fathers.
Given the vital role that men have as fathers in families, why is it that there is not a single mention of fathers by all of the MRAs who wrote here and that the word “family” was mentioned only once on this page?
Would the most important thing that MRAs could mention with regard to their concern over the obvious decline of the West and of all of civilization not be to raise awareness of the need to restore the institution of the family and the important role of the father in, rather than without, his family?
Come on now! Is there any doubt by anyone in this discussion thread that it was the traditions and culture of its families that made the West what it once was, and that the deliberate deconstruction of our families caused by the systematic removal of fathers from their families cause the accelerating decline of the West and of many other developed nations?
Should we shy away from discussing that? Has the incessant feminist brainwashing against families and fathers even re-educated the MRAs?
April 17, 2008 at 11:55 am
Denis said,
April 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm
lieweary said,
April 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Denis said,
“In other words, there are other forces on the way.”
Without smart and productive men America is finished. We have almost 40% out of wedlock births now. Greater than that in some communities (70+% in Black community; almost that in Hispanic communities-combined Blacks + Hispanics make up a large and growing percentage of the total population). This means greater and greater government spending to support a growing segment of the population that is made up of single-parent households. There are costs associated with increased poverty, increased crime. More taxation at a time when the elderly population is beginning to explode. Combining retired seniors and a large underclass and we are talking about a HUGE and entrenced unproductive drag on the economy that comes at the same time in history when America is facing stiff competition by global competitors. India and China each produce many times more engineers and scientists than the U.S. does. America cannot live off past accomplishments forever. The costly and unproductive direction that America’s culture is going is unsustainable in the face of this stiff competition. America NEEDS men who are smart, productive, and have a vested interest in the society. To have vested interests men have to be first class citizens with rights, justice, and fairness. Damaging men’s position in society will only guarantee a much worse future for EVERYONE. When the writing is on the wall and everyone else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart, productive men.
April 19, 2008 at 11:23 am
NotNOW said,
The net present value of the UNFUNDED Social Security and Medicare liability of the US government is, RIGHT NOW, $45 Trillion dollars. The economic crisis we’ve been enduring since August 07 has been caused by the disappearance of a mere $1.5 or $2 Trillion dollars (so far) from US home values, causing a mere $250 Billion or so in losses (so far) for overprivileged investment bankers. Where are we going to get money to pay for this?
Rice has doubled in the past 8 months. Oil is up 70%, corn 80%, wheat 80%, as your government prints more dollars. The government knows it is running out of money. Even CNN just reported: “Study: Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion”. THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THIS NONSENSE. The time to write your “elected” “representatives” is NOW. NOW. Most of them can be contacted online via online comment forms.
DO IT NOW.
April 20, 2008 at 7:03 am
lieweary said,
MRAs understand that, but the public still thinks that you can have a strong society without strong men who have real rights, and you can’t.
April 20, 2008 at 11:19 am
Angry Harry said,
But there is one thing that I feel the need to comment upon …
“When the writing is on the wall and everyone else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart, productive men.”
Well, of course, I hope that this is true but, …
1. It remains in the interest of government to keep the levels of societal dysfunction high, and I get the distinct impression that ‘government’ does not, and will not, care if our countries are in a mess. The bigger the mess, the more does government have an excuse to become more draconian.
e.g. see http://www.angryharry.com/brgoverningelite.htm
2. The worse that it gets, the more badly will men behave. And so it seems just as likely that - as society breaks down further - men will be even more heavily targeted and discriminated against.
April 21, 2008 at 2:30 am
KellyMac said,
In case that doesn’t work, it’s called, “The Clean Energy Scam”, and it’s about the manufacture and production of alternative fuels - namely ethanol and biodiesel. Our politicians push how it’s so much better than relying on oil, and how it’s so much better for the environment, but the rainforest is being decimated at a faster rate than it ever has before to make room to grow soybeans, among other crops. US farmers are subsidized to grow biofuel crops. The forests soak up our extra carbons, which contribute to the greenhouse effect. We cut down the trees, our environmental situation gets worse.
A quote from the article:
The best place to see this is America’s biofuel mecca: Iowa. Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies. But on Nov. 6, at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled an eye-popping plan that would require all stations to offer ethanol by 2017 while mandating 60 billion gal. (227 billion L) by 2030. “This is the fuel for a much brighter future!” she declared. Barack Obama immediately criticized her–not for proposing such an expansive plan but for failing to support ethanol before she started trolling for votes in Iowa’s caucuses.
Sugar cane is by far the best crop for this purpose. Brazil has mandated that all of their cars run on ethanol - and they produce 45% of it themselves on “only 1% of their arable land!”
They’ve reduced fertilizer use while increasing yields, and they convert leftover biomass into electricity. Marcos Jank, the head of their trade group, urges me not to lump biofuels together: “Grain is good for bread, not for cars. But sugar is different.”
But where’s the profit in that for the U.S.?
Finally, the article points out that the more land we use for producing alternative fuels, which given the inefficient way we choose to do it is an unbelievable amount, the less land we have to grow food. You think things are bad with gas prices? Wait until we don’t have enough to eat. It’ll hit the Third World first, of course, but it’s only a matter of time before we all feel it.
April 21, 2008 at 7:34 am
Denis said,
thank you!
April 21, 2008 at 9:59 am
Zebster said,
Contrary to what most feminists say, trying to solve problems with words alone - even good words - is only going to go so far. What we need is to back up those words with our deeds. Even marching on government buildings will accomplish more than simply sitting back and hurling verbal arguments at manginas in office from the safety of our living rooms. It’s high time we asked ourselves one question: are we men, or are we sheep?
April 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Walter Schneider said,
Angry Harry.
You are quite right with all of the points that lead to your concluding paragraph at http://www.angryharry.com/brgoverningelite.htm
–quote:
I do not know what the figures are in the UK, but in the USA some 660,000 prisoners are released every year into their communities. It is sheer madness for us not to give significant help to these people so that they have the wherewithal to make better lives for themselves - and, hence, for us.
–end quote
Re-educating men doesn’t work for serious and habitual criminals. There is a whole industry, almost as big as the divorce industry out there that is engaged doing that, and that sort of criminal almost without fail (in 95% or more of the cases) re-offends. Having them re-offend is a good thing for the sector of the legal industry involved with feeding and operating “correctional” services. Consider what early parole and early mandatory release of criminals will do to accelerate the repetition rate of the cycle of crime, conviction, incarceration and probation - and how much money can be made by all (except for the victims of crime, of course, but those don’t matter any more to the legal industry than the victims of “no-fault” divorce, children, do.
However, you write quite a bit about incarceration and time served by men for minor offences, such as drug offences. I wonder what sort of “significant help we should give one sector of those “criminals” to prevent them from re-offending. That sort of criminals is the one that MRAs focus and must focus on.
A good portion of the 660,000 US prisoners that are being released every year into their communities are fathers that were expunged from their families (against their will and quite often through no fault of their own - but that is the nature of “no-fault” divorce) for no other reason than that they could not comply with the child support amounts to which they had been sentenced by those whose primary aim it is to destroy families.
Educating them will not prevent them from “re-offending.” Once they have served their terms for “offending”, they are more likely to “re-offend” because the causes of their “crimes” were things like having become unemployed, under-employed, “cut-back” or “down-sized”, sick, in hospital or otherwise disabled, incarcerated for falling into CS arrears, or even having dared to become dead (yes, CS obligations extend beyond the grave and are included in the overall total). Sanford Braver’s “Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths” provides much more information relating to those causes.
At the bottom of it all is our governments’ deliberate implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family. As Lenin already said, “Destroy the family, and you destroy society.”
Of course, the feminists and the governments dominated and controlled by them and by their ideology hold that, once the institution of the family has been successfully destroyed, nothing but rubble remains. Nevertheless, out of that rubble it is then possible to construct a better, bigger and more powerful socialist state.
After all, Lenin said something else that is part of the same agenda: “Give me your four-year-olds, and in one generation I’ll construct a socialist state.” That is what he did, and that is what our feminist-dominated and -controlled governments are doing right now. To control and educate our children it is first necessary to slander and vilify all men, and only then is it possible to have the governments remove fathers from their families. Only then is it possible to replace men who are fathers with Father State in families.
There is a simple remedy for all of that. Put fathers back into families instead of increasingly tossing them out and even scaring them away from ever daring to become fathers in the first place.
Can the MRA movement go wrong if it asserts and calls for the restoration of the vital role of fathers? Is there anything wrong with showing that the accelerating decay and collapse of our nations go hand-in-hand with escalating fatherlessness in families?
April 22, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Angry Harry said,
After many years of resisting the view that the issue of fatherhood was the most important issue to which MRAs should address themselves - an issue which, if solved, would lead to other victories for men’s rights - I am now convinced that you have been right all along.
Fatherhood is the central issue - from which other things flow.
But Denis is spot on when he says that men have now thrown in the towel when it comes to marriage and fatherhood as a result of the huge disadvantage that such things are likely to bring to them.
They do not see marriage and fatherhood as good for their futures.
As such, how on Earth does one get men to campaign for them?
April 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
lieweary said,
Destroy the family, you destroy society; destroy husbands and fathers, and you destroy the family. What follows is totalitarianism and the criminality that justifies it.
April 23, 2008 at 11:18 am
Walter Schneider said,
Thanks for your comment. The key question in that is how one gets men to campaign for marriage and fatherhood.
There is no short answer to that. That is, the answer is relatively easy, but the work that must be done to make the answer reality is almost overwhelming but not impossible to do. After all, the feminists did something exactly comparable and succeeded., and don’t we all know that?
Before we go there, let’s consider one possible outcome for the future. It’s the most likely outcome and therefore also most easily overlooked. In a nutshell: What are the consequences of doing nothing?
You are one of the best when it comes to describing the inexorable consequences of doing nothing. You have done it for years - for example your analysis of the destruction brought about by the increasing greed for and growth of power by governments and other ruling elites. (E. g.: http://www.angryharry.com/brgoverningelite.htm ) It’s a good thing that is not all and only a small part of what you have done over the years.
Yes, I also agree with Denis. He provided an accurate description of the condition of the developed nations. Fathers are being tossed from their families, and potential fathers (and potential mothers to about an equal extent, I might add) are too afraid to commit themselves to form families and to have and raise children.
Denis accurately summed up the ultimate consequences of that, but let me add (in parenthesis in or after each point by Denis) the consequences for the whole world, as the social consequences of wide-spread fatherlessness will without a doubt be not just “American” but global. The consequences of fatherlessness are not merely national, other than that all developed nations are affected, but international. Escalating fatherlessness even affects developing and under-developed nations. That should not surprise anyone. After all, that is the plan!
* Without smart and productive men America is finished (as is all of civilization).
* [growing fatherlessness and illegitimacy of children] means greater and greater government spending to support a growing segment of the population that is made up of single-parent households (not just in the USA but in every developed nation).
* There are costs associated with increased poverty, increased crime. More taxation at a time when the elderly population is beginning to explode. (that is a problem now even in underdeveloped nations, where whole villages are populated with elderly and no or hardly any fertile adults or even children).
* [in the presence of a growing elderly or otherwise unproductive population] America is facing stiff competition by global competitors. (It is not so much competition as it is the export of jobs, plus the export of the culture of death and sexual promiscuity - sorry, more politically correct, that is therapeutic abortions, the liberation of women and sexual freedom)
* India and China each produce many times more engineers and scientists than the U.S. does. (Right, but the more feminism takes a hold there, the less productive, intellectually and industrially those countries will become. For instance, one of the most feared consequences of the one-child policy in China is that the working population cannot possibly care and provide for its retired parents and grandparents in the future that is not very long off. Just ask yourself why population reduction methods for the elderly population sector in the West are being promoted instead of being prosecuted. I am talking about assisted suicide and even involuntary - for the victims, that is – euthanasia.)
* America cannot live off past accomplishments forever (and no other nation can).
* ….America NEEDS men who are smart, productive, and have a vested interest in the society. (The whole world needs men like that.)
* To have vested interests men have to be first class citizens with rights, justice, and fairness. Damaging men’s position in society will only guarantee a much worse future for EVERYONE (in the whole world).
* When the writing is on the wall and everyone else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart, productive men. (Absolutely right! It is an important point that needs to be elaborated. It explains why the developed nations began to import them – smart productive men - in the 1950s, by the millions and from the Islamic nations around the Mediterranean; whereby they – of course – began the Islamization of Europe. That is no different now. The USA’s indigenous resident population no longer maintains itself and is being replaced mostly with immigrants (legal and illegal) from Mexico. Something very similar is happening in Canada. Here, just as in the USA, we promoted zero-population growth, which by now has grown to an accelerating rate of population reduction. That is due to the promotion of birth control and an abortion rate that is about the same per capita as it is in the USA. The Canadian population shortfall is compensated for – so it is hoped but vainly – by importing immigrants from all around the world (mostly from Islamic nations. By government decree, the number of new Canadian residents to be imported is one percent of the existing resident population each year.)
I experienced the Third Reich’s fight to the last bullet and until everything fell into rubble and ashes. I watched the communist block construct and build the great socialist state until it collapsed into social and economic chaos. I am not convinced that any ruling totalitarian ideology will defeat itself by suddenly seeing the light and applying common sense.
Therefore I am not sure at all that the last point that Denis made is true for our feminist-dominated and -controlled totalitarian systems. What Denis and other hope for won’t happen on its own. It must be made to happen.
The feminists created their own reality that we now all suffer from. They did it not by setting an example through their bra-burning demonstrations. They did it through usurping the education system. In my mind, the education system includes the media and all sort of publishing.
All that men (and women) who wish to have Denis’ hope become reality need to do is to take control of the education system back from the feminists. The rest - just as Lenin said, and as he, Hitler, Mao and anyone else’s totalitarian ideology (including that of the feminists) proved - is easy.
Let me point out the obvious. For at least the last thirty years, the education system has been churning out feminists, but by no means only feminists of the female variety. Boys and men have been a captive audience for feminist propaganda that indoctrinated them through the education system to the same extent as girls and women were.
Christina Hoff Sommers remarked in her book, “Who stole feminism?”, that the only concrete single achievement by feminism that the AAUW (American Association of University Women) could point to was total control of the curriculum. Right, now let’s do something about that.
The construction of feminist power and control began not all that long ago. It can be deconstructed – beginning with where the feminists began to construct their hierarchy of power. After all, as Lenin said, “Give me your four-year-olds and in one generation I’ll build a socialist state.” The feminists know that and live by it. Will those who are not feminists finally begin to do something similar but for the good of mankind, men, children and families?
April 23, 2008 at 6:48 pm
anti armchair generals said,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjEwODUwOGZmY2U4ZGQyN2RiZjRkMGRmMTA4ZjQ0M2Y=
April 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Denis said,
“Will those who are not feminists finally begin to do something similar but for the good of mankind, men, children and families?”
The MM is good at identifying the problems but less good at identifying solutions and implementing actions to solve those problems.
For the above identified problem the following can be done:
1.) More men can become teachers. Those first wave of teachers will also need to be strong activists because they will be taking head on the entrenced feminist establishment.
2.) More men home school their boys.
3.) Men form an American Association of University Men (is there one already?)
Perhaps you have other ideas on actions that can actually be taken?
A fact of life is that male and females each have a direct impact on the other gender when changing the behavior of their own gender on a mass scale. e.g., the feminist movement does not operate in a vacuum. The lives of women are not only changed but the lives of men as well.
That is also true the other way around.
A men’s marriage strike will have a big impact on ALL women if implemented on a mass scale. A great many women may eventually join the men’s movement and help us achieve our goals when they see that it is in their best interests to do so. When the women see the affect on their lives of a large segment of the male population viewing them as adversaries they probably will not like it. For men to not see women as adversaries the women will have to accept the elimination of unfair advantages over men in family life, work life, and education.
They will have to choose between a life without a man in their life and a life with a man in their life.
A marriage strike is passive resistance. It is easy to do. It has a huge impact over time.
April 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm
lieweary said,
I think that if you got enough men to agree to a marriage strike, you wouldn’t need one because you’d already have enough political force to crack down on false accusations, child support extortion, etc. You don’t need 50 million men to cause change; just half a million active and determined men.
April 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Denis said,
Please provide specific ideas as to the meaning of: “to do something similar”.
“You don’t need 50 million men to cause change; just half a million active and determined men.”
Please provide specific ideas as to the meaning of: “active and determined men.”
What specifically ought men be actively doing with determination? What specifically are the similar things to feminists that men ought to be doing?
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
.
.
.
April 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm
lieweary said,
In short, bitch, bitch, bitch– until we win!
April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm
lieweary said,
April 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Denis said,
April 28, 2008 at 9:29 am
Denis said,
“An example of this is the cost to our society of family fragmentation — divorce and unwed childbearing. A recent study released last week by the Institute for American Values stated that family fragmentation costs American taxpayers $112 billion per year — a staggering sum. That’s more than one trillion dollars over a decade. ”
“Divorce creates even more economic damage when you look at litigation costs, liquidating assets, child care, counseling, relocation, and all the other economic difficulties that everyone going through divorce is faced with.
So the conservative agenda of encouraging marriage and doing everything possible to help couples get through tough times is something that many swing voters welcome. While not all marriages are saved, there are countless situations where the right help at the right time can make the difference. The conservative emphasis on teaching family values, honoring your marriage, and caring for children as a precious gift, reverberates with people from all walks of life and all political stripes. ”
“And studies like the one referenced above also unite social conservatives with economic conservatives. Helping couples succeed in marriage helps children, helps the economy, and helps the nation. As Senator McCain speaks out on issues like these, he will find the majority of Americans nodding in agreement. ”
While I have issues with this column:
e.g., “While not all marriages are saved, there are countless situations where the right help at the right time can make the difference. The conservative emphasis on teaching family values, honoring your marriage, and caring for children as a precious gift, reverberates with people from all walks of life and all political stripes.”
the very existence is a somewhat good sign.
How can anyone or anything save a marriage when the female is empowered and enabled to extract the financial worth of the man simply by using a contract and a family court system entirely on her side?
And how can anyone say that “family values”, “honoring your marriage” are conservative values??? When was the last time “conservatives” (e.g. Chivalrists) gave a damn about family values and honoring marriage other than in the context of bashing men and fathers (e.g., “dead-beat dads).
But the good thing is that more people are seeing the unsustainable costs even if they don’t yet see that it is the one-sided family courts and one-sided marriage contracts that are the cause of the effect.
May 1, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Denis said,
Blame feminism.
Everywhere feminism took hold, birthrates have declined, for the citizenry.
Immigrants have kept the population growing.
Go to:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/05/02/the_way_our_world_ends?page=2
In 40 years:
“And America? According to the Pew Research Center, the Hispanic population of the United States will triple to 127 million by 2050, as Mexico’s population grows to 130 million. An erasure of the U.S. border, or merger of the two countries, or the linguistic, cultural and social annexation of the American Southwest by Mexico appears fated.”
May 2, 2008 at 10:04 am
lieweary said,
They can’t. The only solution these “conservatives” offer is blaming it all on men; telling men to do the good and honorable thing, while saying nothing to the women who are causing the problems.
May 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Walter Schneider said,
You asked for ideas on what men should be doing to undo the social damages that were and are being done.
First and foremost men must take back control of the educations systems in the developed nations. The problems we are discussing aren’t just American problems. They are global ones.
The next major step, is to form law societies that are run and controlled by men, so as to counteract and neutralize feminist law societies. That should be done concurrently with getting control of education.
That may sound simple, and it is, but that will take at least 30 years to get put into place.
You have a good grasp of what the problems are that plague us. From what I can see, I share your concerns, virtually to identical extents. The question is whether there are half a million men in the USA (and comparable numbers of men in other developed nations) to complain just as well, at the same time and about the same things.
There are three major steps to successful problem solving:
1.) Problem recognition by a critical mass of people that make up and are affected by a given system. A nation is a system. Civilization is a larger system in which nations are nested. Families are systems nested within communities, which in turn are nested in states are provinces, which latter are nested within a nation. Problem recognition is, for example, an understanding reached by many like-minded people as to what prevents a nation and all of civilization from functioning at optimum or at a satisfactory level of performance.
Problem recognition involves an understanding of the impact of the detrimental outcomes of the social systems in place, of the history of their evolution and of the nature of their ultimate consequences if nothing is done to eliminate or neutralize them.
One more thing is necessary in that first major step. That is to develop the will to do something to make things better by eradicating the problems that hinder us from functioning well.
2.) Solution design: To determine what needs to be done to bring us from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of satisfaction.
3.) Solution implementation and implementation of a system of feedback and control that ensures that the improved system will work within desired performance standards. Whitout feedback and control, things will deteriorate, to eventually and inexorable towards total disfunction. Systems that are left to themselves will always run down to total disfunction, either gradually or in a catastrophic collapse.
It is not the right place here to get into much more details on those fundamentals. I expanded a bit on that (it is a fairly popular article) in “How to create a new social order” at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/03/11/how-to-create-a-new-social-order/
You may also wish to read: “Men’s Studies”, at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/11/25/mens-studies/ as well as “History of Men’s Movement (and how to create a new social order)” at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/06/29/history-of-mens-movement-and-how-to-create-a-new-social-order/
Here is a word for lieweary,
You are right about men not complaining often enough. The problem with that is that men don’t necessarily complain about the right things, or that their complaints are not unified or organized. Before much can be done about that, it is necessary for men to begin to work on a common list of complaints. What sort of complaints should those be, and to what end should they be used?
For example, I have a bit of a problem with men’s rights activists who complain that fathers don’t, as a matter of course, receive equal (or equitable) child-access and custody rights after separation and divorce. That’s fine, if we think that a society can function well without families that are headed by married fathers and mothers, and whose children do not live under a common roof with their married parents. At the very best, children who live outside of whole and functioning families receive only about half of the parenting they should receive. Equal parenting does nothing more than ensure that half of the parenting that kids of divorced parents receive is equitably distributed between the parents. That may make the parents feel better (if they can cooperate to coordinate their activities better under the circumstances of two homes than they could when they were still in one home) but it is still only half of the parenting the kids should get, right? Moreover, I have now seen about thirty years of men complaining of being shafted in that and other respects after divorce, but I have not seen anything at all in the way of improving on the condition of men. The rampant discrimination against men is becoming steadily worse the more feminism’s stranglehold on society tightens.
The best sort of parenting kids can get is full-time parenting by both parents. That produces on average less than half of the problems in those children’s outcomes than single or fully shared parenting after divorce does. Check “Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family”, at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php?PHPSESSID=04a5571963443f82281d8c0bd4332322
Do you think that men’s rights activists’ primary concern should be with how to cope with the divorce epidemic and to negotiate the terms of their surrender after the fathers lost the war against the family?
It seems to me that complaining is all fine a good. Nevertheless, holding problems up to public view will not ensure that they get solved. Complaining will not get a car out of the mud in which it got stuck. Putting one’s back to the car and pushing hard will, especially if one can convince bystanders to pitch in and help.
May 4, 2008 at 4:04 am
anti armchair generals said,
I like what you suggest men should be doing. But to parahprase late-President Reagan “It’s tough to plan how to drain a swamp when you’re up to your keister in alligators”.I have been blacklisted from local paper. AP reporter who i had known for some 25 years told me during last phone conversation,”Don’t call me anymore”.
E-mails to reporters and editors are sent to cyberspace and phone calls are ended tersely. Still, I urge others to follow your suggestion, until they too are burned.
As to Walter Scneiders comments, during my some 30 years I have met many making suggestions, but when the time comes to put words into action, they vanish like national sunshine patriots and weekend warriors, only to go back to their armchairs to pontificate.
May 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm
lieweary said,
Even if we don’t support absolute equality between men and women– and God knows the feminists don’t!– the Mary Poppins approach can get a foot in the door in certain situations where a more blunt approach would get it chopped off.
May 13, 2008 at 9:09 am
FathersHaveNaturalRights said,
First, as long as men want families, they will have to face societal treatment of fathers.
Second, a handful of men opting out of long-term stable relationships and parenthood doesn’t help civilization regain it’s footing.
Instead of opting out of the things that give men a reason to believe in, care about, and work for the future, men should be fighting to make opting in to things like marriage and fatherhood a more stable preposition, as opposed to a set of things that can be stripped from them by family courts.
If someone is poised to steal your home, you don’t say “Fine, I’ll live without a home then”… rather, you say, “I will have my home and find ways to keep you from taking it from me.”
May 16, 2008 at 12:51 am
MartianBachelor said,
> and parenthood doesn’t help civilization regain it’s footing.
Perhaps not, but it’s not just a “handful” of men. The numbers are significant: perhaps a quarter or a third of men in what would otherwise be their prime marrying years, according to one recent reputable academic survey/study. Recall that only about a quarter of the population has a college diploma.
What MRA’s need to communicate to the average woman-on-the-street in language that matters to her and gets to her where she lives is that the marriage strikers are not just a random sample of men, but rather are made up predominantly of those men which stand to lose the most should things end up before a family law judge. These just happen to be the men who have the most to offer by way of education, decent jobs, stable lifestyles, savings accounts, etc.
One doesn’t have to spend much time on any single’s/dating site to see lots of women’s headlines reading “Where Are All the Good Men?” or “Are There Any Good Ones Left?” The answer of course is that there are, but they’ve dropped out of the dating/mating scene (making them invisible to women) because the risk/reward situation simply doesn’t make it a worthwhile proposition. So women are left with the low-status guys who have nothing or little, and therefore risk nothing or little.
Lots of women will then counter with two standard items to make this line of argument go away: 1) choosing correctly; 2) pre-nups.
#1 obviously blames the victim and makes it seems as though when a guy gets royally screwed in a divorce it was somehow his fault, that there are ‘right’ women and ‘wrong’ women, and that by choosing the latter he just got what he deserved. This can lead to a discussion of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, women changing from right to wrong, etc.
#2… Lot’s of women are under the impression that any problems men have with regard to marriage are entirely solved with a pre-nup. I think this is best handled by pointing out how what many men (and women) would consider to be the principle asset of a marriage, namely the children the two have together, can’t be divvied up in advance in a pre-nup (since they don’t exist at the time the pre-nup was made). And that it’s the children, whose custody is awarded to the woman 85%-90% of the time, is what’s used as leverage to make divorce a financial hell for so many men. People are fond of saying marriage is a “contract”, but you really can’t make it up the way you want to and expect the state to enforce said contract; quite the contrary, the family law judge can throw out a pre-nup on pretty much a whim.
May 17, 2008 at 9:29 am
lieweary said,
May 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm
FathersHaveNaturalRights said,
Some reject such tools on the apparent basis that no one tool accomplishes everything.
Really though, men need to embrace every constructive tool available to them, and pre-marital contracts are a big one. Just google “premarital contract” or “prenuptial agreement” to get the forms. It can be done inexpensively. And it is an amazing force of personal protection. :o)
May 17, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Joi said,
“Pre-marital contracts, “pre-nups”, don’t reverse every element of discrimination against men, but they are one of the most necessary tools for men to protect their own interests.”
“Pre-marital contracts, “pre-nups” are pretty much worthless for two main reasons.
First, they have a time limit of usually 10 years, after which they are null and void.
Second, nothing in a pre-nup can be against a social norm. So if you put in there no child support it won’t hold.
May 18, 2008 at 9:53 am
MenAreGood said,
Also we need 1000 Marc Rudov’s blitzing the TV and radio media all over the western world. Women need to hear men’s grievances in this way because the internet alone is not going to cut it.
June 15, 2008 at 10:07 am
FathersHaveNaturalRights said,
Running away and hiding is a really poor answer. So, the feminist matriarchy treats fatherhood like garbage and so you will run from raising a family?
In that case, you have just let the feminist matriarchy define your life for you, and you’ve gotten out of the way so they can trash fathers and husbands even more.
The manly thing to do is to be a husband and a father and acknowledge how screwed up the system is and fight it tooth and nail. To analogize, if someone is throwing bricks at your house, you don’t win by saying, “Well, I won’t have a house then!”
NO.
You win by fighting, and instituting protection for your house, declaring your right to preserve, protect and defend your house, and refusing to compromise your life because feminism is bent on cheapening specific parts of it.
June 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Denis said,
And you father’s have shown us men for the last 40+ years just how effective your “fighting” has been.
The truth is there has been no effective fighting.
And the shaming tactics, and your attempts to portray yourself as “the man” falls on many deaf ears as well. We have all been listening to such talk for decades, e.g.,listening to women insult, denigrate, and emasculate men, along with the women AND men from religious right and other chivalrists, as well as from the feminized liberal manginas who are all no different. Get in line behind the rest of them.
The marriage strike is the only effective weapon today-it is causing women to re-think some of the above attitudes they have been displaying for decades-and is putting the power back into the hands of men as individuals. Collectively-one day-we will be a force to be reckoned with.
In the mean time, I’ll be watching to see just how effective your “fighting” will be.
June 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm
DcFather said,
On the other hand, that leaves millions of children out in the cold, suffering abuse and dying so that lawyers can get the money they so badly want, and feminists feel better about themselves for satiating their hate.
My view is if a lawyer makes a million dollars and ten feminists feel better about themselves for a week, it’s not worth even one child dying over. Yes, this is an unpopular view as laws are “practiced” today, but most people who aren’t part of the corruption and exploitation of children would agree with me. We just need to take our governments back, away from the special interest groups who prefer abused, molested, neglected, and dead children.
June 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm
FathersHaveNaturalRights said,
There are also those who say “run away and hide from it”, per those advocating the patently ridiculous so-called ‘marriage strike’.
Personally, I say, “Stand up, speak up, and fight the injustice indefatigably.”
And yes, that, my prescription, is exactly what real men do. Saying so isn’t shaming at all and it is fallacious to mislabel it with that word.
What it is is encouraging people to proceed down the best possible path.
And my way is the one that has not been done in the last 40 years. It is the change that needs to happen. With no doubt.
June 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Denis said,
There he goes again. Go ahead and characterize it any way you want.
Your posting here does not equate to fighting. It accomplishes nothing.
The marriage strike is a significant tool. Never before has America seen such a dramatic decline in marriage. Married couples with children who are the same biological mother and father make up less than 25% of all households. Single people and “never married’s” are over 50% of all households. Men in large numbers are avoiding it altogether. Looking at each decade of life and we see men large percentages of men in their 20s and 30s with no intention of marrying, and growing percentages in their 40s and beyond who make up the “never married’s”. These men are not running away and hiding-they are preserving their liberty. And the very act of millions of men acting in their own self-interests is giving a large swathe of the female population NO-HOPE of ever marrying. If you run into a burning building you should expect to get burned. You can call us the Run and Hide crowd if you want. We call your type The Idiots.
The beauty of this is that we don’t have to actively fight anything-not the government who is aligned against men (thanks to the aggressiveness of radical feminists and the incredible passivity of men/fathers, both past and present)and not the women.
Go ahead FathersHaveNaturalRights-I encourage you to fight and show that you are this strong can-do man-prove to me that you can go up against the government. You guys all talk big-and have accomplished nothing-NOTHING.
As you said (and I agree):
“And my way is the one that has not been done in the last 40 years. It is the change that needs to happen. With no doubt.”
We are the only ones accomplishing anything significant.
The women are getting the message too.
June 15, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Klehver said,
I submit that MRAs could try to leverage a marriage strike with a procreation strike to trade for something in return, rather that just waste two of the most powerful tools they have with women. Marriage and child bearing.
For instance if men could agree to simply refuse to get married until VAWA is repealed and refuse to have children until Presumtive Joint Custody law is the norm in every state they might be able to gain something in return for what they’re already doing anyway.
The fact is that almost all women are feminist because it pays them to be. They may not be NOW feminist, but relatively few stand up and say NOW doesn’t speak for me either. If men were to follow through with their threat it wouldn’t take long for the biological clocks to begin kicking in. Once women begin to realize that they’re not going to have the day they’ve dreamed of since they were children where all e