Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Choice for men?

Let's say a man and a woman have a sexual encounter and the woman falls pregnant. The woman claims a right to reproductive choice. She can choose either to have the baby or abort it. The man has no choice at all. If the woman chooses to abort he has to accept it; if she chooses to have the child then he is at the very least left with child support payments.

If, as liberals claim, autonomy is the highest good, then it seems as if men are being treated like second class citizens (as the liberal phrase goes). All the autonomy goes to the woman and none to the man.

There are men in the men's rights movement who think the answer is for men to have the same reproductive choice as women. The proposal is that men would be able to opt out of fatherhood at some early stage of the pregnancy and be released from any obligations to support the mother and child.

So what do feminists think about this idea? Some prefer to hold to a double standard:

Should men have the same reproductive rights as women?

In a recent column, feminist Ellen Goodman answers this question in the negative, writing "Some men protest that they are left with no rights and all the bills. But when push comes to shove, one of two people has to make the decision. Those decisions belong to the one who will bear the child." For Goodman, reproductive rights are only for humans with the right genitalia.

But there are others who want to be ideologically consistent:

Christie Brewster, of the Reproductive Choice Association at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, says "I think men should have a choice." Other members of the group were equally sympathetic. "I totally understand what they [the NCM] mean," said one. Teresa Wright, another member, was also interested in the idea.

...none other than Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, was quoted as saying that "men should not automatically have to pay for a child they don't want. It's the only logical feminist position to take."

DeCrow wrote a letter to the editor of New York Times Magazine a decade ago in which she endorsed the idea of male choice. "Justice..." she wrote, "dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or put another way, autonomous women, making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

Interesting. A former president of the National Organisation for Women believes that in a more just world men would choose whether or not to support the children they father. She is a feminist who supports a policy that would leave women and children in a more difficult position. But she is right that it is a logical position for a feminist woman to take: if autonomy is the highest good, then it is just to distribute it equally between men and women. The arbitrary double standard can't last forever.

What this shows, I think, is how important first principles are to intellectual/political type people. Karen DeCrow is willing to make women worse off because she believes she is supporting a just measure based on her first principles.

But it also suggests just how wrong her first principles are. When you have a father, mother and child then how can autonomous choice be made the highest good? The choice made by the mother impacts on the other two parties, as would the choice made by the father. But if you then arbitrarily declare that only the mother's choice counts, you violate the principle of "equal freedom".

And what if there was an attempt to make things equal by letting men opt out? Who would then pay to support the mother and child? In many cases, the state would pay the bills. And even if the mother herself covered the costs, the society would then be faced with very large numbers of fatherless boys.

Nor would the proposal necessarily make things easier for men. If the state were to accept it, that would mean official recognition of the idea that fathers were optional rather than necessary within family life. The status of men as husbands and fathers would further decline.

The autonomy approach doesn't work. It is maintained currently by picking out the mother as the sole rights bearer in contravention of the insistence on equal rights. But if men were given the same rights, then you would be faced with a further decline in the position of men within the family, alongside a considerable growth in state subsidised single motherhood. And the rights of the child would continue to be ignored.

The solution to the imbalance in rights is to reject the underlying principle that what matters most of all is the freedom to choose (which then becomes a contest to see whose choice trumps the other), in favour of the view that there is an objective moral standard applying equally to both men and women.

66 comments:

  1. Men have choices, too.

    For instance, it is never very hard to convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion.

    Besides, men have the choice to have some of their seeds frozen for later purposes and have a vasectomy.

    We should not be too far away from the "male pill" which will give men one more additional choice.

    Men may also decide to use a surrogate mother. (in other words, mothers are irrelevant too)

    Men must exercise control over their reproductive capacity: that's how they can gain total control over reproduction.

    No new life is possible if a man is not involved: cut the source or supply and... nothing can happen.

    Men DO indeed have total reproductive control:women have none.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But if men were given the same rights, then you would be faced with a further decline in the position of men within the family, alongside a considerable growth in state subsidised single motherhood. "

    One could argue in equal measure the opposite: if the woman knows she can't obtain support from the man if he doesn't want the child, she has less incentive to bring it to term.

    Women DO use pregnancy to ensnare men and their money. Relieving them of this option might induce them to be more circumspect about sex, or at least the use of contraception.

    We do have a potential tool to stem the tide of unwanted births, abortions, and bastardy. I speak of long-term birth control. But the left calls it eugenics and an insult to single motherhood, and the right an endorsement of premarital sex. So we're left with myriad trashy women becoming single mothers raising future gangbangers and strippers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Men do have a choice.

    It is obvious that a man who does not want to have a child with a woman and support the mother and child financially should not have sex with that woman. A man who impregnates a woman and then complains about his "rights" or lack of rights is quite simply an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The man should be obliged to support his children born inside marriage, not outside of it. It has been the norm throughout history that only marriage produced legitimate children which were entitled to the financial support from their father.

    I am glad that in the country where I live if the couple are not married father has to consent to fatherhood. I hope they abolish welfare for single mothers, too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Socialist policies that benefit single mothers are a big part of the problem here. If you got rid of that, the behavior of women would improve significantly.

    I don't care about the welfare of the offspring of single mothers. I hope they die in the streets of starvation and lack of access to health care in order to motivate other women not to follow in the path of their less ethical sisters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is obvious that a man who does not want to have a child with a woman and support the mother and child financially should not have sex with that woman. A man who impregnates a woman and then complains about his "rights" or lack of rights is quite simply an idiot.

    The point is that the woman also has that choice AND another one. She gets two bites at the apple, while the man only gets one. Under a fairness standard, which is what feminism claims to be about, that doesn't fly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous 3:19am said,

    "A man who impregnates a woman and then complains about his "rights" or lack of rights is quite simply an idiot"

    That's too harsh. The current intellectual set up for sex is that its essentially consequence free, apart from sti's and pregnancy, both of which can be controlled. Whether this is right or wrong this is the set up and the man shouldn't have to wear the entirety of the consequences should this go wrong. Additionally if the woman lies about being on birth control or tampers with the precautions in some way then the man shouldn't have to bear all the consequences.

    Now if we admit that the current set up isn't desirable and we want to move people to a better standard of behavior then I'm not sure that punitive child support payments for men without consent, and perhaps without visitation, are the way to go.

    I think that if we want to discourage an excessively casual attitude to sex it would be good to foster the virtues other than sexual attraction or congress, and also state that an excessive focus on sex leads to a baseness of character.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Men do have a choice.

    It is obvious that a man who does not want to have a child with a woman and support the mother and child financially should not have sex with that woman. A man who impregnates a woman and then complains about his "rights" or lack of rights is quite simply an idiot.

    Interestingly, that's one version of "Men Going Their Own Way" (MGTOW), i.e. men who choose to have as little to do with women as possible. Both traditional conservatives and feminists dislike men who do that. Another case where the two groups share a position vs. men.

    Of course, you are essentially taking the position that men should be held responsible for their actions in the pre-1968, pre-"pill" manner, while women have no such responsibilities at all.

    In other words, your position is a feminist one.


    As for the notion of "choice for men", it's been around for 20 years, maybe longer. It's gone nowhere. It will go nowhere, because feminists with very few exceptions are opposed to it, and thus legislatures won't touch it. As a bonus, traditional conservatives once again would join with feminists were such a proposal actually to show up in a parliament or legislature, in order to defeat it.

    So this is much ado about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know who loses in all these cases?

    The little kid.

    Its open season on babies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Men have choices, too.

    For instance, it is never very hard to convince a pregnant woman to have an abortion.


    Doesn't alter the fact that it is 100% her choice.

    men have the choice to have some of their seeds frozen for later purposes and have a vasectomy.

    That is theoretically true, but in practice frozen sperm does not last forever.

    It is obvious that a man who does not want to have a child with a woman and support the mother and child financially should not have sex with that woman. A man who impregnates a woman and then complains about his "rights" or lack of rights is quite simply an idiot.

    You are an idiot.

    With authority comes responsibility. Women have 100% authority over (a) whether or not sex happens, (b) whether or not a child is conceived, and (c) whether or not the child is brought to term. Therefore the woman should have 100% responsibility for the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And what if there was an attempt to make things equal by letting men opt out? Who would then pay to support the mother and child?

    She should have to do it. Make her responsible for the consequences of her actions. Birth control and abortion are cheap, effective, and readily available. Therefore, if she chooses to have the kid it is 100% her choice and she should bear 100% of the consequences.

    And even if the mother herself covered the costs, the society would then be faced with very large numbers of fatherless boys.

    We'd have a much smaller number than we do now, since we'd be disincentivizing rather than incentivizing single motherhood.

    If the state were to accept it, that would mean official recognition of the idea that fathers were optional rather than necessary within family life. The status of men as husbands and fathers would further decline.

    That idea is already de facto policy, so their status would not actually decline.

    However, in my view if you make women 100% responsible for the kid, then the status and value of men as husbands and fathers would increase. This is because women would have to be more choosy about who to spread their legs for -- they'd need to pick a man who would stick around. In short, we'd be incentivizing the behavior we want.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous Reader said,

    "Both traditional conservatives and feminists dislike men who do that. Another case where the two groups share a position vs. men."

    You're a clown. One person's statement does not a traditionalist conservative position in its entirety make. Unless thats "other" conservatives and not primarily the ones on this site you're talking about.

    Yes conservatives frequently have a problem with sex outside of marriage, or sex primarily for fun. Horray, I guess they're feminists then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jonathon Wolfe
    You know who loses in all these cases?

    The little kid.

    Its open season on babies.

    In the US it's been open season on babies since Roe in 1971. That's going to change someday, but I cannot predict when. There are a lot of vested interests -- some, such as "Planned Parenthood" make a lot of money off of murdering children -- that won't want the abortion industry to be made illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jesse_7

    Anonymous Reader said,

    "Both traditional conservatives and feminists dislike men who do that. Another case where the two groups share a position vs. men."

    You're a clown.

    Another deep, carefully thought out argument from Jesse_7.

    One person's statement does not a traditionalist conservative position in its entirety make. Unless thats "other" conservatives and not primarily the ones on this site you're talking about.

    So far as I can tell, tradcons pretty much universally scorn MGTOW; Woods does, every trad-con commenter on this site who's addressed MGTOW does (Elizabeth being one of them), the loon who thinks he's a French knight does.

    Yes conservatives frequently have a problem with sex outside of marriage, or sex primarily for fun.

    Of course in the part of my comment that you deliberately deleted, I noted that MGTOW choose to avoid women as much as possible. They are therefore not pick up artists (PUA's). In fact, most of them are likely not having any sex at all. But you lot can't stand the idea of a man who goes his own way, no matter what, now isn't that the case? Even if he's celibate, for whatever reason, he's not following your orders, so he's got to be vilified.

    Horray, I guess they're feminists then.

    No, just allies of feminists, as I have proven before. And as has been the case for 40+ years.

    When will you lot realize the feminists have played you like a violin over and over again?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see some things are beginning to dawn on you. Now throw this into the mix:

    In the US - a country with a 41% single mother birthrate - many of the States are near Bankrupt, the Feds most certainly are near banko, the dollar is in danger of losing it's status as the world default currency, China is "Officially Denying" rumours they plan on dumping their US reserves, and the biggest Depression since...well, the Depression.

    In short, the government CAN'T increase funding for single moms. They'll likely be cutting it soon, in fact. Possibly drastically.

    And THAT will likely result in a couple things: a sudden dedication to proper use of birth control, and pressure to change the laws so marriage will be at least marginally attractive to men again.

    But only after it becomes impossible to force men into servitude. Only after it's politically impossible to treat men as second class citizens.

    As an MRA, my only concern is that mens rights directly mirror those of women, whatever they happen to be. And faced with the fiscal reality, it's quite likely you will see abortion pushed heavily, free BC programs proffered, and draconian measures against 'deadbeat dads' intensified.

    Unless it becomes politically scary to do so.

    Without that 'hard place' facing politicians, they will just go with the flow, no matter how unjust the laws they create. There must be opposition if for no reason other than to let them know when enough is enough.

    The real trick is trying to gauge just how elastic this resistance is. How many allowances were made, how much anger and disgust swallowed? Trickier still is trying to find a way to release all that pent up energy in as constructive a manner as possible.

    Note that this may entail allowing a certain amount of destruction to take place...timing is everything, after all...

    We can't turn to either the Feminists or the Religious Right, since they essentially say the same things, they only disagree on methodology. And unfortunately, these two groups can best be defined politically as "Republican" and "Democrat".

    Which places vested government interests in direct opposition to men gaining equal rights.

    Without being faced with the impossible situation of trying to get blood from a stone, no matter where they turn...well, they'll just keep trying to bleed things. Especially if no one tries to stop them.

    Situations as you describe in the article will increase in frequency, and in wildly disparate areas, over the next few years.

    This situation was one of the warnings MRAs have been delivering for the better part of 2 decades now.

    I'm just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "That's too harsh. The current intellectual set up for sex is that its essentially consequence free, apart from sti's and pregnancy, both of which can be controlled. Whether this is right or wrong this is the set up and the man shouldn't have to wear the entirety of the consequences should this go wrong. Additionally if the woman lies about being on birth control or tampers with the precautions in some way then the man shouldn't have to bear all the consequences"

    An Idiotic position to take. There is no intellectual consensus that sex is consequence free. It never has been and never will be. There is no 100% successful contraceptive and therefore sex always carries the risk of pregnancy. If a man impregantes a woman then he is financially responsible for the consequences. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I think that if we want to discourage an excessively casual attitude to sex it would be good to foster the virtues other than sexual attraction or congress, and also state that an excessive focus on sex leads to a baseness of character."

    Agreed Jesse.

    "In short, the government CAN'T increase funding for single moms. They'll likely be cutting it soon, in fact. Possibly drastically."

    Don't forget for other minorities such as Blacks and Hispanics as well. Major customers for public programs too.

    Of course in the part of my comment that you deliberately deleted, I noted that MGTOW choose to avoid women as much as possible. They are therefore not pick up artists (PUA's). In fact, most of them are likely not having any sex at all. But you lot can't stand the idea of a man who goes his own way, no matter what, now isn't that the case? Even if he's celibate, for whatever reason, he's not following your orders, so he's got to be vilified.

    Some of us believe in celibacy. We simply disagree with the inherent liberal strand present in your philosophy. MRA's need to stop comparing us to "feminists" when many of them seem more pro-liberal than anything and simply are angry at the current modern "sexual marketplace" (why some of them seem attracted to 'game philosophy').

    Some of them tend to be biological reductionists on the same level as evolutionists and yet want to alter human nature drastically.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We can't turn to either the Feminists or the Religious Right, since they essentially say the same things, they only disagree on methodology. And unfortunately, these two groups can best be defined politically as "Republican" and "Democrat".

    I greatly disagree with your assertions Factory. You seem to be trapped in the leftist mindset that there is no such thing as truth, right or wrong and left or right. This is incorrect. Republican and Democrat are simply terms for parties and these parties tend to be either right-liberal or left-liberal in their philosophy. Comparing the underground harmless religious right (contrary to leftist hysteria) to feminists is incorrect as well. This equivalency is a fallacy because both these groups are not essentially the same and do believe and live out different worldviews and different lifestyles.

    Which places vested government interests in direct opposition to men gaining equal rights.

    On the contrary as this post has shown we are not the mirror image to feminists... you MRA's are. The head of NOW has agreed that autonomy is the highest good and believes in rights for men as well (is that not the position of MRA's?).

    If anything your opposition to us has to do with the fact that we as conservatives don't believe in concepts such as individidual rights, democracy, autonomy or human rights as the highest good and even perhaps because we oppose the modern sexual marketplace and liberal values.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "If a man impregantes a woman then he is financially responsible for the consequences. There is no such thing as a free lunch."

    No. The man is financially responsible only if he chooses to marry the mother of his children. The idea that the man is financially responsible for his out-of-wedlock children isn't traditional at all and undermines the institution of marriage, effectively destroyng the difference between legitimate children and bastards.

    Furthermore, it encourages the irresponsible behaviour by women.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "No. The man is financially responsible only if he chooses to marry the mother of his children. The idea that the man is financially responsible for his out-of-wedlock children isn't traditional at all and undermines the institution of marriage, effectively destroyng the difference between legitimate children and bastards.

    Furthermore, it encourages the irresponsible behaviour by women."

    What an absurd view point. If a man is not held financially responsible for the illegitimate children conceived by his fornication, then this gives men carte blanche to behave in the feckless and irresponsible manner which is all to prevalent today.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ""...then this gives men carte blanche to behave in the feckless and irresponsible manner which is all to prevalent today."

    I would say that those behaving irresponsibly today are chiefly women. Instead of waiting for the wedding ring they are giving it for free, then blaming men.

    The statement by previous anonymous shows the total lack of understanding of the meaning of the traditional marriage as an economic contract built on the concept of property rights.
    Here is a good post on the topic:

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html

    I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about not marrying but he has more insight than some people who call themselves traditionalists.

    Also check this:

    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/paternity-a-la-paterfamilias/

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here is an example of a woman's choice at work. I wonder, is there any traditional conservative who can possibly find any fault with the woman in this case? I am betting the answer is "no".

    From the Daily Mail:
    A man who had his sperm frozen in case he became infertile was astonished to learn that his ex-wife had tricked an IVF clinic into twice making her pregnant.

    He then had to pay £100,000 towards the upbringing of the son and daughter he had known nothing about.

    Entire article at:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392045/Man-ordered-pay-100-000-children-ex-wife-tricks-clinic-using-frozen-sperm.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Elizabeth Smith, here are the facts in a short summary.

    Feminists regard men as animals. We are nothing more than sources of sperm and resources to them. Marriage 2.0 can pretty much be summed up as a way for a woman to have children and keep them, but without needing a husband for more than a few years. Thus she gets the use of his sperm, and can boot him out of the house but continue to receive resources from him.

    From what I can tell, trad-cons think of men pretty much the same way. The divorce rate among Roman Catholics isn't much lower than the US national average. Neither is the divorce rate for evangelicals.

    That's why both feminists and trad-cons get so worked up at the idea of MGTOW, because by taking themselves out of the system, men who go their own way cannot used as beasts of burden.

    We are not animals. We are human beings. We do not like to be treated like animals. If you cannot understand that, then there's no point attempting to communicate with you, you are too high up on your trad-con pedestal to even deign to realize that men are humans, not animals.

    Eh. Looks like I went on too long, again. Oh, well.

    PS: "Choice for men" will never happen. Feminists and trad-cons will once again work together as they have in the past, to make sure that women have the maximum number of choices, while men have the maximum number of responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Elizabeth Smith, Jesse_7, and all the other tradcons on this thread.

    As a man, what I want is for men to be equal before the law with women.

    Why do you oppose that? Why do you, like feminists, demand that women have superiour rights to men before the law?

    These are simple questions, I wish some tradcon would actually answer them sometime, instead of the usual smoke screening.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mark Richardson writes:

    Nor would the proposal necessarily make things easier for men. If the state were to accept it, that would mean official recognition of the idea that fathers were optional rather than necessary within family life. The status of men as husbands and fathers would further decline.


    I really don't see how the status of men could further decline. In the US fathers are already optional within the culture and the legal system. About 40% of children in the US are born to women that are not married. That number has been trending up for decades, 30 years at least and probably 40. The popular culture makes it clear that "dad" and "moron" are synonyms.

    How would making the cultural norm also the legal norm actually degrade the position of men?

    PS: Not that such a proposal would ever be enacted into law. But pushing it in a legislature would bring out both the feminists and the trad-cons in force, and at least they'd have to explain why men should be unequal before the law in public. That could be interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is no 100% successful contraceptive and therefore sex always carries the risk of pregnancy. If a man impregantes a woman then he is financially responsible for the consequences. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Rubbish. Contraception may not be 100% effective, but abortion certainly is. Women have the right to CHOOSE, remember? If she CHOOSES to keep the kid against the will of the man, then SHE should be financially responsible for the consequences, not him, since SHE has 100% control of the decision and he has ZERO. Those who choose, should be responsible for their choice!

    If a man is not held financially responsible for the illegitimate children conceived by his fornication, then this gives men carte blanche to behave in the feckless and irresponsible manner which is all to prevalent today.

    No. Women (and ONLY women) should be held financially responsible for their decisions to conceive and bear children. Freeing them from this responsibility gives women carte blanche to behave in the feckless and irresponsible manner which is all too prevalent today.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous Reader said,

    "That's why both feminists and trad-cons get so worked up at the idea of MGTOW, because by taking themselves out of the system, men who go their own way cannot used as beasts of burden."

    I guess Mark and myself and others are all women who want men to be used as animals. Wrong, we are not indentured servants working in the fields and nor do we want men to be. We are the people who made this civilisation great and we don't want to see it tip over into anarchy, self destruction or despair. You say its too late for that? Well we pick up the good and throw our weight into fighting the bad. This is how progress will be made, and not through claiming indolence as the new breakthrough maxim. For society, as indeed for any body or organization to function, all participants, both men and women will be required to accept some obligations.

    "As a man, what I want is for men to be equal before the law with women."

    As we all do, and you're not offering any revelation by stating that. What Mark is saying is that by giving a bad choice of women to men, you're not actually going to fix the situation. Individual rights aren’t the mechanism through which many interested party institutions like the family can prosper. If you promote women’s rights the man and the children suffer, if you promote men and women’s right’s simultaneously its the children who suffer. The solution will not be found by looking at simply what is good for any one sex. We have custom and tradition as guides as to how families should operate and they should continue to hold a central place in our thinking about the family.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We are not animals. We are human beings. We do not like to be treated like animals. If you cannot understand that, then there's no point attempting to communicate with you, you are too high up on your trad-con pedestal to even deign to realize that men are humans, not animals.

    Where is this pedestal that I am so high upon? Are you drunk on game philosophy? I don't believe men are animals and I don't believe women are animals as well because we have not descended from animals. Both men and women are humans created in the image of God. I don't believe in evolution (at least the main sections of it).

    As a man, what I want is for men to be equal before the law with women.

    You are acting quite foolishly now. The entire point this post is to highlight how feminists believe in men's rights and equality. Please attend to the following quote from a consistently ideological feminist and the head or former head of NOW:

    ...none other than Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, was quoted as saying that "men should not automatically have to pay for a child they don't want. It's the only logical feminist position to take."

    And this?

    Or put another way, autonomous women, making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

    Traditional conservatives are coming up with policies concerning community and society and you kept pouring, like your brothers of the manosphere, nearly all of the blame on them. What makes you believe they are to blame? Is it because they don't believe in equality, individual or human rights or democracy? Or is it because of your own personal negative experiences concerning women and the law that you desire to pinpoint an unlikely scapegoat? Is it because of game philosophy?

    In your twisted mind you just cannot stop putting conservatives and liberals as one when in fact they are radically different.

    The popular culture makes it clear that "dad" and "moron" are synonyms.

    And your response is to what? To return the favour? To fight fire with fire?

    To make autonomy the highest good? Just like the quote below?

    Men DO indeed have total reproductive control:women have none.

    Why not just roll back autonomy for women and for men? In your mind do you honestly believe that conservatives have any great power or influence today? Is not the political spectrum dominated by liberals?

    God should be first and the traditional family and racial bonds. The traditional family should be first priority over autonomy whether it is men's or women's.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I would say that those behaving irresponsibly today are chiefly women. Instead of waiting for the wedding ring they are giving it for free, then blaming men. "

    Men don't have to accept sex for free just because it is offered. Indeed a traditionalist and conservative man would not.

    Most women are pressured in to having sex by the men they are dating.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Most women are pressured in to having sex by the men they are dating..."

    So what if they are pressured, men have been trying to get women into bed without legally binding themselves for centuries, but only 50 years ago women decided it would be liberating to give sex for free to every Tom,Dick and Harry.

    If women are so weak they can't withstand the pressure from their boyfriends may be we should switch to muslim system of locking women inside their houses and only letting them out accompanied by a male relative.

    The truth is a lot of the women enjoy so-called sexual liberation. Regrets come later, when they get incurable STD, can't find a husband or become infertile.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "So what if they are pressured, men have been trying to get women into bed without legally binding themselves for centuries, but only 50 years ago women decided it would be liberating to give sex for free to every Tom,Dick and Harry. "

    Decent men did not pressurise women to have sex. They knew that they did not get sex until they married.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "If you promote women’s rights the man and the children suffer, if you promote men and women’s right’s simultaneously its the children who suffer. The solution will not be found by looking at simply what is good for any one sex. "

    If you promote men's rights, women won't suffer(or they will suffer regardless). That imho is the main difference between the sexes. Has always been, will always be.


    "Most women are pressured in to having sex by the men they are dating."

    rapists!! the lot of them...

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Decent men did not pressurise women to have sex. They knew that they did not get sex until they married."

    Decent women were taught to behave like ladies and give a man a slap if he tried to go too far, just read any old book like "Gone With The Wind". It's a man's nature to test the boundaries. Decency nowadays seems hard to find in both men AND women.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It can get a lot worse. Consider the two following premises:

    A) Any child born into a society affects EVERY autonomous individual already in that society.

    B) Newborn children are, on the very face of it, not autonomous self-determining individuals. Yet.

    The obvious conclusion is that within a reasonable period after birth a society of autonomous individuals can collectively decide whether or not any particular newborn is convenient for their autonomy. Newborns that are not compatible with others' autonomy would be euthanized. I mean, it's not that there's any real distinction, based on the primary principle of autonomy, between a week before birth and a week after it. Also, euthanizing a week after birth could be done painlessly for the newborn, whereas, abortion a week before birth is always physically brutal. And why should the mother have any say in the matter? I mean if the goal for any childhood is to eventually produce an autonomous individual then motherhood is merely incidental to autonomy.

    So, motherhood, by definition, objectivizes children. Lord knows, we've had it drummed into us that objectivizing people is immoral, as it takes away their status as autonomous subject.

    Clearly, autonomy demands that a society craft criteria defining what makes a newborn child compatible with the overall autonomies of the existing autonomous individuals. Newborns not meeting the criteria will be euthanized.

    Good times.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Decent men did not pressurise women to have sex. They knew that they did not get sex until they married."

    LOL, you don't know much about past generations, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  36. We are the people who made this civilisation great and we don't want to see it tip over into anarchy, self destruction or despair. You say its too late for that? Well we pick up the good and throw our weight into fighting the bad. This is how progress will be made, and not through claiming indolence as the new breakthrough maxim. For society, as indeed for any body or organization to function, all participants, both men and women will be required to accept some obligations.

    You still don't get it. It's over. You lost. Anarchy and destruction are coming no matter what you do.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous said,

    "You still don't get it. It's over. You lost. Anarchy and destruction are coming no matter what you do."

    I'd advise you to leave, this is not a support website for the chronicaly despondent or depressed.

    ReplyDelete
  38. this is not a support website for the chronicaly despondent or depressed

    Exactly. I understand that some individuals will retreat passively into defeatism. But this site is for those more spirited Westerners who want to push back against what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous Reader said,

    "That's why both feminists and trad-cons get so worked up at the idea of MGTOW, because by taking themselves out of the system, men who go their own way cannot used as beasts of burden."

    I guess Mark and myself and others are all women who want men to be used as animals. Wrong, we are not indentured servants working in the fields and nor do we want men to be.

    Then why do you persist in opposing men who wish to change the laws that do make men something very close to indentured servants?

    We are the people who made this civilisation great and we don't want to see it tip over into anarchy, self destruction or despair.

    You and Mark Richardson, all by yourselves, made this civilization great? Do you have any idea how insanely egotistical this is?

    You say its too late for that? Well we pick up the good and throw our weight into fighting the bad. This is how progress will be made, and not through claiming indolence as the new breakthrough maxim.

    Nor will progress be made by trashing men who want to, for example, mandate paternity testing at birth in order to avoid forcing men to raise some other man's son. Nor will progress be made by trashing men who want to chip away at the marriage 2.0 laws, in order to reduce some of the indentured servitude aspects of marriage.

    But that doesn't stop you, or Richardson, from doing just that. You tradcons would rather expend any amount of energy hating other men who want justice than actually doing something

    Example: I search this site, looking for any favorable comment by Richardson on "Fathers for Justice". I find none. Why?

    For society, as indeed for any body or organization to function, all participants, both men and women will be required to accept some obligations.

    What planet are you posting from? Women have no obligations, none, not any, and that's due to feminist laws enacted by tradcon lawmakers

    "As a man, what I want is for men to be equal before the law with women."

    As we all do, and you're not offering any revelation by stating that.

    You make that claim, but at the same time go out of your way to attack men who are trying to make that happen. So your words, and your actions (or inaction) contradict each other. Some of your words contradict other words.

    Therefore, I cannot take your claim seriously.

    by giving a bad choice of women to men, you're not actually going to fix the situation. Individual rights aren’t the mechanism through which many interested party institutions like the family can prosper.

    Ah. You admit that you do not really have an interest in men actually securing rights? Is that correct?


    If you promote women’s rights the man and the children suffer, if you promote men and women’s right’s simultaneously its the children who suffer. The solution will not be found by looking at simply what is good for any one sex. We have custom and tradition as guides as to how families should operate and they should continue to hold a central place in our thinking about the family.

    Again, what planet are you posting from? Where I live, custom and tradition are rapidly fading, they are actively being dissolved by new custom, tradition and law that essentially enslaves men.

    I can't tell if you actively want men enslaved, or if you are simply too blinded by your own fantasies to see reality. Either way, you aren't living in the real world.

    So here is what you tradcons should do: either lead men by actually doing something, or follow those men actually doing something, or get the Hell out of the way.

    This business of dancing around, biting at the ankles of men trying to change bad law, merely makes you tradcons into nuisances and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous Reader,

    You're not contributing in a way that's going to progress the debate for the simple reason that you are misrepresenting what tradcons like myself argue for.

    It's as if you're following this mindset:

    a) men are being oppressed
    b) tradcons are the enemy
    c) therefore tradcons support men being oppressed

    I can't engage with you when you're running with this kind of logic.

    I can only suggest that you take the time to read the posts here for a period of time and that you then argue much more specifically in terms of the arguments put forward.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Elizabeth Smith
    We are not animals. We are human beings. We do not like to be treated like animals. If you cannot understand that, then there's no point attempting to communicate with you, you are too high up on your trad-con pedestal to even deign to realize that men are humans, not animals.

    Where is this pedestal that I am so high upon?

    The one you are arrogantly perched upon right now; where you ignorantly arrogate to yourself the right to judge every man on the planet according to your own idols. That is the pedestal that you are so high upon.

    As a man, what I want is for men to be equal before the law with women.

    You are acting quite foolishly now.

    So says the arrogant, foolish woman.

    The entire point this post is to highlight how feminists believe in men's rights and equality.

    If you had actually read the post, you would see that only one (1) feminist was quoted as believing in "choice for men", all the rest opposed it. So either you cannot read, or you read carelessly, or you lie. Frankly, it's all the same to me, you have been very careless with fact and your own opinion many times before.



    Traditional conservatives are coming up with policies concerning community and society and you kept pouring, like your brothers of the manosphere, nearly all of the blame on them.


    Traditional conservatives helped to enact the laws that men now chafe under. Traditional conservatives did not oppose any of the marriage 2.0 laws, or VAWA, or any of the rest of the feminist machinery.

    For tradcons to now claim they can fix the things that they themselves helped to break is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, proof that I have never seen because it has not been offered.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What makes you believe they are to blame?

    Facts. When men's fault divorce was demanded, it was trad-cons who went along to make it the law, starting in California in the late 1960's.

    Facts. When men's-fault divorce laws led to high divorce rates, and feminists demanded "family court", tradcons helped pass the laws setting up those courts.

    Facts. When men's-fault divorce laws led to high divorce rates, and feminist anti-family courts imposed Draconian demands upon men while refusing to even enforce visitation decrees, feminists demanded that men be forced to pay more. And so when the Bradley amendment was proposed in 1986 that would enable men who were behind in any way on child support to be put in jail, trad-cons went right along.

    Facts. When the "Violence Against Women Act" was proposed in the US Congress, no traditional conservatives opposed it. And so now if a husband shouts at his wife, she can call the police and have him arrested, to pick an extreme example. False accusations of Domestic Violence are routine features of far too many divorces - thanks to VAWA, and the trad-cons who helped put it into law.

    These are facts. I expect that in your usual way, you'll just ignore them completely. But the facts cannot be denied.

    Traditional conservatives have given feminists victory after victory. It would have been impossible for marriage 2.0 divorce laws to come into existence, had not traditional conservatives gone along.

    That's why I blame trad cons. Because they share the blame with feminists, who have used them over and over again. Is that clear?

    Is it because they don't believe in equality, individual or human rights or democracy? Or is it because of your own personal negative experiences concerning women and the law that you desire to pinpoint an unlikely scapegoat?

    Why is it, Elizabeth, that you and so many other tradcons argue just like feminists? Why try dragging in all these extraneous, irrelevant angles, and feeble attempts at personal attacks?

    Why can't you stick to facts?


    Is it because of game philosophy?

    It's because of FACTS. I see the FACTS and you don't like them very much.

    And the facts are plain. Tradcons helped make the mess we are all in.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous Reader,

    You're not contributing in a way that's going to progress the debate for the simple reason that you are misrepresenting what tradcons like myself argue for.

    There isn't any debate. There's just you, and your posters, going on a binge attacking some nebulous creature called "the MSM" or "MRA's" from time to time; and me pointing out that doing so is worse than useless.

    What you argue for changes continuously, it seems to me; one day, you agree that it would be good to roll back marriage 2.0, then another day you attack "the MRM" for actually proposing something that might have an effect on marriage 2.0.

    It's as if you're following this mindset:

    a) men are being oppressed
    b) tradcons are the enemy
    c) therefore tradcons support men being oppressed


    That's a cute strawman. I've explained to you before that strawman arguments are logical fallacies. If you think that fallacies advance any discussion, you are mistaken.

    As I have pointed out to you time and time and time again, the current laws that are a source of much trouble were enacted with the aid, the assistance, the help of traditional conservatives. Traditional conservative Ronald Reagan signed the first men's-fault divorce law into effect as Governor of California, for example. I can name many names right up to the 1990's enactment of the feminist dream-law VAWA, names of traditional, church going, conservatives who went to the legislative bat for feminist laws.

    To claim that tradcons are innocent doesn't even pass the laugh test. To claim that tradcons can now fix all the damage they helped to create requires a lot more evidence than your sayso.

    Now, you can play your little No True Scotsman game, where No True Tradcon would ever have voted for, say, VAWA, but that's bunk.

    Look, the March for Life routinely puts 250,000 people onto the Capitol Mall in Washington DC every January. That's a lot of traditional conservatives. How many showed up to help Fathers For Life in their protest in Washington, DC?

    Zero. None. Zilch. Not Any.

    See the point, yet?

    I can't engage with you when you're running with this kind of logic.

    You sure cannot engage my logic by trotting out a strawman fallacy. Maybe you could try actually reading the facts that I have offered to you multiple times, and dealing with them instead of with some strawman or imaginary issue?

    I can only suggest that you take the time to read the posts here for a period of time and that you then argue much more specifically in terms of the arguments put forward.

    I've been reading longer than many of your other commenters, and I respond with the same facts. I also am trying to restrain myself in the face of personal attacks.

    So it seems to me that your real complaint is this: I don't knuckle under, I challenge with fact and logic, not strawmen or other fallacies such as No True Scotsman.

    I do thank you for having more decency than the feminists do, in allowing me to post here. That's a definite point in your favor vs. them.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Traditional conservatives did not oppose any of the marriage 2.0 laws, or VAWA, or any of the rest of the feminist machinery.

    This is a good example of how Anonymous Reader misrepresents things. He seems to assume that "traditionalist conservative" means something like "powerful establishment politician".

    The current laws have been established by parties like the Republicans and Democrats, none of which are anything like tradcons.

    Those few tradcons who were around when these laws were being passed most certainly objected. As far as Australia goes, I can think of the Endeavour Forum, Bill Muehlenberg and myself.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is a good example of how Anonymous Reader misrepresents things. He seems to assume that "traditionalist conservative" means something like "powerful establishment politician".

    I have given up on talking to Anonymous Reader for now. Women's rights activists (feminists) and men's rights activists truly deserve each other.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous 4:26am said,

    "You still don't get it. It's over. You lost. Anarchy and destruction are coming no matter what you do."

    If taken literally this is indeed a hopeless attitude which in itself is very serious for both society and for the speaker. We have attempted to provide views and solutions to show that things can be done and that such a stance isn't necessary or valid.

    If, on the other hand, the statement isn't genuine and is sharden freuder in the face of a highly serious situation affecting our society then its not a legitimate position, is aiding the opposition and should be rejected.


    Anonymous Reader said,

    "Then why do you persist in opposing men who wish to change the laws that do make men something very close to indentured servants?"

    You do not have a monopoly on virtue and many of your solutions will not help.

    "That's why I blame trad cons. Because they share the blame with feminists, who have used them over and over again. Is that clear?"

    "Again, what planet are you posting from? Where I live, custom and tradition are rapidly fading, they are actively being dissolved by new custom, tradition and law that essentially enslaves men."

    Its not a trad con position to be in favor of no fault divorce, if you go to a serious church you'll hear them railing against it. If Republicans or whoever supported it then they are not tradcons and this site has been consistent in attacking those people.

    "Nor will progress be made by trashing men who want to, for example, mandate paternity testing at birth in order to avoid forcing men to raise some other man's son."

    Find one place on this blog where we've come out against paternity testing? You can't find it because its not there. You throw these lines in to make us sound unreasonable but they're inventions.

    Some of your proposals would set fire to what remains of tradition and also society past, present and into the future for all time. That's not a reasonable position to take no matter how much personal pain has motivated it.

    "What planet are you posting from? Women have no obligations, none, not any, and that's due to feminist laws enacted by tradcon lawmakers"

    Crap.

    Your bitterness at the system is obvious, however, we are not the deserved targets of it. Nor are you motivations pure as is shown by your continued desire to misrepresent statements made here. Fact.

    For the record when criticisms are made of the man-o-sphere they are not made of all of it just a liberal wing which seeks individualist solutions for men only and which if enacted would seriously compromise any future society. So stick it Anonymous Reader.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I'd advise you to leave, this is not a support website for the chronicaly despondent or depressed."

    LOL it is a support website for chronically deluded tradcons.

    I'm not depressed. I'm enjoying the decline!

    ReplyDelete
  49. "But this site is for those more spirited Westerners who want to push back against what is happening."

    You will do so with all of the relevance and success of the Japanese soldiers who held out on remote islands after 1945.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You will do so with all of the relevance and success of the Japanese soldiers who held out on remote islands after 1945.

    Thanks for the encouragement!

    Anon, you could have said the same thing about the men's movement just 10 years ago. Feminism seemed dominant and entrenched; opposition was limited to a few liberals who thought it had gone too far and a few tradcons like myself.

    And what now? Although feminism hasn't lost its place in the establishment, opposition to feminism has gone mainstream. Even at left-wing newspaper sites, the comments to feminist articles are now overwhelmingly negative.

    It's a case of a political establishment (feminism) vs a growing rank and file opposition rather than your analogy of a few Japanese soldiers hanging on long after the war is ended.

    You should be contributing to a growing movement rather than letting your defeatism get the better of you.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Grumbling on the internet does not make a successful political movement. One sees a lot of grumbling about many issues, but then nothing happens to change the problems people grumble about. I'll believe there is serious opposition to feminism when some of the cornerstones pieces of feminist legislation are rolled back, like no-fault divorce or (yes) abortion on demand. Until then, a Japanese holdout with a radio has the ability to commiserate with the other holdouts, but he is not winning the war.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous said,

    "One sees a lot of grumbling about many issues, but then nothing happens to change the problems people grumble about"

    We've had this conversation before. This blog and others can provide a resource for people to flesh out ideas, which they can then take into other political activities.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous: "The man should be obliged to support his children born inside marriage, not outside of it."

    Yes, this seem like the most elegant and fair solution. And these days, with all kinds of birth control available, it's really completely up to the woman whether or not to get pregnant, aside from some unusual cases (which can be prevented by... not having sex).

    ReplyDelete
  54. Traditional conservatives did not oppose any of the marriage 2.0 laws, or VAWA, or any of the rest of the feminist machinery.

    Mark Richardson
    This is a good example of how Anonymous Reader misrepresents things. He seems to assume that "traditionalist conservative" means something like "powerful establishment politician".

    No, I take people as they are. Politicians who take the trad-con positions (opposed to abortion, opposed to homosexual marriage, some degree of church-going, etc.), who label themselves as "conservative" and who publicly support "traditional values" whatever that may mean would seem to fit the definition of "traditional conservative", now wouldn't they?

    The current laws have been established by parties like the Republicans and Democrats, none of which are anything like tradcons.

    The current laws have been established by political party politics. But I can find the voting records on some of that legislation, and I can find politicians who met/meet the requirements to be considered a "conservative who supports traditional values" voting in favor of feminist-written laws. That constitutes trad-con alliance with feminism, clearly and obviously.

    Those few tradcons who were around when these laws were being passed most certainly objected.

    Did they? I invite you to back that assertion up, because it generally isn't true with regard to the US. Certainly not true with regard to VAWA, or the '86 Bradley amendment. As I already pointed out to you, Ronald Reagan is a trad-con icon in the US, and he signed the first men's-fault divorce law in California in the late 1960's ('68 or '69). I can list off more traditionalist, religious, conservative men who have gone along with such legislation in the US.

    As far as Australia goes, I can think of the Endeavour Forum, Bill Muehlenberg and myself.

    Well, here we go again with your favorite fallacy.

    Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that trad-cons have never, ever had any influence on governmental policy, and at the same time assert that traditional conservatism dominated society "in the good old days". It's self-contradictory.

    On the other hand, you can't go around claiming that Australian traditional conservatism could meet at one table in the local pub with room to spare, and then at the same time assert confidently that the future belongs to trad-cons. If you are truly a tiny, fragmented, weak group then you do not and will not have influence on society. If you are going to claim the potential for future influence, then you have to admit there's more than ten tradcons in your country.

    From my perspective, the facts are clear: because of the tendency to put women on pedestals dating well back into the 19th century, traditionalist men have for generations gone along with proposals that feminist leaders have come up with. Only in the last 10 to 15 years, as the bill for second wave feminism has truly coming due has there been any bit of second thought on the part of traditional conservatives.

    So which is it? Are you going to claim that no trad-con has had any influence on society for the last century, and thus trad-cons are irrelevant, or are you going to admit that trad cons have indeed been part of the problem?

    You can't have it both ways. You can't play "No True Conservative" if you want anyone to take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Elizabeth Smith
    I have given up on talking to Anonymous Reader for now. Women's rights activists (feminists) and men's rights activists truly deserve each other.

    Can't handle all the facts I offered up, eh? Well, you aren't the first feminist or tradcon who ran away from unpleasant facts, and won't be the last, either.

    Feminists are not about women's rights, Elizabeth, they are all about women's privileges, and men's duties. Just like far too many tradcon women...

    Thanks for ignoring me. Keep up the good work running away from facts you don't like.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Me
    "Then why do you persist in opposing men who wish to change the laws that do make men something very close to indentured servants?"

    Jesse_&
    You do not have a monopoly on virtue and many of your solutions will not help.

    I do not claim a monopoly on virtue, that's what you tradcons do. Please be specific on the suggested solutions I have offered that would not help. For example, why would mandatory paternity testing of all newborns not help? Why would mandatory shared custody of children in all divorce cases not help? These and other ideas would be of benefit to fathers and their children IMO, why do you oppose them?

    Me
    "Again, what planet are you posting from? Where I live, custom and tradition are rapidly fading, they are actively being dissolved by new custom, tradition and law that essentially enslaves men."

    Its not a trad con position to be in favor of no fault divorce,

    Then where were all the trad cons in the 1970's when these divorce laws were being passed? Trad-con idol Ronald Reagan signed the first men's fault law, to pick one example.

    if you go to a serious church you'll hear them railing against it.

    No, I won't. I've been invited into a number of "serious" churches over the years, and not one time - not once have I ever heard any Protestant minister or Catholic priest say one word criticizing divorce. However, more than once I've heard a sermon or a homily that took men to task as fathers for failing their duties - but never a sermon or homily doing the same for women.

    So you are telling me something that in my experience is not, I repeat, not true.

    If Republicans or whoever supported it then they are not tradcons and this site has been consistent in attacking those people.

    So this site, and only this site, is the true repository of all traditional conservatives on the planet? The millions of US Catholics, none of them are traditional conservatives? The hundreds of thousands who show up to rightly protest Roe vs. Wade (US abortion court decision of 1971) every January, in the cold, none of them are traditional conservatives?

    Is that what you mean?

    "Nor will progress be made by trashing men who want to, for example, mandate paternity testing at birth in order to avoid forcing men to raise some other man's son."

    Find one place on this blog where we've come out against paternity testing?

    I can't find anyplace where it has ever been supported, but I can find plenty of comments trashing men's rights advocates and everything they propose, so logically since mandatory paternity testing is one of the things MRA's propose, you lot are against it. Just because, I guess, not for any reason.

    The unreasoning bashing of MRA's on this site at times is just like what I see on feminist blogs. Just like it.

    You can't find it because its not there. You throw these lines in to make us sound unreasonable but they're inventions.

    All right, I'll ask you straight out: why are you opposed to mandatory paternity testing? You've made it clear that everything I suggest you oppose, so let's get one thing straight: why do you oppose mandatory paternity testing of newborn children?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Jesse_7
    Some of your proposals would set fire to what remains of tradition and also society past, present and into the future for all time. That's not a reasonable position to take no matter how much personal pain has motivated it.

    Which proposals would do that? Be specific.

    "What planet are you posting from? Women have no obligations, none, not any, and that's due to feminist laws enacted by tradcon lawmakers"

    Crap.

    Oh, your logic is so utterly powerful.

    Your bitterness at the system is obvious, however, we are not the deserved targets of it. Nor are you motivations pure as is shown by your continued desire to misrepresent statements made here. Fact.

    What misrepresentations?

    For the record when criticisms are made of the man-o-sphere they are not made of all of it just a liberal wing which seeks individualist solutions for men only and which if enacted would seriously compromise any future society.

    To quote you, crap. The criticisms of the rightly angry men at this site and other trad-con sites are never only aimed at one wing, they are always blanket indictments. I explain over and over again that there is no such thing as a "men's rights movement", there is a diffused group of people who have some common concerns, and a bunch of disagreement. Then I come here and read, for example, one of Elizabeth Smith's blanket smears and I realize once again how blinkered and incapable of thinking tradcons are.

    So stick it Anonymous Reader.

    That's the sort of deep thinking I've come to expect from you trad-cons. Just like feminists, when the facts are not to your liking, the insults start up.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Me
    Traditional conservatives did not oppose any of the marriage 2.0 laws, or VAWA, or any of the rest of the feminist machinery.

    Mark Richardson
    This is a good example of how Anonymous Reader misrepresents things. He seems to assume that "traditionalist conservative" means something like "powerful establishment politician".

    No. This is an example of facts that you cannot deal with, so you wave them away. Maybe it's a US vs. Australia difference.

    In the US, a strong plurality of the population defines as "conservative". In the US, attendance at churches of all sorts is strong, people generally believe in God to some extend. In the US, there are tens of millions of people who

    (a) Attend church regularly
    (b) Oppose abortion publicly, with money, by participating in demonstrations, helping with crisis pregnancy centers and the like.
    (c) Oppose homosexual "marriage"
    (d) Support traditional roles for men and women in marriage.

    Again I point out that in one of the coldest months of the year, the pro-life, culturally and socially conservative movement puts hundreds of thousands of people on the Mall between Congress and the White House - cold, rainy, sometimes covered with snow, they show up.

    Hundreds of thousands of people who espouse traditional values, who call themselves conservatives, get out in bad weather to voice opposition to abortion. Who does that if not traditional conservatives? Are they liberals? Are they feminists? What would you call them, Mark Richardson, if not traditional conservatives or social conservatives?

    And those same people can't be bothered to cross the street to help men protesting the evil done to them by family court. When Fathers for Justice demonstrated, none of the cultural/social conservatives showed up.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It is no distortion to point out the facts. The facts are that there are millions of people in the US who attend church, espouse traditional cultural values, oppose abortion, and say they oppose feminism. You may not like these facts, but they are facts nevertheless.

    And it is a fact that cultural, social conservatives like Ronald Reagan have gone along with feminist schemes time after time. He signed the Bradley Amendment, remember. I can find church or temple attending, socially conservative men who voted for VAWA - the vote was readily viewed on CSPAN-2 and I can find the names if need be.

    If you insist on your silly No True Scotsman fallacy, where only you and ten other people in Australia are the only Real Traditional Conservatives, then you are admitting irrelevance.

    If you insist on relevance, then you must admit the errors of previous traditional conservatives in going along with legislation "for the ladies" time after time, and thus trad-cons are part of the problem.

    But what won't do is this nonsense that on the one hand, traditional conservatives never had anything to do with social legislation for the last 50 years, but on the other hand, somehow trad-cons are going to remake society back to the 50's or the 20's or the 19th century.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The current laws have been established by parties like the Republicans and Democrats, none of which are anything like tradcons.

    This is simply nonsense. Look, I've met some of the politicians who were around in the 1980's and 1990's. Men who publicly oppose abortion, who go to church every week they can, who married once and are still married, who believe in different social roles for men and women. In short, I've met traditional conservatives who were in office for some years, and who just happened to vote for feminist legislation, because they thought it was a good idea. I've seen them, I've spoken with them, I've listened to them. They exist. You are telling me to ignore my own life experience, the evidence of my own eyes and ears, because you - halfway around the planet - know more about US culture, politics and history than I do.

    You are telling me to ignore the reality that I have experienced, and believe your fantasy. That's not going to work, and it is quite arrogant on your part to do so.

    Those few tradcons who were around when these laws were being passed most certainly objected.

    Not in the US. I was present and involved in some of those fights. I know how the votes came out. You are telling me you know who voted for VAWA, and who didn't? Again, traditional, conservative people come every single year to DC by the hundreds of thousands to protest Roe v. Wade. Are they secretly liberals, who for some bizarre reason are just pretending to be opposed to abortion?

    As far as Australia goes, I can think of the Endeavour Forum, Bill Muehlenberg and myself.

    I don't live in Australia, I live at the epicenter of marriage 2.0, I have been paying attention to the issues for years, and I saw who voted for what legislation.

    I don't tell you what to believe about the 1990's in Australia, do I? No, I don't . Where do you get off telling me that you know better what happened in the 80's and 90's (and 70's, and 60's) in the US than I do?

    It's way past time for you to put up your definition of "traditional conservative". I've spelled mine out, and I'll restate & extend it:

    * Opposes abortion
    * Opposes homosexual marriage
    * Attends church regularly
    * Believes in different social roles for men and women
    * Supports traditional limits on government
    * Supports rule of law vs. rule of man (not quite the same as the previous point)

    There may be some other properties, but off the top of my head that's a good start. And I can tell you, millions of people like that exist in the US, tens of millions in fact. And I can tell you that elected officials with all those qualities helped pass Bradley in '86, VAWA in the mid 90's, and other legislation that created Marriage 2.0.

    Your turn. Please try addressing the facts, rather than evading them or avoiding them.

    ReplyDelete
  61. PS: All of this matters because the current situation is not tolerable, nor is it stable. Traditional conservatives fret about the declining number of people getting married, for social reasons. Some trad-cons are worried about low birth rates, as well as about the growing number of children born outside of marriage (40% in the US).

    But both of those social issues can be shown to be direct results of the last 40 years of lawmaking that led to marriage 2.0. Shaming men won't make them marry. If you want more men to marry, the risk has to be reduced.

    In order to reduce the risk, laws have to be changed. In order for laws to be changed, enough people have to work at that goal.

    But as long as trad-cons continue to defer to all women, no matter what their intent, there cannot be any progress. And as long as trad-cons continue to insist that, no, no, their predecessors had nothing to do with the legislation that put us in this state, then there's no reason to believe that the first time some group of feminists shows up y'all won't just cave in yet again to their demands.

    That's why this matters. The huge blind spot trad-cons routinely show in their deference to women means that they are not ever going to reliably oppose feminism, and therefore will continue to be one side of the nutcracker currently squeezing the life out of men.

    ReplyDelete
  62. How about we just go back to contract law? If no contract is made(no marriage) then possession is ownership(Momma gets all rights and responsibilities). Under marriage let men and women craft what rights and responsibilities they agree to under the contract.

    That worked pretty well for English common law for a 1000 years or so. Trying to enforce moral principles without agreement on the principles is very bad law. Let the contract signers decide.

    ReplyDelete
  63. If compulsory paternity testing is conducted the state is intruding into an area that should be the domain of the family. If a man wants a paternity test, or a discrete paternity test, it should be allowed.

    The endless horror of "whiteknighting" seems to extend to anyone who doesn't want to keep women under their heel all the time or who offers a critic of a the newly rising political men's movement, is that right? Men have always criticised other men as women have always criticsed other women. We shouldn't have to be held to the standard where criticism of men can't be allowed because it derails the cause. Those are bitch arguments.

    Women are special and deserve to be protected all the time, no matter what they do, this is your summary of the trad con position? Trad cons say men should be the stronger of the two sexes and that men should strive to be stronger. It doesn't say that women should be able to run riot. Now that women are full political actors they should experience the full legal consequences of any misbehavior they conduct, such as false allegations. The old arguments that "she's just a women" shouldn't hold weight, and I don't believe that trad cons really do that. Having said that, yes men are likely to be and should be protective of women, and it is right that we should do so, as the stronger, certainly physically stronger, sex. I would hope that women as the more sensitive sex could offer similar services to men. Or should we enact a law that says that women have to be nice?

    Lets be clear, women being raped, having miserable lives, or being forced into bareness doesn't exactly make me feel good. I don't want victory to look anything like those crimes or difficult circumstances. Too often there's a "serves them right" for everything and anything attitude expressed by your members, which is base. Issues with women and marriage shouldn't be a race between the two genders as to who can sink the lower.

    Now onto men, yes I am probably going to me more sympathetic to a women who is the subject of a physical assault than a man, as men to a degree we are more biologically expendable and hopefully more capable. We're not culturally expendable though. If that makes you and your bros feel down I'm sorry. Facing more danger and adversity has always been part of what it meant to be a man. I guess you’re saying that we want to keep all the onerous elements of men's obligations in place whilst abandoning the good? However, pushing yourself leads to improvements which leads to stronger men. Do you think that men are just biologically good or do they have to continually strive?

    I don't particularly like people who only truly think about themselves anyway, which is all too common with people excessively enculturated with liberalism. Anonymous Reader where have your contributions to other topics on this blog been? Are you only a one tune player? Other issues affect society as well, no matter how important this issue is.

    ReplyDelete
  64. My claim that some of your solutions wouldn’t work referred to the whole "Going Galt" argument had earlier. There it was suggested that men opting out and playing x-box was the way to save civilisation. It isn't.

    Additionally if a conservative or right liberal politician throws men's interests under the bus to achieve political popularity then they've been overcome by short term political interest and they aren't looking to the future of society as a tradcon should. If you haven't noticed politicians generally aren't held in the highest regard by the public.

    Your arguments often descend into a “noone is helping us and we’re abandoned” form of pleadings. That’s a little childlike. All political movements will be led by someone and there frequently won’t be free rides. So this, “Oh there’s no men’s movement” doesn’t hold water. If there isn’t a men’s movement then make one, or are you just a few guys who want to sit around complaining and not stretch yourselves? Just recently we had an ex soldier abseil down the Sydney Harbor Bridge to raise father’s rights issues and he’s front page news. If your arguments hold water the public will ultimately embrace them, if they don’t then maybe you’ll want to sharpen them up, rather than look for more people to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  65. No True Scotsman fallacy

    Actually the 'No True Scotsman fallacy' is itself as fallacy. There are genuine and false forms of something or someone.

    Btw Ronald Reagan was a huge fan of libertarianism, social liberalism and small government. Get your facts straight Anonymous Reader and stop talking contradictory things.

    MRAs and feminists are more alike than different you know.

    Also since you believe that 'No True Scotsman' is a fallacy stop talking about how there is 'no real men's rights movement'.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Men and women should and must have equal rights. Period. There is no justice without equality. Once you determine that [ ] should not have equality because of some arguable position, there is no way to justify equality in any other instance. Everything is arguable, and certainly abortion is.

    Bottom line, if a woman makes the choice to give birth and parent, knowing that the father has opted out, SHE must bear the consequences of her choice. Remember, her body, her choice. With all that comes with it.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.