Feminism is why we're so delicate pursuing the "warm war"

David R. Usher argued -- "Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that naturally erases all physical, social, economic, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between the sexes."

This is absurd on its face, and frankly reading this neo-conservative myth-making causes me to wonder what Kool-aid Mr. Usher is pouring over his cornflakes for breakfast.

Marriage in its contemporary form is an institution designed to harvest men’s wealth, plain and simple.

The only way one can endorse David R. Usher’s glorification of marriage as some kind of mass social salvation is if you are willing to write men off as the sacrificial gender – i.e. as prey to be enslaved.

There is no advantage in marriage for any man today, and the stark silence and editing out of this fact is very telling in all of Mr. Usher’s polemics.

He can’t make a credible case for marriage from an individual man’s perspective.

And BTW, there is nothing "natural" about becoming a human sacrifice to feminism.

I agree. That comment disturbs me for a number of reasons, the least of which being that it really hammers home that Usher has some kind of agenda. He also sounds like he comes from the extreme religious right when I prefer to think of MRA as 'pan-political', or perhaps, non-political.
Very curious to get my hands on 'Women's Ku Klux Klan'. Anyone read it?

Usher makes some very interesting points, but I have to say, he sounds like a bit of a freak.
I'll have to pour over the article again in more detail.

He is a right-wing evangelical faux-libertarian who wants to transfer the marginal costs of a minimal social welfare system to men who are foolish enough to marry. (Poor people are too expensive, and they should get married.... to relieve the tax burden on the 2% elite class.)

Marriage = lower taxes for the rich.

Read Usher' stuff, and please inform me if I've misread his veiled agenda.

Sorry, MrR, that's the one I was referring to. I mistakenly took the name of the link for the name of the book.

Still reading Usher and trying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I read it awhile back.
Its because soybeans make some estrogen-mimicking compounds. It will increase your risk of testicle and/or prostate cancer, but make you gay???? Umm,riiiight.

Well, I can read the stuff and filter out the crap (hopefully).

... this one would generate some commentary and sure enough, it did! Guys, that whole tofu thread makes it ALL worthwhile!

From Usher's neo-fem chivalry to tofu in less than a dozen posts?!!!

MANN attracts an idiosyncratic crowd indeed.

If we all ever met in a pub in Islington, (poor side of London) U.K., that would be a real mess.

Bad company is hard to come by these days.

..this is just ridiculous and should never have been posted.
Replacement of male authority, right. Turn back the clock, bring it all back. Don't forget the 3 years of compulsory military service my male ancestors "enjoyed" which I'm sure supported their authority in the family. Reactionism sure will help. Yawn!

Just because someone suggests we restore certain aspects of a previous era, does not mean they are suggesting we bring back *everything* from that era (e.g. in this case, the draft). In other words, what is desired is to bring back the baby but not the bathwater. (I am not implying that I agree or disagree with the initial post, but am just pointing out something in the thread).

I seem to encounter this logical fallacy quite often. Interesting.

-ax

This is an example of political conservatism getting confused with men's activism. I tend towards a progressive political outlook, so this kind of neoconservative thinking doesn't work for me either n.j.

I'm still firmly convinced that the way through the troubles we face as men is forward, not back, and that this is not a zero-sum game, i.e. that our gains do not need to come at the expense of women.

That being said, human societies do seem (historically) to work best when they're based on some form of paternalism since it is ingrained in us as a species. It's too bad that basic message was lost in the political rhetoric.