"Men and Marriage"

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2011-07-31 20:42

Came across this essay. The way I see it, broadly, there are two different kinds of MRAs. There are non-traditionalists who want to see men given equal opportunity to be liberated from traditional role constraints (and it's this camp I definitely fall into since IMJ it represents the greatest chance for equal justice for men) and the traditionalists who want to see society return to a more traditional approach to gender roles. This essay is one in defense of traditionalism. So while I am not of this POV, and I feel the author injects prejudice and overgeneralization in several key areas of his arguments, I do see the practical issue relevance it raises in terms of certain specific gender roles, especially where the raising of children is concerned. It's hard to deny, for example, that boys raised without fathers have a much harder time of it than boys raised with fathers, and numerous studies bear this out. Excerpt:

'Without a stable family order, in which adult men civilize the young men, terror necessarily rules. No array of daycare centers, police powers, social welfare agencies, psychiatric or drug clinics, special schools and prisons can have any significant effect. William Tucker's fine new book Vigilante vividly shows the imbecile bathos into which our legal system has already fallen as a result of the decline of the stark mandate of justice into the weasels and waffles of social liberation.

At a time when millions of young men are slipping beyond the reach of democratic institutions - indeed, outside the social order itself - the drive to emasculate our politics threatens the foundations of democracy itself. Democracy is not so secure a system that in a serious crisis it can easily survive the loss of the instinctual appeal of male leadership. A state oin [sic] which the police and other governmental authorities are heavily in female hands would not last a week. The very emergence of such a state would itself signify either the massive estrangement of men from politics or the degeneration of democracy into some court-ruled system of quotas.

It is part of [Phyllis] Schlafly's genius to have persistently linked the concerns of family with the reform of education, the conservative revival of our politics, and the rehabilitation of our military. From her concern with the national defense to her defense of the nation's families, she espouses a fully coherent vision of the American predicament. A society of families both constrains male aggressions and channels them toward the protection and support of family and society.
...
Together with the tragic breakdown of the American black family, the Swedish example should disabuse Americans of the illusion that it couldn't happen here. Family breakdown and demoralization can occur with frightening suddenness when government policy destroys the role of the male provider in the family. The alternative to traditional family roles is not a unisex family; it is sexual suicide.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I've perceived this paradox of the MRM before.

There is a distinct dichotomy within the MRM, between conservative MRA's and liberal MRA's, yet both are more than willing (mostly) to admit their opposition to an extant feminist ideology that is harming all males.

On the one hand, most conservative males are revulsed by the idea of homosexuality as a personal role model, or family role model. Many accept the disposability, that military service unfairly heaps on males through combat assignments, as merely a fact of life.

On the other hand, most liberal males are tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle, but are revulsed by military role definitions (not openly accepting of gays), and the male role model that puts men in front line ground combat, but excludes women. Liberal MRA's appear more open to ending the many roles in which men are cast as disposable beings, although most men in higher risk roles may earn higher wages.

Of course, the Violence Against Women Act is a huge issue in both camps with traditionalist MRA's blaming Democrats for the origination and perpetuation of that hate movement and its contributions to the destruction of the traditional family, while liberal MRA's point to lots and lots of conservative lawmakers who have participated in the funding of misandrist VAWA.

Most of the prominent MRA writers in the MRM have come from a liberal mindset, or at least, not a conservative mindset. One could point to the large absence of conservatives in the social sciences and liberal arts in colleges and universities as a primary reason for that.

So one question left unanswered after all this is, "What aspects of the traditional male role will conservative MRA's (and liberal MRA's) want to keep? Will a recognition of all the ways traditional male roles condition men for disposability affect their decisions? Is the abandonment of dangerous traditional male roles dangerous to the stability of the conservative model of labor and capitalism, a model that has fed on and profited by the disposability inherent in traditional male roles?

Lastly, conservative MRA's point to the abundance of feminist males in the leftist movement who are actively working against the MRM, and often refer to them as "manginas." Liberal men often point to the abundance of chivalrous males in the rightist movement who are not supporting the MRM, and often refer to them as "white knights." The epithets are indicative of dissension in the MRM, although I would not call it a split or a schism. The daunting forces arrayed against the MRM are as real and deleterious as the valid discrimination issues males face.

I'm sure there are other aspects of this apparent dichotomy, but I think the above is a good preliminary diagnosis of the symptoms.

I hope this analysis contributes to insights and resolutions that are beneficial to a stronger more united MRM and not one that is split by schisms.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Sun, 2011-07-31 23:33

These are difficult issues to resolve and I don't pretend to have the answers. The only ammo I have for it is about strategizing how to avoid schism in the near-term which is to agree on a platform of common outcomes or goals. For example, Title IX is one thing we can agree on regardless of whether one is a traditionalist or not that needs to go. There may be others but that is one. As you mentioned an example of a sticking point is the draft and in addition, the accepting the idea that for traditionalists, combat is 'no place for women' but for non-traditionalists, the belief is that if women are to be in the armed forces (whether by draft or voluntarily and especially if they are going to enjoy promotion and similar opportunities as so many do), then they need also to at least be as eligible for exposure to hazardous and combat duty as much as male soldiers and picked for such in proportion to their representation in the ranks. How trads and non-trads will come to agreement on this is hard to say. Perhaps it will simply be a matter of how it bears out in terms of whose efforts are more successful, not unlike how there are factions within political parties and some factions succeed at steering a party because they are a majority within the party while the other faction(s) are not. Perhaps we will just have to wait and see. But for now, MR issues just plain need to get on the political and social radar and we're still working on that. But I agree the discussion here has value and I am glad to see it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2011-08-01 00:11

Yes, MRA's of all persuasions have a lot of common ground. They could work together for a long time on common ground issues that harm males, without ever needing to engage in disagreement about certain MRA issues where their liberal/conservative viewpoints put them at odds, IMO.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Mon, 2011-08-01 15:37