Maybe! Just maybe, this article could be the catalyst needed to create value in the family unit. Mums and Dads, along with there Mums and Dads, have been undervalued for way too long in our western society.
Money does not make a society, people do.

There certainly is a need for support of men and families particularly in the early years after the birth of an infant - no argument here. But Robin Morgan and Valerie Solanis certainly aren't representative of feminist thought here. It's in the interest of women to sort these things out with men. There is a lot of evidence that the vast majority of couples want to achieve a form of gender equal or egalitarian family form but the social system is forcing them into gendered roles - how can we do this better??

Ok, in a sense I agree with the recommendations you come up with - which basically amount to taking responsibility for oneself, and for the effects that you have on others, and on society as a whole. Seems pretty self evident really.

What I would like to point out however, is that the sources of decline and dysfunctionality you posit as having crept into the experience of being male, are all related to failures or "biases" (as you call them) emanating from Christianity - that is, moral anarchy, shame, vulnerability to intellectual attack, passivity, and stoicism. All of these deficits you cite are arguably the result of the failure of Christianity to anticipate and provide an explanation for the breadth of human experience.

So I would suggest rather, that in the interests of taking responsibility for ourselves and for the consequences of our actions, what we need to do is realise that the convenience and comfort of historical doctrines is no longer available to us. Instead, if it is indeed the case that "We as men live in an age where there are no absolutes except for the absolute that there are no absolutes" (though have there ever been absolutes? look at what happened to countless kids behind the closed doors of religious institutions of times past...), then what we need to do is to individually and collectively create our own absolutes.

And if one of these is the empirical observation that kids who grow up without fathers do worse than their more fortunate peers (or wouldn't having two fathers be twice as good!), then I'm OK with the idea of that as an absolute.

You posted:

"What I would like to point out however, is that the sources of decline and dysfunctionality you posit as having crept into the experience of being male, are all related to failures or "biases" (as you call them) emanating from Christianity - that is, moral anarchy, shame, vulnerability to intellectual attack, passivity, and stoicism. All of these deficits you cite are arguably the result of the failure of Christianity to anticipate and provide an explanation for the breadth of human experience."

Are you saying that this is what feminists have said??

I say - why bring Christianity into it anyhow? It is good for dads, its good for mums, its good for families, its good for society - if both mums and dads have working relationships with their children. This certainly includes taking responsibility - but I think as a society we can do much better in supporting families (particularly those with young children) than simply throwing money at them.

Joannie - My comment was addressing Warwick Marsh.

It seems to me he is saying that the reason men are struggling is because the value systems they hold, or which are thought of as traditionally masculine (and which are rooted in Christianity) no longer allow men to function effectively when faced with the complexity of modern life.

I like a lot of Warwick Marsh's stuff. I subscribe to his newsletter and am often impressed by his ability to speak to, and on behalf of fathers in a language which highlights and validates their concerns, and also encourages them to step up to the plate and learn to develop their emotional lives as a means to engaging better with their kids and partners. I also understand that christianity provides a lot of solace and meaning for a lot of people, and that faith-based organisations are the drivers of much of the work that is done to assist the most vulnerable members of society - and so in this respect I am quite happy to support their existence.

However at the same time I think the time has long past for people to appeal to religion in their public discourse and expect to be taken seriously. It's almost a little upsetting when people such as Mr Marsh who ostensibly have a lot of potential as social critics and advocates undermine themselves with their inflexible stance on issues such as gay marriage or feminism. I think his theorising in this article is the same sort of thing we see in people like Tony Abbott for example - in that it seems to stem from an anxiety around these people's relationship to their god and around their constant struggle to "measure up" and "do the right thing". Whereas Tony's heart is somewhat in the wrong place I think (in that he uses his religion as a justification for his ambitions and weaknesses rather than a basis for them), I would not say the same for Warwick Marsh - andit's almost a little tragic to see such people floundering over something that is entirely unnecessary.