I hope you got approval, from the matriarchy to write this.

But as in the story of Iron John, the boy must first steal the key from under his mothers pillow.

Oh, It's April fools day!

"We are spirits in a material world"
I always thought that was Madonna....

'men are natural leaders and natural achievers.'
Rehehehehealllly. Tell that to all the men lead by psychopaths. If they were all natural leaders, who would do the foot soldier work?

'great fathers are the key ingredient to great families'
So if the father dies, well, it's all over then huh? Nothing great can come of a family with no father?

'Generational renewal is the best way to change the world.'
Sounds like some 'renewal' is needed in the church if these are the attitudes that dominate.

There is a tone of misplaced martyrdom and victimhood in this piece - as well-intentioned it might be in advocating for men.

"People forgot that there was such a thing as a good man, or a bad man, and began to label all manhood and fatherhood as evil."

Who has forgotten? Who is labelling manhood and fatherhood as evil? This is an exaggeration at best, mis-interpretation at worst. Picking a few quotes from radical feminists from the 60s does not a 'trend' make nor is it relevant in the modern age.

There is a tendency for beat ups such as in the case about the man being denied access to kids due to downloading child porn (for eg.) then suddenly that becomes a manhating issue? I don't think so.

Give women and men some credit in being able to distinguish good from bad as it applies to different cases.

As Bettina said "no gender has a monopoly on vice".

Fatherhood and motherhood are only "good" when they are not "bad".

Warwick rightly points out that the children are the winners when they have a father prepared to lead and to love. Feminism is about meism (selfishness) and has done a lot to destroy children's lives. Prisons are full of men who have never had a father at home to guide them.

runner
Men in prisons?
How is it the fault of women if the father abandons them and their children? You assume a lot about women and only wish to paint all women and motherhood as evil.

Children benefit from the love of both parents but if one is abusive they would be better off with the good one regardless of gender.

Pelican

I did not blame women for men being in prison. In most cases it is selfish men who are not prepared to father their own children. These men are just as selfish as feminist who want to deprive children of a father.

Sorry runner

I jumped in a bit soon in defence at what I thought was going to be yet another in a long list of anti-woman posts. Sometimes these sorts of discussions tend to turn into claims that mothers are to blame for all woes.

Feminism means different things to people as is reflected by the wide ranging comments on OLO. Feminism as far as I am aware did not lobby for abolition of fatherhood.

The problem is not feminism. The problems we face lie in selfishness for sure, but this is universal and should not be laid at the feet of the feminist movement which had its origins in egalitarianism, equity and fairness.

Feminism got some things wrong IMO, it has probably unintentionally degraded the role of women who have chosen to stay at home for a period of time in a misguided attempt to gain respect or equality.

Instead of boosting the role of mother (father) it made it less important or about 'juggling' priorities as though somehow we have all become superhuman and able to leap tall buildings.

Greed is to blame and that is not gender specific.

for a change Pelican I can't really argue with anything you have said. Feminism should of been a wake up call for men to show some servant leadership in their homes. Unfortunately so many of them lost any moral authority and hence become emasculated. You see among men who actually support radical feminism. Usually they have forfeited the right to lead their own homes and despise those who do.

For every claim that Che Guevara was Castro's executioner there are a thousand T shirts to refute it.
How can all those T shirts be wrong?

A particularly stupid article, but Proxy's clever comment warrants a response.

My uni student son gave me a Che Guevara t-shirt last Christmas. It's brilliant aesthetically (red and white Che head on black) so I actually wear it sometimes, usually attracting some kind of (approving) comment, mostly from young people. I live in the bush, so I find this quite interesting.

My dear son was somewhat crestfallen when I eventually informed him that Che Guevara was actually a murderous thug in real life. Having said that, he (Che) has become an enduring symbol of resistance to the excesses of rampant capitalism, which is probably why his image is still popular among the young and/or alienated. Anyway, I seem to be able to still get away with wearing the t-shirt, so I like it :)

In addition to the very tenuous relevance of Guevara to Marsh's rant about his apparently threatened masculinity, I must say that one thing that annoyed me particularly about this dumb sermon is Marsh's references to music and literature that he clearly doesn't 'get'.

Heh, heh, C J is forever building up his image. Doesn't matter what the story is C J has one better and flattering himself of course.

Of course there would be approving looks Dahling, that goes without saying.

Golly gosh, you are a legend in your lunchtime C J.

Hold on, it was 1 April.

You really are a miserable old goose, aren't you Corny? Do try and have a nice long weekend.

Thank you Mr. Warwick Marsh,

Thank you for your gentle, touching article.

From now on, I will be a Christian.

I will confess having absconded from the Authorities some young men caught in the ballot of conscription to the Vietnam War. I will repent.

I also will forget my brother who refused to fight in WW2 and finished in a Camp, from which he was lucky to return, the full thirty-three kilogram’s of him, having escaped the death of the many, not equally lucky.

Yes sir, I will be a Christian. It is much safer than being a Christ.

Besides, there are other advantages and so many opportunities in being a good obedient member of a Church.

Perhaps not one of the best April fools jokes.

But considering some of the other commments more than a few have taken the bait.

2nd April 2010

Thank you Mr. Warwick Marsh,

Thank you, for your gentle, touching article.

From now on I will be a Christian.

I will confess having absconded from the Authorities some young men caught in the ballot of conscription to the Vietnam War. I `repent.

I also will forget my brother who refused to fight in WW2 and finished in a Camp, from which he was lucky to return, the full thirty-three kilogram’s of him, having escaped the death of the many, not equally lucky.

Yes sir, I will be a Christian. It is much safer than being a Christ.

Besides, there are other advantages and so many opportunities in being a good obedient member of a Church.

Hi ya C J, high fives to that balloon of ego you've got going there.

Maybe tying a string to one of those cows you watch should keep you grounded while sporting that Che Guevara t-shirt.

Er, better watch the cows with all of that appeal you say you have going, no bull.

Have a good Easter but don't stone too many 'fundy' Christians to do it.

Cheers, Corny. I'm just about to drive a couple of hours to pick up my youngest for the school hols - I'm wearing my Che t-shirt in honour of you and Warwick.

I suggest you tuck into lots of hot cross buns and chocolate over the weekend - in fact, anything sweet would probably help :)

"As the nails were driven into his hands he cried out, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”, the sacred masculine, in bodily form."

Yes, but it was all a magic trick, wasn't it, according to Christian belief? Three days later he was up and about, as right as rain. I don't call that very masculine and resolute, to fake one's death in the certain knowledge that Daddy will put it right. Sounds a bit sneaky and dependent to me.

If Christ KNEW he was God then dying was no big deal for him. (I'd go through the same things like billy-oh if it meant reigning eternally in Heaven.) And if he DIDN'T know he was God, then your whole doctrine goes to hell in a handcart. You really can't have it both ways. Which is it to be?

Warwick Marsh at his very best yet again!
He considers this thug Che Guevara as one of his "...revolutionary role models" in one paragraph, while in the next he tells a lovely tale of how Che shot a 14 year old boy in the head!
Top bloke there Warwick, and a real 'masculine' male for all the guys to aspire to.

All those nasty radical feminists from 50 years ago are still getting under your skin there Warwick aren't they?

As far as I can see, men ARE still in most positions of leadership around the world today.

We still have plenty of healthy masculine killing and maiming going on as a result of some of these masculine 'leadership qualities' in our world, 50 years after the feminists called for change.

Maybe us women should start a new radical feminism revolution and overthrow all the male leaders and give the feminine leadership a go?

We certainly couldn't do any worse!

Jon J you write

'(I'd go through the same things like billy-oh if it meant reigning eternally in Heaven.)'

You may do but unlike the One who did your corrupt nature has no opportunity to save anyone.

Runner

>>>... your corrupt nature has no opportunity to save anyone...<<<

Time to 'fess up now, you were sent here by Satan to torment genuine Christians weren't you?

If we could have perfect men and perfect fathers who were not Christians would Warwick Marsh be happy? I doubt it. He is not concerned about men or fathers or boys but about creating a Christain world. He continually implies that we cannot have men being real men unless they are doing so because of a committment to Christian values. Christian values generally include a 'fear of the Lord' which is very often the motivation behind much of the behaviour of Christians.

Men who behave well out of fear are not real men. Real men are men who behave well because it is the just and peaceful and loving thing to do. It is inherent in human nature. Men who act according to their true nature are of much more value to society than men driven by fear. When a man acts well and he is not a Christian he has integrity. When a man acts well and he is a Christian his motivation must always be suspect.

If Warwick Marsh were a real man he would be honest about the real reason he writes these articles. Hiding behind the shield of concern for men in order to promote a much more sinister agenda does nothing for his integrity.

no doubt phanto you are one of those men who always acts out of the goodness of your heart. I am yet to meet one of these mystical men who exude love and display no corruption in their natures. Your dogma however seems to hide behind a self righteousness that is very deceitful.

And runner keeps telling us that he/she/it would not refrain from stealing or murder or rape but that pastor tells him so. You see, I'm much more comfortable with people who can work it out from the clear emergent properties of living with others.

Even chooks and dogs can work out a non-violent pecking order after a brief period of negotiation, but runner has no such faculty.

Rusty

Runner

>>> I am yet to meet one of these mystical men who exude love and display no corruption in their natures <<<

I doubt any decent man would want to associate with someone as judgemental and malevolent as you portray yourself on these pages.

phanto, "Christian values generally include a 'fear of the Lord' which is very often the motivation behind much of the behaviour of Christians."
I am not a church goer but all of the Christians of my acquaintance are moderates who are not governed by fear. Hard to find a fundamentalist in recent times.

phanto, "Real men are men who behave well because it is the just and peaceful and loving thing to do. It is inherent in human nature."
No, I believe it has a lot to do with environment, upbringing and education among other things. I don't believe men are born inherently bad though, excepting some psychiatric conditions.

phanto, "When a man acts well and he is not a Christian he has integrity. When a man acts well and he is a Christian his motivation must always be suspect."
Only Christians or does this apply to all religions?

What about any other source of learning about ethics or principles, might anyone who learned anything about ethics be equally suspect? Much of my value system and world view came from my parents, early teacher/coach and other adult models, a lot from literature and humanities education. I also participate in Internet discussions on ethics and might take counsel from those contacts. Then there is my love of poetry, could it have made my ethics suspect? I don't think so.

Would my motivation for (say) doing volunteer work be 'suspect' because I haven't relied entirely if at all on the good that you say is inherent in human nature in developing my ethics?

Frankly I don't think that the source of one's ethics really matters if the outcome is good and we deal with others with sensitivity, tolerance, compassion, integrity and courage.

Cornflower,

I believe it *is* important where our ethics come from

If we can re-derive them they can be relevant to the day, the place. If we can derive them, then even if nearly extinct our species might re-develop something we can recognise.

I am confident of this.

The (possibly mythological) character of Moses is reputed to have had access to the university of a pre-existing ordered society with laws etc. It is no accident that Moses's laws look like other working models of the time. He wanted to copy successful nations.

If some believe their "morals" are derived from a single mythical platform, then they are a threat as soon as pastor reinterprets the platform for them. They are a threat as soon as their mythical platform is threatened and "the ends justify the means".

The rationality and derivability of ethics is critical.

Rusty

Cornflower - Why do ethics have to have a source other than human nature? Why do they have to be learned? Perhaps we are already born with them but 'environment, upbringing and education' combine to stifle, suppress and distort them. We all have a thing called a conscience but very few people respond to it without filtering it according to what they have 'learnt'. Why have a conscience at all if it is not to be used and trusted? Nature has certainly made a big mistake there if it has no use.

Our human nature very much includes our own body and its physical responses. Guilt, fear, anger, joy, sadness and delight all tell us what we need to know about right and wrong. Not trusting those fundamental aspects of nature and being guided by outside influences is what causes most of the problems that human beings have in dealing with each other and the rest of nature. When someone 'learns' that greed is wrong it is not something they didn't inherently know but rather something they have suppressed for the sake of some more urgent need like survival as a child.

Two people might appear to be doing the same good but for entirely different motives. The one with suspect motivation is much more likely to do it in a way that rides roughshod over other important values like respect for free speech, justice and peace. Both people may come to the same end in their task but the damage done along the way by someone doing it grudgingly or out of fear will be much worse.

Rusty

'If some believe their "morals" are derived from a single mythical platform, then they are a threat as soon as pastor reinterprets the platform for them.'

Watch out for Pastor Dawkins. His moral relevancy is likely to change every second day depending on how blind he is to his own self righteousness. It was not to long ago that the vast majority of people knew it was wrong to kill the unborn. A little self righteousness, pride and selfishness soon put paid to that.

I'm not worried about Dawkins, he encourages me to disagree with him. Robustly.

He encourages you to do so too. Try not to waste his time on the usual rubbish you trot out here though, it's all been found wanting and clear refutations can be found readily....once you leave those parts of the web not pre-approved by would-be religious commissars.

However, too many "christian" pastors don't want *anybody* to disagree, except maybe in closed council where it won't reach the congregation. They want weak and unfounded arguments to be "enough to convince" them atheists and get pouty when them atheists don't agree.
Some even think quote-mining should be convincing and get pouty when their references are checked and found wanting. That's fundy scholarship and reasoning summed up.

I'm sure those whose income depends on the expansion of the "church" are very sensitive to any alternative to their supposed indispensibility.

The head pastor of the catholic church has in the past not merely condoned but ordered atrocities, re-interpreting "scripture" to suit political ends.
Fundies in america have been jailed for murder because re-interpretation of "scripture" has let them believe that the ends justify the means.

As I said, and as runner just doesn't get, when pastor starts re-interpreting scripture, so-called morals might be a threat, whether christian, islamic, jewish. The difference is that if ethics are re-derivable then at least the fault lies with us, and we can work to fix it.

Rusty

Rusty

'The head pastor of the catholic church has in the past not merely condoned but ordered atrocities, re-interpreting "scripture" to suit political ends.'

Yes the re interpretation of Scripture by perverted men is as bad as the atheist like Stalin,Mao and Pol Pot who make up their own dogma. And yes many Pastors rely on the giving by believers to support them unlike the pseudo scientist who continually rip off the tax payers with twisted observances and deceitful conclusions. Anyone with any honesty has seen the lies pushed by the climate high priests. It was the same dishonesty that led so many of your high priest to cause panic in the world re ice ages, ozone layers and other catastrophic prophecies. Thankfully unlike all biblical prophecy they have been shown to be frauds.

Thankfully those who have come to know Jesus Christ have a hero without corruption and sin unlike all others. They unlike you Rusty don't have to twist their observations in order to gain a pitiful reward for agreeing with the 'consensus of your high priests..

Thanks Warwick for providing some balance when it seems the media has nothing good to say about masculinity.

A servant hearted husband and a servant hearted wife dedicated to each other and the well being of their children is key to healthy, loving, long lasting marriage in a society that can't keep it's relationships together.

Feminism destroyed the family? I don't suppose centuries of abuse and child molestation had anything to do with a loss of blind confidence in male "servant leadership" and the idealized (as we never were) family image. It's also a fact that non-Christian people maintain well functioning family units. Christianity doesn't own the family model.

Feminism opposes patriarchy and misogyny, not fathers. Patriarchy refers to the way in which social institutions (economy, politics, religion, family etc) are organized to uphold male dominance over females and children - and that trust has been twisted and abused. Men and fathers who want to restore the masculine image could start by condemning abuse of power by OTHER men; instead of blaming women and children who have brought those abuses to light and made escape at least possible.

I note the quotes by feminists. My understanding is that the quote attributed to Andrea Dworkin was one made by a fictional character in her novel Ice and Fire. All of the women mentioned had fathers, partners or sons that they loved dearly. Some additional quotes that they actually did make include:

Greer: "The only perfect love to be found on earth is not sexual love, which is riddled with hostility and insecurity, but the wordless commitment of families, which takes as its model mother-love. This is not to say that fathers have no place, for father-love, with its driving for self-improvement and discipline, is also essential to survival, but that uncorrected father-love, father-love as it were practiced by both parents, is a way to annihilation."

Dworkin: "Have you ever wondered why we [women] are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."

cont/d

cont/d:

If feminists and women generally actually hated men or had given up on them, there would probably be as many killings of you all as of women and children by men. Thankfully there are enough good men to forestall that possibility - PLUS, it is exactly that sort of violence that feminists revolt against.

However, even if those quotes hadn't been (mis)attributed or taken out of context; in the 60s why wouldn't people be justified in fighting against rape, murder and violence by their oppressors?

Feminists believe/d that it was possible for good, fair minded men to put aside misogynistic abuse of power in all realms - personal and public. Many men have and they don't feel that their masculinity is threatened by rejection of thuggery.

Always convenient to cherry-pick a quote or two. Here is the dotty Greer in full flight and thank goodness for editors:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4061276.ece

Greer chose to keep her genes to herself. So be it, prudent decision and no-one has ever disagreed with her choice.

FYI: "The nostalgia trap"

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465090974?tag=sailor-moon-cosplay-20#reader_0465090974

What patriarchy looks like (video clip)

http://www.veoh.com/collection/apostolicuniversity/watch/v14439408WjWGE6HT

Jesus was a Feminist:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Was-Feminist-Revolutionary-Perspective/dp/1580512186

Galatians 3:28

JESUS WAS A FEMINIST

by Leonard Swidler

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/feminist.htm

Excellent article there Pynchme!
I enjoyed reading Swidler's thoughts.
I particularly liked the fact about Jesus that <"...He chose only women to be the first witnesses to His Resurrection."

If I were to believe in any sort of 'creator' it would have to be a 'Sacred Feminine' sort of creator, because the female of the Human species (and most other species) is the giver of life.

I really enjoyed Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code", as it was responsible for me becoming a little more spiritual than I usually allow myself to be.
I loved the notion of the 'Sacred Feminine'.

That would make Jesus a Third Wave feminist wouldn't it, he would say that gender equality means oppression of neither gender.

Not being blighted by a mote in his eye and being unaffected by confirmation bias he would agree with the more progressive of the Third Wave feminists that men have been similarly oppressed throughout history, even the majority of those 'white' men.

Can't see Jesus rooting for radical feminism with its parallels with Marxism in that both ideologies describe an enduring struggle between two opposed polar forces: between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes and for the rad feminists, between women and men.

Nope, can't see Jesus going along with a gender war to keep a handful of geriatric radical feminists amused in their dotage.

Cornflower
Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone.

It is tantamount to someone saying all Christians are nutters based on for example, the actions of The People's Temple in Jonestown.

The diversion or exagerration strategy used in this article is also used in arguments about Palestine eg. hating Israel or Jews (when it is clearly about fairness for Palestinians); or Nazis and human haters when talking about population sustainability; or Christians support pedophilia due to failure of the Catholic Chuch to act on complaints - all are equally unfair assertions distracting from reasoned debate.

When authors or others elaborate on the extreme version of a particular group or doctrine to make their point, that's when I start questioning their motives as in this article.

Pelican

Your words

>>> Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone.

It is tantamount to someone saying all Christians are nutters based on for example, the actions of The People's Temple in Jonestown. <<<

Gave me pause for thought. Just how 'radical' were/are man-haters?

Was there ever an equivalent feminist 'Jonestown', or even a gang of rad femmes tanked up on alcohol cruising the streets looking for a fight? A female Hitler? The closest I can get to him is Catherine Medici - who more likely abused her power than sought a supremacy ideology.

What percentage of feminists actually hate with the same passion as the "Black Shirt Brigade" http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/19/1040174344351.html or the so-called "Promise-Keepers" using the bible (yet again) to justify male dominion?

I will take these and other mens' groups seriously and with respect when they condemn those men whose goal is control - control over women, children and control over other men. That is what a patriarchy is.

Sure many women have asked "wouldn't a matriarchy be better?" A fair question considering how well patriarchy has and is working. However, a pendulum swing of power from one sex to the other is not the answer - never has been. What is required is a humanist society where the most vulnerable members (children, aged, disabled) are protected. As a footnote: too many people confuse protection with control and see any change to the status quo as a threat.

Protection means taking responsibility NOT control.

Nobody is arguing that men are 'inherently' oppressive, just as nobody is arguing that whites are 'inherently' racist or that the wealthy cannot help but oppress the working-class.

The terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are social constructs, they are not givens. This tends to get glossed over when terms such as 'sacred masculinity' are used. 'Sacred masculinity', we are told, is something that's natural, that we need to worship. Tell that to Dianne Brimble or any woman raped and/or murdered in war, on the streets, in her home. Surely these women didn't benefit from 'sacred masculinity'.

On another note, Marsh' use of song quotes did bring a chuckle - albeit for the wrong reasons.

pelican, "Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone."

Your question has already been indirectly answered by another, so that didn't take long.

In answer to your question no I don't think so, although usually those responsible seem to be Boomer feminists or of that approximate vintage. Old habits must die hard, or will the worthless baggage of previous generations be carried to the grave?

Anyway, the feminist joke that was responded to is supposed to be on Jesus, who fortunately was forgiving.

The very radical feminists (using Warwick's analogy) don't exist in the same way other radicals might use violence to fight a cause as Severin pointed out.

I interpret Warwick's radical feminist approach to mean women who actually hate men and want ill to befall them, including degrading the role of fatherhood and masculinity (however that may be defined) as implied in the article.

Cornflower
What is boomer feminist baggage? Most people take some sort of baggage to the grave, hopefully with the edges smoothed out through the natural mellowing and wisdom of maturity.

Bitterness and misogyny are counter-productive, it would be better if some of those who continually degrade women and feminism, actually worked with various groups to ensure fairer outcomes for all - most importantly children. I don't see feminists denying the rights of fathers to share in the raising of their children in the case of family breakdown.

The only concerns ever raised are those of abuse. This is not a feminist issue it is a human rights issue.

Where are all these radical feminists decrying fatherhood? Most feminists male and female alike, are looking for a fairer society that takes into considerations choices for both males and females. Work-life balance, fair pay for a fair day's work, child care and health and wellbeing are universally male and female issues.

Just a quick alteration - I meant to say misogyny and misandry in the post above.

Lookie here
The human race is basically cruel, animalistic, greedy and fecund.
It is out of control and must be culled. Unfortunately wars are not big enough. We need a good flu thing to halve the population and give the poor old earth a break.

So lets start a Mens Lib movement and form activist partnerships with the Feminists.

Hey Jay - Yes!!

What a bloke!

What ideas do you have?

There is this information and research site too. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind or do you think it could be useful?

http://www.xyonline.net/

Wow!. This is such a pissing contest..

Men V Women. MAsculist V Feminist.

All I know is that any group that is extreme has a Narsistic Sense of Entitlement.. CAn we please stop the blame game and stop having perpetrators and victims.. Just another game of cowboys and Indians and cops and robbers.. Good V bad.

Men and women do some horrible things and both are capable of it. Lets stops empowering one gender at the expense of another.

Please men and women, Take responsibility and stop the blame game..Its nothing but excuses..

I love youse(sic) all..

On Sunday I sat with others and watched Col Stringer speak about the 800 horsemen of the Australian Light Horse and their charge against overwhelming odds. He spoke of Honour and Courage,of Mateship and Humility. What a great testimony of out-STANDING men (even though they were sitting). Brought tears to my eyes and resolve to my soul.

Pynchme.
I'll make time to read some of the stuff on that link you posted.
Here's something else you might be interested in.
http://www.menweb.org/svofarre.htm
http://www.warrenfarrell.net/index.html

Well Jay I hope you have read some material from that site.

I was disappointed when I saw your Farrell links. I am quite familiar with his material and history.

I thought you were advocating for some positive collaboration to free everyone caught in the patriarchal web.

http://www.xyonline.net/content/book-review-myth-male-power-why-men-are-disposable-sex-warren-farrell

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm#note

http://angelzfury.blogspot.com/2010/02/warren-farrell-does-custody-evaluation.html

Please read the note at the bottom of the page:

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell6.htm

"I believe he serves as an apologist for the so-called "men's rights" groups. I believe too that his writings reflect a Euro-centered homophobic and middle-class traditionally-male perspective;
for me, that is dangerous to the survival of us all. I agree that pro-feminism for males in our society is a process. Fortunately
there are writers and scholars such as Joe Pleck, Bob Brannon, Al Lott, among others.
I appreciate this opportunity. I hope that my comments might reach some others who have long questioned Farrell's motives."
Steve Grubman-Black
Professor with joint appointment in Communicative Disorders and in Women's Studies University of Rhode Island

and

"I would just add names like Bob Connell, Michael Kaufman and Michael Messner to the list of feminist men who write about men's issues. Perhaps it would be useful for us to make visible some of the men who have written intellectually interesting and challenging work about masculinity which is not misogynist but which helps us to understand the ways in which men are damaged by patriarchy."

Laurie Finke, Women's and Gender Studies, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022

and

"Harry Brod's anthology _A Mensch Among Men_ (Crossing Press, 1988) is a specifically Jewish example of writing about men which is not anti-feminist."

Dennis Fischman

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/farrell_who.html

'Euro-centered .... and middle-class traditionally-male perspective'

How Dangerous!

Much better an Asian-centred low class traditionally-female perspective. Pity we all cant actually be low class (or even high class) female and Asian or African so we can have a less dangerous perspective on life.

'men who have written intellectually interesting and challenging work about masculinity which is not misogynist but which helps us to understand the ways in which men are damaged by patriarchy'

Indeed. I'm sure it's as prevalent as intellectually interesting and challenging work about femininity which is not misandrist. Maybe even any feminist analysis that doesn't see all women solely as victims with no responsibility, or those really edgy ones where women are 'compliant'.

Keep watching out for that patriarchal web pynch.

Euro Centric?
Well what has Feminism done for non European Women?
Fix what you can fix within your own society and keep pushing it forward, let the others develop independently just as we were allowed to.
Just because other societies aren't developing at the same rate or in the same form doesn't mean we should stop and wait for them to catch up.
Sheesh...Break one dialectic and a new one appears.
There's no such thing as a divide between developing and developed worlds.
A developed world would be a complete world at the end of it's intellectual and spiritual resources.
We're all developing just at different rates.
The "Patriarchal System" has to play out to it's conclusion in every society as we all move forward, if it takes another thousand years for,say Africans then that's how long it takes.

'I have not read Farrell's book, but from what I have read on this
list and elsewhere it sounds problematic in terms of being
reactionary and inflametory. I and 2 other female professors (soc
dept) have had a male re-entry student that is disruptive. He
tried to disrupt a class I taught last spring, but I put a lid on
it. However, this fall he is being very persistant in a Socialization
class taught by a female friend of mine - he's actually confronting
her in class. After class one day he brought her a copy of
Farrell's book and was claiming that he is the recipient of reverse
gender discrimination. He wants her to read the book and discuss it
with him. She has just been hired in this position and is trying to
not only teach classes, but do research to assure attaining tenure, so
reading an extra book like this is a burden. I don't know what she
will do.
My concern is that people like this student are getting ahold
of material like Farrell's book and using this stuff to augment their
already distorted arguments. I find the situation frightening.'

Well what a wonderful insight into gender studies departments. So frightening that a student would be 'disruptive' enough to question the all men are bastards all women are helpless victims propaganda.

Perhaps instead of being so 'frightened' by a student (a male one at that) daring to question what is fed to him, maybe an acedemic such as this could try... I dunno... countering the arguments. Or is that what was really so frightening.

One wonders of the definition of 'disruptive':-0

"he's actually confronting her in class"
How terrifying!

The vital phrase in that piece: "Gaining Tenure"
You can write any old load of codswallop in that situation and no one will ever question it because the only people who will read it have either taught you to write in the first place or been trained by people like you to accept your views.
The "disruptive" student threatens lecturer's livelihood. Because she relies on producing a certain type of information for a living anything that could break the concentration of the class and divert it from her program, much less prove her wrong is a threat to her financial security.

"Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone."

Yes, most feminists have come a long way in the last few decades. However, lets not forget what a huge battle that took. That progress occurred, because many people bravely took a stance against the sort of over-simplistic generalisations and contempt for men that marked earlier generations of feminism. Furthermore, lets not pretend that this battle is completely over. For example, as Warwick's saccarine article points out, much of our society are far too willing to see men as villans.

Therrefore, many men are sceptical when we see comments like "it would be better if some of those who continually degrade women and feminism, actually worked with various groups to ensure fairer outcomes for all - most importantly children." All of the rhetoric about wanting fairer outcomes for everyone (while welcome) isn't matched by the actions of feminists and the systems (like the family court) that feminism has produced.

If feminism is going to make the world a better place, further change is needed. If the likes of Severin stopped seeing any man who asked anything of any woman as being controlling, if Suze stopped seeing men as being villans and Pynchme stopped waiting for men to see the world as she does and was prepared to listen to male perspectives, like that of Warren Farrell, then we would be a little closer.

Benk

ROFL

>> ...If the likes of Severin stopped seeing any man who asked anything of any woman as being controlling, if Suze stopped seeing men as being villans (sic) and Pynchme stopped waiting for men to see the world as she does and was prepared to listen to male perspectives... <<

Yup, if those uppity women would just shut the fack up and LISTEN to us men, the world would be a better place.

Severin <" Yup, if those uppity women would just shut the fack up and LISTEN to us men, the world would be a better place."

Lol ! Excellent! I just had to repeat that gem again :)

Benk (sigh),<"...if Suze stopped seeing men as being villan(sic)...".
I don't see most men as villains at all, just those mentioned on some threads who hate all women.

Why does this always have to be a gender-based war?
Are you missing antiseptic, who is away after being a naughty boy?

I don't have to be anti-men to be pro-women.

Severin

Don't listen to Suze, your last post was deeply disturbing. It appears that any sort of compromise or even valuing the opinion of any man is beneath you. This says something quite troubling about your mindset and undermines any hope that men and women can move beyond these gender wars.

Suze

"I don't have to be anti-men to be pro-women."
Nice sentiment, but much of what you have posted doesn't match up to your rhetoric. That you could enjoy Severin's bitter post also says something very worrying about your attitude.

Both of you need to think deeply about whether you really want resolutions to gendered issues that everyone can live with or whether you are just here because you hate men.

Benk, why do you attribute your apparent problem with masculinity to women? You imply that assertive and articulate women like Severin, Pynchme and suzeonline "hate men". There is absolutely no evidence for that view in what they post at OLO - indeed, they have all stated clearly that don't hate men in general.

It's only the unreconstructed knuckledraggers with whom they seem to have problems.

Benk

If my criticism of people like Warwick Marsh means I am a man-hater in your view, then, using your logic, my complete contempt for the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin must mean I am also a woman-hater.

At least I am balanced. What's your excuse?

ROFL.

CJ and Severin

I will attempt to explain my position again. I have no idea why I bother, since niether of you have made no effort to understand previous posts.

Many people here have expressed noble sentiments about wanting to end gender wars and move towards constructive collaboration. I merely pointed out that these platitudes can be difficult to accept while certain people exhibit certain attitudes.

Severin seems to believe that valuing the opinion of any man who expresses a viewpoint other than her own is beneath her. She equates any compromise solution as an attempt to control her. When she attempts to contribute to any debate, she views any rebuttal of her arguments, no matter how detailed, as evidence that people cannot accept a woman having an opinion.

If we are going to talk productively about certain issues without becoming split along gendered lines, then people need to be prepared to understand that different life experiences may produce different attitudes, respond to the substance of other people's arguments and search for compromise solutions.

So, as Severin suggested, some of us do need to listen a little better. If your post contains counter-arguments to comments that other people didn't actually make, then I may well be talking to you.

CJMorgan <"It's only the unreconstructed knuckledraggers with whom they seem to have problems."
Lol CJ! Damn, now I will get in trouble with Benk for laughing again!

Benk, lighten up a little! You always seem to sound so mortally wounded by everything said that you don't agree with.

Try a little humour- I know you can, because you have always struck me as being an ok guy.

Don't stoop to Antiseptic's level for goodness sake, or there will be nothing sacred about your masculinity as well.

<< You always seem to sound so mortally wounded by everything said that you don't agree with. >>

suze is right - benk, you seem like a reasonable kind of guy, albeit with a bit of a chip on your shoulder about women. The women here who seem to offend your sensibilities only do so because they consistently stand up to the "knuckledraggers" of OLO (of whom I don't regard you as one - I don't think they do either).

Lighten up, mate - women are great. Real men love them.

benk
There has been much compromise in the Family Court system of late - shared parenting is one. Yes there is still room for improvement.

However I am reading the same posts as you but have not interpreted any of Suze's, Pynchme or Severin's posts as anti-male.

I sometimes think we read too much into a post defending one particular gender as an attack on the other. Not so. This is too simplistic and I am sure benk that you would agree that the gender wars do more harm than good not only in matters of child custody but in the workforce and the wider community.

This article talks about masculinity but fails to define what it is. There is some implication that masculinity is about "servant leadership" and being the Head of the Household.

Masculinity and indeed femininity may mean different things to different people, but in the modern world I don't think masculinity is about fostering inequitable relationships within the home, work or elsehwere. It is also not about allowing access to children because of some misguided view of the sacred rites of fathers (eg. if he is an abuser).

(Same goes for sacred rites of motherhood/women - if she is an abuser)

We are confusing criminal activity with gender issues, parents rights versus children's rights.

As Suze said you can fight for the rights of women or children without hating men.

Many men, particularly men whose children have been abused by stepfathers or defacto boyfriends are also fighting for safe environments for their children.

Houellebecq: Patriarchy impacts on men who find themselves at the receiving end of the aggression claimed by some as a mascline 'right':

http://blogs.theage.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2007/09/male_rape.html

Feminism isn't detrimental to the family (however defined) but people like Farrell (not a biological father himself btw) and his admirers.

Evidence that feminists are not widely in opposition to men/males/masculinity includes Farrell's acceptance as a member of a small, local feminist chapter in NY (which is not the national centre btw) in the 1970s when feminism might be seen as in its most revolutionary stage. He was later ejected from the feminist movement after his views on incest became know via an interview published in Penthouse. Feminism rejects any exploitation of children.

A sample of his view, "... incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

Of all the information provided to supply names of males that have successfully merged their view with feminist theories, the bit that you choose to extract is that of an undergraduate student who demands that the lecturer read Farrell. A student has opportunity to argue a case in assessments such as essay and exam.

If that student had been a creationist taking undergrad biology, would it be expected that the lecturer read creationist material on demand? No. It is usual for a student to understand the arguments of the theories she or he is challenging. That student had yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the theories he was choosing to challenge with Farrell.

I'm puzzled as to why some men take it as a personal slight when men like Farrell come under criticism. It's not feminists who see all men as the same and who hate all men; it's any of you who can't differentiate yourselves from an amorphous mass you vaguely refer to as "sacred masculinity".

CJ

“You imply that assertive and articulate women like Severin, Pynchme and suzeonline "hate men". There is absolutely no evidence for that view in what they post at OLO - indeed, they have all stated clearly that don't hate men in general.”

We can all mouth the right platitudes about how caring we are or should be, but some attitudes don’t match the rhetoric. One of the less helpful attitudes is that any men who disagrees with any woman simply has a problem with these women being assertive. This attitude displays a reluctance to respond to the substance of other people’s statements. CJ, you are turning into another Fractelle. I’ve explained clearly enough why I disagree with some of the opinions, held by Severin, Suze and Pynchme. Yet, no matter how many counter- arguments I present, you both still prefer to believe that I disagree with these women purely because of their gender.

“you seem like a reasonable kind of guy, albeit with a bit of a chip on your shoulder about women. “

The only chip on my shoulder is in relation to paternalistic attitudes towards women, where they are seen as being weak and needing protection. For example, Suze has a long history of self-righteous grandstanding when any bloke is too harsh and yet, when Severin is out of line, I’m told to lighten up. Severin’s attitude is truly disgraceful. She thinks that any man who asks anything of her is attempting to control her. If the rest of us were so selfish, society would fall apart.

Pynchme

“I'm puzzled as to why some men take it as a personal slight when men like Farrell come under criticism”

There is no mystery, we just weren’t aware of his views about incest.

OK I'll bite.

Pynch, I'm not one of your gender studies students. I couldn't give a toss about this Farell guy. I don't even know who he is. That you think I am or would defend him says a lot about your pre-occupation with him and me.

If you read my first post on the subject, you'd see I also mocked the author mercilessly.

What I do see (thanks to that link) is your homogeneous little gender studies cult environment. The epitome of what I see when I read your gear. It seems I'm not alone, as Jay got the same comedy value out of that link I did.

BTW: Thanks for adding to my entertainment with your analogy. Any author on gender who isn't vetoed by the closed circles of back patting kosher victim feminists is akin to a creationist in the realm of science! Great stuff!

Now, if I may ask from my highly valued and valid Asian-centred low class traditionally-female perspective; have you ever mentioned on OLO any responsibility any woman may hold for any problem with the world that is totally independent of any wrongdoing from a man.

Haha, I've just had a look at more of pynchme's femz sites.

Hey, lets make a list of stories about fatherless children to prove we don't need those men.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fatherless/research-fatherless-children.html

but

BABIES NEED THEIR MOTHERS BESIDE THEM!

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html

'It is a curious fact that in Western societies the practice of mothers, fathers and infants sleeping together came to be thought of as strange, unhealthy and dangerous.'
Maybe a friend of Warrens?

So funny. It looks like the rival sister site for menz that pynchme constantly loves to attribute to all male posters. (If any man disagrees with her feminist doctrine, they must have got those nasty ideas from some Geocities menz site!)

Somehow I thought if she was going to pretend to be 'above' the menz, and somehow put feminism up as more virtuous or scientific or honest than menz rights groups, she wouldn't be advertising doozys like that for our collective ridicule.

The Liz Library of collections of works on why she hates menz groups, and a few plugs for her services. She's the female Divorce Doctor. I wonder if she'll also sell me some steak knives!

More Fatherless Children; actor Tom Cruise!
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fatherless/research-fatherless-children.html

benk, "There is no mystery, we just weren’t aware of his views about incest."

I looked into this some time back following the usual "dismiss all of Farrell's arguments because of what he is reported to have said a long time ago" comments. As far as I could tell Farrell did some "research" into incest basically asking is it as negative as is generally believed.

Farrell made a couple of points back then, the incidence rates of incest was skewed by the classification of per-incest into the figures (sibling and cousin's). From the work he had done at that point not all outcomes were the same for parent child incest. He found that boy/mother incest had a different experience for the child to girl/father incest.

There is dispute over one phrase, my recollection is that Farrell say's he used the word gently, the article says genitally http://nafcj.net/taboo1977farrell.pdf (page six and with an arrow pointed to it). http://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/trishwilson/farrell2.html for one point where Farrell is reported and disputing the wording.

My impression is that Farrell was trying to understand the issue in the face of a general taboo. In the context of other taboo's which were being overturned (gay right's etc) not an entirely unreasonable thing to do. Farrell claims not to approve of incest.

Liz also refers to an Off Our Back interview with Farrell http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell.htm but I've not been able to locate the article to put the excerpt in context.

I think that he thought and said some silly points as a 34 year old (in 1977) with an ego and a name to make and his opponents have milked that ever since to dismiss the good points he makes on other issues.

He makes some really good points about claims of male privilege and power, about gender based pay differences etc but according to the dictate of some none of that should be discussed because of reporting of his views on incest by Penthouse magazine in 1977.

R0bert

Robert

I understand that Farrell has produced some quite worthwhile research and writing since 1977. I with him agree that taboos need to be questioned and that therapists should avoid assuming that someone is damaged by an experience when it is possible (if unlikely) that they are coping better than expected. However, the general tone of his writing was far too positive about what should be seen as a disgraceful betrayal of trust. I found his comments about incest magnifying the beauty of a father/daughter relationship to be quite disturbing. One of the key things that fathers can give daughters is the honesty and unconditional love that these women don't get from guys who are simply trying to get them into bed.

Benk <" For example, Suze has a long history of self-righteous grandstanding when any bloke is too harsh and yet, when Severin is out of line, I’m told to lighten up."

A long history? Can you give me an example of which response was self-righteous grandstanding Benk?
Was it perhaps a response to the delightful Antiseptic?
More like standing up for myself, I would suggest?
A terrible trait in a woman, I know!

I wouldn't mind betting that Severin has never been given a two week suspension, or anything near it, for abuse etc on this forum?
No?
I rest my case.

Thanks, Suze - no I have never been suspended either as my present incarnation or as Fractelle.

I do stick up for my right to present my opinion as I have also supported the right of others to present their posts free of personal abuse and insult.

Benk, if disagreeing with you is "out of line" on an internet forum, how do you cope with the women in your life who may not always agree with you?

Is this what Marsh means by "sacred masculinity"?

'Benk, if disagreeing with you is "out of line" on an internet forum, how do you cope with the women in your life who may not always agree with you?

Is this what Marsh means by "sacred masculinity"?'

That's priceless from the 'excuse me for having an opinion while being female' queen!

BTW: I've never been suspended either.

PS: I beginning to like you girls. I thought you were both just pretty thick, but now I think the appearance of not understanding benk and deliberate misrepresentation (and rstuart on another thread) is a brilliant wind up job.

Suze

"I rest my case" Having proved nothing. It is hard to counter arguments that you have made little attempt to understand.

Once or twice, I have commented about paternalism- the attitude that women need more protection than men. You example, when Anti is critical of any women or I was critical of Severin, you jushed in save them, because you think that women need protection. When I got angry with Severin, you basically told be to toughen up, because this is your idea of how men should act. These gender roles help no-one.

I know that you don't mean to be sexist, you rarely hear paternalism being discussed. Remember, when feminism started, many men behaved in ways that are no longer considered acceptable. We didn't mean to be unfair, we just hadn't thought about what we were doing. Fortunately, most of us didn't see being asked to change as an attempt to control us.

Which brings me to Severin

"how do you cope with the women in your life who may not always agree with you?"

Generally, I start by listening carefully to their objections and deciding which of their arguments sound reasonable. Where they are reasonable, I make the necessary changes. When I disagree with what they are saying, I carefully explain why. If I cannot persuade them, I look for a compromise solution. This is how a mature adult behaves.

I don't misrepresent their statements to make them easier to attack.

I have never assumed that they disagree with me purely because I am male.

I certainly don't see being asked to change as being controlled.

Hope this helps.

Hiya all,

I am getting a bit of a laugh out of some the personal attacks coming from the femi-Nazi's and the masculists. Why can't you see some of the other persons point of views. I think its because THERE IS AN AGENDA.. Come clean guys and girls.. Tis hard to respect the extreme views and the Psuedo intellectual rhetoric..

"Evidence that feminists are not widely in opposition to men/males/masculinity includes Farrell's acceptance as a member of a small, local feminist chapter in NY (which is not the national centre btw) in the 1970s when feminism might be seen as in its most revolutionary stage. He was later ejected from the feminist movement after his views on incest became know via an interview published in Penthouse.

"Feminism rejects any exploitation of children."

Hello! The above line was just an excuse to get him out of the feminist movement because he challenged the philosophy..

Warren Farrell wrote some poingiant things but he also wrote some crap too..

"Feminism destroyed the family? I don't suppose centuries of abuse and child molestation had anything to do with a loss of blind confidence in male "servant leadership" and the idealized (as we never were) family image. It's also a fact that non-Christian people maintain well functioning family units. Christianity doesn't own the family model." (Love this one)..

Funny part is is both men and women are abusers. Women do it differently to men and by no means is this any softer.. The worst scars are the ones you don't see...

Both sexes need to take resposibility for the scars that they produce..

Those that deny the problem become part of the problem and not the solution..

Women do not need protection and men do not need to be bastardized..

I have met some abominable people of both genders.. Get over yourselves.. (Just check out Parental Alienation Syndrome)..

HAve fun...

"As Suze said you can fight for the rights of women or children without hating men."

But you can also fight for the rights of children to love both men and women and not have any gender barriers to that process..

Take away the (WIIFM) and something to gain and children might have a chance..

Parents screw children up and stop pointing fingers at who is to blame..

Femi Nazi's and Masculists should all stick to their own kind so they can believe the Bull Shite they are peddling.. (Go buy an Island)..

Cheers.

Benk

Two quick points for my final post to this topic.

1. Two people may disagree vehemently with each other and have very reasonable rationale for their opposing views. For example, I often understand R0bert's reasons for his views, I do not always agree with him.

2. If you believe I am getting "out of line" you have the same right as everyone else on OLO to report my 'getting-out-of-lineness' to the OLO moderators.

Cheers

Severin, any time! I too am now bored with this topic, with just a few final words to say.

Benk <"...the attitude that women need more protection than men. You example, when Anti is critical of any women or I was critical of Severin, you jushed in save them, because you think that women need protection. When I got angry with Severin, you basically told be to toughen up, because this is your idea of how men should act. These gender roles help no-one."

Antiseptic is never merely critical of women online, he verbally abuses them- as you yourself have pulled him up for.

I don't rush in to save or protect anyone- they are well able to 'save' themselves.

I am well within my rights to comment on how other people are treated on this forum, and have done so for both men and women (yourself included, as I recall).
That does not equate to a 'gender role' at all.

I suggested you 'lighten up' Benk, not toughen up. There is a slight difference there.
I don't necessarily want men to act 'tough' at all.
See you on another thread :)