Follow-Up to "Male Complaining: Fully Justified — and (Mostly) Pointless"

A response to readers...

I am gratified by the response to this piece; it seems to have touched a nerve. I did expect pushback, and while most of the comments below are supportive, some friends have kindly communicated some reservations privately. This is helpful. When people agree with me too much I feel that I am not doing my job, which is to “push the envelope” and provoke people to “think outside the box” and outside their “comfort zone” (forgive the cliches). Disagreement helps me to sharpen and clarify the argument.

~~~

One reader asked if I am dismissing the work of important writers/activists as whining. If so, I would have to dismiss my own work over more than a quarter-century. Here a distinction between information and opinions might be helpful. We all need to be informed about the abuses, and so does the general public; the more the better. And well-supported thoughts and arguments based on facts and aiming at solutions, are precisely what I am calling for. Opinions alone — unconnected to these goals — quickly become tedious.

Besides, if my strategy — using the Marriage Strike as leverage to effect change — is to be successful, someone needs to call attention to it and make the world understand what is happening. Even if millions of men do refuse to marry and start families, articulate people — “spokesmen”, we might say — (someone besides feckless “tradcons”) must explain why and demand the changes in their name.

~~~

Some readers raised the cliche about politics being “downstream from culture” and insisted we must “first change the culture”. This has become a favorite excuse for doing nothing. You and I and even 10,000 others cannot change the culture, but a small number can change the laws and practices of corrupt officials. No one talks about “changing the culture” before we can prohibit abortion or protect freedom of speech or gun rights. We must pursue limited, concrete goals, not utopian fantasies.

~~~

One misconception I should have clarified: Father custody has nothing whatever to do with the father being "presumed to be the superior parent," as one reader wrote. He can manifestly be the worse parent, and the principle still holds, and in any case no government official has any business deciding which parent is "superior". It also does not presume that "single fathers make better parents than single mothers" (though the evidence suggests that they do); nor does it require any "statistics" attempting to prove this.

Father custody will keep families together and allow children to be raised by both parents in an intact home. Mother custody means discarding fathers and raising the children as single mothers. This is why feminists demand it in the name of “liberation”. Father custody does not mean discarding mothers; it means that the mothers cannot leave without forfeiting the children. Families will remain intact, because the father’s authority will be intact.

~~~

One friend wrote that I ignore other important issues facing men to focus on one. I certainly do believe that child custody is far and away the most important, both in its cruelty and because it is the basis of all the others. What could be more cruel than having your children taken away? Workplace hazards, “discrimination”, circumcision, being assaulted (“domestic violence”)? These pale by comparison (which is why the larger public seldom cares about these things). Not only is child custody connected to other abuses (false accusations, child support, paternity fraud, parental alienation, property confiscation, not to mention numerous civil liberties violations), but it comprises the essential weapon that empowers the entire feminist matriarchy: control over the reproductive system. (That is why they are so obsessed with abortion.) That is why Amneus says, “The linchpin in the feminist program is mother custody following divorce. … Pull that pin…and the feminist structure collapses.” Explaining why is more than I can do here. It is fully explained in my latest book or other books or in Amneus’ book. Trying to unravel the multiple strands of the feminist Gordian Knot is futile. Father custody will cut it at one stroke.

None of this precludes raising other issues, but I think they must be tied back to feminism and to control of children. Rectify that, and the others will be worked out.

~~~

Implementing this does not require “superior arguments” (as one wrote), and it does not require that we change the minds of politicians (as another said). We have had superior, unassailable arguments for years — rooted in Anglo-American constitutional law, no less — and still achieved nothing. It may not even require legislation; nor, I think, does it require launching strident political campaigns or creating new organizations (of which we seem to be incapable). The Marriage Strike (elaborated here) provides the leverage for men simply to demand father custody as a condition of marriage. Until father custody is implemented reliably — in other words, until marriage is made an enforceable legal contract — I will not marry you. It is as simple as that. No arguing (with women or with politicians), no shouting, no political agitation, no profiteering do-nothing "NGO's" with paid executives who prolong the problem they claim to be solving. (This last is a theme of my new book.) Needless to say, no tearing off our clothes and screaming angrily in the streets (the favorite MO of feminists). You cannot reason with crooked politicians or with ideologues, any more than you can reason with spoiled children, and there is no need to try. Just quiet, firm, dignified, disciplined, concrete, constructive action by men. Several readers pointed out that when women start demanding change, the change will happen.

~~~

One final point of importance that I should have made originally, for it is essentially the theme of my new book. Readers of this Substack should perceive this point more readily than others, but I fear that attempts to make constructive points get overshadowed when we become too absorbed with dwelling on the evil deeds of feminists, globalists, Democrats, liberals, “Communists”, and other villains. And this is another reason I fear that the naughty pleasure we all derive from jeering at them could cost us dearly in terms of getting on with the tasks at hand. The point is this:

We may achieve more today by highlighting the indequacies and failures of conservatism (especially professional, mercenary conservatism) than by dwelling on the deeds of the Left. The glaring fecklessness and cowardice of the traditional conservatives (“tradcons”) on this one issue, despite their prominence, reflects their larger uselessness in opposing the Left on all other issues. It explains the larger question of why they have been so utterly ineffectual in opposing the Left over decades and why the Left was able to take control of the US government and other Western governments over the last 5 years. If we can communicate this principle to the world, then issues like child custody become less trivial and “private” and can be seen to have momentous implications for our entire society and civilization. (“The hand that rocks the cradle…”) Otherwise, we will continue to be ignored even by MAGA Republicans and the Trump administation. The impediments are personified in Elon Musk, whose own children were apparently destroyed by the divorce machine, but who seems to prefer expending his enormous influence by advocating visits to Mars rather than rescuing his own flesh and blood.

Perhaps the topic of a future piece…

In any case, my thanks to all who contributed comments to a lively discussion and helped me to refine my arguments.

---

If you want to read more analysis that will push you to think “outside the box,” you will find it in my new book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went "Communist” — and What to Do about It — available from Amazon.

Stephen Baskerville is Professor of Politics at the Collegium Intermarium in Warsaw. His books and recent articles are available at www.StephenBaskerville.com.

---

Original piece:

I am becoming distressed by the energy wasted on the internet these days by men complaining about their treatment by women. I know it is fully justified, and I do not for a minute endorse the denial or the barrage of nasty scolding coming from the traditional conservatives, when they dismiss the horrific abuses of government power, especially the divorce courts, urging men to “suck it in”, “man-up,” and other glib clichés. Even more serious than the scolding is demanding that men simply ignore the dangers, go ahead and marry, start a family, and put your head in the noose. They do as much harm to “the family” that they claim to cherish as anyone, and I have criticized this (repeatedly). (The professed Christians among them have some pretty shoddy theology.) Especially hypocritical and cynical is when it comes from men in positions of political authority, who have power to rectify the governmental abuses. Too cowardly to challenge or expose a glaring public evil and abuse of public office, they instead wag their fingers at other men for how they choose to lead their private lives.

It is also encouraging that general awareness is reaching more men, thanks to some excellent writing.

And yet there does come a point where continued complaining comes to substitute for constructive action.¹ Men victimized by the welfare-divorce machine number in the millions, which gives them enormous political leverage with huge potential to change things. Moreover, many have deftly (if unintentionally) augmented their leverage by spontaneously going on “strike” and refusing to associate — date, marry, or procreate — with women. This is hitting where it hurts, for women are seriously distressed by the absence of men to marry, and I think many genuinely do not know the reasons why. It is also this that provokes the scolding from the “tradcons,” so we know it has an impact.

But there is little indication that they are translating this leverage into positive purposes. Many men seem to be indulging in their grievances — just as women have long done — as a pastime in itself. The endless he-said/she-said stories, the tales of victimization, the unfairness of it all. It is all painfully true, and yet in itself it achieves nothing. Men have achieved “gender equality” in one respect: they have become more like women by complaining about the opposite sex.

The fact that some prominent voices are women makes it seem almost as if men are waiting for women to rescue them from the railroad tracks.² At some point we must do more than click “Like” and leave opinions all about.

This is in itself a form of feminization and a victory for women, especially the kind who love to complain about men. (The tradcons are themselves highly feminized.) Women love to talk about “relationships”, and they thrive by indulging in endless he-said/she-said chatter and gossip. Some openly admit that they enjoy talking about problems and simply want someone to “listen”, without necessarily seeking any solutions.

Logically, the talk can lead on to therapy, which is almost entirely talk, but now to a paid professional listener. It is no accident that this profession is dominated by women. When couples seek therapy together, the professional listener becomes a referee, encouraging them to complain about one another. When this happens, the man aways loses. The very presence of the referee validates the talk and the complaining and the female point-of-view, even if she does not explicitly declare a winner.

Indeed, the resort to the referee to sort matters out in the first place in itself demotes the man from his authority as ruler of his own home. But while he no longer has any authority to govern his home, he will still be held responsible for whatever goes wrong in it. Whether morally or legally, from that point on he can never be innocent; he can only be guilty.

At some stage this can lead on to forensic therapy — that is, ordered by a court and law enforcement — for example, when it is connected to a divorce case. Then the complaints become accusations and grounds for legal action, including prosecution, even if the accused has not committed any legally recognized infraction. Once this is permitted, here too, the man can only be culpable for whatever went wrong.

Men should never encourage or permit this. True men get on with the business at hand. They do not talk, they act. They take care of the matter, solve the problem, and then move on.

~~~

I suggest that, at a minimum, no man should offer an opinion about “gender” relations unless he also proposes or endorses some solution. I suggest the following principles:

• No man should complain about women themselves.

• No man should complain about abstractions like “the culture” or anything else that he is powerless to change.

• Every man should be complaining loud-and-clear about the specific, concrete laws and practices of government officials, which lie at the heart of this, and then he should devise or endorse some way to put a stop to it. General awareness has been achieved. All attention now goes to solutions.

~~~

I will start, because I am convinced that one thing alone can cut the Gordian Knot and restore men to the authority without which they are not fully men. I have said it before, and greater minds have said it before me. Our civilization understood and practiced it for centuries, and undeniably it works. I propose that we concentrate singlemindedly on that, and that alone, and settle for nothing less, if we truly hope to restore harmony between the sexes, real marriage, stable families, social order, government integrity, even international peace. We either drop everything and focus on that alone, until we achieve it, or we shut up.

That one thing that will restore male authority and all the rest is father custody of children. “The linchpin in the feminist program is mother custody following divorce,” wrote the great Shakespeare scholar, Daniel Amneus in his classic book, The Case for Father Custody. “Pull that pin…and the feminist structure collapses.” I elaborate on Amneus’ argument in my recent book:

And the rest of the radical sexual agenda, that now forms the cutting edge of the Left generally, collapses with it: homosexualism, transgenderism, and the rest. More than anything, this is what undermines masculinity and turns men into frightened, impotent sissies – at the same time that it turns their children into aggressive nihilists, rebelling against their fathers and everything else. “Until then, men must remain afraid of women, of marriage, of feminism” [writes Amneus.] They must also fear “the divorce court judges” [he adds] and all government officials, who learned from the matriarchy how to create and enforce the other bureaucratic tyrannies of the Deep State and who understand that ordinary men heading families pose the principal impediment to their power.

That and that alone will break the back of feminism and the massive state apparatus that supports it: welfare, divorce courts, public schools, false accusations, affirmative action, prisons, police — all of it.

It is also entirely feasible. I elaborate on the multiple benefits and explain how it can be implemented in the final chapter of my book, but you can get a glimpse of it here.

I invite discussion.

---

This, by the way, is an old principle in Christianity, and it was inculcated on the English-speaking populations by, among others, the Puritans. They often expressed the principle in terms of divine judgement, which not only promised that evildoers would receive their just desserts, but also reminded their victims that they too would be judged if they did not get off their own duffs and do whatever was in their power to rectify the evil. "Whatever injuries are brought upon us by man, let us acknowledge them as deserved punishment of our sin in regard to God," one Puritan minister urged. "Though we have given no cause to the one, and so are innocent, yet we have given just cause to the other, and so are nocent." Habituating people to such principles was how the Puritans contributed to shaping modern citizenship, and it helped make the Anglophone countries among history’s most successful.

1. This, by the way, is an old principle in Christianity, and it was inculcated on the English-speaking populations by, among others, the Puritans. They often expressed the principle in terms of divine judgement, which not only promised that evildoers would receive their just desserts, but also reminded their victims that they too would be judged if they did not get off their own duffs and do whatever was in their power to rectify the evil. "Whatever injuries are brought upon us by man, let us acknowledge them as deserved punishment of our sin in regard to God," one Puritan minister urged. "Though we have given no cause to the one, and so are innocent, yet we have given just cause to the other, and so are nocent." Habituating people to such principles was how the Puritans contributed to shaping modern citizenship, and it helped make the Anglophone countries among history’s most successful.

2. When I served as president of a fathers’ organization, I was repeatedly told that there were certain things that I was not allowed to say, but that a woman should be found to say it instead. Imagine if the Civil Rights Movement had allowed white people to do all the talking.