I have been a fathers' rights and divorce reform advocate for over 35 years. I started and ran 3 organizations--a fathers' rights group, a children's rights group and a divorce reform group. The problem is defined by Baskerville. Too many men whining and complaining about the judges, lawyers, the ex-wives, the child support, the lack of parenting time, etc. No one is/was willing to take it on. I had 500 active members in the groups with a database of over 5000 in New Jersey. It was undermined by what I believed to be infighting among the corporate types who were more about protocols and procedures than getting out there publicly and demonstrating at courthouses (I had 20-50, and sometimes 100 people demonstrating for a couple of hours at multiple courthouses on motion days in NJ as a concerted effort starting at 9AM-Noon). As Chair and President of the organizations, I wrote scathing letters to the editor and gave scathing attacks on the system to reporters. I was constantly chastised by our board of directors, made up of some of these corporate types. It got to the point that I told them I don't answer to them since I started the organization. They tried to vote me out and I beat them twice. We were also infiltrated by state "spies" who we found out by someone in the group who was divorced and being hammered by the courts. He worked for the state and obtained payroll records of the "spies". As soon as we confronted them, they left. But, another came into the organization about 5 years later and undermined the organization, stole the group's money and databases and left the state. We later found out he worked in computer security for AT&T in another state.
So, as you can see, there is more than meets the eye in this debacle. Men's groups are infiltrated by state "spies" who are part of the system to keep the multi-billion dollar system in place. We actually did get some legislation passed and had articles in the state law journals that headlined that judges feared our groups. But, again, too many men wanted their cases resolved instantly. When it couldn't be done, they left the groups to go sulk elsewhere. It got to the point of exhaustion. Are men really interested in changing the narrative and the conditions of the situation??? I don't think so. I believe that it's going to take someone or a number of men, who are armed, to take over a courthouse and make some demands. I've been doing this for over 35 years, and it seems that there is only one (1) result left to make the changes necessary.
Bruce, I can attest to the decades you have dedicated to this, and that you deserve a special place in heaven. I myself headed a national fathers' group for two years, and I can say that we achieved absolutely nothing, for reasons not so different from your experience. But circumstances are different now: general awareness, MGTOW, the salience of "gender" issues generally in matters such as the recent election. I am even convinced that the lack of organizations is not a serious problem. Washington organizations either 1) fail or 2) succeed, in which case they just make money off the problem rather than solving it, so they too fail. But the marriage strike fills me with hope.
Excellent article. Men need to collectivise and make clear their anger at the dreadful bias and injustice of the family court system for starters. Anger is an energy, but it must be directed at clear goals and not non-specific.
Excellent piece Stephen. So true that the center of power is likely in father custody. I love the idea of men standing up and pushing hard for legislative reform. Sadly, we are far from that point. What I see is most men are asleep to the ideas of manhood. Men who are awake to their masculinity would do what you are suggesting but what we see in our present culture are beings who have been lulled to sleep by insults, threats, and fantasies. I see our job of getting to your suggested outcome as being one of waking men up to their own worth and generative power as men.
I agree. Dr. Baskerville has been airing his complaints for decades, but now as younger men begin to complain he seemingly tells us to shut up. Until we've come up with a plan whereby, we are able to singlehandedly beat down Satan's Feminist system, we are not permitted to speak, lest we be ridiculed as being like whiny women.
I truly like most of what Dr. Baskerville writes, but shaming men for expressing the tyranny that was unleashed against them, to warn other men, is an unnecessary error. You can call for men to focus on enacting solutions without pushing to silence other men's voices using shaming.
Dr. Baskerville might possibly benefit from some of my published thoughts. But not if I had remained silent. I view the ongoing discussion of the issues online as being quite helpful. And the audience and awareness of these societal issues has grown to where most folks are finally noticing the movement. Heck! I actually came here to read Dr. Baskerville's complaints against our society, not to tell him to quit bitching and to go fix it all, like a real man would. LOL I don't think anybody can fix this mess alone, and I agree we need to make our complaints loud and clear, right along with our efforts to push back against the evil Feminist system.
I believe that Dr. Baskerville is making a point that a father wailing about what the Judge/Lawyers/Ex-wife/Child Support Gestapo..... did to him gets us nowhere. If fathers would get out of their own case, and instead advocate for the greater good, that is presumptive Father Custody, then some changes might take place. I witnessed this myself with Illinois Fathers. The very few times that we could put a small group of people together to promote father friendly legislation, (and NOT TALK ABOUT OUR PERSONAL CASE), the legislators would listen intently to what we had to say. However, as soon as someone breaks rank and starts carrying on about themselves and their case, we completely lose our audience.
Since you told me not to mention my own personal case: The judge in my divorce case ignored our Kansas state marriage laws because he apparently felt like they hadn't been kept updated to match today's woke society. So, what does changing the law do when our kangaroo-courts don't even follow the laws anyhow? Fundamentally this is an ideological battle. And judges operate like politicians, based upon popular opinion. And women have been the squeaky wheel since the dawn of time. Men need to make those wicked judges less daring to screw with them. The public condemnation of those dishonorable crooks by every man who gets screwed by their tyranny would be a good start.
Obviously changing the laws would be great too, but the laws won't change without millions of men publicly arguing boldly against the status quo. In case you haven't noticed our public servants are not controlled by the silent majority but are herded by vocal and militant minority-faction groups who can even get away with denying basic biology or might be clueless as to what a "woman" is. And half of the electorate is women. LOL We will likely not ever be able to vote our way back to responsible public policy now that the general public has been raised to be irresponsible and dependent on government. We need a religious reformation to spur a cultural revolution to push us back towards ideas that will function well socially and politically.
pretty disgusting behaviour by a Judge and unprofessional beyond measure..
I find it interesting that politicians can 'change the laws' without a citizen voting for that change or it is actually outside of the Constitution.... as in, not written into the Constitution!! I thought constitutions were the Rule of the Land - no matter what... !!! But obviously not...
I had a politician once tell me that, in Australia, the Constitution was to hard to change!!!
“Best interest of the child” is the most egregious lie ever told to men and corrupt judges use that lie to force men to do almost anything you can imagine!
Including paying 18 years for a bastard that he never sired!
“Pay or go to jail” say the blatantly corrupt criminal in black robes.
There is literally nobody who can stop them!
Never get married and you have a better chance although they are still after you in common-law state sponsored criminal jurisdictions!
Just living with a female can land you in hot water so best to shun them completely like the Harlots they are!
We need to find a way for boys and men to control their sexual urges for this is the power they unknowingly give over to the toxic females. Men are the prize, but both men and women teach the complete opposite.
My suggestion is MGTOW until females decide on their own to stop their insanity. Then it won’t matter what the state does because they are driven by the females. The females, as they always have, will get the laws to change back to normalcy.
Sadly, men simply refuse to band together against females. Let me repeat that man absolutely REFUSE!Therefore, nothing is to be done until that changes.
I agree that when the women demand change, change will happen. That could come sooner than we expect, if the men who go MGTOW communicate loud and clear why. It is not necessary for all men to do so, only the most desirable men. As Paul Elam and other MGTOW advocates point out, this is in the self-interest of men anyway, so they have nothing to lose.
I hope y'all are right about this mutual refusal to fulfill our natural sex roles leading women to repentance. ;-)
But Romans chapter one predicts the decrease in heterosexual relations leading to increased homosexuality. So please don't claim in the future that nobody warned you that MGTOW and WGTOW would lead to an even more estranged and unnatural sexual state.
The average woman has been taught contempt for the average man. Denying her the attractive men she wants won't change the fact that she still despises those average men. She'll choose to become a lesbian before she'll chose to submit to her natural role. Women were cursed to be rebels, envious of men's natural rule over them. Given the choice between repenting and returning to her natural role, and choosing even further rebellion, most women are going to hit the button and go (MAD) Mutual Assured Destruction. It is the hyper-destructive motive of envy that drives Satan and most women's rebellion. Women secretly prefer for both sexes to be destroyed than that they be restored to order under men's headship. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Men will have to force women to do right. We mustn't keep giving them options. The daughters of Eve have collectively proven themselves to be untrustworthy defilers who willfully rebel. Exceptions don't negate a pattern.
Personally, I don’t give a Rats-Ass what happens to females at this point. And don’t tell me “it’s not all women’ because IT CERTAINLY IS MOST of them and that makes ALL of them dangerous to be around. They have wreaked havoc on innocent men for 50+ years unabated!
Millions upon millions of men and still going strong!!!
Time for some far over due retribution.
Two wrongs don’t make a right? How else do you propose we stop the blatant war they alone have started against innocent men and boys? Should we just ask them nicely?
“Vote harder”?
Just take it and say nothing because a ‘real man’ doesn’t complain?
HORSESHIT!!!
And I can’t agree that most of them would turn homosexual as they love what’s between men’s legs but pretend they don’t to maintain the power-play position. And stupid, STUPID MEN continue to allow this and it makes me furious! (Women like sex just as much as men and always have).
I have sons looking down the barrel of this state sanctioned criminal activity!
This insanity needs stopped by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
But look now, all women (and even most men) would take exception to that last sentence and therefore nothing is going to change in the slightest. Men simply refuse to get their ass off the couch and do something! They are
‘Keyboard warriors’ that will never change anything!
It’s obvious men are ok with their treatment and so, why do they even complain?
But not this guy; it’s MGTOW for me till the day I die and yes, I will beg my sons to never get married!
I pray they are smarter than I was toward that endeavor…
I understand your bitterness, and I am sure than many of us share it and have expressed similar sentiments in moments of weakness. But there is one flaw in this: It is not women who are doing this. It is government officials and functionaries. Women are merely pawns -- willing pawns quite often, sometimes well-paid pawns; they could be called accomplices. But they are not the ones actually inflicting the harm. They certainly have not and could not perpetrate anything "alone", as you say. And by the way, a "real man" certainly does complain, but he complains only about what is important, about the right things, and when it can make a difference. Even the US Constitution (like others) recognizes a right to "redress of grievances".
The cruel reality is that most males are simps. Especially the ones in police/military/sports/... look at that asshole football player who follows Taylors shit? Even the tabloids claim Taylor gives him rules he has to follow. Brother, I hear you. I'm a 67-year-old MAN and most w0e-MEN have been divorced more times than I've been laid. Only a slight exaggeration.
BRILLIANT! It is encouraging to see like-minded MEN who are versed in scripture and yet... who aren't trad/CON/FAKE Christians towing the line for gyno-centrism. We are the beatniks of our day. We are the renaissance MEN of our day. We are the Bohemians of our day.
I think you and I view the fundamental problem differently, and so we will attempt to solve it differently. I believe that politics are downstream of culture, and the culture is downstream of society's religious beliefs. While I hope y'all get presumptive father custody made the law in all 50 states, I don't think society is open to hearing the facts right now. They will shout-down any politicians who try to correct their beliefs. Feminism is currently the bedrock of our nation's religion. Modern Christianity is convinced of the false notion that men and women were created cosmologically equal. Which then does make marriage a form of slavery, as the Feminists say, where one supposed equal subjects the other supposed equal into an unequal and subservient role.
The best reasoning for presumptive father custody, and for patriarchy, is when the father is automatically presumed to be the superior parent. Now while you may use statistics to show that single fathers make better parents than single mothers. That's where you'll hit the opposition from all the folks who will disregard all contrary evidence and still want to simp for women. Because they do not want to believe that fathers are better, no matter what the facts, the statistics, or even their holy book says. If women are underperforming as parents, those who believe in sexual equality will claim that it must be that men and "patriarchy" are holding women back, and that women need more governmental support, not less, and Etc.
The ideological battle to restore God's holy order of patriarchy must start with reestablishing the cosmological basis for male superiority. The Godhead is a holy patriarchy, a Father turning over all power to His Son. And human men were the sex created first in the image and likeness of the Father and Son and their united masculine Spirit (1 Corinthians 11:7) to exercise dominion over all the earth and the creatures of the earth. (Psalm 8:4-6)
The idea of women being images of a Christian goddess or hermaphrodite deity, didn't begin entering the church until around 350AD. Prior to that only men were believed to be made in the image of God, based upon the Biblical text. The whole Satanic concept of emasculating God by claiming women are His likeness, was spun from misunderstanding the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:27. The text makes clear that a single male was initially made in God's image, and that both male and female were created by God. But nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that women are images of the Father and Son masculine Godhead.
That is the ideological battle ground. All of Feminism was initially built upon the false notion of women also being images of God and thus being cosmologically equal to men. If you take away the false basis for women's claims of equality, then things will naturally go back into place. Whereas right now your fight is against the false belief system of your opponents, but you're also likely up against your own cognitive dissonance in that you still probably believe half of the cosmology that led them to their current errors.
You probably aren't ready to say that men are categorically superior to women, so your call for categorical favoritism then has no basis except in statistics, which your opponents will "religiously" refuse to accept. And they will feel it their moral obligation to refute your statistics which goes against their fundamental beliefs, and they will likely pay to have newer bogus statistics made to support the opposite position.
Fundamental religious change is what is most needed. God's holy order of patriarchy naturally flows from the belief that our loving God put the categorically superior masculine sex in charge in the very best interest of every man, woman, and child, and all of the rest of the cosmos.
Your push for father favoring legislative change contrary to most people's belief in sexual equality, will result in a religion-based political shouting match, and for that it would help to have the men of society all calling out for restored dominion over their families and children rather than silently licking their wounds and hoping to organize political action to be carried out by weathervaning politicians.
A lot to unpack here, but I am glad you raised it, because it gives me a chance to clarify.
Blaming the "culture" has become a cliche and a major excuse for doing nothing. You and I and 100,000 others cannot change the culture; we can change the laws and practices of corrupt officials. We need concrete goals, not utopian fantasies.
Father custody has nothing whatever to do with the father being "presumed to be the superior parent". 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 does not presume that "single fathers make better parents than single mothers" (though they do), and it certainly does not require any "statistics".
Father custody will keep families together and allow children to be raised by both parents in an intact home. Mother custody means discarding the father and raising the children as a single mother. Father custody does not mean discarding the mother; it means that she cannot leave without losing the children. Families will remain intact.
Finally, it does not require any "shouting match". That is precisely what my piece argues against. It does not even require legislation. The marriage strike provides the leverage for men simply to demand father custody as a condition of marriage. Father custody, or no marriage. No shouting, no legislation, no profieering "NGO's". Just quiet, firm, concrete, constructive action by men.
I hope that you and I and 100,000 others can change the culture. I personally have more direct influence on our culture than our laws. Cultural shifts can happen swiftly when the conditions are ripe for change. Good men need to try to change our culture for the better, before evildoers push changes for the worse.
He who would be a mover of the world must not be moved by the world.
In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. ~ Miguel de Cervantes
One man with courage makes a majority. ~ Andrew Jackson
I don't speak of changing the culture as an excuse for doing nothing. I actually am a holy warrior. I pay a stiff price, but, like yourself, I, to a lesser degree, reclaim ideological territories once conceded to our enemies on a continuing basis.
I think the MGTOW "sex strike" will likely fail to bring women back into obedience. (I really hope I'm wrong about that)
I think a more seminal course of action may be to reform our religious institutions. No man should waste time attending any church, nor give a single cent to any of those apostate temples of goddess worship until they desist from serving and adoring women more carefully than God.
Until a church can happily support men's headship and women's submission in everything, as unto the Lord. Stay away. Until a church insists that their women all pray with their heads covered. Stay away. Until a church demands that women remain silent in their assemblies. Stay away. They show by those hallmarks that they are granting women the worth-ship of their service rather than obeying God's commands. Which violates God's first commandment to serve no others before Him. Which was a direct response to Adam's first sin of hearkening to the voice of the woman rather than the command of God. Which has also been the pattern for much foolish rebellion since then.
Exactly. I NEVER even pledged to the flag, even as a child in 1rst grade! I knew it was idolatry to pray to the flag. It is also against the first of the ten Commandments. Pledging to the flag falls under the category of praying to a graven image.
Just a quick note on a point you made. You say MGTOW will not bring women back into alignment, but consider this, don’t you think most women have a desire to be mothers? And if so, wouldn’t gaining a man to do that with be more powerful than her desire to stay single just to spite the MGTOW movement?
Many generations may have to go by, but EVENTUALLY the screaming feminists would have to relent to fulfill their biological mandate to be a mother.
After all, men are not asking for anything unusual or unreasonable. Women just need to get their head out of their ass!
Yeah I'm with Sharkly on this. I like that men, especially young men, have found via the internet a voice with which to speak back to the Establishment -- which is overwhelmingly feminist and woke, and not merely in family court.
Unlike Stephen, I don't find men voicing their insights and complaints about an overtly gynocentric society to be a problem. Clearly the 'manosphere' is having an impact on the culture, something even the D.C. Uniparty admitted during the past presidential election.
Sure, I remember Angry Harry. He was pretty prominent for a time. There wasn't a whole lot back then as far as men's advocacy websites. Bulletin boards were pretty popular when AH was active.
Let’s put it this way; “you never said anything about it so I thought you were OK with it?” 😞
Or put another way; “he who is silent is taken to agree“.
I DON’T AGREE!!!
We absolutely must speak up now and forever until this insanity is dead and buried.
It is true that simple awareness does not equal activism, but it is the first step in 1000 mile journey. A lot of young men don’t understand the corrupt divorce court system because they are kept in the dark. (Even their fathers don’t want to tell them it seems).That is until it’s their time in the gallows.
Excellent, excellent, excellent article. During my tenure as President of Illinois Fathers, I dealt again and again with recently divorced fathers dumping their "mud" on me. However, I would rarely succeed in motivating these men to actively participate in constructive resistance. I also grew tired of how squeamish and cowardly the men were. It seems the women are perfectly free to broadcast outrageous lies about men, (domestic violence hysteria), yet us men are too cowardly to simply state facts about what the women are doing. As time went on, I blamed the problem more and more upon the men who refuse to act. All they want to do is complain about the system, then go find their next female partner that will treat them like dirt. All you men out there who "would do anything for the children", would never dare challenge the system the way Dr. Baskerville has been doing. God Bless Dr. Baskerville.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that men do not "self-select" like feminists do. Feminism appeals to a certain type of woman, the natural, loud-mouthed political activist. Whereas any man can be clobbered by feminism. So the pool of active men is likely to be smaller. By the same token, the men who do speak out, being ordinary men rather than those clamoring for power and attention, may tend to be more humane and decent. We need to be active, but also patient.
at 70 I've realised: how can I let something go if I don't know what I'm letting go of...
and I should add that I'm really bad at 'acting'.. and refuse to act sometimes.. it is as if something kicks in and I'm like 'I'm not going to do what you say, no matter what'.. it is strange behaviour is all I can say.... never solved despite many years of therapy...
Thank you for your work to improve men's lives. It's disheartening to me that men could bond together for the common cause of boycotting (successfully) the company that makes their favorite beer because it was associated with a Trans person. Yet, they will not speak out against the mistreatment their friends get in Family court.
Thank you, Stephen. I have a very specific idea to help men: After Trump is inaugurated in January, we can call Congressman Troy Carter's DC office at 202-225-6636. Congressman Carter chairs the Congressional Men's Health Caucus. Ask him to get with other Caucus members to draft a letter to President Trump, which asks that President Trump fund a White House initiative for men's health for $100,000,000. (That was the amount that Biden spent for his White House initiative for women's health; he didn't give men's health a dime). This would all be done by executive action - no need for any legislation.
Thank you. I called a few days ago, and will place a follow up call after the inauguration. Yes, he is a Democrat, and leans towards wokeism. I suppose I should try to find a Republican on the Congressional Men's Health Caucus
Frank, I appreciate your efforts. Let's keep calling until we find someone who has Trump's ear. As I'm sure you are aware, divorcing men are seven to eight times more likely to commit suicide than women. For men, legal reforms are a matter of health in the most existential of ways. Feel free to use me as a resource. I'm at velin_mezinev@yahoo.com and (646) 256-4313.
Thank you, Velin. I will check with the Men's Health Network, a non-profit based in Washington, DC, about this idea. Good chance they will have a contact on the Congressional Men's Health Caucus.
You may be right. At least during his first term, Betsy deVos reformed Obama’s misandric Title IX rules. I remember him sating, “It’s a scary time to be a young man in America:". All we can do is keep the pressure up, and hope for the best.
Yes, you are right as well. That one-time utterance from him and Besty Devoss at least trying to reform Obama Title IX may have had a small impact. On a good note: Yale man successfully wins the right to SUE his accuser and more than a dozen w0e-MEN'S groups! Interestingly this guy is from Afghanistan, and he fled the Taliban only to find himself at the other end of the extreme. MEN should follow his example!
While I agree with the gist of this post, I'd also argue that it's important for men to speak up, tell their stories, even at risk of 'whining' about women. Pushing the facts into greater public awareness is part of changing the Overton window and public consciousness. Active pursuit of achievable objectives also needs to be part of the dialogue. I'm unsure if father custody is an achievable objective. But by all means I am willing to promote the idea because I believe it's the right answer.
Family courts and their enforcement gestapo are in clear violation of the Bill of Rights and deny due process, for example. Why has no group of men banded together to fight that issue to the Supreme Court? Or has this been tried?
It has been tried. The federal courts know full well what is going on. They protect the family courts through the "domestic relations exception" -- excepting family courts from constitutional review. It has no basis in law or the Constitution. It exists to protect the profiteers et al.
Grievance and complaining, from a psychological point of view, is a phase you have to go through. And that’s the point. You have to go through it, not luxuriate in it. With luck, and blessing from Above, you’ll find yourself eventually in a place where you are able to make a contribution – however small – to rectifying the situation. To quote Churchill: “If you are going through Hell, keep going.”
Thank you so much for your work, Professor Baskerville. 🙏🔥♥️ I've been watching you on Pearl's show and then I know that @TheResurgenceOfSanity guys (Steve, pastor Nick and Plutarch H., my husband) refer to your book all the time. I agree, there is definitely a lot of whining among men and not actually fixing the problem with the court system. Yep, men are kind of behaving like whiny women. I'm writing a lot about the feminist propaganda, how it impacts people's minds and behavior and I try to explain it to women, but it's actually very hard because most women just don't care enough and they've been spoiled with attention they get elsewhere. Unfortunately people who want to solve the problem are too insignificant and the big guys are likely to only care about clout and money. I hope one day we will get it though, maybe when it becomes too painful to ignore the situation. 😉🤔🙏 Anyway, thank you for doing what you do. 🙏♥️ We appreciate your hard work and we would love to talk to you one day. 🙏💯♥️
Also I 100% agree that grieving and sharing sad stories may not be as helpful for men in the long-run. It might help to bring some awareness to a few younger guys, but it tends to suck men in and then it's a constant pointless debate: he said/she said, like you mentioned. Shaming entitled promiscuous women without imposing the actual consequences is not solving the problem when women still get what they want: bail out (simps), kids' custody, money and attention (social media and big shows). I was suggesting to declare a boycott to all the sex workers (Only Fans, provocative IG content creators, etc.) but that would require some sacrifices for the greater good that the big content creators are not willing to do because they would lose the money stream. We agree with your solutions to the problem. Less complaining, more doing and consequences for women. 💯🔥🙏
Stephen you are obviously a brilliant mind, and you make many good points. I think you know what MEN are up against. As for the solution... to shut up and do something already...
I would like to invoke a post by Peter Wright: "Who won the election in 2024?
@ 'It was the MEN who sit at the screens'
As predicted by Peter Wright & Angry Harry many years ago.
While I appreciate the need to reform divorce laws it seems to me that this is akin to treating the symptom instead of the cause. And what is that cause? The so-called "sexual revolution", which actually began in the 1920s.
Second wave feminists played their role in this "revolution" by demanding that society lower the sexual standards for females instead of raising the standards for men. It should come as no surprise that what followed this cultural acceptance of promiscuity is the mess we now find ourselves in today. And yes, male promiscuity is as much to blame as female promiscuity. Let's not forget that this mess includes children born to women out of wedlock, and that this will weaken any claim men may have on the custody of their children.
Thought-provoking. Was Playboy magazine the prerequisite to feminism? I am sure that feminism would have happened anyway. But the Puritans' principle that we must start with our own sins contains a lot of wisdom. I too believe that fathering children out of wedlock hurts men the most in the long run. At one time, marriage protected men by conferring paternal rights. Those who point out that it no longer does this are correct, but the solution, I believe, is to restore real, enforcable marriage, not to accept its elimination, and men should be the leaders in this. I am not just moralizing; I think no other option exists.
Playboy was a continuation of a trend that started with early Hollywood in terms of pop culture. E. Michael Jones makes a strong case that sexual liberation is used as a means to control populations in 'Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control' ( https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/libido-dominandi ). In my opinion, feminism is simply one tool that has been used to strengthen this control.
I do agree that it is necessary to restore enforcable marriage and that no other option exists. As a woman who walked away from feminism thirty years ago, I also think this will not happen unless men lead the way... women as a group cannot and will not do this, of this I have no doubt... however, for men to succeed in this endeavor they will have to adopt a code of honor that includes raising those aformentioned standards for both women and for themselves.
I have been a fathers' rights and divorce reform advocate for over 35 years. I started and ran 3 organizations--a fathers' rights group, a children's rights group and a divorce reform group. The problem is defined by Baskerville. Too many men whining and complaining about the judges, lawyers, the ex-wives, the child support, the lack of parenting time, etc. No one is/was willing to take it on. I had 500 active members in the groups with a database of over 5000 in New Jersey. It was undermined by what I believed to be infighting among the corporate types who were more about protocols and procedures than getting out there publicly and demonstrating at courthouses (I had 20-50, and sometimes 100 people demonstrating for a couple of hours at multiple courthouses on motion days in NJ as a concerted effort starting at 9AM-Noon). As Chair and President of the organizations, I wrote scathing letters to the editor and gave scathing attacks on the system to reporters. I was constantly chastised by our board of directors, made up of some of these corporate types. It got to the point that I told them I don't answer to them since I started the organization. They tried to vote me out and I beat them twice. We were also infiltrated by state "spies" who we found out by someone in the group who was divorced and being hammered by the courts. He worked for the state and obtained payroll records of the "spies". As soon as we confronted them, they left. But, another came into the organization about 5 years later and undermined the organization, stole the group's money and databases and left the state. We later found out he worked in computer security for AT&T in another state.
So, as you can see, there is more than meets the eye in this debacle. Men's groups are infiltrated by state "spies" who are part of the system to keep the multi-billion dollar system in place. We actually did get some legislation passed and had articles in the state law journals that headlined that judges feared our groups. But, again, too many men wanted their cases resolved instantly. When it couldn't be done, they left the groups to go sulk elsewhere. It got to the point of exhaustion. Are men really interested in changing the narrative and the conditions of the situation??? I don't think so. I believe that it's going to take someone or a number of men, who are armed, to take over a courthouse and make some demands. I've been doing this for over 35 years, and it seems that there is only one (1) result left to make the changes necessary.
Bruce, I can attest to the decades you have dedicated to this, and that you deserve a special place in heaven. I myself headed a national fathers' group for two years, and I can say that we achieved absolutely nothing, for reasons not so different from your experience. But circumstances are different now: general awareness, MGTOW, the salience of "gender" issues generally in matters such as the recent election. I am even convinced that the lack of organizations is not a serious problem. Washington organizations either 1) fail or 2) succeed, in which case they just make money off the problem rather than solving it, so they too fail. But the marriage strike fills me with hope.
Thank you for posting...Despite the focus on 'stop whinging' I still think stories like this are important..
and I have experienced this: it's hard to unlearn something you have been taught all your life
Thank you for your work.
Excellent article. Men need to collectivise and make clear their anger at the dreadful bias and injustice of the family court system for starters. Anger is an energy, but it must be directed at clear goals and not non-specific.
Excellent piece Stephen. So true that the center of power is likely in father custody. I love the idea of men standing up and pushing hard for legislative reform. Sadly, we are far from that point. What I see is most men are asleep to the ideas of manhood. Men who are awake to their masculinity would do what you are suggesting but what we see in our present culture are beings who have been lulled to sleep by insults, threats, and fantasies. I see our job of getting to your suggested outcome as being one of waking men up to their own worth and generative power as men.
Tom, you have contributed as much to that waking up as anyone. Any man who is not reading your Substack certainly should be.
My take is… complain loud and clear about the current legal/situation/government stance on these matters urgently
I agree. Dr. Baskerville has been airing his complaints for decades, but now as younger men begin to complain he seemingly tells us to shut up. Until we've come up with a plan whereby, we are able to singlehandedly beat down Satan's Feminist system, we are not permitted to speak, lest we be ridiculed as being like whiny women.
I truly like most of what Dr. Baskerville writes, but shaming men for expressing the tyranny that was unleashed against them, to warn other men, is an unnecessary error. You can call for men to focus on enacting solutions without pushing to silence other men's voices using shaming.
Dr. Baskerville might possibly benefit from some of my published thoughts. But not if I had remained silent. I view the ongoing discussion of the issues online as being quite helpful. And the audience and awareness of these societal issues has grown to where most folks are finally noticing the movement. Heck! I actually came here to read Dr. Baskerville's complaints against our society, not to tell him to quit bitching and to go fix it all, like a real man would. LOL I don't think anybody can fix this mess alone, and I agree we need to make our complaints loud and clear, right along with our efforts to push back against the evil Feminist system.
I believe that Dr. Baskerville is making a point that a father wailing about what the Judge/Lawyers/Ex-wife/Child Support Gestapo..... did to him gets us nowhere. If fathers would get out of their own case, and instead advocate for the greater good, that is presumptive Father Custody, then some changes might take place. I witnessed this myself with Illinois Fathers. The very few times that we could put a small group of people together to promote father friendly legislation, (and NOT TALK ABOUT OUR PERSONAL CASE), the legislators would listen intently to what we had to say. However, as soon as someone breaks rank and starts carrying on about themselves and their case, we completely lose our audience.
Since you told me not to mention my own personal case: The judge in my divorce case ignored our Kansas state marriage laws because he apparently felt like they hadn't been kept updated to match today's woke society. So, what does changing the law do when our kangaroo-courts don't even follow the laws anyhow? Fundamentally this is an ideological battle. And judges operate like politicians, based upon popular opinion. And women have been the squeaky wheel since the dawn of time. Men need to make those wicked judges less daring to screw with them. The public condemnation of those dishonorable crooks by every man who gets screwed by their tyranny would be a good start.
Obviously changing the laws would be great too, but the laws won't change without millions of men publicly arguing boldly against the status quo. In case you haven't noticed our public servants are not controlled by the silent majority but are herded by vocal and militant minority-faction groups who can even get away with denying basic biology or might be clueless as to what a "woman" is. And half of the electorate is women. LOL We will likely not ever be able to vote our way back to responsible public policy now that the general public has been raised to be irresponsible and dependent on government. We need a religious reformation to spur a cultural revolution to push us back towards ideas that will function well socially and politically.
pretty disgusting behaviour by a Judge and unprofessional beyond measure..
I find it interesting that politicians can 'change the laws' without a citizen voting for that change or it is actually outside of the Constitution.... as in, not written into the Constitution!! I thought constitutions were the Rule of the Land - no matter what... !!! But obviously not...
I had a politician once tell me that, in Australia, the Constitution was to hard to change!!!
“Best interest of the child” is the most egregious lie ever told to men and corrupt judges use that lie to force men to do almost anything you can imagine!
Including paying 18 years for a bastard that he never sired!
“Pay or go to jail” say the blatantly corrupt criminal in black robes.
There is literally nobody who can stop them!
Never get married and you have a better chance although they are still after you in common-law state sponsored criminal jurisdictions!
Just living with a female can land you in hot water so best to shun them completely like the Harlots they are!
But men simply refuse to…
BINGO!
We need to find a way for boys and men to control their sexual urges for this is the power they unknowingly give over to the toxic females. Men are the prize, but both men and women teach the complete opposite.
My suggestion is MGTOW until females decide on their own to stop their insanity. Then it won’t matter what the state does because they are driven by the females. The females, as they always have, will get the laws to change back to normalcy.
Sadly, men simply refuse to band together against females. Let me repeat that man absolutely REFUSE!Therefore, nothing is to be done until that changes.
I agree that when the women demand change, change will happen. That could come sooner than we expect, if the men who go MGTOW communicate loud and clear why. It is not necessary for all men to do so, only the most desirable men. As Paul Elam and other MGTOW advocates point out, this is in the self-interest of men anyway, so they have nothing to lose.
Indeed and agreed!
The problem is after 50 years of watching this insanity only a tiny bit of change has taken place.
Why? Because men REFUSE to band together.
Refuse is the operative word because everyone knows now what’s going on, and they still REFUSE to get together and effect a change.
Paul Elam, yourself and a tiny handful of others have tried but to no avail.
MGTOW is the only solution but will go nowhere unless it is in large enough numbers and sustained until toxic females stop their war on men and boys!
LEAVE THEM TO THEIR CATS AND WINE!!!
P. S. Your book “Taken in To Custody” is required reading in my opinion for every male on the planet…
I hope y'all are right about this mutual refusal to fulfill our natural sex roles leading women to repentance. ;-)
But Romans chapter one predicts the decrease in heterosexual relations leading to increased homosexuality. So please don't claim in the future that nobody warned you that MGTOW and WGTOW would lead to an even more estranged and unnatural sexual state.
The average woman has been taught contempt for the average man. Denying her the attractive men she wants won't change the fact that she still despises those average men. She'll choose to become a lesbian before she'll chose to submit to her natural role. Women were cursed to be rebels, envious of men's natural rule over them. Given the choice between repenting and returning to her natural role, and choosing even further rebellion, most women are going to hit the button and go (MAD) Mutual Assured Destruction. It is the hyper-destructive motive of envy that drives Satan and most women's rebellion. Women secretly prefer for both sexes to be destroyed than that they be restored to order under men's headship. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Men will have to force women to do right. We mustn't keep giving them options. The daughters of Eve have collectively proven themselves to be untrustworthy defilers who willfully rebel. Exceptions don't negate a pattern.
Personally, I don’t give a Rats-Ass what happens to females at this point. And don’t tell me “it’s not all women’ because IT CERTAINLY IS MOST of them and that makes ALL of them dangerous to be around. They have wreaked havoc on innocent men for 50+ years unabated!
Millions upon millions of men and still going strong!!!
Time for some far over due retribution.
Two wrongs don’t make a right? How else do you propose we stop the blatant war they alone have started against innocent men and boys? Should we just ask them nicely?
“Vote harder”?
Just take it and say nothing because a ‘real man’ doesn’t complain?
HORSESHIT!!!
And I can’t agree that most of them would turn homosexual as they love what’s between men’s legs but pretend they don’t to maintain the power-play position. And stupid, STUPID MEN continue to allow this and it makes me furious! (Women like sex just as much as men and always have).
I have sons looking down the barrel of this state sanctioned criminal activity!
This insanity needs stopped by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
But look now, all women (and even most men) would take exception to that last sentence and therefore nothing is going to change in the slightest. Men simply refuse to get their ass off the couch and do something! They are
‘Keyboard warriors’ that will never change anything!
It’s obvious men are ok with their treatment and so, why do they even complain?
But not this guy; it’s MGTOW for me till the day I die and yes, I will beg my sons to never get married!
I pray they are smarter than I was toward that endeavor…
I understand your bitterness, and I am sure than many of us share it and have expressed similar sentiments in moments of weakness. But there is one flaw in this: It is not women who are doing this. It is government officials and functionaries. Women are merely pawns -- willing pawns quite often, sometimes well-paid pawns; they could be called accomplices. But they are not the ones actually inflicting the harm. They certainly have not and could not perpetrate anything "alone", as you say. And by the way, a "real man" certainly does complain, but he complains only about what is important, about the right things, and when it can make a difference. Even the US Constitution (like others) recognizes a right to "redress of grievances".
The cruel reality is that most males are simps. Especially the ones in police/military/sports/... look at that asshole football player who follows Taylors shit? Even the tabloids claim Taylor gives him rules he has to follow. Brother, I hear you. I'm a 67-year-old MAN and most w0e-MEN have been divorced more times than I've been laid. Only a slight exaggeration.
BRILLIANT! It is encouraging to see like-minded MEN who are versed in scripture and yet... who aren't trad/CON/FAKE Christians towing the line for gyno-centrism. We are the beatniks of our day. We are the renaissance MEN of our day. We are the Bohemians of our day.
I think you and I view the fundamental problem differently, and so we will attempt to solve it differently. I believe that politics are downstream of culture, and the culture is downstream of society's religious beliefs. While I hope y'all get presumptive father custody made the law in all 50 states, I don't think society is open to hearing the facts right now. They will shout-down any politicians who try to correct their beliefs. Feminism is currently the bedrock of our nation's religion. Modern Christianity is convinced of the false notion that men and women were created cosmologically equal. Which then does make marriage a form of slavery, as the Feminists say, where one supposed equal subjects the other supposed equal into an unequal and subservient role.
The best reasoning for presumptive father custody, and for patriarchy, is when the father is automatically presumed to be the superior parent. Now while you may use statistics to show that single fathers make better parents than single mothers. That's where you'll hit the opposition from all the folks who will disregard all contrary evidence and still want to simp for women. Because they do not want to believe that fathers are better, no matter what the facts, the statistics, or even their holy book says. If women are underperforming as parents, those who believe in sexual equality will claim that it must be that men and "patriarchy" are holding women back, and that women need more governmental support, not less, and Etc.
The ideological battle to restore God's holy order of patriarchy must start with reestablishing the cosmological basis for male superiority. The Godhead is a holy patriarchy, a Father turning over all power to His Son. And human men were the sex created first in the image and likeness of the Father and Son and their united masculine Spirit (1 Corinthians 11:7) to exercise dominion over all the earth and the creatures of the earth. (Psalm 8:4-6)
The idea of women being images of a Christian goddess or hermaphrodite deity, didn't begin entering the church until around 350AD. Prior to that only men were believed to be made in the image of God, based upon the Biblical text. The whole Satanic concept of emasculating God by claiming women are His likeness, was spun from misunderstanding the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:27. The text makes clear that a single male was initially made in God's image, and that both male and female were created by God. But nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that women are images of the Father and Son masculine Godhead.
That is the ideological battle ground. All of Feminism was initially built upon the false notion of women also being images of God and thus being cosmologically equal to men. If you take away the false basis for women's claims of equality, then things will naturally go back into place. Whereas right now your fight is against the false belief system of your opponents, but you're also likely up against your own cognitive dissonance in that you still probably believe half of the cosmology that led them to their current errors.
You probably aren't ready to say that men are categorically superior to women, so your call for categorical favoritism then has no basis except in statistics, which your opponents will "religiously" refuse to accept. And they will feel it their moral obligation to refute your statistics which goes against their fundamental beliefs, and they will likely pay to have newer bogus statistics made to support the opposite position.
Fundamental religious change is what is most needed. God's holy order of patriarchy naturally flows from the belief that our loving God put the categorically superior masculine sex in charge in the very best interest of every man, woman, and child, and all of the rest of the cosmos.
Your push for father favoring legislative change contrary to most people's belief in sexual equality, will result in a religion-based political shouting match, and for that it would help to have the men of society all calling out for restored dominion over their families and children rather than silently licking their wounds and hoping to organize political action to be carried out by weathervaning politicians.
A lot to unpack here, but I am glad you raised it, because it gives me a chance to clarify.
Blaming the "culture" has become a cliche and a major excuse for doing nothing. You and I and 100,000 others cannot change the culture; we can change the laws and practices of corrupt officials. We need concrete goals, not utopian fantasies.
Father custody has nothing whatever to do with the father being "presumed to be the superior parent". 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 does not presume that "single fathers make better parents than single mothers" (though they do), and it certainly does not require any "statistics".
Father custody will keep families together and allow children to be raised by both parents in an intact home. Mother custody means discarding the father and raising the children as a single mother. Father custody does not mean discarding the mother; it means that she cannot leave without losing the children. Families will remain intact.
Finally, it does not require any "shouting match". That is precisely what my piece argues against. It does not even require legislation. The marriage strike provides the leverage for men simply to demand father custody as a condition of marriage. Father custody, or no marriage. No shouting, no legislation, no profieering "NGO's". Just quiet, firm, concrete, constructive action by men.
Thanks, I think I will develop this into sequel.
I hope that you and I and 100,000 others can change the culture. I personally have more direct influence on our culture than our laws. Cultural shifts can happen swiftly when the conditions are ripe for change. Good men need to try to change our culture for the better, before evildoers push changes for the worse.
He who would be a mover of the world must not be moved by the world.
In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. ~ Miguel de Cervantes
One man with courage makes a majority. ~ Andrew Jackson
I don't speak of changing the culture as an excuse for doing nothing. I actually am a holy warrior. I pay a stiff price, but, like yourself, I, to a lesser degree, reclaim ideological territories once conceded to our enemies on a continuing basis.
I think the MGTOW "sex strike" will likely fail to bring women back into obedience. (I really hope I'm wrong about that)
I think a more seminal course of action may be to reform our religious institutions. No man should waste time attending any church, nor give a single cent to any of those apostate temples of goddess worship until they desist from serving and adoring women more carefully than God.
Until a church can happily support men's headship and women's submission in everything, as unto the Lord. Stay away. Until a church insists that their women all pray with their heads covered. Stay away. Until a church demands that women remain silent in their assemblies. Stay away. They show by those hallmarks that they are granting women the worth-ship of their service rather than obeying God's commands. Which violates God's first commandment to serve no others before Him. Which was a direct response to Adam's first sin of hearkening to the voice of the woman rather than the command of God. Which has also been the pattern for much foolish rebellion since then.
Exactly. I NEVER even pledged to the flag, even as a child in 1rst grade! I knew it was idolatry to pray to the flag. It is also against the first of the ten Commandments. Pledging to the flag falls under the category of praying to a graven image.
Just a quick note on a point you made. You say MGTOW will not bring women back into alignment, but consider this, don’t you think most women have a desire to be mothers? And if so, wouldn’t gaining a man to do that with be more powerful than her desire to stay single just to spite the MGTOW movement?
Many generations may have to go by, but EVENTUALLY the screaming feminists would have to relent to fulfill their biological mandate to be a mother.
After all, men are not asking for anything unusual or unreasonable. Women just need to get their head out of their ass!
Your thoughts?
Yeah I'm with Sharkly on this. I like that men, especially young men, have found via the internet a voice with which to speak back to the Establishment -- which is overwhelmingly feminist and woke, and not merely in family court.
Unlike Stephen, I don't find men voicing their insights and complaints about an overtly gynocentric society to be a problem. Clearly the 'manosphere' is having an impact on the culture, something even the D.C. Uniparty admitted during the past presidential election.
Power to the brothers! your song is long overdue.
Please look at my note on Stephens Substack. It was posted by Peter Wright.
Ever hear of Angry Harry?
Sure, I remember Angry Harry. He was pretty prominent for a time. There wasn't a whole lot back then as far as men's advocacy websites. Bulletin boards were pretty popular when AH was active.
Well said and I agree!
Let’s put it this way; “you never said anything about it so I thought you were OK with it?” 😞
Or put another way; “he who is silent is taken to agree“.
I DON’T AGREE!!!
We absolutely must speak up now and forever until this insanity is dead and buried.
It is true that simple awareness does not equal activism, but it is the first step in 1000 mile journey. A lot of young men don’t understand the corrupt divorce court system because they are kept in the dark. (Even their fathers don’t want to tell them it seems).That is until it’s their time in the gallows.
Excellent, excellent, excellent article. During my tenure as President of Illinois Fathers, I dealt again and again with recently divorced fathers dumping their "mud" on me. However, I would rarely succeed in motivating these men to actively participate in constructive resistance. I also grew tired of how squeamish and cowardly the men were. It seems the women are perfectly free to broadcast outrageous lies about men, (domestic violence hysteria), yet us men are too cowardly to simply state facts about what the women are doing. As time went on, I blamed the problem more and more upon the men who refuse to act. All they want to do is complain about the system, then go find their next female partner that will treat them like dirt. All you men out there who "would do anything for the children", would never dare challenge the system the way Dr. Baskerville has been doing. God Bless Dr. Baskerville.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that men do not "self-select" like feminists do. Feminism appeals to a certain type of woman, the natural, loud-mouthed political activist. Whereas any man can be clobbered by feminism. So the pool of active men is likely to be smaller. By the same token, the men who do speak out, being ordinary men rather than those clamoring for power and attention, may tend to be more humane and decent. We need to be active, but also patient.
Maybe men are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome and just cannot bad mouth their abusers.. it takes time and and and.
at 70 I've realised: how can I let something go if I don't know what I'm letting go of...
and I should add that I'm really bad at 'acting'.. and refuse to act sometimes.. it is as if something kicks in and I'm like 'I'm not going to do what you say, no matter what'.. it is strange behaviour is all I can say.... never solved despite many years of therapy...
Thank you for your work to improve men's lives. It's disheartening to me that men could bond together for the common cause of boycotting (successfully) the company that makes their favorite beer because it was associated with a Trans person. Yet, they will not speak out against the mistreatment their friends get in Family court.
Thank you, Stephen. I have a very specific idea to help men: After Trump is inaugurated in January, we can call Congressman Troy Carter's DC office at 202-225-6636. Congressman Carter chairs the Congressional Men's Health Caucus. Ask him to get with other Caucus members to draft a letter to President Trump, which asks that President Trump fund a White House initiative for men's health for $100,000,000. (That was the amount that Biden spent for his White House initiative for women's health; he didn't give men's health a dime). This would all be done by executive action - no need for any legislation.
Frank, this is a solid first step. Why wait? Let's do it now. Are you sure he is the right person given his party affiliation?
Thank you. I called a few days ago, and will place a follow up call after the inauguration. Yes, he is a Democrat, and leans towards wokeism. I suppose I should try to find a Republican on the Congressional Men's Health Caucus
Frank, I appreciate your efforts. Let's keep calling until we find someone who has Trump's ear. As I'm sure you are aware, divorcing men are seven to eight times more likely to commit suicide than women. For men, legal reforms are a matter of health in the most existential of ways. Feel free to use me as a resource. I'm at velin_mezinev@yahoo.com and (646) 256-4313.
Thank you, Velin. I will check with the Men's Health Network, a non-profit based in Washington, DC, about this idea. Good chance they will have a contact on the Congressional Men's Health Caucus.
Anyone not familiar with MHN should be. They do excellent work.
Unfortunately, Trump doesn’t give a dam about MEN, he even said during his first run: “I’m not worried about the guys” “I just want to get w0e-MEN”
You may be right. At least during his first term, Betsy deVos reformed Obama’s misandric Title IX rules. I remember him sating, “It’s a scary time to be a young man in America:". All we can do is keep the pressure up, and hope for the best.
Yes, you are right as well. That one-time utterance from him and Besty Devoss at least trying to reform Obama Title IX may have had a small impact. On a good note: Yale man successfully wins the right to SUE his accuser and more than a dozen w0e-MEN'S groups! Interestingly this guy is from Afghanistan, and he fled the Taliban only to find himself at the other end of the extreme. MEN should follow his example!
I agree 100%. Very nice to see men tuirning the tables on feminists
While I agree with the gist of this post, I'd also argue that it's important for men to speak up, tell their stories, even at risk of 'whining' about women. Pushing the facts into greater public awareness is part of changing the Overton window and public consciousness. Active pursuit of achievable objectives also needs to be part of the dialogue. I'm unsure if father custody is an achievable objective. But by all means I am willing to promote the idea because I believe it's the right answer.
Family courts and their enforcement gestapo are in clear violation of the Bill of Rights and deny due process, for example. Why has no group of men banded together to fight that issue to the Supreme Court? Or has this been tried?
It has been tried. The federal courts know full well what is going on. They protect the family courts through the "domestic relations exception" -- excepting family courts from constitutional review. It has no basis in law or the Constitution. It exists to protect the profiteers et al.
Grievance and complaining, from a psychological point of view, is a phase you have to go through. And that’s the point. You have to go through it, not luxuriate in it. With luck, and blessing from Above, you’ll find yourself eventually in a place where you are able to make a contribution – however small – to rectifying the situation. To quote Churchill: “If you are going through Hell, keep going.”
Thank you so much for your work, Professor Baskerville. 🙏🔥♥️ I've been watching you on Pearl's show and then I know that @TheResurgenceOfSanity guys (Steve, pastor Nick and Plutarch H., my husband) refer to your book all the time. I agree, there is definitely a lot of whining among men and not actually fixing the problem with the court system. Yep, men are kind of behaving like whiny women. I'm writing a lot about the feminist propaganda, how it impacts people's minds and behavior and I try to explain it to women, but it's actually very hard because most women just don't care enough and they've been spoiled with attention they get elsewhere. Unfortunately people who want to solve the problem are too insignificant and the big guys are likely to only care about clout and money. I hope one day we will get it though, maybe when it becomes too painful to ignore the situation. 😉🤔🙏 Anyway, thank you for doing what you do. 🙏♥️ We appreciate your hard work and we would love to talk to you one day. 🙏💯♥️
defathering; in general abortion is also about "the canceling of father's" !!
Also I 100% agree that grieving and sharing sad stories may not be as helpful for men in the long-run. It might help to bring some awareness to a few younger guys, but it tends to suck men in and then it's a constant pointless debate: he said/she said, like you mentioned. Shaming entitled promiscuous women without imposing the actual consequences is not solving the problem when women still get what they want: bail out (simps), kids' custody, money and attention (social media and big shows). I was suggesting to declare a boycott to all the sex workers (Only Fans, provocative IG content creators, etc.) but that would require some sacrifices for the greater good that the big content creators are not willing to do because they would lose the money stream. We agree with your solutions to the problem. Less complaining, more doing and consequences for women. 💯🔥🙏
No complaints from this male reader.
Stephen you are obviously a brilliant mind, and you make many good points. I think you know what MEN are up against. As for the solution... to shut up and do something already...
I would like to invoke a post by Peter Wright: "Who won the election in 2024?
@ 'It was the MEN who sit at the screens'
As predicted by Peter Wright & Angry Harry many years ago.
Very true, and important. But it depends on what they say and do at the screens. Now the task is to claim credit for what they have achieved.
While I appreciate the need to reform divorce laws it seems to me that this is akin to treating the symptom instead of the cause. And what is that cause? The so-called "sexual revolution", which actually began in the 1920s.
Second wave feminists played their role in this "revolution" by demanding that society lower the sexual standards for females instead of raising the standards for men. It should come as no surprise that what followed this cultural acceptance of promiscuity is the mess we now find ourselves in today. And yes, male promiscuity is as much to blame as female promiscuity. Let's not forget that this mess includes children born to women out of wedlock, and that this will weaken any claim men may have on the custody of their children.
Thought-provoking. Was Playboy magazine the prerequisite to feminism? I am sure that feminism would have happened anyway. But the Puritans' principle that we must start with our own sins contains a lot of wisdom. I too believe that fathering children out of wedlock hurts men the most in the long run. At one time, marriage protected men by conferring paternal rights. Those who point out that it no longer does this are correct, but the solution, I believe, is to restore real, enforcable marriage, not to accept its elimination, and men should be the leaders in this. I am not just moralizing; I think no other option exists.
Playboy was a continuation of a trend that started with early Hollywood in terms of pop culture. E. Michael Jones makes a strong case that sexual liberation is used as a means to control populations in 'Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control' ( https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/libido-dominandi ). In my opinion, feminism is simply one tool that has been used to strengthen this control.
I do agree that it is necessary to restore enforcable marriage and that no other option exists. As a woman who walked away from feminism thirty years ago, I also think this will not happen unless men lead the way... women as a group cannot and will not do this, of this I have no doubt... however, for men to succeed in this endeavor they will have to adopt a code of honor that includes raising those aformentioned standards for both women and for themselves.
This is a test comment, just to resolve a glitch.