I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute. Rebecca West, 1913
About a dozen years ago, I first paraphrased that sentiment to state:
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what rational and reasonable justification the feminists have for the vilification of all men. I only know that feminists call me a woman-hater [or things like ‘a bitter old man’] whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a feminist, such as when I speak out in support of traditional family values.
Nevertheless, there is Rebecca West’s complaint and the fact that her sentiment became extremely popular over the years. The systematic destruction of the institution of the family is now almost complete. In most developed nations there are not that many families left to destroy, and the rot is being promoted with a passion in the developing nations, where with the absence of effective and affordable, government and taxpayer-funded, alternative social networks the systematic destruction of the institution of the family has far more severe and direct consequence.
It is extremely doubtful that that prominent objective of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the re-engineering of humanity could have been achieved without the active involvement, all along, by the radical feminists (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminists).
That the systematic destruction of the institution of the family was a great and inevitable danger to society should not be a surprise to anyone, neither then or now, whether he is a man or a woman.
When Rebecca West made her statement that became so popular with many feminists, a contemporary of her had this to say about feminists:
That love without marriage is holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate.
That only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.
That marriage shall not require the sanction of priests, magistrates or other functionaries.
[A feminist a]dvocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either “mate.”
That divorce shall be made easy….
Benjamin V. Hubbard, ‘Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism’ (1915, pp. 142-144); (More)
Just as many others always were, so I have always been puzzled by the conflict of opinions that prevents the men’s rights movement from becoming an effective and united force, while the sad fact remains that the conflict persists unabated.
Many men welcomed, helped and still help to bring about the destruction of the institution of the family. They see great benefits (those being primarily the deliberate avoidance of responsibilities and duties) in the deregulation of human sexuality, after more than 10,000 years of ongoing work to create and develop that regulation of sexuality. They eagerly accept the liberation of women and of men and fully agree that, “only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.” They agreed all along with Betty Friedan’s sentiment expressed in the first (1966) declaration of the Agenda of the National Organization for Women:
WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility hers, to dominate his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.
On the other hand, there is many a man who, once he assumed the “burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility hers, to dominate his to support,” was then expunged from that family and had his rights what many held to be God-given rights abrogated.
Well, sorry, but no one can have his cake and eat it, too. If men wish to become effective and united as activists, they must first decide what the primary issues should be they want to promote. They must either support the legalization of sexual freedom (the communist pioneers called it “free love”) and the abrogation of the institution of the family or oppose the Marxist-feminist agenda. Anarchy and social chaos cannot co-exist with an orderly society. The men’s rights movement cannot logically insist on fathers’ rights and at the same time support the feminist agenda. Both are mutually exclusive.
Note: This blog is now closed for comments and will remain closed unless someone capable of doing that will volunteer to moderate it. You may wish to comment on this blog posting. You are welcome to do that wherever you wish to show the link to the blog-posting. If you wish to have me respond to your comment, and if you are not a member of any of the FB discussion groups I am part of, please write to me at my FB page, at http://www.facebook.com/dadsandthings but keep in mind that I am in control of that FB page and that I moderate it. Comments containing insults or foul language will be deleted.