Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm

Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans

November 23, 2005

by David R. Usher

From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party
because it stood for equality between men and women. By the late 1960's,
feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such as title IV,
the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists migrated to the
Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic transformation of marriage
and society unfathomable prior to 1964.

The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the name of
"equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family crusade.
Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a competition pitting the
human race against itself. The "personal" became the "political" (if you
happened to be a man). Sex became something women "use" to get what they
want from men. Child abuse and domestic violence became spectacular
publicized events - if the perpetrator was a male. College campuses and
coursework fell under control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary
studies" programs.

Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors,
providers, and spokespeople for women and children. Men and non-feminists
were not allowed to take social or political positions on these issues.
Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and transformed into a "trap". Liabilities
for health care and welfare were passed on to government, who in turn handed
husbands and boy-toys a large invoice.

To resolve the intractable structural problem of single-mother family
economics and achieve so-called "economic independence" for women and
children, feminists invented a nuclear weapon for use against heterosexual
marriage. The primary goal of "same sex marriage" is to preclude marriage,
divorce, and illegitimacy entirely, so women can have all the socioeconomic
benefits of marriage and family, leaving men the obligors funding it all.
This goal was actually achieved last year in Massachusetts via the Goodridge
decision

The above is certainly not what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he signed the
first no-fault divorce bill into law as Governor of California.

It is clear there is little left of feminism that is moral, equalitarian,
pro-social, or pro-economic. In fact, the greatest social problems we face,
and even our national debt, exist because the feminist Inquisition was so
successful.

Why do so many conservatives give feminists the time of day? How were we
fooled?

Conservatives have no trouble finding the right position on abortion. But
mainstreamers of both parties have had a very difficult time seeing through
the smoke and mirrors feminists use to obfuscate marriage, divorce, domestic
violence, and child abuse. There are volumes of feminist "science" that
openly employ gendered data collection methodology, funneled through
anecdotal distractions, to reach the foregone conclusion.

Happy magnification by media inculcated us into a state of
reverse-Victorianism. Instead of throwing wives out on the street for no
reason whatsoever, we now do it to husbands. Neither shotgun marriages nor
shotgun divorces are conservative goals

One of the greatest lies of feminism is this: divorced men somehow deserve
the divorces they are served. This is what feminists trained us to think.
But divorce statistics do not lie. With a divorce rate of over 50% (about
75% of them filed by women), we would have to believe that over half the men
in America are irresponsible, dangerous neanderthals.

Many conservatives believe that if a man gets up every morning, puts one
foot in front of the other, and works hard that he will have a lasting
marriage. This may have held true when cultural and policy pressures
expected marital responsibility of both spouses. Today, marital free-agency
is an entitled women's activity -- the penalties and blame being
overwhelmingly levied on essentially faultless men. I have met thousands of
good men over the years who thought the "D" word only applied to all those
"bad guys" out there, until an unexpected process server taught them
otherwise.

This is not to blame everything on women. It is perfectly legal and
convenient to abort babies and marriages. Can we blame them for doing so in
large numbers? The responsibility truly rests on the shoulders of the
National Organization for Women and the National Women's Law Center.

There is a perception that Men's Marriage Movement activists are just
another collection of victims looking for a handout. This is what feminists
want everyone to think. The men's movement is the burgeoning equalitarian
movement seeking to better the futures of women and children by restoring
vibrant marriage policy and law.

This movement is working to restore a stable pro-economic marriage culture
on which the great middle class was founded prior to 1964 - where divorce
becomes substantially a frictional statistic.

My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to give
me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I could
not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and
legitimate member of society.

We are working to restore marriage in both the secular and ecclesiastical
worlds. Our commitment to marriage has never wavered. The policy reforms we
offer are exactly what was called for in the findings issued by the 1993
National Commission on America's Urban Families, chaired by
then-Missouri-Governor John Ashcroft, in the final days of the H.W. Bush
administration. The Men's Marriage Movement is now offering up realistic
policies that will demonstrably unwind the divorce revolution to the
satisfaction of mainstream voters and politicians.

Conservatives have been unable to deliver tangible improvements in marriage,
divorce, or illegitimacy rates since 1994 because the Men's Marriage
Movement has not yet been recognized for what it offers - the answer to the
worst social, economic, and political problems America has faced since 1964.

Even people of faith bought into feminist propaganda and hurt chances for
reform. Promise Keepers collapsed immediately after Bill McCartney brutally
blamed the divorce problem on the men dedicated to reclaiming god-given
marriage from anti-religious feminists forces. Many religious leaders have
assumed immoral positions rationalizing free-choice divorce.

The bottom line: World War II would never have been fought to victory if we
had blamed Jews for what Hitler did. We cannot win the war on family by
blaming it all on men.

Half-measures have availed little. Republicans are now caught in a political
vise. The problems that fall out of father-absence have not abated since
1996. Liberal campaign grist is being generated over issues such as poverty,
recently refurbished as an emotional "moral" issue rather than the
structural marriage problem that it is. Family structure also drives the
problems of health care coverage, child support enforcement, child abuse,
bankruptcy, military recruitment, illegitimacy, and bankruptcy. Democrats
can hardly wait to attack Republicans with these "homeland" issues in 2008.

There is no reason for mainstream conservatives to cow-tow to the wiles of
politicized feminism, which admittedly ran out of salient causes years ago.
Most women and men do not buy into it. They personally found out that
divorce has left more women and children in poverty than any war in American
history. This public rejection of feminism is essentially what propelled the
Republican congressional landslide in 1994. We have not yet capitalized on
this fabulous opportunity.

The bark of organized feminism has no bite. We have passed some excellent
reforms here in Missouri, over the howls of feminists, while increasing
Republican margins in the House, Senate, and even the Governors office. If
we can do it in Missouri, anyone can.

This may well be a crucial point in political history. President Bush's
voter ratings are at an all-time low. Republicans are seen as being weak on
social issues despite record spending. The party that brought about the 19
th amendment now has an historic opportunity to restore equality via the
institution of marriage, giving men and women what they really want and
need, and building voter loyalty well into the future. This course of action
will automatically reduce deficit spending, illegitimacy, poverty, crime,
domestic violence, teen drug use, and partially resolve the health care and
bankruptcy problems.

Can anyone imagine a more productive political strategy than this?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to
give
me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I
could
not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and
legitimate member of society.

Yes, we all have a war to fight, both men and women and it starts in the
home.

Our values and sense of decency has depleted to an all time low and it's
high time we restore it.
The attitude of just walk away if it's inconvenient or too much work has to
change.
It's too late for us, but our children have no sense of commitment or real
family values and it's only made worse with our present policies on
Abortion, Bankruptcy, Divorce, easy credit, the list goes on!

We know the problems of how it got this way, but what are we going to do
about it now?
What kind of America are we giving our kids?

"DB" wrote in message
news


My father went to World War II to keep America free and worked hard to
give
me a better future. Now it is my job to give my sons something that I
could
not have - a reasonable expectation of being a husband, father, and
legitimate member of society.

Yes, we all have a war to fight, both men and women and it starts in the
home.

Our values and sense of decency has depleted to an all time low and it's
high time we restore it.
The attitude of just walk away if it's inconvenient or too much work has
to change.
It's too late for us, but our children have no sense of commitment or real
family values and it's only made worse with our present policies on
Abortion, Bankruptcy, Divorce, easy credit, the list goes on!

We know the problems of how it got this way, but what are we going to do
about it now?
What kind of America are we giving our kids?

A terminal one, I fear.
Phil #3

Dusty wrote:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm

Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans

November 23, 2005

by David R. Usher

From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party
because it stood for equality between men and women.

[Nonsense; even as late as the 1970 there were still restrictions
implemented by REpublicans on women's lives and laws. For example, a
woman needed her husband's signature to have her paycheck directly
deposited in Utah, and women couldn't obtain procedures over their own
bodies.]

By the late 1960's,
feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such as title IV,
the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists migrated to the
Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic transformation of marriage
and society unfathomable prior to 1964.

[Men simply were no longer eligible for social perks then. There is
nothing unequal about Title IX , bodily rights, and the equal right to
divorce.]


The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the name of
"equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family crusade. Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a competition pitting the
human race against itself. The "personal" became the "political" (if you
happened to be a man). Sex became something women "use" to get what they
want from men. Child abuse and domestic violence became spectacular
publicized events - if the perpetrator was a male. College campuses and
coursework fell under control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary
studies" programs.

[It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that
the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights,
and that no one can be forced into a family. Also, if men don't want
to pay for sex, they need not; they can just say no. ]

Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative protectors,
providers, and spokespeople for women and children.

[Not really; feminism is about equal rights for women, and in some
fashion children may be affected by that. And feminists certainly have
as much right as any other social group to have their positions heard.]


Men and non-feminists were not allowed to take social or political
positions on these issues.

[Who stopped them, the feminist boogey man? :-) As to taking a
position on equality, how equal is too equal?]

Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and transformed into a "trap".

[No, marriage to pigs is a trap, or marriage to a man who won't do his
fair share of the unpaid work, that's a trap. Marriage to egalitarian
men would be better, albeit unequal laws 'round the world as they
affect married women vs. single women.]

Liabilities for health care and welfare were passed on to government,
who in turn handed
husbands and boy-toys a large invoice.

[What they really handed you bitter boys was the responsibilty to care
for your own aging parents, since women were no longer available for
that UNPAID duty ....:-)]

To resolve the intractable structural problem of single-mother family
economics and achieve so-called "economic independence" for women and
children, feminists invented a nuclear weapon for use against heterosexual
marriage.

[HOBOY! .....]


The primary goal of "same sex marriage" is to preclude marriage,
divorce, and illegitimacy entirely, so women can have all the socioeconomic
benefits of marriage and family, leaving men the obligors funding it all.
This goal was actually achieved last year in Massachusetts via the Goodridge
decision

[Gay marriage does not affect your marriage unless you're gay.]


The above is certainly not what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he signed the
first no-fault divorce bill into law as Governor of California.

[Well, he may have believed that all women look at their husbands the
way Nancy looked at Ronnie :-)]

(edit)

There is a perception that Men's Marriage Movement activists are just
another collection of victims looking for a handout. This is what feminists
want everyone to think. The men's movement is the burgeoning equalitarian
movement seeking to better the futures of women and children by restoring
vibrant marriage policy and law.

[You can't "restore" what you don't own, and you don't own women or
marriage or women's equal rights. The men's movement is not even
making a skid-mark.]

(edit)

We are working to restore marriage in both the secular and ecclesiastical
worlds.

[Religion is the only place left where bitter twitters hold any sway at
all and that is waning.]

(edit)

Even people of faith bought into feminist propaganda and hurt chances for
reform. Promise Keepers collapsed immediately after Bill McCartney brutally
blamed the divorce problem on the men dedicated to reclaiming god-given
marriage from anti-religious feminists forces. Many religious leaders have
assumed immoral positions rationalizing free-choice divorce.

[It's true that men who want women to be second class citizens ...even
in the family unit, shall be laughed at.]
(edit)

The bark of organized feminism has no bite.

[In what way? Women have the equal rights to vote, own property,
divorce, marry, sexual rights, reproductive rights, the right to work
outside the home for equal pay. What rights are feminists losing?]

We have passed some excellent reforms here in Missouri, over the howls
of feminists, while increasing Republican margins in the House,
Senate, and even the Governors office. If we can do it in Missouri,
anyone can.

[Like what? You SAY you've passed laws supporing your agenda and then
provide no laws.]

"Hyerdahl" wrote in

[It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that
the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights,

Men do not beat up or rape women, very sick people beat up and rape women!
It's a mental health issue!

As for abortion, if you feel it's OK to extinguish a life because it's
inconvenient to you, then go right ahead.
How you can live with yourself afterward is anybody's guess, but you would
be a pig in most decent people's eyes.

DB wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in

[It's hard to ignore the truth... that men beat up and rape women, that
the right to choose is a bodily right just like men's bodily rights,

Men do not beat up or rape women, very sick people beat up and rape women!
It's a mental health issue!

Well, it isn't WOMEN who are raping other women, dear, so who does that
leave?

As for abortion, if you feel it's OK to extinguish a life because it's
inconvenient to you, then go right ahead.

I plan to utilize my RIGHTS regardless of my personal feelings on
abortion.

How you can live with yourself afterward is anybody's guess, but you would
be a pig in most decent people's eyes.

Oink Oink, dear. You don't get to decide my rights.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in

Oink Oink, dear. You don't get to decide my rights.

If you really believe it is your right to kill a child because it is an
inconvenience to you, then by all means carry out your right as defined
under the law.

Then try explain your rights to God, or are you a godless soul that is
already dead inside?

Hyerdahl wrote:
From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican
party because it stood for equality between men and women.

[Nonsense; even as late as the 1970 there were still restrictions
implemented by REpublicans on women's lives and laws. For example, a
woman needed her husband's signature to have her paycheck directly
deposited in Utah, and women couldn't obtain procedures over their own
bodies.]

Which Republican administration, or Republican-led
Congress/Legislature, established these restrictions?

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."

Dusty wrote:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm

Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans

November 23, 2005

by David R. Usher

From the 1920's to the 1960's, feminists embraced the Republican party
because it stood for equality between men and women.

So did blacks, until FDR started handing out "entitlements" in the
1930s. Basically, it was a conscious strategy to "buy" the black vote,
which had historically been very stauchly pro-Republican up to that
point. It worked, but it also destroyed a society and countless
families and generations in the process... but I digress.

By the late
1960's, feminism digressed into areas revolting to Republicans, such
as title IV, the ERA, abortion and freewheeling divorce. Feminists
migrated to the Democrat party, over time manifesting a tragic
transformation of marriage and society unfathomable prior to 1964.

Me thinks many men wanted more divorce freedom, also.

The National Organization for Women became deeply radical. In the
name of "equality", it successfully executed a perverse anti-family
crusade. Abortion became a sancrosanct right. Gender became a
competition pitting the human race against itself. The "personal"
became the "political" (if you happened to be a man). Sex became
something women "use" to get what they want from men. Child abuse and
domestic violence became spectacular publicized events - if the
perpetrator was a male. College campuses and coursework fell under
control of advocates in women's "interdisciplinary studies" programs.

While I believe much of the tone of what the author says has alot of
truth to it, I hate blind extremism, in any direction, so I'm having a
hard time getting all worked up.

Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative
protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children. Men
and non-feminists were not allowed to take social or political
positions on these issues. Marriage was deemed "unnecessary" and
transformed into a "trap".

This last point cracked me up. A "trap" for who? Again, many men
wanted greater divorce options, too, precisely to get away from the
women they were married to. Portraying men as poor lost souls whacked
upside the head with the divorce-2x4 is misleading, at best. There's
plenty of blame to be shared.

remainder snipped... the author went on way too long

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."

Dusty wrote:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher112205.htm

Why the Men's Marriage Movement is Critical To Republicans

November 23, 2005

by David R. Usher

snipped

Feminist organizations appointed themselves the authoritative
protectors, providers, and spokespeople for women and children.

I do find it ironic that organizations such as NOW wish to be an
advocate for children, presumably all children, when approximately half
of them are male and will grow up to be men, only to abandon some of
those that they had advocated for earlier in life.

--
"I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..."