Public Policy for Men Going Their Own Way

There is a great post over at the Manpower Blog which discusses the necessity of limiting government in order to defeat feminism. “Mechanized,” the author, makes a comment about the Libertarian Party. I do not align myself easily even with an anti-statist party, but in the main, I can acknowledge the Libertarian Party could perhaps do some good. Anyway, I know “Mechanized” well and this worthy essay is par for the course for him. Give it a read by clicking here.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)

Preamble

I shall live my life on my own terms, answering to no one but God. I shall be self-sufficient. I shall learn and grow each day. I shall not give in, and marry some harpy just because society says I should. I shall not partake of the massive consumerism in our society. I’ve limited my exposure to TV, so I shall not be contaminated by the poison of this world. In short, I shall try to be the best MAN I can be. I do this for those that follow after me, knowing that I shall not see the fruit of my efforts. It is a fight men must fight, and that’s that.

Men Going Their Own Way

The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and establish a limited government! By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent. By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible. By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice. Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men. This is the aim of “Men Going Their Own Way.” By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

This goal is to take away everybody’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their will on all people. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect, but not directly, and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens, and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

Prime Strategies That Compliment Our Product and Goal

It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies. The three main strategies we have are detailed as follows:

1. Instilling masculinity in men by:

• Demanding respect for men
• Serving as good male role models
• Living independent lives
• Fighting chivalry

2. Instilling femininity in women

We hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse such accountability. Thus we induce women to behave and act as we wish them to and draw them into a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position as is now the case.

Qualities we want from women:

• Nurturing
• Supportive
• Responsibility
• Respectfulness
• Honesty

3. Limiting government

In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:

• Go Their Own Way
• Support other men
• Legally reduce any taxpaying
• Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
• Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves

It is these three strategies that come together in one.

The Logo

This is the logo of our movement:

Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.

Activism

What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics. Examples include:

• Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
• Run one or many web-sites and forums that promotes this.
• Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
• Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as “Chivalry is dead.”
• Writing articles supporting our product.
• Producing music promoting our product.
• Hold international events and local meetings.
• Establishing mens clubs.
• Boycotting certain products.

Conclusion

You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

The Men’s Movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everybody, including women and children.

IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!

Take care brother!

(Updated 8/2/05)

Does the Bible Compel Government to Legislate Morality?

Constantly I have heard Christians state something to effect that “government is supposed to enforce morality.” In other words, they assume that God expects political powers to force people to obey at least some parts of his law. That’s how I understand the argument anyway.

At face value, this idea certainly has some appeal to those of us who value the concept of integrity, responsibility, etc. But I still have a problem with it: it’s not really scriptural. I imagine that any critic reading this will reflexively parrot an array of passages from the Old Testament. The catch is that I am not under the Old Testament. Neither is any other faithful Christian (Hebrews 5:8-13). What about the New Testament? Romans 13:1-7, you say? Ok. Tell me specifically which “evildoers” in that passage are supposed to fall by the sword. You can’t and that’s the problem.

Over and over again, many Christians show themselves to be arbitrary in their understanding of how civil government relates to Christianity. Consider the problem of defining morality. Society at large usually has no problem with punishing thieves, murderers, rapists, and vandals. In a crude sense this represents the extent of most people’s moral sensibilities. The Religious Right, on the other hand, would add to the list of offenders the following: homosexuals, gamblers (unless your Bill Bennett), adulterers, prostitutes, porn users, drug users, and those who drink alcohol. That is the extent of morality for many fundamentalists. Beyond this, the Religious Right would not look to the government to impose particular tenets of a religious faith (and somehow, matters such as social justice and charity often get left off the list of “moral issues”). The problem is that the Scriptures do not look at “right” and “wrong” in this way.

With the Bible, there is no artificial delineation between “moral” laws to be imposed by the government and “religious” decrees to be imposed by the Church. That kind of differentiation is actually quite modern. On the other hand, for much of the history of Christendom, the Church and state were united in the minds of those who professed to be Christians. In a similar fashion, God’s law is also unified in its understanding of what “right” and “wrong” is. The cultist who teaches error on salvation is just as guilty before God as the thief (James 2:10). The “covetous” man is just as deserving of death as the murderer (Romans 1:29-32). But I have yet to see a social conservative ask for a covetous man to be hanged.

Obviously, I take issue with the way so many Christians pick and choose like a buffet which moral issues they expect to be codified into law. So does this mean that we should go back to a theocratic understanding of civil jurisprudence? There are some extremists (e.g., the Christian Reconstructionists) who want to do just that, using the Old Testament as a pattern for government (since the New Testament obviously doesn’t suit their purposes). Of course, Galatians 5:4 serves as a foil against those so inclined towards resurrecting the Old Covenant in any shape or form. So theocracy, whether it is full-blown or half-inflated, will not work.

Beyond this, I must ask which group would we consult when it comes time to defining morality for civil government? Many will say Christians. Of course, there is a lot of confusion in our society about who is a Christian. Do we follow the Catholics and outlaw contraceptives? No? Just the Protestants? Some Protestants like to drink. Okay, what about the Baptists, or maybe just the Churches of Christ? But divorce and remarriage is a moral issue. So which gospel preachers get to write the state laws on divorce?  Ones who allow remarriage for various reasons or ones who forbid remarriage altogether? If you think I’m being ridiculous, remember that many Christians think “morality” is the government’s business as mandated by God. So, I just want to know what is the logical end of such thinking.

The fact of the matter is that I have difficulty understanding how some institution maintained by secular people can bring about the righteousness of God. If the people have no faith, no amount of government sanctioned force will do any good. In fact, if conservatives concede that moral laxity leads to the expansion of government, and thus tyranny, why do so many of them do an about face and expect our government to peep in everybody’s bedroom? If a person is not conformed to the image of Christ, sodomy laws are not going to matter much, except as a profession of somebody’s creed (which may not represent everybody’s thinking). Likewise, if people do not have a true, Biblical understanding of the sanctity of life, police protection from violence is at best a precarious matter; just ask those who lived under Saddam Hussein.

Even if we concede that government serves some useful purpose in protecting society from actual threats (such as to person or property), how can we justify an expanded role of government in enforcing other moral matters such as sexual purity? Some may counter that sexual immorality is a “threat to our families.” But quite frankly, that threat is more metaphysical than material. Consumerism is a threat to our families, too, but I don’t hear calls for legislation on that. Indeed, on some issues of morality, we must concede it is merely our religious sensibilities that are being threatened. Asking government to protect me from having my religious sensibilities assaulted is not sound jurisprudence, it’s political correctness.

The bottom line is that Christians need to start looking again to Jesus to save the souls of people, not to politicians. I have often found many people who run for office and claim to stand for “family values” or issues “that matter to people of faith” are often hypocritical and ignorant of what the Bible really teaches. I’m not voting for them anymore than I would vote for a “secular” person. Why? Because they present a distorted picture of spirituality. They profane what is sacred.

Readers, morality is equal to religion. Why? Because in the eyes of God, you are “moral” only to the extent that you obey the dictates of the religion he established. Therefore, I do not think I do violence to James when I say: Pure and undefiled morality is this: to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world (see James 1:27 NKJV). Let’s start keeping ourselves unspotted instead of expecting the government to keep people partially unspotted.

On Politics (Verbum Ipsum Is Not Far from the Truth)

Well, someone may have beaten me to the punch in putting forth a summary of a sound political philosophy with a theological bent. I found a thought-provoking post over at the Verbum Ipsum blog. The author of the post is, I take it, not as anti-statist as I am, but one zinger jumped out at me:

“Against postmillennialists of the Right and liberationists of the Left I take it as axiomatic that nothing we can do will bring in God’s Kingdom. Politics is not a means by which we build the Kingdom of God on earth. It is a strictly this-worldly affair whose aim is to secure the conditions of tolerable earthly existence during this age.

“For Christians at least, politics can never be the locus of one’s final allegiance or the bearer of one’s identity. They are first and foremost citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, and their commitment to any earthly kingdom will be penultimate at best. This results in the ‘desacralization’ of politics and a sober realism about what it can and can’t achieve. No regime, political system, cause, or candidate is above criticism or immune to the effects of sin. As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart.”

Bingo. I gave one golden star to Verbum Ipsum for posting this and a silver star for linking to the Mutualist Blog. And, um, I will overlook the link on the blog’s page to Hugo Schwyzer. Now, now, hold on my dear fans. I know you are shocked, but I must concede that Hugo has treated me rather cordially in comparison to some of his followers. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, click here. For now, I will hold my peace, and perhaps skewer one of Hugo’s feministic posts another day. 😀

Spain’s Assault on Men and Marriage

Day by day, it becomes increasingly difficult to parody feminists and the politicians who cater to them. Just when I think I can furnish some outrageous caricature of their beliefs that no sane person would uphold, they surprise me by embracing it. The demented wax worse and worse in the absence of checks on their power.

A case in point? The Guardian and other news outlets are reporting that Spain will pass a law requiring married men to assume a greater share of domestic responsibilities. The requirement will be codified into the marriage contract for civil wedding ceremonies. Failure of men to comply with the new law will be taken into account by judges considering visitation rights in divorce cases. Yes, I wish I was kidding.

In response to this news item, the Manpower Blog posted a stinging parody of the Guardian article. I think it’s worth a read. At first, I thought it was an actual article, given the degree of inanity to which bureaucrats can sink. No. In the modern world, the stupidity of our elected politicians only works in favor of women.

The Spanish people ought to thank their leaders. We are often led to believe that European governments respect the human rights of their citizens. Indeed, what better way to honor the dignity of human beings than to micromanage and regulate the most intimate aspects of their lives? Feminists and other liberals bellyache about how conservatives like to legislate what goes on in the bedroom, but I suppose the monogamous relationships of heterosexual couples are now fair game for politicians of all stripes.

The Guardian quotes one Spanish politician as saying, “This will be a good way of reminding people what their duties are. It is something feminists have been wanting for a long time.” Never mind the feminists. Is this what all women want? Are we to assume that government knows what is best for each marriage regardless of the personal arrangements that both parties have made? Suppose a woman embraces the traditional role of staying at home and assumes all domestic duties full-time. Does that mean her husband must help her with the chores when he gets home from work, even though he already assumes sole responsibility for the family’s financial welfare? How is that equal? Strange that the news coverage in the Guardian doesn’t address that question.

Or, suppose both spouses indeed work outside the home. How does one nonetheless determine that there has been an equal division of domestic labor? Do we install a punch clock with cards in the kitchen? Do we make certain that women perform their fair share of traditionally male tasks such as cleaning out the roof gutters; taking out the trash; repairing lawn mower equipment; fixing the electric circuitry in the bathroom; changing the oil on the car; cleaning up the hard drive on the computer; or killing the roaches and rats?

What’s the end to this nonsense? Passing laws regulating how many times a month you take your wife on vacation? Really, if there is some resentment on the part of one spouse towards another regarding marital expectations, that is best handled by the spouses themselves, pastors, counselors, etc. Government should stay out of the picture, period.

What is truly appalling is that even the most politically conservative parties in Spain have supported this miscarriage of justice, even those with a traditionally Catholic bent. Yep, I’m certain a law that “feminists have been wanting for a long time” will strengthen the bonds between husbands and wives. I can just imagine the kind of trust and intimacy between spouses this law will engender. Men, how would you like to be involved with a women that will divorce you, seize half of your assets, and take away your children simply because she felt you didn’t do enough around the house? Do you want that Sword of Damocles hanging over your head? Spain’s new law is nothing but a full-scale assault against marriage. The intimate bond between husband and wife is reduced to a commercial transaction, regulated by the state just like a business. Do not be surprised if the state soon interferes at the behest of feminists in trying to quantify the degree of conjugal affection owned by a husband to his wife, or vice versa. It will make legalized prostitution look dignified in comparison.

If the men of Spain have any sense at all, they will realize this new law for what it is. It is demeaning to men. Sorry ladies, but no women is endangered or physically harmed by a husband whose only crime is being lazy at home. No government should have the power to encroach upon that man’s basic right to privacy in his family affairs. As far as I’m concerned, that point is not up for debate or discussion. The new law in question is morally wrong, and the Spanish people should make certian their politicians appreciate this fact in the next election cycle.

Terry Schiavo is Dead. Does Your Conscience Bother You, Brother?

Well, Terry Schiavo has finally passed from this life. Predictably, the neocons are already exploiting the woman’s tragic end for their own political grandstanding. You can almost hear the incessent klick-klacking of keyboards from the pundits even as I, myself, add to the chatter. Did she have a hope of recovery? Was there a possibility that she would have not wanted the feeding tube pulled from her? Was innocent blood wrongfully shed? Good questions. And why don’t my fellow social conservatives ask similiar questions about innocent people on death row? When faced with the reality that innocent people are wrongfully executed, social conservatives seem to shrug it off. They’ll admit that it’s tragic when mistakes are made, but they nonetheless maintain that the judiciary system is doing its job when it tries and sentences people to death.

Not so with Terry Schiavo. Social conservatives second guess a court’s ruling on Ms. Schiavo’s intent. Michael Schiavo is demonized. Jeb Bush, George Bush, the Republican controlled congress, and everybody’s second cousin suddenly realizes they have a personal stake in the outcome. We are told it’s all part of huge anti-life conspiracy of liberal, activist judges (never mind that many of the conspirators were Republican appointees). We are led to believe that Pandemonium itself crouches at our front door, as if the feeding tube was akin to Frodo’s ring. No, my friend, I don’t understand the flip-flopping, either. But alas, with neocons, I think it’s not understanding they want. It’s compliance.

Terry Schiavo (Yes, We All Have to Say Something About Her, Don’t We?)

Since Terry Schiavo is so much in the news and all over the Internet, you are probably wondering what my opinion is of the matter. Well, if this woman is truly capable of recovery and if pulling the plug was against her wishes, it would be murder to deny her life support, wouldn’t it? The problem is that I don’t know if she is a vegetable or not, and I don’t know if she would want to be left with the feeding tube. I feel the need to leave that to the court and the experts. Some people are not satisfied with that, however. Indeed, there are a lot of opinions coming from both the Left and the Right on this issue, but given their history with handing the truth, I don’t feel so confident that I’ll stand to be informed by either side. Since I don’t pretend to have the all facts, I’ve prayed about it and left the judgment up to God. I think He is a better judge of such things than I or anyone else. Anyway, if you really want me to throw you a piece of mutton, then here. Take it for what it’s worth.

Now for one thing I do know. The Republicans are a disgrace. What happened to their cries of not allowing the federal government to interfere with those powers delegated to the states? And if they think Ms. Schiavo is such a tragedy, why aren’t they wailing as loudly for the innocent Iraqis that have suffered as a result of their ridiculous war? Their attitude reminds me of Stalin. He said something about one death being a tragedy and many deaths being a statistic. Oh, I know what you are going to say: “That’s different! I mourn the deaths of innocent Iraqis, but in the long run the war is for a good cause and it will end the suffering of those people!” Yep, and Michael Shiavo could say something similiar about his wife.

“RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz”!!!

Today on NPR’s Morning Edition, there was some discussion about the recent showdown between Senate Democrats and Republicans over judicial filibusters. An audio excerpt in the program had Sen. Bill Frist declaring to a Federalist Society meeting that the judicial filibuster was “RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz.” If I didn’t know better I think I was listening to a Sunday school teacher’s description of the Beatles’ White Album.

Just how “RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz” is a judicial filibuster? It wasn’t too out of the mainstream for Republicans who filibustered Abe Fortas during the Johnson administration. As the news program indicated, the Republicans’ charge that judicial filibustering is “without precedent” is dubious at best. Norman Ornstein, a scholar of Congressional History, weighed in with the remark that Republicans are “trying to redraft history” and that the attempts by some to discount the case of Abe Fortas “doesn’t pass any logical review.” That the show featured commentary by Ornstein is noteworthy. Ornstein is not some “librul egghead” who “hates America.” He is a member of the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank.

Anyway, I will tell you what is “RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz”: politicians of either party eroding the Senate’s long-standing prerogative of protracted, yea unlimited, debate. It is certain that the Founders intended for the Senate to function as a deliberative body. But now, the Republicans want to water down this aspect of the Senate, and push our country even closer to a tyranny of the majority – a mobocracy, if you will. And for what? Instant political gratification. These are conservative values? Maybe Sen. Frist ought to reflect on why, um, they call his plan the “nuclear option.”

“RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz”? You might try some of the judicial nominees that Republican party has been trying to foist on the nation. It was reported that one of the nominees declared that slavery was “God’s gift to white people.” If this is true, then we need to rethink which group of theocratic nuts are really the “enemies of our freedoms” (and I don’t mean the ones who shout “Allah Akbar”).

When it’s all said and done, the neocons running our government have shown just how “RAA-duh-cul” and “DAYN-jer-uzz” they are when they stoop to any tactic deemed necessary in the name of a “good cause.” Nuclear options and authoritarian judges are just a few of the tricks this crowd has in mind for us. I don’t know how anyone who calls himself conservative, principled, and moved by a belief in God and His Law can embrace situation ethics where the ends are thought to justify the means. Neocons spin a good yarn about “faith” and “values” but at the end of the day, they appear to live by the other Golden Rule: “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

At any rate, the good doctor from Tennessee will get more than he bargains for if he choses to make a Faustian pact with destiny. Yes, he may get the procedure of a simple majority vote, but it will return to chauffeur our dear doctor off to Tartarus when the Democrats regain power (and I predict they will). Republicans will rue the day when every piece of filth that issues forth from the sewer pipe of liberalism gets passed by a 51-49 margin. I would be tempted to find this prospect amusing. The problem is that we, the unfortunate citizens of this country, will be right there alongside the Republicans, trying to crawl out of the rising pool of ordure.

Postscript:

NPR’s website features two “scholars” who debate the judicial filibuster and the validity of the nuclear option. On the side of the nuclear option is Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University. Why am I not surprised by this? A little note about Pepperdine University: Pepperdine was ostensibly a school affiliated with churches of Christ. Now, it is just a hatchery for young Republicans, having accommodated itself to the larger religious culture of Bubblegum Evangelicalism.

Anyway, Kmiec’s commentary is predictably feeble. He, of course, makes much ado about the Senate’s constitutional duty to “advise and consent.” Well, Sherlock, the Senate also has a constitutional duty to consider legislation, but up to this point, no one has bewailed the impact of filibuster on undermining that mandate. And the fact that Kmiec quotes a few Democrats in favor of his case is most telling. Is that supposed to convince someone like me who couldn’t care less about either party? Color me stupid, but when a man quotes politicians of an opposing party to justify his own position, how can he claim that his own case is any better than theirs? Anyway, an antidote to Kmiec’s flummery can be found in an exchange between Orrin Hatch and Norman Ornstein in Roll Call. Sen. Hatch’s case is, of course, as convincing as Kmiec’s.

2nd Anniversary of a President’s Great Folly

Well, today is the 2nd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. It is noteworthy that my blog was started on this very day. I believe it to be purely coincidental, unless some subconcious part of me led me to react in this manner (uh .. not likely). Anyway, I’m certain that the war in Iraq will be one of my major pet peeves on this blog. You might want to put your helmet on if and when I lob a few polemical grenades.