That famous phrase from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” is apropos. To say that gender bias is present is to state the obvious (which is the first duty of intelligent men, according to Orwell). Dual discrimination, pro-female and anti-male, is pervasive. The dogs in the street know it. The bias is so institutionalized, it is taken for granted. There are few expectations of women and many expectations of men. Oversimplified, the cause of men’s sorry situation is a combination of misplaced chivalry (or more accurately a perversion of it) and misandry, a near universal zeitgeist. This and the metastasizing of Feminism have severely damaged society. These strains interconnect the various parts of this book.
A large part of this tome is devoted to domestic relations because that is where males and society are most harmed. Therein lie vast social engineering schemes and prejudices working to the detriment of traditional men and traditional families. Bad as it is, divorce is but one facet of a general pattern of discrimination, a broad and sinister phenomenon whose tentacles reach throughout society. A double standard extends into nearly all areas of law and society beyond domestic relations, into crime punishment, employment, and affects men’s very image.
The threat to all things masculine is a virus to rival that from Jihadist hate and envy of the West, and much greater than that of “global warming” or cooling. One wonders whatever happened to common sense. The War Against Men is a battle which both men and women must take seriously.
Men are not better than women or always in the right; but women have the entire legal establishment oriented to help them, so I am no more overly concerned with women’s problems, however legitimate, than the NAACP is with white people’s problems. Admittedly, there are evil men and good, competent women, and some traces of discrimination against women may remain. But that which exists against men is vastly greater. The concept of equal rights for men, if not non-existent, is of a very low profile.
Luther once compared humanity to a drunkard who, after falling off his horse on the right, remounts and falls off again on the left. That’s an excellent analogy to sexism. In the past, many prejudices favored men over women. Today, that situation is reversed. Ours is almost a “Kill Bill” culture. To deny that misandry exists is like denying that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by blacks. One has to have an agenda to deny both.
Many political agendas and players are involved in this “rape of the male.” I strive mightily herein to expose them, and to warn anyone who will listen of the dire consequences of anti-male attitudes.
The many restrictions placed upon men and manhood are analogous to the thousands of small ropes with which the fictional Lilliputians tied down the powerful Gulliver, a situation brilliantly depicted in the illustration in Part II herein. In The War Against Fathers, Dr. Richard Hise explains that men have been so preoccupied with work and family that they haven’t noticed the incremental losses of their liberties and the increasing amounts of disrespect toward our sex. He compared it to a frog not noticing the slowly increasing temperature of the water he is in before being boiled to death.
Paul Craig Roberts puts it thusly, “The war against men is real. It requires men to exercise care in choosing an occupation and in choosing a woman. The risk-reward ratios have deteriorated both for marriage and for working for a corporation. A bad choice can leave a man wounded, maimed, bereft of property and children, and in prison on trumped-up charges.”
In 1945, faced with similar threats in a different country, Rev. Martin Niemoller said:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
It is irritating to be drawn into the victimization game, but I do not intend to let “Feminists” claim the high ground by default. This rail against the feminization of the West is a defensive action in the perceived battle of the sexes. It is not intended to drag women down to the level of treatment accorded men, but to bring men up to that accorded women. The purpose is to rescue men, not to denigrate women. Remember that as you read on.
Some may consider the situations mentioned herein to be exaggerated or mere anecdotes, but almost any divorcing man or jailed innocent will concur that they are ugly realities. If anecdotes are sufficient in number, they become probative statistics, however unscientific their collection.
This book is the result of decades of research, divorce counseling, divorce-reform organizational work, being blown about by the winds of chance and of culling the thoughts of better men than me. I interviewed noted professors and habitants of that boulevard of broken dreams — skid row.
Problems affecting males are addressed in early parts of this book, and revisited regarding solutions in later parts. Some of the references herein are old, but still valid; facts are stubborn things. Nit-pickers are bound to find something to criticize and will take many things out of context. They will find an error or two, and on that basis condemn the entire book, ignoring its 99.8% accuracy.
As many authors have discovered to their chagrin, traditional publishers – normally staffed with feminists – seldom if ever publish a book defending males or offending feminists. That phobia has applied to this book as well; I encountered nests of feminist gate-keepers. Hence the self-publishing route. A good aspect of that route’s print-on-demand capability is that the book can be constantly revised, hence the numerous editions (This is the 4th). It remains a work in progress.
Henry David Thoreau said “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” How true. This rearguard defense of traditional morality explores the realities of life, resurrects the old-fashioned concepts of right and wrong, and examines their eternal conflict in law and behavior. Claiming no expertise in these latter two fields but a great deal of experience therein, I submit that there are higher laws and an innate sense of direction superior to temporal dictums. Law degrees, black robes or Roman collars aren’t needed to perceive them. In fact, these trappings are often detrimental; a conscience is sufficient. Thomas Jefferson said “The greatest principles of right or wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors.”
It is time, beyond time actually, to apply garage logic to these issues, to speak out, especially for the common man – the guy working on a farm, in a factory, in a garage, driving a truck, or laying bricks — men without the time, talent, or inclination to sit behind desks manipulating facts and statistics favorable to our cause, as our more glib detractors do. Our type may be looked down upon by the ‘elite,’ but I believe that wisdom is composed of common sense and life experience as well as education.
This enormous reservoir of anti-male sentiment makes judicial and social reform incredibly difficult. I don’t expect this book to completely reverse gender favoritism; that would be akin to the earth ceasing to roll right and commence rolling left. No, it’s just a very small candle lit in a very dark night. It is an unconventional look at conventional subjects, classically liberal and socially conservative, a dissenting voice to received wisdom. Seeking to provide an understanding of the politics of gender, and hoping to give “think tanks” something worthwhile to think about, I try to make the case that restoration of men’s rights is the best route back to a civilized society.
This will be plain talk; no trendy jargon. Speaking truth to power, it is logic – cold, cruel, inexorable, and undeniable – with all the subtlety of a Panzer division. As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This is not meant to be light-hearted entertainment. One cannot be humorous about the annual ruin of thousands of men, children, and families.
Like hitting a beehive with a stick, this book will be offensive to some, but how else can one deal with offensive subjects? The arguments herein will outrage chivalrous instincts, but such instincts are largely responsible for society’s problems. It might also be argued that the moral issues discussed are not germane to saving males, but they are germane as will become apparent.
History teaches us that all great truths began as heresies. To quote George Orwell, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” The whole question of men’s rights and of divorce is one that society would rather sweep under the rug. To most people it is inconvenient, embarrassing, politically incorrect or confusing. Certain subjects are offensive to many who would prefer not to face them, but their airing might prevent consequences far worse than ruffled feelings. The very idea of men’s rights is unpopular, and shocking. The anti-slavery cause was unpopular and shocking 150 years ago, as were earlier moral voices crying in the wilderness. Attacking popular misconceptions enrages elements in all social strata, as Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud XE "Freud" , even Jesus Christ can attest. Voltaire said “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
Gender justice will benefit women as well as men. Decent women, though they may read this with one eyebrow raised, do not want sons, brothers, and loved ones to suffer injustice, or the institution of marriage to disappear. Children deserve a family — father and mother, an environment free from prejudice — ethnic and sexual, and a country safe for marriage.
R. F. Doyle