Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters

I wanted to love Dr. Helen Smith's "Men on Strike." I wanted to write that glowing 5 star review of it. Honest. Sadly, I think this book could've been written in a way that makes it more accessible to the general public - a little more of an op-ed, journalistic style - hitting the reader with a few more good old non-sensationalised facts, statistics and studies, one after the other.Smith writes with a clear, vitriolic, straight-at-you style which I discuss below, but I would've liked a few more numbers to give the reader a better idea where most (middle and lower class) men are at in today's society, and how we all, men and women alike, can get together in order to structure a society that everyone can live in together, in harmony, where people may interact with one another ad libitum, while never failing to make adult, clear-headed and rational decisions, and with little or no infringement upon one another's individual rights.Read this for me:I'm not saying the book lacks stats and studies, or that it doesn't offer men some helpful resources. It contains plenty of both (see the last chapter "Fighting back, going Galt, or Both?" for details of the latter). I just felt that a softer approach might've been warranted in order for the book to make its biggest impact on 2013 America (and on other nations).That was something that I originally wrote. But then, when I really thought about it, I realised that the compassionate tone would in fact have fallen short for most male readers. The thinking, reading type of man is better at processing vitriol and righteous indignation in written language, rather than a softer-type of compassionate language. The former sends him a clear message of "I'm with you. I'm on your side" while the latter seems ambiguous and may be misinterpreted. However, many women find that the latter writing style is preferable when getting a point across to readers, especially a primarily female readership.So perhaps the book was written for men in that regard. But here's the thing - rather than realise that the above paragraph about men is true, most women would rather simply criticise the man for weird, abstract "male flaw" reasons, such as the presence of vitriol/indignation in the book's prose style, which displeases her because she wouldn't like to encounter it in a book she'd want to read. "You shouldn't like a book like that. It's so angry, the blablablah."A lot of women fall into behavior like that, 'cause they cannot figure men out and they find it too frustrating or are too intellectually lazy to apply any effort towards knowing someone other than themselves.A lot of men fall into it, too, about women, never putting the least bit of effort into thinking like a woman. In that regard, "Men on Strike" fails to state an obvious fact: men, especially the majority of this book's target audience, need to realise that, far from not knowing about what it feels like to be society's pariahs, women really do know what it's like to get tormented by society's constant "disapprovals" and subtle hatreds, in lots of ways that men never experience. So I hope that someday men learn to put themselves in her place, and women learn to put themselves in his place, because we'd all be better for it.Some other Amazon reviews were critical of the author's use of anecdotes and blog comments; I think it works fine. But, honestly, many of the quotes Dr. Smith uses sound like they could've all been written by the same guy. And a lot of Smith's vitriol-spitting simply echoes the rhetoric of the men being quoted, and she does this throughout most of the book, which causes it (as many other reviewers have already pointed out) to become repetitive. However, the repetition effect seems to reflect one of Smith's recurring points. Namely, "A lot of men are on the exact same page about this whole marriage thing."Content wise, "Men on Strike" contains both good and bad. Although I would've liked to have written more thoroughly about both, I'll have to stick to a few highlights (and lowlights), just to keep this review short(er).First, the Good:"MoS" makes some salient points, for example: It takes two to begin a pregnancy. The woman has a choice whether or not to become a mother. The man has no choice whether or not to become a father. But how can that be, here and now, under this "man woman equal" system we've got?Bam! Spot on. This is a commonsense notion, and one that merits further public discussion.Another good point "MoS" brings up is one of the reasons behind the decline in male college students. I've been out of academia for years, and therefore didn't realize how bad it's gotten, but apparently it's become a risk to even ask a girl out on a college campus because of sexual harassment laws.No, I'm serious. Some consider that to be "sexual harassment." On a college campus, filled with late teens and young twentysomethings, people of prime dating and relationship age, talking to a girl who doesn't want to hear what you've got to say can now be considered "sexual harassment" if you're a man.Can't you see a "Saturday Night Live" commercial:"I used to politely decline dating propositions from men I didn't want to date. But now, to save time, I freak out and call the cops and the dean of students."No lie. You can get kicked out of school, apparently without any due process. No 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' No 'preponderance of the evidence.' You're accused? You're out, basically... unless you want to sue the college to let you back in. Doesn't sound like anyplace I'd want my son to go to college. I mean, if I had a son.But it's stuff like this, with men more or less saying, "I'd rather opt out altogether, than put myself in a situation where I risk being thrown on the mercy of a system that views me as some kind of rape-ready penis-landmine that all a girl has to do is step on wrong and she suffers the horrific consequences. My whole life I've never been that sort of person. I'm a good, honest man. And yet, because I'm a male, everybody takes at face value this farcical, quasi-'Original Sin' notion that, were it not for the laws we have in place, I'd be the complete opposite of the person I am."In my daily life, I try not to insult the people I meet by implying they're criminal deviants waiting to happen. But apparently, that's SOP for some colleges and universities, at least where male students are concerned. And still, people scratch their heads, wondering why so many men want no part of that world.And now, the Bad in "Men on Strike":From Chapter 1, "The Marriage Strike" page 20-21: "Vox Day is a blogger who runs the Alpha Game blog... Vox Day, like many of the `pickup artist' bloggers, has a male social hierarchy that he uses to classify men."First, I had to go online to find out who Vox Day (real name Theodore Beale) was, and, honestly, I wasn't too impressed. If you look extensively at his "Alpha Game" blog and especially at his other blog (entitled "Vox Populi"), you get the impression that Vox Day is plainly not the most level-headed of fellows. I don't know if he is the sort of man you'd want to quote in a book that you intend to purvey to a wider audience, to make them more aware of certain social justice issues.For example, Vox Day believes the Sandy Hook massacre was likely a conspiracy, and likely no one was actually murdered. Vox Day also entertains the belief that those pesky "men in black" assassinated journalist Michael Hastings, who died in a car wreck earlier this year. Not only Hastings, but apparently also Andrew Breitbart, who died of heart failure (!). He was taken down Georgi Markov style by "men in black" while he was out for a walk, or something. I don't know, people. Day suggests this in a blog post. And it gets wackier.Day is also one of those dyed-in-the-wool, Bible-licking christian-in-your-face types, who thinks the theory of evolution is bunkum, and the fact that atheists have no religious beliefs must mean they are autistic. He's also obsessed with some science-fiction writer named John Scalzi, who I then also had to look up. From what I gather, Scalzi writes novels that are repackaged, Heinlein-esque, wannabe social sci-fi, while Vox Day writes novels that are repackaged, Tolkien-esque, wannabe christian sword and sorcery, and once upon a time one of these guys angered the other one, and now they both hate each other's guts and they're having some kind of (apparently one(Vox)-sided) feud online.Ah, Internetland, I love you. You're not like Mundania, Internetland. You have magic.I like how Vox Day has never forgiven his enemy for whatever slights may have long ago bruised his fragile ego. Beale wears his scorn and contempt for Scalzi on his sleeve. Yep, those ever-Christlike Christians are at it again. Hey, Jesus never forgave anyone, so why should they?Anyhow, back on track, Vox Day's "male social hierarchy" is an interesting premise, until you notice a single, glaring contradiction: "Alpha male" types (which I guess Vox Day presumes himself to be) in the "manosphere" (Google it) are dead set against any woman defining what it means to "be a man" and they bristle whenever any woman dares suggest that what "a real man would do" is something other than what the "manospherian" man is doing. Got that? Women have no place to tell a man whether he is or isn't a "real man."The glaring contradiction is that, for every rank in Vox Day's male social hierarchy (alpha, beta, gamma, sigma, omega), that man's designation as an "alpha," or other rank, is WHOLLY BASED UPON AND DETERMINED BY THAT MAN'S AMOUNT OF INTERACTION WITH AND SUCCESS, OR LACK THEREOF, WITH WOMEN.So it's fundamentally a ranking system in which the Women, by and through their actions and reactions re: a Man, more or less get to tell that Man what he is or is not (alpha, etc). Why would Day, one of the bloggers in the "manosphere" (and other bloggers also use similar ranking systems) create a hierarchy that appears to put the power to designate rank right back into the hands of women? Or maybe I'm just confused here. If you're a "manospherian" and you're reading this, perhaps you'll be so kind as to provide an explanation for this apparent contradiction in the comments section. Mind you, I'm not busting on anyone, I just have some questions about the inherent illogic of the hierarchy.More bad: "MoS" contains a number of statements like this:From the Introduction, page xv:"Men kill themselves over pain like this [Context from PJS1975: divorce, wife cheating on him, child custody issues, victim of paternity fraud, etc.] and the statistics show they do it often. In 2010, the latest suicide statistics show that 38,364 people killed themselves nationally and 30,277 of those were men."Now, I wish to convey absolutely no ill feeling toward suicides and their families. The above is a grim statistic, and suicide is a terrible tragedy, and I want people to respect my word on that.But I'm afraid you cannot make statements like that and then just proceed straight ahead in your explication, without providing ANY statistics showing exactly how many of these men who committed suicide were unhappy in their marriages, or were cheated on, or were divorcing their spouses, or had recently divorced at the time they died. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Maybe the numbers for those aspects of suicide don't exist or couldn't be located. But you must admit, after reading that, you've no way to calculate how many of the 38,364 male suicides could in fact have been reactions to an unjust society, oppressive divorce laws, or similar circumstances, unless you can provide numbers or statistics to somehow connect the one to the other.People commit suicide for a variety of reasons, or sometimes no one ever figures out the reason. Unlike homicides, the driving force of which is almost always either overheated passions or material gain, people are driven to suicide by the 'gain' of 'getting out of a situation,' if you want to put it that way.The flip side of this coin: the idea that even a few men might be committing suicide for the above reasons, BECAUSE OF THE TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED COURTS' RELENTLESS EXPLOITATION OF THEM, makes their deaths by their own hands that much more morbid and horrible.If you consider divorce can make some men want to end their own lives (and if you don't believe it can happen, look online for divorce horror stories - or work for a law firm, like I do), rather than live a life that is all lawyers and courts, and hearing dates and gathering financial records, and getting your bank account drained and getting the run around over and over again...... then gee, I dunno, do ya think maybe these court-induced suicides, their deaths filed in thousands of dockets in courthouses across the country, might be telling us something? Like perhaps, the law is just a wee, teensy bit oppressive to divorcing men and is responsible for grinding many of them down into hopeless, suicidal wrecks?Like maybe, reform the courts, like, sometime? Because I don't recall a lot of cases in which non-oppressed and non-hopeless people have gone and killed themselves.Maybe if the government wants more men and women to marry each other, the government should just let it be between That Woman and That Man, with a contract of their own choosing. Why involve the government? Like stand-up comic and former presidential candidate Doug Stanhope said, "Hey, baby, this love, this thing we got 'tweenst us, this thing is so real, we gotta get the GOVERNMENT in on this, baby. 'Cause it's hot!"In other words, it doesn't make a lot of sense to give the civil courts the power to inflict this much emotional and psychological damage on a person. Let me amend that: IN A FREE SOCIETY, it doesn't make a lot of sense to give the courts the power to inflict this much emotional and psychological damage on a person. In fact, it starts to look downright noxious and antagonistic when you critically regard the basic concept of divorce court:"You wanna leave this person? Well, you gotta PAY THIS PERSON in order to be able to leave! Ha! That's right, Bucko! Don't pay, can't leave, and we can throw you in jail, too! We can do this all year! We've got unlimited imprisonment space and your Tax Money to pay the power bills, and to pay people to guard you day and night. You got plenty of reasons not to not pay up, so pay up!"And furthermore, why even choose to be bound by the tenets of a marriage contract that someone else - some complete stranger who's never even met you or your spouse-to-be - wrote, if you can just come up with your own contract between the two of you?Maybe "Marriage 3.0" is coming, and it will be just that: Let individual couples decide the terms of their own binding agreement, where and how it is binding, and write the document so that it leaves both the wife and the husband an "out" that offers them little to no risk should they ever get sick of the whole thing and want to bail.After all, if America is so full of independence and individualism and diversity and 'melting pot' and 'pioneer spirit' and all that jazz... then how 'bout being the first country to pioneer Marriage 3.0: The Open Format Marriage?"Ooh, but what would your 'Marriage 3.0' do about a marriage with children?" you ask.Glad you brought it up. There are already seven billion of you. Stop creating more people until you've figured out a way to take care of all the ones we've already got here. That'd be my solution. Talk to your doctor, visit your local adult shop, get creative, and work with what you've got. If you really do want a baby, make sure you've got all your ducks in a row and your life in order, to give that kid the healthiest possible environment to grow up in.Otherwise, you tell that acrosome reaction to go react itself somewheres else, capisce?"Ooh, but what if your 'Marriage 3.0' idea and this whole gay marriage thing are just 'slippery slopes' to permitting people to eventually marry their house-pets, or farm animals, or blow-up dolls etc.?"If you even have to ask a question like that, then you're a talking meatsack and your parents should've aborted you (see above, RE: 7 billion). Stop being dumb already. Name ONE public figure from any reasonably well known political or social movement who is a vocal proponent of marrying your cat. No? Nothing? Thought not."Ooh, but your 'Marriage 3.0' idea is insulting to the very idea of marriage, to the idea of commitment," you claim.Hey, do you see a huge majority of people taking their vows seriously? Ok, granted, many of you do, and it's commendable. But what men have begun to dislike is the risk that they will marry one of the women who doesn't think it's wrong to take her nuptial vows lightly; and also, who doesn't think it's wrong to remake his life into a hideous, ensanguined, Cenobite-ruled hell. The feeling among a growing number of men is that they lack sufficient protection from Pinhead and the Cenobites, after they've solved the demonic puzzle-b - uh, I mean, after they've slid the wedding band on, and this feeling has precipitated many men going "on strike" and consequently has caused the book "Men on Strike" to be written.IMO, at its core, the marriage strike phenomenon is about men and women finally getting on the same page about marriage, but in an ironic backlash-y sort of way. A lot of men are saying "No" to the Oath, externally and preclusively, as demonstrated by the lives they're leading (avoiding marriage). Because, according to these men's ratiocinations, a lot of women are really saying "No" to the Oath, internally and/or after the fact, as also demonstrated by the lives they're leading (initiating divorces like it's going out of style, and feeding more and more bodies into an impersonal and exploitative court system).I believe people interested in the subject of civil rights - but from a far different perspective than the usual MSM pabulum - should read "Men on Strike." We live in a society planted thick with laws, including marriage laws, and we (theoretically) ought to be able to change the obsolete laws into something that is more suited to the current zeitgeists of "less government" and "less regulation of our private lives." I conclude that this book's inherent flaws and weaker arguments can be overlooked in favour of the overall message it seeks to convey."Men on Strike": Read it. Discuss it. Save 15% or more on attorney fees.

Completely separate from any discussion of gender relations and current social reality in the United States, is the more irrefutable development, over the last fifty years, that the cost of living as an impact on discretionary income has escalated. Elizabeth Freeman, in the youtube-available lecture, 'The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class,' goes into considerable detail about how the cost of housing (among other things, and adjusted for inflation), has increased by 75% from 1970 until 2005. And then there is also the increased indebtedness due to consumer credit and education financing, the fact that jobs typically last up to a decade and no more (instead of the tradition of lifelong employment that developed after WW2), and that retirement planning has increasingly become the onus of the individual employee. And one would think there would be a rational, constructive response to this trend, and people would rely on the heterosexual marriage and household for long-term stability, with greater cooperation between the sexes. Given the increasing fragility of the economy and expense of maintaining a household, is not this a straightforward consideration?And one would be farther from the truth to make this casual assumption. When there was the expectation of long-term employment with just two or three employers in a lifetime, women had relatively minimal expectations of men upfront. perhaps just a church wedding, a gold wedding band, and simple honeymoon. And this was during the time of the Vietnam War and where the typical employer would provide an income and benefits package that would support a family. Now courtships last longer and longer, women frequently have the expectation of a diamond engagement ring, the media and social pressure frequently place the onus on men to accept responsibility for children from previous relationships, fewer people are getting married, women feel entitled to move up the corporate chains of command while also expecting men to foot the cost of socializing and courtship, women expect the corporate workplace to conform to their more sensitive personalities and preference for motherhood whereas men have a more naturally competitive, hierarchical mentality, three in five university students are now women (and there is pressure for outreach efforts for women to more greatly study in the STEM fields), women have much broader opportunities in the military (whereas, at least up until recently, combat arms were exclusively men, the selective service registration is for men only, men are overwhelmingly combat-related injuries and deaths, and in general occupational deaths are overwhelmingly men), women go on and on and on about how Boards of Directors and senior elected political positions are disprortionately men and never discuss that the laboring trades are disproportionately men, there are much greater efforts made for the public health concerns of women, and comparatively little for the much greater rates of suicidality and homelessness among men.And one could go on. Such as the feminist failure to re-examine the doctrine of 'Women and Children First' in emergency situations. The author of this book takes very seriously many of these trends and does her damndest to give a voice to a constituency that is frequently quite fearful of speaking up due being shamed back into silence: heterosexual, conventional men. She goes into some of the least discussed realities, the fact that for hundreds of thousands of men, paternal discrepancy and paternal fraud is completely accepted by the judicial system. She gives the example of one man who, as an underaged teenager, was subjected to statutory rape, the female perpetrator was impregnated, and he was still liable to pay child support. She discusses how on some airlines, men are not permitted to sit beside unaccompanied minors for the simple fact that they are men. The author goes on to discuss how, on many college campuses, men may be expelled from the campus community due to allegations of sexual assault based on the standard called the 'preponderance of the evidence.' She discusses how there are cases where a man and a woman will be in a sexual relationship, break up, the man will not hear from the woman for years, and then learn that he is responsible for retroactive child support. She gives the example of Fitzroy Barnaby, who was an adult male motorist who had to abruptly stop to avoid hitting an underaged, teenaged girl who had stepped directly in front of his car. He did nothing more than exit his vehicle, briefly grab her by the arm, lecture her briefly about safety, and he was eventually deemed to be a sex offender who had committed the 'unlawful restraint of a minor.' She also gives the example of the Briton Clive Peachey, who had been walking by a body of water where a two-year old girl had been drowning and because no one else was around he decided to continue on his way instead of risking a false allegation.What the book seems to reflect is that, like the discussion of possibly dozens of different genders, wider society is similarly in a state of deep-seated confusion. To a great extent, men are still expected to take on the traditional role in the heterosexual relationship, and also be a full participant in a society that has become much more ambivalent about the conventional role of the heterosexual male. Like my own participation in the military: whereas about one in seven servicemembers overall are female, during my own service obligation the proportion of first and second tier supervisors who were female was more like triple that. And I still had to register for selective service in my late teens, I still literally had to do a disproportionate amount of the heavy lifting when I was reporting to these female supervisors, and in my private life I still have no choice but to initiate socializing with women if I prefer to have any social life with women at all. A major thing that seems to be left out of this informal, national dialogue is the fact that women have the capacity for pregnancy and childbirth is not some objective justification for men as a group to take up greater responsibility in the workplace or other spheres of activity where women still feel entitled to full participation (and this is discussed in her chapter on the severe decline of male space, such as social clubs for adult men where they could receive candid advice about career and relationships). Marriage and parenthood cannot be mandated. Even eighty years ago there were confirmed bachelors. President James Buchanan over 150 years ago never married. A woman who prioritizes marriage and motherhood is making at least notionally free choices as a grown woman. And there are highly effective methods of birth control available, the disproportionate number being available to women or not men. What men have are the condom, which can be forgotten during passionate intimacy, or the vasectomy which completely and semi-permanently suspends the possibility of impregnation. It would have been interesting for the author to have investigated why, over the last couple generations, there has been a proliferation of both different forms of birth control and also out-of-wedlock births. That, however, was probably not central to her primary topic.And there is still the need for men to lead productive, engaged lives. While I do not dismiss her discussion of activism, I am skeptical about that as an option for any one man who wants to lead a fulfilling life. And 'going Galt' is a little too abstract. While a measure of preparedness is very sensible, such as in cases of natural disaster or economic downturn, complete severance from mainstream society does not really make sense. And she also referenced speaking with men who play lots of video games or who frequent bars. And given that both gamers and bar-frequenters tend to consume a lot of refined carbohydrates, it makes sense that they more greatly populate the other group she spoke with: men who go to the gym. And there is also the possibility for a man to join a group like WeightWatchers. This is in part due to the fact that at the beginning of the book she referenced men who had departed from the dating scene for five years or longer. It is close to impossible for any one man to change the overall structure of society, and it remains very important for every individual man to lead a full, active life. And this can be a life filled with cardio-vascular activity at least three hours per week, and combined with traditional checkbook balancing and budget adherence. He does not need to be married to do this. He can remain a 'confirmed bachelor' and follow this path. And he can still practice 'women and children first' for his mother, sister, and other female meaningful relationships. And it is also necessary to have a disciplined process orientation and not get discouraged if an interim goal does not quickly work out. With men who are heavily into online gaming, or who develop a heavy interest in blogging (as she references toward the end of the book), there is the obvious career field of information technology and those vendor-specific examinations (like with cisco and microsoft) can be quite demanding. And a passing score on the first or second attempt is not guaranteed. And it is also important to not engage in emotional eating if a person does get a failing score on one of those exams. That is why a group like WeightWatchers or adherence to the cognitive-behavioral therapy in a book like Three Minute Therapy or Feeling Good is so important. Regardless of the time in which one lives, we are men and we are the ones who take the risks and push the boundaries. Like Ernest Shackleton in his voyage to the Antarctic. Which is a useful metaphor for some of the men referenced above who need to journey to the gym.

Fantastic to see a female understand these issues so well. All of the issues raised in this book are not only still relevant but have worsened. Unfortunately the call to action failed and legislation and attitudes make any interaction with half the population hazardous.

I have experienced many of the points highlighted in this book. It gives readers real insight into the dark side of modern day feminism and how men are responding.Helen Smith breaks down her points really well and really delves deeply into issues which are of great concern in modern day relationships.Her main point about the Marriage contract no longer being a good deal for Men is supported really well with good examples of how divorces can be pre-planned.This book has definitely been one of the most influential books I have ever read on relationships.I would certainly recommend this book to people who want a greater understanding of relationships I would also like to stress the point that not every woman is the same and there are many positive relationships out there to be had.

The main draw to this book was the fact that it's written by a woman. An intelligent, articulate, informed woman, and arguably the best person to see just how skewiff the whole equality thing has become. Men bemoaning men's problem's is sadly never going to be noticed – a request for a Minister for Men was recently laughed out of the UK parliament – so women becoming switched-on to real gender equality, not female privilege at the expense of men, is the way forward. I just wish this book was at the top of the sales charts, instead of some dopey Z-list celebrity biography.I'd highly recommend Men On Strike to anyone looking for clarity on any aspect of equality today. Men and women. For any man recovering from separation, divorce, an abusive relationship etc. it's essential reading. Buy it now, and when you've read it, pass it on.PS. Check out Helen Smith on YouTube too. You won't be disappointed.

A well-written, depressing account of how bad things are for men, both legally and socially. I hope that this will encourage more people to red pill themselves, and see feminism for the poison that it is.

I found the book insightful with evocative and, occasionally troubling anecdotes, which made me angry with how badly decent men are being treated. However it didn’t seem as if the author could relate to men’s thoughts in spite of her career as a psychologist so her tone had this sense of detachment. This does allow for a clinical approach and some good recommendations for action as that is what is required.