|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe the sorry and fragile state of manhood that we're dealing with! Those femmes are scaring us out of our wits! I mean when it comes to child support, domestic violence, sex harrassment, and feminizing schools...it tells me that these feminists are psychologically and socially groping us where it hurts the most. It looks like when something goes wrong and whether you did something bad or not, the nearby Gloria Steinems, Naomi Wolfs, and Patricia Irelands are going to swerve you and do a 360 by blaming you or recanting it themselves!
To put it another way, these feminists [but not all of them] are on a roll to screw up true equality, and globally feminize the current society! Oh yeah, and as for that annoyingly unfair Violence Against Women Act, albeit they're gonna use that as way to become more and more violent!
Boy, what a scary scary murderous world we are living in...especially if you're a man or a boy!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
P.S. As for that last post about me saying that woman who failed her dating test and I told her that she should watch Women are from Venus...Men are from Mars, I didn't really mean that! It was just a figure of speech!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually couldn't bring myself to read the article mentioned in this post. Speaking of fragile states of manhood, I've been much too suicidal of late to handle the depressing news. Those of you who have read my posts lately may have realized that above all I've been looking for some pieces with some good news--some light at the end--in them concerning men's issues. Unfortunately, they are few right now.
It's really difficult to sleep at night when I think about all these injustices, and the total lack of comprehension by those who have been brainwashed by our misandrist society. The more sleep I lose, the more irritable and depressed I become. The more irritable and depressed I become, the more I just want to give up.
Then I see things like "Real Men Cook," and the articles I've posted regarding progress in prostate cancer research, and the fact that men are starting to catch up to women in lifespan, and the fact that the overall population of men in this country is on the increase again (only a year ago our local newspaper was blaring that men are becoming obsolete because we are a population minority compared to women--stupid, stupid, stupid). The good news gives me hope and strength to go on.
Maybe we can turn things around, I don't know. What I do know is that I'm stuck in it, whether I like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, I would have sent this privately, but I don't have your address. I think all of us can empathize with you to some degree. There are a few of us who are yet to be real victims of the injustices put upon men, but who recognize the threat to our sons and our grandsons. I once encountered an school district administrator who resisted my efforts to gain access to local standardized testing performance data. I was patient with him, but as we parted company one day, I asked him to think of his sons and his grandsons. A few days later, I got a phone call from him. No, he couldn't give me exactly what I wanted, but he did point me in the direction of information that I'm now using to press my local school board to improve reading education for boys. He's not likely to become an ardent crusader, but I now have some level of cooperation.
Change like the change we desire isn't going to take place overnight, and it may not take place in time to help any one of us, individually. We have to do four things: 1) we have to have hope that things can be changed and we have to promise ourselves that we will live long enough to affect the change (dying, for whatever reason, doesn't help); 2) we have to vote; 3) we have to be rational about educating anyone who is receptive about what's really going on, about how bad things really are, because there are those who simply don't realize this and hysterics will simply drive them away (our message will get lost); 4) each of us has to pick ONE THING and focus on changing it. There are many people (but ultimately not enough) working in father's rights and domestic violence, so I choose to work in education. I support the others vocally, but I spend most of my time trying to fix education. Finally, I think it's most useful to work on something that has local enough scope for an individual to have an impact. Whatever you do, don't give up. Even the quietest voice standing resolutely for change is better than resignation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What an excellent post, frank h. I think you are absolutely right, and that I frequently find myself distressed at the state we're in, until I realize that it makes it all the more important that I continue to act. In a kind of variation of Nietzche's "that which does not kill me makes me stronger," I increasingly find that that which attempts to stop me is the source of my will and strength.
This is different than being a men's activist to only oppose or react to feminism. I think the reason that anyone gets involved in a social movement is to oppose an oppressive force or injustice, but when the cause is in such dire straits such as the men's movement, it is too easy to get discouraged when confronting the injustice on a day-to-day basis. You need to be able to mentally take the negativity and assimilate it into your own motivation, and find hope within that.
Did that make any sense? I only know that last night after listening to a radio program where a man was disputing the significance of domestic violence against men, I realized that the more he went on about it, the more I was determined to dedicate myself to the cause of male survivors. His attack on my cause was only serving to solidify my resolve to work harder.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great post frank h. We need to focus on all four of your numbered points. #3 is so true. We need to educate. My #4 is to help educate psychotherapists about how men have unique paths to heal from loss. What I have found repeatedly is a sincere interest from women therapists about this topic with love and concern for men once they get the information. Our real enemy is ignorance. Once the data gets out there most people respond in a positive and male-friendly manner. We need to take the responsibility to get the data to the people who care. Whether it's related to the courts, circumcision, divorce or whatever topic, we need to get that data flowing. It also doesn't hurt to badger your congressperson on a regular basis.
Congratulations to Scott for the birthday of his #4!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, guys, it's a little sad to see you get so dejected over this article. Quite frankly I have a hard time getting all fired up by it, and I'd like to think I'm keeping in touch with what's going on with these issues.
Don't you think the author is getting a little hysterical? I think there's reason to be concerned about every point he makes, but if you buy into what he's writing then it's all over. Come on! We do not live in the Amazon nation. A little perspective is in order here.
Yes, there are serious issues that need to be addressed, but for every injustice there's some kind of privilege we bear as well. And I can't help but think that some of the crap we're enduring is a form of pennance for generations of patriarchal privilege.
In the end (and who knows when that will be), my intuition says that people will recognize that we all need a healthy balance of relationships with men and women in our lives and they'll discard alot of this political rhetoric. Until then we'll stumble along. But that's the way life has always been. No progress without struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 26, @07:22AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but think that some of the crap we're enduring is a form of pennance for generations of patriarchal privilege.
Are you nuts? even if that were true two wrongs don't make a right. why should any of us take you seriously with such a subjective justification? so sort it out.
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And even if it were remotely possible that we are experiencing some kind of karmic punishment, I am not responsible for the sins of my forefathers. That's what being an individual is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I'm saying is that there seems to be a balancing act at work a lot of the time. It's bigger than we are and sometimes folks don't recognize that the ongoing process of change takes lifetimes. So while we aren't responsible for the sins of our forefathers, we can't simply pretend we don't reap what they sowed, either. And then, in turn, we shouldn't lose sight of this same bigger vision when it comes to our present issues and get overwhelmed like the tone of the article seems to suggest.
I fully support a sense of outrage about some of these issues, but I was just trying to suggest that lending to an atmosphere of hysteria may not be helpful. If I myself didn't get outraged by some of this stuff, I wouldn't be here checking out this site every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Rams, sorry to get on your case, but your remarks are a perfect example of the overwhelming success of feminism. I find that even most men who've begun to figure it out are still thinking along the lines programmed into us by the currently insane matriarchy.
A good example is Warren Farrell, who has begun to wake up, and has done invaluable work documenting the insanity, but still believes (according to the final chapter of The Myth of Male Power, anyway) that the solution to inter-gender problems is more "equality." Not so; this "ideal" of "gender equality" is nothing less than the denial of anything and everything--outside of an "accident" of plumbing design--that distinguishes the sexes.
If there is truly no significant difference, then men can be nothing but second-class women, since women create men, but not vice-versa. If you buy into this idea, you'd better be happy living as some Matriarch's kept boy-toy (until She tires of you), because that's the most a "man" can be in the coming Brave New World of "equality."
(I don't wish to lean on Mr. Farrell, but he's a public figure and a perfect example. I've read his book, learned from it and value it highly, but regretfully find I cannot recommend it, because his conclusions torpedo all his previous effort. He has not yet climbed out of Mother's shadow; if he had, I suspect he would not be so popular with women. I know how hard it ultimately is to wean oneself completely, but nevertheless it must be done if we are really to understand what is happening.)
As for the karmic pay-back idea: it is generally agreed among all proponents of the notion of reincarnation (or rebirth, in the Buddhist sense) that the process is not gender-limited. That is, if we are reborn from life to life, we take birth equally as male or female at various times. (See Meher Baba's Discourses.) If I was a woman in my "previous life," how does it make sense that now as a man I'm paying a "karmic debt" for previous "oppressions" which I have already suffered?
And finally, this argument cuts both ways: If it is true that men "deserve" what is presently being done to us because of "past karma," reason dictates that women must equally (that word again) "deserve" whatever is done to them for the same reason(s). How about them apples?
If men have had "privileges," then so have women, and in equal measure; in a state of nature, things balance out, or they don't work. Traditional human societies have survived for tens of thousands of years, having worked out, more or less unconsciously, functional structures of gender roles and relations. The only difference between male and female "privileges" is that the former are usually more visible than the latter; if you don't look beyond surface appearances (and few people do) then it may appear that men are more "privileged." By that level of vision, it is also obvious that the sun revolves around the earth (and so it was thought, until a man looked deeper and proved otherwise).
Of course, as human beings we can consciously change the arrangement if we wish. However, we must first be truly conscious of all the levels, elements and aspects of what we propose to change. Otherwise the results will be disastrous, as can be seen in many areas of human life where heavy-handed changes have been made to the surface of things without considering the 90% under the surface.
In any case, this "penance for patriarchal privilege" idea presumes the (typically superficial) feminist view that the sexes are different species ("Men are from Mars..." and similar cowshit), necessarily and perpetually at odds. This is the foundation of feminism, an edifice constructed of fallacies. Actually, we are one species, two halves (more or less) of one being, and the present war makes as much sense as a battle-to-the-death between the right and left hands. It is a great and telling irony that, despite all their complaining about being helpless victims of male power, feminists have somehow, without apparent effort, succeeded in inducing the vast majority of men to buy into such nonsense.
The truth is, whatever "patriarchy" there may be in our or any human culture, it is only a front man for the matriarchy that really runs the world. "Everything has a front and a back; the bigger the front, the bigger the back." And I don't argue with that; it's the natural order. It's not a question of who runs the world--clearly women do--but how. And whether the irrationality pushed by feminists will really produce the "best of all possible worlds" for anyone, women or men.
When women crush men--their own sons, and fathers, after all--they also crush their own ability to see the world with a large enough vision to understand our essential unity. All the great spiritual pioneers have been men, not because men are "better" than women, but because men--manufactured by women--most embody those parts of the human being that are capable of, and yearn toward, such insights.
There is, in fact, a significant number of species that have dispensed with males, and now consist entirely of females. It is worth noting that no such species is known among the warm-blooded, fast-moving birds and mammals. Perhaps homo sap will be the first. It is also worth noting, however, that such species have ceased to evolve. The male of the species embodies the impulse to growth. Growth requires effort; it is not "peaceful." A culture without strong, developed men will be unable to understand this truth.
PS: All my life I was taught that my suffering resulted from my father's treatment of me in childhood, which was horrible, and which I have spent decades struggling with. Then at age 50 I finally realized it had all begun (more or less) on the day I was born, with the tender little ritual of circumcision--which was entirely my mother's affair, and which, unlike the psycho/emotional damage I suffered from my father, can never be repaired. Truly we suffer from our ancestors' errors, but they are not solely, or even primarily, those of our fathers--who are, after all, their own mothers' sons. (My father's mother, typical of the Victorian Tribal Grandmothers who thought up the circumcision program, really hated men, and made sure my father knew it. Real female power trumps apparent male "power," every time.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not entirely agree with Andrew, but I can certainly understand some of his point of view. One correction I'd like to make, though, is that women do not "create" men. A man and a woman create a child. That child's DNA is half made up from the father and half from the mother. The woman provides a place of gestation, nourishes, and gives birth to that child.
Also, if you want to give credit to either sex for "creating" maleness or femaleness, that credit should go to the male. Only men carry the "XY" chromosome pairing. Females are "XX." If a Y sperm fertilizes an egg (which is always X), the child is male. If an X sperm fertilizes an egg, the child is female. An oversimplification, perhaps, but biological truth nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, it is true that fertilization with a Y-chromosome is necessary to produce a male human. My point is that it is females, not males, who have the power to decide if this shall happen at all. She who has the power to decide whether or not a thing shall be created, regardless of any other consideration (not even to mention the famous "right to choose"), must be acknowledged as the responsible creator of that thing.
I've been thinking about all these subjects for a long time, but until ca 1986 I was flummoxed by the apparently insoluble "he-said/she-said" conundrum: it seemed the "battle of the sexes" had no beginning, just went round and round forever. ("Never argue with a woman.") Then I discovered the book Why Males Exist, and learned that there are some species which consist entirely of females, no males - and that these species once had males. Thus was the Gordian Knot untied, by two facts: (1) Females can exist without males, but not vice-versa. (2) Females can decide, on whatever level such evolutionary decisions are made, whether or not to have males. Thus it is clear that there is fundamentally no such thing as "equality of the sexes"; and furthermore that ur-feminist Simone de Beauvoir had it exactly wrong in her famous book, wherein she characterized women as The Second Sex (a classic example of seeing only the surface).
Some years ago I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with a Native American shamaness/teacher (one of the few real "women" I've met; awesome), who told me that her (female) teachers had told her it is possible for a woman to give birth without fertilization, but the resulting child would always be female - as is the case with other parthenogenetic species. Curiously, I've read that among the social insects it is just the opposite: the unfertilized eggs hatch as males (the few "drones" of a bee colony), the fertilized as female workers. An interesting subject I haven't yet had time to explore.
There are many further implications and ramifications from these facts, far too many to go into here; but I just want to emphasize that it is women (like all females) who do hold the ultimate, absolute reproductive power, and that as a matter of principle, with power goes responsibility. Until these facts are acknowledged, rational discussion of "gender relations" difficulties will be impossible.
Nightmist and Rams, thanks for your thoughtful reponses; it's nice to be heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew -- The Why Males Exist info is fascinating and obviously important. Many thanks. I will pick up that book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this thoughtful posting, Andrew. I agree strongly with your comment that "The only difference between male and female 'privileges' is that the former are usually more visible than the latter; if you don't look beyond surface appearances (and few people do) then it may appear that men are more 'privileged'." I've always felt strongly that this is the case. I think maybe your iceberg is just shaped a little differently than mine, but that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
