|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent explanation by one man about why he made the life choices that he did. What bothers me (although it certainly doesn't surprise me) are all of the reassurances that this isn't an anti-semitic article.
First of all, Glenn and Scott are both right to be concerned that they will be attacked for everything from misogyny to anti-semitism to Naziism. They will be. My point is that it's troublesome that there are some groups that one just cannot talk about without a long list of caveats and reassurances. Why should it matter that Glenn is Jewish? Why couldn't I have written about my own reasons for not marrying a Jewish woman? (Besides the fact that I don't have any, having dated a Jewish woman only once.) Why does my not being Jewish, or Japanese, or female make it unacceptable for me to talk about my personal experiences with Jewish people, with Japanese people, or with women?
Glenn's piece is very personal and very respectful. At no point does it devolve into a generalized rant against Jewish women. Nonetheless, I'm sure it will be denounced as some form of "hate speech".
When did human beings become so delicate and sensitive that one can't even write about one's personal experiences regarding other people without being labeled a bigot? That's as much a question to me as to anyone else, since I experience the same timidity and make the same reassuring noises whenever I cross that line to talking about people that society (feminism?) has decided are "not like me". I only wish it weren't so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anticipating possible objections makes his point harder to assail, in my opinion. Half of my family is Jewish and, like the author, I've experienced the same kind of repugnant, self-righteous male bashing from Jewish women he mentions. I made a decision a long time ago that I could safely afford to avoid women who harbor anti-male sentiments, and in practice that meant I haven't been with Jewish women, or with that many Americans for that matter.
The author zeros in beautifully on the reason why one might prefer to be with someone who does not adhere to popular anti-male stereotypes than to be with someone who does when he observes that, "The difference between them [gentiles] and many of the Jewish women I dated is fairness, not assertiveness." Now whether someone is capable of fairness, or whether someone isn't too obtuse to recognize the distinction between "assertiveness" and "fairness" has nothing a priori to do with being Jewish.
One might conceivably point out that often in Jewish culture, the distinction between "fairness" and "assertiveness" has somehow been lost, and that this may indeed be a statement of fact, as opposed to an anti-semetic or anti-feminist observation. Since the author was addressing the question of assimilation from his personal experience, I think he had an obligation to state the caveats you refer to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that "obligation" is too strong a word. Granted, it was politic, and perhaps even wise. But an "obligation"?
I understand the need to take great care when generalizing about groups of people. So many things can go wrong with such generalizations. I also understand that it is often politic to anticipate objections and CYA accordingly.
However, for all of the political sensitivity, I draw the line at not being able to explain my own, personal experiences in my own words.
This is a subject that fascinates me. (Quick! Stop me before I write volumes! :-) Where is the best place to draw the line between personal experience and prejudice? At the one extreme is political correctness, which says that personal experience has no value; one should be able to speak only the "truth" of the collective. At the other extreme is untrammeled freedom of speech, in which one can spread misinformation, bigotry, and hatred disguised as "personal experience".
Regardless of where each of us finds the balance, I think that these days the society in which we live is much to far into the "political correctness" territory, a place where our personal experiences are considered trivial next to the ideology of those with political power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been my experience that Jewish females,in general, are more arrogrant,discriminatory, and demeaning towards Jewish males than Gentile males. Part of this comes from the fact, in my opinion, that the Jewish culture has traditionally been a matriarchical culture.
Gentile males who face this anti-male sentiment and behavior by Jewish females should not confuse the same with ethnic discrimination which it isn't as per the aforementioned discussion.
I am not Jewish.American females are increasingly arrogant,demeaning,oppressive, and openly discriminatory against males and seem only to tolerate men of weak and base character politically, socially, and in work relationships. The result has been the break down not only of American society but that of other societies also.
The same break down in society can be seen to have evolved from one event, the political enfranchisement of women. If the same was abrogated,society would return to the state of true justice and respect for the rights and freedoms of everyone with the resultant political and social tranquility which has been displaced as a result of such political enfranchisement of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .and should that happen, Cshaw, I do NOT want you or anyone else telling her she can't vote just because she's a woman. HANDS OFF MY CHILD'S FRANCHISE!
Yes, what you describe can be 'seen' to have evolved from that one event, but that's a false, exaggeratedly reductionist perception. It's not that simple.
What IS simple is the fact that a 'right' which is not equally shared by all members of a society is NOT a 'right' -- it's a privilege. And while you may want to return to a world where my intended children are denied your PRIVILEGE to vote, I DON'T. HANDS OFF MY CHILD'S FRANCHISE!
Society has not 'broken down'; society is CHANGING. There is a distinct difference between the two. Only if you assume that 'the way things were' is the ONLY 'right way' for them to be can you describe these changes as a 'break down'.
I don't want to live in a society that denies half its adult Citizenry, effectively on the basis of whimsy, the right to directly affect legislation which affects them in turn. That's a significant offense against my principles, and an immoral and unethical suggestion -- the way I 'see' things.
Sorry, Cshaw, but I have no more patience left for the anti-19th Amendment opinionm, for one simple and inarguable reason: I hope to have a daughter someday, so I tell you three times -- HANDS OFF MY CHILD'S FRANCHISE!
I want to make something absolutely clear here: I consider the anti-19th Amendment attitude to be an irrational, neophobic, fringe extremist position, I oppose it completely, and I don't want to be associated with it in any way whatsoever.
You're welcome to your opinion, Cshaw. But when your opinion calls for the denial of a fundamental right to people I care about, your opinion becomes something I need to oppose.
The reason you're wrong is because we are NOT in this mess due to changing a specific male privilege into an equal right.
We're in this mess because we haven't yet changed FEMALE privileges into equal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whew; will someone please hand "Acksiom" a glass of water? He (?) appears to be foaming at the mouth.
You raise some interesting points, though unfortunately you offer only emotional rant, no real reason. I'm afraid your understanding of the meanings of "vote," "right," "privilege," and other terms pivotal in such a discussion is not very well informed. For one thing, the Founders of the American Republic (not a democracy) never intended "voting" to be a "right"; in fact, you'll note that the Federal Constitution says nothing about any such "right." Now, as a modern American, carefully educated in government schools, you may have a knee-jerk, negative emotional reaction to this fact, but that doesn't change the truth of it.
In my understanding, the term "right" was meant by those who created it to refer to attributes of our being that inher solely by reason of our human birth, which cannot be taken from us by anyone for any reason. This, I believe, is what Jefferson meant by the "inalienable rights" which he defined as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and which others (somewhat more exactly, I would say) have enumerated as "life, liberty and property." By this definition, "voting" is certainly a "privilege," for it is granted by the polity in which one performs it, and can be taken away for any reason deemed sufficient by that polity. The pervasive modern confusion over the concept of "rights" has been most productive for those who would rule us, and they have done their best to obfuscate the subject for that reason. Thus, most of the "rights" people talk about these days are actually privileges, while our real rights - life, liberty and property - are being steadily compromised and restricted.
If you are concerned that such a "right" should be "equally shared by all members of a society," would you then propose that, say, idiots, morons, the mentally ill and incapacitated, children, and so on should have the "right" to "directly affect legislation which affects them in turn"? No? My goodness, you must be discriminating! May I suggest, if you feel there is reason to draw a line somewhere, then perhaps others may also so feel, even if the line they suggest is not exactly the same as your line.
Over the course of recent years, I too have come to the conclusion that the 19th Amendment was a mistake. I am not part of any "movement" on the subject, and in fact until recently thought I was the only person who'd actually thought about it. I do not believe it is an accident that the increasing involvement of women in public, political life during the last century has exactly paralleled a worldwide slide into totalitarian socialism. As I do not find this development particularly appealing, I do not applaud anything that leads to it. Of course, if you like living in the present social order, and look forward to the combination of 1984 and Brave New World that will be our future, your view will differ from mine.
Women naturally, instinctively expect to be taken care of. There is nothing "wrong" with this, it is part of the natural order, in fact the foundation of relations between the human sexes. There can be no relationship where there is nothing to exchange. Among bears, for example, females take care of themselves and their young with no assistance from males; the sexes are "equal" and live entirely apart, each in her or his own jealously-guarded territory, except for very carefully managed meetings during mating season. In the past, most human societies have been organized by a carefully-defined division of labor, so that each sex may have its own territory, and thus each has something to offer the other.
When women "vote," they transfer their expectation of protection and care from the men in their personal lives - fathers, brothers, beaus, husbands, sons - to the State; the inevitable result is a massive growth in State power, the destruction of the family, and the redundancy of males. The only human institution capable of resisting the power of the State is the family; when it is destroyed, the State becomes all-powerful, and men are reduced to slaves, providing the same goods and services as before, but for the State, which redistributes them to its favored friends, the women who vote for ever more and more State programs, services, control of every element of everyone's lives.
I'll say it once, but clearly: We can have a society in which families are strong, men matter and are respected, and a woman can walk safely down a city street at night, or we can have a society in which women "vote." But not both.
I'm curious, though, what "FEMALE privileges" would you like to see changed into "equal rights"? Personally, I can't think of any.
Actually, I have no hope whatsoever that the present trend can be reversed. You may be comforted, Acksiom, your daughter will be a voter, and your son(s), if you have any, will be her feminized pets. Rejoice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Acksiom. I was making the not terribly profound observation that it is self-destructive to get involved up with someone who harbors anti-male sentiments, and that like the author of the article, in my limited personal experience I've encountered prejudice against men among some Jewish women. Perhaps this prejudice transcends culture; nevertheless, how this is supposed to lead to the disenfranchisement of women utterly escapes me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone could connect one of my articles and denying women the right to vote, but if your desire is to disenfranchise women then COUNT ME OUT!!!!--Glenn Sacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, Glenn. The disenfranchising of various peoples has caused nothing but problems throughout history. As men, we know this because we are currently experiencing our own disenfranchising from society.
I am not Jewish, but I can tell you that I believe the Holocaust to be the most horrendous example of disenfranchisement of a people of the 20th century. Every individual is entitled to certain basic rights, and among those is a say in how he OR she is governed, and that means (in the U.S., at least) the right to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I did, in 1964; marriage lasted three years, more-or-less amicable separation, but I wouldn't do it again. Having spend time among a Jewish family, I have to laugh when I hear Jewish culture described as "patriarchal."
In those days I was looking for an identity - before I went to Canada for a while and discovered what being an American means - and even briefly considered converting to Judaism, noting in passing that it would be easy, since I was already circumcised. That was some 35 years ago; my feelings have changed considerably.
I think it is worth noting that there are two cultures on the planet that practice infant male circumcision: the Jews and the White Anglo Saxon Protestants. The latter, of course, got the idea from the former. I don't think it's an accident that the feminist movement began in WASP country, and is now mostly run by Jewish women.
Frankly, after what I've come to understand in recent years, I wouldn't touch either of them with an eleven-foot pole (the one I keep in the shed for things I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole). I had more than enough of their attitude toward men (and boys) the day I was born, and it's only gotten worse since.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
