|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 31, @09:28AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I find daunting is how to get other men off their butts and unafraid of feminist retribution to actually **do** something.
We at the DFW NCFM work hard to form projects and create forums for men to fight against modern feminism. Yet, it remains that our local membershep is half, and our active membership is mostly female. You talk to men about the issues and half laugh at you -- the other half agree, but do nothing.
How do we motivate men to help men?
David Schmidt
Treasurer
DFW NCFM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with David Schmidt. Getting men to wake up and take action is incredibly difficult. Men tend to think that all the terrible things that are done to males--false accusations, loss of parental rights, domestic violence, discrimination in schools, etc.--happen to "other" men and not to men in general.
Most men are blind to the vicimization of men as a group and most of those who are aware of the victimization seem to think that they will personally be better off if they do nothing to fight it or if they even promote it.
How do we get men to realize that modern feminism is a package of lies that has already taken a terrible toll and will continue to do so until we unite to fight it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many men are also ashamed to admit that they DO see and feel the discrimination against them, and so they 1) pretend it doesn't exist, and 2) attempt to shame other men who speak out about it.
I used to do both those things, until I discovered that I wasn't an aberration, that I was not alone in how I felt regarding the issues men face.
It is unfortunate that it took scouring the Internet to find other men who felt as I do before I awoke to speaking my own mind, regardless of what others think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Mua ha ha ha ha ha ha!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 31, @03:01PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of articles on this site about fatherhood, but what about men who are childfree by choice, or considering the CF lifestyle? I think a chat discussing the choice to be childfree would be an interesting one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Schmidt, of NCFM, asks “How do we motivate men to help men?” And as we all know, that question has been at the core of the slow growth of the men’s movement. In trying to recruit men into activism we need to consider many things such as the priorities they’ve been given by their fathers and mothers, the differences between men and women in that very up-bringing, and the basic resistance to activism exhibited by many, not just by men.
In my experience with Boys Scouts, Science Fairs, Indian Guides, and various and sundry social activities I’ve organized over the years, I’ve found that only about one in ten to one in twenty is willing to help. Only one in fifty is willing to lead. Further, people are even less willing to get into anything that requires them to take a position on anything. So that means anything political is kept at arms length. Political parties seem to be reasonably popular because at least there is a community within which to blend. Political activism on specific issues requires risk-taking because there is always someone who is willing to question you and force you to justify your position. Few people are willing to do that. The same thing is true of women, though they find it easier to adopt the posture of victim, which brings me to my next point.
Men are imbued with the belief that it’s incumbent upon them to carry on in the face of adversity. For this reason, I believe that it’s hard for men, individually, to take an activist role, especially if they are convinced that their position would be weak or poorly justified. How many men stay in an abusive or dangerous job? They may well be stating because they are charged, from birth, with minimizing their own needs in comparison to the needs of their family. Of course, this has value. Without this, how many hunters would have stayed on the hunt when it got cold or after it started to rain? How many miners would go back into the mine after losing a brother or a neighbor to a cave-in? Indeed, it’s legitimate to ask if our entire species might not have disappeared without this “press-on” ethic. Warren Farrell can ask if this is useful or correct in today’s industrial society, but the fact remains, this is the way most men see themselves, and to a degree this contributes to the propensity of men not to become activist. People, perhaps especially men, measure the need for political activism against their economic conditions. It’s easy to observe this pattern in U.S. Presidential elections. There is a marked propensity of the White House to change parties when economic conditions are poor, and for the party in power to retain power when economic conditions are good. So men reject the notion of being a victim and retain the notion that they must press on in the face of adversity. This, coupled with the fact that women are much better collaborators contrasts with the ability of men to act independently. Both characteristics are valuable in a society, but the collaborators are much more likely to be successful in political endeavors.
Well, of course, all of us probably know all this, but the question is, how do we respond in a manner that makes the men’s movement move?
Well, I think we should lower our expectations first. When you approach an acquaintance and ask him to help, don’t expect much. I think there’s a lot of value in just getting people to identify themselves with a group. They don’t have to do anything, not even go to meetings, if all they’re willing to do is give you some nominal membership fee, agree to be counted among supporters, and read the occasional newsletter. This effort really does have enough leaders. What it really needs are followers, large numbers of them who are likely to agree with the leaders on the issues of interest. Are we foolish enough to believe that every card-carrying member of NOW is a flaming activist? They’re not. I will say that, because they are part of a community they probably feel much more comfortable with demonstrating than they would otherwise. There’s comfort in numbers. But most of them have jobs and other interests and so they contribute money to an effort that brings them what they believe they want. I suspect the same thing is true of NRA members; mostly quiet, work-a-day folks who happen to believe in the Second Amendment. Many men agree that we are, as a group, being victimized. We need to learn to ask them for very small favors. Next time you meet a man who feels this way, ask him if thee was anything he would do to further the cause. Then ask him if he might join your organization for a nominal fee, and tell him that there’s not much expected of him except to read the newsletter every quarter, and maybe vote every November. Eventually, you’ll come across one or two that might be willing to do more. Grab them and never let go.
There is a time in the lives of men (and women) that they still regard themselves as children, yet they are exploring idealism. This time usually occurs during the college years. Many political activities find college recruiting to be fruitful, and why not? College students have lots of time available, and they are in a place that encourages them to explore political and moral beliefs. The women’s movement gained a lot of power in the colleges and universities in the sixties and seventies, and it retains that power today. Women’s organizations continue to be active on campus, and not all of them are feminist. Another bonus of recruiting early is the elasticity of membership. Members recruited early stick around, and they are much more amenable to supporting the organization later in life if the leadership and the goals are familiar and agreeable.
I think we need to do two things: 1) recruit adult men with managed expectations; 2) actively recruit in colleges and universities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the wall-to-wall influence of women is an important deterrent to a lot of potential men's activists as well. A fundamental dilemma which I think confronts many would-be activists is: How exactly does one express masculinist sentiments without coming across as anti-woman? Especially when 'woman' is now largely defined as 'underdog'?
Nowadays, it seems a large majority of women define their gender as underdogs - even if they don't identify as feminists. And even so much as arguing that men and women have an equal number of problems is a direct attack on that definition. When you talk to a feminist-indoctrinated woman about men's issues, you aren't simply asking her to appreciate that men have problems - you're asking her to question and reassess how she defines herself as a woman. You're asking her to let go of the victim sentiments which may define how she looks at life.
And, ultimately, you're challenging her to understand that you are not a male chauvanist or a misogynist simply because you don't buy into the feminist dogma. And I do think that, for several decades now, the "goodness" of a man has been defined by whether or not he is a feminist - or at least admits that women are an oppressed class who need to be liberated. So, it's almost like you run the risk of the women in your life not thinking you're a good man anymore (even if they don't come right out and tell you they think that) - and when women are a global presence in your life, that's a big risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, well put -- the “wall-to-wall influence of women is a deterrent [to men’s activists] … when women are a global presence in your life, that’s a big risk”
attempting to free males does not entail risk, however, but certitude – the certitude of an ongoing stomping, in ways both subtle and brute
american men are not yet strong enough to face that certitude
american men are not activists because serving womens’ power agendas greatly enhances financial security, community approval, ego-validation and “love” … not to mention keeping one offa the streets and outta prison … this is not new
it ain’t a mystery – if you have been pursuing the liberation of the american male during the past decade, i guarantee that your life has become very, very challenging materially, socially, and psychologically
the letter-writing and websites are fine, but the real war is in the trenches -- in the lunchrooms and bars and bedrooms – try speaking truth about gender in your workplace, school or home
the consequences will be swiftly forthcoming and viscerally in-your-face … self-righteous rage and indignation will descend upon you like locusts -- the money will dry up, your job will become impossible, your friends will flee, and persons of infantile experience and temperament will seek to silence and coerce you
wanna be a men’s activist? wanna be consigliare to the devil?? yo, step right on up, there’s plenty of room … you will be beloved in heaven and despised on earth
if your life hasn’t been eviscerated as a result of your activism, then you’re not as active as you need to be
we are the shock troops of a revolt thirty thousand years in the making
sacrifice is the code of the road
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So, it's almost like you run the risk of the women in your life not thinking you're a good man anymore"
This is very true, Hawth, and I can tell you from personal experience that my wife, for one, does not take kindly to my involvement in this movement. She told me one time that she thought that I hated women. I explained to her that, no, I do not hate women, I hate feminists. When we get to specifics, she is forced by her own logic to agree with me that, for example, women can be (are) as brutal as men. And I believe that it's critical for my sons future to assert my masculinity and my belief system, both for him to learn and to protect him from whatever I can. It may well be more critical than staying married.
We need as individuals to take this risk though. We need to assert maleness and masculinity and clearly demonstrate that it's not as threatening as they've been told that it is. We need to make it clear that all we want to be is equal, not superior, to be respected for the good things we do instead of being demonized for the evil few, and to not be discriminated against in public services like education, counseling, and law enforcement. If the average man does this and nothing else, then the movement will ultimately be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is also a reason why (and I guess here's another chat topic suggestion) one of the most important accomplishments for the men's movement to make is improving relationships between men as friends. Fear of female disapproval would not be such an issue if men didn't rely so heavily on women's affirmation. I know that not all men have this problem, but a significant number of us do. And feminists have always said that women are burdened by men's emotional dependance on them. Yet, what have feminists really done to push men in the opposite direction for emotional support?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all male secret societies, brotherhoods, orders and organizations – right down to the oddfellows, the n.f.l., and the scientific method – were formed as governors on female hegemony, a distancing technique from mother right
the concept of masculinity, and of what we call “patriarchy,” originated in the desire of men to protect their sons from female domination, including blood sacrifice – that is the meaning of abraham as first patriarch, when the “angel” forbids continuation of son-blood rites
little has changed over the millenia
we have delivered the sons of our nation into the hands of the furies, and if we wish to save our sons we must not only risk the disapproval of women – we must laugh in the face of their false shaming, like actual grown men, and we must take the whip and cage away from their lackeys
why did jesus run around all the time yapping about “brotherhood,” and how it was the key to establishing heaven on earth? why wasn’t he preaching that we needed more sisterhood, more collective female power?
frank h. offers us a great gift -- at personal cost, note -- by exposing the core of the dilemma -- our wives and girlfriends will not permit our freedom, nor our independence from them
that's why the government funds and force-feeds female "liberation" -- america wants its males completely dependant on females, and its females completely independent of males -- that's how cotton pickers are kept pickin cotton
most american men i know can’t last a month without the constant attention and approval of women -- i see it in my family and friends – like infants, the guys just fall to pieces, especially the "progressive" lefties
it is the feminist male who is most addicted to feminine approval -- the harder he whups his brother, the louder the cheers
when the malicious, self-serving element of the feminine is ascendant, and our sons are subjugated, there cannot be right relationship between male and female, and the male must withdraw or be annihilated ... "the groom's still waiting at the altar," as bobby d. would say
for each of us the day will come when our wives and girlfriends must choose between power and love
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 01, @05:38PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
>our wives and girlfriends will not permit our freedom, nor our independence from them
If this is really how you see your female mate, as evil slavemaster, the next question would be, why do you want to have a female mate in your life?
Why subject yourself to so much inherent evil?
If you hate your spouse or gf, leave them, especially if you're not married. Though, I really don't know why you would marry someone you hate in the first place, unless you're into some heavy S&M.
Anyway, I think you just answered why so many men are turned off by the men's movement. Most men don't hate their wives and girlfriends. They don't see them as evil slavemasters. They take offense when you tell them, "Your wife is an evil slavemaster, you're just too stupid and whipped to see it."
Your right about one thing. Little has changed over the millenia. Humans remain the most evil, hateful species this planet has ever seen. Only humans are capable of actually hating the other gender in the species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only humans are capable of actually hating the other gender in the species.
Heh. I'm betting male praying mantises and black widows would disagree with you there. ;-) They get eaten by their mates.
This is not out of "hate," as far as we know, but an act of "closest source of nutrition" for the fertilized female's pregnancy. The male (and we don't really know if they know they're going to die after copulation) has outlived his usefulness for the female once her eggs are fertilized, so his only other use is as a fuel source for the mother-to-be.
Aren't we human males happy that doesn't happen to us? As much as some man haters might like to see it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My suspicion is that women encourage male emotional dependency not so much as a means of control, but because women tend to take pride in their relationship skills. Much like men are often criticized for inhibiting their wives' economic aspirations out of pride in the breadwinner role (as opposed to simply wanting to control their wives), I think a lot of women see emotional dependance in their husbands and boyfriends as an indicator of their own superior nurturing skills - and take satisfaction in this even as they come to resent the burden.
But, of course - I'm not a woman, so who am I to say how women think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were a number of great ideas mentioned here, I'll have to make use of them in upcoming chats...
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think a lot of women see emotional dependance in their husbands and boyfriends as an indicator of their own superior nurturing skills - and take satisfaction in this even as they come to resent the burden."
okay, i can see this, thanks
all aspects of power are pardoxical, including emotional dependence
still, i think the modern western male is far too dependent on the female -- emotionally, financially, legally and sexually -- to the detriment of both genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For myself, somewhere along the line I decided that I'd rather be wanted than needed, that I'd rather stay with my wife more as a matter of choice than necessity. Well, of course, the children have needs, including my presence as father, but then that helps fuel both of our choices, doesn't it?
It's unfortunate that so many men seem to be addicted to that 'need' such that they end up being subjugated by it. I think when you are able to free yourself from that (there I go sounding 'newagey') then you get to know what it's like to stand on your own than lean on someone else. It's risky, or it seems risky, if you've never done it before. But it's really liberating in a lot of ways, almost like getting laid-off from a job you hated but kept anyway because you needed the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 02, @07:29PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
No woman is, either.
Humans are social animals. That's why solitary isolation is so dreaded by prisoners. The deprivation of all human contact slowly drives them insane.
Certainly a total dependence on another person, no matter who it is, is unhealthy for both parties. However, to be entirely emotionally detached from others is not liberation, but isolation. By walling yourself off completely to keep the bad things out, you do not allow the good things in, especially in a love relationship.
You are also depriving yourself of the necessary *emotional* sustenance every human needs to live.
I'm seeing too many extremes in these posts. Too many of you seemingly think this is all or none, either wall yourself off from your partner or let her have complete control over you.
You shouldn't go into a co-dependent relationship and expect your partner to be the do all, end all.
You shouldn't enter into a relationship where there is no trust, no love and no emotional ties.
You should strive for something in between, where both partners care for each other, and lean on each other, but are not unhealthfully codependent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's one thing I want to say to Pro-Feminist men who are sucking up to the gynarchy....
SELLOUT!!!!
Emmanuel Matteer
Emanslave@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
