|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few other points in the article that are worth emphasizing:
"One typical (off-camera) comment from a young female TV interviewer was that her newsroom was full of ambitious, tertiary-educated women who could not find men interested in serious relationships. Young men were said to prefer their increased sexual opportunities over long-term commitment"
The problem is that men can't count on committment from women. If the woman chooses, she just waltzes off with the children, the house, child support, and direct or indirect alimony. This point is even brought up by the article's author, when he states, "Young men considering marriage could hardly be unaware of the risks of marital breakdown or the long-term costs, especially when children are involved." Gee. Ya think?
"By mid-2001, 612,332 payers were on the agency's book, almost all of whom were men." Women are, of course, rarely if ever faced with the threat of having their children kidnapped, with the collusion of the government, and then being forced to support the person who kidnapped their children.
"In these circumstances, single males might be casualties, not beneficiaries, of the marriage marketplace."
Again. Gee, ya think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just picture what'll happen when the men's pill comes out, that'll probably cause some serious "fun" of its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just picture what'll happen when the men's pill comes out, that'll probably cause some serious "fun" of its own.
Yes, it will. We have only begun to witness the damage that will be wrought upon society by the evils of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @03:55PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Men are falling behind in the education war. They are being driven out of universities and colleges. If this trend is not replaced, the final subordination of men to women will be complete. If you have a son, you must do whatever possible to ensure that he is educated. This is within your control as a father so please do it. Although it is important that we express our concern, it is also important that we take action. The feminist have acted now we must act. Do everything possible to protect your son and ensure his education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @03:55PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Getting your son in to college is only part of the game. Arming your son with the understanding of the hostility and disinformation he will hear is also of critical importance. Let us wake up take action and fight back!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 19, @12:33AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"Arming your son with the understanding of the hostility and disinformation he will hear is also of critical importance."
My Reply:
Based on the 22 years that I have worked at colleges in California I would say that "hostility and disinformation" are in reality, euphamisms for the deep seated male hatred that is woven into the politically correct curriculum of the educators who teach our young minds.
Calling campuses in this state "hostile environments" toward males is like calling the death camps of Nazi Germany work camps. They are words that are, in effect, a facade covering over the deeper horror and ugliness that hateful, bigotted humans are doing to those innocents (males) they have chosen to demonize.
Political correctness is not the solution to prejudice and bigotry, it is just the modern version of it in more subtle disguise, and with new target groups. Beware the fascism of liberal academia. It is more virulent than the more overt forms of bigotry and prejudice.
Political correctness, the new prejudice and bigotry, just like the old, only improved and better.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are falling behind in the education war.
I think it might be more accurate to say that men are falling behind in the formal education war. There are still many skills taught at university that can help you find a good job, but there are also many skills the university no longer teaches, or possibly never did teach, that can help you gain a good life. Boys can survive and prosper if they have both skill-sets. The formal skill-set alone does not confer superiority - look at gender feminists.
Consider this, also - why should boys have only the choice of going to public schools and presently existing institutes of higher education? Are there alternatives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 21, @07:07PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, there is home schooling and private schools. I have been very tempted to pull out one or both of my boys to homeschool them. Both are having problems in school, and both are extremely bright children (my youngest gets in trouble for reading in class, and my oldest aced all his tests yet failed the class ??))
I found even the Catholic school was very effeminate and non-competitive. And I do not agree with the real strong military stuff, so that is saying something. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your concerns, Jen. I also don't think that the real strong military stuff is necessarily a good idea. (Maybe it is sometimes with kids, but not always.)
my oldest aced all his tests yet failed the class
Have you considered a lawsuit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @09:29PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This story just goes to prove that old, proverbial male saying, "Women, you can't live wit-less and you can't live wit-out 'em.
Oh no! I've been dummied down by the feminist/femboy educational system!
What this story really shows is that, when women get what they've been working so hard for their still dissatisfied.
When it comes to gender equity for men, in womens' eyes, "even when men do something right they're still wrong."
Women want men to be total slaves, totally subjected to them, and in the same breath they want them to be real men and impress them with their powerful masculinity and infinite wealth.
You've come a long way baby, and now that you're close to having it all, you're dissatisfied, and once again it's the male's fault. Look in the mirror "femi" and see the real problem.
The feminist movement is in critical need of male leadership!
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The feminist movement is in critical need of male leadership!"
We have a WINNER! Perhaps this would make a good poster slogan. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the problem in my eyes is that it has entirely TOO MUCH male participation. Perhaps not much male leadership (politicians are ALL followers), but far too many men supporting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>> "The feminist movement is in critical need of male leadership!"
>
> We have a WINNER! Perhaps this would make a good poster slogan.
This is not an entirely new idea, I'm sorry to report:
"Quick anecdotal note for the files of anyone sorting out definitions and categories of men identifying as feminists:
In Nov. 1992 I was in Russia at the Second Independent Women's Forum, attended by 500 women and half a dozen men. There I met one Takhim Khairullin from St. Petersburg, who said he was leader of the Radical Women's Initiative group (together with his wife, who was at home translating Dale Spender into Russian). He explained to me at length that he was a feminist, that feminism was a movement for the whole of humanity, NOT just for women; became increasingly critical of the Forum's female organizers, and ended up saying (direct quote): `Women just don't understand feminism!' i.e. to him it seemed there were a lot of diverse women's groups running around not getting anything done, what the movement really needs is strong leadership and organization... At this point I got a tension headache and excused myself."
- Elena Leonoff
To be absolutely fair and precise, the "strong leadership and organization" called for is not identified as being male.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What this story really shows is that, when women get what they've been working so hard for their still dissatisfied."
Evolution has had the explanation for this for a very long time:
...the concept of runaway sexual selection attracted more interest because it sounded much stranger. In fact, it was so strange that Thomas Hunt Morgan had first aired the idea in 1903 as a counter argument against sexual selection. Morgan asked what would happen if female birds had a tendency to prefer plumage slightly brighter than the males of their species currently possess. He realized that the males would evolve brighter plumage under the pressure of female choice, but that the females would still not be satisfied. They would just move the goal posts, demanding still more extreme ornamentation. [emphasis mine]
That was from the book "The Mating Mind".
And all we ever here about is how it's us guys who haven't evolved!
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Single, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" are suddenly findding that there are few men willing to (ahem) be in a relationship.
Men their age or younger are getting all the noogie they want from younger, willing, "Baby? Me first." women.
Older men have either had their kids or have been scared off and would rather jerk off than have a woman in their lives.
The ones that do want kids are "blue collar" and "beneath" them.
So what this means is a bunch of strident, doctrinaire, products of the pheminut education system aren't going to have a generation of girls to poison, or a generation of boys to emasculate, correct?
So .... This is a problem how?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @10:16PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonz, You Wrote:
"So what this means is a bunch of strident, doctrinaire, products of the pheminut education system aren't going to have a generation of girls to poison..."
My Reply:
Oh my goodness... Don't tell me... Are you really saying... that... that... all this time they've been lied to by the Women's Studies Programs in our public schools, colleges and universities?
I can't believe it. Next thing you're going to be making some outrageous statement like there's no Santa Claus.
I have to go now, there's a hole waiting for me to bury my head in.
Sorry for the levity. "If I laugh at any human thing, tis that I may not cry," was never more appropriate than in the case of Feminism and government gone bezerk.
Gonz, your statement is right on the money.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @10:21PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"
I am suspicious that the seats of bicycles, riden by people who make statements like this, may indeed smell like fish. Hummmmmmmmmmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 18, @10:03PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The article stated:
"single males might be casualties, not beneficiaries, of the marriage marketplace"
My Reply:
Duh, I think you "might" be in de Nile. Even when you're staring the truth in the eyes the best you can come up with is "might be." Wow! Men are horrible casualties of the abuse of "marriage" by women and the legal systems of the Western world. This problem "might be" a long way from over if you can't see that "might be" must be restated as "are in fact" followed by the adjective "enormous."
Now here it is with all those words feminists can't say, strung together, "single males are in fact enormous casualties, not beneficiaries, of the marriage marketplace."
When you feminists and governments start teaching that truth in Women's Studies you will begin to address the real cause of this problem. Until then you will continue to be, as Christina Stolba stated in her study, "Lying in a room of your own." A taxpayer subsidized room, I "might" add.
Until then you dissatisfied women should rightfully go to the feminist, "bastard" government as daddy to care for the needs of women, children and poplulation growth, because it is that system that has worked so hard to destroy fatherhood.
Cheers,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 19, @04:25AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
There are 20% more women with an academic degree than men right now? That's nothing!
According to the current predictions, women will make out 70% of all college enrollments in the US by 2010. This means roughly 3 women per 1 man, which is a surplus of 200%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the current predictions, women will make out 70% of all college enrollments in the US by 2010.
Source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 19, @05:11AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen these projections in a book about preparation for college, and again in a newspaper a few years ago. I don't remember the titles anymore.
But I have just looked it up on the homepage of the Department of Education and found similar but less pessimistic figures. Look here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/projections/index.asp
According to these projections women will earn 58% of all bachelor degrees and 60% of all master degrees by 2010. If you don't like plain numbers, have a look on this figure which shows the enrollment in higher institutions by sex: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/projections/Figure17.a sp
If the 58% share of women with bachelor degree is correct, the surplus of women with an academic degree will be 38%, which still is a doubling compared to the article.
There's also a later but less thorough projection online for the year 2012 (the trend will continue). Look here: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/proj2012/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 19, @06:34AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I've done some more calculations:
I will use the figures I've posted before: 58% women share with bachelor degree and 60% women share with master degree by 2010.
As I've already calculated, the surplus of women with bachelor degree will be 38%. The surplus of women with master degree will be 50%.
The reason for this tremendous increase of the surplus for only slight changes of the share is that the surplus behaves according to the law f(x)=x/(1-x) - 1. If x (the share of women) goes to 100%, f(x) goes to infinite! And the surplus f(x) grows faster the tighter x is to 100%. So x is the share of women, 1-x is the share of men. x/(1-x) is therefore the number of women per man, and if you subtract one you have the women that are "too much".
That makes the surplus explode once the share has exceeded a certain level. An extreme example: Let us assume that the women share of college enrollment was 98%. Than there would be 98/2 = 48 times more women with a degree than men (assuming that everybody who was enrolled gets a degree). If the share increases by just 1% to 99%, there would be 99/1 = 99 times more women than men with a degree. And if the share reached 100%... Well, I think you understand what I mean.
I have considered the whole problem and found out that this leverage law effects the outcome at least twice! The reason is that not all men are available for a marriage, because some have already married. I have no idea which percentile of all men with an academic degree is available, but let us just assume that 50% have not yet married. Of course the higher you chose this number, the more dramatic the outcome (leverage law, remember?).
Let us calculate:
Right now, we have a surplus of 20%: 1.2 women per 1 man. Every second man/woman marries, that means 1.2 - 0.5 = 0.7 women per 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 men. A ratio of 0.7 / 0.5 = 1.4, which is an "effective surplus" of 40%!
I guess you already get a foreboding...
And now for the year 2010: We already have calculated that the surplus of women with an academic degree is 38%. For the sake of easiness I will calculate with 40%. Again we assume that 50% of all men are already married. We therefore have 1.4 - 0.5 = 0.9 women per 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 men. The ratio is 0.9 / 0.5 - 1 = 1.8, which is an effective surplus of 80%!
It is therefore likely that the number of complaining single women will explode within the next years. If you love apocalyptic calculations you can do the whole stuff again with an enrollment share of 65% and a marriage rate of 80%...
Some effects have been ignored: Not every man with a degree wants to marry, and some men will always "marry down". These effects will decrease the number of available men without decreasing the number of searching women. They have therefore a leverage effect, but it is not as strong as a marriage of a men and women which have both degrees.
And of course you have to consider that the share of all people who have a degree will continue to increase. But this has only a linear effect on the absolute number and no effect on the relative number and is therefore absolutely boring compared to the stuff above.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent calculations, Chris. Funny how people with the same first name think alike... :>
There's another factor in all this: something like 90% of all art history majors are female; something like 90% of all engineering majors are male. The former are by definition lovely, sensitive, wonderful human beings while the latter are all geeks and nerds which the former won't have anything to do with.
You can extrapolate with majors like psychology and sociology (heavily female dominated) and math or chemistry (mostly male).
A colleague puts it this way:
"Physics is an 'Oh' major because when you tell a girl that your major is physics she says 'Oh'."
- An anonymous physicist quoting his son, who is studying to be one
With everyone expecting a "soul mate" the problem is much more severe than just the enrollment numbers suggest. From my time on college campuses, art history majors rarely hook up with engineering and computer science types -- except maybe to use the latter to get their tougher homework done.
In former times, that physics major might have been viewed as a good prospect by the sharper girls because he's obviously smart, hard-working (no slackers major in physics), and likely heading for a high-paying job with pretige and status. But not nowadays -- those same gals will be taught to be envious and to complain that he's making $1.50 or more for every $1 she makes even though they both have the same degree.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the URLs, Chris. I thought the predictions were for about 58% women, 42% men. As you point out, the gap is expected to continue to grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Canada we now have a problem very much similar. We are not having enough children to keep up with the 'social net'.
What this means is, Canada will have to increase immagrants to keep up with the ageing population. Someone has to flip the bill.
I imagine the very same thing is happening in Australia right now. They have an ageing population and a slow birth rate. Who the hell is going to keep up the social net?
If Australia can't bring in more immagrants and if the people are not going to have more children their social net is going to colapse.
In Canada the US are pissed about how many people we let in here, but the Liberals know they have no choice in the matter. It's the real conflict of interest in my opinion.
On that note, it might be a good place to visit if their propaganda machines are telling women to have babies. To bad the pill or shot for men's birth control wasn't out right now. Don't be surprised if those contraceptions are stalled on the Australian market.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're exactly right, Dan. Here in the US immigration has been the answer to the declining birth rate, not that any politician has had the guts to put it that way. In fact, there's been virtually no debate on it at all that I've heard.
Either we've got to start making our women have more kids or we've got to let more of "them" in, unless we can withstand a drop in population in a decade or two. Naturally, the former option is out of the question. It would be political suicide to even suggest that the idea be studied. So it's the latter by default. Since they're largely hispanic, and therefore catholic, you get a lot of bang for your buck since they tend to have large families.
About the only real rumblings heard so far have to do with teaching only english in the public schools. I guess we're all too distracted with who joe millionaire is going to pick for a date...
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MB:"About the only real rumblings heard so far have to do with teaching only english in the public schools. I guess we're all too distracted with who joe millionaire is going to pick for a date... "
Oh Gawd that was funny.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is no surprise that more woman are achieving degrees than men. Our tax dollars are subsidizing them. Most men are paying way to much child support, and cannot afford to go to school. A decrease in population is not a bad thing, but the decemation of the backbone of freedom is. Men and woman are being pitted against each other by governments across the globe, is this coincidance? Men need to stand up for themselves. Create groups that send opinion letters to each others oppressors. How would you feel if you received hundreds of angry letters per day? Perhaps the people that hide behind thier jobs will start to think about a different position. We need to demand our Constitutional rights back, thats right, demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A decrease in population is not a bad thing
True, provided it occurs slowly enough for economies to adjust. A number of industrialized nations, however, have become very concerned about the population collapse, because it is happening at a potentially catastrophic rate.
It is no surprise that more woman are achieving degrees than men. Our tax dollars are subsidizing them. Most men are paying way to much child support, and cannot afford to go to school.
Very true. In addition, the schools have become bastions of anti-male hatred. You may know this... Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a fine book on the subject, "The War Against Boys." I was recently taking a French class at the local university, but I dropped it because the teacher was such a vicious man hater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas said: "I was recently taking a French class at the local university, but I dropped it because the teacher was such a vicious man hater."
Good for you Thomas. Knowing you I bet you let the administration know the reason for your dropping the course. That's the kind of thing we need to do day in and day out. Smokem out.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a fine book on the subject, "The War Against Boys."
I saw this book in the library and applied my usual test: looked in the index for "circumcision." Not a mention of what is clearly the preemptive, decisive, surgical first strike in the war she purports to be writing about.
Christina Hoff Sommers appears to mean well, but like others of her type she isn't ready to really challenge feminism, she just wants to adjust it a little so its uglier aspects will be tucked back out of sight. Another book by her asks "Who Stole Feminism?" Nobody "stole" feminism, Christina, it's only that with such overwhelming success its real character has become plain for all the world to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Philalethes - Always good to see you post.
I have always assumed that the move towards circumcision was more an unconscious cultural bumbling associated with errant ideas of "healthiness" rather than an intentional act on the part of feminists. If I am wrong on that I want to know and will be happy to be corrected. Can you explain the basics of why you seem to think it was a deliberate move?
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a complex subject; 'fraid I don't have time right now to examine it fully. I realize that my statement might seem mysterious to someone who hasn't thought it through as I have. I'll try a few points, in hopes the picture might fill itself out with some thought.
First, one thing I've realized over the last decade of thinking about the American infant male circumcision program, and the wider/deeper subject of relations between the sexes, the origin and nature of female power, etc., is this: It is not necessary to be conscious of ones power in order to use it effectively. This fact is key in understanding the entire phenomenon of feminism, as well as female psychology. The power exercised by women, like the powers of Nature whence it is derived, is primarily unconscious. This is why, although it is obvious to anyone who really thinks about how the world works that it is women who have and use the real power, women see themselves as helpless victims--and can usually, easily convince men to agree with their world view.
"Women run the world. No man ever did anything unless he was allowed or encouraged by a woman." - Bob Dylan (interview in Rolling Stone, late 1980s)
Thus the rape victim who becomes incensed if someone suggests that perhaps she might have had something to do with what happened to her, when she wandered half-drunk, in short-shorts and halter top, into a locker room full of testosterone-enhanced males. "But I didn't do anything!" she wails, and the feminists scream about "blaming the victim!"
Again, it is curious that even while any biologist (including even female biologists) will affirm that in all other species sexual behavior is totally controlled by the female, her needs, cycles, and signals, amongst humans the idea that the female is anything but a victim of oppressive male power and violence is totally unthinkable. Why? Female power, subtly, unconsciously applied: what women do not want to acknowledge will not be discussed.
Ever wonder how it is possible for a little, tiny woman to control a great, huge, hulking man? Think about it. Obviously, the idea is preposterous: the one who is more powerful must dominate the one who is less powerful. Yet we see this archetypal encounter acted out all around us. Feminism is successful precisely because its basic premise is not true!
The Zuni Indians, whose home is in what we call western New Mexico, have a story, about a couple of young hunters who one day freed a dragonfly from some mud. The dragonfly, being of course a magical creature, offered its saviors a couple of wishes. The first young hunter said he would like to be the smartest man in the world. "Done," said the dragonfly. The second young hunter naturally was a little miffed at this, but then he had an idea: "I want to be smarter than the smartest man in the world," he said. "All right," said the dragonfly, "you're a woman."
I'm old enough to remember Harry Belafonte's great hit song in the 1950s: "Dat's right! De woman is - uh! - smahtah! Dat's right. Dat's right." Never forget this. However, also remember that "smart" is not necessarily the same as "wise." In older times, it was this knowledge, more than anything else, that male elders passed down to their sons, nephews and grandsons. More than anything else, it is the loss of this knowledge that has led to our present predicament.
(I remember another song from the 50s, an early rock-n-roll ditty whose refrain went, "De girl cain't he'p it, de girl cain't he'p it..." I've come to the conclusion, based on observation of the actual results of several decades of feminist denial, that this is true--and that a "civilization" based on ignoring this fact cannot last.)
So no, I wouldn't say the circumcision program was a "deliberate move." Like much of what women do, it didn't (and doesn't) have to be "deliberate," i.e. consciously conceived and executed, to work very well indeed.
As I understand it, the circ program was first marketed during the Victorian era (the time when "civilized" women spoke of the "limbs" of a table, because "legs" was too suggestive--also the time of families, like my father's, of a half-dozen children or more, sometimes many more) as a "cure" for the terrible problem of masturbation, the "nasty habit" to which boys were unfortunately all too susceptible, which at the time was the known cause of a whole host of both personal health difficulties and societal ills. As that idea fell out of fashion in the early 1900s, newer "scientific" excuses were made up. Which also are obviously bogus, not holding up even to brief examination. So why is the circ program such a "sacred cow"? Nobody will talk about it, the media won't discuss it, mothers become hysterical when it is questioned. Again, female power: what women don't want to confront will not be discussed.
Note that the circ program is based on the idea that there's something wrong with males--something, indeed, that requires drastic corrective measures. This is the very cornerstone of feminism. I note also that the American practice of male circumcision came out of the same Northeastern WASP/Puritan cultural matrix (check the origin of this word) which also produced Prohibition--another force-based "solution" to the problem of What's Wrong with Men--and Feminism, whose official birthday was at a conference (originally to promote "female suffrage") in upstate New York in 1848.
Feminism is based on the proposition that there is no significant difference between the sexes. This is usually taken to mean that women are not "inferior" relative to men, but this is just another red herring. The truth is that female power--if/when she wishes to use it--totally trumps anything a man can do. Feminists insist on being dealt with as if they were men, and ignorant, "honorable" men do just that--and don't/can't see the knife under the table, in the realm of darkness which is women's real field of power. "Take back the night!" is misleading: they never lost it. As Camille Paglia makes clear, there is truly "No Law in the Arena." Whatever else it may be (and sometimes it can be very pleasant), the sexual encounter is a war, and, as I remarked elsewhere, women (a) don't fight fair, and (b) fight to win. Men enter the arena handicapped by ideas of honor--but if we abandon such principles, we betray ourselves. If we attempt to meet women at their own level, we lose--and so do they.
This picture is the truth behind that old axiom of male wisdom: "Never argue with a woman." I've not yet come across a woman who is willing to really confront what I'm talking about here. Sooner or later, she will take evasive action, like Scarlett O'Hara: "I don't want to think about that, and I don't have to, so I won't, and you can't make me." True, I can't, if she doesn't want to. Throughout human history, this tactic has worked for women, as it must. This is the reason for all the "keep women in their place" "oppression" that feminists complain about. Now that they have been allowed out of "their place," the results are becoming plain.
The only thing men can do in response to female power is to create a limited, artificial realm where such power is not allowed to rule--and then show women how it is in their interest to subject themselves to the discipline necessary to live in such an environment. This can be called human culture, or civilization: a way of living together and relating that is different from how other, unconscious animals do it. Where the rule of law--an artificial, human construct--is paramount, rather than the rule of power. In order for this to work, men must be wise to women's tricks, and not allow them to get away with the kind of unconscious manipulation that is their natural, instinctive skill. None of this is easy, which is why it is not easy to be a man: because to do this, we must also be aware of the trickster in ourselves, and not let ourselves "get away" with anything that is less than our best: self-aware, and self-disciplined.
All I have time for now; perhaps some food for thought. Regarding the subject of circumcision itself, some useful links if you haven't seen them:
Sexually Mutilated Child
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages
A Brief History
NOCIRC
NOHARMM
Of course, you'll see little or no mention of women/mothers and their role in any of this information--because they're seldom if ever evident on the surface of events. However, note the Bob Dylan quote above. I put it this way: There is no human culture that is not fundamentally a Matriarchy. Any apparent "Patriarchy" is no more than a front for the Matriarchy that really runs everything in this world. It wouldn't be happening if it didn't somehow serve the female agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phi, if you want to break it down simpler, if you want an example of who is "the power behind the throne" try this some day:
Stop giving a damn about what women think.
You might think it's oversimplified, but people will stand goggle-eyed when your response to their comment of "You need a wife" is "What possible use could I have for a woman to ruin my life?"
What's even more frustrating to them is to accept their offers of sex (Because despite all their protests about how they want a sensitive nineties guy, they drool over the alpha male - like myself) and continue to decline their offers to run your life.
We men give women way too much control over our lives for the hope of the golden pussy at the end of the day. And guess what, gents - you can go all day, and say "P!ss on what you want" to a woman, and it's still there. Here's a news flash - women want it too, and when she says "No sex for you!" shrug your shoulders. Because it means no sex for her, either. And if we ALL did this - become members of the sperm cartel - women would kiss our butts to get laid and be mothers.
Oooooooooooooh.... Shocking news, eh wot?
Want to know what secretly tickles me? I drive women intpo a rage by my mere existance as a free man unbeholden to any woman. Ain't no joke.
Don't knuckle under to female power and you'll see what kind of power they are used to weilding. And also how empty it is, because it isn't theirs - it's what we give them. THAT is what pisses them off.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"---- Burn, Baby, Burn ---- "
Very Nice Post! Gonzo.
It reminds me of the Tao of Steve. Im still looking for an online copy of its screen play. The movie has a very great first half, but; it takes a turn at the end where the guy becomes the perfect man.
He states that if men hold out just five minutes longer for sex then women whalaa.
The fundemental is "We attack that which retreats". The movie quotes a lot of philosphers and historical war generals in a very comical way. I recomend watching it, well the first half anyways.
It's all true. The only reason women have so much power is sex. But don't worry Im sure feminists right now are trying to turn more girls lesbian every minute with seductive propaganda.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, though I understand and can sympathize with your feelings, I don't share them. I don't want to drive anyone into a rage, or hurt anyone. I want the hating and hurting to stop. At any rate, it stops with me. As the Buddha said, "Hatred does not cease by hatred." Or Gandhi: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Note that both these wise ones were men.
If women really were the morally superior beings the feminists claim to be, I would be more than happy to turn the world over to them. Once I did believe they were, but experience and observation have taught me they're not. So someone has to act like an adult, and it seems the buck stops here. If we merely become what they say we are, everyone loses. No one will ever get out of this round of suffering.
That I do not allow a woman to manipulate and run me does not mean I don't listen to her. The feminists claim that women have nothing to learn from men. I believe they're wrong; I believe we all have to learn from each other, that's why there's more than one of us here. So I listen to women, and do my best to promote conditions in which all can be heard, nourished and content. That, I believe, is a man's job--why the father is the head of the family. Head and heart need each other to be complete, but they, their places and functions should not be confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sure feminists right now are trying to turn more girls lesbian every minute with seductive propaganda.
Seems that may be the primary purpose of the movie, "Hours." Check out this review.
What a chuckle. As if this lunacy is going to help anyone other than those who are cashing in on it at the moment. I swear, radical/mainstream feminists may hate women more than they hate me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya I read that article and spread it around. God I laughed so hard.
I think I should send it to my mom. She was talking about how sickening lesbiens were the other day, maybe I should warn her.
Mind you, my issue isn't with lesbians as it is with their 'male-bashing tactics'.
The gay,lesbian,bisexua,transgendered and questioning society may love this type of movie.(GLBTQ).
Now what I may try to do is get Erin Pizzey as a guest for one the wednesday night chats if anyone is interested, However we may have to make a time arrangement as she is I think 6 hours ahead. But anyways to paraphrase Erin. She goes on that most of these "women's shelters" are bastions of lesbian seduction camps. That are designed to make women vomit at the sight of men, as well as turn the children against men.
What many of us may not know is that many of these councilors and workers are Psychology majors or Sociology majors. Which means these people have been spending that last several years learning how to fuck with people's minds. Don't kid yourself these women are predators.
With that said I still hope I strive to judge a person by their character rather then their sexuality, skin, religion etc... but, if their character is based on deception well.............
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I swear, radical/mainstream feminists may hate women more than they hate me.
Now that is a chuckle. I meant to write "...more than they hate men." It seems the ghost of Freud might have been whispering in my ear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe The Tao of Steve was made here in Santa Fe, New Mexico (where I live), and was somehow inspired by the adventures of one Duncan North, who writes a column called "The Tao of Love" ("A column for anyone with questions about love") in the local liberal/feminist weekly The Santa Fe Reporter , as a kind of "teaser" for the "personals" ads. (Sorry, the column is not on the web site.) Never saw the film; never read the column, which makes me gag. Probably I'm just jealous of this guy's "success with the ladies," something I've never had much of. Nor want, if this is the price. He can be reached at TheTaoofLove@aol.com, if you want to find out more about the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 21, @02:59PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
If Thomas Jefferson (another man) though like Gandhi, we'd all be living in plantations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sure feminists right now are trying to turn more girls lesbian every minute with seductive propaganda.
I was looking at the Disney site yesterday, just out of curiosity as a designer. On the homepage there's a cartoon map of the site, and one of the options is 'Family Fun'. The picture shows a woman and two children in front of a barbeque, house and swings - there's no sign of dad (probably in jail). I followed the link, then a few others, and came to a section on violence. Quotes from a number of books are given, including 'The Lesbian Parenting Book: A Guide To Creating Families And Raising Children'. While this book may contain some good general advice, it seems like an odd choice for the typical family. It's followed by some quotes from another book, called 'Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking The Link Between Masculinity And Violence'. Mmmm, this is all starting to smell very fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that feminists are so concerned that we have left out half the population by not adding the pronoun she/her etc..
And yet when it comes to crime and who is abusive it is almost exlusively male and on this Disney site exclusively male.
I came across a page a few weeks ago of some documentation done in 1986. The site stated that since over 90% of the victimisers were male it will refer to the victimiser in the masculine.
Of course it was written by a radical feminist, but the cops don't know she's a radical feminist with an agenda or an axe to grind. Whats worse is that she slipped it in and nobody noticed because basically she was telling a certain truth. That truth is based on the fact that men do not call the police nor to boys for that matter. They accept the abuse given to them and leave it at that.
Here's my point. Now that we see this page or 'study' (for lack of a better word) people tend to focus on men and do not look for women as offenders. Society does not have the skills to look at women in such a way. It even denies it to itself. This is one thing that the men's movement should have to deal with.
As we know from organizations like SAFE4all, is that anyone in any relationship can be in a violent one. What we also know from Straus and Murrey is that domestic voilence is more complex than just black and white scenarios.
What we know from Erin Pizzey is that the domestic violence industry is used as a propaganda machine to destroy families and are often run by lesbiens using extreme anti-male propaganda to indoctrinate hatred into the women who use the facility.
If there is anything there is a "WAR AGAINST BOYS". Looks like Disney has joined the ranks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes - Thanks for the response.
It has always fascinated me how the fems can deny ANY responsibility in a rape victim. At the same time I am sure that they wouldn't blink an eye at blaming a man who had a beer too many and wandered into the projects and was beaten to a pulp. He would be seen as a fool not a victim.
I agree on the unseen and uncharted power that women wield. The sad part is of course, as you said, we men are allowing this. The sad fact is that many men are literally afraid of their wives. The good news is that as we age and get into our upper 40's and beyond the hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre-puberty clarity returns.
I think I understand what you are saying here...that women by default have power and a vested interest in their position and in their capacity to manipulate men. The circumcision fiasco is more a result of this than a planned action. Is that what you are saying?
I have worked in numerous hospitals over the years. During that time I became aware of many of the problems and inhumanity of circumcision through my connection with some of the nurses. Mostly females. They were vocal and active in their responses. Sometimes they would refuse to assist in circumcisions and sometimes they would form groups within the hospitals to function as conscientious objectors to the procedure. These women were putting it on the line and taking a stand. I think the ANA was one of the first organizations to publically come out against circumcision. There are some women who are working for what is just.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has always fascinated me how the fems can deny ANY responsibility in a rape victim. They can do this because they really believe it. Camille Paglia remarks somewhere in the "Sex and Violence" essay that the structure of the relationship between the sexes requires the female to appear to be the passive receiver of male action, and unfortunately women have come to believe that this superficial melodrama actually reflects the real state of things. Which, of course, it does not; but only a few women take the trouble (or, perhaps, even have the necessary intelligence) to become aware of this truth.
The "wise women" of older and indigenous cultures know this, but modern women have forgotten--which is why I find feminists' pretense to being "wise women" laughable. A real "wise woman" knows her power and doesn't need to flaunt it. I actually met such a woman once: a Mohawk shamaness; she was awesome. She was also kind and considerate toward men, as she knew that she could either support or destroy them, and that it was in her best interest to support them being their best. Feminists take exactly the opposite view, believing that using their power to suppress and destroy men proves their "superiority." This is akin to a carpenter deliberately dulling his saw, breaking his hammer. In a word, stupid. Feminists disprove their claims by their own actions.
I heard once of a study done by putting video cameras in singles bars; it was found that every encounter began with a covert, subliminal glance from a woman to a man: an invitation. In most cases, this invitation is unconscious on the woman's part. And so, she believes (and so men believe) that he made the first move, that she is merely the passive object of his active power.
The sad fact is that many men are literally afraid of their wives. Yes, especially now, as nearly all of us have been heavily conditioned to that fear by what our mothers did to us when we were born. The "balance of power" between the sexes is actually very delicate, as it depends entirely on women raising their sons to be strong and independent, able to meet their future wives in the arena and hold their own. When mothers give in to their own greedy impulse to keep their "little men" mother-bound, weak and dependent, their daughters will not have developed men to marry. And, following their mothers' example, will believe a healthy relationship consists of dominating their men. Look around.
The good news is that as we age and get into our upper 40's and beyond the hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre-puberty clarity returns. Well, I don't know about "pre-puberty clarity"; I'd say it's more like a combination of life experience with the slow dissipation of the "hormone-induced fog." I remember when I was in my early 30s reading a biography of Gandhi wherein that great man remarked on what a relief it was as he got older that the slavery to sexual desire faded. At the time I found his sentiment nearly incomprehensible; now in my 60th year I have a better understanding what he meant. The purpose of all those "initiation rituals" discussed in another thread is to help a male master himself, so he is not ruled by his impulses. A man ruled by his impulses will also be ruled by women, and a man who is ruled by women will be unable to give them what they really need.
I think I understand what you are saying here...that women by default have power and a vested interest in their position and in their capacity to manipulate men. The circumcision fiasco is more a result of this than a planned action. Is that what you are saying? Uh, not exactly, I don't think. Again, this subject requires more time and energy than I presently have to do it justice. One thing I am saying is that there is more to the world, and to our experience, than what appears on the surface. This world we live in is a realm of paradox, and cannot be understood until we go beyond the conventional way of seeing and thinking.
An Oriental teacher I studied said, "Everything has a front and a back. The bigger the front, the bigger the back." The front of the relationship between the sexes is what we all see, and what women believe when they say that they are the helpless victims of male power. That's the front; the back is much the same, but reversed, like a photographic negative. And (mostly) unconscious. Our being is like the proverbial iceberg: what is conscious is above the surface and visible; the unconscious is below the surface, invisible to the ordinary mind, far larger, and dangerous. It is what we all do unconsciously that hurts us most. The solution, then, or at least the beginning thereof--as I see it--is to bring what is unconscious into the light of consciousness.
It is precisely because the natural realm of women's power is in the unconscious that we cannot afford to turn over the running of the world to women--and why, when that happens, women suffer as much as men (or even more). "Equality" between the sexes is a myth; either one or the other is "on top." In the natural order of things, first the female contains the male, physically and emotionally; but eventually, if the male fulfills his potential, the male contains the female, mentally and spiritually. In the beginning, it is the female's task to protect and nurture the male, so that later on he will be able to protect and nurture the female and her offspring--who become the next generation, and repeat the cycle. The circumcision program breaks this fundamental contract, by aborting the proper development of the male.
Again, when women attempt to use their power deliberately, the result is destruction. It is not exactly an accident that the #1 feminist "issue" is abortion--the supreme act of irresponsibility, whose apparent "necessity" arises directly out of the female's inability to control her own unconscious power. Notice that feminists never speak of their "right to choose" not to engage in the activity which results in "unplanned" pregnancy. If they were able/willing to "plan" at that end, abortion would never be "necessary." But they take sex as an unavoidable, unquestionable given, because apparently they are unable to restrain their impulses.
Sometimes they would refuse to assist in circumcisions and sometimes they would form groups within the hospitals to function as conscientious objectors to the procedure. This is interesting. So far as I'm aware, the only place nurses have organized to resist circumcision is here in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where about a dozen years ago some two dozen nurses at the local hospital stepped out as "conscientious objectors." It was their action which brought the issue into public view here, which eventually resulted in my reliving the experience myself, which ... well, it's a long story. They remain a continually persecuted minority in their place of work.
Certainly there are "some women who are working for what is just"; but they remain very few. And, to my mind, "what is just" is not really the point; it's a lot deeper, more fundamental than that. "Justice," again, is a concept, a product of the intellect, the "male" side of human consciousness. It's abstract, cerebral. What I'm interested in is women realizing that the present trend is not functional; it just won't work. Unless what they really want is more suffering. I don't bother to argue with women about "justice" or "fairness" because I understand that that isn't what really motivates them. The female is fundamentally practical, the ultimate pragmatist. Only when she realizes on a level below, and prior to, conscious thought, that what she is doing isn't working, will she change.
This is why I rather think the disease must be allowed to run its course. They want it all? If that's what they want, nothing men can do will stop them, so might as well quit resisting and let them do it. Just go fishing, I say. Let them stuff themselves until they choke on it. "Never argue with a woman" is not just an old joke; it is really the wisdom of wise men of old. To carry it off, though, a man must know himself and be in control of himself. In short, he must be a man, not an overgrown mama's boy--which is what nearly all of us are these days. Including, I will add, myself: only in my 50s have I gotten some clarity on what was done to me (and not done for me) in childhood and youth, and begun to try to figure out how to grow myself up, in the midst of a culture which does its best in every way to discourage me in this endeavor. A culture totally dominated and run by women. Who clearly do not understand that one hand does not benefit by cutting off the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fascinating read Philalethes, this thread has raised a lot of points I'm going to have to think about. To be honest I'm not totally convinced regarding the Circucision aspect, but I've considered the long term impact of circumcision and see little upside (other than in the few cases of true medical need) and lots of potential downside.
In nearly a decade of trying to get along with my wife I've learned that a man needs to consider what HIS needs are as much a the womans. I've spent long years trying to figure out what I could do to make my wife happy. In the end I finally realized that I can't MAKE her happy, only myself. So I've communicated my needs to her, and started expecting that she attempt to fulfill those needs as much as I try to fulfill hers. Interstingly we're both much happier since I've started doing this. Not perfect mind you, but much better.
I've been looking at who I am and instead of taking it for granted that I need to change when she complains, more often these days I say "this is who I am, live with it". Like all of us, she has bad days... a few days ago she admitted she was having a tough time with the mens activism, namely the fact that we end up talking about it quite a bit, and she feels the need to defend HERSELF. I told her that in fact she doesn't support the vast majority of things that the feminsts have done lately, so why is she defensive... but in the end she communicated that she was, and wished I wouldn't bring it up as often.
Instead of feeling angry but giving in I said "OK, but you've been complaining for years about how I never talk to you about work, or life, or whatever... and you've always known that I'm not someone who makes small talk. So now YOU have a choice, either we talk and sometimes it's about things that might make you uncomfortable, or I don't bring subjects up and we continue the way things were." In either case I don't expect to hear any complaints about my starting discussions again. Perhaps now she's wishing she hadn't gotten what she wished for (perhaps when she reads this she'll have something to say about it, LOL)
In the end I don't know all the answers, but I DO know that becoming a lap dog for your wife will not make either of you happy. I also know that women will tell you how to do everything from cleaning your ears to raising your kids if you let them... but that doesn't mean their opinions are RIGHT. Kids need men in their lives precisely because we DON'T act like women and do things the way women do. We all have to stop second guessing OUR instincts, because while it may be different than WOMENS INSTINCT, it certainly isn't any more wrong or right.
When I found these boards a couple months ago and realized that I wasn't the only one with these struggles... it was an epiphany. Suddenly the world wasn't a place where men and men's needs and desires were evil and in need of control, now it's a place where men are in need of rediscovering who they are. Women can't play a part in this but they sure as hell will benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am very happy about the dialogue between you and your wife.
Now, I think maybe we are on to something. If we can get things were women do not feel defensive about men's issues than maybe we can progress through this faster. Just a thought.
I'm perticularily not fond of dividing roles and entrenched positions ie boys agaisnt girls. I blame gender baiting politics for most of it.
All I am saying is, if men and women can get their issues on the table full front and throttle maybe the two parties can resolve or understand eachother better.
Feminists don't like that approach as it kills the cause.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm lucky in that my wife is no feminist, she and I are just going through what IMO most normal couples have to deal with...although we may be a bit more bull-headed than most. I shudder to think of dealing with a feminist, where it's all about winning and losing (and she's not winning unless you're losing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes - Thanks for the response.
I had said hormones begin to dissapate and some of our pre-puberty clarity returns.
When the thought came into my mind I had an instant chuckle...and was going to put a smiley next to it...but decided against it. When I thought of the clarity I had at age 8-10 I realized I actually meant it literally. It was not a mature clarity or wise, but it was clear all the same. Much more clear than the fog that rolled in around 12 or 13.
All this talk about mama's boys reminds me of the Bly talk on Jack and the Beanstalk. Bly tells the Beanstalk story as a metaphor of a man's psychological development. Prior to tackling the issues of dad (the giant) he shows that a prerequisite is the son deals with mama. The releasing moment for Jack that frees him to begin his struggle with dad is for mom to ask him to sell the cow and he ignores her and buys magic beans. LOL!! She throws out the beans and this is enough separation for him to enter the ring with papa.
Sometime when you have the time I would be interested in hearing your story around re-living the circumcision. I have had a bit of that myself. Some of it from my own experience and some from that of others. It has left me knowing that men who are circumcised have a common bond of an early usually unfinished trauma.
Philalethes said: "now in my 60th year I have a better understanding what he meant."
Blessings to a sexagenarian! I have made it to 52 and feel a blessed relief at the decline of hormones. What a difference it makes. Detach detach detach! No attachment to creation.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats great ,Dave. Even though most women don't accept the 'feminist' nametag, I find that many women have still adopted the same principles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical emigrant from the USA is an "educated male". This along with the aforementioned dearth of males in our institutions of higher learning, portends a nation of males who, through governmental oppression,are denied their Constitutional right to obtain an education and obtain equal access to gainful and meaningful employment. Leaving the USA, as educated males are doing, although painful and very economically and emotionally stressful, may be the only reasonable recourse to being dominated by those who are clearly oppressive towards them and who do not appreciate recognized standards of equality and justice and who are, thus, not deserving of the same.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here’s a transcript of the January Men’s Hour item on Baby Bust including references to some other articles on it. This is my two penneth worth on the subject.
Baby Bust
There’s been a recent MensActivism discussion about the “Baby Bust”, the fact that the fertility rates in the Western world seem to be going down. We’re having less children so we end up with an aging population. This was prompted by an article in “The Age”, an Australian newspaper that suggested that you can’t actually blame men for this, as quite a lot of people do. The media and commentary that it comments on says there is an accusation that men no longer wish to take on fatherhood, but it adds that men cannot be unaware of the risk of marital breakdown or the long term cost. In other words, men can be casualties rather than beneficiaries of the marital marketplace.
There have been a number of articles along these lines including back in the middle of last year, a thing called “The Baby Bust” by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, referring to a Time article suggesting between a half and a third of 40 year old professional women are childless. She states “the more successful a woman the less likely she is to find a husband or bear a child. For men the reverse is true, men apparently”, it says, “learn to protect their eggshell egos from high achieving women. If only men would give up their silly desire for world dominance, the world would be a much finer place”. She then goes on to cite the bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees. Apparently they have an extraordinary happy existence. Why? What she says is in bonobo society, the females are dominant. Just light dominance she calls it. I suspect that is like being a little bit pregnant. She calls this light dominance, more like a co-dominance, equality between the sexes. So there you have it! You let these wonderfully superior females take over and everything is going to be alright.
On the other hand Glenn Sacks lists about six reasons why she is wrong, in particular including women always want to marry “up”; they never want to marry “down”. They’re going to run the companies now. They only want to marry men who at least run a company and preferably better than that. As he says the problem with Dowd and many modern women who think like her is that it never seems to occur to them that they, and not men, are the cause of their own problems. He ends up by quoting a friend, who said “My wife said her problem was her career success, but I was happy for her and her success. The problem wasn’t her career. The problem was her negative critical view of men. In the end, I simply got tired of being wrong all the time”.
There are other articles about the population decline, and how it seems to be men’s fault in all sorts of ways. One is called “The Case of the Reluctant Male” from the Sydney Morning Herald, and it says it is possible that men are reluctant to commit to fatherhood because there’s a reasonable statistical probability that they will not live with their children as they grow up. It concludes “the important question is for policy makers to help him change his mind”. It seems to me that they are saying that the man who thinks he’s going to become a wallet and thrown out father for his children doesn’t need to have anything changed about society, they just have to change his mind. In other words he should accept the situation and have children anyway.
There’s a woman called Taylor Marsh. She certainly agrees that it is not men’s fault. She says it is not the brains that scare the hell out of men, it’s the bad attitude, bitterness and the Ally McBeal whining that takes the fun out of dating. Her only solution however is that women can get accidentally pregnant, and that seems to be a solution that doesn’t seem to be working too well.
And it doesn’t seem to be just Western society, for example China has gone out of its way to reduce the population and it has succeeded. In fact, according to United Nations statistics, it will be declining from 2042. That may not sound terrible, but as the article says on China’s Baby Bust, in the fast paced cities the one-child policy is effectively morphed into a no child philosophy. It’s said “They’re rebelling against all concept of family”, so we’ve got a bunch of young adults who just want to have a career. Because they’re not having children, they’re not terribly interested in the old people now, so they’re now even refusing to care for their elders. One official said “When we started our policy 20 years ago we had no idea of the problems that would follow. Now we must address the consequences”.
In other words, it looks a bit like whether it’s China or Australia or any other country, the family can be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. Once you’ve broken it, it can be very hard to put back together again; and the conclusion that men are at fault for this is kind of ridiculous. It seems to me is that the number one success of feminism is that they teach this hatred of men, to women, so much so that women cannot see what is glaringly obvious to anyone without prejudice. They cannot see what should be in front of their eyes, that what they need is the mutual love, and it has to mutual, that they can and should have for a husband and they can and should have for their children, the children apparently they are not currently having.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the transcript, Raymond. You make a number of fine points.
It seems to me is that the number one success of feminism is that they teach this hatred of men, to women, so much so that women cannot see what is glaringly obvious to anyone without prejudice. They cannot see what should be in front of their eyes, that what they need is the mutual love, and it has to mutual, that they can and should have for a husband and they can and should have for their children, the children apparently they are not currently having.
This is painfully obvious to all those with eyes to see.
When it comes to future shock, we've just entered the maelstrom.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
