|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The essay by Strachan put a big, fat smile on my face. What a great way to start the day. My only correction would be (and perhaps this doesn't apply to Australia) that contemporary feminism has been spreading its evil for at least three and a half decades.
"And while Ms Kidd might wonder where the men prepared to defend women have gone, one could suggest they have gone where the women prepared to defend men have gone – into the pages of history." Yooooou betcha!
A miniscule percentage of women today speak out against the evil known as feminism (and many of them indirectly aid and abet the fascism by claiming that there are good forms of what is and has always been, at its root, a hate movement). For decades, in my personal experience, no woman ever spoke out against the evil. And now Devvy wonders why men aren't rushing to risk their lives to defend women who despise them. Can you say "duuuuumb?"
This reminds me of the whining by college women over the hook up culture on campuses. Men aren't avoiding marriage and "committed relationships" with these women because the men are afraid of commitment. Men are avoiding such relationships because men are finally waking up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This reminds me of the whining by college women over the hook up culture on campuses. Men aren't avoiding marriage and "committed relationships" with these women because the men are afraid of commitment. Men are avoiding such relationships because men are finally waking up."
Women have always, or at least for the last three decades or so, claimed to be better than men, as in more moral, kinder, gentler, spiritual etc. Because of social convention and the stigma that went with violating it, in some ways women did ACT better (Nice girls/ladies don't act that way!!) But now that the social restraint is steadily waning we see a different picture: women now cheat in their relationships just as much as men (up to 30% of men now raise children that aren't biologicially theirs), commit DV almost as much as men, can be and are every bit as obnoxious and cruel as any man, and are as promiscuous as men. I'd look for women's numbers to surpass those of men in the future as the prior social restraint is completely obliterated.
In the example above, women now complain about the hookup culture. But isn't this what they wanted? Didn't they want to be equal? Did they not say they could do anything a man could do, plus gestate? Did they not despise the social conventions as "slavery"? And now that they have "equality" they still aren't happy. Of course, it's ALL men's fault, huh? They can't COMMIT! Lessee here, why in my right mind would I commit to someone who can and will walk away from that commitment at any time for little or no reason, and will, with the courts, force me to honor my end of the deal for the rest of my life in the cruelest of ways, making me little more than a slave? I think not, baby! You wanted it, now deal!
High atop my perch - Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my personal experience, the feminist and female culture, in general, is aggressive not assertive. This stereotype of females has been the source of the historicial legal and cultural prohibition of females entering the priestly professions, the law, the right to vote, military service, and/or any occupation or of obtaining civil rights in which moral and/or ethical judgements could be made or strength of character could be relied on. By this I mean, that the feminist and female cultures, in general, lack self respect and respect for the rights of others individually and collectively. This includes aggressive behavior by females towards other females. This implies, in general, a personal and collective lack of self control by females (especially feminists) which is requisite for all republican,democratic, and civilized states. Assertive individuals, a characteristic of the male gender, in general, have self respect and a respect for the just rights of others.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @09:45AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Devvy Kidd seems to say a lot about how hard it is for women now that real men aren't at her call.
But I have to ask. Is that a fur coat she's wearing in her picture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the letter I sent to Ms. Kidd:
------------------
Dear Ms. Kidd,
After reading your article "Where Have All The 'Men' Gone?", I'm a little curious about something.
http://www.newswithviews.com/news_worthy/news_wort hy.htm
You seem to bemoan the notion of men no longer defending and protecting women and children from this or that danger or threat. Question: What right do you have to a man's protection? Or put another way, what right do you have to demand a man's protection? I can state it even simpler than that: What makes you think that men owe you protection?
Why do you suppose it is that so many people think that somebody else owes them something? "Oh, but it's your duty!" some will declare. Duty? Says who? "Oh, but it's good and moral for you to put somebody else's interests above your own!" Really? Good and moral by what standard? "Why, by the standard of altruism! It's an end to itself, isn't it?"
Ms. Kidd, here's a wake-up call: I don't owe you anything. (Not "you" personally, since I don't know you. "You" in the sense of women in general.) The only thing I owe to anybody, women or men, (other than respect for their individual rights), is what I voluntarily agree to on the basis of a mutual contract. Anything else "owed" is simply a product of your imagination.
Before you wrap yourself in the flag of altruism too tightly, I would kindly suggest you look at all the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of "the public good", or in the name of "the good of others". The mentality is as such: You owe it to Us, the Collective, and We have the right to make you give it to Us. (In this case, "Us" being women.)
No doubt you're thinking right about now "Well, you're just not a real man!" Really? By who's standard? Who are you to tell anybody what a real man is? Perhaps you need to tweak your definition of what a "real" man is.
I got fed up with chivalry a long time ago. Women no longer appreciate men's "protection", so why the hell should we give it? Why the hell should we fight and die to protect you when you spit in our faces? The icing on the cake was when a friend of mine once held a door open for a woman to walk through. She refused to go through, saying indignantly "I can do that myself!"
Ms. Kidd, hold your own damn door from now own.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @12:47PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo, Napnip, Bravo!
I feel the same way. And my bet is alot of the men who freaquent this site do to. As well as many other American, Canadian, Austrailian and British men.
For the last 30 years plus, Women have been telling us "We hate you!", "You're pigs!" "You're dogs!" "We women don't want men's help!" "We women don't need men, any more!"
And finaly more and more of us men are saying; "Fine, I'm OUTTA here...!"
I am personaly one of those men.
I do not even socialize with women.
I have no female freinds, even.
Don't have 'em, Don't need 'em, Don't want 'em.
If a woman asks me out, I tell them no. and I tell them WHY.
If I am in a public place, like a restaraunt for instance, I will NOT sit near a table of all women. Why? Because inevitably, their conversation will turn to male-bashing. And not just harmless "jokes" either. I have heared women BOASTING about how they "Keep their men in line." usualy through the use of violence, and usualy entailing the punching, kicking, stabbing or grabbing of the testicles, or penis.
This is no different for me as an Indian sitting near a table full of Ku Klux Klan folk boasting about the number of Indians or other "people of color" that they've beaten or lynched. It is THE SAME THING!
In the work place Women trade dehumanizing, degrading, misandrist comments about men with wild abandon. Then if a man stands up to say "enough!" the women will report him for harassment. (I know. I had it happen to me twice.)
For 30 years, plus, we men have put up with this sort of thing and MORE.
Then when we finaly say; "I've tried to do right by my sisters but no matter what I do, it is wrong..." and we throw up our hands in disgust and say; "That's it, I quit, I don't NEED this agravation, any more..." and in essence "walk out" on women, they CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY...?!?!
If women can't understand why more and more men are going this rout, then perhaps they deserve their fate.
I am now going to take a phraze from the feminist hand-book that has been a favorite accusation by women against men, and turn it around on them. Because it is both true and aplicable in the case of the women of today.
And that is:
'Ladies..., YOU JUST DON'T GET IT...'
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Ladies..., YOU JUST DON'T GET IT...'
Many, many, many times I've been with women who've made statements along the lines of "Men don't get it, because men don't listen." Then, if I tried to explain to them the sexism and injustice of such a generalization, they'd cut me off and shout me down. (Quite the sense of irony, I'd say.)
So, why, Thundercloud, do you suppose ladies just don't get it?
I'd add a twist (not original, I'm sorry to admit) on another of the favorite, feminist shibboleths. What we are seeing today, in the hook up culture and in what Devvy Kidd is whining about, is the actualization of the belief that "A man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @04:46PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas.
Why do I think women don't get it?
Mainly I think it's because they don't WANT to "get it".
If they did it would mean haveing to face themselves as what they are. and THAT is their biggest fear these days.
Ugliness hates it's own reflection. (and I don't mean "ugly" in the physical sence.)
Women (generaly speaking) will have to face themselves before any change can take place.
In order to face themselves they will have to begin first by admiting that they are biggoted towards men. Alot of women honestly do not beleive they are sexist. they beleive they CAN NOT be sexist. but untill they do, we have a hell of a fight on our hands.
PS.
To any feminist-trolls that might try to be a wise-guy.
Don't even bother trying to say; "Well, men have to face THEMselves, too!!"
Wrong.
We already did that.
Why else do you think you have all these special rights and privilages over men that violate the U.S. constitution six ways to sunday?
And especialy you American women, Why do you think you are the most protected, molly-coddled and pampered human beings on the face of the planet...?
We men DID face ourselves.
It was hard, but we did it because we knew it was the right thing to do.
It also took guts.
Do you women have the same intestinal fortitude to do what we men did.
To look at yourselves as you truly are, see the ugliness then purge yourself of it?
We men have already done it.
...Now it's YOUR turn, ladies.
And untill you do, You had better think twice before you say you are "the moral supiriors to men".
...bigotry IS immoral.
And so is hypocricy...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @04:28PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Hear hear!! My sentiments exactly.
If you don't open the door, your not "a real man", but if you do, you're an oppressor.
To hell with them and their ideas of "real men".
Real men are those who define their own manhood.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real men are those who define their own manhood.
Give that man a beer! He gets it!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @02:13PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
Those who allow others to define thier identity, HAVE no identity.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That really strikes a chord with me, the bit about how women can be every bit as cruel and obnoxious as men, and the other bit about how, since women spit in our faces, we owe them nothing.
Last Sunday I went for a hike. At the beginning of my journey is a bridge, and this bridge has two ledges, one on either side, wide enough for one person to walk on. Following the rules of courtesy I took the right ledge, leaving the center of the bridge (quite wide) and the left ledge for other people.
As I neared the end of the bridge two teenage girls were approaching from the opposite direction. One of them looked at me and I could see the eau d'bitch in her eyes. This little number was Mexican or maybe Persian or Arabian, maybe five feet five, with eyeliner. Everything about her screamed "Sixteen," not that it mattered. Not my type even if she wasn't jailbait. She was wearing street clothes, which is kind of odd since this particular trail is no easy stroll through the park.
And what did this delightful specimen of femininity do? She deliberately got up on the ledge, being wide enough for one person only. It must give a teenage girl a great sense of power to challenge a grown man to a territory contest and win, but sadly for her, she would experience only defeat that day.
She looked up at me as we approached each other with that nasty, hateful look only a female of teenage or greater years can produce. Me: Poker face as always. When we were a foot apart I abruptly turned to the right and rested my elbows on the fence on the side of the bridge. "Nice day, isn't it?" I asked, as I gazed out over the gorge. It really was a nice day at that.
"Ahem. Excuse me," she said.
"Aah, yes. Well you see, I'm on the right side, and I have the right of way," I said, emphasizing "right" with my voice and by making a move-to-the-right gesture with my hands. She had some kind of glittery stuff in her eyeliner. Who the hell comes to this trail in full makeup and a long-sleeved shirt and jeans? Damn. She'd probably come up to the bridge from the trail going down into the gorge. That kind of clothing just doesn't work on the main trail.
"Oh, so you're going to play it like that, are you," she said, lips pouting and eyes scowling. I'd never met her before but this routine was intensely familiar.
"Yes, I'm afraid so." I had momentarily turned toward her, but was now gazing out across the gorge again. I had a bottle of water with me and the view was pleasant. I could stand there for an hour if need be. Spiteful bitchy teenagers who deliberately go out of their way to be offensive do not deserve respect or courtesy, and I would not move of my own volition. At 6'1 and over 200 pounds, and a martial arts practitioner to boot, I always follow the rules of courtesy, and when someone flagrantly violates them I grant no quarter. I didn't see why I should make an exception today.
"Okay, fine, if you're going to be a dick, an asshole..." This was said in that "I want you to be annoyed by my tone of voice" tone of voice that you, my comrades, must know all too well. She hopped down from the ledge and rejoined her friend.
She called out over her shoulder, "That's why you masturbate every night."
I smiled. As an adult I have learned that when a dog barks at you, it does not reflect well upon oneself to get down on one's hands and knees and bark back at it. So I chuckled to myself and started up the first big hill. It is better to pleasure oneself nightly and remain a bachellor forever, than to be enslaved by such a spiteful, self-centered SHREW such as her.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the fruit of feminism. Teenage girls who think they are entitled to everything, that the rules of courtesy do not apply to them, and that it REALLY ISN'T A BAD IDEA AT ALL to go out of their way to harass and annoy and challenge grown men capable of killing her bare-handed. But hey, she's EMPOWERED! She's not taking any crap from any man! In fact she's dishing out a little of her own!!!
Interestingly, teenage males NEVER, EVER challenge me in these situations. Perhaps they are unused to the idea that they can be as offensive as possible without any fear of getting a beat-down. Or perhaps they just respect older males? I don't know. Males of driving age rarely display road rage toward me either, whereas females have engaged me in dangerous high-speed chases and made very rude gestures at me.
Aristotle wrote that in a city in which the law applies only to men, half the city is essentially lawless. Meditate on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @01:22PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Hunsvotti.
well, You get respect here, where it really counts.
And yeah, teenage girls, well, what can I say about them...?
How about...: AAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @01:48PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Hungvotti says, "That really strikes a chord with me, the bit about how women can be every bit as cruel and obnoxious as men."
My great grandfather pushed your great grandmother aroung, thereforce, I have RIGHT to push you around.
Stop oppressing us.
Shelby
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine the misery of the poor sap lucky enough to win this beautiful example of loving, caring womanhood. He's in for quite a ride. And he'll get taken for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @04:51PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Freebird.
Yeah, That kind of "ride" that looks like so much fun, but then you get on it and you get real dizzy and sick and then when you get off you puke! (^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah, That kind of "ride" that looks like so much fun, but then you get on it and you get real dizzy and sick and then when you get off you puke! (^-^)"
Yep! Better to take up something safer. Like shark-wrestling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apoligize for the language, but it is an old quote that I for one have learned to appreciate as I grow older. "Is the fucking you got worth the fucking that you are getting?" Another one that comes to mind, "A whiskey glass, and a whores ass, have been many a mans' downfall." I have found that young women that display that type of attitude usually have no respect for their fathers. Either because they were raised solely by their mother, or their father was beaten down by the system, and was foolish enough to beleive the propaganda that has been fed to us. It is a shame, that people, regardless of gender have to put up with the results of societal failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth emphasizing the fact that feminism has failed girls and young women almost as much as it has hurt all boys and men. (They've all lost love, but it's the males who are losing contact with children and who are doing hard time as the result of false accusations.)
I pity that pathetic, nasty, little girl who tried to harass Hunsvotti. Before long she'll be whining that no man wants to be in a committed relationship with her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I pity that pathetic, nasty, little girl who tried to harass Hunsvotti. Before long she'll be whining that no man wants to be in a committed relationship with her. Somehow I doubt that'll happen. There are plenty of horny, feminized guys out there who will do just about anything for a piece... even marry for it. I wonder what percentage of young men haven't a clue as to the generalized whooping men in general are taking in most areas of life these days... who never see it coming until the divorce paperwork starts. And how many guys these days are brainwashed beyond repair into thinking that it is their male duty to allow themselves to be screwed by women? Dittohd P.S. Speaking of brainwashing, I've noticed some talk about how long this anti-male movement has been going on. I've seen both 20 and 35 years quoted here. I've got to say I'm in my early 50's and I still remember a nursery rhyme I was taught by my mother when I was a young child: - What are little boys made of?
- What are little boys made of?
- Snips and snails and puppy dogs' tails.
- That's what little boys are made of.
- What are little girls made of?
- What are little girls made of?
- Sugar and spice and everything nice.
- That's what little girls are made of.
I didn't like that nursery rhyme even as a child. Cute? Harmless? Not in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was read the same nursery rhyme as a kid and I sincerely DO remember feeling ... insulted by it. However, I don't think that's the way the author intended it, that is to be insulting to boys. Just that whoever it was tried to characterize the way each child plays. Most boys are much happier outside playing in the mud, chasing frogs and puppies than inside creating a faux tea party with the queen. I take it as a poetic attempt to characterize the difference in the sexes, and I decline to be insulted by it anymore.
Look, if we want to we can find an insult against men nearly everywhere we go. That's what the feminists have done, and they've turned it against men as a weapon. Look at Martha Burk. This whole bruhaha is over her wanting to feel insulted that she can't get through the gates at Augusta. But she doesn't have much support. I'm just suggesting that we exercise some restraint in this regard. I think it will ultimately be to our credit and to our benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep reading that advice here from time to time that we should practice restraint or be better than they are, but I'm not sure that will help us. I think the more we show restraint, the more we will get screwed. Do you ever get the impression that the women's movement is showing restraint? Have you noticed that the women's movement does their best to shoot us down at every turn even when we try for seemingly common sense middle ground? Dittohd P.S. I don't think the nursery rhyme's author's motives were pure. I think it's all intentional, slow but sure brainwashing. Take Robin Hood for instance. I always wondered, but was too shy to ask, why it was good to steal from the rich to give to the poor. Why was Robin Hood considered the good guy if he was stealing? It's OK to steal from someone if they're rich? You don't think this is a form of brainwashing by the liberals? Personally, I stopped going to movies a long time ago, in large part, because I felt that every time I went to one, there was almost always an underlying message or "lesson" they were trying to feed me, rather than just entertaining me. And sometimes these messages are so subtle, it's hard to consciously recognize and protect yourself from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep reading that advice here from time to time that we should practice restraint or be better than they are, but I'm not sure that will help us. I think the more we show restraint, the more we will get screwed.
You just shot the target dead center.
Do you ever get the impression that the women's movement is showing restraint? Have you noticed that the women's movement does their best to shoot us down at every turn even when we try for seemingly common sense middle ground?
Being honest, I'm half tempted to say fight fire with fire, as they have the most to lose from honesty. This movement has plenty of moderates, we need more radicals to get people talking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...This movement has plenty of moderates, we need more radicals to get people talking.
Well, I'm trying.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @04:22AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
She was hitting on you, you dolt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, this piece of troll trash really hit me. Looky here. If a woman is hitting on me and I don't recognize it, especially after having been on this planet for over forty years and having been around the block a couple times, then I have to say that maybe the woman (girl in this case) is going about it the wrong way. I'd be about as thrilled with this kind of pass as any unsuspecting debutante would be passing by a line of construction workers on a hot summer afternoon, just at the end of their lunch hour.
Besides, just 'cause she's hitting on me (or Hunsvotti in this case) doesn't mean I'm interested.
Dolt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with this; any woman who hits on a man by abusing him is just as bad as a man who does the reverse; unfortunately, we don't see a cartoon called "Joanie Bravo" where a beautiful woman who makes rude passes at men is subsequently assaulted and humiliated because most men won't pass up "easy ass," and young women tend to get away with murder just by flaunting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hahaha. That is a funny thing to say. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...young women tend to get away with murder just by flaunting it.
Remember another feminist slogan of recent years: "If you've got it, flaunt it!"
I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I've seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris' classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species' sexual signals may be olfactory (scents--which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it's never an accident: it's an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.
If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.
Once again, women don't make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males "can't keep their eyes to themselves." It's just more testing. If nothing else, it's a test of the male's ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. "I'm not logical. Deal with it." What does not destroy you ... makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; She will escalate every contest to the ultimate.
In "traditional" cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behavior, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn't cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.
In our "modern," revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it's a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don't feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the "patriarchy" women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our "enlightened" social order, where women are "free to be themselves." The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don't know what's best for their own welfare.
People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you're selling what you're showing? But of course, as our "modern" culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures' restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behavior becomes the norm.
Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I've encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behavior of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn't know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, "This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?" It was sad.
I was amused to see the following passage in the Seneca Falls "Declaration of Sentiments":
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.
The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less "nasty, brutish and short" than that of the animal world from which we came--and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For an interesting take on the status of girls/young women, go to this page and check out the first two articles "Can Girls have too much Self-esteem part II" and "When Sef-esteem runs Amok").
This is a link to the website for an organization called Dads and Daughters. If you look through the site at all you'll see that it has a heavily feminist emphasis; the guy who runs it is a memeber of NOW! It's interesting to see that, even among the partisans of the revolution, there appears to be a growing realization that something has gone wrong.
One line that really made me cringe was the author's refernce to trying to instill "emotional sensitivity" in his son. I wonder what feminizing bullcrap that poor kid had to put up with! I hope he finds his way to a happy life in spite of it.
One last statement: I believe that in an earlier post on mensactivism I referred to Dads and Daughters with approval. That approval was based on too little information, and I wish to retract it now. Although I certainly commend these guys for caring about their daughters, and trying to do the best they can for them, they are lending their support to a movement that has significantly damaged our society, and thereby everyone's chances for happiness, including their little girls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't go look and I'm not gonna, but I wonder if the guys who run this site have any sons? It occurs to me that fathers who have only daughters a) take a biased view on how their daughters 'ought' to be treated; b) are therefore clueless about how poorly boys are being treated.
I, for one, was never TRULY convinced that the whole feminist claim of nurture versus nature was bullshit until about a year after my son was born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank said:
"I, for one, was never TRULY convinced that the whole feminist claim of nurture versus nature was bullshit until about a year after my son was born." This is so true. It was a very convincing experience to watch my son grow after having had a daughter before him. When conversing with feminists I have found it fascinating that some of the most zealous of their lot have never had the experience of raising both sons and daughters. This of course does not keep them from being experts on little boys and their behavior. LOL Just like Martha Burk knows all about men in single-sex groups and our associated behaviors.
(Burk makes the claim that men denigrate women while in single-sex groups whereas women don't denigrate men....how the hell does she know? How many all-male groups has Martha "Bunker" Burk been a part of??? Just like all of the female written feminists books that claim to know all about men and our natures and behaviors. Some people actually buy books written by women telling us what men are really like! These same people would have a cow if a man wrote a book about pregnancy and what it was like to be a woman.) ;>)
Double standard? Duh.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @02:23PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, Tom.
Well said and funny too.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it ironic that in his first article he is appalled by the lack of compassion his daughter feels for her friend. His daughter brushes off her friends misgivings as "her fault" and never tries to empathize with her. If her friend was a man, her father never would have given her lack of compassion a second thought. I'm sure he would have agreed with her that it WAS his fault and he needs to accept that. Isn't funny how we raise the bar of responsibilty for men and lower it for women. His reaction is typical of our cultures comfortabilty of holding men to one standard of responsibility, and being horrified if we try to hold women to the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @02:24PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Teenaged girls just plain get on my nerves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just spread them open and eat them like a melon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @03:08PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"Interestingly, teenage males NEVER, EVER challenge me in these situations. Perhaps they are unused to the idea that they can be as offensive as possible without any fear of getting a beat-down. Or perhaps they just respect older males? I don't know. Males of driving age rarely display road rage toward me either, whereas females have engaged me in dangerous high-speed chases and made very rude gestures at me."
Here you hit on the biggest double-standard in history, while possibly contributing to it as well-- personal sanctity and respect; women seem to be given guarantees of this, which men are expected to earn at ridiculous and demeaning personal cost; the fact that you mentioned the possibility of giving male teens a "beat-down" for simple verbal interchange, with no hint at even the possibility of the same for a female, is a dead give-away as to why females feel so safe in copping such an abusive, unruly and disrespectful attitude toward men:
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT!
Likewise, males know that they're pretty much "on their own" if things get physical, so they simply have to rely on the old adage that "discretion as the better part of valor," and cross the street if things look unpromising.
I've always been incensed myself at this rule that "a bitch in heat can snap at an alpha male with impunity" i.e. teenage girls seem over-used to the notion that they can get in the faces of men without fear of getting punched, confident in the knowledge that any man who raises a hand to them not only loses any hope of getting a "piece," (this notion is fed by men with no self-esteem), but also confident in the knowledge that a lynch-mob will soon be formed to go after the man responsible; amidst all their "liberation" and "empowerment," women demand all the more that their "special protection" be not only maintained, but made absolute.
Meanwhile if a person of the male gender even becomes a victim of criminal assault or intimidation (or worse) by a bully, he won't be given anywhere near the same type of response from police or society, and will furthermore receive scorn and mocking ridicule rather than sympathy, even in the most outrageous cases. Likewise, the victim is most likely to be blamed; typical "likely stories" are that the victim "started it," to which society just says "boys will be boys" and labels the victim "a whining sore loser" even if he's a full-grown adult, and the victim is more likely to be harassed than helped by police.
Finally, all of the above refers only to male-on-male violence, as if this is "acceptable" (as it definitely is to women as a group); as for what happens when a woman assaults a man, we need look no further than this board.
This is instilled in children with the notion that "you can't hit girls" and the moral indignation programmed into "avenging" them; likewise, we all know how even the most unwilling and innocent male victim of assault is simply accused of "fighting" and "getting into fights" while a bully's punishment-- if any will be much more lenient if the victim is male.
This clear encouragement of assault on males-- and punishment
Whenever I hear any women mention "why don't men show their feelings?" I just can't believe their arrogant hypocrisy, and would like to give them a lifetime in our shoes, i.e. personal violation, debasement and humiliation at any show of emotional vulnerability, forcing men to swallow their feelings and turn completely stoic, or risk being attacked for being "effeminate;" meanwhile, feminists actually have the gall to both endorse this principle againt men, but not pay the price and be as effimate as they please, demanding full social support and protection simply for sporting a pair of breasts and a vagina.
The clear message is that males are expendible and have no rights, while the rights of females are beyond price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make a very interesting point that I may be supporting this whole stupid social construct, but as you say it is something of a catch-22.
There are two driving forces behind this. On one hand, I have certain strengths and weaknesses, but I know I can thrash more people than not. So I use the rules of courtesy to keep it under control, and I am lenient with most people because I know from experience that it takes 10 times more energy to "flare up" than it does to play it cool. When someone deliberately crosses me, though, knowing that they are unlikely to win in a physical fight, I get the idea that they think they can use social constraints to "cheat" their way into manipulating me. And I want to pound them for using these rules for an ill purpose, after I went out of my way to be nice and follow the rules.
On the other hand, I believe that if I use my strength punitively against someone who's weaker or can't fight as well, I will be poisoning myself spiritually. It's too easy to fall into a power trip and use "might makes right" to justify anything and everything.
If we were to remove this social constraint that says a man can't hit a woman who deliberately goes out of her way to insult him, we would see some changes alright. The smug gender-feminist smirk that comes from attacking with impugnity would turn into horror and reservation, at the realization that they weren't invulnerable any more. But then you'd see more guys beating women just because they could, not because the women did anything to deserve it. And that wouldn't be any better than what we have today, which is women beating men with impugnity. The pendulum would swing too far, you see?
I don't know the answer to this one, other than to spend tons more time drilling children on matters of etiquette.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Hunsvotti, for this meditation. A "90-pound weakling" myself, I've not had the same sort of opportunity you have to confront this question; but my Zen teacher used to say that our practice consisted of two things: meditation and self-restraint.
The "constraint" against hitting women will never be "removed"; that's not an option, because it's fundamentally not "social" but hard-wired. Women would never agree to it, of course, and here they rule, because their Big Sister makes the rules, and while Nature may care nothing for individuals, only species, She clearly cares more for females than for males: the female is the species, while the male is a temporary, expendable expedient. Fundamentally, we exist to serve females, and She can always make more of us if she needs to.
The only "answer" is for females to restrain themselves, individually and collectively. In "traditional" cultures, i.e. cultures that have lasted, the Tribal Grandmothers have seen to it that the young females didn't abuse their power. (Well, not too often, anyway.) In our modern "youth-oriented" culture, these constraints have broken down; elders are mocked more than honored--with good reason, unfortunately, since few ever really grow up any more. Feminist prattle about "crones" notwithstanding, there are no women elders in our culture; they're all acting like teenagers: self-absorbed, narcissistic, greedy. "We want it all!" Simply growing older does not qualify one to be an "elder" in the traditional sense, the only significant sense.
A while ago I spent some time around a local "men's group." I'm sorry, but I didn't find them doing anything I could join. One of their to me pointless rituals was a ceremony for men who'd reached the age of 50. This might be significant, if reaching 50 meant anything anymore; but it doesn't. These days practically anyone can get to 50 if they take enough drugs; no wisdom is required. Form without substance does not nourish.
As Bob Dylan said, "Women rule the world. No man ever did anything unless he was allowed or encouraged by a woman." Again, what do women want? What we have is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create. Only when they get really tired of what we have, tired enough to look at themselves and their power--first of all to even acknowledge that they have the power--and how they use it, will the situation change. In the past, these things were taken care of by unconscious consensus, but that won't work anymore. Now the consensus must become conscious, which means we all--women especially, because they rule--must become conscious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "90-pound weakling" myself, I've not had the same sort of opportunity you have to confront this question; but my Zen teacher used to say that our practice consisted of two things: meditation and self-restraint.
Don't underrate yourself too much. At my studio one of the black belts is this skinny Vietnamese guy who weighs maybe 110 pounds. He is one of the best people in the studio when it comes to sparring. His techniques are awesome. Another person there is this really diminutive woman, and let me tell you, she hits pretty hard for her size. She knows how to hit through the body, targetting an internal organ rather than just striking the surface.
What small people lack in raw power they can make up for with speed. Force = mass times acceleration. Five pounds @ ten feet per second is the same as ten pounds @ five feet per second - they both do the same amount of damage. It is true that they have to work harder and spend more time learning how to do this just right, but it's also true that they usually have a better power:weight ratio and don't run out of steam as quick. They are more susceptible to damage from strikes but they can dodge quicker than a larger person can! It takes a lot of work for a big guy to get as fast as a small guy!
There is also the difference in tactics. A big guy has longer arms and legs and can strike from a longer distance, but a good fighter (large or small) can use that to their disadvantage by getting in real close so the larger person gets jammed up and can't bring their natural weapons to bear. There's this guy at the studio who's tall as hell but he's easy to beat because he's easy to jam up. (To him I'm the short guy!)
So there are trade-offs. In theory a big guy who trains hard and true and gets really really fast should be able to dominate but a short guy might come along and figure out his Achilles heel and walk away victorious.
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So there are trade-offs. In theory a big guy who trains hard and true and gets really really fast should be able to dominate but a short guy might come along and figure out his Achilles heel and walk away victorious. "
Yeah, the Achilles-heel lock works great against tall guys... I found that out while training for my second UFC contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also the difference in tactics. A big guy has longer arms and legs and can strike from a longer distance, but a good fighter (large or small) can use that to their disadvantage by getting in real close so the larger person gets jammed up and can't bring their natural weapons to bear. There's this guy at the studio who's tall as hell but he's easy to beat because he's easy to jam up. (To him I'm the short guy!)
Very true. Being the tall guy, it's one of the reasons I took up Hapkido.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "constraint" against hitting women will never be "removed"; that's not an option, because it's fundamentally not "social" but hard-wired.
I assume you mean EQUAL constraint against hitting men, i.e. removal of the message (and statistics) that physical violations of any kind against persons of the male gender, will be treated in any way on a different level of legal or social plane from those against females. Let's face it-- we can never be truly equal, so long as men's bodies are less sanct than those of women-- unless one is to effect the "Colonel Colt" definition of "equality," which involves parting the eyes of a bully with a slug from a .45; this same liberal mentality which gave us feminism and wishes to treat us like victims, literally ensured it when they removed this option in the form of Hitlerian gun-control laws.
I also don't buy the notion that there's any "instinct" to avoid hitting women, any more than the basic sense of morality, if not simple "pussy-whipping;" rather, I think we've been conditioned by a collectivist culture and hypocrisy to behave in a macho-protective farty way against our own best interests.
However, as far as this "hard-wired" Social Darwinistic bullshit, I really don't give a rat's ass if a person's "hard-wired" to do whatever-- it does't give them a "license to kill," and if they can't overcome their instincts and behave like a rational human being instead of a reactive animal, then they should be locked up like said animal.
I'm quite fed up with this egalitarian "heat of the moment" or "human nature" defense that gets accepted by the same "legal guardians" that live on a steady diet of this same pragmatist excuse-making psychobabble, and is used daily to to justify anything from bullying to murder in the relegation of blind justice to subjective whimsy;
it's a basic undermining of any semblance of justice or even consistency, while we can forget about being "created equal" in a system which is basically a crap-shoot that makes the victim into a second-class citizen who feels more victimized by the system, endowed with public trust under an assumed social contract, than by the lone perpetrator whose relation to the victim is one of mere circumstance.
It's the same old collectivist argument whereby individual rights are subordinated to the perceived good of the whole like sheep, while the shepard-- i.e. statist government-- only cares what's best for the herd so he can fleece it.
So we see that the price of freedom is, truly, eternal vigilance; for there will always those to whom your rights are, at most, a mere nuisance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If we were to remove this social constraint that says a man can't hit a woman who deliberately goes out of her way to insult him, we would see some changes alright. The smug gender-feminist smirk that comes from attacking with impugnity would turn into horror and reservation, at the realization that they weren't invulnerable any more. But then you'd see more guys beating women just because they could, not because the women did anything to deserve it. And that wouldn't be any better than what we have today, which is women beating men with impugnity. The pendulum would swing too far, you see?"
Nope-- what part of the term "equal protection under the law" do you not understand? I think you've taken one too many punches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The law doesn't actually stop people who want to hit each other NOW, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was most interested to see this item, because I know of Devvy Kidd as a prominent "activist" in the "constitutionalist patriot" movement which has grown up in recent decades in response to the rapidly escalating takeover of our country (as well as the rest of the world) by the New World Order one-world global plantation. I was, to say the least, disappointed at what she wrote here. And delighted at the excellent response from Graham Strachan, who makes some very cogent points (check out his home page, by the way). And I've enjoyed some of the comments here; men are waking up. Here's what I wrote to Devvy Kidd:
Dear Devvy Kidd,
I was most interested recently to come across your article "Where Have All The 'Men' Gone?" which was referenced on a site concerned with what are nowadays being called "men's issues." I note this article first appeared over nine months ago; I don't know what kind of response/s you may have had, but would like to add my own.
I've heard of you before, through my own involvement in the "constitutionalist/patriot" movement, and while I haven't followed your activities closely, I've had the impression you've been doing valuable work, alerting and educating the American people to the peril we face--in particular your role in the awakening of ex-IRS agent Joe Banister, among, I'm sure, many others. I've heard you on one or another shortwave radio program, and taken a couple looks at your web site. So I was intrigued to see you pop up on a site whose general political orientation tends to be (due mostly to ignorance, I feel) rather different than yours, or mine, on such issues.
Born during the Second Great War (while my father was away defending hearth and home--and Standard Oil's profits, though he didn't know it at the time), raised in the liberal atmosphere of a southern California university community, an avid experimenter with psychedelics in the 1960s, as well as "draft-dodger," all-around hippie and long-term student of Oriental wisdom traditions, I was until about age 40 a fairly typical example of the feminist/socialist revolution's effect on American culture: a regular "Sensitive New Age Guy."
However, I also had the advantage of having had a father who was one of the fast-vanishing type of American men who thought for himself, was a real truth-seeker, and understood about freedom and responsibility. (He came home to a war with his wife, which she naturally won, assigning him the role of bogeyman and turning his children against him. Nevertheless, at least I had a father.) He taught me, mostly by a kind of osmosis, to "question authority"--enough that not only did I question the same authorities that so many in my generation questioned, I also continued questioning after most in my generation simply accepted yet another authority--the feminist/communist orthodoxy that is if anything even more rigid and stultifying than the one we originally rebelled against.
Thus, when at about age 40 I came across the work of Irwin Schiff, Tupper Saussy and others I was open enough to recognize almost immediately that they were making a lot better sense than anything I'd been taught before about political, economic and social issues. I immediately quit paying at least the major taxes for which I was not legally (or morally) liable, and have continued studying and learning in the twenty years since. Which was why your name was familiar to me when it appeared on the Mensactivism site.
What's interesting to me about your article is that, although I know you disagree emphatically with all (or nearly all) the aims of the femmunist movement, you clearly agree with them on the one basic issue that I would consider the very cornerstone of their whole ideology: the idea that men, a mysterious species totally foreign to women (as in "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"), rule the world, and women are merely their innocent, powerless victims. Thus, frustrated (understandably) in your efforts to awaken the American people, you resort, as women have since the Beginning, to castigating men.
Unfortunately, it won't work. The premise is false, so any action based thereon will be fruitless.
The truth is, regardless of appearances, it is women who truly rule the world. This has always been so; it will always be so. Human males, like males of all species, are created by females for purposes of their own: to provide services which they cannot or prefer not to do for themselves. Including, e.g., the rapid evolution enabled by genetic roulette; taking out the garbage; fighting wars to capture (or defend) territory and assets whose possession provides for the comfort of women and their children; etc. etc.
And, occasionally, when asked, the ability to think clearly and dispassionately about issues of import, simply because men, at one remove from Nature who rules women's lives, have at least the potential ability to escape the total hormonal control that She (the very Goddess the feminists insist we worship) exercises over women's consciousness. But of course, this will be no help if women refuse to acknowledge that men can do anything for them that they can't do for themselves.
Human males, like males of all other species, operate under a single Prime Directive: Please the Female. Since the invention of sex, roughly 1.5 billion years ago, males have been ruthlessly selectively bred to obey this imperative: those who did not, who failed to get there fustest wi' th' mostest, did not become our forefathers, thus were genetically irrelevant.
The truth is, the argument you're involved in is actually, like all human arguments, between groups of women. (In fact, I would extend this even to arguments between individual women and men: when a woman marries, she marries her mother-in-law's idea of what a "proper" man is.) The men you complain about are the men created, molded and used by the women who run the other side of the argument. They don't please you because that's not their job; they please the women who control them--just as the men you and (the few) other women like you control strive to please you.
"Why is this? Why is this?" If you can't see it for yourself, I guess I'll have to enlighten you: The men you complain about are the sons of the mothers who created the feminist movement, which gave us Infant Male Circumcision (terrorize, torture and mutilate male babies so they'll be sure to remember who's the Boss throughout their life), Prohibition (if men drink to excess, never ask why, just clamp down with all the power of the State, in the process creating a vast network of organized crime and its mirror image, the Federal Police), and the "19th Amendment" (is it entirely accidental that the slide into totalitarian socialism has radically accelerated since women decided to trade in their husbands for the support provided by the All-Powerful State?). Not to mention the entire catalog of horrors since the 1960s, when the first universally-circumcised generation of American men came of age and began caving in completely to feminist demands.
"Systems and agencies that are putting their women and children into a state of involuntary servitude for all their lives." Well, maybe they are (though I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to)--but only in the time they have to spare from enslaving men, especially divorced fathers (now defined as "sex abusers") who must turn over most of what they make to their ex-wives while they're barred from any contact with their children. Not to mention single men who pay confiscatory taxes to support "female heads of household." That's what the "black robed judges" spend most of their time doing. At the behest of the women who elect them.
"Back in 1776, this breed of men would be called cowards." Maybe, but now they're called "enlightened," while Washington, Jefferson and their ilk are seen for what they really were: male-chauvinist slavedrivers. This is the history that is taught in our government-run schools, by 90% female teachers, supported by the vast majority of American women voters--who are the absolute majority of all voters.
"The men of this country ... refuse to lift a finger to ensure that their women and children will not be forced into global citizenship under the UN. Why is this?" You really don't know? It's for the simplest, most powerful, most ancient reason of all: because it's what women want, and any man who doesn't give women what they want is a failure, out of the picture.
"Why won't these men stand up to this rogue agency called the IRS?" You really don't know? Have you ever tried to talk to a woman about the IRS? I've found this is one of the best ways to lose all the female friends you have. They love the Income Tax, because it's what makes it possible to dump their husbands and live off the State. Any man who says anything negative about the Income Tax is in serious danger of never getting a date.
"These men have put their children in harms way via mandatory social indoctrination in the anti-God public school system." If talking about the Income Tax doesn't get you drawn and quartered, try criticizing the public school system. There's hardly any cow more sacred in our utopian Matriarchy.
"Over the past 40 years, the men of this country have sat back and allowed themselves to be brow beaten into submission and castrated by so-called 'feminists' like Rosie O'Donnell and Hillary Clinton...." Nearly all (90+%) of those men, like me, were already "castrated" at birth when their mothers had them circumcised. (The psychological effect of infant male circumcision is essentially the same as castration--i.e. abortion of full development of male consciousness and character--while still leaving the male able to provide necessary basic stud service.) You're asking these men to rebel first against their own mothers. Is that what you want? Can a viable human society be created on such a basis? Is it even possible?
"Our nation was built by men who were self-reliant, independent and strong." No, they were male chauvinist pigs and patriarchal oppressors. Just ask (almost) any woman.
"Women in this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on 'romance books' whose pages are filled with knights in shining armor and genuine heroes coming to rescue the damsel in distress. Why do you suppose that is?" I've wondered about this myself, since those same women demand that the men in their own lives be the spineless wimps you so scathingly describe in your essay. I don't know why; perhaps, as a woman, you can enlighten me?
"Today they are tolerant, sensitive and genuflect at the feet of perverts called 'gays.'" While you're at it, perhaps you can elucidate another mystery for me: Why is it that the very same women who complain that all the "good" men are either married or "gay" also become instantly rabid in defense of "gay rights"?
Sigmund Freud became famous for (among other things) his immortal question: "What do women want?" Well, I've figured out the answer: WHAT WE HAVE is what women want, because it is what they have used their power to create. If they wanted it different, they would have made it different. Q.E.D.
One thing I do know, however: Although I was brought up to be a perfect little 20th century American male feminist, it has been the behavior of women themselves which has finally convinced me of the truth in the "traditional" views of women, and of the wisdom of men in the past who kept women "in their place," where their passionate irrationality could be prevented (at least somewhat) from doing damage, not only to men, but to themselves as well. Clearly, the 19th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes in American history.
"Why are the women the ones out there on the front lines battling this government tooth and nail for our children - ready and willing to die if necessary to protect our own?" Sorry, not so. There may be a few women, such as yourself, involved in this fight, but there are many more men. I have a list of over a hundred web sites, 90% of them by men, devoted to the struggle to prevent the evils you enumerate in your article. Though I honor your work, such intellectual dishonesty ... well, is typical of why men of the past--the very men you praise--paid only limited attention to women, even as they worked and risked their lives to build a nation wherein women were better off than they have been at any other time or place in human history.
Which these very same women are now working with equal enthusiasm (though far less risk, at least in the short run--which seems to be all they can see) to destroy.
You may have seen an excellent response to your article from Australian Graham Strachan. I would disagree with him only in that the history of this war on men and maleness is not just twenty years old. Its modern phase began, by the feminists' own "herstory," in 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention (see its "Declaration of Sentiments" for a catty parody of the Declaration of Independence)--the same year that the Communist Manifesto appeared. Coincidence? Cui bono?
For my part, after a lifetime of abuse, I've gradually become rather sick of women, their endless complaints, irrational inconstancy, self-satisfied narcissism and wearisome temper tantrums. I'm retired. While I can see the value, in absolute spiritual terms, of standing up for the truth, it seems pointless to engage in battle for something whose intended beneficiaries clearly don't want it. It's your world, sisters; I'm only a guest here, my very existence a result of my mother's not having bothered to exercise her "right to choose" to abort me. If you don't like how things are, rather than complaining to the hired hands, the front men, fall guys, whipping boys and cannon fodder, you'd do better to talk to The Boss.
If something you've purchased doesn't work right, what do you do? Take it back where you got it, no? Well, where do men come from? I'd suggest you address your complaint to the manufacturer.
Maybe when you girls've got it sorted out, you'll let us know exactly what you do want. Or maybe my nephew (thank God I don't have any children to worry about), or his son or grandson. My nephew, age 25, recently married. His wife is clearly smarter than he is--not to mention at least 50% heavier--and clearly knows exactly what she wants. God help him, poor chump. He's what his mother, his teachers, American women have made him, and so he shall be.
Sincerely,
An American man who's had enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's some more such nonsense from one Ms. Virginia Haussegger.
I love her statement in reference to an episode in Sex in the City, "'What's the point of a husband?' said Julie (another groovy glam-pot). 'I mean, who needs two babies?'... such "truisms have a kind of 'in-your-face' reverberation."
Let's see, a truism is a "self-evident truth; especially: one too obvious for mention." (Merriam-Webster)
OK. So it's a self-evident truth that men are babies. Let's see where this rocket scientist, Haussegger, goes with this.
"The problem is we haven't really replaced the old-fashioned stuff (committed relationships and stable marriages) with anything better."
Ya think? Gee, it's at least good to see women like her making a sincere effort to build something better.
A few other gems from her polemic...
"Baird (another female writer for smh.com.au) is right when she says that for women 'love and commitment are our battleground now, the place where the struggle for female identity is going on'."
So. They declare that men are babies and then declare that "love and commitment are our battleground now."
What a way to fight a battle:
1. Point gun into own face
2. Pull trigger.
"Consider a few sobering facts: almost one in two marriages ends in divorce, and four out of every five women separated from the fathers of their children become the lone prime carer."
Uh, huh. As if this is a burden on women. "Women separated from the fathers of their children." Who the hell does she think files for most divorces? Talk about a willful distortion of the facts. And when custody is disputed, and the father and mother both want to be the lone prime carer, the courts, in about 80% of the cases give custody to the desiring mother (at least in the US).
"For men in particular, such 'permanent temporariness' (living together for a while) might seem a pretty good place to be, while they drag their adolescence well into their 30s and even their early 40s."
The usual. Men won't commit because men are children. Never mind the fact that marriage and fathering are two of the most self-destructive activities in which men can engage today.
"And perhaps women like Carrie (from Sex and the City) who declare an allergy to weddings and a lack of 'the bride gene' should also dig a bit deeper and ask - why? And what am I going to do about it?"
How 'bout for starters you stop being self-righteous, hateful, sexist liars?
A WORD OF WARNING: The feminists have started to push for the majority (read "female") elected government to use tax dollars (much of them taken from men) to pay for women to be mothers. In other words, as women continue to eliminate men from the family, they will have their governments take money from men and give it to women and their children to live on.
Now let's see... No representation in the family. Taxation. Hmmmm. I'll have to check my history books. I'm sure there was something about another type of taxation without representation in American history. Seems to me it didn't end well for those imposing the taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The feminists have started to push for the majority (read "female") elected government to use tax dollars (much of them taken from men) to pay for women to be mothers. In other words, as women continue to eliminate men from the family, they will have their governments take money from men and give it to women and their children to live on"
All this is true, but we still have the freedom, at least pre-divorce, to choose our own career path. Me? I'd like to be an artist, a sculptor in copper and brass, cutting and brazing it together in interesting shapes. And I've learned that for myself, I don't particularly NEED to have 2300 sq. ft. home on a 3/4 acre lot. All I need is an efficiency, or at most a small apartment with a BIG shop. And as for taxable income? I don't need all that much of it. I can barter with the plumber down the street or whomever.
This thing is this: we can simply refuse to feed the tax machine by doing what we want instead of what generates income and therefore tax revenue. As for the poor slobs who've already gotten started into the wealth generating machine, they're screwed, because the courts will order them to keep jobs that pay the child support monster. But once that child is emancipated, the court can't do that anymore, and these guys will see what how badly they're being taxed, and they'll open THEIR hot dog stands and get rid of THEIR expensive townhomes.
I saw it printed recently in a newspaper, about these ten guys who went to dinner each week. They ran the gamut of income levels, and they each paid for dinner according to their means. One day the restaurant owner decided to lower prices, so after dinner that night, the guys of lesser means started to talk about how much each had gotten back. Soon they all realized that the rich guy got FAR more back that they each had, even though he still paid far more than each of them. And so the next night they set upon him and berated him for his selfishness. The next night, he didn't show up, so his share was missing, and then these guys realized they were screwed.
The moral of the story is that one day the people who are paying all the bills aren't going to show up, and all those fools with that outrageous sense of entitlement are going to be screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists have started to push for the majority (read "female") elected government to use tax dollars (much of them taken from men) to pay for women to be mothers. In other words, as women continue to eliminate men from the family, they will have their governments take money from men and give it to women and their children to live on.
No kidding. This is exactly what Warren Farrell explored The Myth of Male Power, in the aptly titled "Government as Substitute Husband" section.
Once I believed the idea that, on principle, women "deserve" to vote. However, it is now plain to me that the situation described is the inevitable consequence of women voting.
Women expect to be taken care of; this is not "social conditioning," it's genetic programming, going back at least to the avian level of evolution, where pair-bonding was invented. Male birds have to bring something, usually food or a built nest, to females to induce them to mate. Among humans, this arrangement was "formalized" somewhere around 50-100,000 years ago, anthropologists conjecture (see, among other sources, Helen E. Fisher, The Sex Contract), when women began emulating sexual receptivity even when not fertile, to induce men to bring them food, protect them from sexual and other predation, etc., while they were tied up with nursing infants they had to haul around. Women instinctively expect to be taken care of.
When women begin taking part directly in the political process, i.e. voting, they naturally begin to transfer this expectation of care and protection from the imperfect men in their personal lives (fathers, brothers, suitors, husbands, sons) to the State, which, as a relatively distant, conceptual entity, can be imagined, in minds that don't think very hard, to be perfectible. And the new arrangement works, in the short run, anyway. Since all politicians need from (most) women is votes, they're happy to give them everything they want in return; and when women learn this, their desires quickly become unlimited. They don't just want "equality"--whatever that may mean--now they "want it all!" Not just "the vote," but affirmative action and every other form of guaranteed outcome, heavily skewed divorce and related laws, welfare (supplied by single, working men) for "female heads of household," etc. etc. Like a horse that's got into the oats, they'll literally keep eating until they bloat up and explode. They have no internal self-restraint, because they've never had to develop any before; previously they were restrained by men, and by circumstances, but now in the artificial world of political power they're restrained by nothing.
Frankly, at this point I don't see any way to stop it. A Brave New World populated by "gender-transitioned" (Farrell's term) perpetual pre-adolescents is the inevitable result of feminism. In the words of the late, lamented Edward Abbey, "A world of androgynes, encapsulated in beehive cities, fiddling with buttons penile, electronic and clitoral--that is the future beloved alike by the technocratic futurologists and the thoroughly logical radical feminists. Cut off from their primordial animal natures, denying the biological wellspring of life, reproducing themselves through artificial insemination of laboratory wombs, the inhabitants of this glittering metallic city will live to the full the existence of rationally programmed robots. And what is the ideal robot but a properly processed human being?" ("The Future of Sex: A Reaction to a Pair of Books" [by Susan Brownmiller and Gloria Steinem], in One Life at a Time, Please )
Sure, "men" nowadays prolong adolescence to their 30s and 40s. They have no incentive to do otherwise; in fact, should they try to become men, i.e. developed adults, they'll catch hell for sure, from the perpetually-preadolescent "women" ("Boys. Yech.") of Sex and the City.
For my part, I'm happy I'm finally old and tired enough not to be entirely under the domination of my hormones, and thus of the females who control the supply of what my hormones tell me I can't live without. I know it's nearly inconceivable to younger men--which I was myself not so long ago--but the only solution I see is for men to simply turn away from these women. Should I get close to another woman in this life, I very much doubt it'll be an American woman. I saw an interesting website (don't have the URL handy) from a guy who went to Southeast Asia to find a wife who was willing to give him a little respect in return for the traditional love, support and protection. Nothing's perfect, of course, but this sounds at least doable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 14, @11:42PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the website your looking for, Phil, is the NiceGuy's Women suck page which is URL
http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/womensuck/index2.html .
He's been living and dating in Japan the last year, and has sworn off ever marrying an American gal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, "Anonymous"; this isn't the site I meant, but it's great stuff (I'd start with the first page).
It does seem to be true that Asian women are, on average, a lot nicer to get along with than the American version (not to mention nicer to look at, to my taste, anyway), but I have to wonder: for how long? I don't think there's any fundamental difference between American and other women; what we're seeing is simply traits native to female consciousness and character, unrestrained. And the rest of the world does seem to want to emulate America, in this perhaps more than anything else beyond simple economic prosperity.
A few years ago a local young man in his twenties met a Japanese girl in a Chinese class in Beijing, and brought her home and married her. Recently they separated, at her behest, I gather. I don't know them well, but an older male friend who has been a mentor to the young man, and to their marriage, tells me he got so tired of the woman calling him up and screeching at him that he finally hung up on her. (He's also been having a hard time keeping his own marriage together; his wife, a Filipina-American, beautiful and sweet, nearly left him--with their three children--after having her "consciousness raised" by local Anglo feminists. I know he's a good husband and father, but they almost had her convinced he wasn't good enough.)
In my slight acquaintance with the young man, I did find him self-confident to the verge of a kind of quiet arrogance, and suspect he may not be a very good listener. But that's how young men are (if their spirit hasn't been trashed, like so many of us); in effect, the challenge for a young woman is to tame him without breaking him, so she'll have a strong protector. Modern American women just don't seem to be up to that challenge, preferring weak males instead; and I have the feeling this pattern is spreading. A nation, a civilization whose women cripple their men is ripe for conquest. As Graham Strachan points out, "behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage." This is what's really happening.
BTW, would all you "Anonymous Users" please take the brief trouble to register and get handles? It really would help to tell you apart. Some of you are very good, some are idiots; I'd like to know who I'm reading, and responding to. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha! I am a young man and I intend to be an old bachellor, never to marry or reproduce! I see the utter ludicrous bullshit my married brother has to put up with and I think, "Not for me, thank you kindly!" I'm not going to let some impulses in that nerve ring in the center of my brain fool me into signing my entire life away to some woman who'll decide, a few years down the road, that she's entitled to screw me out of everything or mess up my life in some other way! If you knew what my brother had to put up with and go through your blood would probably boil!
For me there will be a small, well-organized house, full of delicious QUIET! The only sound will be the Grandfather clock and the occasional opening and closing of heat registers! I am totally looking forward to this. I'm going to start looking for some nice linen pajamas and a smoking jacket. Maybe I'll get one of those giant brandy snifters too! >:)
I will enjoy visiting my niece, and being the cool uncle, while my brother and his wife deal with the rigors of actually raising her. I'll take trips whenever and wherever I want because I'll have a pile of money from not having to support two (or more) extra mouths. Without a family to tend to I'll be able to develop myself spiritually in ways I just wouldn't have time to otherwise. I'll have the lads over for billiards and cigars and they can stay 'till two in the morning and there won't be any firey-eyed vixen to tell me they have to leave, or to have the audacity to tell me to sleep on the couch while she sleeps in the bed I paid for, in the house I paid for, wearing the pajamas she bought with money from my account. There may be women visitors from time to time but the second I find a box of tampons under the sink or an extra toothbrush on top of it they're getting the hell out.
Too bad I have to wait until I'm 30 to get a vasectomy. :(
This is going to be GREAT!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad I have to wait until I'm 30 to get a vasectomy.
What, is there some kind of rule about this? Whose idea was that, I wonder? I analyze all observed social phenomena starting with a basic hypothesis: it must somehow serve women's needs or desires. So far, it always fits.
Anyway, I'll be 60 this year, so I guess it wouldn't apply to me. A friend recently remarked "I don't want to be somebody's daddy," and had the operation. (He's now enjoying life on a beach in the Philippines.) I thought, Yeah, that makes sense. Not into surgery, but might consider it if the need arose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love her statement in reference to an episode in Sex in the City, "'What's the point of a husband?' said Julie (another groovy glam-pot). 'I mean, who needs two babies?'
I think statements like this define the entire problem; women simultaneously want to launch insults and slurs -- however vicious-- against men, while claiming it to be only in jest,and faulting men who take offense for having no sense of humor (even though no one claims more loudly that "no means no" when the tables are turned regarding to similar treatment); however at the same time want to be taken seriously.
Does someone wanna tell these over-21 year old children that, if they ever wanna grow up and be treated like adults, they're going to have to realize, someday, that they can't have it both ways?
I think this question might be best answered by "Psychology Today," a notoriously feminist publication which is about as scientific as "Playboy," and which contained an article about "why men can't show their feelings;" ironically, the text of the article was some "confession" by a "whipped" male, but the margins of which were laced with numerous misandric jokes by famous women from Gloria Steinem to Yoko Ono, the latter of which actually said "I don't see how men can take themselves so seriously; if I had a stupid appendage like that, I'd be too busy laughing at myself." (I
Other such jokes compared men to dogs etc.
I think the selective outrage against jokes about other persons of various races and ethnicities, should make anyone of even modest intelligence aware of the hypocrisy- but this leaves out feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Psychology Today," a notoriously feminist publication which contained an article about "why men can't show their feelings;"...
Was this a recent issue? I'd like to look it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Kidd replied to my letter, and stated that the had written a follow-up piece to her original article. It can be found here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/news_worthy/news_wort hy1.htm
I replied with this letter:
-----
Dear Ms. Kidd,
Thank you for your reply. While I certainly do agree with a lot of what you said in your 2nd article, my original point to you still stands. From your original article, you made it clear that it's a man's job to protect "women and children". What you essentially said in so many words is that it's a man's duty to protect women and children.
No, it's not. My only duty, that is obligation, is to whomever I voluntarily enter into a contract with. To say that it's my duty to protect you is to say that I owe it to you. My question is: On the basis of what? I entered into absolutely NO contract with you or women in general.
It's funny that feel men have some type of duty to protect women, yet you didn't mention any type of obligation on the part of women to protect men.
In your 2nd article, you thanked the men of the military for their service to keep you free. Why are you thanking them? After all, according to you, it's their duty to keep you free. Granted, it's proper to thank somebody who voluntarily protects you. Now you're probably thinking "But they voluntarily joined the military!" Perhaps so, but the fact is, in your view, is that they already owed it to you, so in joining the military, they were just fulfilling their duty to you. So essentially, their "voluntarily" joining is rendered null and void. They were only doing it because they owed it to you.
As far as you being labeled "right-wing", you should be offended at the statement. From what I can tell, you're not right-wing at all. The foundation of your beliefs, whatever you choose to call them, is the same foundation that leftists of all stripes share: The idea that somebody owes something to somebody else on the basis of altruism. No ma'am, you're not right-wing at all. I would most definitely classify you as left-of-center. You don't demand the unearned in terms of dollars, you demand it in terms of services. But the essense of it is the same. "You owe me!"
At this point, you may be thinking "Well you're just a woman-hater." Nothing could be further from the truth. In my humble opinion, the greatest mind that humanity has ever produced was a woman. Her name was Ayn Rand. But keep in mind that I hold such high admiration for her not on the basis of her gender, but on the content of her ideas. I would dare say that there has never been a person throughout all of history that has done more than her to fight the leftist/socialist mentality in this country.
So, Ms. Kidd, I don't place anybody on a pedastal on the basis of their gender. I couldn't care less if you have a vagina, a penis, or something in-between. (Which today's gender-benders certainly come close to having.) I care only for the content of a person's character. If I didn't enter into a voluntary, mutual contract with you, then I don't owe you one single thing. (Except respect for your individual rights.)
Please keep in mind, Ms. Kidd, that I haven't spoken to you in any harsh way, like some of your previous e-mails. I haven't used profanity to you, cursed you, or called you any names. While I may strongly disagree with what you have said in this particular instance, I don't believe resorting to namecalling is the proper way to debate. Those who resort to namecalling don't have a foundation for their beliefs: They rely on emotion, not sound reasoning.
I also realize that you are a busy person, and may not have time to respond to me. I would sincerely love to continue a dialogue with you, but I understand that you may not have the time. If you do decide to write me back, I promise I will give it the utmost consideration when I read it.
-----
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before I proceed to pissoff a lot of my men's movement brothers, let me just say that from what I've read, I agree 100% percent with ya all. However, the underlying fundamentals of what Devvy Kidd wrote is true. While I consistantly attack feminism and our anti-male culture, the biggest problem I have with American men is their "If I ignore it, it will go away" attitude.
Let me explain. The greatest gift, and most satisfying place I've found is the Mensactivism website. Here I find men who are willing to speak up for themselves and not let feminism steal their balls. However in the real world, most men would rather do anything else than "get involved". I think this is what Devvy is attempting to say, but said it in the most pathetic and selfish way.
Example. Last fall I decided to start producing a newsletter to educate men on the issues that affect their daily lives, feeling the more educated men are about the sexism facing them, the more they would get involved. I started by gathering a couple of guys together that felt very strongly on men's issues. In the end, I was the only one who completed the first newsletter- the rest bailed on me. The reasons: sports, beer, chasing pussy. They felt strongly about the issues, but felt confident that "other men" would take up the cause for them.
I distributed about 40 newsletters asking for responses so I could judge how involved men wanted to become in defending their rights. Not one replied.
The newsletter almost cost me my marriage. Most family members said the best thing to do was to end it. After further review, the newsletter LIVES. If I have to do it myself, then so be it. I'll be damned to be one of those macho guys that will go to war to defend our freedom and die on a foreign land, yet be discriminated against on my own soil by those that are not forced to go!
It is this form of machoism that upsets me with American men. A lot of men have it ass-backwards. You get what you give. As Graham Strachan stated in his reply, lets create something at home worth fighting for first. Nobody's going to do this for us. If were pissed off about something, a beer, a shot, and a fifteen minute bitch session with your best buddy doesn't change a damn thing. I think this is what Devvy Kidd was trying to say, but leave it to a woman to make it all about HER!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"While I consistantly attack feminism and our anti-male culture, the biggest problem I have with American men is their "If I ignore it, it will go away" attitude."
But this begs the question-- what if a man PROTESTS feminism and male-bashing?
Simply put, a man is likely to be worse off for doing this, for this indicates injury, and hence vulnerability, from a female-launched attack;
for this, he's more likely to be attacked by other men and women alike, just as with male victims of domestic violence. It's the same with the media; feminist women want to be taken seriously and respected, but don't want to have to act responsibily and show respect.
Likewise, such men will be likewise accused of validating and encouraging such attacks by responding to them, ala paying attention to a barking dog.
Contrarily, the doctrine of "qui tacit consentire" applies, whereby men who fail to protest such attacks, tacitly consent to them; thus, men are in a catch-22 whereby we're damned if we protest it, and damned if we don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is this form of machoism that upsets me with American men."
I think the correct word here is "bravado," i.e. they want to pretend that feminism doesn't bother them because it would give the appearance, to men and women alike, that they're "afraid of women--" a complete social taboo, but one which feminists also use against men who object to the simple amorality and unfairness of their actions.
The implication by men is that "real men don't lower themselves to a woman's level" since they "wear the pants in a relationship," and any admission that a man feels displeasure at anything a woman says or does, would imply both vulnerability and a lack of control-- a thing which, for all their egalitarian rhetoric, feminists have the fall to continue to fault men.
Meanwhile the female implication is men simply "feel threatened" (or insert your own nonosensical feminist-psychobabble term here) by these women's "superiority" on the grounds that "men are natural control-freaks who can't stand to be shown up."
Again, the subjective "power and control" argument is used against men as a catch-22 whereby men are faced with higher expectations and lower sympathy, but not allowed to expect superior status in return.
Logically, this adds up to one message: "Men are inferior."
How often have we heard the phrase "you're just afraid of strong women" in response to men who fault such harpies as Hillary Clinton, Oprah and Janet Reno-- in spite of any objective reason?
Men and women alike have fallen for this type of ad-homeneim fallacy for too long; as long as women can threaten men with their vulnerability under this double-standard, men are helpless to fight back out of societally-imposed shame, which is literally a form of mind-control.
Such "fear of women" arguments have all the logic of claiming a rape trial is "just about sex," and yet they continue to work because of the unwritten rule that men must give the appearance of being in control, if they want to have any hope of respect or having their needs met; as a result, men repress the rational fear which is nevertheless taboo, giving the feminists leverage through hypocrisy in simultaneously faulting traditionally-male institutions, while at the same time threatening men with failing to live up to them.
Did I say "Catch-22?" I think that may be the understatement of the century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They felt strongly about the issues, but felt confident that "other men" would take up the cause for them.
This CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED --------
People who know me know that I'm not inclined to yell online. But this CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED .
If we want to make the men's movement successful soon, there has to be something in it TODAY for the participants.
We have to make it FUN.
Bring in the buskers, the musicians, the jugglers. Let's make this a circus! We're men. If our movement will be more successful if we turn it into a circus, then let's turn it into a circus.
There has to be something in it now to keep people active. The feminist liars seduced women with promises of money, sex, and power. We want nothing more than decency, honesty, and justice. That's not very seductive.
So let's make the process FUN. We have to focus on that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I am with you 100% in that we must make our movement fun and enjoyable for it to really take root and be successful. People will be far more apt to join up if they are getting something positive out of it.
So, everyone, how about some ideas we can put into action?
An observation of mine has been that men don't really depend on each other for the most part. We mostly fight alone, and don't have a lot of connection to each other, save for the military perhaps. We should be able to lean on each other and support each other. This is one area where women have a major advantage. The common saying is a wimpy man is p-whipped, but he is actually a lot more likely to be heart-whipped. Women have emotional attachments to their friends, while men rarely have such connections to their buddies. I'm not suggesting a sexual thing unless that's what individuals want, but a "brotherhood" of sorts. Many of us here share common experiences if not interests, and can meet on either basis. I was thinking last night of Thundercloud, for example. I don't share ancestry with him, but do share an interest in Native American issues. I have had Cherokee friends who have made comments to me like "you only think you're white". That's a huge complement, coming from a Cherokee to a white guy.
At any rate, stronger bonds between us would make us that much stronger, and would help us grow faster. At rallies like the one on Washington, the humerous signs got our point across and a good time was apparently had by all. We could have a repeat performance in Augusta, perhaps, only bigger. The more fun we have, and the more we can offer, the faster we will grow, and the more people will notice the difference between us and the femmunists with their sour, shrill, hateful stance. Heck, if both groups were guys, which would you rather be a part of?
High atop my perch -
Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freebird is correct. We are hindered by our lack of connection. Not only are we discouraged from making close connections with other men, we often have a competitive spirit which brings even more distance. This leaves many men solely dependent upon their wives for emotional support. THIS IS DANGEROUS.
It is also boring and limiting. I have been meeting with a group of like-minded men for years and we have grown close. There is no substitute for the support I get from these men. It also takes the pressure off of my wife who really appreciates that I am not dependent on her for all of my needs.
Find a group of like-minded men and get together every once and a while. Hell, find one man and meet. Others will come. A man's support is very different from that of a woman. It can carry you and in turn you can help carry other men. Don't let the culturally induced fears keep you from connecting. It brings you power and stability. This is what the fems don't want you to have. Make sure you get it.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @04:35AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, goodness. Devvy's original articicle is so absurd, it barely deserves any response. From the absurd photo of the bitter old crone in a white fur coat (I'm hoping that picture is some kind of joke!) to her damsel-in-distress outcry for somebody ELSE to take action on HER behalf for events that are turning America into a "third-world dumping ground" (??), the entire article reads almost like a parody of modern feminists.
As a feminist, I would never associate with someone like Devvy. She seems to think that the men in this world OWE her something, that someone should go and fight her battles for her. If she is so empowered and so opinionated, why doesn't she fight these battles herself? It's women like her who want to have their cake and eat it too who are giving feminism a bad name. You can't expect to be treated like an equal AND a princess.
If you want to be treated as an equal, honey, you're just going to have to roll up your sleeves and fight your own damn war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...giving feminism a bad name.
I laughed so hard at this I fell off my chair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 15, @02:03PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
"That really strikes a chord with me, the bit about how women can be every bit as cruel and obnoxious as men, and the other bit about how, since women spit in our faces, we owe them nothing."
I disagree with this; I believe that women can be much more ruthlessly cruel than men, since women in general seem to lack the fundamental sense of morality and mercy, or at least ethics or "code," which most men seem to take for know instinctively and take for granted.
Rather, women seem to be capable of the most grand injustices, justifying them willy-nilly on the basis of their "feelings" etc. as some sort of holy writ, and brazening out any gaps in logic which proceed in the most self-absorbed fashion. As in the book "Portnoy's Complaint" and the Billy Joel song "Always A Woman," the female "moral elevator" just doesn't seem to go to the top floor in the average case.
Men, meanwhile, being quietly beset with the burden of social morality, tend to be more creatures of conscience, and have historically made the greatest personal sacrifices in the name thereof.
This ruthless lack of morality is, ironically, most pronounced in feminists, who try hardest to compete with men on an ethical basis and claim moral superiority. However these claims rarely stands up under scrutiny, but rather, these women tend confuse ambition with ruthlessness, and hence they omit the moral foundation which is historically expected to underlie most male achievement, often making the most outrageous and insensitive remarks and claiming to define morality as they see ift.
This has, naturally, resulted simply in a bitter arrogance which feeds on itself as the pool of potential male candidates for such women becomes as dried-up as they are.
Since no self-respecting man would care for such a woman, they naturally attract submissive men with low self-esteem, whom they subsequently abuse-- emotionally and even physically-- for being "weak." Examples such as Tom Arnold and Bill Clinton typify this type of men, who are-- naturally and logically-- notoriously amoral and pragmatist.
This seems to be the downfall of the feminist movement: in claiming to be morally superior to men, these women desire to perpetrate the foulest of inhumanities, from abortion to debasement.
This seems to fit in with theories of gender pyschology, whereby men seem to view things in an absolute sense, whereas women tend to view things comparatively, or in relative terms of the social heirarchy, and desire boundaries for comfort, or to be "shown their place" as it were; likewise, they will be come authoritarian and hostile when deprived of such boundaries and superior male role-models and presence-- as well as the clear message of relative positions in the heiararchy, and consequences for abuse-- i.e. LEAVING-- for this reason, men would be wise to always have an escape plan which doesn't cost them an arm and a leg in order to save other bodyparts; the goal should be to emerge intact, bodily and financially.
The moral (no pun intended) of the story is that if men don't wear the pants, women will naturally take over where men fail. Jefferson wrote that all MEN are created equal-- and he was undoubtedly one of the most intelligent human beings who ever existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know which "Anonymous User" you are, but I enjoyed this. You definitely "get it."
I had a girl friend once who taught me a lot. (A Japanese-American, BTW.) On one occasion I got into a big argument with her (about what, I forget), which ended when, finally, in extreme frustration, I exclaimed, "That's not logical!" "I'm not logical," she replied. I thought, Oh, that's right. Deal with it.
There's no answer for that, but for a man to know himself, who he is, and what he stands for; then she can take it or leave it. If she takes him, she will conform herself to the discipline of his logic--though she'll continue to test him, so he'd better be sure his logic has integrity. If a man has to ask a woman to think for him, it just won't work. If he's so attached/dependent that he's afraid he'll lose her if he stands his ground--gently but firmly--he's already lost anyway. And so is she.
What I'm coming to understand lately is that not only must I know where I stand, but past a certain point it's useless to try to explain or persuade. Just state your position, and let her take it or leave it. "Never argue with a woman" is not just a tired old joke; it's real wisdom. If she's worth your time, she'll come around; if not, don't waste your time. But in order to make this work, we males must be weaned, and few of us are these days.
Another time, another altercation, terminally exasperated, I asked her what she wanted. "I never know what I want until I get it," she said. It was like one of those cartoon light bulbs went on over my head. "Aha," I thought, "there speaks Woman."
It's certainly become plain by now that women really don't know what they want; they may think they want one thing, but if you watch you'll see that if they get it they complain even louder--and what they really respond to is usually something quite different. Thus do feminists dream of stevedores. And this is the answer to Devvy Kidd's question about why women buy billions of "romance" novels--even as they demand that their own men behave like doormats.
It's not that they really want their men to be doormats; it's that they need their men to be strong, and how do you determine how strong something is without testing it? They do this instinctively, not consciously; naturally they think they want to win, but when they win, they lose. And don't know why they're unhappy. Being a woman is not easy; they can't figure themselves out either, because, in the short run, they don't make sense. For a woman, a straight line is not the shortest distance. Because in the natural order, her man is supposed to be breaking the trail, while she follows his lead.
I remember once in my hippie days, out in the California mountains, watching a young woman follow a young man on a trail in the forest. It was an archetypal scene, like Sita following Rama, the Last of the Mohicans: everywoman following everyman.
I had another girl friend once who wanted to arm-wrestle. She was a tough girl, but when I beat her, she was satisfied. I could see it: I'd passed the test, and right away she started fitting herself to me. (In fact, before I knew it it seemed we were planning to move in together, which was more than I'd bargained for. I really wasn't thinking ahead--which is the man's job. Took some contortions to get out of that one, and I haven't seen her since.) This is the fundamental, archetypal relationship of the female to the male. "He chases her until she catches him."
Even Martha Burk and all the other feminists who so adamantly insist on entry to the boys' clubhouse are doing the same basic thing: testing men. If they win, they lose, because boys can't become men in a female-dominated environment. And any environment with females present is fundamentally female-dominated, regardless of appearances.
Every boy starts out utterly dominated by a female, a domination which requires decisive change to escape. But if he doesn't escape his mother's gravity field, the next generation of women will have no men to marry. That's essentially our present situation. Few American males (myself included) would I call "men" in the real sense.
A woman cannot show a man how to be a man; what she needs is for him to bring her something she doesn't already have--or know. Watch birds courting.
This whole process works just fine, more or less, in other species; but among humans, so much more complicated, with so many "choices," it's gotten seriously derailed. It's not easy being a man either, especially in our time when the traditional processes that used to make men of boys have been lost. The best our culture has to offer these days are military basic training and football--neither of which have ever appealed to me in the least. In Burma, traditionally a young man becomes a monk for at least a few months, up to a couple of years. Having experienced a similar form of Buddhist monastic life, I can say it can be an excellent molder of character, if properly understood and applied.
A friend of mine does summer camps for teenage boys, wherein they learn wilderness skills and suchlike. And how to act. One assignment sometimes given is to sit all day in one place without moving, which is essentially the same thing that Buddhist monks do. It works. Young men need something to push against--preferably themselves--that won't really hurt them or anyone else.
I'd say that male consciousness tends toward abstraction and identifying principles, then ordering thinking and behavior on that basis. While female consciousness is based on feeling and pragmatic in the short term. Each has its place and use, but they are not "equal"; one or the other must be in charge, and it matters absolutely which.
I'm a fan of Jefferson also, though I certainly recognize his character failings. There were "men in those days." They were all classically educated, too.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." - Cato the Censor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In your article "WHERE HAVE ALL THE 'MEN' GONE?" you state, "My comments here exclude those men who have stepped forward with incredible courage since 1913 to face this tyrannical government, and like our Founding Fathers, have paid an enormous price both personally and financially."
Here I assume you mean the "good" men, as in "the only think necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing."
However you also answer your own question, in that this "price" was originally paid in expectation of something of similar value in return, i.e. freedom-- a situation which no longer exists, since modern feminism currently strips men of their rights, and exploits their to the point where their best interest is best served by simply doing the bare minimum to satisfy their basic needs, thus obviating a man's traditional role as society's moral guardians.
In the interest of the basic right to expect equal value in trade in relationships among human beings, basic human dignity requires not a life of duty and sacrfice, as with a working animal, but the inalienable right-- among others-- to act in one's own best interest, consistent with recognition of this same right of others to do likewise; in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."
Sometimes this might require a sacrifice to secure this right, but this is but a means to an end, rather than an end in itself-- and is always in expectation of something of equal or greater value in return.
The modern feminist attitude of "special license and entitlement" to abuse, and demand special treatment and consideration, by men, while at the same time having the same full rights and priveleges, having made male chivalry and sacrifce an exploitative legal duty backed by government gunpont (in the form of one-sided divorce, abortion, child-support, protection and military service laws), rather than a moral duty and honor backed by its own reward of heading up one's own family; why should men defend what isn't theirs?
This likewise becomes expected and taken for granted by women, and is inherently rebelled against by its male victims, as with any other form of oppression wherein the victim is deprived of voluntary choice and subsequently exploited.
Simply put, "you get what you pay for," and men have simply tired of their thankless position, thus ensuring that many men will never fully develop morally or intellectually, but rather only develop, like women, in the capacity for self-absorption, furthering their own subjective interest by any means necessary and expedient.
Likewise, women have both abused and demanded male indulgence and restraint of their attacks in order to facilitate them, and thus aid them in their resulting demasculinization; any man who protests the women who watch "Oprah" while he's hard at work, becomes an open target for men and women alike, who respectively chide him for "fearing women--" although from opposite points of concurrence, with the men claiming the women are harmless in order to appear strong and secure, and the women claiming the feminists are right in order to better their own position selectively, regardless of fairness or lack thereof.
Likewise, if truly "behind every good man there is a good woman," then I think it's obvious that the good men have gone because there are no good women behind them; for, as per the adage that "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing,." then if you're looking for "good men," then you, i.e. "good women," must likewise provide the support for them to "do something."
As a result, we have become a nation of sheep, and when shepards guide the herd, do not rams then become meaningless, except to be bred, fleeced and slaughtered-- much as with modern men?
In such a society, it is small wonder why men have turned inward for sanctuary!
In any event, I think you're looking far too late in the game to discuss gender-roles as to blame for anything, since in actuality this downfall can be traced to the American Civil War under the actions of Abraham Lincoln, who forcibly consolidated the states under central government. Thus, like with gender relations, relations among the states became an exploitative legal duty rather than a voluntary moral obligation; full documentation of this can be found at www.crownrights.com/ceasar .
If America has "lost its manhood," it is only because of the fact that the trappings of manhood, as defined in "The Declaration of Independence" of inalienable rights-- namely equality and inalienable rights, defended by a voluntary union of sovereign states-- have taken away the meaning of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... this downfall can be traced to the American Civil War under the actions of Abraham Lincoln, who forcibly consolidated the states under central government. Thus, like with gender relations, relations among the states became an exploitative legal duty rather than a voluntary moral obligation; full documentation of this can be found at www.crownrights.com/ceasar.
Tulkas, thanks for this; it's good to see word getting around that the actual destruction of the American Republic was initiated in 1860, when ol' "honest" Abe made himself Dictator, and the American people's representatives in Congress let him get away with it. BTW, the link is America's Caesar, not "ceasar."
Since Lincoln has been made a hero by the victors who wrote the history, it's not often remembered nowadays that his presidency was very similar to our own time: an aggressive, essentially unprovoked war that provided an excuse to cancel civil liberties, jail dissenters, etc. It's also not often remembered that Lincoln had to use military conscription--i.e. slavery--to fight his war.
Or that he was as much a hypocrite as his bleeding-heart liberal successors:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." - Abraham Lincoln the secessionist, speaking on January 12, 1848 (The War with Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives)
Slavery was (and is) an evil, to be sure, but regardless of what we've been told, the "Civil War" (in quotes because it wasn't, it was a war of conquest) wasn't fought to end it, though well-meaning but misguided abolitionists provided the PR cheering section for it. It's interesting to note that the feminist movement came from the same roots; the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 was organized by a group of women incensed because they were not able to participate on the same footing as men in the abolitionist movement. In both cases, the results of these "well-meaning" efforts have been just the opposite of what they supposedly wanted: the end result of the "Civil" War was enslavement of the entire population, while the result of feminism is inequality far grosser than any that may have existed before it came to power. At some point the question must arise: Were these consequences really "unintended"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Slavery was (and is) an evil, to be sure"
This is subjective; we can hardly define something which was accepted as "right" throughout over 40,000 years of known civilization to be "evil;" as such, one must appreciate the context in which something takes place prior to rendering judgement, let alone considering remedial action.
Likewise, in making said determination, one must apply a consistent standard, lest he be a hypocrite; slavery is no less "evil" today, than it was 140+ years ago-- rather the reverse, one would think; however the fact is, that slavery exists TO THIS DAY in many nations, and has NEVER, EVER ONCE been used as an excuse for one nation invading another, or even SANCTIONS against such. EVER.
Indeed, slavery, and things far worse than slavery (i.e. torture and mass-murder), occur worldwide daily without so much as one bat of an eyelash from ANY nation in terms of actually doing anything to actually stop it (hand-wringing etc. notwithstanding); in fact, the US has recently been kicked off the UN "Human Rights Council" in favor of nations such as Sudan, which practice slavery and many other practices which the Confederate states would find unconscionable.
Even our imminent invasion of Iraq, is only due to violation of a standing agreement with that nation, with "liberation" being a mere side-effect thereof, and by no means a motivating objective; rather, we see how the world community screams to "respect the culture" of other nations with regard to what they, in other circumstances, also deemed to be "crimes against humanity."
Thus, the notion that the Union States "rightfully" invaded the Confederate States (CS) to "end slavery" is not only inaccurate, it is sheer hypocrisy.
Likewise, the "Civil War" (as named by the victors) wasn't simply "unprovoked-" it was ILLEGAL, since these seceding states were simply exercising their legal right, as recognized by US law, to simply end their relationship with those states which chose to remain with the union (as opposed to "IN the union," since the union is not a place, but simply a literary construct). The states had NEVER relinquished their sovereignty, however such a perversion was construed in attempt achieve an essential conquest of the entire transcontinental land mass, and all states therein, without firing a single shot.
While this did not occur, since the Confederate states wisely resisted Lincoln's attempts to lure them into submissive complacency and didn't give up without a fight, this actually empowered the federal government by using the "rebellion" as an excuse to raze various other checks on governmental power and Constitutional protections of inalienable rights, in sheer Machiavellian fashion.
Naturally, armchair-victors have re-written history to the point of emblazoning Lincoln's head on more US money than any other president (a practice with Jefferson warned against), while likewise erecting to him a shrine memorial of not only the only non-founder, but also the the only one featured as sitting on an actual throne within a greco-roman structure.
Accordingly, mass-ignorance followed, not only with respect to facts, but also to consequences of giving the federal government final absolute rule; rather, the Washington propaganda-machine daily reminds us how such a thing is not only beneficial, but indispensible, and how all disasters which it caused, were simply inevitable occurrences which were softened by its existence-- a construct known in intellectual circles as a "self-fulfilling sophistry."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Slavery was (and is) an evil, to be sure"
This is subjective; we can hardly define something which was accepted as "right" throughout over 40,000 years of known civilization to be "evil;" as such, one must appreciate the context in which something takes place prior to rendering judgement, let alone considering remedial action.
I wouldn't argue with you about any of this. Perhaps my statement was a little too unqualified; certainly it is "subjective," as must be anything I say, but based on the closest I've been able to find to an "objective" standard, i.e. the Golden Rule: Since I myself would not like to be enslaved, I would not do the same to another. To be clear, by "enslaved" I mean deprived of self-ownership, and the right/ability to decide the course of my own life.
And I'm certainly aware of the prevalance of various forms of slavery throughout history, including here-and-now: the status of the vast majority of people in our own country is, in principle, slavery, or at least a kind of serfdom. Most people aren't aware of it, because the pen has been made large enough that they don't notice the constraints, and are willing to exchange those they do notice for the comforts of the "security" promised by their masters.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw
I was interested to learn that the term used in classical/imperial Rome for what we now call "slave" was "servus," i.e. "servant." Certainly in those times (there were more "servi" than citizens in Rome) this arrangement was considered normal, just as long before and long after. In recent times traditional "slavery" has fallen out of fashion, but in many cases simply been renamed to avoid the odium.
And I'm aware that the only place on the planet (so far as I know) where outright, open classical chattel slavery is still practiced is in village black Africa, the very home of the innocent, sainted victims of the "peculiar institution" for which the Southern states are so excoriated by self-righteous do-gooders. If any "reparations" are owed, they should be paid only in the form of non-redeemable tickets for passage back to Africa, for any "African-Americans" who wish to return to that Earthly Paradise from which their ancestors were so cruelly kidnapped. And then quit complaining; all who've come here from the Old World (including "Native Americans") have had difficulties to face making a life in a new land.
My ancestors, who lived in Illinois, fought in the Union army, I'm sorry to say, but by about 15 years ago I'd begun to realize that what I'd been taught about that history might not be quite straight. If the Union was voluntary, then anyone should be able to leave it. If not, well, that's slavery, is it not? As a Vietnam-era "draft dodger" myself, I naturally became suspicious on learning that Lincoln instituted a draft to fight his war; if it was a "just," necessary war, why did men have to be enslaved to fight it? (The riots this caused are a major plot element in the current film Gangs of New York.) Then I ran across the book The South Was Right! (wish they'd put it out in paperback), which I bought right away (I hardly ever buy hardbound books) and read in one sitting. A real eye-opener, as is America's Caesar , which I mostly read last evening. I've read a lot about the history of Rome; the comparison with Gaius Julius Caesar, the pivotal personality in Roman history, is very apt, though I think he was more intelligent, more interesting, and possibly less culpable than Lincoln.
...emblazoning Lincoln's head on more US money than any other president (a practice with Jefferson warned against), while likewise erecting to him a shrine memorial of not only the only non-founder, but also the the only one featured as sitting on an actual throne within a greco-roman structure.
Didn't know that about Jefferson; he was a smart fellow. Hadn't thought about the Lincoln Memorial's imperial portrayal (I've never seen it in person), but you're certainly right about its implications. Nowadays I simply state to anyone who might be interested that "Honest Abe" did more than any other man (only Franklin Roosevelt comes close) to destroy the American republic. Amazing sometimes how the truth can be turned on its head.
"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'" - Harry Browne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, your comment about reparations rings true. The majority of black slaves who wound up in the USA were actually bought from other blacks in Africa, usually because they'd lost a conflict and been enslaved natively. Not that racist f@cks like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton will ever admit that in their relentless drive to extract money from white people so that they can be even less responsible for their own well-being. Goddamn parasites.
I have had to fight hard not to hate all black people outright, because of the endless, unprovoked abuse I had to suffer from black children while I was growing up. I don't think they all just happened to invent that behavior independently, I believe their parents teach them to hate the white man and to believe they are perpetually owed something for slavery, which they have never experienced and which no living white man is responsible for. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Hint: Starts with "F" and ends with "eminism.") Fortunately there were a few "cool" black kids in my childhood so I knew that they couldn't all be bad, and this has helped me to remain objective and evaluate each person as an individual. But at the same time I am not inclined to lie to myself and pretend that the black community is unassailable and totally pure. I believe Jackson, Sharpton, et. al. are feeding on and deliberately amplifying certain weaknesses in the black community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't grow up with black people (where I was, the underclass was Mexican), and I've never been attracted to black culture (jazz, etc.) the way many whites are, so I haven't know exactly what to make of them. Seems clear black people have been used twice: once when enslaved, then when "freed" they've been exploited by the "divide and rule" schemes of the Ruling Elite. Unfortunately, they've almost all fallen for it, which makes them my "enemies" against my will.
I know it's really taboo to say so, but on the evidence it seems clear that most blacks are even less prepared to undertake the responsibilities of republican citizenship than are most whites. The South was right about that.
The whole event was unfortunate from the beginning and I wish it'd never happened. However, if they had all been sent back to Africa, would they be happier today? Ask Idi Amin.
I knew a black fellow in when I was in the Zen monastery; he was real. I know a black Buddhist meditation teacher, who recently spent a year in Thailand as a monk (he was 2 feet taller than everyone else); he is very real, and I really enjoy being with him.
There is a black couple in our local constitutionalist/patriot study group; really nice to know some black folks who've caught on to who the real enemy is. Then there's J.J. Johnson of The Sierra Times ; it was great watching a black militia leader testify before Congress on the "militia menace."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently after you read it:
http://www.newswithviews.com/news_worthy/news_wort hy1.htm
It is a very strange feeling to read all these comments about myself when none of these people kow me and few know my work over the past decade. These comments are laughable at best.
Devvy Kidd
www.devvy.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently after you read it:
Not really. Just more of the same - a woman trying to shame men into doing what she wants by calling them wimps and cowards.
Ho hum.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently after you read it.
Would have read it had I known; it should be linked on the first page. What's perhaps most interesting about both articles is how little they differ from what we see from regular "feminists." The flavor is exactly the same. Feminism is really nothing new, just the latest version of an immemorial attitude. What's new is how completely it's taken over.
Thoughts on the second article:
I don't think you're a lesbian--a ridiculous charge. I don't think you hate men, but you don't seem to understand them either. You have the female's instinctive understanding of how to control men with praise and/or shame, but you don't understand that the problem here is not that men disagree with you, it's that other women disagree with you, and the men they control naturally do what they want. You may excoriate these men, but if they did what you want the women who own them would excoriate them more. We just aim to please, ma'am. Most men are idiots, indeed. But where did they come from? You may not be a feminist like Barbara Boxer (sheesh!), but you do share a basic attitude with her; you have more in common with her than I have with either of you. ("...pull over to the side of the road and change the air in her head." That's great; I'll have to remember it.)
Like you say, all the Supreme Court justices in 1973 were men. That's exactly the point; they were doing what most American women wanted, what most of them still want. Personally, I'd love to see American men rebel and stop doing what women want--and instead give them what they need. But I don't think it will happen anytime soon--not until women want what they need, rather than only what they desire.
In William Wallace's day the women of his community had a different idea of what they wanted from their men, and so their men were different. Oh, and William Wallace lost, by the way; as I understand it, he was betrayed by fellow Scotsmen, whose wives probably didn't make a big fuss about not having to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles to resist the English. Even if they'd stood with him, they all probably would have lost anyway; the women of England had more husbands and sons to send into battle, and they wanted to add Scotland to the jewels on the British crown--now worn by the Queen.
Some of the comments on this forum may be laughable, but some are quite thoughtful; if you really want to know why men aren't answering your clarion call, a lot could be deduced from what is here, both directly and indirectly. And your second article doesn't answer any of the points raised--including mine. If you find my analysis outlandish (I know many do), then at least consider this one objective, verifiable fact: Since 1920, by their own insistence, American women have been taking part directly in the political process. Females are an absolute majority (something like 55%?) in the population, and an absolute majority of voters are women, both registered and actively voting. Therefore, even discounting any other possible influence women may have on politics ("I govern the Athenians, my wife governs me." - Themistocles, 528-462 BCE), what we have is what women want. Who am I to argue? I've just lost my longest, closest female friendship because I was careless enough to criticize "affirmative action." I've been clawed enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yah see, Dev, it's like this:
As the old saying has it, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For at least thirty-five years, women as a group have belittled and villified men, and the alleged "non-feminist" women either actively participated in such behavior or, by their silence, aided and approved it. Now that men are turning off to women and putting their own needs first, it doesn't make them cowards or anything close. At the very least, those men are being responsible for themselves and letting women have the "independence" they said they wanted.
You say people here don't "know" you, and yet, as in your first article, you launch into yet another attack on men, ridiculing (all, since you make no distinction) posters comments as "laughable at best". Hmmmm, any connection between such attitudes and attacks on the part of women and the non-chivalry by men? Nah, of course not.
Seriously though, how could you expect different? Given your tone, which is strangely feministic, it is hardly unsurprising men aren't beating a path to your door to make peace, let alone volunteering to defend women. Men as a whole certainly have no obligation to defend women as a group.
The feminists reaped the wind, and because of their silence and/or participation in man-hatred, women in general are reaping the whirlwind. As a supposed Christian, you should understand that analogy. By the way, is your response an example of "Christian" love?
How about giving men something worth defending instead of constantly belittling them? How about speaking out against the anti-male bigotry that continues to drive men away from women instead of the usual blame-men response? Honey instead of vinegar? You question why men call you a feminist, yet launch into attacks against them like a feminist. If it looks misandrist, doncha think that is most likely how it will be taken?
If men felt women wanted and appreciated their presence and protection, and thought women actually cared about them as people and not walking ATMs, no doubt they would be more inclined to give women that protection. However, this is not the message we receive from women as a whole, including you.
Opening a constructive dialog between men and women is the only way the rift between men and women will ever be mended. Some women, like Wendy McElroy, although a feminist herself, are working to accomplish that, but unlike you, don't habitually engage in inflammatory rhetoric when addressing "the other side".
Ultimately, you'll get what you give in life, whether good or bad. It will take a great deal of change in the social attitudes and culture of this country to bring men back now that they are turning away. At least there are a few women like Wendy McElroy who are attempting to bring about that change. But as long as women on the whole engage in such nagging, male-bashing, ridiculing and fault-finding as you, it will never happen.
Your comment is not "laughable", just more of the same.
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no comments about you personally, other than the generalities that can reasonably be inferred. You've grown up used to female privilege - what Lady wants, Lady gets.
You want to know where the real men are?
Check under the bridge, the heating grates, in the cardboard boxes in alleyways. You decided that the state was a more reliable provider, so you had us removed from houses we had built and bought and paid for.
Why aren't wwe defending our children? It's kind of hard to do so when the restraining order you put on us keeps us from seeing them.
Have you checked the jails? You put us there. When the factory closed, and we lost our jobs, and fell behind on child support, you had us arrested. You decided that muttering "God damn it!" when we came - for the umpteenth time, to pick up our kids and you made them unavailable - that it was a threat.
Check sometimes the overtime rolls. It's not relevant whether what we make supports you and us - you're still claiming that backdoor alimony, even though you're an independant strong woman who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle - so we have to work overtime to pay those bills. Or get a second job. Doesn't leave a whole lot of time for visiting or being anyone's champion, eh? Some of you are happy that with that second job or extra shift we can't come around and interfere with you raising "your" children. The rest want a share of that money too.
We can't joke with you anymore. It's the law. If we tease, it's harassment. If we don't it's harassment. If we hold your door, it's harassment. Hell, if we pee standing up, it's harassment. We got the message long ago, it's not really about what's said and done, it's about what we are. "Men: The New Nigger."
When you were telling that mean joke, the one about not having the pillow over the man's face hard enough, you laughed. When we said it wasn't funny, you told us to lighten up.
When MEN - 99.9% of us men - sacrificed lives in the WTC, or the 100% men who rushed the hijacker piloting an ill-fated flight, you made sure to do everything to diminish what was done, and to elevate the female - as if she had pulled that weight equally.
I was there coming back from war - wasn't it you that called me a trained killer, and you were afraid of me, wanting no part of me? You needed a sensitive man, as I recall. Ummmm. So sensitive he beat you up. I guess you really wanted to have your "All Men are pigs" philosophy validated.
What?!?!?! That wasn't you?
Hmmmm. You're right. But now I place you.
You were the one standing on the side, as our homes and families were taken away, shrugging your shoulders. You only chuckled as the latest man bashing joke was passed around. You had that oh-so-concerned look on your face as we were deprived of due process - but it was for - what was the excuse, the "good of the children?"
So now you know where the good men are, Dev. They're toiling away at overtime or a second job. They're living on the streets, or in jail. They're the faceless lumps, the butt of jokes.
They're tired of working for nothing, tired of being scorned, tired of being damned if they do, and damned if they don't. As is predictable in human behavior, no matter how much they tried, they were called cads, unfeeling, uncaring, unchivalrous no matter what they did, so now, since they're doing the time, they're doing the crime.
I don't have a use for 99.9% of the women in the world. I've taken it in the heart, wallet, and face too many times. I barely got any raising time on my children, paid out thousands, watched an ex-wife turn into a crack whore, and the courts insist it wasn't relevant and insist I subsidize her. I paid a half a million dollars out in fees for lawyers, court costs, back-door alimony, extra food because mommy put the CS check up her nose, Clothes, camp.
I don't want to open doors because it isn't appreciated. Look at your old movies - the gent opening the door is flashed a smile, or something. Appreciation. It didn't used to take a lot, but it was too much to give, eh?
When I came back from my time overseas, I can't say I was treated like any kind of hero, more like a mutant freak. Many years ago, I stopped a robbery by taking our the robber - not killing him, just disarming him and breaking his shoulder. One of your sisters commented to the police she was more scared of me than some dusted freak. WTF ????? She was scared, methinks, about raw masculinity.
So, no, you didn't "do" any of this, but I will tell you what, it's you and those like you who set about while all this was done, you didn't object, you didn't counter protest, you didn't get into a cakmera's face and say, "Excuse me? All Women? All women less one, because this man-hating dyke doesn't speak for ME!"
We don't care anymore. We are fast approaching the point where we won't have any more to lose.
So next time one of your sisters passes about a man bashing cartoon, you might look at them icily, crumple it up, and say, "I have a son. That's NOT funny."
Nest time one of your daughters strings a man along, and starts the old parasite routine, you might call her for it, and tell her she's no real woman.
Gee, enough of you do that, and the real men might feel wanted, needed and appreciated. Until then, though, enjoy the spineless wimps you've made.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you say is true, we don't know you as a person, we only know what you have represented to us in your written words. I will only say that what needed to be said has been done so quite well by the other posts following your personal disclaimer. If you are ashamed of what you wrote, then change your platform and gain the respect of men, instead of trying to manipulate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent responses. I am eager to see a response from Devvy Kidd. I hope she doesn't take the feminist route of simply not responding and running away. I am curious to see how she will respond to these thoughtful criticisms.
In some ways I agree with Devvy Kidd that we have allowed this country to spin out of control as special interest groups such as feminism hammered away at the chivalrous and obsequious legislators who chose re-election over integrity. However, the responsibility is on all adults, not just men.
Here are some men's groups.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the email that I sent to Devvy:
I've read your article about men not defending women and children, "Where have all the 'men' gone?" The reason, for men not wanting to defend women, is simple. Men are despised for doing so. For an example of the depth of sickness against men for their sacrifices, read this polemic by the famous Dr. Helen Caldecott,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=6682
Though wrong, her beliefs are not extreme. Rather they are mainstream. Men would be fools to sacrifice themselves for those who despise them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read this polemic by the famous Dr. Helen Caldecott...
Ah, yes, Dr. Helen. I remember her well from back in the 1970s, when her book Nuclear Madness made her world-famous. I saw her speak once, on her first world tour I'd guess, to a small group in San Francisco. I was and remain as horrified as she, maybe more so, at the threat of radioactive annihilation (this was not so long after Three Mile Island, which occurred about a week after I'd had a dream of a California reactor blowing up). But even then something about her didn't ring true to me, though I was then still a pretty typical California left-liberal hippie type. Typical of female "thinking," she saw (and clearly still sees) the whole thing as a "gender issue": cruel violent men vs. gentle, peaceful, wouldn't-hurt-a-flea women. "Take the toys away from the boys!" has been her constant mantra throughout her career. Even then I couldn't buy it.
And I noticed that while she was adamant that nobody should have anything to do with radioactive materials for any purpose (weapons, nuclear "power," etc.)--an idea with which I fully concur*--she made just one eensy little exception for her own profession, the medical use of such poisons. Again, typical female thinking: we are wise enough and good enough to do what others, i.e. men, inferior beings that they are, cannot be allowed to do. Having just been through the Vietnam War era, when more bombs were dropped on that tiny country than on the whole planet during WWII, I wanted to point out to her that what doctors do with radioactives is not so different than what the military does: kill. Clearly the U.S. military, and the government behind it, saw Vietnam as a part of the world that was "sick" and, rather than make any effort to figure out why and find a benign, constructive cure, they just bombed the hell out of it. Which is just what "modern" medicine normally does with malfunctioning human body parts, particularly in cases of cancer, which they bathe in deadly radiation. I see no real difference between the attitudes or the methods employed.
By the way, the correct spelling of her name is Helen Caldicott (with an "i"); trust David Horowitz (who impresses me no more now that he's a rabid, doctrinaire right-winger than when he was a rabid, doctrinaire left-winger: he's a caricature of himself) to get it wrong. And the correct link is here. For some reason, when URLs are entered herein as text, they often seem to pick up extra spaces that render them useless.
(*I remember hearing a Native American teacher named Rolling Thunder once who remarked that everyone of us has something in our life that we should just not touch. At the time, habituated (maybe I should just go ahead and say "addicted") to marijuana, this thought rang a rather large bell in my mind. I think that radioactive isotopes may well be that sort of thing for homo sapiens as a whole. It is hubris on the grandest scale to imagine that we're qualified to handle them--like cloning. We are not God.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
