|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out my own life experience, I don't think the problem is simply higher expecations, so much as the expectation that men live up to them in return for less, as well as independently without social support-- which a man is not only expected to do without in order to achieve with his self-esteem intact, but which he is denied altogether, and met with hostility and abuse in response to his seeking it, in addition to permanent stigmatization.
One example that comes clearly to mind is a woman who was casually chatting with her uncle about how her husband had just left her, and she was systematically "dealing with it" by saying how she was going to "contact" someone to "get her some support."
Another example was when I was meeting a woman for a blind date at a restaurant, but she stood me up since I wasn't waiting for her outside, and she "didn't want to walk in by herself and look like a dork."
I'm sure you can recall from memory a million other examples where women are allowed to cling and commiserate where men are expected to rise and overcome on their own "character," which they are likewise expected to "develop." The Longfellow poem which cites a thousand struggles one must overcome, and ends "you'll be a man, my son!" is never challenged by feminists, however this is no surprise since their response to "if you can" is simply "I don't want to!" as if simply thinking one's self as "above" an adverse condition is sufficient to subordinate others to deal with it.
I think the fact that women expect to be treated as equals in a world society, where men would never dream of showing such dependency due to of both valueing personal independence as well as rational fear of such an outright admission of such dependency and vulnerability being met only with shame, scorn and mockery-- just goes to prove how our society has become exploitatively egalitarian (i.e. expecting equal outcome in spite of productivity) in terms of taxing men-- personally as well as financially-- in order to guarantee women a more "equitable" outcome regardless of lower outlay of sweat-equity in terms of personal risk and expenditure.
Under such inequity, self-esteem is impossible, since, to quote Abraham Maslow, "there is no such thing as a well-adjusted slave."
I think it's time we exposed these "unwritten rules" via which feminists selectively impose their double-standards; their hypocrisy is clear when they make demands for social respect without corresponding burdens and prices.
In response, I think that the higher rate of male suicide can simply be explained in terms of the warrior-caste-- i.e. MEN-- committing mass-sepucu (hari-kari) in response to shame of their expected bravery coming to failure: by what logic is the conqueror expected to "share," short of subordination?
Let's face it- feminists don't want equality, they want superiority, and they state no less in their presumptuous condemnation of men while refusing their responsibilities, thus relegating the male gender to nothing more than inferior beasts of burden; it's high time we cite feminism for what it is-- an "evil empire." Until we do, it will continue to exist and violate us just as did the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"it's high time we cite feminism for what it is-- an "evil empire." Until we do, it will continue to exist and violate us just as did the Soviet Union. "
Feminism is really just communism repackaged. I used to hear how all the men over there were just drunks and vial brutes. Kind of funny when you think about it, because thats the exact same description of what men are in america. In fact in every english speaking country in the world.
We have no idea how many people have died because of communism maybe 40 million? That's just the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About 40 million people died because of Soviet Socialism, but actually the toll is around 150 million if you factor in Socialism around the world in Germany, China and Cambodia; however under Socialism, at least everyone is supposed to be treated equally regardless of gender, while feminism doesn't even rise to the level of THAT pretense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We have no idea how many people have died because of communism maybe 40 million? That's just the 20th century."
Actually about 40 million people were MURDERED-- i.e actually executed by government-- in the Soviet Union because of Socialism (under Stalin in something known as "the Purge"), while about 13 million were murdered in Germany, about 10 million in Cambodia, and unknown millions in Maoist China, and countless others worldwide in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America; of all the continents, only Australia and Antarctica seem to have been spared the ravages of communism, but only due to their remoteness and lack of real consequence.
As far as how many DIED because of Socialism, the tolls range beyond count, since here we must add in all who died from war, disease and starvation resulting from Socialism as well; here I wouldn't be surprised if that number was at least triple the number executed-- no less than half a billion all told, worldwide.
Considering that the world's population was only 2 billion as of 1960, we can rightfully claim that Socialism is the deadliest plague in history which claimed the lives of over 1/4 the world's population in one century; this is, by and large, the greatest planetary disaster of any kind in the history of Mankind. However, we see no memorials of this other than the famous "Holocaust" museums over a relatively small 6 million-- with zero mention of the remainin half-billion, thus minimizing their relative importance-- and which serve more as backward fodder for wailing-walls, than warnings for the future or lessons learned from the past--which is kind of like having a "cancer" museum which shows pictures of its various manifestations and horrific nature, without a single word in reference to its cause or prevention-- this once again incurs "attribution error" by attempting to blame political disasters on bad intentions, rather than political causation; this is because the obvious intent, clearly, is to blame the individuals behind Socialism to blame, while holding Socialism blameless, since these same hypocrites who most loudly bemoan the ravages of Socialism, are likewise its greatest proponents! The implied message is that it would be different (i.e. perfect) if THEY were the ones running the show, and that it's the PEOPLE-- not the philosophy-- which is evil and dysfunctional. (The hypocrisy, if not bigotry, of this "armchair utopian despotism" is beyond condemnation.....)
The saddest part, is that this was predicted and warned against, countless times, by intellectuals and visionaries in history, with the earliest documented warning being over 2500 years ago in the first pages of Aristotle's "Politics."
Oh well, you know what they say about those who refuse to learn the lessons of history..... it's similar to the definition of "insanity-" and for the same reason, i.e. logic doesn't play favorites, and God doesn't play dice.
For those who need it spelled out:
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are destined to repeat it," while "'insanity' is defined as doing the same thing over and over the same way, and expecting a different result."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 16, @02:06PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"We have no idea how many people have died because of communism maybe 40 million?"
And capital doesn't have it's bloody history? The property known as slavery that was needed for "progress" ring a bell? Or how 'bout the extinction and almost extinction of American Indian tribes for capital, "manifest destiny"? This very land that capitalist's now own and awards reaped from is stolen. The very basis of capital is theft and slavery and the root of the state's growth to expand it's territory and enforce these property rights that are still here today making us pay the taxes to keep this ownership alive and well. I think capitalism and coomunism are both bloody and full of lies from the powerful. Read some Proudhon.
Cynic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Cynic, "the Powerful" exist in any governmental model. The Bolsheviks wanted to bring down "the Powerful" and yet they just created another generation of "the Powerful." On the one hand, you're right in that it's really difficult to blame a system of government for increases in disease or natural occurences like floods or droughts. So perhaps we cannot consider the "larger" costs of socialism. But one thing is clear: the free market economy has led to the highest per capita standard of living in the world. It is not without its faults: for one, those who choose not to work get left behind. But just "demanding" that the government "take care" of you is foolish and immoral, and that is what socialism has led to elsewhere in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"On the one hand, you're right in that it's really difficult to blame a system of government for increases in disease or natural occurences like floods or droughts."
Actually it's not; for example, just compare the effects of disease, floods and droughts in the US compared to socialist nations like China or the USSR---- where disease claimed many more years of one's life in terms of number and quality, while likewise millions starve even in the best weather, let alone in bad-crop years; likewise, when comparing natural disasters like floods or earthquakes, we only need to remember back when Gorbachev, herald of socialism, was visiting the US, and had to run back home because 60,0000 lives were lost to an earthquake which was smaller than recent ones in California and Canada, but which claimed fewer than a dozen lives due to better building codes etc.
So when you think about it, government really DOES make a difference in just about any facet of life; after 50,000 years of civilization, it's crazy to separate the two in ANY context.
If anything, Socialism set BACK the case for social justice by hundreds of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 16, @04:04PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
. "But just "demanding" that the government "take care" of you is foolish and immoral, and that is what socialism has led to elsewhere in the world."
I didn't say I wanted the state to take care of me. What I'm saying is that the state takes care of capitalists, and I want that privilege taken away. The very basis of the state is to enforce property rights. It's the capitalists who are dependent on the state. Without it you could only possoes land that you are personally using for yourself. Land would be free to whovere is using it.
cynic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm... Let's consider this at more length, although I will say that this site is probably not the best place for this discussion.
"What I'm saying is that the state takes care of capitalists, and I want that privilege taken away."
No. The state takes care of those who are at the top of the power structure, regardless of the form of government. Go check all of the governemtns that have existed over the centuries. This has been impossiblt to stop. Revolutions have occurred with that intent, but ultimately they fail. The Soviet Union "sold" the notion of communism where "everyone" owned the land. But in truth, the government owned the land and there was NO way that the common man (or woman) could buy, or otherwise control, the land. The people who would otherwise be capitalists joined the Party, and becaome power brokers that way. And the distribution of power was no more (or less) egalitarian than it is here.
"The very basis of the state is to enforce property rights."
And that basis remains regardless of whether you are a capitalist or a socialist. At least in the capitalist system, the opportunity exists for ANYONE to own land.
"It's the capitalists who are dependent on the state. Without it you could only possoes land that you are personally using for yourself. Land would be free to whovere is using it."
YOU are REALLY naive. You presume that the state acts in the best interests of every individual. They do not and never have. In a socialist system, they boot people off their land at will and move entire populations from one area to another. At least in the capitalist system there is due process, SOME legal safeguards against that. And oh by the way, land is NEVER free. Even if you never paid for it, you will have to pay taxes on what you produce. And if you don't pay the taxes, you get booted.
I don't know how old you are, but if you are young, then one day you will realize that the government is the LAST place you want to turn for help, because the government has its own agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @12:56AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that capitalism vs anarchism/socialism is a discussion for another board.
The fact is men and boys suffer the most from the flaws of this system, whether you measure it in the amount fo wealth owned, workplace fatalities, prison population, or public health/education or anything else. (I haven't got the bibliography with me, but the statistics are available in many places you should be able to find through this site.)
Rather than misdirecting our anger at capitalism or socialism, let's stick to the main issue.
Another Anonymous Person
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And capital doesn't have it's bloody history? The property known as slavery that was needed for "progress" ring a bell? Or how 'bout the extinction and almost extinction of American Indian tribes for capital, "manifest destiny"? This very land that capitalist's now own and awards reaped from is stolen. The very basis of capital is theft and slavery and the root of the state's growth to expand it's territory and enforce these property rights that are still here today making us pay the taxes to keep this ownership alive and well. I think capitalism and coomunism are both bloody and full of lies from the powerful."
How can capitalism be "theft," if it involves a negotiated trade? I think you're confusing capitalism with imperialism, racism, despotism etc. Even the "Manifest Destiny" was simply a realization that if the US didn't control the land, then England, Spain and France would simply take it by force; it doesn't do you much good to have a "moral victory" when you don't have a country anymore.
Besides, these things you mentioned were remedied long before Socialism even existed; from the beginning, freed slaves enjoyed better lifestyles than their native African counterparts (if not their white fellow citizens), and American natives still get resrvations, stipends, and free education from K-College; you don't see them running to Mexico or anywhere else, compared to the reverse which happens in the millions.
Also, 90% of native deaths were from natural-born illnesses, just like Europeans encountered syphillis form the American natives.
History has weighed us in the balance, and found us better than anyone else in most matters.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
