|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday June 06, @07:28PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent writing. Good points made all around. As far as I know, so far men have not made legislation in order to deny women their rights. The only rights women didn't have was in direct variance to their responsibilities.
I often hear things like men can not accept their new roles. Or, that many men want to 'turn' back the clock.
Well, those who endorce statism, nazism, stalinism, fascism or any other of those totalitarian style politics (which Canada is sinking fastly into , just look at enforced insuarance rates, which the 'elite' will benifit from) they are the ones that are 'turning' back the clocks of time.
Progress might be a synonym for 'evolution'. And the first thing you learn in an 'anthropology' class is that 'evolution' is not necessarily better or more advanced, its just from one state to the next.
Progress could be a reletive term and no doubt it is to a biased form of government. The subjugation of all men might be progress to feminists and since Im afraid of being charged with *hate speech* at the moment I can't tell you what the total subjugation of men as a sex will be thought of by them as a group.
Dan Lynch
We always thought that when fascism returned it would look like a young strong man wearing a soldier suit. We never expected that fascism would look like a young woman working as a volunteer for some social agency or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday June 06, @10:01PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I am deeply saddened to hear of Canada's recent descent into feminist Marxist matriarchy. The people of Canada should take back their government.
Watch out America. It is happening here too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.
The U.S. is under threat, so keep up the good fight !!! Canada is falling, as is Australia, New Zealand, France and the U.K.
Everyone is involved no matter what coutry you live in - the men under threat thousands of miles away, today - could be you tomorrow. When a cause needs support dig deep and fight back !!!!
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there, Dan
Many thanks for your comments.
Liked the idea that the 'radicals' all too often become the 'conservatives'with the advent of advantage. History has always shown that time does not stand still forever, usually it is only one charismatic/psychopathic individual (a Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu etc) who holds the whole thing together for a period of time. Feminism has produced no such "Fuhrerin". Feminism sold itself as a radical philosophy, and remember that those who live by the sword....!
Would like you to explore your very intersting notion that "...the only rights women didn't have were in direct variance to their responsibilities" - I think you could have an awful lot of mileage, and valuable ideas/opinions, in that one !
You are right in that 'Progress' is simply a matter of interpretation - however, in my opinion the existence of this website, the writing of this essay, your valauable comments and the transmission of ideas and opinions are greater progress than any feminist oppressive legal sanction. One is creative(whether ultimately for good or ill) whilst the other is oppressive and destructive to the human spirit. Erin Pizzey was right when she said that..."a society that seeks to impose political solutions upon human problems/issues will invariably end up building gas chambers and gulags !"
Where I come from we have a saying that goes "Tell the truth, shame the Devil".
Keep on telling the truth, Dan !!
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 07, @01:15PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud -
You have come very close to putting your finger on the heart of what I believe to have been the fatal flaw of the so-called "men's movement" so far - that men, individually and collectively, have been waiting passively for the bullies to stop beating them up and have not taken any action on their own behalf to MAKE the bullies stop. In other words, "masculism" has been nothing but "me-too-ism" trying to out-woman women by saying "No, WE are more oppressed."
The subtle psychological and emotional complexties that bind men's hands and tongues when women abuse them are way beyond the scope of what I can write here, but among men of the "old school" of masculinity it was well recognized that they, and only they, were responsible for the course of events of their lives. Such men, when confronted by a bully, would follow the principle "You punch me in the nose, I will break your face; you punch me in the chest, I will break your ribs. If you want peace, do not attack me."
This stupid mind game of "well, 2 wrongs don't make a right" applies far more to feminism than to men's actions. Men today are being made to pay for thousands of years of hallucinated "wrongs", while being mind-fucked into not defending themselves.
Western culture has slid a long way into complete idiocy. It used to be that speaking the truth was an absolute defense against attacks like "slander" or "libel" or bashing. If someone says about a person that they have blue eyes and brown hair, it cannot be "bashing" if that person does indeed have blue eyes and brown hair. However, when Jimmy the Greek commented that slaveowners had manipulated the breeding of their slaves for physical characteristics, the reactive howling got him fired, despite the fact that it was completely true.
Pointing out the facts that women intiate 70% of all divorces, get custody and child support in at least 80% of the cases, and frequently make false accusations of abuse in order to assure this outcome, is NOT "bashing" - it is simply telling the truth. Even if we get screamed down when we say it, we must keep saying it - not so that "someone else" will do something and take action to remedy our "plight", but so that other men will be informed and have the tools they need to protect themselves.
"Society" or the culture at large is NEVER going to rescue men, and then men who sit around waiting for that to happen are going to die while they wait. It is that very same "society" or culture which has stripped men of most of the tools they had to defend themselves and left them with their hands tied laying on the ground while women kicked them.
The ruling elites of today's world care no more for the common man than the ones of yesteryear, the Pharoahs and Longshanks, cared for the William Wallaces. They have destroyed a social structure dating back thousands of years and which directly made possible their positions of power, wealth, luxury. There is an old fable which illustrates some wisdom about human short-sightedness called "Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs."
As long as men keep being "nice" to women and giving them everything they ask for, women will never have any motivation to wise up, grow up, and come to the bargaining table ready to bargain in good faith. As long as men who call themselves "activists" remain afraid to speak some ugly truths about women lest they be called "misogyists" or be accused of "bashing" women, things will continue as they have been.
Just because the wider culture is too fucking stupid to see what is right in front of them - and continue to make excuses for women who murder or beat their own children and engage in the double-think which allows them to express the vile idiocy that such women are still "good mothers" - doesn't mean that we have to ignore it and not speak about it, as well.
Another fable that some of you may be familiar with is called "The Emperor's New Clothes". Find it and read it in its entirety, including the truly frightening ending where the Emperor says "Yes, I know it is a lie, but the procession must continue", and then start screaming "But, the Emperor has NO clothes" at the top of your lungs.
Afraid of being called "misogynist"? Hell, you've been being called that for nearly 40 years now. Afraid of someone pointing out what you say and calling it "woman-bashing"? Hell, Susan Faludi took the fact that women simply aren't motivated to make money in the same way that men have been, and called it "Glass Ceiling" and "Backlash" and accused us all of waging an undeclared "war" on women.
So just WHERE are all these alleged "normal, nice" women I keep hearing about? It isn't the feminists themselves who are abusing and attacking their husbands, it is these so-called "normal, nice" women. Were Andrea Yates, or Madelyn Toogood (now THERE is irony in a name), or any of the serial killers of their infants who are FINALLY beginning to come to light, feminists? No, they were among those "normal, nice" women who men's groups seem to be so afraid of offending.
I think there is an extremely difficult paradox in most men's activist groups today. Men have been being slandered and our characters collectively assassinated for nearly 40 years, and the public policies which give rise to the bulk of the posts here are the result. Men as a group have been branded violent rapists and abusers, despite how untrue that is of most of us. Meanwhile, people who are TRULY violent abusers and murderers have gotten off scot-free, because no one seems willing to SAY what they really are - out of fear of offending someone, I suppose.
This is gonna be a LONG war, guys. On the one hand, we have women absolutely wetting themselves in excitement over men becoming "the second sex" (measured ONLY on the amount of income made), while the guys aced out of those positions by "affirmate action", or simply pushed out of them by hostile environments, are labeled "deadbeats and losers."
We are going to remain pinned down as long as women continue to hold the moral high ground and can shell us with impunity from it. "Turning the other cheek" is what got a lot of Jews sent to the gas chambers and the ovens. It isn't morally superior to suffer in silence, it is eventual suicide. As long as women can get away with being as hateful and vicious as they "fee-yuhl" like being, and still get everything they want from men, they will never be motivated to change. Go have a look at Heartless Bitches International (http://www.heartlessbitches.com) and realize that such women simply CANNOT be "bashed" - they are PROUD of being abusers.
One of my favorite "men's movies" is the Karate Kid series. I believe it is in the third one that the KK gets challenged to a blood match. He asks his sensei who will referee. Myagi just laughs and says "No one." - "Well, how do you know who wins?" - "The one who isn't dead when it's over."
Female violence is becoming much more overt. Women are coming out of the shadows of the feminine mystique because they can get away with it. They know that EVERYONE is afraid of and resistant to naming their true nature. They LOVE getting one up on us and gloat endlessly about us becoming the second sex.
That's the world we live in guys, and I believe that those who refuse to talk about it and tolerate it, to that extent, responsible for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 07, @02:12PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"That's the world we live in guys, and I believe that those who refuse to talk about it and tolerate it, to that extent, responsible for it."
Interesting views. Many true points. But I believe that feminism is a totalitarian movement and it is not only instigated by women but by men. I've been remembering my teachers and my professors along the years who have been instigating feminist dogma in the classrooms. They do it every so slightly and almost un-noticeable. Its increased in frequency as they go towards their goal. Now the media has fall suit by only publishing one side of the story etc...
In the end I think we will find that "feminsim" had nothing to do about women at all, but rather just a means to an end.
Its a simple divide and conquer scheme, and you've seen it in a million movies or tv shows. Hero gets captured tells capter that he's being treated unfairly. That he should get a larger part of the gold or whatever. That he's actually being oppressed by his boss etc.... I hope Im making myself clear here. In the end the guard falls prey to the hero's charm and frees the hero and helps him capture the theives or whatever.
Well; its the same thing with women, or germany, or italy. In orwell's animal farm it was merely the natural progression of events. They fought for freedom only to hand it over to another tyrant. Women will fight for freedom, equality, fairness whatever, only to hand all their rights and freedoms over to another tyrant.
Women are not our enemy, the state is. I agree that the fault's of feminism should be shown for what it is. But we have to explain the most obvious destination of the course.
Its the main reason they go out of their way to destroy christianity, its moral implications will impede the progress of the party.
Even Greir I believe is calling herself the 'Feminist Socialist Party'. Its just another statist movement that requires the destruction of our individual rights.
Nazism never died, it just changed faces.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, Good points
Yes, feminism is a totalitarian ideology - born out of expedience for the feminist elite - and substantiated by the divide and rule methodology. It is just another form of Tyranny.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous - many thanks for your comments.
Yes !!! Now we have someone with fire in their belly ! Keep writing to the website anonymous !
The Movement needs your anger and fire, but temper it with wisdom - lest that fire consume and destroy you.
I think you are right - and you have spoken that which is unspeakable in the Men's Movement. We really do have to stand up for ourselves. As Machiavelli put it "...a martyr has but one function - to be a martyr". The concept of "me-too-ism" I suspect has a grain of truth, however, after 3.5 decades of Psychological Abuse and a life-time of woman-respecting conditioning the movement will not spring newly formed from the ground as a fighting force. I can see how we have reached this mess and can understand why.
The war will, however, be fought in the hearts and minds of millions of ordinary people throughout the world (the voters). We must be forceful, make our point and utilise every advantage we can muster. The danger is of becoming so radical as to alienate those we wish to convince.
Simply enough, two wrongs do not make a right - too much has been suffered to allow the Movement to become a mirror image of feminism. When the 'hallucinated wrongs" are seen for what they are and the "mind-fucking" seen for what it is, action will be taken and feminism will die. What we need is sufficient men (and, yes, even women) to become so aware. The current quota of battle-hardened "Warriors" are doing what they can to stem the flow, but we need new blood - at every level (not just among the educated elite), in the homes and workplaces; wherever feminism needs challenged. We also need leaders and organisers plus those to co ordinate activities.
There is a place for "male victimhood" - correctly handled that is how public opinion is influenced. Despite apathy in action from the general population, most people will recognise injustice when presented with it. If the majority of the people sympathise with the Movement; they may not take to the streets, but they certainly won't support the feminists. After all the activities of the voting booth is still secret.
You have a valid point in that some women do take advantage of the tools of feminism - but, not all of them. It is unfair to call all women feminists. It is, therefore, unfair to tar all women with the same brush. Yes, the offenders need to be held accountable for their actions and we do have a duty to speak out against what we see as wrong. We must avoid the danger of taking generalised action against women. Reward those who treat you with respect, by showing respect. Those who disrespect you - treat them with disdain. Ugly truths are nonetheless the truth and are not "woman-bashing" and should be told.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So just WHERE are all these alleged "normal, nice" women I keep hearing about? It isn't the feminists themselves who are abusing and attacking their husbands, it is these so-called "normal, nice" women...
Well, I'm not sure about the all-out abusing and attacking, but as far as male-bashing goes, I've found it's a frightfully universal female inclination. I can honestly say that I've met very few if any women who didn't at one point or another make degrading remarks about the male gender as a whole. And that includes "nice" women.
I think it may actually stem from something even older than feminism, though. It's the whole idea that men, collectively, are something that women must "endure". I'm pretty sure it's inherent in traditional gender roles - whereby men had the overtly dominant role. People who are in submissive roles frequently demonize and bash those who are supposedly dominant over them in some way. Go into any place of employment and you'll see the way people tend to bash and make fun of their superiors - painting them as ignorant while painting their own group as having the moral high ground.
It's the "birthright" of the oppressed to secretly hate their oppressors. And I think it's something fairly universal to women - that even if they are not feminists, they still perceive men as their spoilt, overprivileged male siblings. They may like men, generally, but they still resent what they perceive as unfair advantages on the male side of the fence. And that gives them license to bash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there Hawth - thanks for your comments.
I suspect that the 'normal, nice women" you are seeking tend to be of the older generation. They tend to be the ones who remember the last World War - who saw their sons, brothers, fathers uncles etc go to war - and not come back.
I suspect you are right in that 'man-bashing' is pre-feminist, but the virulent hatred we see today is very post-1970's. The 'boss-bashing' you mentioned has/had nothing of the venom and sheer spite that 'man-bashing' involves nowadays.
The causes are probably many and numerous, among them:
(1) it is trendy to 'man-bash' - I remember someone, can't remember who, said "You're nobody in Hollywood unless you have a 'stalker'". I see women in groups trying to outcompete each other in terms of 'victimhood' and, therefore, 'man-bashing' ability.
(2) the resentments of life - women are starting to discover that feminism has sold them out. We are seeing more and more 'career spinsters' ending up childless and alone. Competition for 'good men' (ie men with large amounts of money) is savagely fierce - and many of these shallow females are losing out.
(3)Feminism (and hence Society) has given women a 'scapegoat' for their own failings - men. A huge degree of immaturity exists among such women. The resentments of their lives are being targetted at men.
(4) Men are still allowing it to happen !!
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to see this group defining our sense of purpose with respect to cause and action. To have the Men's Movement seen as a "he said, she said" battle zone will win no points with public opinion. However, engaging in woman-bashing can be a useful tool under only one condition. If men are going to attack women's irresponsibile behavior, we must be willing to identifiy and accept our own. This is that grey area that needs defining, for I am not asking men to automatically accept 50% of the respponsibility in every situation, but by defining our issues against the feminization of our society, and at the same time, restructuring and redefining our roles as men, we stand more confidently when we know there is blantant discrimination towards men. It also allows us to stand more confidently when and where we have failed our society as men. A progressive fundamental belief built upon accountabilty and responsibility forces the "other side" into a position of uncomfortabililty. My greastest weapon in the gender arguments is to immediately admit the things that men do wrong and how certain actions may or may not have been taken to correct them. (To not do so would be absurd, if not feminist-like) The oppositions power base is greatly diminished, and it forces them to explain how they accept responsibility for their behavior.
With that said, I don't feel that women bashing is neccessarily wrong if it is used as a vehicle to eventually demonstrate that two wrongs do not make a right. Otherwise, the argument is empty.
I feel that the foundation of our movement is being spoken in all these responses. They are:
1. Men need to take some blame for ignoring the feminization of our society, or at least continually bowing down to it. I feel one writer was correct, when in a response to this topic previously, he labeled mens lack of involvement to a form of machoism. Men saw women's issues as unmanly, and therefore avoided them. Men need to realize that these are individual and personal issues that are in desperate need of a masculine voice. I try to make this clear to those I speak to.
2. "Scapegoat" is a great word and definition to begin to understand women's disdain towards men. They have been told that all their problems are imbedded in men. If men would only change, their world would be so much better. They are finding out that this is a bunch of shit. If the Men's Movement consistantly constructs well-rounded arguments pointing out the projected utopia based version of feminism, to the reality based vision of the modern women, the blame for the collective unhappiness of the modern working women shifts from our men to the hapless feminist movement.
3. I don't blame all women for the sexism towards men, and it would not be fair to do so. After thirty years of having all this cheerleading bullcrap forced down your throat, you would start believing its true also. However what I do see is that many women say that they do not put much faith in what many feminist say, yet when it is in their advantage to do so, these same women find the feminist ideaology quite comfortable. This is where I think men just need to speak up. We have to be willing to challenge ourselves and others to make a difference. Call these women out on the carpet when they are being hypocritical. Winning the argument is not important. What's important is to make women and men feel just as sensitive and concsious about certain comments made about males and male issues.
I know there are more points to be made, but I will now get off my soapbox and let the others speak.
Speak often and speak proudly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chicago Joe (what a great name !!)
Many thanks for your comments - and yes, you are right it is time to speak up and challenge the feminist BS.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I finally signed up when I realized that despite the fact that I entered a nick when I made the post that it didn't show up with the post.
I usually stay out of these discussions because I come from such a different conceptual framework that I end up wasting all of my energy arguing with other men. I try to encourage everyone to read some of the great dystopian novels of the 20th century in order to see that the issues we are trying to confront are far larger and far older than "feminism". To me, the mininal reading list would include "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, "1984" and "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, "Lord of the Flies" by Golding, and most importantly "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
The way I view feminism is that it is like the old practice by sailors of having images of christ tatooed on their backs. Flogging was one of the primary forms of punishment in those days, and the reasoning went that many quartermasters would have a difficult time applying the whip to an image of their religion with the same fervor that they would apply it to a blank sailor's back.
From the very beginning of this "second wave" anyone who criticized the ideas or the behaviors of women would be attacked with the label of "misogyist", "angry male becoming violent because he is losing his power", and now "woman basher." Thus, debate is never possible because the person making the criticism is instantly put on the defensive trying to disprove the baseless accusations made against him. The original point is usually forgotten.
I agree with all the points you made above, ThnuderChild, but in particular with 2 & 3. Feminism itself has been immovable in its refusal to look at any role that women's behavior has had in creating their current situation. Feminism is thus exactly and literally what its name implies - it is feminine and passive aggressive. When women do not achieve because of either lack of effort or poor quality ideas, that lack of effort is NEVER examined and "oppression" must be dreamed up to explain everything.
Probably my most contentious contention is that men and women have always had about the same amount of power in absolute terms - simply different kinds of power. Men have to power to do things, to accomplish things, simply because they get off their asses and take the initiative to DO them. It really is that simple - the light bulb is burned out? put in a new one!
Women seem to define "power" as the ability to make other people do what they want done. And, because it is passive and indirect, yes, they will never achieve the same sense of accomplishment that men can and do. "Oh, it makes me so sad and anxious to have to sit here in the dark." In order to silence the whining and complaining and nagging and bitching, most men will do anything possible to shut them up - particularly when it is as simple as getting up and putting in a new light bulb.
The major "power" that women have had historically, is the power to grant or withhold social approval - the ultimate form of which is, of course, consenting to sex or refusing. The feminine and maternal mystiques are so powerful that many people take until mid-life to gain mastery of them, if they ever manage to do it at all.
Women contributed equally to the development of the old social order - first in their roles as child rearers and indoctrinators of social values, and second in their choices of men with which to mate. Neither sex has EVER been more "oppressed" than the other. What "oppression" really did exist was vertical rather than horizontal - the ruling classes always have exploited everyone else.
From this premise - that the social structure was a natural order which spontaneously evolved from circumstances and our natures - comes the one which usually causes me to part company with most mens activists: that the simple dynamics of large numbers and a complex enough system mean that things can never get too far out of balance and stay that way for too long. This is, of course, statistical and does not deny that local imbalances may exist.
There used to be two separate and very distinct "deals" - a male "deal" and a female "deal" - and almost everyone was handed one of them at birth. They were both a mixed bag - some perks and some costs. But, on the aggregate they were completely equal. Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
For every "gain" that women have made over the past 35+ years, they have lost something. Men are no longer indoctrinated in the provider role, and thus do not have the motivation to continue to take the high stress and high risk jobs which used to allow them to fulfill the "provider" part of the protector/provider role.
The anger and frustration of contemporary women does indeed come from the bitter realization that they got sold a bill of goods by femi-communalism. By buying into the lie that they were in the "one-down" position, women expected to keep everything they had and that any changes would be nothing but net gains for them.
There is no class of people in the world that I detest more than those who expect something for nothing.
To me, the whole argument about who gets more college degrees is utter nonsense. These women will have the choice between marrying a man who makes less than they do, or not marrying. Simple. It IS their choice, and it is one that the consequences cannot be blamed on men.
Regardless of what the smiley faces keep trying to tell us, all the man-bashing has a cumulative poisonous effect on men's attitude toward women in general. Again, it is simple statistics combined with the most rudimentary forms of learning and intelligence - if 60% of ANY group that I come in contact with consistently exhibits offensive and obnoxious behavior, then upon meeting a previously unknown member of that group I approach them with caution learned from past experiences.
If women had a lick of sense, they would be screaming for harsh penalties for paternity fraud and false accusations. Given the facts that there is nearly a one out of three chance that when a woman says "I'm pregnant and the baby is yours", and that once a man has pleaded guilty to the crime of fatherhood that there is no relief from his child support sentence even if proven later to be innocent, men are left with little recourse except to demand a DNA test immediately upon being notified of the pregnancy - even with their wives. "Are you sure it is mine?" used to be considered the ultimate in cad-hood, but today it is just common sense and anything else is idiotic.
Women have systematically destroyed men's ability to trust them, and the eventual penalites they will end up paying are all the goodies which used to come from that trust. Some men, instead of taking the passive feminine approach of trying to whine the government into saving and protecting them, will take the active masculine approach of taking what control of events they can and protecting themselves.
Fortunately for us, this gets easier the older we get.
I've seen a quote by Margaret Cho to the effect of "What we are really thinking about you behind those false smiles." Ok, Margaret, I believe you. I know that you hold me in complete and utter contempt, but having given away the power of social approval, your opinion matters to me now less than a fart in a high wind.
Women have convinced me that they generally hold me and all men in utter contempt. To them, I am as a bicycle is to a fish - completely useless and irrelevant to the world they live in.
Ok. Go hang out with your fishy friends (does anyone catch the sexual irony in a woman classifying things that way?) and I'll be peddaling off now.
There is a woman who takes the same route to work that I do. I see her car a couple of times a week. She has a very large bumper sticker which reads "Explain to me again why I need a man."
I spent a lot of years mastering my own reactions to that incredible subtle form of attack. My own need for social approval, particularly that of women, let me to reflexively get hooked into trying to just what that bumper sticker suggests - explain to her what a man brings into a woman's life that she doesn't have without one.
Then, gradually, over time, I wised up. I thought about all the energy and all the hours of my life I had wasted trying to change the minds of women like that. And, what I had to show for it amounted to exactly a fart in a high wind.
Now, it is "Why? You OBVIOUSLY don't. I'll be peddaling off now."
I think it is way past time that we men started "Cho-ing" women what the effect is of 30 years of listening to their lies, and bitching, and complaining, and bashing us - that we are all becoming Rhett Butler and frankly don't give a shit any more.
I realize that my 50-something, childless, perspective will probably make no sense at all to men in their 20s, 30s, or perhaps even 40s. Those men who are still trying to find a worthwhile mate have my complete compassion, and those men fighting for rights to be part of their childrens' lives have my complete support.
But, I'm completely burned out on the whole thing. I really don't have any fire in my belly any more, as I have come to the conclusion that the happiness I experience in life is inversely proportional to the presence of women in it.
Let them mistake indifference for hate, I really do not give a shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there zenpriest.
Many thanks for your valuable views and opinions.
I really think that the network needs to hear from you more often ! We need the "fire-breathers", the "older wiser heads" and those that can "think outside of the box". A different view and perspective often produces better solutions.
You made some pretty insightful points zenpriest.
Yes, we do need to take the fight to the feminists, but, we need to avoid making the mistake of fighting on their ground and on their terms. In time we will learn to dictate the agenda.
You were absolutely right in that we need to look at our own faults and weaknesses - it will make us stronger when challenging others. Also about the loss of trust between women and men.
Above all I suspect we have a lot to learn from you about stepping out of the constrictions placed on us by what you call "societal approval". It is not an easy skill; having had certain behaviour patterns towards women conditioned into us since child-hood. Read some of the historical studies into child-rearing practices. There's a really good one on how child-rearingpractices in late 19th C Germany produced the personality of Adolf Hitler and the climate for his success.
Much respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zenpriest, good to see you here; I've really enjoyed your web site.
Yes, Animal Farm: "Both sexes are equal, but one is more equal than the other." Another 20th century "dystopian" novel I'd highly recommend is Limbo by Bernard Wolfe. First published in 1952, it's a wry extrapolation of trends of the time, positing a "future" (1990) when the terrible problem of human aggression has been addressed by inducing men (only -- women, of course, are innocent) to voluntarily submit to amputation of all four limbs -- sort of a highly advanced circumcision, since the simple version didn't work. A lot of really interesting and insightful reflection on human culture and psychology. I don't know why it never became widely known, despite an honest effort by Ace Books in 1966 with a mass-market paperback with an excellent cover by Jack Gaughan and a blurb from Saturday Review in big letters: "More satisfying than Orwell's 1984 or Mr. Huxley's Brave New World." Maybe it was a little too close to home. Apparently it's been reprinted recently in a couple of small runs.
Probably my most contentious contention is that men and women have always had about the same amount of power in absolute terms - simply different kinds of power. Agreed; however, I'd go deeper and point out that since it's women who make men, and not vice-versa, the fundamental truth is that women have always had more power than men, since men have no power but what is lent to us by women. The existence of numerous species which used to consist of two sexes (such as the common dandelion, and a lizard that lives here in New Mexico), but are now exclusively female, makes this point clear. However, it's also important to keep in mind that such species have ceased to evolve; they're deadends. The feminist Utopia is stasis. Read what Camille Paglia has to say about social life among lesbians: boooring. And her famous comment, "If the development of civilization had been left up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts," sums up why, though the idiot in the car (invented by men) might not need men, she might not be all that happy in a world without them, either.
Fred Reed has a great essay about the ecological niche inhabited by "White Males." He's a real breath of fresh air: "Now, listen here, Maple Syrup. You get up in the morning, maybe with the help of a forklift, and get food out of the refrigerator, which white men invented and you don't understand. (What's the compressor for? Did you know a refrigerator had a compressor?) Then you sit down to write your thoughts on a defenseless computer, which white men invented and you don't understand. (What's branch prediction on a floating-point pipeline? Name the three parts of a transistor?) ...."
The anger and frustration of contemporary women does indeed come from the bitter realization that they got sold a bill of goods by femi-communalism. I suspect the increasing anger and frustration of contemporary women (notice how the more they get, the angrier they get?) comes from the fact that though they've getting what (they think) they want, they're not getting what they need. The hard truth here is that they not only don't but I suspect cannot know what they need, because what they need is to get what they don't know they need. That's the nature of the game between the sexes, from time immemorial. I once had a girlfriend who was driving me crazy; finally in desperation I asked (shouted, really), "Well, what do you want?" Her answer was a revelation: "I never know what I want until I get it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 09, @04:12AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there, Philatheles (the Great Alchemist ?)
Many thanks for your comments.
Yes, I would quite agree with you in that women do ultimately have greater power than men. The power to get people to do things for you (ie manipulation) is probably the greatest.
You also hit on one of the great weaknesses of feminism - they may think they can do without men, but the very society that allows them to exist is built upon the ingenuity, toil, sweat, tears and blood of billions of men. There are/were no female Da Vinci's, Gallileo's or Edison's. We would be living in grass huts.
I also think that you are right in that women are not getting what they need, however, they have been told that what they need is not what they want. As you say they don't know what they want until they get it. Whilst men allow them to get away with it they wil have no incentive to change that mind-set/behaviour. Timne to force the issue.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably my most contentious contention is that men and women have always had about the same amount of power in absolute terms - simply different kinds of power. Agreed; however, I'd go deeper and point out that since it's women who make men, and not vice-versa, the fundamental truth is that women have always had more power than men, since men have no power but what is lent to us by women.
I warned you that I was contentious about this, as the folks over at ifems have just found out.
I could not disagree more strongly. Power cannot be lent nor given. Evidence for this is demonstrated by your statement that the MORE they get, the angrier they get and the less they claim they have. Men have been literally POURING power on women's heads for the past 3 decades and they just can't see it because they don't understand the true nature of power.
My fundamental criticism of feminism is becoming my fundamental criticism of masculism - it is purely passive-agggressive. It attempts to exercise power by claiming none and trying to whine those who they perceive as having power into doing something. It works for women, but men still hate it. It will never work for men. It never has, and I don't believe it ever will, and even if it does then men will still have lost what used to make them men - the power which comes from the willingness to ACT.
Power cannot be given - because that very structure assumes that the giver has more power than the receiver, and can therefor take it away at any time. Power is something you reach out, take hold of, claim, and hold on to. And the only time you let go is when someone with more power pries it out of your hands.
Men today still have LOTS of power, they just have grown too soft to be willing to bear the hard choices of using it. We have the power to look at the situation and plan and act accordingly.
Power is about understanding the methods necessary to get results, and applying them. If you want to make a lot of money, you work long hours. Thats why men make more money that women do. Power means you have to adapt yourself to the world FIRST, then and only then can you adapt the world to you. You don't get to choose what you want to and also what results you want to get - "I want to make a lot of money, by working part time and taking a lot of leave time." It just doesn't work that way.
The most OFFENSIVE cartoon I have ever seen in my life is the one about the two babies looking into their diapers and saying "OH! THAT explains the difference in our salaries." It's like the penis is magic. And that is the mistake women and feminism have made all along. I have always wanted to do a cartoon of a woman hustling out the door at 10 minutes to 5, then a man still at his desk at 8:30 with the caption - "NO, THAT explains the difference in our salaries."
I'm fully behind father's rights, but I am a non-father by choice. This is power I have TODAY that requires ABSOLUTELY NO change in the world to keep me from being branded a criminal deadbeat and locked up. It has has its costs, but power always does.
The fundamental error that men as a group have made over the past 35 years is not DEMANDING respect for what they provide women and as an abosolutely non-negotiable condition of continuing to give it to them. OF COURSE they are going to be snotty, arrogant, spoiled brats - they've never had to pay for what they have gotten, they have always gotten it for free.
The man-bashing annoys me, and the really evil dishonest game that women are playing with the whole sexual-harassment/rape bullshit infuriates me, but when it comes to "mens-rights" I actually have no beef at all. All I had to do was to NOT do what my culture had criminalized - get married or become a father. I own my own house, held onto it through 7 years of unemployment and severe underemployment, have not one cent of credit card debt, and have never paid one cent to lawyers or to a woman for the support of children she won't let me see.
I have ALL the results that I hear most men today asking for, but they don't like the METHODS I have had to use to get them. Well, tough shit, grrls, the world is like that sometimes.
It is perfectly legal to turn our backs on women and withdraw from them our kindness. And TELL them WHY we are doing it. As long as we keep giving them EVERYTHING they ask for without any conditons at all and expecting and demanding nothing in return - weakly hoping that we will get something and groveling gratefully for any crumb that one of them deigns to toss in our direction - they are going to keep demanding MORE and to keep getting angrier.
Men have the power to say "no". And, unlike women, when a man says "no" it really does mean NO!
Women have become black holes, bottomless pits. They consume everything and give back nothing and just keep demanding more and more. Men have nothing left to give. The users that women have become has used us up.
The people who are trying to keep men in their old jobs of protector and provider are our real enemies. They have made it impossible to do it. Let women get most of the college degrees. Let them make most of the money, they are the ones who spend it anyway. I was able to maintain my house on the pittance I made clerking in a liquor store. I don't need much money if I don't have to support the spending habits of a woman.
Marriage IS dead, extinct, gone the way of the dinosaur. All that is left is a carcass that the maggots are feeding on. Marriage WAS a practical arrangement for survival in the world as it WAS and has been, but the world has changed. The family has been outsourced.
We are in the middle of the most significant social upheaval and change in the history of our species. "Family" was never truly enforced by laws, but by necessity. It is no longer necessary, its survival is no longer supported by all the institutions of culture, and it can no longer survive.
If we, as men, want to do a service to our sons and the men of the next generation, what we need to be doing is preparing them for THAT, not grooming them to be the slaves of women in a new social order.
The boys who are NOT going to college these days are the ones who are exercising power. THEY are bucking the system and rebelling against the social order. If the college graduates of the future want mates, they will have to choose them - else they will do without. Poor babies - this is the world their feminst mothers bequeathed to them.
Can women sustain a technological world that they couldn't creat? Not likely. By depriving itself of the contribution of motivated men, the culture has shot its own foot off. AND, it is busy reloading.
Why support a culture which is chewing up our very bodies to feed itself? Why not keep our bodies and let it starve to death instead of continuing to plead with it not to eat us?
The minute you say "I have no power" you are right, just as you are the moment you say "I have power."
MEN have willingly, nay ENTHUSIASTICALLY given away their own power to women. If that becomes what "masculism" is about, I will have no part of it.
I DO have power, and I OWN it, because I have paid the price for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 08, @10:47AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Let me get this straight, you like the Suffragettes? You are aware of the involvement of the Suffragettes with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, are you not? In England, suffragettes were eager to send men to die in the mud in France:
Some women under the direction of Admiral Charles Fitzgerald created the Order of the White Feather in January 1915. This group handed out white feathers to any young man not wearing a uniform whom they suspected of cowardice, in attempt to shame them into enlisting. Some complained about such behaviour, one man argued that these 'idiotic young women were using white feathers to get rid of boyfriends of whom they were tired'. (Compton McKenzie)
---Women at War
In the United States, the Suffragettes pushed through Prohibition:
The suffrage sisters worked diligently, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) founded in 1874 would later join hands with the suffragettes to push through Prohibition. They succeeded and in January of 1920 Prohibition went into effect via the 18th Amendment to the Constitution; in August of 1920 women nationwide gained the hard-won right to vote.-- TEMPERANCE, SALOONS & BOOTLEGGERS
Prohibition, of course, was a colossal success, and should always be remembered as one of the first major triumphs of the women's movement.
Look, we've all been sold a bill of goods on the Suffragette movement. Remember, they were after the vote for a specific reason, to get power. It's as important to know what they wanted that power for as it is to know that they were after it. Not all women who wanted the vote were bad, but there is a difference between "women who wanted the vote" and the bloodthirsty, fanatic prudes who were the "official" suffragette movement. I'm talking about women like Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst in England and Susan B. Anthony in the US. Can you remember the names of the moderates in the Suffragette movement? Sure, they existed but they aren't the modern public face of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1975 PBS broadcast a program celebrating the 75th anniversary of the "20th Amendment." I was somewhat amazed (as well as informed) to hear mentioned therein that opponents of "women's suffrage" had predicted that it would lead to alcohol prohibition. Apparently it had somehow escaped the notice of the program's producers that indeed that prediction came true. Or could it be that they (secretly) still consider prohibition a good idea?
Most women seem to suffer from an irresistible urge to mind other people's business. I'd guess it's an outgrowth of the mother's natural role, wherein she must be (whether qualified or not) the Authority in her children's lives. Once the children have left home, this by now well-practiced, ingrained habit -- supported by her instinctive knowledge that she's just naturally right in all her opinions, no matter how irrational -- has no immediate outlet (outside of bullying her husband, which she's done all along anyway). So she takes up one or another variety of Social Work. Sometimes she may actually help someone, but all too often it comes down to improving the world by Improving Men -- if not by persuasion then by force, and all for our own good, of course.
Keep in mind that the target of Prohibition was men. True, 19th-century America was an asylum of drunks; but rather than ask the reason for this, the Wise Women of the time thought the quickest, easiest solution was simply to make alcohol illegal. We hear so much about how women are naturally nonviolent, but they certainly have no compuction about using force so long as someone else -- i.e. men -- can be induced to do the dirty work. Front man, fall guy, whipping boy: same old story.
As for the cause of 19th-century America's drunken stupor: Gary Snyder speculates in a poem (don't remember which at the moment) that the common workingman's appetite for alcohol might have something to do with unconscious pain from the destructive nature of his work: "taming" i.e. devastating Mother Earth to satisfy his wife's insatiable appetite for stuff -- as well as to support the endless products of "the relentless fertility of the human female" (Marvin Harris quote). (My father was one of seven children in his late-Victorian family -- and his mother hated his father!) It was in the 19th century that this whole vast continent was turned from a wilderness Eden into Chicago.
Not to mention the endless wars of that century, chief among them the "Civil War," which, I realized after reading about the early history of the feminist movement (founded in Seneca Falls in 1848 by women abolitionists who were miffed at being excluded from their husbands' councils), might not have happened as it did without the meddling of self-righteous busybody females, always ready to expend male lives on short-term, superficial "solutions."
Keep in mind also that it was these same harridan WASP schoolmarm types who gave us the infant male circumcision program, feminism's third great early success, also intended to "cure" what was wrong with men (male lust!) by force.
I agree that it's important to know why they wanted the power, but I don't buy the idea of "moderate" suffragettes (any more than "moderate" feminists). Why did they want the power, if not to vote against their husbands? They could not prevail within the family, so they went outside it. The other prediction made by anti-suffragettes (may of them women, by the way) was that giving women "the vote" would destroy the family. That has come true also, though few have the courage to say so in public.
Thanks for the info on the "Order of the White Feather." The recent film The Four Feathers was a perfect illustration of this recent manifestation of an ancient archetype -- though I believe its events predate the Great War of 1914-18. I didn't bother to see it, but heard enough to gather it's the story of how a young Englishman, reluctant to take part in Britain's interminable imperial wars (for reasons much like those which motivated me in the 1960s to similarly decline), is ridiculed and shamed by being handed "four feathers" by one or several young women as a symbol of his "cowardice." Whereupon he knuckles under and enlists to aid Her Majesty's conquest of the Sudan, and is redeemed, gets the girl, etc. etc.
BTW, as for "Heartless Bitches," I'm not quite sure what they're up to. Read the note at the bottom of the home page. It's garbage, yes, but it may be a lame attempt at "humor."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to have to put my twopennorth in here on this one, as the distinction between women, feminism and the present regime throughout most of the Western world has given me a lot of concern and I've given it a lot of thought.
I think a distinction between feminists and women and government is not that important at the present time. We do have to recognize who's an enemy and who isn't. Our enemies include a lot of women but not all women, and quite a lot of men,. However, in one sense it is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany. It is fairly academic who is and isn't a Nazi. If they are loyal Germans then they support the Nazis, if only because they are loyal Germans. Until the entire regime was stopped just about all Germans were effectively Nazi supporters. That doesn't mean we treated all Germans the same at the end of the war, but it did mean we treated all Germans as the enemy until the end of the war. In the present situation, it means that the governments are effectively feminist governments and its supporters include most women, who use and abuse the laws and courts that favour them and suit their purposes.
Why do men, whether ordinary men or judges or politicians, support them? To me it all amounts to one thing. Men have been supporting women since the beginning of the human race. As long as this has been a mutual arrangement, everything was fine. She had his children if he looked after her. No doubt feminists will tell us it is not as simple and straight forward as that, and cite all sorts of wrong doings by men. They are the exception rather than the rule. Men are still trying to support women, and when they say they have a problem men fall over themselves to help and agree with the women that whatever it is, is a problem no matter how trivial it is. Erin Pizzey once said that men will donate to fund women's DV shelters but not men's DV shelters. Both men and women have been steeped in this feminists propaganda for decades and often both believe that if the men just do the right thing then the women will be happy with them. So it becomes the accepted wisdom and second nature and expedient to agree with women that they have been oppressed and men have to make up for it. I say that women have not been oppressed and if they want to get rid of men we should send them a bill for 5 million years of child support (if they don't need us and never have needed us).
It follows in my mind that if we are going to win, we will have to have a row, or some sort of confrontation, with all three groups, women, feminists and government. This could well be in the courts and votes for the government, in the media and colleges to challenge the feminists and in personal lives to challenge women. This does not mean we adopt some sort of "All women are evil" stance, nor does it mean we pretend "All men are good", nor "All women are feminists". I don't want to be a communist to the fascists, nor a fascist to the communists. I'm a constitutional democracy advocate. The one thing we are trying to bring to the argument is the clear violation of rights that is occurring. Indeed we can't point out the lack of common sense and the deliberate misuse of statistics and anecdote, if we are doing the same thing. The day we can speak to women as equals, "bargain in good faith" as has been said, then we can declare peace. Only then. It is not yet time for appeasement. There is no point in negotiating the peace whilst still at war. At least wait until there's a ceasefire.
Raymond Cuttill Men's Books Men's Radio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 08, @11:17PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I've thought about the relationship between women, feminism, and the current regime as well. So I'll put in my 2 cents worth as well.
I think that it does not lead anywhere for the men's movement to become a mirror image of feminism: women are self-absorbed, narcissistic, opportunistic, etc., but that's not women-bashing, the "real" enemy is not women, but feminism. Sound familiar? Men are naturally violent, potential rapists and child molesters, but that's not male-bashing, of course, the "real" enemy is not men, but patriarchy. The point is that everyone, male and female, deserves to be judged on who they are and what they have done as individuals, and no one should be presumed to be a monster unless proven to be so. So I owe this in fairness to all women that I happen to come into contact with. I will not judge or suspect them as "feminazis" or as "feminist sympathizers" without any objective indicators of such attitudes. And, if I expect the respect due to me as a human being, then I owe that to everyone else, male or female.
This is not to deny that many women are, in fact, guilty of the above-mentioned traits. And, after the appropriate self-examination to make sure I'm "walking the walk" as well as "talking the talk", I simply demand my due respect from women and will not settle for less. To take a slogan of feminism and turn it on its head, if for them the personal is political, for me the political is personal. I simply will not tolerate anti-male jokes, etc., in my presence. I refuse to apologize for being male. As much as possible, I refuse to collaborate with any female co-worker who either has a contemptuous attitude towards men or expects special privileges (fortunately I have a job that allows me to do that). Moreover, I have made up my mind that if I am listening to any speech where the speaker stoops to anti-male stereotypes and bigotry, I will stand up and boo loudly. And I will boo even louder if the speaker is male.
I'm fortunate enough to be married to a wonderful woman whom I love dearly, and who loves me dearly and appreciates me for who I am. As conservative Catholics, divorce is absolutely out of the question. But, as a hypothetical matter, if it ever came to that, I would absolutely refuse to subsidize the breakup of my family. I would be perfectly willing to go to Antarctica, or to jail. Of course, this is easier said than done, and I do not condemn those who do not do this, since I am not in their situation, and this is a decision that has to be made on an individual basis. I can only hope that I would have the courage of my convictions.
However, judging by what I see around me, I think that many men think more or less the same as I do, especially younger men (I'm 31) and that we are now in the midst of a silent revolt against feminism. I really see less and less men willing to submit to politically correct indoctrination and bullying. Maybe they have not suffered personally from feminism, but after 30 or 40 years of feminism, many people know someone who has. Maybe a friend or relative of theirs got destroyed in a divorce, got passed over for a promotion, etc. And for those without experience, the Internet is chock-full of horror stories from everywhere. Much to the chagrin of the major media, young people nowadays get their news mostly from the Internet, so the cat is out of the bag and can't be hidden any more. In fact my own interest in men's rights came from finding out on the Internet how men were treated after divorce, and from there I quickly learned about other issues, such as Affirmative Action, men's health, etc.
So, either lawmakers wisen up, or else civil disobedience on a massive scale is around the corner. Either way, feminism is history. It's only a question of when. I admit that I live in a rather conservative area of the US (Cincinnati, OH) and so perhaps I am a bit more optimistic about all this than is warranted. But still, there have been some interesting developments here. Ohio now has one the toughest, if not the toughest, laws in the nation on the books regarding paternity fraud. In fact, in a recent court case a victim actually won back child-support from the perpetrator. Ohio is one of the few states which does not have a unilateral no-fault divorce law, at least in theory (irreconciliable differences may be "contested" by either party). Finally, a few years back a person, residing out of the country, was actually arrested as soon as he got off the plane for failure to pay child support (which was a non-extraditable offense in the jurisdiction in which he was residing) but a jury refused to convict, which, unless there is something I missed, seems to be a clear case of jury nullification.
Anyway, let's just hang in there. I think feminists are beginning to sense that their house of cards is about to collapse, which is precisely why they are becoming more strident and shrill.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent comments, Vince. You are INDEED lucky to be married to a woman who appreciates you for who you are rather than dwelling on all her fantasies that you fail to fulfill and reminding you of it several times a day.
The fact that you are Catholic raises a point I seldom see discussed regarding the divorce rate. The gross figures which are always quoted are the aggregate rate and include groups like Catholics, Mormons, Mennonites, etc who have historically very low divorce rates. When you factor this in, it means that the divorce rate in the secular community is actually far higher than the 50% quoted.
My problem is that I have been at this 20 years longer than you have, and the men you and your contemporaries are reading about on the internet are men I went to HS and college with. One of my college roomates is in jail at this moment for non payment of spousal support (NOT Child Support, Spousal Support) due to the fact that he lost his job. His wife just up and decided one day that she was tired of being married to him and went for a scorched-earth winner-take-all divorce. She won, and he got scorched. What makes the whole thing so surreal is that 2 of their 3 sons had already graduated from HS and were gone to college. The third actually stayed with his father. So with no children to support and despite the fact that her career was more successful that his, she walked away with an order for $2000/month support for the rest of her life. Go figure.
I think you are overly optimistic about lawmakers wising up. Left and right have curved around to meet each other and the feminist attitude of moral superiorty is no different than the conservative view of women as the fairer sex. The woman whose articles keep getting posted here dismissing men (is it Suzanne Fields?) is a well known CONSERVATIVE columnist.
I mostly dropped out of the men's movement a couple of years ago because I was becoming so burned out that my zero tolerance for bullshit stance was abrading a lot of other men. No point in wasting our energy fighting each other.
But, if massive civil disobedience is just around the corner, I believe it is about 20 years too late. The truth of the matter is that it began on a man by man basis years ago with men simply refusing to get married and put themselves under the thumbs of their wives and the legal system.
The fatal flaw in feminist thinking is that they can change everything about the environment and men will keep doing everything for women that they always have. And, up until now that has been mostly the case. And these so-called "normal, nice" women have been taking men to the cleaners.
"The point is that everyone, male and female, deserves to be judged on who they are and what they have done as individuals, and no one should be presumed to be a monster unless proven to be so."
That is wonderfully idealistic and I really would not even want to argue against it, but it leaves out a few things. There really are serial killers who murder women and cut their bodies into chunks. There really are women who bash in their babies heads with rocks or drown them. There is a middle ground somewhere between presuming that someone IS a monster, and presuming that they are NOT. Having had a couple of unbelievably sick women get their hooks into me and having to go through some very expensive and agonizing processes to get them out has changed my perspective on women in ways that I hope you never have to go through.
A major difficulty when men my age try to talk to men your age is what looks from our side like denial. A man with a good wife, or one who has not had to contend with bitter ravenous divorcees simply cannot believe how foul women have become capable of being - just like our lawmakers.
So far, men have been unwilling to use the ultimate weapon which women have been using against us for years with devastating results - rejection and indifference. Like spoiled little brats women have been led to believe that no matter how badly they act, some men will still seek them out and court their favor.
And, during the reproductive years this remained fairly true. However, the straddle generation for feminism, the boomers, are now reaching middle age and the women are going through menopause and the men are going through horny-pause. Take away the undercurrent of sexual desire, and what is left with most menopausal women is a self-centered, narcissistic, demanding, moody child arrested in early adolescence. And what is worse is that most of the ones back out on the market are there simply because they have already thrown away one or more good husbands.
There is an interesting thread going on over on the ifeminists board started by a woman going "oh my god, what is going to happen when men find out that there are foreign women who actually WANT them." Americian women are getting ready to go through what American car makers went through in the early 1970s - foreign competition offering a better product at a lower price is going to come close to putting them out of business.
I'm glad to hear that men your age are beginning to get fed up with femi-bullshit. 5 - 10 years ago when I used to do a lot of work trying to mentor young men, I found that no one was more thick-headed and stubborn about feminism that a twenty-something male.
But, for men my age the issues remain quite different. Men's fundamental vulnerability which has been exploited to beat all hell over the past 3 decades has been our role in the mating game of designated initiator. Women can pretend to not want sex and let men take the risks to seek them out and make overtures, then after the fact decide wheter it was harassment or rape or RO-mance.
Warren Farrel observed in "Why men are the way they are" that this men's "shit work", and I, for one, am no longer willing to do it. The simple point I keep trying to make which no one seems to want to hear is that women have become so obnoxious, offensive, and interpersonally incompetent that I simply no longer have the patience to deal with them at all.
We get immediately into the denial stage of "Well, not ALL women are like that!" and immediately start after the none/some/all strawman. The challenge is to create the cultural awareness that !!SOME!! are. SOME women bash their children's heads in with rocks or drown them. SOME women lie about rape. SOME women intentionally commit paternity fraud.
Saying any of these things will virtually always get one accused of "woman-bashing", and that is the method which has been used to keep men effectively silenced for more than 3 decades. I believe that if men are ever to make any progress, that it will require developing a very thick skin to accusations such as that.
The reality of the matter is that of all the married men I know, I can count on one hand the ones who are not absolutely miserable and feel totally trapped. That 50% who haven't divorced, YET, includes a lot of men trapped in abusive relationships with nowhere to go, and even more who are aware of the anti-male bias of the legal system and realize that a divorce would destroy and consume everything they have worked their entire lives for.
I really do envy those of you men who have GOOD wives, and even as recently as 5 years ago I would have married a woman like that if I had found one. But, I sure as hell don't envy the poor bastards who let one of those monsters get her hooks into him because he was unable to admit to himself that such women exist and she might be one of them before she did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo zenpriest
On the mark again !!
I suspect that the institution we call marriage is dying on the vine for the simple reaason that young men will be scared of getting involved with a self-obsessed, aggressive brat.
Roll on the Civil Disobedience
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 09, @09:47AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I am indeed extremely fortunate with my wife. I can see that very few women these days are even worth a second look. I have nothing but sympathy for men in my age range. For the desire to marry and raise a family is a fundamental desire shared by almost everyone. If you wish, read the reviews on amazon.com of "No good men left: the romantic plight of the new single woman" by Barbara Defoe Whitehead (a moderate conservative). You'll see review after review saying that these women are only reaping what they have sown.
But my glasses aren't nearly as rose-colored as you might think, zen. In fact, notwithstanding your personal experience and that of your friends, my opinion of women in general might in fact be worse than yours. From a conservative pro-life Catholic standpoint, MILLIONS, not hundreds or thousands, of women become brutal murderers every year. The fact is, that in the pro-life movement as a whole, this is NEVER addressed, it's always someone else's (of course, MEN's fault). In fact, according to some, we are now to regard these women as abortion's "second victim". Well, bullshit. Moreover, in my personal experience, whatever claim women could ever made to being morally superior beings is totally eviscerated by their current conduct, at least that of younger women. So it doesn't matter what anyone says. Actions speak louder than words. And this is not a question of what SOME women potentially MIGHT do, this is the FACT of what MANY women actually ARE doing. So, not only do I know how foul women are capable of being, but how foul they sometimes actually are.
You are right that men are now voting with their feet when it comes to women. This shows that men are, in fact, wising up. Sure, lawmakers are behind the curve, but as more and more men wise up, they will have no choice but to deal with reality. I think that there are many parallels that can be drawn between feminism and Prohibition (another creation of do-gooder women). Feminists are completely oblivious to Newton's third law: for every action, there is a reaction. Make marriage too legally burdensome and risky for men? Fewer men marry. Try to put the same burdens on cohabitation? Fewer men stay in long-term relationships. Try to legalize discrimination against men in the workplace? Such men leave, start their own businesses, and may well perform retaliatory or "reverse-reverse" discrimination. There is really not a whole lot government, and lawmakers, can do about this. Unfortunately, just like Prohibition, there is going to be lot more damage done before feminism gets relegated to the history books and gets looked at in the same quaint and curious way as Prohibition. This does make me very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male bashing, misandry, is now endemic in all media, in all government, and taught at virtually all universities. Meanwhile any man who says anything negative against women is accused of "harassment" or worse. I say it's time to recognize and join their WAR ON MEN (and their WAR ON BOYS) as an actual war. They are destroying millions of men with prisons, involuntary servitude, destroyed families, and destroyed lives. A 15 minute "rape" of a young woman is said to be sufficient justification for "life in prison" for a man. Cowshit! MEN must begin fighting back. Reward and applaud every man who fights back against their feminazi injustice system by whatever means. There is a WAR on, being fought by feminist minions and their government SS troops. Every man who fights back against the PC machine is a hero. Every man who supports the PC machine is a quisling traitor. Men who speak out against feminists are righteous. Men who kowtow to their feminazi misandrist standards are self abusing candyasses. We know who they are as soon as they begin to speak.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
