|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The women over there don't seem to want to confront the idea that the men might be looking elsewhere for a reason.
Raymond Cuttill Men's Books Men's Radio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop Hating Men.
Just imagine; stop being hateful, self-centered bitches, stop the male bashing, and stop taking cheap shots at men legally, finacially, emotionally and through their kids, and men may very well decide they like you again.
Keep it up, though, and wonder why we don't want a blessed thing to do with ya'll.
They're just plain stupid.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that you have posted an apology to Wendy for the commments that readers of this site made to that thread. I have incredibly mixed feelings about the whole matter. Someone claims the original post was a troll, and men are being severly chastised for "bashing women". On the one hand, I can deeply sympathize with the bewilderment from having all that anger suddenly erupt in one's face. But, on the other I am not sure that making a few posts to a BB which has fewer regular readers than is in the audience of even ONE Oprah show actually represents enough contribution to the cause to be immune from criticism.
Having watched more than 30 years of this level of effort not accomplish jack shit toward rolling back the tide of man-hatred, I've become pretty cynical and hardened. I wonder how much time those supposed "nice" women over there have spent standing by watching all this happen and either supporting it by their silent assent, or actively joining in.
I've used the analogy dozens of times that 300,000 Jews were kept prisoner in the Warsaw ghettos by less that 750 SS troops. That is a ratio of 400:1. If they had set upon their captors with table legs and chunks of glass and bars of soap wrapped in towels, they would have overwhelmed them by sheer force of numbers and changed the course of history. Instead, they stood passively by in their position of non-violent moral superiority and watched the process begin which would eventually kill millions of them.
I am far less enamored of the work of women like Wendy, and Cathy Young, and Kathleen Parker than a lot of men are. I have seriously offended one of them by calling them "Barbie Doll Dissidents." But, I look around and ask what is the net effect of the sum total of all their efforts? Who have they convinced of anything and what have those people done about the issues? How much less misandry do I see in the world today as a result of their efforts than I saw 5 - 10 years ago? I don't see any less, I see more.
The most "masculist" things I have seen happen in the past few years have been the work of NCFM out in CA, the work of Carnell Smith against Paternity Fraud, and the guy who simply walked in and took down those ceramic penises hanging in that CO library - simple, direct, effective.
I've reached the point where I can no longer kiss some woman's ass simply because 35 years into the war she isn't quite as nasty as the rad-fems. Particularly when they are still spouting feminism, just a slightly toned-down version of it. The number of comments about men seeking foreign brides FOR NO OTHER REASON than the fact that they were docile and submissive smacked of that tired old "all men want is power over women" crap. At least they spare us the use of the word "Patriarchy".
This is the reason I have pretty much dropped out of men's activism. The snotty comments abrade me and I abrade back. I'm not sure whether I am helping the cause, or hurting it.
The name of this site is Men's ACTIVISM, so when I see comments like "Hey, guys, these are not the women you are mad at", I want to ask - "Yeah, but what have they done about it?" How many years did they stand passively by watching it all happen silently nodding because they basically agreed inside that they were superior?
But, nothing could have better illustrated my point about "woman bashing" better than this. What has chapped my ass most through this whole bloody war is what the Fred Reed comment quoted had to say: that all this trashing of men has been from the safety and comfort of a world built by men.
At what point do we get tired of having the hand that feeds them bitten, and stop feeding them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, hear!
I assume you're referring to this thread on the "ifeminists" forum? See also "Pam, Tess, and others who may be offended." I had to laugh. This has been my first experience of the "ifeminists" forum, and I'd have to say it was a bit of a disappointment. I didn't expect much, but even so ... same old same old. In what I read of the "global dating" thread, the only "bashing" I found were the persistent negative characterizations of men, that the only reasons they might be interested in non-American women is a desire to have a "submissive" wife they can oppress. Sure, some of the male posters are a little excited, but there is no consideration that they might have some reason. Meanwhile, of course, for as long as I can remember we've been relentlessly told that the most hysterical, hateful female rants are fully justified by their supposed history of oppression.
I can deeply sympathize with the bewilderment from having all that anger suddenly erupt in one's face. I don't. "ifeminists" is supposed to be about the "new," intelligent feminism. If they haven't yet noticed that a lot of men are angry, and haven't figured out that it's for good reasons, they're just jerking themselves off (uh, what's the female equivalent?). Same old same old.
The subtext remains the same: women are "morally" superior to men, thus licensed to criticise men whenever the mood strikes, but men cannot criticise women. And the same old tactic: "You hurt my delicate feelings." They can dish it out, but they can't take it. I found the "chivalrous" posts of Ms. McElroy's "husband" coming to her defense particularly amusing. Again, this has been my only exposure to the culture of "ifeminists.com," but he sounded to me like a lapdog.
"Feminism Lite" is still feminism.
I wonder how much time those supposed "nice" women over there have spent standing by watching all this happen and either supporting it by their silent assent, or actively joining in. I liked how Graham Strachan put it:
When the feminists pronounced that “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, did real women object? No, they were doubled up with mirth. SO funny! When the feminsts proclaimed their aim was no longer to ‘liberate women’, but to ‘sink the boot into the groin of the patriarchy’, did any real women protest to say that wasn’t what they wanted? No. And when Hollywood started actually showing women kicking men in the groin on screen as ‘entertainment’, did women object? Did they walk out of the theatres en masse? Not at all. They made those peculiar ‘whoop, whoop’ noises women make at male strip shows.
Why was it that women generally didn’t defend men through all this? For one thing, they were too busy counting the spoils gained on their behalf by the feminists.
I'm not sure whether I am helping the cause, or hurting it. Depends on what the "cause" is. My "cause" is the truth, and I enjoy reading what you write. I don't consider myself part of the "men's movement," because I've found it to be mostly a me-too copy of feminism, which I consider unworthy of men. I'm not trying to establish men's "equal right" to victim status, I'm just trying to put a little truth into the discussion. I guess if I'm "offended" by anything, it's all the lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, I hope none of you think I went against you behind your back or anything, as I didn't.
Anyway, I just want to get back doing what I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 10, @10:59AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
no Adam, I don't. I didn't like the way things turned out either. I try to stay out of verbal battles, but I'm such an old war horse that when I end up in one I pull no punches.
I basically agree with Philatheles - same old same old with a frilly cover.
Like him, I am disappointed because it seems we still can not talk ABOUT the issues, we have to keep talking around them and not hurt the poor dears' feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Adam, I just don't understand why it was necessary to issue an apology. It's a public forum, anyone can link to it. If their feelings are so delicate, they could make it private. If they're going to air their opinions in public, they might as well expect the public (including men) to respond.
Anyway, I'd like to know which posts in the thread were felt to require an apology? Mine? Whose?
It's the assumptions here that I dispute: either it's the old days, when the sexes both felt some moral obligation to be polite, or it's the feminist brave new world, where women are "equal" to men, thus if they feel no reason to be considerate of our feelings, why should we not treat them "equally"?
I'm sorry, but I think you fell for it. I don't recall seeing any "apology" from the proprietor of ifeminists for all the snide remarks (and worse) about men in the thread - including the original post itself, with its denigrating assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too just came back from there. I posted a couple of comments. I even started a couple of more (Believe it or not, far from the Gonzo style we have all come to know and get that "Oh Jesus, you got him started" look we all know so well here.)
What's the use?
Time after time I see the qquestion come up here and elsewhere - yeah, even here. "Where are the men? None of the ones I know are dating. They're all dating foreign women. They don't call. They don't come around. They don't ask us out anymore. What's going on?"
Time and time again, guys will chime in, "Hey, I'm one of those guys. I'm tired of the man-bashing. I'm tired of being treated like a sperm donor and walking ATM. I'm tired of not getting any respect. I'm sick of having to compete for a job to have it handed to a woman because of her genitals. I'm fed up with being lambasted as the Source of All Evil. I'm over it. So I said `Buh-Bye!'"
What's the response? Any introspection? Even the slightest sympathy? No, it gets shrill and strident, the "What?!!! Not ALL! Not ALL! You're wrong for feeling that. You're wrong for thinking that! It's a false answer! You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!"
(Who is it, Beavis, Butthead, or Brian over there with the "Prove it!" chant. Jesus Hieronymious Christ in a bucket with fries and slaw! Brian, Buddy, I learned deductive resoning in my basic logic classes. Advance your thinking, man! Attend some advanced logic classes, me bucko. You'll learn about such things as induction and abduction that will vastly expand your intellectual capacity, mon frer.)
Listen up, bucky: It's from personal experience. The very men that Janice was asking the question about answered her, and for a response they got the eyes screwed shut and fingers stuck in the ear while screaming, "WRONG! I'm not listening to you! LA-LA-LA-LA-La-LA!!!!!!!!!!"
To paraphrase the ol' Boys from Blue Oyster Cult, "Do you see me here a veteran; of a thousand gender wars..." Every time you have a son who grows up with his father only a visitor in his life, you have a young man who says, "Marriage? Children? Yeah, like I want a girl just like the girl who married dear old Dad." You watch your buddy or your brother go through a divorce, watch his life get torched, and have him stripped of all he owns, including his dignity and ability to earn a living. Hey, you were the best man. And she was a nice sweet girl, who has suddenly morphed into some frothing at the mouth vampire. Then you look over at your own girlfriend, that "nice and sweet girl," and think, "Hmmmmmmmm.....Could she be....?" Uhhuh. It's at that point the savings account that at one time was going to be a diamond ring set becomes a new set of mag wheels, girls. Especially when you are sending her little male-bashing "friendship and support cards" with your personal inscription that goes something on the line of "You go, Girl! Clean him out!"
Or you're one of the dads, buddies, or brothers. You've seen it's a rigged game, marked cards, weighted dice, and a cheater on the wheel; the whole nine yards. Why? Because you've been fleeced. You rarely see your kids, every time you save two nickels, her lawyer takes you to court to demand half of it. Lose your job - get sick - get injured; A recent post here talks about some guy a few years ago who got off a plane after being held as a POW for four months, and was promptly jailed for not paying child support from an Iraqi Prison.
If I were to get married to a woman, I would be depending on her goodwill NOT to put the screws to me. I'll reverse that thing Ol' Brian said: He says the women he knows are basically good who would never do such a thing. Not all, Brian. And I would be a damned fool to roll that set of dice with Family Law the way it is in this country.
Here's a clue for the folks over at iPheminists: I'm not the way I am because of what has happened to me. I don't avoid women like the plague because of how I have been treated. I'm that way because if I picked the wrong one (I'm a little short on the Omniscince and Prescience thing to tell the future, you understand) then my liklihood of being bent over and horse-fucked with her number ten strap-on is a virtual certainty.
No. It just isn't worth it.
But what the hell. I'm just one of those guys they are complaining about that are eschewing women in droves. What the fuck do *I* know?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier today, I was trying to summon up the energy to craft a well-reasoned, calm response to yet another woman who'd glanced at a lengthy post of mine (composed with some effort) on the ifeminists forum and seized on just one point to misinterpret and argue about, apparently without giving any thought at all to my argument as a whole ... and then it finally occurred to me: why bother.
Having heard so many accolades to "ifeminists.com" (including the major plug on the left of this very page) I really was hoping for better. It seems that even after all I've been through, somewhere deep inside I still cherish a belief in the possibility of that chimerical "equality" they've been promising us. I'm coming, slowly, reluctantly, but finally to the conclusion that the Ancients really were right: You can lead a woman to the truth, but you can't make her think.
"I don't want to think about that, I don't have to, and you can't make me!"
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
ROFLMAO
I said the exact same thing earlier today!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.franklymydear.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is an utter waste of time and energy, far better spent elsewhere. That is always the game - argue you into exhaustion on trivialities. And what about Mr. "I don't see it, prove it, prove it, prove it!!!!"?
SSDD - years ago if you criticized a woman you were "a latent misogynist become violent because you fear losing your power". Today, they shorten it to "WOMAN-BASHER" shamey, shamey, shamey.
I'm not much of a fan of Warren Farrel, except for "Why Men Are The Way They Are", but the title of his latest book really pisses me off - "Women can't hear what men don't say" Get it, guys? It is STILL all our fault for not saying it.
The problem is that it is bullshit. We say it again and again and again, and half a dozen of us say almost exactly the same thing, some brilliantly (see Pete's response to initial post) and we get back "shamey, shamey, shamey, NOT ALL, YOU ARE WRONG" as Gonzo so accurate described. And when that doesn't work, "Yes, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ROOF IS BLUE!?!?!"
Huh?
As the cons I used to work with were fond of saying "If you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime." Don't commit the crime of marriage, or fatherhood, or letting a woman know you find her attractive, or "rape" her, and men today have all the rights they need.
How CAN we give a shit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm about done with that Brian Clown over there, about another one of his fragmented ramblings and I'm about to go Gonzo on him.
Extremeists. Oh, that's cute. Our neutered little pheminist lap-mutt has a name for us. "Rad-Mas." *chuckle* Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want true equality for all women, which includes accountability, responsibility and the right to pay their own way. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want equal opportunity and the right to be awarded sole custody of our children. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want interim custody to mean just that and to end the court's practice of making interim custody, permanent custody on the expedient premise of "preserving the status quo and not upsetting or uprooting the children." We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want shared parenting as the minimum de facto standard for child care in divorce. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want an end to the "tender years" shibboleth. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want a full and comprehensive definition for court use of "the best interests of the child." We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the presumption in court and in society that fathers are as good for their children as mothers. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want freedom from the presumption of guilt in all family law and related criminal code matters. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want an end to ex parte restraining orders based only on the word of a spouse. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want freedom from debtor's prisons which are only used against men. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want women to be jailed on the same basis as men for similar crimes, including contempt through the denial of court access and non removal orders. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want women who make false accusations of sexual harassment or date rape or any other false claims subject to the same penalties the man would have incurred had he been found culpable. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the courts to stop giving women light or no sentences just because they have children. A criminal is a criminal and a crime is a crime regardless of gender. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the discriminatory Domestic Violence courts shut down at once. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want mandatory true gender sensitivity training for judges, and the termination of courses run by feminists. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the police to stop automatically charging the man at domestic violence calls. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want anti male police manuals which force the police to presume the man is guilty at domestic violence scenes withdrawn. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want police trained and required to honestly investigate the facts and recognize that women are the abusers in more then half the domestic violence cases. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want an end to the pervasive anti male, anti father, pro mother bias of courts, judges and lawyers. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want mandatory transcribing of all family court motions, hearings. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want an end to family law hearings in chambers where the parties are excluded. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want caps on child support payments. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want equal funding for men's rights, men's studies at Universities, men's issues directorates in the government. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the right to be fathers to our kids without interference from anyone. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want freedom from exploitation by women who use men as breeders and wallets. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want shelters for men. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want to be free to be men without apology. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want to be free to hide or express our feelings our way, not the way some woman says we must. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want mandatory DNA paternity testing of ALL births. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the same right to opt out of paternity which women currently exercise in opting out of maternity. That means that if a woman insists on bearing a child which the apparent or putative father does not want, then that man is completely and legally free to opt out of all financial or any other obligations to that child. We are not suggesting imposed abortions. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want women making false allegations to be jailed for the same amount of time the man would have received had he been falsely convicted. We want damages and punitive awards on top of all our costs. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want rock solid DNA proof as the only acceptable proof of guilt in rape cases. No more false convictions on the basis of some vindictive, delusional or spurned woman's word. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the excuse of infanticide removed from the criminal code. Women who kill babies are murderers and child abusers and deserve life sentences. Lactating women are responsible for their crimes. Lactation is not a defence. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want women treated equally to men and held accountable in contracts, child support payments, legal obligations and rights. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want mandatory pre nuptial agreements which cannot be repudiated. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want the right of first refusal of full custody for the party being left or being divorced. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want an end to Affirmative Action employment which is really just newspeak for men, especially white men need not apply. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
We want massive programs to educate society to the importance of men and fathers in the family. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
(kribyironwood.com is the reference there)
What horrors. Oh the shock! Alert the Air Force! Call out the National Guard! Where is the Department of Homeland Security when you need it? Those Extremist, Rad-Mas terrorists are on the warpath. I mean, the next thing you know we'll be demanding to be treated like human beings.
Can't have that, can we?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gonzo Kid,
Like the post but couldn't find the site you referenced -
We want massive programs to educate society to the importance of men and fathers in the family. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
(kribyironwood.com is the reference there)
I've tried variations and searchs but still can't find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We want massive programs to educate society to the importance of men and fathers in the family. We're of course, extremist Rad-Mas. Shamey, shamey, shamey.
The very LAST thing in the frickin world I want is more massive government programs. Sure, let's invite the government EVEN MORE into our private lives, let some brainless bureacrat tell us how to be: men, fathers, dutiful taxpaying citizens, and above all consumers.
It is not possible to "educate" people out of belief or disbelief. You can indoctrinate or brainwash them, but people tend to believe what they believe. There have been de facto massive government programs to "educate" people out of their religious beliefs, yet they still persist. There have been massive anti-drug campaigns, which have never had any appreciable effect on the level of use.
And, how in the world are we going to get these "massive government campaigns" when that would require a complete 180 degree turn of the entire government bureacracy?
As an outsider, what I hear in this is "please, oh please, oh pretty please LET us do what is good for you."
Of course, I am a non father, and all I can do is empathize with those men trying to get the culture to recognize their worth and contribution (other than financial), but with the entire culture lined up denying that worth, I'm skeptical of fathers' ability to beg them into it.
So, my approach has been to let them live without it for a while and see how they like it. And, refuse to do it until they pay me for its value - with respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We want massive programs to educate society to the importance of men and fathers in the family.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a perfect example of why I'm not part of the "men's movement." It's not surprising, since there are hardly any "men" in America today who weren't brought up and programmed by the Matriarchy. But think about it: can you imagine George Washington begging the government to tell him how to be a man - or his wife why she should respect him? James Madison? Sam Adams? Thomas Jefferson? (None of these men, by the way, were circumcised. They honored and cared for their wives and families, but they were not ruled by women.)
This Republic was founded by and for men. Men who were free and independent, who didn't need or want the government to wipe their butts for them - or manage their relationships with women. Men who were the heads of their families, and didn't look to the government to "help" them discharge their responsibilities, who understood what the price of such help must be.
One of the very few truths that most any woman will acknowledge is that "there is no such thing as being a little big pregnant." Same goes for freedom. Either you are free, or you are not. As my friend White Eagle used to say, "Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of?"
Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with wanting to be taken care of. But if that's what you want, don't pretend otherwise; it only confuses things. Women want to be taken care of; this desire is instinctive, innate. Traditionally, they were taken care of by the men in their lives; this was what is called "patriarchy." And under that system, a woman could be free - in the true sense, not license but the freedom that comes from a life lived responsibly - when she partnered with an honorable, free man.
But that wasn't enough. Like children, women chafed under the restraints imposed by their caretakers. They claimed they want to be free, but in fact all they've done is transfer their expectation of protection and care to the State. Which was inevitable, because women will be taken care of, one way or another. In a world with men, who are larger and more powerful than women, women can be "free" only by appealing to something even more large and powerful - the State - to subjugate men to the same dependent level as women. Thus "affirmative action." And nobody is free, just so that women may cherish the delusion that they are "free."
But if women are taken care of by the State, what shall be done with men, now no longer needed for their traditional function? Simple: men will be made into children, serfs, slaves, who will also look to the State for their protection and care. It cannot be any other way; if men are not above women, they must be below them. There really is no such thing as "equality of the sexes"; a human male can be only one of two things in relation to a female: a man or a boy. If a man, in the hierarchy of Nature he is above women, the head of the body whereof she is the heart; if a boy, he is below, a child subject to maternal authority.
If women can do anything men can do (with a little help from the State holding down men), but men cannot do anything women can do (and never will), then men are clearly the inferior sex. And this is what I see, in all the present-day "men" bleating for their "right" to be victims just like women, to be protected and cared for by the State just like women. If "men" need a government "Commission on the Status of Men," a "Men's Health Department," etc. etc., then men are nothing but women with an unfortunate genital deformity which prevents their being everything a "normal" woman can be.
Frankly, I find it pathetic, watching men suck up to women like "ifeminists," so grateful to be treated with what seems like a little respect. The proprietor of "ifeminists" - who, I note, signs her entries "mac" like a dyke - is sensible enough to understand that well-treated slaves serve better than the abused. But she's not about to relinquish her power or her position. She's on top, get used to it. She may be the "kinder, gentler" side of feminism, but she's still the New Woman, and she will roar if any of you "men" get uppity.
This is why I don't buy "feminism lite." Feminism began with "female suffrage." And all the "men's activists" who dutifully make the now-fashionable distinction between "gender feminism" and "moderate," "justifiable" feminism include female voting in the latter category. Apparently, nobody can see that it's all of a piece. If women are to vote, everything else must follow.
Why would women want the vote, except to vote against men? What other reason could there be? If they were satisfied with how men were running things, it would never have occurred to them to want the vote. They were not - and I don't blame them; the world was, and remains, a mess. But rather than look hard enough to see the truth - that the world is a mess not because men have been thwarting women's will but because we've been doing our best to please women's irrational demands, just as we're genetically programmed to do - they decided that the problem must be men themselves, and so the solution was for women to take over what men had been doing on their behalf.
You see that limousine rolling down the street, with a woman in the back seat and a man - in uniform - at the wheel? Who's in charge? Feminists will insist it's the man. But it's not; he's only following orders. Feminists have pushed him out of the driver's seat, and put the woman there instead. But guess what? The car is still heading for the cliff. Only faster, if anything. Because it was always going where the woman wanted it to go, only before the man at the wheel was at least trying to mitigate some of her most irrational decrees.
As usual, the short-sighted female mind fell for a solution that has only created greater problems. Some of them saw it from the beginning; among the strongest opponents of "female suffrage" were many women, who knew what it would do the family. If a wife has - and uses - the power to annul her husband's power in the political sphere (which is what she does when she votes against him), then obviously she no longer respects his judgment. If she doesn't respect his judgment, then certainly she will not be willing for him to be the head of the family. So his function must be reduced to ... exactly what "men's activists" - the very same who so dutifully support women's "right to vote" - are complaining about: dishwasher, wallet, stroller-pusher. If she figures he's worth keeping around at all; and so long as she can retain full access to his assets, why should she put up with having him in the house?
So I'm sorry, but this is the blunt truth: if you want the government to "fix" the problems between the sexes, you're really wasting your time. It is the intrusion of government into family and private life that is the problem. If you want more government, you want more feminism. It's as simple as that. You'd be better off petitioning for a little padding on your slave collar; they'll probably grant that, so long as you make it clear you're happy to wear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, my friend. I have agreed with most of what you have said up to now, but with most of the sentiments you expressed here I'm afraid we're going to have to part company. Another reason I'm not a masculist is that it seems the only choice I have is between the group of men competing to feed at the public trough and those who want to turn back the clock. I was extremely offended by the repeated insinuations in that dating thread that men just wanted to dominate women, and that appears to be exactly what you are saying here.
The way I have fought feminism all along is to contend that it was really unnecessary - that most men really would be happy with equality if women would just look honestly at their own power and share it fairly just as they were asking men to share theirs. And, I have rejected the connection between women's suffrage and contemporary feminism because I believed that this 2nd wave really had no connection and was nothing but socialism wrapped in a package which made criticism easy to deflect. When you indicate that giving women the vote is a "bad" thing, you validate feminism and knock my foundation out from under me. Such broad generalizations of people based on only one single characteristic about them ignores the huge amount of variation between individuals. My sister had a hundred times the sense of her knuckle-headed ex-husband, and if I had to give the vote to one of them over the other, it sure as hell would have been her.
I contend that the old roles were a result of the natural division of labor which arose naturally from men and women's respective roles in the reprodcutive process. I mean, it wouldn't work very well for a woman to give birth one day, then get up and go to work in the coal mines the next day. Women and children were of necessity together during the time of her recovery and breast feeding, etc, so those positions just remained rather than being switched once the child was weaned.
In my experience, if either of the sexes is to be said to be control-obsessed, it would have to be the female. I once got into a screaming match with a woman over how the laundry that I was doing HAD TO be folded. One of the first examples in the book "The Surrendered Wife" is about a woman who goes ballistic over her husband hanging a doormat on a nail in order to clean it. Oh my god, now it has a hole in it!!! Its just a fucking doormat, people wipe their dirty feet on it! I think it was somewhere in that thread that a man pointed out that it is a woman who sets the standard that the bathroom has to be cleaned 5 times per week, so the tired old argument about who does more housework has more to do with who is control of setting the standards than the actual work being done.
Another of my contentions is that the old male role wasn't nearly as great as women thought it was. I will gladly let a woman have my old 60-70-80-90 hour per week corporate job, take a 40 hour per week job that lets me have a life outside of work, and GLADLY make 66 cents for every dollar she makes. If I don't have to support the spending habits of a wife and the incredibly expensive luxury of children, it is amazing how frugally I can live.
Women want that old role? I say "fine, let them have it". They will soon find that it is not all they thought it was. What I DON'T want to allow to happen is to let them try it for a while then say "Ok, we've tried it, we don't like it, now go back to doing your jobs of supporting us, guys." There was a post here a couple of weeks back about women getting most college degrees, as they have been for well over a decade. The author of the article was almost pissing herself over her delight at "men becoming the second sex." But, that was based on the SINGLE standard of money. Likewise, Danielle Crittenton's book which coined the phrase "the mommy tax". Those are good examples of evidence that women really are obsessed with money, because they look at complex situations and judge them based solely on money.
The world is changing, guys, and we have to change with it. Not every man is a Washington or Jefferson. There have also been plenty of Stalins, and Hitlers, and Pol Pots, and not a few Hannibal Lechters. Plus, the number of severe mental defectives are mostly male. We are the experimental model of the human race, and females are the production model,in more ways that one.
There is one thing you said which I do totally agree with, and that is the purpose of men is be different from women. Men are the innovators. We really are the experimental models. Women could have never gotten on ships and found the Americas, because there was NO ONE TO ASK for directions, as they are SO fond of bashing us about.
I keep saying over and over that it is the boys who are CHOSING NOT to go to college who will be the innovators of the new male roles. THEY are the real "new masculists" who are thumbing their noses at 20+ years of social indoctrination in conformity and striking out on their own.
I have great faith in the male spirit that neither the traditionalist nor the me-too-ists seem to have. I don't think men need to be propped up by government regulations - they will find their own way.
Femi-wimmin-ism has been chasing the paradox that they want everything to change while everything stays the same. However, change always brings unforseen consequences. By liberating women, the group they have truly liberated is men. We are no longer trapped in the old protector/provider role, so we are now free to explore the realms of the social world as we used to explore the physical world.
It's a brave new world, guys. If we look ahead we might find the same kinds of challenges which have always thrilled us. But if we keep looking backward over our shoulders, we are bound to keep tripping over things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My take on the extreme proposal.
Jeez. No, Gonzo isn't going soft.
I think turning back sufferage would be a bad thing.
Now, that said, I do think it's one of the things we have to put on the table in the war on the blight that is pheminism.
Look, in any negotiation, haggling, or whatever rule one is to ask for way more than you want, and never, EVER, turn over your lowest price aand let them see it, even after the sale is closed?
Do I want more government programs? No. But on the other hand it'd be kind of cool to add more cards to the house of cards until it collapses. It'd also be cool, and likely as well, that the more likely result is that women's programs would be ended rather then to establish men's programs, if for no reason than pure fuckin' spite.
If you want the moon, you have to shoot for the stars. And as I said before, it doesn't matter a whit if we want to be at war with the phem-i-nuts. They're at war with us. It takes two to end a fight, but only one to have one. And they aren't retreating.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not much of a fan of Warren Farrel. Same here. To give him the benefit of the doubt - though this is no compliment, because it means he's too dumb to see the truth - he may not know it, but he's still a lapdog. In fact, he's doing even better service for the Matriarchy than he was when he was on the board of New York NOW. As a "leader," Warren Farrell is helping to ensure that the "men's movement" will actually help to keep men in their designated place in the Brave New World Order. I was excited when I first discovered The Myth of Male Power, which is an invaluable compendium of statistical information; but then I got to the end, where he recommends a "gender transition" movement as the solution. This can mean only one thing, the same old thing: the solution is for men to become more like women. Which is in fact impossible, as the only reason for men to exist at all is to be different from women. There can be only two outcomes of such a program: either men's development will be aborted so they remain boys, children subject to female authority, to be kept around as useful slaves; or males will be dispensed with altogether. "Equality" between the sexes is a chimera, and any man who thinks he's working for the same is a deluded fool. Warren Farrell is still a feminist, never was anything different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 12, @11:16AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. I am right there with you. In my mid-30s, single, never been married, unfleeced, and happy. I do what I want, go where I please, without the Sword of Feminine Privliege hanging over my head. And my time is mine-- the whiny tones of female blithering remain joyfully absent from my home. My pets are far better companions, far more reliable, and far more approachable than the average female.
In a sense, we are much better off than our fathers and grand-fathers were. Most were under great pressure of expectation to marry, give all they had to some whiny female who could still as you say, peg them with a #10 strap-on in many ways if they so desired. But we are now, after they have abused us and their femaleness to such a great extreme, fully aware of what they are doing to us enough to see how we need no longer participate in our own abuse.
In a sense, we are liberated. We need not tolerate these dangerous activities such as cohabiting and marriage and having kids with these unpredictable and venomous females. We are in many ways now liberated.
And when we get horny, we just watch XXX vids or go diddle a hooker.
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
