|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you leave the toilet seat up?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
By the way, when I was first starting to wonder how things turned so weird between the sexes, your site was one that gave me lots of useful food for thought. I never got around to sending you a thank-you email.
Thanks
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo zenpriest !
Good to see your wisdom again.
Yes, 'twas I whom mention-ed "thinking outside of the box". For without this remarkable skill - predominantly male - we would have had no Einstein, Gallileo, Edison or Newton wtc wtc wtc ad nauseam.
If you want something to ponder on - think about what is likely to happen if a same sex marriage breaks down and how the learned judges will deal with it - especially if there are IVF children ?
Marriage is still essentially a contract - the last figures I heard for the UK were that somewhere like 85% of women married for financial reasons. They dressed it up as "security" and "a stable family environment", but it all boils down to money really. That is why we're getting all the boo hoo-ing about "no good men" to marry !
If women went to the divorce courts on that basis they would lose every time. The goods have been paid for ladies - you made that decision - either deliver or it's breach of contract !!
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage is still essentially a contract - the last figures I heard for the UK were that somewhere like 85% of women married for financial reasons. They dressed it up as "security" and "a stable family environment", but it all boils down to money really. That is why we're getting all the boo hoo-ing about "no good men" to marry!
I would love to see somebody ask them if they wanted to marry a man or an image, it would quite be interesting, but I think they'd sidestep the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Adam !!
The reality is that they're marrying a Bank Balance and a way of life - not an individual.
Which makes the "Divorce Racket" even more unfair. After a few years they realise that he isn't going to fit into her expectations, and divorces him. Where else could you make a major mistake (contribute next to nothing), bale out and take (at least) half of someone elses life's work with you ??
Respects
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
think about what is likely to happen if a same sex marriage breaks down and how the learned judges will deal with it - especially if there are IVF children ?
It's already happened. I don't have the link, but under the "expanded relationship" doctrine, lesbian partners have been held liable for child support, as have sperm donors in some cases.
My point in all this is to show that attempts to maintain the old definition of "family" and the old male roles within it are futile. I think this will be the year when all the previous strongholds crumble despite the best efforts of those who have tried to preserve it.
Strategically, I think it is time to cut our losses and move on - using the new laws to our benefit the best we can.
I think the best slogan for the NEW men's movement is "You can't have it BOTH ways, baybee!" Now that all the mechanisms which used to make "good" men have been destroyed, the inescapable consequence is that there won't be any for the grand-daughters of feminism. Thanks, grandma.
But, as someone just pointed out in another thread, it is men who have actually been the ones who got liberated - kicking and screaming all the way as men tried to hold on to the old male role with so many people determined to destroy it.
But, destroy it they have, me buckos. It is time to hold the wake and get on with our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with you. The more I think about it, the more I get convinced that avoiding intercourse and deep relationships with women should be a part of the Men's Liberation Movement. I think that we must rehabilitate homosexuality between men. Yes, you read right, I'm pretty much convinced that gay and masculine men (not effeminate guys of course) are empowered and liberated from feminism.
Feminists have always been said to support gay rights, but in fact it was intended to promoting a picture of effeminate and sissy men in order to end the traditionnal and dominating manhood picture. Had most homosexuals in the 60's been masculine, feminists wouldn't have supported gay rights. As they can't prevent men from becoming gay, their agenda is not to promote homosexuality among men but rather making people believe that a gay man is doomed to be "a woman inside".
These days, I hear feminist freaks supporting gay men less often than previously, ....as they have begun to realize that most gay men are masculine, and that they just don't want to depend on women.
Believe me, perhaps it would be a good idea to state on a banner on this site that masculist activits support all men, white, black, latino, asian, straight, gay, left or right-wing.
This way we won't be labeled any more by feminists as misogynist, homophobic and racist.
They have always tried to divide us to weaken us. We must end this agenda and make people understand that we are pro-male in every aspect, therefore being anti-racist and anti-homophobic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage, I agree. The stereotypical "gay male buddy" that befriends women in feminist-oriented films and TV shows is actually a eunuch - a feminine man who is uncorrupted by all those silly macho traits, and whose whole life seems to revolve around his female friends. And even if the man is not effeminate, he's still always staunchly supporting the women in their travails with evil straight men. That's not "liberating" gay men - that's demeaning them.
I think gay men could be a large and loyal contingency to the men's movement. Think about it - where would women be without male heterosexuality? It certainly leads a lot of men to blindly supporting women, to giving them anything and everything, to lowering themselves to them to earn their favors. I'm not saying the men's movement should exploit male homosexuality the way women often exploit male heterosexuality, but I think it's arguable that, if you want to talk about men reclaiming the knowledge of our own human and spiritual equality with women, gay men may be one step ahead of the rest in arriving at that epiphany. Or they could be if men fought back against the stereotype of males being the primary persecutors of homosexuality, and women being the matron saints of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Much as....
I'm reminded of a story where an American guy gets laid over in London. He goes out to have a drink, and meets this english man. They talk for hours, discover they have similar interests, like reading, chess, soccer, cars. As late as it gets, the American expresses his regrets, but he has to go to his hotel.
As they are waiting for a cab, the Englishman looks at the American, and says, "By the by, old chap, you're not by any chance a homosexual?"
The Yank is shocked, but manages to answer, "Well, no - are you?"
The Englishman shakes his head sadly and says, "Afraid not. Pity, isn't it?"
Much as I much prefer the company of men, sorry guys, but your hairy and zit-pocked derrieres just don't do it for me.
Pity, isn't it?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo zenpriest
Am disagreeing with you there !
The male gender role has not been destroyed - although I would agree that the foundation role has been revised. No longer are we saddled with the role of Provider etc etc. The female gender role ceased to have any significance with the advent of ther Industrial Revolution (the femdale role was dead and buries long before de Beauvoir and Friedan started braying tehir nonsense)- hence the feminist encroachment into the predominantly male spheres of influence.
Essentially the Gender-War is a war FOR the male gender role. We find more and more young women seeking to emulate the 'Laddish' behaviour of their male counterparts with the usual disasterous consequences - excessive drinking, numerous sexual partners, increasing violence etc etc.
The feminists keep urging us to 'move-on', but give no indication as to what ! The new improved female gender role is simply a modified male gender role - women have not 'moved-on' in the last 30 years; they have simply tried to hijack the male role.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Essentially the Gender-War is a war FOR the male gender role.
The new improved female gender role is simply a modified male gender role - women have not 'moved-on' in the last 30 years; they have simply tried to hijack the male role.
The feminists keep urging us to 'move-on', but give no indication as to what !
That's exactly my point, ThunderChild, men are now free from letting women and the needs of women define us, and are free to define ourselves.
The "old male role" is what put men in the death professions and resulted in us dying years before women do. A "husband and father" was a specialized beast of burden bred for the task of dragging around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family. Before the advent of universal government, that was how people survived and there was honor in that role. Now, it has been criminalized.
The guys who climbed on Columbus's ships and set off to sail off the edge of world, and instead found a previously unknown set of continents, did so WITHOUT women, and particularly without women telling them who they were or should be. And, BTW, without asking directions because there was no one to ask.
The tectonic plates of monumental social change are in motion and any man who tries to hold them back is gonna get ground up. Women have given PLENTY of 'indications' of what they want us men to be - unfortunately they have all been contradictory, misleading, and false. And, a couple of generations of men have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to live up to those constantly changing whims, and as a result we see books about there being "no good men left."
In other words, the men designed by women really are no good.
I think men have to redefine ourselves, rather than trying to chase women's self-serving definitions of us. In NZ, they've even stripped men of exclusive right to the label of "father" (I posted the link but the admins haven't cleared it yet) saying that lesbian partners can also be called "fathers."
If some guys want to keep chasing those demanding, whining, narcissistic princess-wannabes that women have become by trying to be whatever they 'indicate' they want men to be, that's their business. But, the tyranny of the weak is the most subtle form of tyranny - as well as the easiest to declare one's independence from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi again zenpriest
Yes, you're right we should no longer define ourselves in terms of women - however, that does not mean that the male gender role is defunct.
If the male gender role is dead why do women want to take it over ? We should be telling them to "keep off the grass !" as we seek to redefine it in our own and on our own terms ! - There you are also right zenpriest.
The tectonic plates of monumental social change may be in motion (and at the risk of mixing metaphors)do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater ?
In the UK we still have a fairly dtrong dose of the Calvinist "work ethic"; which defines an awful lot of men as to their identities.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ThunderChild,
I really don't want this to turn into an argument, because I'm actually not preaching to try to gain converts. I'm simply trying to point out some new paradigms which might allow men to feel less trapped.
Victor Frankel, when he was in one of the Nazi death camps, realized that he still had a certain degree of freedom within his own mind. If we THINK we are trapped, then we certainly are.
Women DON'T want the old male role, all they want are the perks that came with it. The first thing that happens when they go into a workplace is to demand that it become "woman friendly". The heart of the male role was to adapt themselves to the workplace, no matter how "unfriendly" it was, NOT to demand that the workplace adapt to THEM and be as comfy and safe as the home. If they had, they'd have simply been laughed at and the person hiring would have looked at the man behind him wanting a job and said "next!"
Another link which I've posted that the admins haven't cleared is from the UK -
"Mothers of young children should go out to work, the Government declared yesterday."
"They should stay in their jobs to help the economy and pay back the cost of their education, ministers said."
"According to a new policy paper on equality for women, backed by four Cabinet ministers, there are 'real problems' over women who stay at home to bring up their children. "
"The call for mothers to work is made in a 76-page document from the Women and Equality Unit, which is responsible to Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt."
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.htm l?in_article_id=184663&in_page_id=110
Women wanted to work because they thought it would give them "choices" (which is really a code word for power and freedom), now they are finding out that the "choice" not to work is being taken away from them. The process has been in place for years. Women have been getting more college degrees than men for years. As this age cohort moves through their life cycle, there simply will not be enough men who make sufficient income to give their wives the "choice" not to work, even IF the government would allow it.
Those old roles were package deals, not cafeteria plans which allowed people to pick and choose only the sweetest morsels and leave the rest. The "male role" included being in the battle of Gallipoli, where I think the number is 300,000 young men's bodies, lives, and souls were simply tossed into the garbage disposal of the Turks machine guns. Nowhere do I see women clamoring for THAT part of the old male role - they still want to leave the dirty and un-fun parts of the role and the dirty jobs to men.
So, my point is that if women are now refusing to do the "shit work" of cooking and cleaning for men, unless they are paid with money for it, why should men continue to do the shit work for women, unless we get paid with respect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, zenpriest
No one is arguing with you -we're just exchanging views; and refining our views by mature discussion (after all, how else do we learn ?) The person who has nothing more to learn is usually dead !!
Different paradigms ? - aren't paradigms closed systems of thought - like feminism ?
Yes, you are right in that women want the perks of the male role but not the standing up to machine guns bit. That is why I once wrote that driving buses and working in well-paid munitions jobs should not have earned women the vote.
Although I would mention that many women were compelled to go to work by economic circumstances not through choice. When women swarmed onto the labour market; supply and demand foces kicked in and suddenly one wage (the man's wage) was insufficient to support a family - hence a lot of working class women were compelled to work.
And, yes, you are right in that if women can't do the shitty work themselves - tough !!! It is high time we started dictating the agenda rather than trying to please woman-kind - because we can't - so let's stop wasting our time, and let female of the species sweat for a change.
Respect
ThunderChild
Die Gedanken sind frei !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom, TC, comes from a simple source: You merely say, "I won't."
"I want you to make my life work for me!"
I won't.
"I want you to set yourself up to be my whipping boy for when I fail at life!"
I won't.
"I want you to be my spem donor so I can feel fulfilled as a woman!"
I won't.
"I want you to send me money, remain quietly on the side, and have your children be your children only when it is convenient for me!"
I won't.
"Support me!"
I won't.
(See how this goes?)
There's freedom. There's equality. Just say no to pheminist bullshit. Can you change it? No.
But you sure as hell don't have to invite it into your life; and you can sure as hell exorcise it from your life.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo Gonzo
Yes, you can change it - by doing exactly what you are saying.
The feminists only get away with it because we let them.
Respect
ThunderChild
Die Gedanken sind Frei !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No one is arguing - we're just exchanging views; and refining our views by mature discussion (after all, how else do we learn ?) The person who has nothing more to learn is usually dead !!
Absolutely. It is just having just watched a similar attempt instantly degenerate into a flame war of major proportions on another board, I wanted to make sure that understanding was explicit up front.
"Different paradigms ? - aren't paradigms closed systems of thought - like feminism ?"
Yes and no. I consider paradigms to be more like atoms or granuals within systems of thought. For example - "the world is flat" is one paradigm, "the world is not flat" is another.
The feminist social paradigm that "all men want is power over women so they can dominate and oppress them, with violence if necessary" is driving western civilation today. We all know it to be false, but any attempt to point that out is screamed down with personal attacks.
So, I have changed the paradigm I was operating from and instead of "trying to convince them with rational argument" I now "let them find out for themselves through painful experience."
The male role is/was like any job - there are responsibilities and compensations. If your boss stopped paying you for doing your job, you would eventually stop doing it. The culture as a whole has stopped "paying" men for their self sacrifice by honoring it, and instead has heaped scorn and derision on them, all the while secretly hoping they would continue to do it because even as they were spitting on men for doing it, they knew they would be in a world of hurt if men stopped.
So, all I am suggesting is that men go on strike against the expectations of the old male role until management decides to come to the table and begin to bargain in good faith.
Strangely, I think I have just switched paradigms enough that I have now become a feminist. That link I posted about the UK government deciding women should not have the choice to stay home and raise their children is exactly what Simone de Beauvior said about 40 years ago. And, I have come to agree. They keep bashing us that we "can't make commitments" - well, here is one I have made: I will NEVER , myself, give a woman that choice.
That is my choice that I am making about what to do with MY body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zenpriest
I think we are both old enough to respect the views of others without resorting to abuse - at the end of the day I may simply agree to disagree with you !!
As I read some of your views I get the feeling we are actually saying the same thing in different words.
Betty Friedan was actually against giving women the choice to do the "stay-at-home-mom" bit, because she feared that far too many would actually take up the offer !!
The "men as commitment-phobics" is actually a female projection - we see the younger females avoiding marriage like the plague until the biological clock starts deafening the neighbourhood and then they either marry and divorce after the sperm donation (on average about 5 years) or they take the sperm donation and ditch the donor, and live on the alimony or the State.
Respect
ThunderChild
Die Gedanken sind Frei
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 16, @09:22AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Fascinating little essay. Confirms many of my suspicions about the behavior and internal cognitive life of overtly sexualized women.
Even if it weren't so dangerous an endeavor due to the nasty legal system we have going that hates men and screws us at the drop of a hat, this essay would be a great argument vs. men ever getting married.... at least not to one of these cocktail party black dress trophy types you see all over the place in New York, L.A., and D.C. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that's 'Wife', not 'Wofe'. :)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
