|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:02 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Worthy of its own news item on MANN... like how it ends, with unusual candor:
But Miss Salzman said the reality was that women with older children were increasingly becoming self-indulgent. "They look at the realities of paid work - the stress, the politics, the pressure, the dress code - and they say that it would mean less 'me' time.
"And we are not just talking about women who earn lots of money. Women who earn £27,500, or £55,000, or more than £55,000 did not want to work, and men are feeling a great deal of financial pressure.
"Women think: 'What's mine is mine, and what's his is mine.'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the second link already is an article on this site.
I could be wrong.
--bandersnatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:54 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
They thought "pregnant and barefoot" was a male creation... women are naturally predisposed to want children. Duh. This survey is total proof. Today's young women, I have seen, totally don't care about feminism cuz they're just as priviliged (if not more) than today's boys, so what do they really want? They want to raise families with their husbands. Feminists will be rolling in their graves!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:28 PM March 11th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I sense sarcasm in your post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 12:59 AM March 12th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The average 29-year-old now hankers for a return to the lifestyle of a 1950s housewife. The daughters of the "Cosmo" generation of feminists want nothing more than a happy marriage and domestic bliss in the countryside
So women don't want to be Mz Career Cow after all?
They want to go back to the family lifestyle of the 1950's where the man is more than willing to work his ass off to provide a nice home in the Burbs and let Mrs. Betty Crocker Homemaker stay at home and bake cup cakes and meet the kids when they get off the school bus.
Hey, have they ever considered the possibility that men no longer see themselves as a walking wallet and work machine to provide the wifie poo and the kids with a lifestyle they would deem they deserve? I personally have never had that primal urge to live like the men of the 1950's lived and be the sole provider. I suspect that there are many more men who just don't relish being cast in that Father Knows Best stereotype either.
So, looks like "Mz The World Evolves Around Me" has gotten tired of the 30 plus year pop culture soul journ of finding her inner self and fulfilling her potential and all that rot and now is expecting to go back to the traditional secure home in the burbs with kids and a compliant hubby to make the money to make this fantasy work may not be there anymore!
I guess you just don't know what you got until you lose it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:49 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Lat thing I wanna do is be a "father and husband," esp. w/ what it entails these days. And why marry some diva when you can rent them for a lot cheaper??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly or get a real woman and loving wife overseas.
--bandersnatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, have they ever considered the possibility that men no longer see themselves as a walking wallet and work machine to provide the wifie poo and the kids with a lifestyle they would deem they deserve? I personally have never had that primal urge to live like the men of the 1950's lived and be the sole provider. I suspect that there are many more men who just don't relish being cast in that Father Knows Best stereotype either.
Amen to that. I agree totally.
I'm so tired of the "what do women what now" media obsession. It's just further evidence of the self-centeredness of women and the blinders of the feminized media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 AM March 12th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
As more and more women choose mommyhood I wonder if we will see more and more agruements from trouble making gender feminsts about the wage gap between men and women.
Men really need to get organized, vocal, and start protesting the women's studies classes that are telling young women how they are getting cheated by being wives and Mothers. Young women are evidently figuring things out, but I'm sick and tired of gender feminist women's studies harpies screaming and lying about men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 12:48 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Ray
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:18 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to read further evidence that feminism's myths of the "you can have it ALL girls" train of thought are being dismissed by today's younger women.
But there's a tragic lack of synchonicity between the demise of feminism and the realities of today's economy.
Simply that there is not enough high-earning middle/upper-middle class husband material to go around for all the enlightened post-feminist females who now want the Happy Homemaker option.
The American middle class is now competing for survival against the rising "middle class" in China, Indonesia, India, and Thailand.
The middle-class U.S. household needs to make $50,000 minimum to stake its claim. The parallel family in the Third World sweatshop nations can climb the social ladder on $2.00 a day wages.
And, the entry of millions of women into the labor force as competitors with men has in general reduced wage-earning opportunities for prosective husbands.
The stable 50's-retro tranquility that the post-feminist gals long for no longer exists, economically speaking.
And then, there's the "marriage strike" to be factored into the equation.
Even though fewer men than women are getting college degrees these days, a whole lotta guys are streetwise to the domestic servitude/wage-slave scam that used to be called "romance."
Just when more women seem to want a return to more traditional roles (i.e. still more choices), the pull-down menu no longer includes those options.
Tragic.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:25 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:51 PM March 13th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Strike One - "...not enough high-earning middle/upper-middle class husband material to go around for all the enlightened post-feminist females who now want the Happy Homemaker option."
Strike Two - "The American middle class is now competing for survival against the rising "middle class" in China, Indonesia, India, and Thailand."
Strike Three - "And, the entry of millions of women into the labor force as competitors with men has in general reduced wage-earning opportunities for prosective husbands."
Gee women only wanted everything. NOW as you so astuely say,
"The stable 50's-retro tranquility that the post-feminist gals long for no longer exists, economically speaking."
"You've come a long way baby," to requote an old cigatette commercial from the 70's, touting women's liberation, and NOW when you want a family...
YOUR OUT! (as in SOL)
Ah, too bad little femi. I would play, "My heart bleeds for you" on the worlds tiniest violin, but I hocked it to make my last court ordered payment to another femi- for prostitution acts rendered while married. If you need a man to shake down for money, or get a kid, I suggest you hang around dimly lit street corners late at night waiting for a used condom to fly out a car window, then see a pimp judge, and...
I'm sure you and the government will have no problem making up a new cockamamie scam to get what you want and ruin the life of another man in the process. The nanny state is your daddy, and your hubby NOW, and lying still works just a well for women as any truth a man can come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:13 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Amidst all the lies, gnashing of teeth, blame and counter-blame of the gender war, one simple fact remains - men's participation in the culture is voluntary. While a huge body of laws exists to enumerate the things we are prohibited from doing, only a few exist which require us to *do* something. The voluntary and enthusiastic participation of men in this culture is one of the reasons for the vitality it once had. It has taken a long time to beat down the spirits of men who would still love to participate and contribute, but the unrelenting war against men waged by the feminists for the past 35 years has finally managed to do so.
As all the dog-faces, grunts, and foot-soldiers in any war know, the generals will keep throwing men's bodies to be blown apart long after it has become clear that the battle is lost and the war cannot be won. Everyone has lost this stupid war waged and declared by spoiled, indulged, and not-very-bright children against the very people who spoiled and indulged them.
Far from the mythical "backlash" that the paranoid hate-mongers have used to breathe one last breath of life into their movement of error, the real counter-attack is that men have begun to back OFF. The boomer generation is now past the point where the biological imperative to continue the species drives men to seek out women and court their favor. The relentless exploitation of women's built-in power which they inherit with their physiology has left an entire generation of men at middle age with no reason whatsoever to think the least bit kindly toward women, and even less reason to seek them out. Forced to adapt to lifestyles without women, against their wishes, many men have managed to do so and found an unexpected freedom in the priestly lifestyle.
No longer forced to sell themselves into wage slavery in order to support the consuming habits of the bottomless pits that women have become, these men are free in a way that no group of people has ever been: they can participate in the culture, or not, as they choose. Freed from the relentless exploitation of them to extract the $$$ that they buy with hours of their lives in order to feed the vast cancer of unlimited consumption, these men gain back the only thing that is truly theirs to begin with: the hours of their lives.
These men are deserters from the gender war.
Like all deserters in all wars, however, they do not advertise themselves - for to do so would simply make them targets. Quite the opposite, these men go out of their way to make themselves invisible. Far from there being "no good men" as women have been bitching about for years, there are millions of ethical and committed men living their lives without women and refusing to have anything to do with them. There are more never-married men over the age of 40 in the US than the entire population of New Zealand. The number of never-married men in their 30s has more than doubled in the past decade. The percentage of men who have never been married has risen from 25% in 1960 to 31% in 1996. The percentage of men who are single has risen steadily from 31% in 1960 to 42% in 1996. If this were all due to the choices of women, then why have we heard for the past 20 years the uninterrupted laments of women that "men won't make commitments."
As Abe Lincoln observed, you can fool some of the men all of the time, and all of the men some of the time, but you cannot fool *all* of the men *all* of the time. With fatherhood and the simple fact of finding a woman attractive and letting her know about it effectively criminalized by Sexual Harassment, Rape, and anti-male-biased Domestic Violence laws, men who are by nature law-abiding are honoring those laws and giving women as wide a berth as possible. Since they don't want to do the time, they aren't doing the crime.
After hearing from women for years about all the things they aren't going to do for men any more, and adding up all the demands for "more" from women, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that a lot of men simply can't afford the luxury of a woman, and have opted for a simpler, more spartan lifestyle. Women have made themselves into the Edsels of the new millenium: overpriced luxury products that no one wants.
The legacy of hate sown by the infantile tantrums of women as they embraced their newly discovered history-long victimhood will linger in the culture for decades, poisoning the wells of relationships that they would like to drink from. Having tasted the bitter tainted alkali water of the self-obsessed modern woman, men are moving on to new territory and leaving women behind. All the books about the "plight" of men which seem to be the fad right now, 1999, cannot convince those who have achieved it that a life without women in it is not far preferable to one with them. We have not seemed to be able to stop the hate in more than 3 decades, so it has come time to move away from it.
You can take your demands, and your bashing, and your lies about us, and your hallucinations of a world-wide and history-long conspiracy of men spending every waking moment thinking up nasty things to do to you called "Patriarchy", and all your petty and insignificant complaints about toilet seats and asking for directions, and wrap them all up together and go to hell with them and rot and burn there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:15 PM March 13th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
This post deserves to be widely distributed to MRA sites everywhere, if in fact it has not already been. (Re. the writer's reference to having penned this in 1999.)
It's beyond ironic that the very "successes" that feminism now celebrates have created the very conditions that compel men to abandon women.
Among them - criminalizing masculinity in law, media, and culture; imposing a psychology of terrorism upon male-female relations via threats of false allegations, fictional DV charges, and "reckless sex"; turning the workplace into another arena of female coercion of men based on vacuous female subjectivity; destroying the academic integrity of our nation's once preeminent universities via the creeping intellectual lobotomy of Women's Studies;
condemning women and men into lives of adversarial stupidity in the name of a false utopian "equality..." etc. (add your own list of feminist crimes...)
So now, courtesy of feminism, millions of women desiring an honest, ethical, admirable man in their lives ... go home ALONE.
The men are out there. Living with satisfaction if not delight, well beyond the tentacles of feminist treachery. (Choosing to be a priest or monk surely beats the incarceration (in fact or symbolically) that is the feminist vision for all men.)
(If the poster was not in fact the renowned Zenpriest himself, then the author was surely influenced by ZP's seminal writings...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:54 PM March 13th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yanyan on 05:12 AM March 14th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
A stirring piece of writing!! Hard to believe it was written in 1999 but it certainly hits the nail on the head. My thirty-something son is typical of his generation. He says "try telling me or my friends that a lifetime of servitude to one single lazy painted imbecile and her offspring (and that's the best he can expect) is somehow noble and we'll all have a good laugh.
However there are options other than the priestly life. Go over the wall. Escape the stifling feminist dominated society of the 'developed' world and head for somewhere more civilized. For example the Far East where I now happily reside, surrounded by beautiful and *feminine* women.
You may think that feminist poison has affected every part of the known world - which to some extent it has - but without the vast financial support of big government and the welfare state it withers on the vine.
If you do find yourself an Asian princess, on no account take her west or she will rapidly turn into a frog. If you catch her watching American TV shows or Hollywood movies on cable, roar with laughter and tell her its just a joke, for entertainment only, not the real world...Which it definitely is not. It's simply the latest stage in the decline and fall of western civilization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 08:59 AM March 14th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Yanyan, I live in the Far East as well and agree with you. One of the delightful things about the woman I'm with now is that -- unlike any of the western women I've dated before -- she frequently criticizes women's behavior and notices ways in which society is unfair to males. It was like a breath of fresh air in a fetid swamp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 06:13 PM March 15th, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
I have an ex Bro in Law and Former Business Partner both married to Asian Women. Both are treated with loving kindness and respect. Both are not treated with passive aggressive behavior
(nagging) that Orca Winfrey and the other FemHags
& FemNags have brain washed American Women into.
They are both truly happy and guess what they are eager to please their wives. If a request is made and it is reasonable they are eager to comply. American Men have got to realize we have other options. Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia beckon. There are Women who don't hate Men and are truly Feminine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:58 PM March 16th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
If I ever do decide to seek a realationship, again (I probably won't) I will indeed seek women outside the Western world. Japanese women seem to be at least a bit less disagreeable than American women. So I might someday try my luck in Asia somewhere. (I just hope they're into "half-breed" Indians!)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
P.S.
Thanks to everyone who prayed for my mother.
She is getting better, and the Docs say she can go home soon! \(^o^)/ *Yay!*
Again thank you all VERY much!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:14 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Laura Kipnis has provoked a storm in the US with a new book attacking marriage. Here, she explains why monogamy turns nice people into household tyrants.
Marriage: the new blue-light case of the week. Everyone is terribly worried about its condition: can it be cured? Or, has the time arrived for drastic measures - just putting it out of its misery?
Euthanasia is a dirty word but, frankly, the prognosis is not so great for this particular patient, a stalwart social institution is now scabby and infirm, gasping for each tortured breath.
Many who had once so optimistically pledged to uphold its vows are fleeing its purported satisfactions.
In the US, a well-publicised 50 per cent failure rate hardly makes for optimism. Certainly there are happy marriages - no one disputes that - and all those who are happily married can stop reading here.
And there is always serial monogamy for those who can't face up to the bad news - yes, keep on trying until you get it right, because the problem couldn't be the institution itself or its impossible expectations.
For these optimists the problem is that they have somehow either failed to find the "right person" or have been remiss in some other respect.
advertisement
advertisement
If only they'd put those socks in the laundry basket instead of leaving them on the floor, everything would have worked out. If only they'd cooked more (or less) often. If only they'd been more this, less that, it would have been fine.
And what of the growing segment of the population to whom the term "happily married" does not precisely apply, yet who nonetheless valiantly struggle to uphold the tenets of the marital enterprise, mostly because there seems to be no viable option?
A 1999 study reported that a mere 38 per cent of Americans who are married described themselves as actually happy in that state. This is rather shocking, so many pledging to live out their lives on earth in varying degrees of discontent or emotional stagnation because that is what's expected from us, or "for the sake of the children", or because wanting more than that makes you selfish and irresponsible. So goes the endless moralising and finger-pointing this subject tends to invite.
Is there any area of married life that is not criss-crossed by rules and strictures, from how you load the dishwasher to what to say at dinner parties?Let us contemplate the everyday living conditions of this rather large percentage of the US population, this self-reportedly unhappily married majority, all those households submersed in low-level misery and soul-deadening tedium, early graves in all respects but the most forensic.
Regard those couples - we all know them, perhaps we are them - the bickering, the reek of unsatisfied desires and unmet needs, a populace downing anti-depressants, along with whatever other forms of creative self-medication are most easily at hand, from triple martinis to serial adultery.
Yes, we all know that domesticity has its advantages: companionship, shared housing costs, child-rearing convenience, reassuring predictability, occasional sex, and many other benefits too varied to list. But there are numerous disadvantages as well, though it is considered unseemly to enumerate them, most of which are so structured into the expectations of contemporary coupledom that they have come to seem utterly natural and inevitable. But are they?
Consider, for instance, the endless regulations and interdictions that provide the texture of domestic coupledom. Is there any area of married life that is not crisscrossed by rules and strictures about everything from how you load the dishwasher to what you can say at dinner parties, to what you do on your day off, to how you drive, along with what you eat, drink, wear, make jokes about, spend your discretionary income on?
What is it about marriage that turns nice-enough people into petty dictators and household tyrants, for whom criticising another person's habits or foibles becomes a conversational staple, the default setting of domestic communication?
Or whose favourite marital recreational activity is mate behaviour modification? Anyone can play - and everyone does. What is it about modern coupledom that makes policing another person's behaviour a synonym for intimacy? Or is it something about the conditions of modern life itself, is domesticity a venue for control because most of us have so little of it elsewhere?
Then there's the fundamental premise of monogamous marriage, that mutual desire can and will last throughout a lifetime. And if it doesn't? Apparently you're just supposed to give up on sex, since waning desire for your mate is never an adequate defence for "looking elsewhere".
At the same time, let's not forget how many booming businesses and new technologies have arisen to prop up sagging marital desire. Consider all the investment opportunities afforded: Viagra, couples pornography, therapy. If upholding monogamy in the absence of desire weren't a social dictate, how many enterprises would immediately fail? Could dead marriages be good for the economy?
And then there's the mantra of the failing relationship: "Good marriages take work!" When exactly did the rhetoric of the factory become the default language of coupledom? Is there really anyone to whom this is an attractive proposition, who, after spending all day on the job, wants to come home and work some more? Here's an interesting question: what's the gain to a society in promoting more work to an overworked population as a supposed solution to the travails of marital discontent?
What if luring people into conditions of emotional stagnation and deadened desires were actually functional for society? Consider the norms of modern marriage. Here is a social institution devoted to maximising submission and minimising freedom, habituating a populace to endless compliance with an infinite number of petty rules and interdictions in exchange for love and companionship.
Perhaps a citizenry schooled in renouncing desire - and whatever quantities of imagination and independence it comes partnered with - would in many respects be socially advantageous. Note that the conditions of marital stasis are remarkably convergent with those of a cowed workforce and a docile electorate.
And wouldn't the most elegant forms of social control be those that come packaged in the guise of individual needs and satisfactions, so wedded to the individual psyche that any contrary impulse registers as the anxiety of unlovability? Who needs a policeman on every corner when we're all so willing to police ourselves and those we love and call it upholding our vows?
In this respect, perhaps rising divorce rates are not such bad news. The British Office for National Statistics blames couples' high expectations for the rise in divorce. But are high expectations really such a bad thing? What if we all worked less and expected more - not only from our marriages or in private life, but in all senses, from our jobs, our politicians, our governments? What if wanting happiness and satisfaction, and changing the things that needed changing to attain it, wasn't regarded as "selfish" or "unrealistic", and do we expect so much from our mates these days because we get so little back everywhere else?
What if the real political question was what should we be able to expect from society and its institutions? And if other social contracts and vows beside marriage were also up for re-examination, what other ossified social institutions might be next on the hit list? Observer
Author Laura Kipnis is a professor at Northwestern University, Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:05 PM March 13th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"After all, if adultery is a defacto referendum on the sustainability of monogamy -- and it would be hard to argue that it's not -- this also makes it the nearest thing to a popular uprising against the regimes of contemporary coupledom." (Laura Kipnis, from "Against Love.")
I would not have known about Ms. Kipnis but for my glossy Northwestern U. alumni magazine that arrives every three months, begging for money.
The latest edition is entitled "Winning Women."
It features 70 pages of feminist celebration, and very little about men's accomplishments.
But Laura Kipnis' makes a lot of sense, if you can get beyond her academic facade.
She may be a quasi-feminist, but she's clearly not a doctrinaire member of that clan.
She's questioning many of the same issues about marriage/monogamy that those of us in the men's rights movement are raising.
And, she looks more like Naomi Wolf than Andrea Dworkin.
Counts for a lot, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:30 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
by Ray Blumhorst
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Western men today are individuals in a common category, a common group, who although together, are alone and isolated. It has often been stated by various “psychological experts” that , “much of men’s behavior is hardwired (born into us through nature).” That may be true, but it is also true that a large amount of men’s behavior is learned. Men’s roles are very much conditioned into them through educational, governmental, and social institutions. Regardless of that, whatever the influences are that drive men to be who they are, and behave as they do, the fact is that men are largely like a herd of sheep doing what they're told to do. Individual men in the herd compliantly do as they are told right up to the point that they are individually cut out of the herd of men, and devoured by radical/gender feminist laws and prejudices, and the myriad other oppressions that men are forced to bear by the expectations and rules forced on them.
We have great activist men’s groups like National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), and great activist Father's groups like Millions Dads March (MDM), and Fahter’s United (FU), American Coalition for Fathers & Men (ACFM), etc., but where are the millions of men who should join these groups and make these groups their highest priorities? Where are the millions of men who have been victims who should join these groups? Look at the woefully few who have signed up for the current Men's Congress back east (June 18-19, 2004) and you will see what I mean, http://www.mensrights2004.com/reg.php3.
Sure we go on great sites like Men For Justice and Mensactivism to complain (bleat), but then we men just go on our way following the rear end of the next sheep (man) in front of us as our herd of sheep (men) goes in whatever direction it is directed.
The majority of men as I see it are united in that they are active members of a passive, unthinking herd, where they do what they are told, by their mothers, by their girlfriends, by their wives, by society, by law, by school, etc. There are few among their ranks that have the backbone, or insight to make any kind of a socially and legally acceptable statement fighting back against their own oppression as a group of men.
Those who can't handle the oppression are criminalized and put in prison, or they are made homeless, or they are driven to suicide. It’s a very messy business herding men, but the rewards are great for the oppressors, and as long as you keep the sheep (men) numb to the facts of their own oppression they are quite readily manageable.
On the other hand, today's reward for being a good hard working member of the herd of sheep is to be labeled a “privileged patriarch,” by the radical/gender feminist powers in our society, then you are further denied access to education, jobs, advancement, justice, freedom, equality, respect, etc. You are sent in droves to wars like the one in Iraq. You experience combat. You have horrors of violence heaped on you for being loyal to your country, then when you come back (if you come back) to America you are further preyed on by the rabid hate monger bigots in the domestic violence industry. One of your big rewards for being patriotic and serving America is to be labeled by those man-hating monsters in the domestic violence industry as "prone to violence." Fall into their insidious web in any way, and you will be further marginalized from the society, the friends and the family that you desperately need for your support during difficult times.
If you become a Father you have taken the ultimate step to place your life into the hands (the whims) of anti-male bias. If things go badly the euphemism, “Family Court Justice” will haunt you for the rest of your life. There are many who have fallen into this category, and they have largely become the “undead,” walking through the ruin of the rest of their lives like zombies in a come to life horror story.
In my opinion the biggest “privilege” men enjoy today is to die years sooner than females, and thereby be relieved of additional years of suffering and persecution at the hands of the powers in charge of our man-hating western governments.
Thanks to the lobbying of hundreds of women's commissions and thousands of women's studies programs on college campuses, women get social programs and help (Office of Women's Health, Domestic Violence Shelters, VAWA, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum), while men get prison and the grave. 93% of the prison population is male. Where is the Violence Against Men Act VAMA for our returning combat veterans (with benefits as generous as those in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)?
“Hard wiring,” or not, our governments condition and forces men into horrible and dangerous situations, then insults, traumatizes, brutalizes, maims or kills them. As a token of appreciation for men’s sacrifices our country then says, “Go fend for yourselves,” or “Take It Like A Man,” or a Man’s Gotta Do What A Man’s Gotta Do.” All the while, females enjoy laws to protect them from discrimination, harassment, violence, etc. at the petty levels they experience it compared to men.
“Hard wiring,” or not many men live their lives quietly in desperation, fearing the next man-hating abuse to be visited on them by uncaring, man-hating America. The recent prison scandal at Abu Ghraib was but the tip of the ice berg of American misandry. Man-hating in America is a treasured, long established institution that has been perfected by radical/gender feminist institutions of power, and it is certainly going to take more than talking about it to change the decades of “targeting men for persecution” to change it.
To change the plight of men in America (and the rest of the world today) it’s going to take concerted action (through all legal means available), and considering the misandry that men routinely face in America, it is going to be a long hard fight before men are ever equal to women in most areas of privilege that women enjoy (not having to bear the major brunt of wars/combat is one of the biggest).
From a man’s perspective, America’s greatest threat is not the war in Iraq, or the war on terrorism, it is the war on Father’s & men. For American men, the greatest threat they face is their own country, because of all the radical/ gender feminists who actively wage a war of hate, terror, and mayhem against Father’s & men using our own laws, government, and even institutions of education as weapons of mass destruction. The silence of the sheep (men) is deafening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
All the older guys I know, guys that are 55 and older are telling me the same story; don't do it. It just turns to crap no matter what you do. They'd rather be independent. At best it's a tedious bore. At worst a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for good measure. The problem is that when you're young, you just naturally fall into this mind set where your whole self image is based on how women regard you, and so you spend all your money and energy trying to make yourself acceptable to them. Then later in life the shine wears off and you finally realize that you've wasted yourself on a bunch of crap.
Children - "the ultimate human experience"
I couldn't even begin to list all of the older folks i know from work or through my family with kids they either don't get along with, are disappointed in, or are so distant as to not even be a factor in each other's lives.
I'm really skeptical about the idea of children as "the ultimate blessing." How many friends do you have with little or no meaningful contact or relationships with their parents?
I would wager the statistic for happy child/parent relations would be as bad, if not worse, than the marriage numbers. Who wants to deal with TWO bitter, unfulfilling relationships?!
A few years ago I went through a major depression over this until I started talking to all the older guys I knew...and they all said the same thing; "don't do it, it's shit. Even when it's not bad, it's shit". You end up being closely tied to an old woman. Think about that. I can go to Europe or the south seas tomorrow. If I was married I wouldn't have the money and I'd have to ask HER permission. Don't get married unless you are absolutely religiously in love with her. Like carry her sick aged body to the toilet and wipe her ass and be happy to do it kind of love.
What I'm saying is that human beings are nasty weak treacherous creatures that are for the most part totally untrustworthy. Experience is my basis for this statement, both mine and others who I know or who have written reliable histories. If you can find a woman to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, then you are among the lucky few. Congratulations. I hope your luck continues to hold out.
Ok, assume that you will end up divorced and won't see your kids and lose half of your assets, how different is that from being married?
Most married guys I know are working their asses off to pay bills, rarely to get to spend time with their families, mediocre or no sex life, and have wives that spend as much of their money as absolutely possible.
My problem with marriage isn't a fear of divorce; it is that the whole thing sucks divorce or not.
What security is there for men in marriage?
If I cheat on my wife, she gets half my shit.
If she cheats on me, she still gets half my shit.
Why the fuck should i get married?
Fuck it man, it's easy to get depressed about not being married when we live in a society that constantly feeds us the image of the happy couple. It's one big lie. The happiest person alive is someone who isn't a prisoner dependent on another human being... We only have 80 or so years on this rock to achieve true freedom
Very few marriages last nowadays, and even guys older than me are telling me not to even think about it... It's a grossly overrated source of happiness. And for the 80% that do go through divorce, it will financially ruin you for life. Period. You can take your best 10 earning years from say, 35 to 45 and take all the wealth you would have accumulated and flush it down the toilet. Because it will go to her and her lawyer. If it happens naturally and it's good then great, good luck. But the worst thing is to force it, to make gross exertions and ignore all sorts of red lights going off just to be hooked up and "normal". Get some hobbies. Relax. Hang out. Enjoy. Take life as it comes.
As men, we all know that a woman's primary objective is to marry. After years of experience I've discovered their most commonly used strategy. here it is:
1. Girl pressures guy for marriage.
2. Guy delays.
3. Girl gradually starts destroying guy's self-esteem and eliminating his friends.
4. Guy becomes too weak and too much of a loser to find something better than what he has.
5. Girl starts to limit sex. In effect controlling the only good thing in the guy's life.
6. Guy is in despair. Capitulates to marriage.
Then 5-10 years later the guy is an empty shell of his former self. Girl is a ruthless manipulating machine. Girl divorces loser husband. Girl takes 80% of guy's stuff because the guy is too brain dead to find a good lawyer. Girl lives happily ever after. Guy becomes bald alcoholic who dies of heart attack at 45 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by newfortpeachtree on 06:26 PM March 21st, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
great insight!!! Man you are 100% head on the nail. If we were religiously fanatical about these issues and insights - we could all start weekly mens organizations around the country and educate young "unknowing" men on these issues, but since that hasn't happened yet - it's nice to read articles like yours - Keep the faith my brother, and like Braveheart said "FREEDOM!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:45 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Traditional marriage balances different privileges and obligations for men and women. Modern woman wants all the benefits of "equality" without any of the responsibilities.
Traditional Western culture balanced special privileges for women with special obligations, and the same for men.
Equality states that no one get special privileges, and that responsibilities and rights should be equally shared.
Either system is balanced and fair. The problem with modern Western culture is that many women want only the positives from both systems:
They want special privileges from the traditional system (men paying, being "gentlemen" by using special deferential manners and language to women, being the main breadwinner, etc) but not the old-fashioned obligations (being modest and ladylike, being a housewife, etc).
They want the positives of equality (rights, equal access to work and education, etc) without the responsibilities (paying your own way financially a full 50% for life, taking risks with no safety net, and taking your lumps without complaint like men do...not expecting to be protected or sheltered from harsh reality, etc).
You can't take only the good from both systems...you have to take the bad with the good in any balance you strike. When women try to have their cake and eat it in this way, the bad doesn't disappear...it gets paid by men, and this is why the current culture is one of exploitation by selfish hypocritical women...and it's why men are tired of the inequity.
If American women chose one system or the other and took their full share of the bad with the good there would be no problem. But current American culture discourages women being looked at critically, instead projecting all blame unjustly onto men; and so the inequity is rationalized away.
This is why other cultures which haven't got this fucked up as far as gender relations go, start to look attractive. The women there expect to give as well as get.
NoMarriage.com manual will explain in much greater detail why marriage no longer makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 PM March 12th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Financial stability is the main thing women look for in a man. (If you don't believe it, tell your wife or fiancée that you are going to leave your high-paying job and travel for a few years to help you discover yourself. See how fast she'll dump you).
Raising a family in the US is getting to be ridiculously expensive. Mortgage is $2-4K/month, supporting wife and children is another $2-4K/month. Getting married means that you are committing yourself to 30 years of slavery where your main purpose is to bring home a large paycheck.
We had one kid. Wife stays home, but the kid wears her out. I bust my fucking ASS 60 hrs/week and get no credit. Wife gives me guilt when I don't throw everything down right after work to watch this screaming, annoying fucking kid so she can go out to the gym, or to some restaurant with her friends, or to her sister's house to watch movies.
She gets to take naps during the day when the baby sleeps, and every time I call her on the cell during the day, she is at Starbucks with her Mom or friends. She says that doesn't count as "Her time" because she's with the baby.
I've had enough. I feel so undervalued and OWNED. She is so 'entitled' now it's like 60 (or 70, or 80) hours a week from me is EXPECTED. Being at work from 8-7 counts as my 'social' time, so I am not allowed to have any friends or ever do ANYTHING outside of change FUCKING DIAPERS.
Men are realizing that all the career chasing and overtime they did gave their wives the nice house, new kitchen, big SUV, etc, so she's happy, but left them empty with no satisfaction in life -- just the dreary slavery of the worker drone. Hopefully, they eventually find something that gives their life real meaning, rather than being mere wallets for their parasitic wives who have built nice comfy lives off of their husband's drudgery.
I'm Living the American Dream and Hating Every Minute of It.
I'm a 38 y/o male who is married to a beautiful woman and have 1 kid with 1 more on the way. we have what many consider to be the ideal life. Nice house, good jobs, SUV and a overall nice lifestyle. Problem is I hate my life. I feel trapped and destined to live the life of a corporate warrior and familyman when I really long for something else. I've been married for 9 years now and while I love my wife, I feel that I need more space and to be honest long for some variety.
I wish I could walk away from it all.
We have the mortgage and a small amount on the SUV. The problem isn't money and my wife worked and saved money.
I just feel so trapped. I would love to be free again and be able to just get up and do something on a whim. I would love to go out and have a wild fling with a new and exciting woman.
Like other have said I fell for the notion of going to college, getting a good job, finding a wife and raising a family. I feel it is all a big lie and I was dumb enough to fall for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:24 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
To Anonymous,
Great post! Your honesty is powerful and expressive.
What you've suggested is that you feel unappreciated, undervalued, and exploited.
Funny ... those are typical sentiments of well-kept wives enjoying the privileged Happy Homemaker lifestyle their high-earning hubbies provide.
Marriage as a social institution is doomed when men experience it as a kind of servitude, all give and no get.
Have you tried to talk with your wife about your feelings?
(Might want to have a lawyer standing by....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:44 AM March 13th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, that's what feminism is, namely, offloading traditional gender burdens whilst holding onto traditional gender privileges. It is NOT about gender equality. This was understood as far back as 1913 in the very readable study "The fraud of feminism", which is available on the net (and which has been referred to before on mensactivism).
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:17 PM March 13th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you are talking about this:
"THE FRAUD O FEMINISM" BY E. BELFORT BAX.
Good read, but who cares puritanism, christianis and feminism will dissapear in a coupes of decades. Holland, Belgium and France almost islamic by now, Germany in 20 years, UK soon will follow, Spain next, ......... and yes Canada too.
Europe is dying, but its population is taking not the least notice of the fact. Around 25 years ago, birth rates fell below replacement levels across most of Western Europe, and they have been locked in a broad downtrend ever since.
Thanks to feminism.
The ideology of self-delusion, and self-destruction.
We are doomed. or not? As a stopgap, it will be necessary to bring in increasing numbers of immigrants, with all the social and cultural complications this entails. Most of them muslims.
"In the great Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, the newcomers already outnumber the native Dutch among under-20-year-olds. They will soon be an absolute majority." (Times online)
Feminism or christian puritanism two sides of the same coin.
"How Feminism has murdered the West"
Amir Butler
If the projections of the United Nations are to be believed, the West is dying a slow death.
In 2000, Europe had a population of 727 304 000. In 2015, it will have shrunk to 704 506 000. By 2020, it will be 694 877 000. In 2000, 13.8% of the population was aged between 15-24, yet by 2020, it will be just 10.2%. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population over 60 will rise from 20.3% to 26.4%. A similar trend is occurring in America, with the UN predicting the percentage of people 15-24 falling from 13.5% to 12.6%, buoyed only by immigration. Similarly the percentage of people over 60 will jump from 16.2% to 23.0% in just 20 years.
As the percentage of the population over 60 increases proportionate to the percentage of the population of working age, it will raise serious questions of how the state will fund the pensions of these elderly with a diminishing taxation base. According to Peter Peterson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s pension and health-benefit spending will cost 17 percent of the GDP in 2030, as opposed to 10.5 percent in 1995. That’s good compared to countries like Italy, where a rapidly aging population and declining birth rate will see the GDP share to pensions rise from 19.7 percent to 33.3 percent in 2030.
The reversal of this trend will be difficult. Financial incentives alone have proven, in Europe, to not be effective in encouraging parents to have children.
On a global scale, the disparity is no more vivid than when comparing birth rates in Muslim countries versus non-Muslim countries. As Pat Buchanan noted in Death of the West, it is as difficult to find a Western society where populations are not shrinking, as it is to find a Muslim society where populations are not exploding.
What is taking place today in the West is not unique in history, but has been a characteristic of empires before it. Will Durant, the noted historian, wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire:
Biological factors were most fundamental. A serious decline of population appears in the West after Hadrian.
At the same time, masses of third-world immigrants have infiltrated the West, where they rapidly outbreed the indigenous populations. Within just a few decades, the West and its treasures will be taken over, without a fight, by people alien or hostile to Western civilization. Our children will be minorities in foreign lands.
Faith: Islam's third run for Europe
By Uwe Siemon-Netto
Published 12/11/2002 12:11 PM
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- For the third time in 13 centuries, Islam is set to gain a major foothold in Europe. This time it comes peacefully with Turkey's attempt to join the ever-expanding European Union. It meets little resistance from Christianity, which has never been in a more feeble state on the continent whose civilization it shaped.
When Islam's previous attempts to conquer the Occident failed, this was due to Christian resolve. In 732 A.D., the Frankish ruler Charles Martel threw back the Saracens at the Loire. In the 1520s, at the height of the Reformation in Europe, the Turks overran Hungary but were stopped at Vienna. Catholics and Protestants, though divided theologically, nevertheless united to confront this common challenger.
Islam knocks at Europe's doors with velvet gloves at this point. Turkey is a secular state, though governed by an Islamic party. For geopolitical reasons, the United States wants it to be part of the European Union.
France and Germany have proposed starting negotiations with Ankara over EU membership in July 2005. In a cover story, Britain's Economist magazine proclaimed, "Turkey Belongs in Europe." If it is admitted, 70 million Muslims will join the by then 460 million EU citizens, whose religious roots are predominantly Christian. These Turks may then settle and work anywhere between the North Cape and Sicily, Ireland and the Bosporus.
As the Economist wrote, Morocco might perhaps be next to knock on Europe's door and why should Iraq not do the same at a later date?
A religion column is not the place to discuss the political merits or perils of these developments. But former French President Val�ry Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the European Convention drawing up a constitution for the European Union, describes Turkey as by definition unacceptable as a member state. Also by definition, his reasons must be implicitly religious.
For not ethnicity but faith traditions distinguish Turkey from the rest of Europe -- and more so today than only a century ago. In 1900, Christians made up 32 percent of that country's citizens; now they are reduced to 0.1 percent. At the outbreak of World War I, almost half of Istanbul's population was Christian, compared with 1 percent today. (FEMINIST IN TURKEY ?, CHILD SUPPORT IN TURKEY? NO CHRISTIANS = NO FEMINISM, JUST COINCIDENCE? )
Nobody suggests ill intent on Turkey's part. However, Jobst Schoene, bishop emeritus of Germany's Independent Lutherans and a renowned church historian, gave us pause when he told United Press International, "I fear we are approaching a situation resembling the tragic fate of Christianity in Northern Africa in Islam's early days." (SO SORRY!! ;--)
In the 7th and 8th centuries, once-flourishing Christian civilizations in Africa vanished in a flash. Bat Ye'or, one of the world's foremost students of Islam's conquests reminds us that Christians were weak in those days because of sectarian squabbles. Some Christian groups actually welcomed the Muslims as "liberators" from other Christians. OR FEMINISTS!!.
-- The number of Germany's Protestants, once a majority of the population, has shrunk from 47 million to 23 million in the last 50 years, and of those only about 3 percent attend Sunday services regularly.
-- Five of the 24 territorial Protestant churches in Germany have decided to bless same-sex unions and ordain practicing homosexuals.
-- In France, which has a population of 60 million, there are only 25,000 Roman Catholic priests left. Their average age is 68. Some look after 30 ore more parishes. Laymen are in charge of most church functions, such as Christian funerals.
-- Anglicans are have become a minority in England.
-- Spain, once the most stalwart Catholic country in Europe, has turned into one of the most secularized in less than a generation. Curiously, more and more Spanish women, whose nation had been ruled by Muslims for centuries, are now converting to Islam. SCARY? FOR FEMINIST SURE.
Mosques are springing up all over the continent, often with substantial help from neighboring Christian congregations. "This does not mitigate the Muslims' contempt for our putrid civilization." IS NOT PUTRID? ARE THEY WRONG?
"The average German family has 1.2 children," said Beyerhaus, "but the average Muslim family here has 3.8." In all, there are at least 8.5 million Muslims in Germany, 6 million in France and 4 million in the United Kingdom.
I HOPE WESTERN POLITICIANS INCREASE CHILD SUPPORT, AND GUN FIRE MEN THAT DO NOT PAY IT, SO NON MUSLIMS WILL HAVE MORE CHILDREN, SURE, MAY BE 0.2 OR SO, FEMINIST ARE DIGGING THEY OWN GRAVE, THE FASTER THE BETTER, MAY ME DEATH PENALTY FOR FATHERS WOULD BE THE BEST STRATEGY, TO GET RIS OF FEMINISM ONCE AND FOR ALL.
There is no sign that churches attempt to guide Western Europe's new Islamic citizens to the very faith and value system that created the society in which these immigrants wish to raise their families. THEY WERE NOT BRAINWASHED TO BE EHUNUCS, SERVANTS OF WOMEN, IN THEIR CHILDHOOD, BOOMER!!
A LETTER TO ANGRY HARRY:
Dear Angry Harry,
First of all, I apologize for the questionable quality of my English.
I have been reading your columns for nearly a year. I now believe that despite all the efforts done by yourself and so many men`s sites, we will not succeed in changing the actual situation. Quite on the contrary: it will only get worse. The entire Western civilization is bound to end-up in the ditch. Of that I am certain.
It is only a question of time. I could bet my life on it.
There is, however, a very simple solution to all the desperation and grief that men must endure. There exists a very efficient way to end this slow agony. I would like to present my thoughts to you.
The main reason for this endless gender war is …. the children. And there seems to be no limit to the hatred and the misandry.
Therefore, by suppressing the source of the pain, the pain should disappear. Shouldn`t it?
My proposed solution is this:
1-Men must forego marriage. (Abolition of marriage preferable)
2-Men must refuse to father children. (Abolition of fatherhood and vasectomy are best)
3-Mandatory abortion.
If men stop marrying and breeding, they will enjoy freedom again. Of that there can be no doubt. It will eventually put an end to feminism through attrition.
The program I wish to propose is to run a huge and constant campaign by putting ads on television, advertising everywhere, newspapers, radio, etc…always the same message, it will eventually dawn on men that this is their ONLY alternative. We must hit where it hurts most! I believe that you can measure the impact….
Typically speaking, it is not the man who wants children: it is the woman. Men do not need children…..until they see their own offsprings.
Let us stop complaining about the injustices : it`s a dead-end, and simply eradicate the source of this injustice. And if there are still women wanting children, well, there are sperm banks on every street corner. Let THEM pay for everything and let THEM do all the work of raising children. Who cares if our society collapses?
Do you?
I don`t! (In fact, I hope it will).
Who knows: maybe it`s time for the West to say good bye? Let the Muslims in: they will be the next civilzation. We have done our share. In my opinion, the white race has to disappear: it`s the only way to save humanity, or what`s left of it.
When men will finally be freed from all the crap, they will be able to enjoy life as they wish and they still can have sex free of charge. Did anybody come up with a better solution?
a:
With regard to western men going on a marriage strike and refusing to breed etc etc, this is certainly happening already - and it might well become more prevalent.
And, of course, societies that embrace feminism and political correctness are doomed to extinction, because they are certainly going to be outstripped, outclassed, outgunned and outnumbered by cultures and societies that embrace the very opposite.
FARE WELL TO PURITANISM-FEMINISM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 01:20 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
The age of the 'superwoman', who wants to be the world's best mother, wife and boss, is dead."
and like a vampire that which is already dead will walk the earth for a long long time. like some mortally wounded comedien this one will keep poping up for laughs till all are fairly milked for it.
foundations poured with weak material in the interest of fast progress often rot out before the designed lifetime of the edifice. given some choices for foundatoin material, much of feminism as it was originally constructed is having some problems. whether that will translate to what many here wish is another story.
ArtflDgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 01:30 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
they feed em, dress em and send them off to work!!!!!!
sigh
Artfldgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 03:53 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I am 48 years old married twice. I am starting my second round of counseling with my second wife. I consider it a lost cause. I am doing it because I believe in honor and my commitment. Wish I could say the same thing for my wife. Thank God we did not have any children together. American Women are a lost cause as are Canadian, Aussie, British, and Women from Western Europe infected with Feminism.
We must face facts the pond of fish is poisoned. We must play by catch and release rules. Keepers only from another (Foreign Women) pond that is not contaminated. Otherwise you are at their mercy. Marriage to an American Women is playing Russian Roulette with your life. Don't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:04 PM March 15th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
They said they wanted a career, money, independance, and no (lousy) men around.
So they get what they ask for and they STILL BITCH about it!!
Well, you ladies ASKED for it.
As Thundercloud once said; "Ladies, "That's what you get from Burger Chef!""
(What ever that actually means) :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:41 PM March 15th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
""That's what you get from Burger Chef...!""
It's a REALLY obscure reference to an old, now long defunct, resteraunt chain. "That's what you get from Burger Chef!" was part of their jingle in their commercials.
Why I remember that, I don't know, it had to be in the late 60's or early 70's when I heard it. But I am amazed when some people know what I'm refering to.
I've just adopted the phrase to antagonize feminists when they get what they screech about then screech about getting it.
It doesn't matter to me if they understand the reference or not, just as long as they get what I mean. And that is of course 'that's what you fembots get for being stupid, selfish, sexist annoying, and not thinking things through'.
It's just my weird way of saying the feminists get/got what was coming to them.
I hope that clairifies.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
