|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:39 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are outpacing the number of men going to college and that will eventually produce a higher level of education among women in the population, which in turn means there will be more qualified young women in the work force than boys," Owen said.
Young women and boys? Apparently when bashing men, it's now necessary to make them sound juvenile at all times as well.
He's apparently "excited" about the prospect of men becoming indigent serfs who can't get a job at McDonalds or an education so women who choose cushy jobs and childbearing over hard work, long hours and risks can be paid even higher levels of more than equal value than the current estimate of $1.03 for every dollar a man making the same choices earns. Oh, wait, that's right, men have "responsibilities", women get "choices" and an inexhaustible supply of "I'm a victim" T-shirts. Women are already being overpaid for work of LESSER value, and fill the overwhelming majority of civil service jobs in my country, robbing men of a chance to earn a pension doing safe, comfortable work on a predictable schedule in the last place a worker can still get a pension and job security in this useless country.
Want to know why there are no frigging doctors in feminist countries with socialized medicine (Canada, UK)? 70% of the graduates are female, and some med schools no longer even require a single science course as a prerequisite to be admitted to the MD program - apparently girls taking "Women's Studies" and getting A's for bitching about their feelings and how bad they've been conditioned to believe they've got it make better doctors than icky boys with, you know, all that nasty sciencey stuff in their training beforehand, where marks tend to be lower, and since women generally take the path of least resistance, voila. Naturally, the proportion of female students in such programs is the highest in the country, when compared with medical programs that require actual pre-med, where men still make up nearly 40% of the students. Just don't get sick in their neighborhood. Anyhow, a graduating female doctor puts in 40% of the work of a retiring male doctor, and generally leaves the profession within 10 years. QUESTIONS? Oh, wait, it must be oppression that's making them choose to leave work to have kids, or because they don't feel like working any more...those poor dears with 10+ years of state-subsidized education, a limitless income potential and a captive market. Oppression must really be awful for those underprivileged women. Clearly the reason they're earning less than men is their lack of choices and men's oppression of them! And the fact that they can't find a doctor is just further evidence that the "male-dominated" (giggling again, hang on)...patriarchal medical establishment is denying them care, right?
As for this dickhead in Dayton, I suppose his attitude and the usual feminst foolishness and greed about pay (snort, giggle) "equality" is hardly surprising, what with a grossly misandric mass media bombarding boys from infancy with messages of loathing, images of their inferiority to females and marching orders to experience guilt and self-loathing over having the nerve to be male for the rest of their lives as wage slaves, all to give a little self-esteem boost to those poor, poor girls and women in the audience (who apparently are so sociopathic and psychologically damaged from birth that they can't feel good about themselves unless a man or boy is feeling bad about himself, if the mass media is correct), and decades of only-girls-matter public education.
What kind of suicidal asshole is this "man" who wants to see us marginalized to death so women can feel better about themselves? Is there something safe we can add to the drinking water to weed out this self-immolating psychosis among male collaborators who enjoy never-ending humiliation and licking women's asses to get votes and make a few bucks? Hire a dominatrix, you moron, and leave the rest of us out of your masochistic fetish, OK?
I can't wait for gender-based taxation here, when women finally figure out that they're still lazier and more self-indulgent than we are when it comes to working for a living (in general, exceptions do exist), and can't compete for the same pay without breaking a few nails and giving up a life of raising kids at home (there's a reason women who work for themselves earn 49% of what men who work for themselves do, folks). I hear it's going real well in India, where among other happy, man-friendly initiatives, the commonly abused "dowry" laws (IPC 498a) have caused both Canada and the US to issue travel advisories against going there because of the risk of arbitrary imprisonment after a false accusation of not being nice enough by some woman with an axe to grind or bills to pay.
I say we make Decemeber 15th "Father's Equity Day", where we "catch up" with the extra time women spend with our stolen children and the extra services they get from the tax-funded civil and criminal courts (DV courts that issue ex parte restraining orders and arrest warrants for men with no requirement for evidence, free legal representation and assistance, feminist-brainwashed police as part of their privately funded enforcement army, misandric shelters across the nation, and so on.) Or we make 11:59:59pm on December 31st "Men's Domestic Violence Equality Second ", where men "catch up" with the level of funding given to women for DV, when men are 38%+ of the victims. How about November 1st as "Men's Criminal Liability Equity Day", where men finally catch up to the leniency shown to women who commit the same crimes and fuck our little boys when they're supposed to be taking care of them, when compared with men. We could also make November 1st "Men's Death By Cancer Equality Day", August 1st "Men's Education Equity Day"...the list is endless. Anybody got a bullhorn and some red paint?
Sorry to rant - this stuff drives me absolutely mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are outpacing the number of men going to college and that will eventually produce a higher level of education among women in the population, which in turn means there will be more qualified young women in the work force than boys," Owen said.
The disparity between young men (I mean "boys") and young women in college doesn't appear to be cause for alarm. One way to "equalize" the wage gap would be to do nothing: there won't be enough college educated men to earn higher salaries if present trends continue.
But something should be done to make college more attractive to men. Perhaps the introduction of men's studies programs would help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 04:03 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
But something should be done to make college more attractive to men.
Organized sports? Like, say, lacrosse teams? How about fraternities so men can bond and socialize in an uncensored way for at least part of their education?
Those aren't under constant attack by feminists, right?
(sarcasm ends)
I agree with you, LL. I just don't think it'll ever happen with the ongoing campaign to destroy or at least marginalize men and boys in all parts of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:50 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
R-Man,
The EDJUKASHUN system has become the very engine of radical feminism.
90% of K-12 teachers are women. (The men start out as teacher/sports coaches and then graduate into castrated administrative posts where they serve the Matriarchy or face immediate termination based on false allegations ....)
In "higher ed," it's all about respecting "Diversity."
This is P.C. bullshit that allows genuine scholars like Harvard's ex-prezodent Larry Summers to be persecuted and humiliated (well, he is a ManGina so does not deserve my respect) and then the whole elite institution spends 20 years in a feminist circle-jerk instead of educating young people.
My take on it?
When are men going to look into the mirror of what un-masculinity has become and get really, truly, logically, viscerally MAD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:55 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
And, to indulge myself with just one more ancient pop cultural reference ---
(The great cult film "Broadcast News"):
"I'm MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!"
Obviously ....
trivia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:31 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't have said it better myself, either about education or the pop culture reference. I think you're thinking of Albert Finney in Network, aren't you? I've mixed it up with the Albert Brooks movie a few times myself. But the sentiment is right on the money, nevertheless!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:17 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep it was "Network."
I knew I shoulda Googled that quote before hitting the "submit" button.
Though it's good to know that MANN posters, unlike the feminists they critique, believe in fact-checking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:24 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
90% of K-12 teachers are women
Roughly forty years ago radfems tried to introduce their poison in K-12 and were firmly and unequivocally rebuffed. But feminists don't give up. With women studies, they did an end-run around the rejection: if we can't directly brainwash the children, we'll brainwash the women who teach the kids. Easy to do since nearly all education majors—and sociology majors, psych majors, etc.—take or are forced to take women studies. So they unleash these hordes on our children, armies of female teachers unconsciously (or not) programming our children: the girls to succeed, the boys—those patriarchal oppressors—to self-destruct.
Maddened by their success like sharks in bloody water, feminists will not, possibly cannot, stop attacking males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:13 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, here's what I don't understand.
Most female teachers, schooled in womenz' studies and conscious or un- advocates of feminism, all devotedly destroying boy's academic identities and futures Monday through Friday ---
ALL (except the lesbian P.E. teacher/pedophiles whose interests lie elsewhere) seem to find hard-working husbands who donate their income and their sperm to fulfill their cupcake's desires.
What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:43 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't realize that the end of the title got cut off. It was supposed to be "This is why I don't get angry at women in general (much)". These men who are just dying to see more men dying make me vomit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 12:55 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
...the fem-nags will present biased and selective statistics to back-up their rhetoric that a wage gap is strictly patriarchic oppression at work, spineless politicians will yield to their demands, and laws will be enacted that force employers to give pay raises to female employees regardless of their qualifications, seniority, or commitment to their work. Of course, the employers will have to come up with the cash to meet these new demands, undoubtedly at the expense of male upward mobility and salaries.
Here’s a website devoted to their latest folly: Click Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:25 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I just love the "Women Getting Even" taglines at the site you linked, bull.
Getting even? For WHAT? Men working harder than them, dedicating more of their lives to their work and educations, often at the expense of their chance to be an involved father before or after divorce? Men working themselves into early graves to provide for the wives and children they love? Men taking more risks than them, financially and physically? I wasn't aware that hard work, competition and risk-taking that often benefit women and children was a bad thing for which women were entitled to revenge, i.e. "getting even". If women were actually "equal", and were expected to do what we do while enduring what we do, they'd be complaining about that, just as their "sisters" in the USSR did when they were required to go to work as "equals" at shitty jobs, and they saw women in the west at home with "choices".
"Getting even"? What a disgustingly narcissistic and hateful choice of words. Not that I expect any better from the delusional feminist man-haters out there. If feminists want women to achieve wage-parity with men, they should be writing propaganda and creating websites encouraging women to get off their fat asses and go to work in mines and other high-risk, well-paid professions for the rest of their life at immense personal cost and the very real risk of infinite damage to their family, or telling them to spend decades learning a trade or becoming educated professionals, just as men are expected to do if they want to see big paychecks. Instead they spend their time and energy whining out excuses that "they would, but men wouldn't treat them nicely if they did", or some similar bullshit, when there are draconian laws in every state and province in the western world giving women in the workplace superhuman legal status and protection, all on the taxpayer's dime. It would be one hell of alot more likely to succeed than their current strategy of pissing and moaning about how oppressed they imagine themselves to be when the accumulated evidence suggests that it just ain't so, or what sort of vengeance they expect to exact this week against their husbands, brothers and sons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 01:45 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:33 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Getting even? For WHAT?
Lately I've been thinking about the economincs of feminism.
The feminist idea of female liberation means primarily the ending of women's economic dependence on men. There is, however, a subtext to this: that women's liberation requires women to have no adult male dependents, as this would be another male-oriented unfreedom.
For women to be economically independent of men requires each woman to have sufficient income so as not to require supplementation by a man - specifically by a man in the context of a relationship. To get this income she needs a good education - or, at least, good qualifications. The relentless drive to make education a female-only domain is part of this process. But women can also get money from men without the need to give anything in return in a number of ways. These can take the form of overt theft, such as child support, alimony, or domestic violence rehabilitation courses that accused men are forced to part-fund, or it can be covert theft, such as a taxation and benefits system which has the net effect of transferring money from men to women, or it can be indirect theft, such as using criminals to perform work in the community for which they receive no pay.
While men still have some money, overt and covert theft are good options. But as men's income-earning ability declines due to poor education and reduced opportunities, the primary way in which women will be able to get wealth from men without having to give anything back is by criminalising men and using faux morality to extract unpaid work from them.
Nowhere in feminism is there any idea that a woman ought to go out and earn a living so she can support a man and his children. Feminism is not seeking to create a gender-reversed version of pre-feminist society. With men unsupported by women, the government or their own efforts, many more of them will be forced into criminal behaviour as a matter of survival. Even men who do earn enough to keep their heads above water can find themselves in the firing line of laws that leave them no room for defense (rape, sexual harrassment, domestic violence, etc) and lead to overt theft or indirect theft.
In short, the economics of feminism requires a large poulation of criminalised men, to obtain wealth from directly (as punishment or compensation to the victim) and indirectly (to 'give something back to the community'). It's all driven by the need to get something from him without having to give anything in return. That's the underlying mission of feminist economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:50 AM April 27th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
...and this will be just like VAWA, even though there was ample evidence and hundreds of studies showing parity in DV. This will be like the educational efforts for girls, even though there was ample documentation of girls surpassing boys in everything except science, math, and sports. Despite Farrell's thorough refutation of the wage gap and proof that women who make identical choices as men now earn 103% of men's salaries, this effort will succeed. And ten years down the road there will be the customary "oops, I missed the decimal point" when men are hopelessly on the downside of the gender gap.
What I found particularly disturbing in the article is how the feminist machine was able to quietly spawn over 100 grassroot groups dedicated to this fallacy, and spring them suddenly on an unsuspecting public. (With 400 more to come!) Organization, money, political pull, they don't fall from trees. We have a fight just reacting to their constant nefarious machinations.
The only upside of this is that it reveals to the populace exactly what we could expect from Hitlery if she's elected. I hope the public takes note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:24 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Superb writing all round gents! Just really fun to read and digest.
The sum total of your quite logical collective male paranoia in the face of the unrestrained emerging Feminazi Matrix (Hitlary vs. Condi in 2008????)means that you must become celibate monks.
There are three very obvious logical theories that illuminate why men should shun women:
(1) Lack of desire theory -
* American women have been masculinized via 40 years of feminism. There is nothing remotely feminine in women these daze. Heterosexual men are not attracted to other men. So, why would they be attracted to women pretending to be men?
(2) Entitlement theory -
* Most all women alive today under 70 years old have been socialized to believe they are morally superior to men. They "feel" more than we do; hence they are more human.
* Most women believe in their guts that men are inferior to them (logical corollary to "*" above, and so in addition to feeling they are smarter than you, they also believe they are simply better than you.... in almost every way.
(Freud must be defended ... penis envy is at the crux of all this nonsense! It's always better to penetrate than to be engulfed. Hence, the feminists' legal strategy of institutional penetration...)
(3) Risk-Assessment Theory -
This is the no-brainer.
The entire Feminazi Franchise Industry -- DV gulag, Divorce-for-A-Lark Drive-through Court system, paternity fraud, false allegations of sexual harassment, workplace codes for every behavior directed at women, child support extortion,VAWAVAWAVAWAVAWA,etc.
Can anybody explain to me just what part of the logic of feminist tyranny men are failing to notice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:00 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd ...
"Sometimes I wonder if saving myself is all I should worry about and to just let all the rest of the male and female idiots in this country and a few other countries totally screw each other to death."
Just my personal opinion.
I would definetely go with that plan!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:50 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, fellas. I've given up any hope of anything being achieved in the way of reforms or justice for the masses of humanity (male OR female) in the western world in our lifetimes, and settled for watching out for numero uno and as many men as I can personally deprogram OUT of submission, along with the handful of non-feminist women that are important in my life. That and making life hell for feminists and their spawn at every possible opportunity have made me a much happier man. This doesn't mean I won't try to achieve actual equality between the sexes instead of the parody thereof that feminists (female supremacists and their ilk) seek, but I expect nothing.
I figure I've contributed to the process of "saving" more than 100 men in my time through personal, face to face discussion and education, and I feel truly sorry for the ones I couldn't wake up to reality - they were just too far gone to salvage.
Fortunately, the crowd around here is already deprogrammed and wide awake (for the most part), despite the occasional mangina that wanders by whining about how he'd love to help men achieve the legal status of a human being in feminist society, but he thinks any man with a spine is a patriarchal misogynist or some similar brainwashed, misandric twaddle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:12 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Random,
Your logic is beyond dispute.
So, as a kind of "Yoda"-like icon...
Answer me this --
How should fathers raise their daughters in this feminist-defiled toxic dump of a culture?
You can of course pass the question.
I'd suggest the incredibly elusive but always definitive zenpriest as the next-in-line commentator ... ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:48 PM April 28th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the compliment, Roy.
Pass? Me? I don't think so!
As for how men should raise their daughters? As little girls that we love and value even more than ourselves or anything else (other than our sons, who should be loved just as much), of course. Nothing in the world has changed such that we need to alter what we have done in raising our children when they are part of our household, in my opinion. Little girls, for the most part, still like to play with dollies, and wear pink princess costumes at halloween, and generally behave as little girls have done since we started having children! Fortunately, the public education system is tailored to serve the needs of these little girls and young women exceptionally well, so there's little need for private schooling, which I strenuously recommend for young men and boys!
However, there is a little something we need to start instilling in little girls as we teach them how to be reasonable people. I believe that the missing ingredient, particularly for children of divorce, is a keen sense of fairness and fair play, and that they are NOT superior to boys or men, ever. Equally valuable and important and unique in their own ways, and "better" in some ways, "worse" in others, i.e. different, but never out-and-out "better" than anyone else by virtue of race, religion, gender, nationality, politics, etc., despite what they might hear from feminist teachers, professors and the feminist media or a divorced mother. In this case, since little girls are indeed innocent children, unlike feminist "adults" seeking to remain in a child-like state of irresponsibility and privilege in perpetuity, we need to treat them as such.
There's a sizeable chance they'll have to support themselves with marriage in terminal decline (although I'm cheered by the fact that divorce in the first 30 years of marriage in Canada had dropped from 50% in the late 80's to 37.7% of marriages in 2001 or 2002, with its peak right after no-fault divorce became law, of course), so I think we need to be honest with them in their pre-adolescence and adolescence about the fact that fairy tales are very nice, but not likely to happen, and that we owe them the opportunity to explore ALL career options, INCLUDING home-making, engineering, teaching, police work, politics, rocket science, factory work, mining, law and waiting tables! Perhaps that's new as well, and has been forced on us by the feminist war against marriage, but the world is what it is, and even if it seems like "giving in" to feminism, we're responsible for properly preparing our children for the world that adults have left for them, whether it's ideologically convenient or not. Unlike many feminists, I consider the ideologically-driven warping of children into a twisted mold to be a high crime on par with treason.
Other than that, love 'em to pieces, and make sure they understand that you're a part of their life, even if they're living with "mommy". Never, ever insult or knock your spouse or women in general around little girls! They'll feel inadequate and remember it for life - I believe that since no-fault divorce became the norm, this has become one of a contributor to popular misandry (feminists start it, but this helps give it momentum): women, who as little girls felt inadequate or guilty because of their mother's or women's "shortcomings", real or not, as commented upon (perhaps rightly so, but at the wrong time and place), by angry dads (custodial or not), leave them prone to be angry with men for years as adults, out of a sense of guilt and shame. Men have a right to be very angry, but we need to remember that we have no right to expose children to that kind of adult negativity. If you are divorced, I understand just how awful you must feel, but don't act out in front of the kids, hard as it may be, if there's any way you can manage it. I know that's not always possible, but whenever the opportunity presents itself, do your best to take the high road, and do everything you can to terminate arguments with spouses, even if they're dead wrong or violent (leave as fast as you can, with the children if necessary, and get help wherever it's available!), and don't let your kids be exposed to it, if at all possible (it sometimes isn't).
If you're angry about the latest feminist outrage, or the latest grotesque ruling from a family or DV court, don't get into it around your kids. It's just one more sacrifice men of this day and age have to make for their children. We're extremely good at that, despite the misandric propaganda.
As for being part of their life: don't say it to them, do it: children don't understand words as well as they remember actions, and they will ALWAYS remember you, and develop an image of men as positive, rational beings, if you can manage these things. I do realize that these actions are not always possible, but I'm of the opinion that we're capable of doing so, and should always try to accomplish these things.
The practical upside to this is that if you are unfortunate enough to be married to or living with a high-conflict, misandric woman, your children will develop a very dim view of their behavior if you are the cool, collected voice of reason and an unwavering, loving father. Never forget that children bond first with the mother, regardless of the feminist nonsense about determinism happening only socially! Biology is what it is, and we need to respect this. If the mother's relationship with the father is damaged in some way, it's typically the first male child that the mother transfers her "needs" to (emotionally), so if you're in a bad relationship, for GOD'S SAKE, DON'T HAVE KIDS (if you have any choice in the matter, and the women doesn't engage in paternity fraud or sperm theft, of course)!
I know this sounds alot like chivalry, but that's only a factor when fully-grown women are involved. I call it "parenting" when we're talking about our daughters, and I, for one, believe it is a sacred duty. If women want to screw up generations of children so they can have a few more goodies in the workplace, and claim permanent victim status, that's their problem. I for one, refuse to damage children for selfish reasons, and ask humbly that my fellow men do the same. We owe it to our daughters to treat them like gold, just as we treat our sons, and never transfer the quite legitimate anger we feel towards feminists to them, in my (admittedly no-so-humble) opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:59 PM April 29th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you're right... and you're wrong.
You are an academic in a social sciences field, right?
Tenured?
I very much like what you say about a parent's responsibility --- especially in divorce -- to do no harm to children.
This is very difficult when the divorce is as abusive as the marriage.
But then ( here's my beef with your idealism), it's important to educate children of adolescent or adult age about the actual causes of the divorce.
What if the mother is a Borderline Personality Disordered Alcoholic Narcissist whack-job?
It might become difficult to "stay neutral" when the mom abandons her children and they are trying to understand why.
What if, hypothetically speaking ....
the woman is a vampire?
A truly evil person, a sociopath?
Your advice to be kind to the children seems pretty silly, right?
This may sound like an extreme hypothetical case, but I'm confident that our adversarial Family Courts enforce this ideology as a matter of profit, most of the time.
People go into Divorce Court expecting "amiable" processes and are eaten alive with routine disregard by the authorities who benefit.
It's really just a "food chain," yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:42 AM April 30th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
But then ( here's my beef with your idealism), it's important to educate children of adolescent or adult age about the actual causes of the divorce.
What if the mother is a Borderline Personality Disordered Alcoholic Narcissist whack-job?
Your advice to be kind to the children seems pretty silly, right?
In those cases, I'd suggest doing what has to be done: informing the children about what happened in as honest and unbiased a way as humanly possible. I stand by the notion that we as fathers have a duty to protect our children, but we also have a duty to be honest with them and prepare them for the world. Not every home is a happy one, but you seemed to be asking about a "normal" situation, not one where there's mental illness, substance abuse/crime, contested divorce or similar pathologies. I'm not a doctor, social worker, psychologist or other "licensed professional", and this isn't medical or psychological advice, it's a blog comment.
Of course you have to fill your daughter in when the mother is ill, or there's a divorce, just don't bring your own anger into it, if possible. Family courts? Get angry if you like - that's an adult forum.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
