Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Love in the Time of Darwinism
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2008-11-20 01:49
Article here. Excerpt:
'It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that the piece inspired as proof positive of the child-man’s existence. But the truth is that my correspondents’ objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.
...
As the disenchanted SYM sees it, then, resistance to settling down is a rational response to a dating environment designed and ruled by women with only their own interests in mind. “Men see all of this, and wonder if it’s really worth risking all in the name of ‘romance’ and ‘growing up,’ ” a correspondent who calls himself Wytchfinde explains. “After all, if women can be hedonistic and change the rules in midstream when it suits them, why shouldn’t men? Why should men be responsible when women refuse to look into the mirror at their own lack of accountability?”
...
In fact, some people would wager that the Darwinian answer to dating chaos is our future normal. “I have lived in many places, countries, and cultures,” Douglas Gurney from Montgomery, Alabama, writes. “This is a worldwide phenomenon. The behavior of men is simply a response (which is actually a quite logical one) to the changing behavior of women. Simply put, men are a breeding experiment run by women. You reap what you sow—and when a man can sow all he wants and leave the reaping to others, well, why not?”'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
manonthestreet I don't know
manonthestreet
I don't know how true any of this is, but if it is true at all is a good sign. It is part of what I would call the passive resistance. It doubt any of the men involved would consider themselves MM people but by repudiating women en mass they are doing more for the cause that all the Internet posts put together.
It has to go further. I don't want our conditions of surrender to be anything but unconditional. Even on this website there are those who kind of just want an equitable truce. In my mind no such thing exists . Either we are victorious or utterly defeated and at the moment, and may be for a long time to come, it looks like utter defeat.
If you seek compromise with women then you lose and loose catastrophically. Also men get so easily diverted loosing sight of their real enemy. So they get sidetracked in to pointless feminist wars just like all those going on at the moment. Remember patriotism is feminism.
Patriotism is feminism?
Patriotism is feminism? Are you against patriotism, or is that sarcasm?
manonthestreet No if you are
manonthestreet
No if you are a patriotic American or Englishman then you are supporting feminism. This is because there is only one America and only one Britain and they are both feminist. Having some idea in your head of an abstract nation that does not exist is just self delusion. Also to believe in a nation as though it was a law of nature that should exist in this forever defined state is really just to make one's own preferences into dogma.
Nations are no more that the consensus that happens to dominate at any one time. There is no pre-ordained state which defines them. At the moment the state of mind which defines America and England is feminist. I don't like it but that is what these nations are so yes patriotism is now feminism. I will make even angrier by saying the worst feminist are soldiers for they kill for the feminist state.
Ugh
Ms. Hymowitz has followed up her earlier article where she considered all young SYM as child-men, and after a litany of letters pointing out that she is nothing more than a sexist bigot, she serves up this redux article to rectify her position. Now all men are child- men who only want sex. We are a breeding experiment apparently. Another fine example of an educated journalist writing about the male experience which she demonstrates with aplomb she has no talent or ability to pull off successfully.