Man Down: The Attack on American Masculinity

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2014-11-06 01:15

Article here. Excerpt:

“Men are so last century,” quipped New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd at the November 2013 Munk Debate. “They seem to have stopped evolving, sulking like Achilles in his tent. The mahogany-paneled, McClelland’s scotch and rum and ‘Mad Men’ world is disappearing … as they struggle to figure out the altered parameters of manliness and resist becoming house-dudes.” She ended her statement with a quote from comedian Sarah Silverman: “Dear men, just because we don’t need you anymore doesn’t mean we don’t want you. Love forever, women.”

If leftists, who prefer to use males as punching bags, had their way, men would take this as their cue to hang up their manhood, bow their heads and make way for a new social order that has no place for traditional masculinity. First lady Michele Obama got into the act when she explained that “women are smarter than men” at an August women’s forum. Her statement was met with laughter from the crowd. She then added that the men in the audience “can’t complain because you’re outnumbered today.”
...
Who needs a “War on Women” when there is already a war on men?'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

It’s significant that, four decades ago, women started the anti-domestic violence movement –even more significant that they then stopped it.

They had achieved funding, a scapegoat, and a simple answer. What else did they need? Certainly not progress. And not, heaven forbid, science.

The find-a-scapegoat approach is the easy answer.... This is not natural stupidity, it is cultivated stupidity.

Cultivated stupidity produces moral idiots. Such as the feminists who are stuck in the 20th century. They are conservatives holding firmly onto what they believe is the moral high ground.

I hope they can swim.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by chuck on Thu, 2014-11-06 19:30

It will be interesting to see what men do as their traditional role of protector of and provider for women ends. Right now, men are still legally obligated to finance women's choices. But what if men were successful at ending these legal obligations and women were left to finance their own choices?

Want a divorce? Great! Go get a job!

Want a kid? Great! Go get a job!

Women, of course, claim they don't "need" men. They don't--but they do seem to need men's money.

The "world without men" some women seem to desire could be a world in which men find a way to end their financial obligations to women. That would leave women to their own devices.

About the only people exploring this option are the MGTOWs.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2014-11-06 21:49

‘In a column titled “Men, Who Needs Them?,” New York Times’ op-ed contributor Greg Hampikian wrote, “If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction.” ‘

But seriously: If women disappeared there’d be a mad scramble to replace their functions. We’d start space-race scale programs to produce fembots (robotic sex partners) and uterine replicators (reproduction without women). Fortunes would be made in those businesses.

So it’s not all bad.

Moreover, the domestic violence industry and the divorce industry both would have vanished in a single stroke.

Personally I’d support a biomedical effort to recover women from extinction.

But I’d want the new model to be immune to estrogen poisoning.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by chuck on Thu, 2014-11-06 21:55

The kind of woman going around today saying men as a class are unnecessary have been around for a very long time. Since antiquity, certain women have been recorded as having said that men were, aside from being necessary for reproduction, were no longer necessary as a class of person with traits necessary to species survival. There have also been men who have made similar observations about women. And in both cases, they've been right -- but only in the sense that ultimately, the only thing you need from others is that they don't try to do something bad to you. But humans aren't quite like that.

If the human race had no sexed reproduction concerns, it could just go on being made of individuals of just one sex (at which time, we wouldn't have sexes to speak of). But that's not how humanity works. As a sexed species requiring fairly radical genetic mixing to create a viable new individual, the species can't become un-sexed any time soon and hope to survive. Crossing gametes of the same type (2 eggs or 2 sperm cells) to produce a new person is not likely to work any time soon. Experiments on even relatively simple animals shows a fetus can be produced but it has a lot of developmental defects. I wouldn't look for it any time soon.

Civilizations that pursue a settled agro-herding approach to survival tend to do much better than hunter-gatherers. Once hunting-gathering is no longer the M.O., people quickly conclude work requiring male-specific or -primary participation is not really needed, or need not be done by men. Farming, though it is easier when done with even a few modern tools, can and often is pursued by women.

In the history of the world, there have been times and places that are or have been occupied exclusively by people of one sex, or almost only of people of one sex. It is telling these places have not lasted as such for long, and not because job roles generally specific to one sex over the other were not being fulfilled. Necessity is the mother of invention. Some number of women in a given population will, lacking men present, learn skills and fulfill work functions typically fulfilled by men. Men do likewise; armies have for millenia been training men to cook for entire units, for example. They've been teaching men to do all the things women have been doing for them since no women were in the army at those times. Just in those cases, men taught these skills didn't go running around carrying on about how they don't need women now because they were taught how to cook and fold their T-shirts, etc.

But as always I point out, as do others, that men have contributed so much to humanity's progress that it is easy to just not notice. As for maintenance on the critical things that exist as a result of men's efforts and creativity? Men are nearly the exclusive maintainers and improvers thereof.

How long, really, would modern human societies last if by some feminist deity-inspired miracle, every male in a society disappeared overnight. Assuming even no panicking, rushing to find missing male relatives, etc., could women possibly, as a class, replace men? Pretending every single woman in the world were also gay,and assuming none of them has a single emotional attachment to a male, would modernity survive long? Think of these occupations; could we do w/out skilled people in them and hope we still'd be "first world"?:

1. Firefighter
2. Police officer
3. Plumber
4. Electrician
5. Power line technician
6. Power engineer
7. Automation/electrical engineer
8. Mechanical engineer
9. Computer programmer
10. Computer architect
11. Sewage and waste treatment engineer/technician
12. Materials engineer
13. Physicist, applied and theoretical
14. Chemical engineer
15. Nuclear technician/engineer
16. Garbage collector/landfill operator
17. Network engineer (computer)
18. Construction worker, civil (all kinds)
19. Builder (home, commercial, etc.), all kinds
20. EMT
21. ER physician
22. Surgeon, all kinds
23. MD, specialist class

The list goes on. And as a percentage of these occupations, how many are principally women? None.

How long would a society made of women starting out as what we call modern last as a modern society? A lot less long than one made up exclusively of men. But the whole exercise either way is ludicrous, along with any suggestion that one sex is obsolete relative to another. People who make a suggestion like that are good for just one of two things: ignoring or laughing at. That's what you do with stupid people.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2014-11-07 05:37