|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still somewhat amazed by how many pathetic, little men there are in the world. Maybe we ought to classify them as a separate gender ;>)
Fortunately, there's a large and rapidly growing number of strong men and women to counter the tripe of femboys like McElvaine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still somewhat amazed by how many pathetic, little men there are in the world. Maybe we ought to classify them as a separate gender ;>)
Yeah, I'm beginning to even wonder if they have balls. LOL
This is kinda like the Goddess myth, isn't it? A bunch of PC hokum designed to make "womyn" happy. I'm stronger than that. My brain just OOZES scientific method. (Makes me a masculine "vertical" thinker, according to gender feminists! Anybody think gender feminism is like a religion???)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note to all: I e-mailed the author about this book. He maintains that if I read it, I'll find that it is not about bashing men at all. I said I'd check it out at the library. I also told him about our site here, so I'm hopefull that he'll check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the animated GIF on the Website, "Damn that woman... Someday I'll put her in her place"
I haven't read the book but the site is definitely devoted to male-bashing. It buys into the feminist revisionist herstory that men have plotted the oppression of women from the start. Fortunately, he may not make much money on his pabulum because there are so many authors out there spewing this type of nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never understood people who emphatically state that God is either male or female. IMO gender is a completely human construct. *We* assign our deities genders because we cannot fathom the concept of a genderless being. Such a thing is beyond anything we experience in the mortal world. Religious texts are written by humans, not gods. The humans who wrote the Christian Bible called God a man because they couldn't fathom a genderless being. The humans who worship goddesses call their goddesses women because they can't fathom a genderless being either.
IMO spirits and deities have no gender. They are neither male nor female, and at the same time they are both.
Perhaps men like to see their deities as male, and females like seeing them as female, because we are trying to relate to our deities, and the best way to do that is to imagine them being "like us." Hence, images of Jesus as a blue-eyed caucasian abound in the Western world despite the fact that it is highly unlikely Jesus was a blue-eyed caucasian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that there can be anything in this world quite so pathetic as the feminist male.
As we see here, he will do anything - no matter how repulsive - to compete against other men and to try to look good to women.
In this case, I think there is also an obvious profit motive.
It is well known to any aspiring "writer" that all they have to do to make money is write a book that bashes men and has an air of authority about it (no matter how phony or contrived this "authority" may be).
This is what has been done here!
This particular feminist concept has been around for at least twenty years. It is certainly not new (as this feminist male implies). The writer is merely regurgitating and re-iterating feminist propaganda from the seventies and eighties - no doubt hoping to cash-in on the feminist created Culture of Man Hatred.
The truth about the subject is that there was no gender-division in the long-gone days that this feminist male is trying to fictionalize.
Men and women worked together and equally to get food - any way we could. We applied our abilities where they were needed.
The concept of one gender trying to keep the other gender down when our very survival depended on co-operation is truly ridiculous.
This situation is, of course, a modern feminist political concept that has been projected back into a time where it could not possibly have existed.
Women could not have invented agriculture simply because human society did not operate on a gender-divisive nature back then.
Agriculture came into being when the higher-cortex reached a certain stage of development - in both men and women.
However, hunter-gatherers certainly must have used agriculture to a lesser extent long, long before that. They must certainly have observed that if they took a certain type of seed to a certain area and pushed it into the soil, then there would be a root or tuber to eat the following year. They were not stupid.
Projecting feminist politics onto our ancestors is simply insulting to our ancestors.
Only an intellectual barbarian would attempt to do so!
It seems one of them has -and his name is McElvaine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a reproductive strategy, although I'm not convinced that it produces anything beyond blue balls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is from the prologue:
although the degree of male dominance varies, the subordination of women to men is something approaching a cross-cultural universal.
Don't waste your time reading the book Nightmist, McElvaine is a feminist liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't waste your time reading the book Nightmist, McElvaine is a feminist liar.
Indeed. Still, I figured I'd humor him. He, apparently, honestly believes he is an evil oppressor because he is male, and believes I'll be convinced I am upon reading his text. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not everyone has the time, interest, energy, enthusiasm or inclination to be an oppressor. I feel somewhat put upon by the expectation to have to perform in that role, and the presumption that everyone else should have the same sexual fantasy (that all men are oppressors) as this guy is pretty tedious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He, apparently, honestly believes he is an evil oppressor because he is male
Well, if he believes it about himself, who am I to say that he isn't an evil oppressor? He's just mistaken about whom he is oppressing for his own short-term, short-sighted, petty advancement. I will modify my last statement, though. He may "honestly" believe his nonsense, so I guess in a way he's not a liar. Pretty pathetic, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for no other reason, some of us (and NM has aleady volunteered)ought to read the book just to find out how misandrist it really is, and if there is any credible science behind his claim. SOMEONE had to invent agriculture. It COULD have been a woman (or women). But claiming that men are oppressing women because we are "jealous" is pure poppycock. Besides, Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, M.D. assert in their "Protein Power Plan" research that the beginning of the agricultural age was also the beginning of over-consumption of carbohydrates, which they assert leads to type 2 diabetes, hypertension and stroke, and coronary heart disease. Atkins and others concur with this. So maybe, if women DID invent agriculture, they deserve the blame instead of the credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I've read through the comments posted on my book, beginning with something called a "book review department," which was written by someone who has by his own statement not read the book. The subsequent comments seem also to be from people who have not read the book.
Point number 1 is that the book never says that men are jealous of women for inventing agriculture. In fact, Frank H takes me to task and then says maybe women deserve the blame instead of the credit. That is exactly what I say happened: The invention of agriculture, which anthropologists now generally agree was very likely done by women (they were the ones responsible for plant food in hunter-gatherer societies; women do the farming in most early horticultural societies that have been studied in modern times; many ancient myths attribute the teaching of farming to men to a goddess, not a male god)led to a de-valuing of men's traditional roles as hunters (and to a lesser degree as protectors against predator animals, which became fewer in settled agricultural communities). Eventually men came to resent this loss of value for the roles our makeup was designed for and to resent the much harder work that farming entails, and especially to resent that they were now obliged to do what had always been classified as women's work -- obtaining plant food. They heard through long oral traditions of an earlier time in which people had obtained their food without growing it, and it sounded like paradise -- a paradise that women were blamed for losing. Many ancient myths and stories -- including, I believe, the story of Adam and Eve -- portray this resentment.
After men took over agriculture and invented the plow, an irresitable metaphor arose: planting a seed in the furrowed soil seemed exactly analagous to a man planting semen in the furrowed vulva of a woman. This led to men seeing themselves as the planters of seeds, the true creators, and reduced women to soil. This, in turn, led inevitably to the conclusion that the ultimate creative power, God, must also be male. Read Aristotle, Aquinas, and Freud to see where this leads.
There is much more to it -- but, then, someone would have to read the book to know that.
"Johnny Man" goes on and on about how I am, among other things, an intellectual barbarian. Yet he has no idea what I actually say. In fact, he says that men and women were equal in early cultures, both being needed to provide food. That's exactly what I say, but he doesn't know it because he goes off in anger on the basis of a "book review" by someone who hasn't read the book.
I am called a "femboy" and having no balls by men who haven't even read what I say. Such comments are manifestations of the problem. Men secure in their masculinity don't feel the need to go around suggesting that other men are lacking in masculinity. Read Chapter 13 of Eve's Seed for numerous modern examples of this phenomenon.
Many of you will not like what I really do say -- or at least some of it. I try to find a middle ground on many issues. Certain types of feminists don't like parts of what I say, either.
Another "gentleman" has written to me directly to say I'm a jackass and "Men and Women have to get along and they never will as long as there are
morons like you running around." If he read what I say in Eve's Seed, he might realize that men and women getting along is exactly what I am trying to help bring about.
I am not a feminist; I am an equalist.
All I ask is that you find out what I really say before you go around calling names and venting.
Bob McElvaine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Bob, I agree. We really should read the book before we judge it. I will say, though that the "cover notes" that some have already explored do lead one to believe that you are anti-male. Perhaps this is just marketing, perhaps not. It catches my attention, alright, but it angers me enough to not want to buy the book.
Regarding my post that women should be "blamed" for inventing agriculture: it was not my point to say that it made men jealous. My point was that there is some credible research that agriculture and the foodstuffs that derive from it may well be to blame for the epidemics of heart problems and diabetes, and that eating a hunter-gatherers diet is proving to be very beneficial, especially for those prone to the mentioned maladies.
I suspect that the basic notion of agriculture in its primitive form does originate with women who were at camp while men hunted. I'd want to see some scientific evidence (which I guess is in your book), but I could be sold on this. However, I hope that no one uses this as evidence of the "primacy" of women. Agriculture is only one of a series of elemental inventions that mankind, both men and women, have developed and mutually benefitted from.
And, OBTW, thanks for stopping by. You are welcome to come by and read and contribute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I ask is that you find out what I really say before you go around calling names and venting.
As I mentioned to you in my e-mail, Bob (and on this thread), I intend to check your book out from the library and read it. Note: I'm not the one who called him a "jackass." I'm willing to humor you here and I'll read it with an open mind. I will also post my own review of your work here when I am done. I am happy that you chose to visit our Web site and post your own comments.
However, I should point out that your marketing of this book isn't going to be very successful with men simply because it portrays men as resentful, vindictive buffoons (see the cartoon on his Web site if you haven't, folks). And if it's one thing many of us are tired of seeing every day, it's that very portrayal. If modern men are resentful of women, it is largely because of the constant bashing we take at the hands of those who, like yourself, market to them.
I can tell you, honestly, I have never oppressed a woman. Nor do I believe women have *ever* been as oppressed as gender feminists would have us believe. I have also never been interested in either agriculture OR hunting (although I do enjoy archery and target practice). How do you account in your book for modern times, by the way? When farmers and hunters are minorities, but gender feminists still seem to believe that women are oppressed, and masculists like myself insist that men are getting a bad rap?
In any case, I plan to check out your book and I will let you know when I post my review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all McElvaine, I am sure you are out and about in order to sell your book.
Creating controversy and generating negative comments from men whom the feminists call "misogynists" is obviously a good way to sell your book to those same feminists. I am sure it will make you points.
I have read the pages that you have displayed on your web-site and that is more than enough to see at least one anti-masculine feminist based trick.
You tell the reader that men's perception of women is, or was, that women are no more than "dirt" to grow men's seed in.
At first you imply this "dirt" to be the medium for seed growth, but then you go "all the way" and imply the word "dirt" means: trash, garbage etc. ("Women were, to put it bluntly, now equated with dirt")
You added italics, presumably, to the word dirt to make sure the reader got the message.
This is nothing more than a cheap feminist trick that has been used for decades by them.
It is designed to "enrage" women (feminist terminology) so that they rise up and fight the "Patriarchy" i.e. attack all men - in any way available to them.
In short, use of this trick is incitement to attack men and boys (using current feminist methods of doing so)
Did you use this trick unwittingly?
Did you not know that this demonizing of men would weigh in your favor with your feminist target readership?
Or maybe it was just a general marketing ploy? (bash men - sell book)
It is this kind of trashing of men and boys that has got to stop.
Also, I must point out that no one can "invent" agriculture. It almost certainly came into being slowly over thousands of years - initially used by hunter-gatherers (both the men and the women) transferring seeds from one place to another because they had observed that the seeds would grow better in certain soils and conditions. This collective knowledge will have increased slowly until, after many hundreds of generations, it could be classified (from a modern perspective) as "agriculture".
If anyone here has been jumping to conclusions regarding your book, it is because of the pages that you have chosen to put on your web site in order to sell it.
Are you deliberately trying to create controversy as a marketing ploy?
Well - NOT at the expense of men and boys!
At the very least, you owe men and boys an apology (especially your male students) for using the feminist trick I have described.
Also, maybe you could donate some of the proceeds of the book to a men's support group?
PS The only anthropologists who believe that women "invented" agriculture are feminist (or feminist-indoctrinated) ones!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @03:33PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it so important to know which gender invented agriculture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trick is very probably both a marketing ploy and a reproductive strategy (an attempt to get feminists to mate), although both allegations will be vehemently denied and rationalized away--very likely by blaming the victim (me, among others) for pointing it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it so important to know which gender invented agriculture?
Precisely. This book appears to be nothing more than a further attempt to devalue men's place in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an exceprt from an article from a feminist site (sponsored by NOW) which makes a case for men and women being equal until
an "agricultural way of life" arrived at which time the women lost status.
However, many scientists now believe that early humans lived in groups in which men and women were fairly equal, both were active in providing food for the tribe. Females only lost status much later, as nomads settled into an agricultural way of life and the concepts of property and paternity arose.
Then my favorite part of the article...I simply can't resist the temptation of putting this up even though it is off-topic....
Recent meta-analyses show very small differences in aggression between the genders. Men may be more physical, while women often use taunts and barbs, but the level of aggression is similar.
Women even tell themselves they are gentler than they really are. In one study, women playing a computer game dropped fewer bombs on their opponents than men when they knew people were watching. But when they thought they weren't being observed, they dropped more bombs than the males did. Even so, they described themselves as being much less aggressive than they actually were.
Dropped fewer bombs when they knew people were watching!!! Then more than men when no one was looking!!! LMAO!!!
Victims indeed!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dropped fewer bombs when they knew people were watching!!! Then more than men when no one was looking!!! LMAO!!!
Heh. :) I'm surprised that article appeared on Women's eNews. They generally take the perspective that men are perps, women are victims, and fathers aren't necessary for the rearing of children.
I am not, however, surprised that women are just as aggressive as men. I've known that my entire life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @09:31PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
The theme of the book seems to be "men being resentful of women who diminish their roles" It is a bit of myth making hiding as anthropology. It is the power of the story that is what is important to the author, not the facts. All feminist myth making (psychological propaganda)will always be presented under the rubrik of "equality"--everybody's gonna be an equalitarian soon. Look to see this particular myth of the resentful, frustrated man to pop up in movies soon. It's they way they want us to see the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps an expose in the style of Serge Lang's Challenges is in order. I recommend Lang's book to those of us who are interested in exposing ideologically tilted myth making passing for science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @10:17PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
It a game called myth-counter myth.
I first encountered the womb-envy myth in the early eighties. Freud described something called "penis envy"--Feminists did everything they could to destroy it, then created "womb-envy". The Adam and Eve story was designed or expressed a wish by men to dominate women because of their resentment to women for devaluing their role. This guy tries to create a myth that counters this and reverses it (eve's not to blame, men are). This is a game of spreading stories hoping they will become accepted on a unconscious level--in the way religion is. Note, the stories analogy to contemporary time: men being resentful of women undermining their roles (by, say moving into the work place). This isn't about the past, it is about now. When I was in school it was "history" was constructed from "his-story". It was a lie, look it up in any entymological dictionary--the word "history" is much older than the word "his".
This myth being debunked they move onto another. Around the time of the OJ trial when domestic violence (against women) was on the front burner low and behold we get "the rule of thumb" myth. Now that this has been debunked, eveseed is the latest candidate for myth of the year. Appropo to this, by the way, it is no great surprise that the mythopoetic men's movement was so quickly sent to coventry--they were creating male positive myths. Most people live by the myths and stories they have running throught their heads, not facts. This guy is a liar. His only motivation is to get his story out for as long as it will last. He will argue and deflect, all he cares about is that the story gets legs enough to get into the public zeitgeist (through film, novels, etc.) Then it won't matter if it is debunked by facts--most people don't care about those. Call me a cynic, I've been watching it for years (and its not just feminists--this game is an old story in itself). But what to do about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the only thing that can be done is to debunk the myths as soon as they are discovered. If this guy is selling his book on Amazon, then perhaps a reader review would suffice. I note that Lionel Tiger's book was jumped all over when it hit the shelves, as was "The War Against Boys" by Hoff-Sommers. I know that, when I'm looking to buy a book, I do check those reviews. I suspect others do, too, and those opinions are probably considered even more heavily than published critical reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @11:15PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
The book is small potatos. It introduces the idea and a dozen or so feminist film-makers, journalists diseminate the story. When it is factually debuked, it is done so in an obscure journal and the story continues into the cultural mind. Children will take it to heart. People who have been hurt in their lives with project their misfortunes onto it (and will be re-traumatized as well). This is how this process evolves. BTW, one stint on Oprah will wipe out any effect that reviews to Amazon might make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't about the past, it is about now. When I was in school it was "history" was constructed from "his-story". It was a lie, look it up in any entymological dictionary--the word "history" is much older than the word "his".
The etomology freak in me takes note. You are correct. Here's the entry for "history" from the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto:
history Etymologically, history denotes simply 'knowledge'; its much more specific modern meaning is decidedly a secondary development. Its story begins with Greek histor 'learned man,' a descendant of Indo-European *wid- 'know, see,' which also produced English wit and Laten videre 'see.' From histor was derived historia 'knowledge obtained by enquiry,' hence 'written account of one's enquiries, narrative, history.' English acquired it via Latin historia, and at first used it for 'fictional narrative' as well as 'account of actual events in the past' (a sense now restricted to story, essentially the same word by acquired via Anglo-Norman).
And here, my friends, is the etymology of his, from the same book:
his His originated as the standard genitive form of the masculine personal pronoun he, with the genitive ending s--what in modern English would be expressed as of him. But comparatively early in the Old English period it began to replace the ancestral third person possessive adjective sin (a relative of modern German sein 'his'), and by the year 1000 it was also being used as a possessive pronoun, as in 'It's his.'
And there, my friends, is another feminist myth dashed against the rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> The invention of agriculture, which
> anthropologists now generally agree was very
> likely done by women
References or argument, please!
I agree the first person to deliberately sow or disseminate plant seed with a view to making use of the resultant plants must have been either male or female, but I see no means credible means to determine this individual's gender.
Have the unnamed "anthropologists" you refer to developed a time-machine?
Your contention has about as much chance of being proved as the claim that the inventor of the wheel was left handed.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I agree that getting big media coverage would be much better, but I don't see that happening in the near future. Meanwhile, anyone can put a reader review on Amazon, so why not do it? At least SOMEbody will read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See an excellent article about this guy by Craig White, "'Womb Envy' and the 'Devalued Man': How Women Invented Agriculture and Men Have Punished Them For It Ever Since" (on LewRockwell.com, linked on iFeminists).
I wonder, what do guys like this get out of their efforts on behalf of "feminist scholarship"? More nooky? Can they even get it up?
I think it's generally agreed among historical anthropologists and others that the invention of agriculture began the explosive growth of human population, leading to environmental degradation (the "Fertile Crescent" once really was; it's now a desert), and vast empires on the termite-colony plan (e.g. Egypt, both ancient and modern) wherein the great majority of the population lived (and still live) in the most wretched conditions of oppression, poverty and starvation -- compared with the freedom, autonomy, economic equality and greater leisure of the "bad old days" of hunter-gatherer times. It's been pretty conclusively shown that the latter lifestyle requires significantly less daily work than modern "civilized" life.
If "womyn" really want to be seen as behind these developments, maybe I won't argue.
In any case, it's just as ridiculous as the rest of feminism. Human beings invented agriculture, some of them female, some of them male, back in the days when cooperative life and effort was the norm. Among the Pueblo peoples around where I live, farming is men's work, and they bring the fruits back to the home, which is women's territory where they must ask permission to enter. It's not about "equality," but a balance of power where each "gender" has its own territory and thus something to exchange. It's worked for thousands of years, until "womyn" decided they "want it all."
The feminist campaign to "prove" that females invented everything of significance reminds me of similar efforts in the 1920s and 30s to show how the resourceful Soviet peasant was the true creator of the whole of civilization from atoms to zippers (not to mention baseball).
Recommended: Cannibals and Kings and other works by the late "socioanthropologist" Marvin Harris, for both useful background and innovative analysis/thoughts on these subjects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please note: This is the same writer whose article "Let Eve Take Her Place at the Table" was noted and commented upon in a December 24th Mensactivism thread, "Is Religion's History Misogynistic?" As the article was "adapted from" the book, I suppose we may assume it represents his thesis in brief. See the thread for my (ex tempore) comments thereon.
Good point, Andrew. I had forgotten that this is the same author. I'm going to send him the link to that thread, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I should have noted also that the article by Craig White, "'Womb Envy' and the 'Devalued Man': How Women Invented Agriculture and Men Have Punished Them For It Ever Since" linked in my first comment, is a commentary on another article by this writer, "The Birth of the Myth That Men Are Closer to God," also apparently a statement in brief of his thesis. Not surprisingly, he seems to be getting plenty of exposure in the liberal press.
And that I agree with White that "Camille Paglia has some very interesting things to say on why men fear women, and on the relations between the sexes. If you want deep, chthonic stuff about where male fear comes from, try Paglia. It’s better written, too." I still remember when I first came across Paglia, in an interview in Wired with Stewart Brand (for whom I formerly worked on the Whole Earth Catalog, and whose interests I always take note of), wherein that astonishingly courageous female debunked the then #1 feminist cause célèbre, "date rape." My first thought: "My god! An honest woman!" There are others (a salute, again, to our charming "LadyRivka"), but sadly few, and none as outspoken as Ms. Paglia: "If the development of civilization had been left up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts." (On the other hand, I suspect that if women hadn't nagged them into it, men wouldn't have developed civilization either. "Mrs. Jones next door has a new refrigerator! Howcome I don't have one too?" Everything we've done, we've done together. Everything.)
As for men being "terrified of women," here I won't disagree with the writer at all. In addition to all the reasons Paglia (drawing on Freud, among others) outlines, after what my mother had done to me on the day I was born, I have very good reason to be terrified. As do the overwhelming majority of American (especially white) men, which is, I believe, a key reason for the overwhelming success of even the most outrageously ridiculous feminist campaigns: a very deep-seated, unconscious, overwhelming fear of what might happen if I say "no" to any woman, about anything. Maybe she'll do something like that to me again!
As for Paglia, try her essay collections first: Vamps & Tramps, et al.; then go on (if you wish) to Sexual Personae, which is dense and sometimes difficult, but very rewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew - Good points about the fears men have. I would take it one step further and call attention to the boys first separation from mother which happens about age four. This surely adds some fear of women. It's at this time that the boy is cut off from his normal access to his mothers body. She tells him he can't come in the bathroom with her, that he can't touch her breasts...he sees his sisters doing this and says "Hey! Suzy is touching you! Suzy goes with you into the bathroom!" and mommy says "But Suzy is a girl." (btw this is where having a dad available is so very important, without a dad at this point the young boy is on a very lonely island) Confounded the little fella doesn't know what to do. He feels cut off from the most important person in his life. The typical response for boys is to learn to alternate between being autonomous for a while and then being close and intimate. He will often develop a pattern of moving in and out of mother's orbit. Coming in to mom for brief periods of "intimacy." This pattern often continues throughout his life in intimate relationships and is often misinterpreted by the women in his life as "not caring" and not being there. When accused of this he is often dumbfounded. He knows that he cares and knows that she is missing the boat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Grief! Where to begin? I guess I'll just jump in. (Warning, this is pretty long for one of these posts.)
From McElvaine's post:
I am called a "femboy" and having no balls by men who haven't even read what I say. I invite readers to see my post (#7) in which I refer to and quote from the prologue to his book. Have I read the entire book? No. Have I read everything that he's written in his life? No. I once read parts of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for a literature class -- "The Demonic in Literature." (I'm using quotation marks to note the book title, because I don't know how to underline on these posts.) It was quickly obvious, just from the book without my knowledge of history, that Hitler was a vicious anti-Semite. It's clear from the prologue that McElvaine is a misandrist-feminist who is marketing to other misandrist-feminists. It's no more necessary to read McElvaine's entire book to find this out than it is necessary to read all of "Mein Kampf" to know that Hitler was an anti-Semite.
Note, by the way, that I've also read McElvaine's article, "Let Eve Take Her Place at the Table."
Another fine tidbit from his post: Eventually men came to resent this loss of value for the roles our makeup was designed for. Nice one McElvaine. And for what specific, restrictive socio-cultural roles are women designed?
men...reduced women to soil. Right, McElvaine. Men reduced women to dirt. Is someone here marketing to misandrist-feminists?
I am not a feminist; I am an equalist. All feminists claim this. Claiming it doesn't make it so.
Okay, a few tidbits from his article, "Let Eve Take Her Place at the Table"...
more feminine behaviors. And what might be the characteristics of these "feminine behaviors?" Might they be caring, nurturing and cooperative, rather than oppressive and totalitarian (i.e. masculine)? Well, let's see what McElvaine has to say, shall we? (Changes in religion proposed by McElvaine would) bring Christianity much closer to the largely feminine values preached by Jesus than it has been since it fell under the influence of such men as Tertullian, the early Christian theologian whose writings are indistinguishable from the attitudes of the Taliban. Ah, okay. Now I see. Feminine is that which is opposed to the Taliban. And masculine is... well, that's the Taliban! (An aside -- Do you remember when violations of human rights were considered serious offenses, even when males were the victims? It wasn't that long ago. Far more concern has been given to female victims of the Taliban than male victims.) I must admit, though, McElvaine has enlightened me here. feminine values preached by Jesus... And all this time I thought Jesus was a man. Perhaps his *good* values were feminine.
And now, to the prologue to McElvaine's book...
"Life is dramatically unfair to women."
If such a statement could still be made with accuracy as the second millennium was drawing to a close, certainly it has been applicable throughout the five millennia for which we have some written evidence of how people lived. Whoa! Making leaps like that would get you laughed out of the fields of physics, chemistry and math. Whatever you do, McElvaine, don't ever pretend you're a scientist.
the subordination of women to men is something approaching a cross-cultural universal. For a fine analysis of the different, oppressive roles of men and women, see Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power."
many men suffer, largely subconsciously, from what might be termed "womb envy" and "breast envy," or even the "non-menstrual syndrome." Non-menstrual syndrome?! Wheee, doggies! Mainstream feminists must love him for that one! I wonder if he coined it himself. If he did, he must be very proud indeed. Then again, maybe Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin or Mary Daly came up with it.
A "real man" has been seen in most cultures as "notawoman." Interesting, I've traveled extensively around the world and read a great deal of history and historical writings and I've never heard a man referred to as a "notawoman." McElvaine may have come across this, but "most cultures?" Puleeeease.
Another aside -- Unfortunately, until we egalitarians defeat misandrist-feminist hatred many more men and many more little boys will suffer terribly because of it. Nevertheless, since I'm now confident that the hatred and lies of mainstream feminism are starting to be overwhelmed by courageous speakers of the truth, I actually get a hearty laugh out of the sort of tripe written by the likes of McElvaine.
As noted above, McElvaine claims that he is not a feminist, yet note his citings of feminists: feminist anthropologist Sherry Ortner... A group of evolutionary feminists, such as Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Patricia Adair Gowaty, and Barbara Smuts has emerged in recent years. But the findings and ideas of these women have yet to register with either historians or most more traditional feminists... Feminist historians have done a good job of showing that... Again, claiming that he is not a feminist doesn't mean he isn't one. McElvaine refers to these feminists as though they are trustworthy experts and in doing so he makes a point of stating that they are feminists. Make of that what you will.
I could go on and on, but it's not necessary. McElvaine is a mainstream misandrist-feminist. His writings are pabulum designed to make him money by pandering to other misandrist-feminists at the expense of men and little boys. Read the prologue. You don't have to read everything he's written. I didn't have to read all of "Mein Kampf."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A touch of clarification... My last post contained "I am not a feminist; I am an equalist." All feminists claim this. Claiming it doesn't make it so. I should have written that almost all feminists claim to be equalitarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @09:15PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I've read enough of McElvaine already to recognize his form of anti-male hate. His suggesting that I should read his book is a pathetic and insulting marketing ploy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
And about the "feminine values" of Jesus- there was a joke running around my high school (started by a good gay male friend of mine who was booted out of his church youth group after coming out) that Jesus was gay. I mean, he said, what gay man wouldn't want 12 other men following him everywhere he went! LOL And, on a more serious note, it is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for either gender to turn the other cheek. It's kind of against human nature.
And to the author: I was the one that said you had no balls, and I'm (TADA!) female. So don't go blaming this on some non-existent Old Boy Network. Someone also said you were writing this to stay in the gene pool. I disagree, becuase there are women like me who want to date (and marry) men who aren't wimps and can show their opinions without kowtowing to anyone (like I do).
And as for the "women-are-soil" comment...I don't know how to take that. Yes, we [women] serve a similar function, but the seed/soil analogy is scientifically faulty because seeds bear the full genetic components of an organism, while sperm and egg only carry half. For the survival of the species, men can't live without women, and vice versa (although there are people who would like to live w/o the other gender...).
A rare chick on Mensactivism!!!- Rivka
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And as for the "women-are-soil" comment...I don't know how to take that. Yes, we [women] serve a similar function, but the seed/soil analogy is scientifically faulty because seeds bear the full genetic components of an organism, while sperm and egg only carry half. For the survival of the species, men can't live without women, and vice versa (although there are people who would like to live w/o the other gender...).
EXCELLENT point, LadyRivka. I love it when people use biological truth to refute junk theoretical social gender feminist myth. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may be wrong, but I suspect this pathetic individual is about ten years too late to get very far with his silliness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 30, @01:17PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for being here, LadyRivka. You're WAY COOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you muchly for your wonderful compliments, all of you. You are NOT a bunch of Neanderthals grunting and randomly shooting things in the woods, as anti-equalitarians would like you to believe; you are fine intellectuals who think before they speak. The irony is that in this topsy-turvy world of values and politics, the real braniacs are seen as idiots and the idiots as bona fide geniuses and leaders of academia. The human brain was constructed for thinking, not necessarily feeling. The limbic system [feeling, emotion] of the brain evolved in reptiles and early mammals, while the highly convoluted cerebral cortex [thinking] is only seen in higher primates (including us). So the whole goal of gender feminism may be to devolve men into mice. LOL
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The limbic system [feeling, emotion] of the brain evolved in reptiles and early mammals, while the highly convoluted cerebral cortex [thinking] is only seen in higher primates (including us). So the whole goal of gender feminism may be to devolve men into mice. LOL
Actually, there have been at least two gender feminist psuedo-scientists this year (2001) who have attempted to define the human male brain as "reptilian." So, perhaps, the goal of gender feminism is actually to devolve men to turtles, or gators, or crocs. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, there have been at least two gender feminist psuedo-scientists this year (2001) who have attempted to define the human male brain as "reptilian." So, perhaps, the goal of gender feminism is actually to devolve men to turtles, or gators, or crocs. ;)
Thereby making Steve Irwin's job a little easier. LOL (being a smart-ass)
In actuality, both genders have what is called the R (reptilian)-complex, which is situated near the bottom of the brain under the limbic system and near the criss-crossing of the optic nerves. It controls basic emotions needed for surivial, such as territoriality ,anger, fear, et cetera. The limbic system controls "higher" emotional states. Together, in humans, thse two structures are referred to as the "neural chassis" on which the rest of the cerebrum rests. (OK, you can tell I've gone and retrieved all of my Carl Sagan [The Dragons of Eden, Cosmos]...in addition to exploring the external cosmos, he explored genes and brains as well. But I highly doubt any gender feminist would listen to the late, great Sagan because he was a male scientist and therefore a "patriarchal conspirator".)
Happy New Year everyone!
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
