|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think women still don't get enough attention. I think there's still tremendous inequity in regards to health care, for instance," said Ms. Clark, who has a doctorate in medical sociology and a master's in social work.
Says it all, doesn't it? Remember "We want it all!"? The female appetite, unchecked by such "oppressive" male attributes as self-awareness and self-restraint, is limitless. Fundamentally, she'll never "get enough."
Good article, though I'm afraid I don't agree that the solution is to include men in the category of "victim" along with women. Hello? Where are the grownups?
Again, Warren Farrell is great for statistics and setting the record straight, but he has yet to complete the journey from feminist lapdog to self-actualized man. The son must separate from the Mother, and from her worldview, or he'll never be able to show her a way out of the self-referential narcissistic sinkhole that is the ultimate destination of the female mind unchallenged by any growth opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes said: "The son must separate from the Mother, and from her worldview, or he'll never be able to show her a way out of the self-referential narcissistic sinkhole that is the ultimate destination of the female mind unchallenged by any growth opportunity."
That says it in a nutshell. Amen to that. For the past 25 years we have been silent and there has been no challange. Let's get to work.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That says it in a nutshell. Amen to that. For the past 25 years we have been silent and there has been no challange. Let's get to work."
I think there is a number of reasons why men have been silent. But women were also encouraged to speak out by the theorapy industry. My personal feelings are that, since men also did not go to see shrinks as much as women, that shrinks realized that economically it was wiser to blame men for women's problems.
No one wants to go to a shrink that tells you you're the problem.
I see this with children's services and other agencies like that with loads of "councilors". They are dominated by women and do not see women at fault. They identify with other women and find it easier to blame men instead of themselves.
Meanwhile we have a culture of men who are reading and watching sports, trying to make money, working mundane jobs with as much overtime as they possibly can. Women read Glamour and other mags that insert agenda and anti-male bigotry. We have an entire world of men who have no idea whats going on behind their backs.
As a man, I just suck it up and take the beatings and move on. I don't go crying to some agency for help, thats why they hate me, they can't use me as a man.
Sorry but socialism is the biggest problem. In my opinion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do know that most factory workers are female don't you?
In case we run into this again floating around out there in lunatic statistics land.
Persons over 16 in the U.S in 2001 employed in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics's occupation classification, "Operators, fabricators, and laborers" -
Men: 13,569*
Women: 4,129
* Numbers in 1000's
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @02:38PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Good source Larry. This is very useful.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @10:15AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell believes that the solution for men is to become sissified and homosexualized.
He's endlessly stuck in the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, playing the Guilty White Man atoning for the sins of Jim Crow racism.
The men's movement is dead in the water as long as Farrell is its spokesman and public image. He represents only those men who are sissified and/or homosexual. Farrell, like all Guilty White Men, reflexly points the finger of blame at the redneck man from the South or Midwest.
Farrell isn't interested in ending the scapegoating of men. He's interested in focusing the scapegoating of men on men who won't buy into his program of sissification and homosexualization. He's bucking the blame down one step of the social ladder.
Incidently, this takes him off the hook. Notice on the Donahue show that he said that macho men are more prone to violence than enlightened hippie men like him.
Watch out for Farrell. His primary interest is in deflecting the blame from himself
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boy, Warren must really be scaring the femelitists these days, if they feel they have to resort to this kind of scare tactic fifth columnist nonsense to beat him down.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
PS: Just to make it clear -- you don't fool us, you lying fifth columnist mole wanna-be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch out for Farrell. His primary interest is in deflecting the blame from himself.
I've always thought this was true of feminist men in general. Feminism is like a kind of brainwashing. You subject someone to an endless torrent of abuse and accusations, turn their every word and action into a crime, and magnify everything a hundredfold by projecting these allegations back through history, so it's not only them who's to blame, it's everyone like them who's ever existed since the dawn of time. Just when you've got this poor sap really suffering, you offer them a way out. That 'way out' is to become one of the accusers. You may still be guilty of all charges, but you've plea-bargained your way into a position of marginal superiority over those yet to accept the charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell believes that the solution for men is to become sissified and homosexualized.
A bit overstated, "Anonymous" (I'm not sure if you're real, or actually intend to destroy your own "argument" with this sort of rhetoric--see Acksiom's reaction), but in principle I would agree. I was very excited some years back to discover Farrell and read The Myth of Male Power--until I got to the last section, where he proposes a "gender transition movement" as the solution for the tensions between the sexes. This is nothing but warmed-over feminism, and shows that he hasn't a clue about how and why the two sexes came to exist in the first place. If the solution is to make the sexes more alike, then it logically follows that the Final Solution is to eradicate males altogether.
Farrell's bottom line, even if he isn't consciously aware of it, remains the First Principle of Feminism: Female=Good; Male=Bad. I don't want to beat up on him, because he has done important work at least documenting some of the insanity in The Myth of Male Power. But he seems to have stopped there.
I haven't read much of his other stuff, e.g. Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say; it seems like useful, perhaps necessary work, but there's still something about it that makes me gag. It's still all about "improving" men to meet women's standards, or "explaining" men to women--"See, he's really not as stupid as he looks." I'm just not in a hurry to buy the idea that men's failure to constantly vent their "feelings" as women do is necessarily a character flaw that must be corrected.
Men are different from women; that's not a problem, that's the point. If men are not different from women, there's no reason to have men at all. I don't think it's necessary to have a war, for people to be hurting each other all the time; but the solution to this war (as to all the other wars) is not to try to make everyone the same, which can't be done anyway. Any such effort must end in far more suffering that it was intended to relieve. Feminism leads inevitably to Communism. (I thought the coinage "Femmunism" was even better than "Feminazi," but it doesn't seem to have caught on.)
"It is important to recognize the difference between Unity and uniformity--between God and hell." - E.F. Schumacher (author of Small Is Beautiful)
It seems to me that Farrell has begun the journey, but hasn't completed it; indeed he seems to have stopped half-way, having found a comfortable, lucrative niche where he can both partially satisfy his own inner impulse to become a man and keep on getting strokes from women by pleasing their inner sense of final superiority. His voice may have deepened some, but he remains a lapdog, catering no longer to women who actively hate men, but instead to those who genuinely, kindly, compassionately hope to "improve" us.
Feminism is like a kind of brainwashing. You subject someone to an endless torrent of abuse and accusations, turn their every word and action into a crime....
A perceptive analysis. May I refer you to my comments below (#6) regarding the effect of infant circumcision on the psyche of the subject. In traditional Islamic law, the punishment for theft is amputation of a hand--perhaps a little strong, but it has a certain logic: simply delete the offending body part. What crime, I wonder, did I commit that mandated amputation of the greater part of my ability to experience sexual pleasure? Well, it must be the crime of being able to experience sexual pleasure. The circumcision program was initiated as a solution to the problem of "uncontrollable male lust," about which Victorian grandmothers were rightly much concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:02AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Farrell was attracted to feminism because playing the sensitive, hippie feminist man in the 1960s got him laid.
I've met Farrell. He wants to be a hippie guru. That said, I like him. I just don't trust him.
35 years later, feminism doesn't get him laid. That's long gone. Nostalgia for adolescence long ago overwhelmed Farrell, and he can't let go.
Once again, Farrell's primary motive is to deflect blame from himself onto the favorite target of sixties hatred, the redneck man from the South or the Midwest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @02:40PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I know Farrell too. He's a good friend. He doesn't "want to be a hippie guru." He happens to be a man whose philosophy is one oriented toward a cross between Unitarianism and Bhuddism. So what? I respect him for being who he is and not bashing other people for their faiths or personal beliefs.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've spent a short time with Farrell and found him to be a true gentleman. Unassuming, quiet and able to listen with compassion and intensity. He is not your typical macho guy. So what? I hope we have a greater vision of masculinity than to want all men to fit into a small box. Farrell has done great things for us. Good man Warren.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone wanting to offer their opinion or give some feedback to ms clarke can find her at the following email address which I found in my latest copy of NASW News:
newscolumn@naswdc.org
Here's what she said:
"I think there's a lot [of studies] out there" about men, she said.
and
"I think women still don't get enough attention. I think there's still tremendous inequity in regards to health care, for instance," said Ms. Clark,
and here's my personal favorite:
"As for the argument that female social workers can't understand certain men's problems, "we have dispelled that, decade after decade after decade," she said."
Really? How about that!
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Har! I was once in a therapy group with five women and a male feminist shrink. Two of the women had degrees in counseling or social work or something like that, and they were the worst of the bunch. Their attitude toward men was absolutely disgusting. I used to amuse myself by reading Warren Farrell and Jack Kammer to them, but I finally got tired of butting heads with them and left. I wouldn't mind doing more therapy, but not in at atmosphere as hypocritical and one-sided as that was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the past 25 years we have been silent and there has been no challange.
Thanks for hearing (and thinking). But I'd say it's been longer than that. The history is deep, of course, but I'd place the real turning point in the early 1960s, when the first universally-infant-circumcised generation (mine) of American boys came of age. The infant male circumcision program began in the late 19th century, a product of the same Northeastern Victorian Miss Wormwood culture that gave birth to Feminism and Prohibition--another effort to fix "what's wrong with men" by force. (I call it Miz Watson's Final Solution to the problem of How to "Sivilize" Huck Finn.) It grew slowly through the first part of the 20th century, but became a real success only during the Second World War, when it was applied to all men inducted into the military, and concurrently became the rule rather than the exception in maternity wards across the country.
I believe--I know nobody will like to hear this, but we have to face the truth someday, and this is the only explanation I've come up with for the otherwise incomprehensible success of the feminist takeover--that a male subjected to such severe torture, targeted precisely at his body's root-chakra physical maleness, at a time when everything that happens to him must be experienced as part of his relationship with Mother--his entire universe till then, and for some time after--will forever after bear not only the physical scar but a much deeper psychological one: a pervasive subconscious terror of everything female. Our mothers amputated our man-hoods--it cannot be more literal than that--and in a way that could not have been better designed to leave us in a state of lifelong post-traumatic stress and fear. Why did She do it? We don't know; we cannot know, as we were not reasoning beings at the time. All we can do, like any severely abused animal (which is what a baby is--a bald chimpanzee), is desperately try to avoid displeasing Her, in the hope that we can dissuade Her from doing it again.
I see this subconscious habit pattern of fear in myself, and in most of the men I know. But not in the few men I know who somehow escaped the knife. Whatever their other personality failings and psychological problems, I see them dealing with women in a relaxed, secure way I can only envy. Do you think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or even your grandfather (or great-grandfather, however far back you have to go) would have gone for all this cowshit? I don't think so. (I just noticed: my text editor's spell checker flags "cowshit" but not "bullshit." How about "misandry?" Yep, it's a non-word; but "misogyny" passes. Why am I not surprised?)
Sorry but socialism is the biggest problem. In my opinion.
Well, socialism is feminism, if you examine it. The female is naturally collective, a herd animal; and she instinctively expects to be taken care of. Socialism consists of the transfer of that expectation from the men she personally knows--father, suitor, husband, son, all of them unfortunately too-obviously imperfect--to the State, which as a conveniently distant conceptual entity can be imagined to be perfect in the mind of someone who doesn't think very hard. I don't believe it's an accident that the success of socialism--of all kinds, including the National (Nazi) variety--has exactly paralleled the takeover of political life by females in the last century. Herds bleat to be herded.
BTW, Dan, it's "counselors" that populate social welfare agencies. "Councilors" are members of councils, e.g. the group of advisors surrounding a ruler, e.g. Condoleezza Rice. There is some overlap, but the two words mean different things.
"As for the argument that female social workers can't understand certain men's problems, 'We have dispelled that, decade after decade after decade,' she said."
Well, keep in mind that she does believe this. And it's not entirely untrue. But what she actually means must be understood. Of course, all depends on which "certain" men she means. Most "men" these days are not all that difficult for women to understand--and control--because they are still boys. The foundation of the relationship between the sexes is the son's struggle to free himself from the mother, and the mother's instinctive effort to keep him tied to her, within her field of energy and power, where she owns him--her creation--and does indeed "understand" him. In modern America, where very few boys have been allowed to grow into men, in a sense women do "understand" them. But women do not "understand" men--by which term I mean developed, adult males. If they did, there would be no game, no tension, no effort, no growth.
For some really excellent insight and background on the sexual drama, read "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art," the first chapter in Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia, one of the few women I've come across who makes any sense.
I once heard Robert Bly remark, "You know, the mother and the father are in competition for the allegiance of the children." Very perceptive, and very important. What's happened in America is that Mom won that contest--and in so doing has destroyed the culture. If boys never grow into men, there will be no fathers (in anything beyond the purely biological sense), and nobody will grow up, because in the psychological constellation of the family it is the father who challenges and invites the children to make the effort to grow beyond the--comfortable and secure, but limited--maternal world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes - Thanks for a fascinating post. I agree with you about the trauma of circumcision but I have to wonder about the connection of circumcision with later "pervasive subconscious terror of everything female." How would you explain the indigenous cultures which also use circumcision but seem to produce productive men through potent masculine initiation rituals? I think this points to our complete lack of ritual initiatory space as a likely culprit. Curious to hear what you think.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to wonder about the connection of circumcision with later "pervasive subconscious terror of everything female."
Well, I didn't say "later." When this torture is applied to a newborn baby, the experience becomes part of the foundation of his emotional being, affecting him throughout life. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Would one say that putting out a baby's eye would lead to "later" blindness? It becomes a decisive condition of the entire life of that being. If feminists didn't run the world, infant circumcision would be recognized for what it was: a serious torture, fully the equal of most of what Amnesty International protests. (AI considers female circumcision a serious issue, but male circumcision they deliberately ignore. More "equal treatment.") Such torture results in serious, permanent trauma, as is recognized in all cases other than infant male circumcision.
I will never be a whole man. In this life, I will never know a complete sexual relationship with a woman. I don't have the equipment.
As for "indigenous cultures which also use circumcision but seem to produce productive men through potent masculine initiation rituals": (1) Such rituals occur later in life, usually at puberty, when the circumcision--or other difficult experience--is presented--and can be understood by the subject, who is now to some extent at least a reasoning being--as a ordeal with a purpose, that of making him strong enough to endure the difficulties of the adult life he is now being prepared to enter. However, (2) I still think that circumcision is stupid, cruel and psychotic, even if done by an "indigenous" culture.
("Potent"? Curious choice of word.)
I do not follow the current fashion of romanticizing and idealizing "indigenous" cultures. As a "counterculture" resident of Santa Fe, New Mexico, I have many friends who are involved with such cultures, and certainly recognize a lot of value in them, and a lot we have forgotten and could relearn from them. But I don't believe any human beings are flawless by nature; people are pretty much the same everywhere so far as I can tell, and we all spend most of our time doing stupid things that only increase our suffering. After all, we were all "indigenous" cultures once; and, for instance, the modern urban Muslim practice of circumcision is exactly a puberty initiation ritual with roots in the tribal Semitic past.
And (I believe) an atavistic survival of ancient Goddess-worship into the modern world. (The ancient priests of Kybele were required to castrate themselves to show their allegiance to the Goddess--i.e. MOM, who would not tolerate their betraying her "love" with another woman.)
The American circumcision ritual is directly derived from the other great Semitic tradition, that of the Jews, who for all their "patriarchal" reputation, also are known for the power of their women. Not by accident is the "Jewish mother" an archetype.
And I think it's worth asking just what sort of "productive" men are produced through these "potent masculine initiation rituals"? "Productive" of what? Men who will take their place in the culture, mostly serving the female agenda. Front men, fall guys, whipping boys and cannon fodder. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but I think it has been badly perverted in many instances.
I think this points to our complete lack of ritual initiatory space as a likely culprit.
Well, certainly our culture does have a major hole in this area, but I see the situation as deeper and more complex--just one aspect of a whole complex of insanities in modern industrial/urban culture. The only near-"official" initiation we have for young males is compulsory military service, which did serve that purpose in a way for one or two generations in the mid-1900s, but had serious problems. As a 60s "draft dodger" I managed to avoid it, for which I'm grateful, but I do feel something missing for not having gone through it. (Maybe it's just that I was always a weirdo, never "recognized" by my "peers." Who were mostly idiots, especially in my youth. No help for it.) This lack was somewhat repaired by going through a Zen Buddhist "boot camp"--a year in a monastery in California--later on. But there really is nothing in our culture that officially tells a boy he is a man, and this is a serious flaw.
On the other hand, as I've said above, I don't think very many American boys do become men any more anyway. Such a ritual must actually mean something. Recently a local "men's group" decided to have a ritual to "honor" all men who'd turned 50. I'm sorry, but no thanks; there was a time when living that long really demonstrated something, but nowadays it's easy. This was just another example of the "men's movement" aping feminist cowshit--where everyone has to get a prize so no one's "feelings" will be hurt. In the real world, there are winners, and there are losers. I've been a loser myself, in many respects, but I must recognize reality. I'll be 60 in a few months; no more time for fantasyland.
For all its drawbacks, war does test a youth; we haven't found a functional replacement. From time immemorial, girls have fallen for soldiers. I think there's good reason: the male who survives a war may be a good candidate for a strong, reliable mate. At least he's a better candidate than the guy who didn't come back. It's that simple. Female selection is utterly merciless; it has to be. The purpose of all initiatory tests is to evaluate a male's fitness for his task in life.
Just because an initiatory ritual would be a good idea doesn't mean that circumcision is a wholesome practice. It's not. It's an expression of hatred against the human body for the difficulties we have with it, among which the problem of sex is second only to death itself (and, of course, closely related, both immediately and at length). But it doesn't help; like nearly everything else we do to reduce our suffering, it only makes it worse.
Some protest that circumcision must not be so bad because men don't seem to mind it, even embrace the idea. There are many reasons for this, but one that comes to mind is the picture of an animal who chews off its own leg to escape from a trap. The "great" medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides said its purpose was to reduce sexual pleasure, thus freeing a man's spirit for loftier pursuits. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that there may be more important things in life than sex, but I don't believe in punishing the body for the sins of the mind.
An initiation ritual doesn't need to be something hateful or harmful; it only needs to be difficult enough to seriously test the young male's courage, self-discipline and hardihood. For instance, in Southeast Asia a young male traditionally spends a year or two in the strictly limited life of a Buddhist monk, a discipline which if done properly (I don't really know how it is done there, but suspect it probably has degenerated like everything else) can be a real test. And doesn't cause any lasting harm, either physical or psychological.
A friend of mine runs summer camps for teenage boys. I sent a friend's son to the camp every summer for about eight years (in trade for work on my friend's publications, which can be seen on the site). He told me one thing they did, along with learning wilderness survival and stuff, was to sit all day in one place without moving. Not unlike a Zen meditation intensive, as it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aha! John Stoke's organization. How about that. I remember him from years ago through wingspan and similar connections. It looks like a great organization.
I didn't intend to glorify the indigenous. I have been very impressed with the writings of Malidoma Some on the Dagura people and the writings of...I forget his name...the man who write the book on initiatory rituals...Eliade I think. Malidoma Some's books give one a glimpse at the depth of some of these rituals. Very interesting stuff. His autobiograpy...I forget the name of that one too..."Of Water and Spirit" I think. Very interesting look into the realms of their tribes initiatons.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've said this before, and I maintain it again. Given what we now know (I repeat, given what we now know--that includes recent findings in the medical literature, although to be sure not all medical professionals are up on it), anyone who condones routine infant circumcision is morally no better than a paedophile. There's no ethical excuse for it--all the medical excuses have evaporated, and modern theories about the integrity of the individual make it unacceptable, in the absence of any disease indicating the removal of the foreskin, to involuntarily circumcise a male before he gives his consent on or after the age of consent.
The vehemence with which parents deny their innate desire to mutilate their young is a testament to the human capacity for cruelty and evil, for man's capacity to set aside any consideration for another human being as a locus of rights, and to treat them as less than human.
That so many millions of women have demanded that their infant sons be circumcised gives lie to one of the most hallowed shibboleths of feminism: that only men oppress women, and that women never oppress men. So many millions of women (as well as men) have been involved in this violation of human rights, that no one could possibly take victim feminism seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man and god.
Personally I believe that circumsicion is a righthood into manhood for many a tribe. It is a test of endurance and pain.
The phalic symbol a point of his manhood and his uniqueness. His embracement into tribal life and the understanding of the role he plays.
A painful act such as circumsicion helps assend this.
Even in early Catholic mass, the vant of pain was a great deal more than todays lightbeer rituals.
It is my opinion that it is precisely those rituals that bring us into manhood and the understanding of the true sleeping princess.
I say bring it on.
Justice, Unity and Morality. Our sons need us, to guide them. We have forgotten god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, I suggest you read up on the inevitable sexual crippling caused by routine or ritual male genital mutilation before you spout off about 'righthood' -- whatever that is -- and "bring it on" and so forth and so on.
Because you patently don't know what you're talking about, and your ignorance is shameful.
The only thing routine and ritual male genital mutilation 'helps' is to ensure the DOMINANCE of the tribal elders over the younger generation and to ensure their silent service to the needs of the tribe -- according to the DESIRES of the tribal elders.
Routine and ritual male genital mutilation is fundamentally a communal ABUSE whereby children, and their parents, are forced to SUBMIT to the will of the tribe.
You can take your 'test of endurance and pain' and shove it right up your ignorant butt. You obviously have no idea whatsoever how many boys DIE each year in africa and the middle east and south asia from this practice, not to mention right here in north america, and your burbling about having 'forgotten god' makes a sick mockery of their deaths -- and of the suffering of those who do not die, but must live with the horrific consequences of their ABUSE.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You can take your 'test of endurance and pain' and shove it right up your ignorant butt. You obviously have no idea whatsoever how many boys DIE each year in africa and the middle east and south asia from this practice, not to mention right here in north america, and your burbling about having 'forgotten god' makes a sick mockery of their deaths -- and of the suffering of those who do not die, but must live with the horrific consequences of their ABUSE."
Uh ya?
I never invented the ritual and I don't practice it. But you underestimate the pyschology of the ritual and its relation to many other rituals like it that ascend into manhood.
I certainly don't think circumsicion is the way to do it, but ignoring its function will not rid the human race of the problem. Only by understanding what it is they are trying to accomplish (this evil patriarchy you are referring too) then we can come up with a fortifide solution that can reap their benifits without their harms.
Because parents want their children to become civilized individuals in the tribal unit it shows more of a concervative value. You may not hold these values but you can hardly dissagree with the notion of a society without crime.
This is about responsible fatherhood and I agree with you that circumcision is a start on the wrong foot. As an activist for men it is in my opnion to get them to find a way to start on the right foot otherwise the cycle repeats itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes:
If you don't mind the opinions of someone obviously less informed on this subject than you are, what do you think of the following idea?
Namely, that two successive world wars decimated the male population of Western Europe and the English-speaking world, particularly those males of courage and maturity who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Thus the two wars left behind only those males who were young and inexperienced or old and infirm, both easily controlled by women, and women took control of the family because there was no effective opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB, I don't know if I'm "informed," but I've thought a lot about these things, in nearly 60 years of struggling to survive in the midst of this ridiculous war. Of which, I think, the World Wars (and other such) are perhaps only a corollary.
An interesting speculation. I have wondered what it was that has rendered the male population of Europe so incredibly docile, given that most of them have never been subjected to the circumcision program. The best I've come up with is simply the millennia of subjection to royal/imperial rule (with all their endless wars), which has finally ground their spirit down to nearly nothing. Rich Zubaty's characterization (in What Men Know that Women Don't ) of kings and suchlike traditional "rulers" as more like women than men (in their love of adornment and show, as well as their resort to raw power over reason) I found very perceptive.
Considering that some of the most "domesticated" men in Europe can be found in Sweden, which sat out both World Wars, I'm not sure if that explanation is sufficient--though I'm sure it's a good part of the picture.
Given how clearly both feminism and the infant male circumcision program fit in with the plans of the Ruling Elite (See "Who Really Rules the World"--this guy seems a little wild, but the information is good, and the best short analysis of the situation I've seen)--destroy the men and put women in charge, and you have a herd of sheep awaiting their shepherd--I have to wonder if any of this is "accidental."
Remember that the American Republic was founded by men (yes, men) who consciously, deliberately rejected the old mode of government by power from above in favor of a social order populated by independent adults who (it was hoped) could and would rule themselves. American men are (or have been, anyway) different from men elsewhere, and it's taken more to subdue us. So far, the plan seems to have worked just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan Kosberg, the author of the pro-male article cited above, can be reached via email address at jkosberg@sw.ua.edu
I know I am going to send him a quick email of thanks. Kudos to him for standing up for what is right.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case my posts belied my background, I'm a professional mathematician. I've taken a professional interest in statistics (I've become a Bayesian), partly because my work in research computing touches on the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Science Research (The ICPSR), but also because the men's movement could use the help of someone who can read the professional statistical literature. I could think of no better way I could help the men's movement than to undertake the kinds of studies that have been absent so long from the literature, or even just to critique the studies already available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, what do you plan to do?
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, what do you plan to do?
Haven't decided, exactly. My intention, for now, is to terrify the opposition with the threat of deploying my over-arching brilliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, might not work too well with people so proud of their over-arching ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kind offer of assistance.
It's good to put what skills we might have into the movement. And mathematicians are just as important as the organizers in many ways. After all, you can at least check the math and methodology of some of these feminist studies, and try to keep us honest as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After all, you can at least check the math and methodology of some of these feminist studies, and try to keep us honest as well.
As successes of the "movement" start to take place, it will become crucial to make sure that we don't become like those who try to hurt us. Control is just as important as Chaos. Hopefully, Mars, you're just as willing to keep the "men's movement" in line as you are to expose anti-male bigotry.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @11:30AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, Mars, you're just as willing to keep the "men's movement" in line as you are to expose anti-male bigotry.
If this is code for you being "hopeful" that "chivalry" is kept alive and well, I'm hoping you're wrong; unless you also mean a return to the days when most women kept to their end of the obligations of that code as well. In short, "I will treat you like a lady so long as you are willing to act like one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant was that I hoped he helps keep the movement from exaggerating or undermining statistics and telling-half truths and outright lies like many of those who try hurt men.
The first thing that comes to mind, as an example, is the 1-in-4-women-are-raped B.S. that became mainstream. Others would be studies that show that women make less than men and conclude that this is because women are discriminated against rather than taking into account the fact that women don't work as much as men.
Is this clear? I don't understand how one would read chivalry into that statement I made.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 14, @01:05PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I just get sick of the "Tie one hand behind your back and fight according to Marquis of Queensbury rules with the girls, but it's okay for them to hit below the belt, gouge, bite, hair pull, backstab, throw sand in your eyes, and go after anyone standing close to you" mindset.
Fighting fair while someone else fights dirty means...you lose. And while you may be "noble" and "Able to hold your head up" you're still a ... LOSER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, Mars, you're just as willing to keep the "men's movement" in line as you are to expose anti-male bigotry.
Protecting the men's movement from itself is available for what I consider to be a reasonable fee, considering the gift-horse that I am; I'll do it for three times the gross domestic product of the United States, payable in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got a couple dollars in my pocket...
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
