|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why there are no good men" indeed. More like, why are there no good women? Several people on this board have remarked that they are happy they got married years ago, but that if they had it to do today, they wouldn't because of how different women are. Feminists are feeding all kinds of stupid nonsense into their receptive minds at an early age, and reinforcing it as they grow up. Read the article and you'll see how this woman considers her past boyfriend to have been something to be "trained" in one sentence, an "investment" in another sentence. As though he was an animal and not a man. Perhaps her personality is the primary reason why she can't attract someone decent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just another shallow self deluded induhvidual who thinks the world should revolve around HER.
My wife went through YEARS of indoctrination by her VERY feminist mother before we got married. It took almost 10 years for the two of us to work around the myriad problems that indoctrination introduced into our lives. The idea of "training" and "breaking in" is something that was taught to my wife... she talked about it and used those exact words. Luckily I'm as stubborn as a Bull Terrier when it comes to changing in ways I don't want to. Sure I'll change if I determine it makes sense to do so.
BUT, if that woman in the book had decided that "I" was going to wash dishes after every meal, and what other chores "I" was going to do around the house... she'd find out very quickly that "SHE" isn't going to dictate what "I" do, anywhere, anytime. I would have informed her with all due respect that if "SHE" wants things done on "HER" timetable... "SHE" can hire someone to do them. That whole section of the exerpt was so domineering and annoyingly feminist that I'd have probably told her to stick her pots and pans... and her attitude to boot.
Frankly IMO any man who willingly allows himself to be manipulated in such a way has made his own bed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @07:10PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
He is absolutely right. It has taken me 10 years to get over this brainwashing. I still find myself slipping sometimes with certain friends. My mother always said it took her 25 years to train my father. I didn't realize how sexist that was until I started reading this stuff.
My mother did me NO favors. Being a feminist nazi means not having a real relationship. You cannot respect someone you trivialize. And you cannot love someone you do not respect.
Women have been brainwashed into wanting to be in control as much as men have been brainwashed into being submissive. I truly had no clue how sexist I had become. And now that I am aware of it I see it EVERYWHERE.
I just hope that we can teach our kids to feel they deserve equality and that they are patient enough to wait for someone who will share that with them.
Part of the problem is that many women have valid complaints about things like housework, and instead of just sitting down and saying "we work the same amount, can we please split the housework equally" and then working out the chores together, they feel the need to bash and manipulate and nag. One is respectful, the other is not.
What ever happened to just talking to each other? ***why can't we all get along** ;-)
We all have a long road ahead of us. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Jen,
Your contributions are much appreciated, as is your patience with the occasional splenetic eruptions of some of our male participants, who unfortunately sometimes seem to do their best to prove the feminists right in their low opinion of the male intellect.
As for "training," though your mother's ideas seem to have been of the usual toxic flavor, the idea itself may not be all bad. Maybe we all--men and women--need some training, and maybe that's why we need each other. Let us not become so serious that we can't take an occasional joke at our own expense. As long as the joking is balanced, and in good humor.
I don't know that women have been "brainwashed into wanting to be in control"--if so, who was doing the brainwashing? Here, I'm sorry, you seem to emulate the usual female view, that everything bad comes from somewhere outside, from some mysterious "society" or other imaginary entity that is making us do bad things. I don't think so. We're entirely capable of doing bad things on our own, unaided, every one of us. Even women.
The desire to control the world around one is entirely natural, and not necessarily a bad thing, in moderation. After all, it's why we've invented the civilization that's allowing us to have this conversation. The problem is when our desires and impulses are not held in reasonable check. For most of us, much of that restraint is supplied by those around us--our society, our family, our closest companions. At present in our culture, women's "natural" desire to control is running wild, and the results are not healthy for men or women.
I just hope that we can teach our kids to feel they deserve equality.
And what does that mean? These days "equality" is a very loaded word that has been freighted with myriad meanings that those who first used it back in the 18th century would never have intended. As I've said, I simply don't believe the genders are "equal." How can the creature be "equal" to his Creator? The only "equality" I see that's relevant is the idea that all human beings have the basic right of self-ownership, and that we must mutually respect this right in each other to have workable relationships.
Note that this totally artificial idea--it exists nowhere in the "natural" world, where the only law is power--was entirely thought up by men, and you may begin to see the reason why it is in women's best interest to support the best in their men rather than to crush them.
Note also that, as Camille Paglia points out, the modern successes of women have been possible only because of the work and sacrifice of millions of men, who created both the ordered society and the technologically-based comfort that have made it possible for women to attempt to better their lot.
With these facts in mind, I believe we can establish a kind of parity, based on mutual respect, which will allow us to live together, and learn from each other. We are all each other's mirrors.
We all have a long road ahead of us.
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the problem is that many women have valid complaints about things like housework,
Actually, Jen, men have more to gripe about than women with respect to this. The myth of women doing more housework than men, while working an equal amount outside of the home, is a typical feminist lie.
Take a look at this essay by Glenn Sacks for some info on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @07:29PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
A side note, Barbera DeFoe Whitehead wrote some really good stuff about the effects of divorce on children-I knew I recognized her name, I wrote a paper about her views in a college class. Her opinions were very much against the feminist ruling that women can do whatever they want with no recourse. Her view was that in cases of abuse, divorce is probably a wash (my words), but in all other cases divorce is devistating to the children.
For what it is worth, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 10, @01:03AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
DaveK67.
Yeah, Good points.
I'm basicaly the same way.
I'm not a DOG, an animal to be trained or "tamed".
I, just like you, just like ALL men are just as HUMAN as women. But in this day and age, WAY too many women do not see it that way. They too often see us JUST the way I described above.
They are, it seems, looking for a PET. Not a partner in life.
So, there you have it. If women find that they are haveing trouble finding "good men", It is highly likely that it is because we are AVOIDING them, and HOW!
I know that is the case with me, personaly.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why there are no good men" indeed. More like, why are there no good women? Several people on this board have remarked that they are happy they got married years ago, but that if they had it to do today, they wouldn't because of how different women are. Feminists are feeding all kinds of stupid nonsense into their receptive minds at an early age, and reinforcing it as they grow up. Read the article and you'll see how this woman considers her past boyfriend to have been something to be "trained" in one sentence, an "investment" in another sentence. As though he was an animal and not a man. Perhaps her personality is the primary reason why she can't attract someone decent.
The underlying premise is your comment is no different. It presumes women can't think for themselves and their brains are open to a ideological tug-of-war between feminists and who ever else that tries to brainwash them! That feminists "train" young women.
I agree that young people are impressionable. But we should at least acknowledge that women, as people, have the capability for independent critical thinking (ok some are sheep all their lives but most people grow up). Geez!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lori:"I agree that young people are impressionable. But we should at least acknowledge that women, as people, have the capability for independent critical thinking (ok some are sheep all their lives but most people grow up). Geez! "
Ya and by that time they are 40 , barren and wondering where all the good men are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 06, @02:10AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"The biggest problem is that women and men are being brainwashed, in most cases, without even realizing it."
Feminist dogma comes at men and women today from all sides of society. Women (and a lot of men) show about as much independence from that constant barrage of feminist dogma as the German populace did to Nazism before and during WWII. Hopefully, unlike WWII, people will start to realize the destructive road that they are being lead down and fight the evil fascism before it is too late. Hopefully, the independent women Lorianne is talking about will do this before America is destroyed by the same kind of tyrants who killed Nazi Germany.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there are a few women who see through the constant barrage of brainwashing throughout the media, but my experience is that most women are politically correct animals at heart. They are most concerned with what's "in" at the time and no longer care about how men feel. They mostly aren't critical thinkers but base their decisions and actions on feelings.
Actually that's probably due to gender psychology, which states that men tend to see things from an absolute perspective, while women tend to view things from a perspective of relationship between perceived human variables in the dominance-heirachy. This makes it important to consider how you present yourself, since there is no such thing as "gender equality" in this scheme-- at least not in a manner anyone can be happy with; it's also partly why women love jerks while accommodating men get "commoded" or "dumped."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Would you please translate that into English?
Simply put, either you wear the pants or she will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simply put, either you wear the pants or she will.
All right! You "get it." Some one will be in charge of your life; either that'll be you, or it'll be whatever dominant intelligence picks up the reins you're not holding. Modern American men have been conditioned to remain subservient to women, as we naturally were in childhood, all our lives. That's what's happened, and nothing will change until that is changed. With the ejection of the father from the family, the intergenerational male transmission of the spirit of independence has been broken, and we're going to have to recreate it anew. A difficult task, but it can be done, with reference to history. The trite saying "There were men in those days" has real meaning. Can you imagine George Washington putting up with this crap?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, not quite. The feminazis start 'em off as young as possible. They are raised to believe in a comfortable system in which they are always the victim and are entitled to everything. It works the same as religious indoctrination - you tell something to a four-year-old, are they going to question you about whether it's right or wrong? I don't think so.
It also takes advantage of the best-known weakness of the human mind: Once a person thinks he or she is better than someone else, or some group of people, or more entitled or whatever, that person's mind will do just about anything it takes to keep that postulate in effect.
The minds of these girls ARE the subject of a tug-of-war, but that doesn't differentiate them from boys, who are just as impressionable at such early ages. Boys are brainwashed to believe all sorts of things, just as girls are.
By the way, I'm not saying religion is "bad" or anything. Especially when one comes to it as an adult. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @04:08AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Some one mentioned that women seem to gravitate towards, date, and marry 'jerks'.
I was wondering. Does any one here think that alot of women do this knowing full well what they are getting in to, knowing what the inevitable out-come will be, so that when it is all said and done they can say to themselves and others; "See, I was right, ALL men are bad!"?
And is it possible, that by doing this they further cast themselves as the victims of the "evil male patriarchy"?
Just a thought.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some one mentioned that women seem to gravitate towards, date, and marry 'jerks'.
Women initiate domestic violence more often than men do. In addition, many women readily buy into the lies of feminism, even if they don't call themselves feminists, and accept without protest their privileged position, while claiming that they're oppressed so they can further advance their privileges while further shirking their responsibilities.
I'd say there are at least as many men as women who get into relationships with and marry jerks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Does any one here think that alot of
> women do this knowing full well what
> they are getting in to...?
Yes, but for different reasons than you came up with. I have a page on this topic at my site which I'll refer those interested to: http://Science.MartianBachelor.com/WCDJ.html .
Men do somewhat the same thing (falling for "bad girls"). I don't have the data to support it, but my tentative belief is that us guys have less of a tendency to want to reform the jerkettes.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many men aren't jumping on the first one, not for marriage, for nothing, which is usually what he gets.
Maybe his reason is the Bitch Theory, which is an experiment easily proven & repeatable. So this theory has actually become American Law.
Maybe where all the Good Men have gone, is to Bangkok, or else crazy. They're even crazier if they marry her, American Woman. Which means they also marry her courts. Her mother. And get on her permanent payroll as employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 05, @07:45AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe have something to do with Gender inequality?
Women may see marriage as some kind of male duty, something men should do to "support" women, and let themselves be "civilized."
For a man, marriage is well and good with a true emotional commitment , but lacking that it is nothing more than indentured servitude at the hands of airheaded bimbos with the IQ of a month old turnip.
Sure, most men I know are REAL eager to lay all they have on the line for the likelyhood of having that same woman dump them on down the road, take his kids, and put him through years of legal hell, all while moving in some so-called "True soulmate" that his children can call "Daddy Joe" or something. Or, rather than have kids of his own, to be a surrogate father (read: Walking ATM for some woman who proclaimed she can go it alone without a man, and came to find out she couldn't) for some other man's children.
Women are only starting to piss and moan about this because men are starting to put their wants before feminine wants, and to take these "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" women at their word. A great deal of men are putting off marriage and family (the sex is free anyway) while waiting for a woman who is hungry for it, and is willing to make the concessions needed to give a man deserved security. I read somewhere that pre-nuptuial[sic] contracts, mandating joint custody, shared parenting, no Child Support, and sanctions for adultery are on the rise. This is a very good thing; but not to women who are so used to the upper hand that they are incapable of dealing with a man on an equal footing.
Of course, this is all the fault of men's shallowness and emotional immaturity.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I read somewhere that pre-nuptuial[sic]
> contracts, mandating joint custody, shared
> parenting, no Child Support, and sanctions for
> adultery are on the rise.
Just a note: In most states, any pre-nup "contract" wrt custody, shared parenting or child support issues will be thrown out at the time of divorce -- much to the dismay of those who thought they had a deal. In other words, you can't over-ride state law with a pre-nup. But check your state...
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @04:47AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
...take these "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" women at their word.
AU, you took the words right out of my mouth. It really astounds me that women have spent 30+ years denigrating marriage as "a comfortable concentration camp for women," and then act surprised that more men don't want to volunteer for the role of commandant. I'm 40 years old and unmarried. Why? Lots of reasons, but a big one is that all during the period of my young adulthood, I got the very distinct impresseion that women regarded marriage as, at best, some kind of swindle devised by men to keep them down. I actually thought I was doing them a favor by abstaining from marriage (and, in case anyone is wondering, I have not been living a promiscuous life, either; casual sex really doesn't interest me).
My advice to women is, if you want marriage, say that you value marriage, and that on the whole you think it's a good thing to have a man in your life. That may be unfair to individual women who feel that way and have said so, but as a group, those are not the messages women have been delivering.
Mark C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> It really astounds me that women have spent
> 30+ years denigrating marriage...
And not only marriage but MEN. If we're as bad as so many of `em say we are, ya gotta wonder in the first place if they don't have to be totally crazy to want one of us.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I can tell you why one of them is, anyway: I decided some years ago that I wouldn't touch an American White Anglo female--i.e. anyone of my own race/tribe/culture, whose Ruling Grandmothers initiated and continue to enforce the Infant Male Circumcision Program--with an eleven foot pole (that's the one I had specially made for things I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole). Oh, and add Jewish to that definition too: they're the ones who thought it up.
Truly, the situation has gone beyond insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just American White Anglo females who like circumcision. (your assertion not mine. I don't really know if that's true or not). ... I'm Jewish, married to a Japanese woman whom I met in Japan, not here in the U.S.) and she's told me that she prefers mine over the uncircumcised. She says it's so much better looking. In fact, I've heard from the radio talk show host Dr. Dean Edell who is also against circumcision, that this feeling seems to be quite prevelant with women. Have you found that women of certain nationalities prefer the uncircumcised?
I draw the conclusion that American White Anglo females are in favor of circumcision of males from the fact that the overwhelming majority of them choose to impose the same on their male children, and have done so for most of the last century. That this sick predilection is not shared by women of most other cultures I take from the fact that women of most other cultures do not impose the same on their male children. It's that simple.
I take the feminists at their word when they insist that women should be regarded and treated as "full human beings." To me, that means they must be held responsible for their actions--though, oddly enough, when it comes to something like infant male circumcision, or anything else for which they might be criticized, suddenly women seem to be coated in teflon: they're never responsible. I don't buy it. If they wish to have the same freedoms as men, i.e. as adult humans, they must accept the same responsibilities. They can't pass the buck.
"I have been in the United States nearly five years, since leaving my native Sweden. When I first started dating here, I was surprised, confused, shocked and disappointed because almost all of the men here are circumcised. I have always regarded circumcision as barbaric and ugly. There are many American ways that I still do not understand, and perhaps I am still experiencing a culture shock, but a whole penis can't be that bad, can it?" (Swedish-American woman, quoted in Say No to Circumcision)
"The Greeks preserved the foreskin knowing that it maintained the sensitivity of the glans. The foreskin was also essential to the Greek's sense of modesty, as the bared glans was considered indecent and even obscene--probably because the glans normally is on view only when the penis is erect, which was never in public. Many people today, who have retained their foreskins, have this same aversion to the constantly exposed glans as being ill-mannered and inappropriate, akin to chewing with one's mouth open." (Say No to Circumcision)
It is precisely the arrogant assumption of women that their esthetic whims are sufficient to justify the savage torture and mutilation of infant boys that I find most offensive. In Africa and the Muslim world where genital mutilation of females is widely practiced, you'll hear the same comments from men: that they find the intact female genitalia distasteful, and prefer the "improved" version resulting from the various forms of FGM. Would your lovely wife be happy to get herself carved up (without anesthesia, by the way--as it was done to me) to suit your esthetic preferences? (Oddly, many Asian women do have surgery to modify their eyes--which I find their most beautiful feature--to mimic those of Western women. Human stupidity, it seems, is endlessly inventive. But of course, there's no "charge" around this as there is with anything involving the sexual organs.)
I remember as a child being horrified to learn that certain breeds of dogs did not naturally have stubby tails and pointed ears: that their owners had their tails and ears chopped to suit some idea of how they wanted their dogs to look. Perhaps it was unusual of me that I instinctively felt this to be insane; I've always been a weirdo and an outsider. To learn that my mother had, in essence, done exactly the same to me was one of the greatest shocks of my life. When women refer to their sons as "their little men" they aren't kidding; they really believe their children are their possessions, to be treated as they will. Girls play with dolls as preparation for child bearing and rearing; unfortunately, many do not understand the difference between dolls and the developing human beings the Creator has placed in their care.
Sex is a problem. It has always been a problem, and probably it always will be. Sex is one of those places--like birth and death, with which sex is inextricably linked--where we unavoidably encounter Nature, which rules us all. The same is true of eating and waste elimination. All these things make us uncomfortable, because they make clear to us that we are not in control of our existence. Thus these parts of life we surround with euphemism (e.g. the "dating" mentioned above, which really means "fucking"), ritual and taboo, as an oyster covers an irritating grain of sand with mother-of-pearl. Sex, like Nature, is not "nice," or "clean," or "pretty." It is, in fact, horrifying when clearly seen. Genital mutilation is a typically human attempt to modify the troublesome fact of sex so it won't be so disturbing to our delicate sensibilities. However, like most such misguided human efforts, it ends in causing more suffering than what it was intended to alleviate.
So long as one is subject to the usual delusional view of sexuality, one will never understand its power in our lives, and the suffering we experience due to that power. A good place to start (among many others, I'm sure, but this is a favorite of mine) educating oneself would be by reading Camille Paglia's essay "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art," the first chapter in her monumental opus Sexual Personae. The book can be found at Amazon, which also provides an 18-page excerpt from the essay which you can read on-screen. (Or check your local library; mine has it.) You cannot begin to deal effectively with the subjects explored in this Web site until you have at least a basic understanding of the truths Paglia explores.
The point is not whether some women, or men, may "prefer the uncircumcised"; it is that adult, developed people are willing to confront life as it comes to us, and deal with it on its own terms. If the natural forms of human genitalia offend you, perhaps you should practice a celibate lifestyle. Which is a legitimate choice, by the way: I mean no disrespect. Many of the greatest beings in human history (perhaps all of them, depending on ones definition) have turned away from physical sexuality.
Nor did I assert that "just" American White Anglo females are in love with this sadistic ritual. However, aside from South Korea, where the practice has become prevalent since the 1950s due to overwhelming American cultural influence, there is really only one other identifiable culture/nationality that is.
P.S. Now we Jews are being blamed for circumcision too? Cheez! Is there anything that you feel is wrong with this world today that isn't the fault of us Jews?
Sure: for instance, so far as I know, there are no Jews involved in the genocide and destruction of Tibet by the Chinese; not on the obvious surface, anyway. However, it is true that the 19th century feminist puritans in the English-speaking world who began the practice of infant male circumcision as a solution to "what's wrong with men" got the idea from the Jewish tradition. So far as I know, only the Jews practiced infant male circumcision before the Anglo world started doing it too. Even now, among the most fanatic promoters of the practice are the Christian sects who believe themselves to be the true heirs of Old Testament Judaism. The connection is clear and direct.
Are you Muslim? A Nazi?
Neither. But I find it interesting that even the most tentative suggestion that Jewish people or Jewish culture might possibly have something to do with anything negative is immediately met with loud screams of "Anti-Semite!" Just as feminists always respond to any suggestion that women may be less than perfect with charges of "misogyny!" Anyone who cannot look squarely and clearly at emself is headed for trouble.
That you seem, like so many among the brainwashed in the Euro-American West, to equate Islam with Nazism doesn't say much for your use of your intelligence. Funny how it's okay for Jews to do what's wrong for non-Jews to do, e.g. this sort of bigotry. BTW, Muslims are the only other large group that practice circumcision, though they do it at puberty or thereabouts, and to both sexes. It was also common in ancient Egypt. I see it, especially the male version, as an atavistic holdover from ancient Mother Goddess worship, related to the self-castration required of priests of Kybele as late as Roman times.
Not all Jews, by the way, are in love with circumcision. I have a good friend who is a rabbi, whose first son was circumcised, but who later experienced a change of heart and left his younger son intact. He offers to perform a "non-violent Bris" for any Jewish family who may wish to abandon this cruel tradition. See also Ronald Goldman's excellent essay "Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain."
By the way, there are so many bigots these days who hate Jews, I would think that since circumcision is a Jewish tradition, wouldn't you think that this would be a reason for the rest of the population at large to do just the opposite?
Well, it's true that historically in Europe circumcision was seen as a badge of Jewishness, since the Christian population did not practice it. But it isn't as if circumcision were a given fact of human life, that requires some decision and effort to change. All normal human males are born with certain body parts, including the foreskin. Some twisted psychotics insist on cutting it off. Most leave it as it is. Leaving things as they are is not "doing the opposite," it's just leaving things as they are.
I am not "a bigot who hates Jews," but I am a lover of truth, who tries to see clearly. If loving truth makes me an "anti-Semite," seems to me that says more about "Semitism" than it does about the truth. I know I'm "politically incorrect," because "political correctness" is exactly nothing more than suppression of truth in service to an agenda.
Just as I once bought the whole feminist worldview in which I was indoctrinated as I grew up, I also once believed the relentlessly-promoted, popular picture of the Jews as a totally innocent, unjustly persecuted group. And just as it has been the behavior of women themselves which has finally relieved me of my illusions in regard to "gender issues," it has been the observed behavior of Jewish people which has made it plain that there was something behind the historical antipathy they seem to have evoked amongst their neighbors wherever they have gone in the world. I am not in favor of persecution of anyone, but when people maintain attitudes (as a friend remarked: "'Chosen People.' 'Master Race.' What's the difference?") and engage in behavior (such as the wholesale theft and genocide currently proceeding in Palestine, in an eerie reenactment of the savage tales told in the most ancient parts of the Bible) that naturally elicit animosity from others, to some extent they have only themselves to blame.
And, in regard to circumcision, it has occurred to me that in view of the traditional Jewish enthusiasm for imposing this brutal cruelty on their own children (which, if done by anyone but the Jews, would be clearly seen as outrageous child abuse) their endless complaints about what others do to them ring somewhat hollow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Philalethes - Always good to see your posts.
You said:
I take the feminists at their word when they insist that women should be regarded and treated as "full human beings." To me, that means they must be held responsible for their actions--though, oddly enough, when it comes to something like infant male circumcision, or anything else for which they might be criticized, suddenly women seem to be coated in teflon: they're never responsible. I don't buy it. If they wish to have the same freedoms as men, i.e. as adult humans, they must accept the same responsibilities. They can't pass the buck.
Well that sums it up. The teflon analogy is right on the mark. The conversation today revolves around women's rights and men's responsibilities. It is very rare to see the reverse. It's pc for women to have "Power" (i.e. infant girls throwing off their caps in the newborn nursery...(rolls eyes)) but unheard of to talk about the compassionate stewardship that such power demands.
If circumcision is wrong, which I think it is, then women need to take half the responsibility for the wrongs we have done to our boys. Fifteen years ago when my son was born my wife (who is a remarkable woman, a seeker of the truth and not chained to our cultural brainwashing) suggested we NOT have our son circumcised. Stupid me, I was thinking that I wanted him not to be uncomfortable and not look like his father...luckily I came to my senses after researching things and he escaped the knife. His narrow escape was largely due to my wife. I thank God for her foresight and wisdom.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Tom, but I'm afraid I must slightly disagree...
If circumcision is wrong...
Actually, I wouldn't say exactly that, as a blanket statement. "Wrong" on what grounds? I don't generally use terms like "right" and "wrong," because they confuse the issue: they are relative terms, but appear to refer to some (unstated) absolute. When such a relative term is used, its referent must be included. You may say that circumcision is wrong on grounds of the Golden Rule: "Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself." But then what if a mother says she wouldn't mind being circumcised herself? Would that make it "right" for her to do it to her son? I say it's a choice, but she who has the power to make the choice must be held responsible for the consequences. Which brings us to...
...women need to take half the responsibility for the wrongs we have done to our boys.
Like most men under the Matriarchy, you've been seduced into the "equality/fairness" myth. Actually, few things in life are so tidily half-and-half. I say responsibility accrues where power lies. In your case, perhaps you could say that you and your wife share authority over your children's lives roughly half-and-half, but I'll bet if you look carefully it will become apparent that in some areas her authority is decisive, while in others yours is (I would hope so, anyway). Actually, that's how it's supposed to work: because the sexes are different, we work together and combine our different strengths. Only the feminists insist that men and women are interchangeable, and only if you believe that could you really divide up everything half-and-half.
In the world at large, it is generally accepted (with good reason, I believe) that women have primary authority over the decisions of child-rearing during the early years. Which includes, of course, from conception: during the first nine months, women claim and exercise the absolute "right" (actually power) of life and death over their children. And, I believe, it is nearly always the mother who is asked to sign-off on the circumcision. It is her authority that is needed, and that is considered sufficient.
And, in fact, I would agree. The welfare of newborn infants (and young children) is primarily the mother's concern and area of authority. To pretend otherwise is out of touch with reality. My solution to the "gender question" is neither the feminist solution--the enforced pretense that there is no real difference between the sexes, which is ridiculous--nor a return to the "bad old days" characterized by another, equally harmful pretense, that women are the ignorant, helpless victims of male power. Thus, the push in the "men's movement" for "equal reproductive rights" I find pointless, because it is founded on the same fallacy as feminism itself. For a man, the solution to the "problem" of "unwanted pregnancy" is simple: don't put it in if you won't be comfortable with the consequences. For "men" to insist on the "right" to be as irresponsible as women regarding this issue merely reduces both sexes to the same prehuman level: the final triumph of feminism.
My solution is to recognize and acknowledge, consciously and openly, the very real power that women have--and can never lose--but then insist that they use their power consciously and constructively, rather than unconsciously and destructively as they have often (always, when allowed free rein) done in our past history. In other words, in the past women have been treated like children precisely because they have acted like children, that is, irresponsibly. I'm all in favor of everyone growing up; in fact, I believe that a wholesale quantum leap in human development will be our only hope of getting out of the hole we've dug ourselves into. So I do not argue with the feminist desire (apparent at least) that women be treated as full, i.e. adult, human beings. I only demand that they actually behave as such. If our actions are not in consonance with reality, we're headed for disaster. And indeed we are, in this as well as nearly every other area of human activity.
In the Flatt vs. Kantak case, it was apparently (as is usual) the mother who was asked to give, and gave, her consent to the circumcision of her newborn son. This mother, one among tens of millions, appears to have realized, late but better than never, the real responsibility that entailed, and so is suing the hospital for misinforming her decision. Most women, even if they're not comfortable with the circumcision, will go no further than saying, "Well, the doctors told me to do it," thus trying to sort-of pass the buck, but without actually doing anything real. I'm sorry, the responsibility remains with the one whose permission was required. If she is not comfortable with that, she must take real, substantive action to shift the burden. It is a principle of Law that one cannot be held to the terms of a contract which was made on the basis of false information supplied by the other party. But to invoke this principle, the wronged party must take real action to void the contract on that basis. Mrs. Flatt has done so. Perhaps she can be faulted for being so foolish as to buy the idea in the first place, but for my part I'm willing to let any woman who actually changes her mind off the hook. (Though this is more than is traditionally allowed for men, for whom the other maxim of Law that "Ignorance is not an excuse" has always been enforced. Just my lingering chivalry, I guess.)
Even in talking with nurses who are actively resisting circumcision, I've found this same teflon mind: if men do something harmful to women or children, then it's clear that men are responsible, but in the case of the circumcision program, in which mother's authority rules (the doctors are hired hands: she who pays the piper calls the tune), suddenly it seems to be a "tradition" for which no one is exactly responsible. This is cowshit.
The same goes for another great villain of our times, "society." Notice that when anything deplorable is discussed, either it's because of men, or it's because of "society"--which means everybody, and thus nobody, really. Women are never responsible. In fact, "society" doesn't exist, except as a mental concept. "Society" never does or decides or thinks anything: only real people do, sometimes in concert. But someone is always responsible for whatever is done. To try to run a social order on any other basis (as at present) can lead only to disaster.
Stupid me, I was thinking that I wanted him not to be uncomfortable and not look like his father...
No need to call yourself "stupid"; like all of us, you're a product of a century of feminist domination of American culture. We're all ignorant until we learn better.
Indeed, your wife does seem to be a sensible woman, in this case at least, and I applaud her for resisting the idea long enough to get you educated. I know another woman who told me that when her son was born in 1960 (when the circ rate was over 90%) she "fought off the doctors and the nuns from [her] hospital bed for three days" to keep her son intact; she prevailed, and her son has thanked her. And another who told me she "didn't see the need of it" when her son was born in 1977. There are a few women I can respect, in this regard at least, as feminists say they want to be respected; but they remain few.
The truth is, women rule the world. Whatever men are, we are what they have made us; whatever we do, one way or another we do it all for them. The world we have is the world women have made for themselves, using men as their tools. As men, we have only two choices: to give women what they want, which we must do if we wish to be included in their world, or to turn away from their world entirely. As many men have done, e.g. the Buddha. In truth, ultimately even the Buddha was serving women, by showing the Way Out of this endless round of suffering. Men exist to fulfill women's needs, but, however paradoxical this may seem, we can do so fully only by outgrowing women's rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Philalethes for a fascinating post.
When I said "wrong" in my mind that was more equated with "hurtful." I consider intentionally hurtful acts such as this as "wrong." I believe in the integrity of each person and slicing away a part of that seems "wrong" to me. Yes, it is a choice, just as murder is a choice, but I also see that as "wrong." Good and bad, right and wrong. We live in a world of opposites that requires our real world siding with one or the other. I choose to side against circumcision. I think we agree more than not here.
Actually my own view of fairness is a bit different from most. I tend to see the world as a place where we are learning to develop our consciousness. Sometimes the BAD is more helpful in developing ones consciousness. Is it fair? ;>) Actually the feminists are helpful in bringing us to a point where we can take a stand and individuate from the female meme. I'm sure you know what I mean.
When I said : "...women need to take half the responsibility for the wrongs we have done to our boys."
I wasn't thinking literally half! Splitting mathematically down the middle. I meant it to say that power demands responsibilty and if you have one you better have the other.
You make a fascinating case for the woman's greater responsibility with male circumcision. I was not aware that it is the mother who is routinely asked. Thinking back on it, they did ask my wife and of course her jurisdiction around the infants was assumed by the hospital and medical people. I had always assumed it was due to her being an RN.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men DO deserve reproductive equality. The whole "don't put it in if you don't want a kid" line is nonsense! What is the deal with that, anyway? It gives women free reign to sleep with whomever they want, which is fine, but then they get 100% of the decision to abort or not! What if I want the kid and she aborts it? Too bad! What if I don't want the kid and she doesn't abort it? Also too bad! Why should they have 100% control? It takes two, and they should be held every bit as responsible. Absolute power on one side and no power on the other is not equitable and I am surprised you would even say something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @10:58AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said. I agree entirely. I also cannot believe that P's giving women all the rights and men all the blame/responsibility. Unless I misunderstood him.
Furthermore, I am just as capable of rearing my children as my wife. Absolutely, 100% as capable. Some women are excellent parents, some men are. Some women are rotten parents, some men are. I suspect that most are in between.
Its about individual choice. I am not a lemming. I will do what I choose to do. I do not accept that I must follow the dictates of either feminists or traditionalists. Most men I know choose a combination of traditional and modern (progressive?, don't know what to call it) that makes sense to them.
Men and women are not identical. (In fact not all men are identical to one another and not all women are identical to one another). I know this - I am a geneticist and biostatistician. Another thing I know is that men and women, while not identical, share overlapping abilities in many areas. I do not think we must be absolutely identical nor absolutely different.
Doctrine sucks. Just do what fits.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man! Speaking of long-winded! A guy could end up paying overtime to his ISP trying to reply to just one of your posts! Without getting too long-winded myself, here goes... I find it interesting that even the most tentative suggestion that Jewish people or Jewish culture might possibly have something to do with anything negative is immediately met with loud screams of "Anti-Semite!... Anyone who cannot look squarely and clearly at emself (sic) is headed for trouble." Jewish people aren't responsible for what other people copy or don't copy from Jewish traditions. (Assuming, for argument sake, that you are correct in that this tradition was copied from Jewish tradition). All people are responsible for their own actions. If non-Jews decide to copy a tradition of ours for whatever reason, that's their prerogative and they are responsible for making that choice. The Jews don't force their beliefs on others. If other people like our traditions better than their own, they are welcome to pick and choose as they wish. People just shouldn't blame us upon changing their minds afterward. That you seem, like so many among the brainwashed in the Euro-American West, to equate Islam with Nazism doesn't say much for your use of your intelligence. I didn't equate Islam with Nazism. I guessed that you might probably be of one of these two groups since they both hate all Jews. To blame the Jews (such a small minority portion of the U.S. population) for the circumcision of a majority of men in the U.S. has to be just as irrational. "I am not "a bigot who hates Jews," but..." "...I am not in favor of persecution of anyone, but..." Yeah, that's what all bigots and racists say, then comes the "but..." Just as I once bought the whole feminist worldview in which I was indoctrinated as I grew up, I also once believed the relentlessly-promoted, popular picture of the Jews as a totally innocent, unjustly persecuted group..." First you say you're not bigoted, then you insinuate that the Jews might deserve the attrocities that are repeatedly brought upon them by the Muslim terrorist groups. Let's leave out the Nazi's for now and talk about Arafat and the Palastinians a little. The Palestinians (and from what I've heard, most if not all Muslims) are taught from birth to hate Jews... that Jews are evil... that they use the blood of Muslim children in their holiday cooking. This is racism, pure and simple. Do you feel the way you do only about Jews? What other groups deserve to be annnihilated from the face of the earth as Arafat and the Muslim world want to do to the Jews? Do you feel this way only about Jews? Do you also believe that we (the U.S.) brought on 9-11 and are really responsible for that? Did we (the U.S.) get what we deserved? I am not in favor of persecution of anyone, but when people maintain attitudes (as a friend remarked: "'Chosen People.' 'Master Race.' What's the difference?") and engage in behavior (such as the wholesale theft and genocide currently proceeding in Palestine... So the Jews deserve what they're getting because they feel they are the "Chosen People"? As for theft and genocide in Palestine, give me a break!!! I invite anyone reading this to look at a map of the Middle East and look real hard at the size of the state of Israel and then compare it to the size of the Muslim world all around it... Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq. Compare them in size not to mention the combined populations of these Muslim countries to Israel. In 1948 the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq invaded the tiny new country of Israel with the intent of destroying it. Without going into details, Israel is still there. With Israel's superior smarts, intelligence, army, firepower, etc, etc, how can any intelligent person even begin to believe that the Jews want to annihilate the Palestinians? If Israel really wanted to accomplish that, they could have done it a long time ago. Whatever Israel is doing in that country now is for self-preservation. They are doing their best to annihilate the Muslim terrorist groups while at the same time doing their best to discourage the Palestinians (again, a group of people taught to hate the Jews from birth, by Arafat and his supporters) from supporting these groups. Are you also against the U.S. in Afghanistan? How do you feel about us attacking Iraq? Do you feel that President Bush is "war-crazy" and only going in there for the oil? Do you believe that Sadam Hussein couldn't possibly have any weapons of mass destruction because the inspectors haven't found any of real significance yet? Do you believe that we shouldn't go into Iraq because they are not an imminent danger to our country yet? Your long, sometimes thoughtful postings make you sound really educated at times, but it just goes to show that educated and well-read does not automatically mean intelligent. Are you a bigot? A racist? I think by now it's probably obvious to everyone but yourself. Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A guy could end up paying overtime to his ISP trying to reply to just one of your posts!
May I suggest unlimited, flat-rate service? I thought everyone had that by now. I know I'm long-winded; I do my best to keep it down, but if I address a subject I want to do a good job of it, which sometimes requires background and explanation of reasoning. You don't have to read it if you don't want to.
Jewish people aren't responsible for what other people copy or don't copy from Jewish traditions.
Never said they were. Of course, as you wrote, "all people are responsible for their own actions," and that includes anyone, Gentile or Jew (or Muslim, or African, or Australian Aborigine, or...), who practices such brutal, sexually-perverted child abuse as the the genital torture and mutilation of children. My view on this issue is based on principle, not on animus toward any particular group/s.
As regards the connection between Jewish culture and circumcision, I have noticed that even among the most "reformed" Jews, this practice is the one thing they won't give up. (I once worked for a "liberal" Jewish employer, who said it was okay to eat bacon, so long as it was "from a circumcised pig"!) Which, it seems to me, must say something significant about the culture as a whole. It's not by accident, I feel, that the overbearing "Jewish mother" is a stock figure of ironic comedy. (I found it most instructive when a local female rabbi--whose very existence is a huge break with Jewish tradition--became nearly hysterical--complete with accusations of "anti-Semitism!," etc.--in her defense of the Jewish practice of infant male circumcision--a tradition to which she herself is immune.)
This sub-thread began from my half-joking post mentioning that I'd decided to have nothing to do with women who were/are in favor of infant male circumcision, i.e. the women of my own culture/tribe--to which I added the afterthought of including Jewish women, who'd originally thought up the idea. That's all I said.
As it happens, in my youth I married a Jewish girl, and studied a good deal about the culture, religion, Hebrew language, etc. In my search for a spiritual "home," I even seriously considered conversion at one point, visiting a rabbi with my wife to discuss it. One of my closest lifelong friends was an Orthodox Jew, from whom I learned a lot when I briefly shared an apartment with him, and assisted at his wedding. So I am not ignorant of Judaism or Jewish culture, and was originally quite predisposed to uncritical sympathy in regard to the Jewish people.
However, as I said, just as with my view of women, it has been the observed behavior (and attitudes) of Jewish people themselves which have changed my views, not to the genocidal attitudes you impute to me (without any evidence) but simply to a more realistic picture. For instance, an illustrative quote from the Talmud: "Just the Jews are humans, the non-Jews are no humans, but cattle." (Kerithuth 6b, page 78, Jebhammoth 61) may serve to help one understand the treatment of the indigenous people of Palestine by the Zionists. I'm sorry, but it is there, and much more of the same.
Unfortunately, Jewish people seem to have fallen into the same "victim" mentality as feminists, leading to the same delusional worldview and the same behavior, which, sadly, only serves to perpetuate their own suffering. The really great thing about being an officially-recognized "victim" group is that you can literally get away with murder (see the "Texas woman..." thread elsewhere in this forum for more discussion of this phenomenon). Temporarily, at least; but not, I believe, forever; sooner or later all debts must be paid. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult temptation to resist, but it destroys those who fall into it.
Just as there are some Jews who question the circumcision tradition (see my previous post), there are also a few who've summoned in themselves the courage to take a hard look at the consequences of Zionism for the Jews themselves; see for instance "Zionism's Bad Conscience." Anyone who truly cares about the fate of the Jews would be wise to seriously consider these questions.
Among these also is my rabbi friend, a kind and gentle man (whose rabbinate, he tells me, would not be recognized in the "Jewish" state) who is deeply troubled by his people's present predicament. As I would be in his shoes. I recently attended his daughter's Bat Mitzvah, a beautiful ceremony with only one sour note: the 20-something Orthodox rabbi whose sneering, smug sense of "Chosen People" superiority was only too painfully obvious to a non-Jew. There is much of value in Judaism, and it may be possible to redeem it from its bloody, racist history; but it'll take some serious work.
In all, your somewhat hysterical response provides a perfect example of what I was writing about: not really replying to anything I said, but instead to an image in your own mind which is evoked by seeing or hearing anything even remotely critical of Jewish culture or behavior, which in turn evokes from you not reasoned discussion but immediate charges of Racist! Bigot! Nazi! etc.
I am far from perfect, to be sure, and actually not very well educated (a college dropout), though I do think a lot; but I am not any of those things.
As for the rest: What other groups deserve to be annnihilated from the face of the earth ...? I do not believe, nor have I ever said, that anyone so deserves. Are you also against the U.S. in Afghanistan? How do you feel about us attacking Iraq? I hold with the Founders, that the United States has no business being involved in the affairs of any other nation. ("The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." - President George Washington's Farewell Address, 1797) And that includes the billions of American taxpayer dollars provided each year to prop up the Zionist colony in Palestine, which is perhaps the #1 reason America is so universally hated in that area of the world. Do you feel that President Bush is 'war-crazy' and only going in there for the oil? Dubya is no more than a "useful idiot" doing the bidding of his masters; the oil is part of it but not all they're after. Iraq is intended to be another Waco; as the Chinese say, "Kill the chicken to warn the monkey." Do you believe that Sadam Hussein couldn't possibly have any weapons of mass destruction...? He probably does, but he's hardly alone; the United States possesses more of such bugaboos than all other nations combined, and is also the only nation ever to have actually used nuclear weapons--as well as Saddam's original creator. Given these facts, I find all the moral outrage somewhat less than convincing. That's not what it's about. Do you believe that we shouldn't go into Iraq because they are not an imminent danger to our country yet? I believe it has been the unfortunate habit of the U.S. of "going into" other countries, especially those in the Near East, that has brought about the present "imminent danger"; and the best way to alleviate it would be to break that habit. It's that simple: MYOB.
It's not a matter of what anyone may or may not "deserve"; that's a moral value-judgment, which I try to avoid, dealing instead in facts and common-sense cause and effect. If you deliberately, unjustifiably antagonize someone known to be volatile in his reactions, you have no cause to be surprised if he clobbers you. If I were to come into your home and start pushing you around, you wouldn't like it (or me); even Arabs/Muslims, sub-human though they may be, have feelings. I know little about Arab/Muslim culture, and have never felt any attraction thereto, but that much at least seems to me plain.
Once again, "Hatred does not cease by hatred."
Enough on this subject, which has veered seriously off-topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say about the article is "Poor Babies!".
So long as there's roughly one boy born for every girl born there's a single guy out there for every single gal. But only the girls get any sympathy or concern. The single women are victims, the single men flawed. The fact is the number of never-married men in their upper-30's has also tripled in the last several decades.
It's all such a racket, and it's been going on for 20 years. (Yes, try to find a 1983 book called "The Great American Man Shortage"). Funny thing is, ABC didn't seem to have any trouble finding a whole room full of high quality testosterone for their Bachelorette show...
Whitehead's previous book "Divorce Culture" actually wasn't so bad; but from the excerpt, it appears she's really taken a slide downhill to buy the same schlock Oprah and the rest are peddling.
* MB
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn Sacks has an excellent article on this topic, written in response to a column by Maureen Dowd last year, which of course blames men.
http://www.glennsacks.com/dowd_on_women.htm
Excerpts:
Dowd observes that "yet again...men have an unfair advantage...the more women accomplish, the more they have to sacrifice.." And, of course, she knows exactly where to place the blame.
Men, she explains, "protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women." In the marriage market, female achievement is the "kiss of death for women" because "men veer away from 'challenging' women." Dowd even implies that her own childlessness is the result of this "male" problem. Yet there are many reasons for the "baby bust" besides male perfidy.
Reason #1: Women often do not adjust their preferences in a mate to their career goals.
Reason #2: Even successful women still usually choose to "marry up."
Reason #3: Some men prefer a less career-oriented woman out of legitimate concern for their future children.
Reason #4: Having kids is not for everyone, and many women have made an intelligent choice to remain childless.
Reason #5: Modern women's overreaction to the strict gender roles of the past.
Reason #6: Educated modern women have been misinformed on men and marriage by the Women's Studies programs in their universities.
The problem with Dowd, and the many modern women who think like her, is that it never seems to occur to them that they, not men, are the cause of their own problems. Dowd is a successful career woman who has been endlessly critical of men. Yet, without a trace of irony, she chastises men for being afraid of successful women who, she says, may be critical of them. But how many women want to marry a man who is critical? Many domestic violence pamphlets even characterize men who are critical of their wives as "emotional abusers."
A friend of mine recently explained the break-up of his marriage to a successful woman along these lines. "My wife said the problem was her career success," he said. "But I was happy for her and her success. The problem wasn't her career. The problem was her negative, critical view of men. In the end I simply got tired of being wrong all the time."
Who wouldn't?
End of Excerpts.
Read the column, because Glenn explains exactly what he means by each of the six points.
Seems to me that after 30 years of feminist myth-making, many women are incapable of honest self-examination, let alone actual empathy or understanding for men. Instead they seem paranoid, blaming, self-righteous, close-minded, one-sided, and ignorant. For years, victim feminism has blamed every ill imaginable on men - and a lot of women seem to have bought into that mythology, some consciously, others not. I haven't done a survey, but I notice this in many women I encounter. And so do many others, both friends and authors I've read.
In my experience, even women who state that they are not feminists believe many of the lies so thoroughly debunked by Sommers, Farrell, and others. I gave Farrell's Myth of Male Power to a cousin of mine in her 40's. She is happily married, kind, decent, etc, and a mainstream though moderate feminist. She came back to me in a total state of shock. She was completely stunned at how blind she had been to the other side of the coin, even things which were glaringly obvious. She said that the book shook her up like nothing she'd read in years.
I suspect that today's victim feminism has done far more harm to women than good. I worry about that since I have a bunch of daughters. Of course I worry even more for the boys who have been the actual targets of this hate.
Its too bad. Thirty years of misandry, heatedly denied of course, may finally be creating a large number of men who really don't like women. I suspect that misandrist feminism has created far more misogyny than previously existed. Yet anyone who points this out in even the mildest way is shouted down. Ok, so stay in denial all you feminists. It will just keep getting worse.
If we are ever going to arrive at some sort of gender peace, women are going to have to accept that men have a valid opinion on all gender issues. Further, women are going to have to find the guts to listen to what men have to say. Given that feminists have a 30-year head start, I'd say its high time for women who want something different to open their minds and do a bit of reading right now. There are dozens of good books and articles out there. If you choose ignorance don't blame men for your lack of relationship or anything else.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to opening their minds, many of these same women also need to practice more shutting of the mouth, too.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> In the marriage market, female achievement is
> the "kiss of death for women" because "men veer
> away from 'challenging' women."
This is so patently false. The truth it the women won't have anything to do with a man who doesn't make more than them.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @09:29AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is that men have been liberated and the women can't stand it. Why is it great for women to delay marriage and family but when men to the same, somehow they are failng in their "traditional" responsibilities? The fact that more men are opting out of the marriage racket is testimony to the increasing intelligence of x and y generation males. Go men!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this to be a good read on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I second this recommendation. Some good laughs:
"...the smarter a man is, the more he is likely to realize that being romantically involved with an intelligent, educated, upper-middle-class American woman steeped in 20 years of feminist indoctrination is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the ploys of feminism today is to act or talk as though one is concerned with men's welfare, and then to stab men in the back once their guard is down.
This article starts out with the statement, "BRACE yourselves, boys. We have something new for which to blame you. It's entirely your fault we are underpopulating the country." From this opening, one might expect to read about the injustice of blaming men for everything bad, but as one reads on one finds statements such as, "And if you boys keep insisting on hanging around and not getting down to parenting with us, well, we will just have to clone ourselves.
"And we shall squeeze you right out of the DNA chain.
"Yes siree, we have options these days. So don't press your luck with this procrastination."
What the author chooses to ignore is that by the time the bugs are worked out of cloning, the bugs may well also have been worked out of artificial wombs, making it possible for men to clone without women.
Oklahoma State University actually had a conference covering the subject last February 22-23, entitled, "The End of Natural Motherhood? The Artificial Womb and Designer Babies." Here is the agenda for the conference.
The author of the article in theadvertiser.news.com.au states, "Lots of you just don't want responsibility – and others are too responsible. You just can't get it right. You either want to play forever or you want to establish financial security before starting a family. Both ways, you're responsible for the declining birthrate." Note that she conveniently fails to state that many men are refusing to marry and/or have children out of fear that the sicko government, particularly the feminist courts, will help the woman kidnap the children, steal the man's house, and force the man under threat of imprisonment to support the kidnapper of his children.
Another tidbit from the article, "With us girls cloning ourselves in multiples of one tiny gorgeous self, we won't be having any more wars..." Ah, yes, all wars are the fault of men. Right. I forgot.
And the article finishes with, "Just you see, boys. We will manage just fine without you. As soon as we work out who's going to take out the rubbish."
So, men are only good for taking out the rubbish.
Perhaps the author was being sarcastic and pointing out how ridiculous feminist attitudes and beliefs are, but, if she was, her sarcasm was lost on me.
After reading the article I really have to wonder why anyone would marry such a woman. Then again, perhaps she's married to some pathetic, self-loathing, typical pseudo-man (read "femboy").
Beware the sleazy, slick siren songs of contemporary feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, from the article in The Advertiser, "Just you see, boys. We will manage just fine without you. As soon as we work out who's going to take out the rubbish."
Perhaps men should be starting to ask if they should be forced to support child care. Men pay taxes that go in part to support child care facilities and centers. Also, company sponsored child care facilities are paid for by money that could go into wages.
So, here is my question:
With men being systematically driven out of the family, should men be forced to pay for child care facilities that primarily or, perhaps someday, exclusively benefit women?
Somehow I doubt many women would want to have children without men, if women have to bear the burden of raising and providing for those children without any aid, including financial assistance, from men. For that matter, I doubt many men would want to have children without women, if men have to bear the burden of raising and providing for those children without any aid from women.
With feminism destroying relationships between men and women, bye bye society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 06, @11:05AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
But this attitude of women is currently changing! Go to http://www.surrenderedwife.com and read the first two chapters and the media comments!
There is now also a second part available: http://www.surrenderedsingle.com - the message is the same.
The most interesting part of the story is that the book was a huge success, and "surrendering circles" have popped up everywhere like mushrooms! The exact numbers and a critic is available at http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/000020 .html .
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting concept... but I don't believe it'd work for everyone. I for one would never respect a woman who acted like my lapdog. Certainly the recommendation to jettison the obsessive criticism and negativity is advice that we all could use, but I'm interested in intelligence and confidence in my partner, not subservience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @04:57AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I checked out the URL, and I tend to agree with DaveK. I'm not married, but I'm sure I wouldn't want a wife who was a doormat. I also don't need a wife to be a cook, a maid, or a body servant. I would want a loving and supportive partner.
Mark C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @08:50PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I have to say I agree with what she is saying. I think the work 'Surrender' is being used the same way we were talking about the word 'chivalry'. Bad choice of words!
She is not using it to mean she is a doormat. She is using it to mean she is giving up control of things she had no right to control in the first place. I have been going through this same process, and I am NO doormat, ask Dave...he would have no interest in a doormat. Maybe a doorstop sometimes..;-) It just means I am not trying to tell him what to do all the time...when and how long to play with the kids, what chores to do, what to wear, how to drive,what to think...
I am not sure about finances, I think that should be up to the individual couple. But I agree with most of her article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I am a perfect female - everyone has been forewarned that if they don't kowtow to me they'll be sued or, at the least, removed from my presense. In some sense, my word is law. Yet, I am still a victim of male oppression. How tragic.
Now I'll be me again. I remember a girl posting on a board "so why are no guys going out with me? I'm smart, attractive, funny, and all that jazz. And they still aren't interested. Why can't guys stand liberated, independent women?" Ugh. The problem [of course] couldn't be that she wasn't as perfect as she thought, or that she just wasn't interesting to any of the guys in the nearest vicinity at the moment. Oh, no. It's those mean old chauvinistic men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The truth it the women won't have anything to do with a man who doesn't make more than them.
I love this logic: "I demand to make as much as men, but marry a man who makes more"-- then when women get their wish, they say "where have all the men gone?"
In addition to hypocrisy, these feminists just can't do math! Otherwise they'd realize that as incomes become equal, there won't BE any men to "marry up" with!
Also, "successful women" is, too often, simply a euphemism for women who try to ACT like men, incorrectly thinking this implies being cold, hostile and domineering.
In other words, "successful women" tend to end up as walking cases of Penis Envy and attitude, like that seen in most modern media; however while screen producers may think this is somehow attractive, self-respecting men simply don't care for it in real life. They're simply trying to something they're not, and ending up depriving themselves of what they truly are and could be.
So we see what feminism truly is based on: denial, and the embittered consequences of refusing to accept the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not all of you are that way. Maybe nothing. Certainly not all of you are that way. There's a great deal of "successful marriage" stories out there, and at least some of them have to be true and healthy relationships.
BUT
I will be damned if I am going to waste my life sifting through the lot of you for the select strata. Far better, I have found, to become comfortable with myself than waste part of my life trying to please some spoiled, narcissistic [sic], bitch.
Police yourself. If germaine Greer doesn't represent you, protest her. Shout her down. Yank the microphone away from her. But if she and her ilk go about professing to speak for "all women" and the best that happens is weak and faint condemnation, what are we as men to believe that but she does?
Hm?
And a post or two here and there on the internet *is* weak condemnation. Sorry.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...is this, my short-version response to feminism:
If you buy something and it doesn't work as expected, what do you do? You take it back where you got it, no?
If, as seems to be the message of this and the hundreds of similar books, in a nutshell, men are no good, what should you do?
Where do men come from?
Get it?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
