|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy's article was wonderful as always. I actually stumbled across it at foxnews.com, not knowing who authored it until the page came up. In other words, they [fox] made it pretty accessible to someone who wasn't even particularly looking for it. Wonderful job to both Wendy and the editor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @04:30AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I regret that I cannot agree with the originator of this post, nor the previous respondent.
Here's why -
"If men participated equally in forging the terms of the most important commitment in their lives, perhaps they would cease to view marriage as a form of indentured servitude and divorce as slavery."
What is the matter with you guys? Can't you read? In her closing paragraph, the conclusion of the article, the point, the whole purpose of the thing, she gentle slips the knife of blame into the anaesthetised backs of all men, yet again.
Can't you see it? "If men participated equally in forging the terms..." How blatant does it have to be? She openly blames men for the demise of marriage. It's all the fault of men, yet again.
It's not the fault of the laws, not the courts, not the women or their attitudes, but specifically men. It's men's fault because we don't "participate equally in forging the terms" of marriage.
Now tell me why I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now tell me why I'm wrong.
I heartily disagree. However, I do my best to avoid arguing with anonymous users (AUs), because reasonable discussions almost always quickly become impossible, with a number of AUs saying different things and disagreeing with each other. It's impossible to know who is saying what. So... If you'd like to know why I disagree, please identify yourself with a handle. Otherwise, I wish you the best, but I won't get into this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @03:23PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100% with Thomas. The article does not criticise husbands. Rather it criticises mens lack of power in shaping the institution of marriage as it exists to-day. I thought the article was excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. You are wrong because you have taken the quote out of context. Wendy's article brings out the fact that family courts are biased against men. Here's a quote:
As a critic of anti-male bias in the family courts (search), the reasons I hear most frequently from non-marrying men are fear of financial devastation in divorce and of losing meaningful contact with children afterward.
and another:
A significant number of men are loudly stating their reasons: anti-male bias in the current marriage law and in the family courts. Solving this piece of the "marriage crisis" is not difficult. Allow people to draw up their own private marriage contracts, without government law acting as a third party; have unbiased family courts adjudicate breaches of contracts.
If you simply look at the quote you mentioned it may appear that she is blaming men. However, anyone who reads the entire article can plainly see that her comment about men "participating equally" is related not to the man's being blamed but to the the anti-male bias that is so prevalent.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @08:36AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're reading it wrong... based on the context of the article I believe the correct interpretation would be that men are being blocked from participation, not that they are to blame.
Perhaps a more obvious sentence would have been "If men were allowed to participate equally in forging the terms...", but IMO it was fairly obvious that was here intention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In those democratic countries in which women have the vote, they become married to the state demanding that the state force males in and outside of marriage either directly or indirectly to provide for and defend them without any reasonable compensation for males nor detriment for females. The same is the foundation for the destruction of the state, the destruction of society, and the destruction of marriage. Females will not and have never agreed to true equality of responsibility and citizenship in any democracy. The aforementioned necessitates the proposition that this true equality of responsibility and rights between the genders must be accomplished or that the state will collapse.Electoral representation of females must be premised on this equality as a matter of justice if Western civilization, Western ethics,Western intellectual values, and Western social values are to exist. Given the historical failure of democratic governments to address effectively this problem, it is highly unlikely that these same corrective actions will be accomplished.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @11:13AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh you are wrong here. Just last night I was on a parenting chat, filled with women who of course have nothing better to do. The topic came up of custody with many of them mentioning there ex's as sperm donors and pay cheques. Of course I brought up that the courts are very biased towards fathers. Well about 3/4 of them agreed but decided that there is nothing that can be done about it.
Then the conversation moved on to how women who work always work a second shift. Going to work then coming home and doing childcare. According to them men who work don't come home to do childcare they come home and "play" with the kids, which isn't childcare by any stretch of the imagination. Of course they all had husbands who were lazy bastards, it couldn't be there fault that they chose to marry men like this (if they are even like this) no it's society's fault that they are forced to marry men like this. Even the women who are not housewifes are forced to do all of the work in the house. Lazy men! I wonder why women even get married. Makes you wonder why they are always harping about men not wanting to marry if marriage is so horrible for them.
Then the topic of women's role in history came up. You could be no wronger about western civilization. These women on the parenting chat are not feminists just your typical everyday mothers. They believed that "from the beginning of time" women have worked paid professions and their unpaid duties in the home. It suprised me when I heard that most women since "the beginning of time" have being working paid professions like teaching, nursing, nannying, doing others laundry and much more, while there bastard husbands just worked one job and did nothing around the house. One of them told me that men in pre-modern society did nothing but go to work then come home and beat their wives. Someone did mention that women do beat men also...and there were lots of lol and lmao about men getting beaten had by all in the chat.
The only women that used feminist language (i.e. women's ways of knowing) was a evangelic born again christian lady who said she submits herself to her husband as god intends. She then went on to agree with everything above and took it even further. She said I only brought up the topics and was arguing because I was a male and had to prove my superiority as all males have to because they are opressors, she also mentioned that I couldn't understand because they had a women's view of the world and me being a man I could never understand a women's way of knowing. Wow! I wonder how well she "submits" to her husband.
Not one women there disagreed with anything said above, not one in a group of typical mothers. If so many of them believed then they must be right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh you are wrong here. Just last night I was on a parenting chat, filled with women who of course have nothing better to do. The topic came up of custody with many of them mentioning there ex's as sperm donors and pay cheques. This is NOT an uncommon view amoung women.
Then the topic of women's role in history came up. You could be no wronger about western civilization. These women on the parenting chat are not feminists just your typical everyday mothers. They believed that "from the beginning of time" women have worked paid professions and their unpaid duties in the home. It suprised me when I heard that most women since "the beginning of time" have being working paid professions like teaching, nursing, nannying, doing others laundry and much more, while there bastard husbands just worked one job and did nothing around the house. One of them told me that men in pre-modern society did nothing but go to work then come home and beat their wives. Someone did mention that women do beat men also...and there were lots of lol and lmao about men getting beaten had by all in the chat.
It only goes to show how far feminist propaganda has made it's way into the mainstream. While men in marriage may not do quite their fair share of house work, I have yet to see women out there cleaning out the gutters, doing the yard work, fixing the major appliances, fixing the cars, doing the remodeling, building the deck, fixing the porch, painting the exterior of the house, installing the new water heater. I have also yet to see many examples of women who materially contribute to the finances of the house in the same way men are expected to. If they work at all, it's what's mine is mine, and what he makes is also mine.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 13, @04:26PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
SacredNaCl - Since the 60's the feminist movement have back men into a corner. At this point it is a no win situation for the normal man. Ex: A marriage strike means more women for gay women (mostly feminist) to approach. This is a benefit to feminist. With society in the current problems that we have now. Watching mother abuse boys because we have to remove their manhood. Watching doctor sedate boys with drugs to keeps them carm. Watching boy's with longer hair, earrings and talking about i am waiting for someone to give everything to me (looking for prince charming mentality). Time is about to do a serious reversal of roles.
The government has found a way to control the birth rate. Being inpolitically correct by putting feministic views upfront(lying, false report handed to the government. With the sperm donors dying off even their (feminist movement) harvest of finding someone is going to be impaired. Then comes the problem of we will need males to reproduce.
Our (Males) ingorant got us to the point of no return. Now wait for the blow up and remember when a man is a commodity then they will pay men. We may no see it in our life time but our sons and grandsons a few or them will make our like bandits.
We have not even started to see the destruction as our society as we know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see women out there cleaning out the gutters, doing the yard work, fixing the major appliances, fixing the cars, doing the remodeling, building the deck, fixing the porch, painting the exterior of the house, installing the new water heater.
Well I refuse to do this work. I've worked very hard to be able to afford paying somebody to do these distasteful chores. If the women want a housemaid then let the pay for it by getting a high paying job!
Naturally, because I'm a male it doesn't count if I pay somebody to do this work in the eyes of the bigoted feminists. To hell with them. They are all male haters.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 14, @07:20AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
These people weren't bigoted feminists they were just typical everyday women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Wendy points out, "There is never a single or comprehensive explanation for complex phenomena that are rooted deeply in human psychology."
There are a number of reasons that men are less inclined to marry than they used to be. Some of these are pointed out in the article. "They can get sex without marriage; they can enjoy a 'wife' through cohabitation; and they want to avoid divorce and its financial risks." The first two of these reveal a current lack of incentives to marry; the last reveals a clear disincentive.
It will take a long time to get the courts to start acting in a fair manner toward men in any field including, and perhaps especially, divorce. By the time this happens, by the time the clear disincentive to marriage has been removed (if it is ever removed), a high percentage of men may have become quite comfortable with the idea of never marrying, and possibly with the associated idea of never having children. At that point, the incentives to marry (at least those mentioned above) will probably still be absent, so there may be little to get men to change their minds back again.
It is possible that marriage will not recover, at least in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another point not addressed and rarely addressed is 'money'. I've heard it enough times to remind people that those living in common law relationships often won't marry because of the expense of marriage.
However, more and more men are realizing that marriage is a danger zone. Which makes me laugh when homosexuals want to marry. The left has been working to destroy marriage for a long, long time. Now all of a sudden they want to promote it? Sounds weird. Its dubious at best.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait for this to evolve to the point where one has to be labeled the "man" and one the "woman" of the relationship prior to the marriage so as to determine which will get the children, alimony, and child support after the divorce.
This brings up why homosexuals don't have to worry about being married. The courts are not anti-marriage. They are anti-male. (Just think of all the other anti-maleness in the court system, where marriage isn't involved, such as the far greater sentences given to males for a given crime.) If both spouses are male or both spouses are female, the court won't give preference to one over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The court has to give preference if children are involved.
Rebuttable presumption of joint custody. If the ex-couple wants to work out another arrangement, that would be their choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I can't wait for this to evolve to the point where one has to be labeled the "man" and one the "woman" of the relationship prior to the marriage so as to determine which will get the children, alimony, and child support after the divorce."
lol!! I wonder if people would still be so blind to the perverted mockery of impartiality within our justice system...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very true. Despite that I support gay marriage. It cheats not one but _two_ (!) women out of lucrative divorce settlements (ha ha ha)
With deference to whoever said that first,
-aym
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a strike. There is no male marriage strike.
A strike is organized collective action, typically organised by trade unions. Individual men deciding that marriage is not for them is not a strike no matter how many make this choice.
Calling it a strike serves the feminist purpose of daemonizing men with the smear that "men always gang-up on women". In truth the reverse has more verisimilitude.
cheers,
--sd.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the definitions of "strike" from my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "A temporary stoppage of activities in protest against an act or condition."
One of the definitions of "protest" from the same dictionary: "to make a statement or gesture in objection to."
It's a marriage strike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @10:18PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"to make a statement or gesture in objection to."
My goodnees, if men are having a marriage strike, because coincidentally they have been individually scared away from marriage what then do you call the intentional objections and protests that gender feminists have been shrilling conducting for decades.
Do we represent all men? Men are still getting married aren't they? Do gender feminists represent all women? Using the same parallels that have been used here, it is fair to say that women have declared not a strike, but a war against the patriarchy (men) with the intent to drive them out of women's lives and subjugate them. Let's get some perspective here please.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we represent all men?
Of course not. I'm not sure what your point is, since I'm certain Wendy doesn't believe that every man on earth has decided never to marry, yet she uses the term "marriage strike" to refer to the decision by many men not to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many men are deciding not to marry, because there is far too great a risk involved. They are part of a marriage strike.
I doubt that Glenn Sacks, Dianna Thompson, or Matt Weeks believe that they represent all men or that all the men in the world have decided never to marry. It is not necessary to represent all men, nor is it necessary to believe that every man on earth has decided never to marry, in order to refer appropriately to the marriage strike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 13, @01:12AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
The point I'm trying to make is not a point of contention or disagreement, it is a point of comparison. If this is considered a marriage strike (which it may well be) then what the heck is it that they "feminists" are doing by their actions against men? Once again the word feminist muddies the waters: gender feminist, equity feminist, ifeminist, radical feminist. I'm sorry the gender feminist and radical feminists ruined the respectability of the word for equity feminists and ifeminists.
If I would use any words to describe the reaction to the "pogrom" of the "feminists" I would not use "strike" I would use "pogrom avoidance tactics," no offence intended to any jewish folks, but the systematic extermination of men by the methodical actions of the G-fems, and radical fems is a direct cause of any "marriage strike" and should be mentioned as the root cause in all it's horribleness.
Wendy's piece was very short, and good as far as it went, but it wasn't fully developed in my opinion. If it were any shorter she could have just said there's a marriage strike by men and bad laws are causing it. She should have developed the underlying reasons further. She gives a brief explanation that family courts are abusive to men, but she commits the sin of ommission by not describing the full extent of the war on men by the "feminists" that is causing the "marriage strike."
Perhaps she is planning a second article on the topic. Perhaps she could call it "The War on Men" if Christina Hoff Sommers doesn't already have rights on the title. On second thought make it a book. On third thought make it an encyclopaedia.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's always good to discuss matters with you, Ray. Much of what I have to say in response to your post is agreement with a few ideas added.
If this is considered a marriage strike (which it may well be) then what the heck is it that they "feminists" are doing by their actions against men?
Total war.
I'm sorry the gender feminist and radical feminists ruined the respectability of the word for equity feminists and ifeminists.
Anti-male hatred has always been fundamental to feminism. The movement just evolved to the point where anti-male hatred was all that was left. Now we unfortunately have a few people trying to rehabilitate the word, "feminism," but that's like trying to rehabilitate the swastika, based on its historical significance prior to the German National Socialist movement. It's time to throw the word into the garbage. It's tainted forever with all of the hateful acts that have been perpetrated in its name.
She (Wendy) gives a brief explanation that family courts are abusive to men, but she commits the sin of ommission by not describing the full extent of the war on men by the "feminists" that is causing the "marriage strike."
A very good point. Unfortunately, she's limited in space on these FoxNews articles. There's no doubt that the overall, feminist war against men underlies the destruction of men in marriage and divorce by the courts.
Perhaps she could call it "The War on Men" if Christina Hoff Sommers doesn't already have rights on the title.
A few years ago, I asked a law librarian about this. He said that a title to a written work cannot be copyrighted.
All the best, Ray, and thanks for all your continued work on behalf of men's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few years ago, I asked a law librarian about this. He said that a title to a written work cannot be copyrighted.
I should add, however, that expressions can be trademarked, and then the incorporation of the expression into a title can be problematic. Anyway, I'm not an expert on the subject. That's just what a law librarian told me a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 13, @01:45AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"Do we represent all men? Men are still getting married aren't they? Do gender feminists represent all women? Using the same parallels that have been used here, it is fair to say that women have declared not a strike, but a war against the patriarchy (men) with the intent to drive them out of women's lives and subjugate them. Let's get some perspective here please."
Are all men on a marriage strike or is it just those who have been burned or seen other men burned by the "war on men?" There are still naive men out there who are getting married just like there are some women out there who do not subscribe to the "feminist model" for men and women. G-fems and rad-fems often just use the term "feminist." I recall a page advertising batterers programs from a local government source and it says we use the "feminist model." Yes, you guessed it, they use the Duluth Wheel. Men are always the batterers.
If there are some men out there who are not on a marriage strike yet, they soon will be, as men become more and more 2nd class citizens at the hands of a ruthless matriarchy.
Strike??? It's a lot more than a strike. A woman got on the elevator the other day in a bookstore I was in and there were just the two of us. I thought about getting out before the door closed, but it closed before I could react. I felt uneasy all the way to my destination floor. I don't trust any woman. You never know when one of these born liar, scam artists is going to go off on you and make something up so they can rob you through the legal system. I don't even want to get to know any woman. I can't get far enough away from them. Sure there are good women out there, it's just that I've seen so many bad ones that I don't even care to make the effort to sort through them.
I have found that even though some are initially good they change on you (usually for the worse). Like a lot of things the exploitive people ruin good things for decent honest people. Such is the case for marriage in the hands of the feminists. I'll let the players figure out which ones are which. I'm much happier in the absence of their company.
I'm not a mysoginist. I don't hate women. I just don't trust any of them in this Brave New "feminsit" World.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I felt uneasy all the way to my destination floor. I don't trust any woman. You never know when one of these born liar, scam artists is going to go off on you and make something up so they can rob you through the legal system."
There are a few times I felt this way, but then I realized that just as feminism is "demonizing" men, men's activists have to watch that they do not do the same to women. Even though all women have the *power* to falsely accuse men of sexual crimes, the *power* to marry you and take away your earnings and children and the *power* to abuse you and get away with it, I believe that *most* women won't do this (at least not knowingly).
So, even though I may keep at the back of mind that women I encounter *may* do something to ruin my life, thinking that they *will* do this WILL ruin your life.
Just treat everyone civilly and hope it works out.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like many, I have tried the "treat them all with civility,respect and hope for the best approach".
Sadly I have come to the conclusion that 99% of women are spoilt brats and can never be trusted.
All women have a twisted side, only now they have the law etc on their side.
There is no such thing as dangerous women, only gulible men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sadly I have come to the conclusion that 99% of women are spoilt brats and can never be trusted."
I find that most women I have encountered are nice, normal people in *everyday* situations. I can talk with a lady cashier at the store about weather, chit chat with a lady in an elevator, play with female players in multi-player computer games or discuss a new movie with a female coworker. However, I try to avoid discussing gender issues with women, because even the "normal" women seem to have the following attitudes (Even if they don't *word* things this way, this is what they are effectively saying):
-Equality is only about bringing an end to problems that women have. Men don't have any problems and are not discriminated against. At all.
-Men should still cater and pander to women's needs and comforts. This has nothing to do with the genders being equal or not or about treating people nicely in general.
-Advantages that women have, for being female, are never to be seen as being an advantage for them; it's just the way things are.
-Men's need for sex should be exploited and used for profit with no feeling of remorse. ("I have what you need and you know you want it.")
-Women's actions towards men are never viewed as treating him negatively.
-If a woman's actions are blatantly negative towards men, they feel no remorse for treating a man badly (e.g. "They deserve it.")
At least, that's my experience/observations.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi R
Yes , my sentiments exactly, I do find that I can get along quite well with most women and in most situations however I do find that topics/areas such as equality and the position of men etc is met with much the same response you alude too in your post. As I said 99% of women are spoilt brats, or to be more exact "me me me".
I can no longer treat them or at least think of them as equals, I now make a point of keeping any chivalrous feelings I have left in check.
Further, I do find that there is an awful lot of very angry women out their and a lot of them have emotional problems and using tranquilisers etc to cope with their loneliness etc, I have yet to meet a single one of them who has the ability to question their own behaviour, after the first few conversations I get the
"my ex was a bastard who beat me up etc etc"
I now sadly see it as a standard ploy to bring out chivalry or the rescuer in me, just check the adds for women seeking men, they are amusing but quite sad, they are usually of two types (a) woman in need of TLC someone to wine dine and look after me or (b) woman been hurt badly seeking an honest caring loving GENUINE male
(if there is such a thing)
They just cant help themselves, as I said master manipulators. I can no longer see how any man can have an honest relationship with people who are incapable of being honest with themselves.
THEY ARE ALL MASTER MANIPULATORS.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
