|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...I'm starting to get the feeling the IWF values the nearest man's uses more than his characteristics. For independant women, they sure do glorify the traditional man, but not the traditional woman? I hope you can see where I'm heading with this.
Well, I've had that feeling for some time now. The IWF and their ilk want all the benefits of having a "traditional" man around but are unwilling to make the sacrifices of being a traditional woman. In short, their script is just like feminists: preaching "equality" when it suits them, "difference" when it doesn't.
As for the article itself, the author is obviously too much of a nutcase for it to be worth taken seriously too much. Single moms have done just such a great job of "enforcing proper behavior", now, haven't they? But I'm sure she'd shriek at the "sexism" of such an allegation while continuing her mocking attitude towards the supposed ineptitude of men. If you read closely, you can see similar attitudes in many at the IWF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The referenced article is not by the IWF, it's a link to the National Review. It is posted as one example under the topic heading "Is Fatherhood Embattled." Reading the very negative article makes it clear that fatherhood is indeed under seige.
Don't be too quick to blow off the IWF, they just blasted the most recent "wage gap" nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, here brother. Don't get me wrong...this men's forum is the best oasis of sanity I have yet found except for one thing....there does seem to be a knee jerk reaction to shoot at any and all things females say without getting the story straight. I for one AM NOT AT WAR WITH WOMEN. I am at war with the misandrists who commandeered and occupied the women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is, this is a fight between two groups of women with female supremacy tendencies, and both sides don't hesitate to use and abuse the nearest man. Human pinball sums up the nearest man's situation between these two.
There's the feminist wing (AKA Now and the like) who think that women should be "equal" (read: dominion over him) in an un-traditional role, while the nearest man has to stay forcibly in his traditional role.
Then there's the pseudo-traditionalist wing (IWF gals and a fair few conservatives) who thinks the nearest man's uses should be praised over his characteristics, to keep him in a traditional role, and will pour a ton of shame and blame on him if he trys to do anything about it, while being "equal" (read: you tow their line due to their (psuedo) moral superiority) to him.
Are you starting to see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely right Adam. These women are fundamentally incapable of understanding Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And the hypocrisy (from BOTH radical feminists and pseudo-traditionalist anti-feminist feminists) is astounding:
Women demand, not just equal treatment, but special treatment in the workplace, and then bemoan that men are now unwilling to take full responsibility for providing for them.
Women demand, through contraception and abortion, the right to only have children when they are good and ready for them (while denying the same "right" to men), expect full custody under any and all circumstances, and then bemoan men's unwillingness to "take responsibility" for their offspring.
Women demand the right to end a marriage for any, or no, reason, while still keeping most of the benefits of the marriage, like the children and the man's financial support, and then complain that men are no longer willing to "commit".
Women refuse to submit or defer to their husbands on anything, and then accuse men of failing to provide proper "leadership".
The ONLY difference between radical and pseudo-traditionalist feminists is that of tactics: how to best manipulate men into accepting all of the above. Sad to say, the pseudo-traditionalist feminists are actually doing quite a good job of it, with "conservative" men who SHOULD know better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stupid article - did anyone notice it was not the author who ended up instilling good values in her child, but her father? Lord. Plus, sorry, I've known far too many wishy-washy hippy MOTHERS to take seriously this idea that's it is the new-age man's fault. And I'll just break out the hankies for the office women slaving away. ;)
"Why a Good Man is Hard to Find Harvey Mansfield
In our new world of choice Dad seems to have gone, departed, left the scene, flown the coop. Many dads are literally gone, and they make up the statistics of male abandonment, the dead-beat dads whom we denounce."
This was another cheerful lauding of fathers in this day and age. :P
I wish IWF had posted some, oh, nice articles or even one of their own panel works, as the last article is, but it isn't about fatherhood, it's about boyhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 AM June 18th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
To borrow Samuel Johnson's observation about women preachers, seeing a man take care of children is sometimes like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs: It is not done well, but you are surprised to see it done at all.
This is gross. She converts a misogynistic saying into a misandristic one! How trendy, how progressive.
Take the popular WB drama Everwood, whose season finale ended with sensitive, bearded (what is with these guys and facial hair?) Dr. Brown informing his teenage son's pregnant ex-girlfriend that she was not to tell the son about this unfortunate turn of events. Because that would rob the boy — who's 17 — of the precious last few moments of his childhood.
Yea, well suppose this son was 19 and the girlfriend was 17. Under current stupid laws, the son could have been jailed for 10 years for statutory rape and then forced to pay 18 years' worth of "child support" (plus interest accumulated on arrears while he was in jail). That would have robbed him of pretty much his whole life. It would be nice if the public (that includes women) would care enough to change this insane situation. A start might be to feature this real-life situation front and center on a TV show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I second what others have posted. IWF's, like other feminists groups, have a basic concern which revolves around ways to use men, what the best long-term plan is for that. They realize that so-called gender feminism is too rough on men and so will destroy us too readily. Rather, they prefer to advocate for keeping us in places of service to women in such a way that the use of our sex will be marshalled and conserved. This brings them the longer-term benefit to women as a class as opposed to just finding ways to marginalize us utterly, thereby making us of little use to women.
Here's an analogy. Let's say you are talking about the environment. Person A believes the environment should be used indiscriminantly because it can be. Person B thinks the environment should be used judiciously and carefully, but used nonetheless, so that it will be useful on into the future. Person C thinks it should be utterly left alone since it is important in and of itself.
Person A is an industrialist
Person B is a conservationist
Person C is a preservationist.
Now, the analogy is as follows:
- NOW and other so-called gender feminist groups are like industrialists, vis a vis men.
- IWF and other so-called conservative women's groups or "equity feminists" are like conservationsists, vis a vis men.
- Advocates for men's rights are like preservationsists, vis a vis men.
There, get the idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree about the IWF - preferable and more respectful than feminists but they're still Ladies-Firsters. I had a back-and-forth with Charlotte Allen, but never got a reply to this (Charlotte in s):
==========
Well, the law doesn't say anything about what a dad can claim. If your concern is with the children, maybe we need some new laws barring men from speaking to them. This is where your thinking leads.
Who knows exactly why powerful men decided each of them and every other man should be responsible for any child conceived during marriage? That would be a question for an objective analysis of history that I'm sure our liberal academic institutions will never perform for fear of offending the feminist goddess. Surely men's blind allegiance and pride in their role as protectors and providers had something to do with it. Preserving the family unit had something to do with it. Perhaps the advanced age of the powerful men's wives who could no longer conceive had something to do with it.
Whatever the reasons, the US Supreme Court's recent affirmation of this legal obligation on men, and men only, while a woman has a right to choose parenthood, with any man she chooses, regardless of her husband's wishes, clearly constitutes chivalry run amuck. In this situation I say let's give men credit for letting their wives leave the house. How would it strike you to find out that the girl you called your daughter isn't actually your daughter but someone else's? I'd be horrified and devastated. But I guess I'd just have to take it like a man.
No joke, this is the most profound statement you've made yet about women "civilizing" men. Apple pie and the toilet seat beautifully represent women's implements of influence over men, a system of rewards and punishments. If she approves of his behavior, she rewards him with apple pie: admiration, praise, affection, and sex. If she disapproves, she shames him and lays down the law.
Man invents, builds, mass-markets, installs, and maintains the toilet, designed for woman. She approves of this fancy new luxury and bakes him an apple pie (in an oven man also invented, built, and so forth). Man leaves the toilet seat up, not quite "civilized" enough according to her feelings about it now. Woman demands he take responsibility for the condition of the toilet seat and touch the nasty thing with his hands so she doesn't have to.
Sounds a little like war, doesn't it? Men take responsibility for the condition of the world and get their hands dirty, so women don't have to.
=======
Zeek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops, Charlotte in "s!!
"The age-old rule about husbands’ having to support any children conceived during the marriage wasn’t designed to protect women’s honor (although that’s a nice idea) but the well-being of the children themselves. The idea that the man whom you call Dad can suddenly claim that you’re not really his horrifies me and would devastate any child."
Well, the law doesn't say anything about what a dad can claim. If your concern is with the children, maybe we need some new laws barring men from speaking to them. This is where your thinking leads.
Who knows exactly why powerful men decided each of them and every other man should be responsible for any child conceived during marriage? That would be a question for an objective analysis of history that I'm sure our liberal academic institutions will never perform for fear of offending the feminist goddess. Surely men's blind allegiance and pride in their role as protectors and providers had something to do with it. Preserving the family unit had something to do with it. Perhaps the advanced age of the powerful men's wives who could no longer conceive had something to do with it.
Whatever the reasons, the US Supreme Court's recent affirmation of this legal obligation on men, and men only, while a woman has a right to choose parenthood, with any man she chooses, regardless of her husband's wishes, clearly constitutes chivalry run amuck. In this situation I say let's give men credit for letting their wives leave the house. How would it strike you to find out that the girl you called your daughter isn't actually your daughter but someone else's? I'd be horrified and devastated. But I guess I'd just have to take it like a man.
"Oh, I don’t think we women are that bad, M.R. We did invent Mom’s apple pie and the rule about putting the toilet seat back down."
No joke, this is the most profound statement you've made yet about women "civilizing" men. Apple pie and the toilet seat beautifully represent women's implements of influence over men, a system of rewards and punishments. If she approves of his behavior, she rewards him with love: admiration, praise, affection, and sex. If she disapproves, she shames him and lays down the law.
Man invents, builds, mass-markets, installs, and maintains the toilet, designed for woman. She approves of this fancy new luxury and bakes him an apple pie (in an oven man also invented, built, and so forth). Man leaves the toilet seat up, not quite "civilized" enough according to her feelings about it now. Woman demands he take responsibility for the condition of the toilet seat and touch the nasty thing with his hands so she doesn't have to.
Sounds a little like war, doesn't it? Men take responsibility for the condition of the world and get their hands dirty, so women don't have to.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
